1. Well one way to address my point is to dance around and deny the premise of someone taking issue with an insensitive or careless joke about rape or cancer. Another way to address it is to grant the premise and answer the question of how people should react in such a situation.
Let's try again. What if instead of a rape joke, some one crosses the line with the use of "retard." If you can't fathom some one taking an issue with that we can move on to other things impolite people do. Just let me know.
a. Since your responding to me in a “the witness is hostile” stance, so to speak, I’ll respond in kind Pilt. I did no dancing. I stated that I WOULD respond differently. I OWN my response, Pilt. Where you and David and me apparently are different, is that I’m going to make sure I understand what was MEANT before I reel off an implication or accusation. Yes, I find your (yours and David’s) lack of self-edification in responding to need correction. It is an undue burden.
2. You think DavidAllen was creating leverage or victimizing a sub group? Did you have a dialogue with him to determine that?
Here you are conflating identity politics with simply calling out racist statements and actions. You are talking about accusing political opposition of being racist/sexist for opposing the views of a woman or black person. I agree that is pernicious. But there is a line between doing that and calling statements actions racist. Again in this thread no one has even been called a racist just their statements.
a. Correction, Pilt, DavidAllen entered into the accusation by implication game at this statement 2/3rds the way down the 2nd page of this thread:
“What is most disheartening is the sheer number of otherwise good people who snigger at things like the "brownies" comment with no thought of how that impacts the overall conversation in America.”
It is this statement that moved me to respond. He fundamentally misunderstood the brownies remark and the response of the people who CORRECTLY found humor in it.
3. What I am saying is all be people should be held accountable for their words and actions. For some reason you don't see this as a two way street it is only the reactor who is accountable. Blanket immunity for anyone to say anything except if that anything is "that was racist."
a. Give me a break. Nowhere did I say that people shouldn’t be held accountable for their actions. My entire rant has been very specifically aimed at those who are too sensitive to “detecting” racial undertones in modern society. Re-read the thread if you missed that.
4. Wow. If you don't value absolute freedom of expression, I guess I don't even understand your point.
Please fill in the blank: "I think frivolous claims of racism should be discouraged because they have a chilling effect on _________"
I'll take this opportunity to point out how genteel this attitude about other peoples feeling are. "I really don't give a shit. (as squeak would say f**k your feelings)" Real Southern gentlemanly.
a. Are you passing judgment Pilt? Like DavidAllen did by implication in his language above? Both you and him are in the wrong in that. A southern gentleman would own his response and in that, take that responsibility of seeking to understand before accusations are handed out. But it’s possible your definition of taking the high road is different than my definition, as in this very point you’ve proven yourself to be 100% hypocrite, moving with ease from your sarcastic “Wow…blah, blah blah freedom of expression,” to being critical of me for lacking gentlemanly mannerisms. How quaint of you.
5. Please delineate the difference between the feelings that are offensive (did you have a dialogue with the feeler to check first?) and the potentially racist statement that is not. (hint: It is simply whether you are agreeing with them or not)
If we boil down what you are saying to its essence, It is that Dong (using his name only for clarity, I am making this point generally not specifically) can say whatever he wants because you subjectively agree with what he is saying and Davidallen can't respond in anyway he would like because you subjectively disagree with him.
Can you articulate you position in terms of a ethical rule that doesn't require subjective value judgement? I can articulate mine: "People can say whatever they want."
a. No, what I’m saying is that there was a context that provided everything needed to REASONABLY ascertain that Dong’s response did not carry racial undertones. MORE OVER, the threshold created by the context was SUFFICIENT that ACCUSATION BY IMPLICATION is NOT the route to take in seeking further clarification. THAT is the hard line that I want to enforce, that people act reasonably. If David had a real issue with the “ah Brownies” remark, the exchange between CUP and Dong provided plenty of context for a correct understanding that this has nothing to do with race. If David needed more clarification, the evidence (context) was sufficient for him to go about it in an manner that wasn't accusatory.
6. Who determines if it was an issue or not? And again no one has called Dong a racist.
a. It became an issue when David accused, by implication, Dong and those who “sniggered” of some sort of wrong doing.
7. Come on man. It wasn't funny. I didn't find it to be racist, but I also didn't find it to be funny. Just a troll responding to another troll.
8. I think it mostly says that I don't find humor childish troll offs.
a. That’s fine, but why make a remark to me about it. It adds nothing to your contention.
9. Literally in any other exchange onus is on the speaker to ensure that what was said is interpreted correctly.
a. You’ll have to show me the rulebook where this assertion is found. I see EVERYWHERE people putting words into other people’s mouth’s for the convenience of creating a fictitious scenario against which to rail.
10. Listen, I didn't think it was racist. But, I also thought Davidallen was entitled to his interpretation. And Dong was entitled to tell him he is wrong. It is called free exchange of ideas. It is a good thing.
a. DavidAllen IS entitled to his own interpretation. That’s not what this is about.
Pilt, the context was sufficient for DavidAllen to fully understand that there were no racial undertones involved. His fuk-up, that you are defending tooth and nail, is in the accusation by implication. Words mean things. How words are stated, means things. Dong doesn’t NEED to explain himself, nor should DavidAllen raise that question into the air FORCING Dong to have to explain himself….yet David did. And now, your ramblings, have attempted to serve as an enabler for David and the climate to perpetuate itself. I’ll draw the line and go on the offensive at that fulcrum every time.
Point blank, that you believe the onus is on Dong to explain that he wasn't racist in his remark (your point #10), means you're aligning yourself with the improper "side." Innocence until demonstrated otherwise? No? Especially in the light of the significant context provided in the jousting between CUP and Dong?