/u/adevland you keep enjoying that life payed for by your parents
Hello, guys. :)
The point was that people there are trying to dismiss the case being described in the article by bringing up her activism history. That's prejudice. Everyone has the right to a fair trial and everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
I appreciate the call-out, but I actually don't live with my parents. Haven't done that since I started college.
It's ok to stay with your parents, though. You shouldn't be ashamed by that. :)
Projecting it onto other people isn't nice, though. And it doesn't help you to prove how "millennials" are defending other people, either. Neither does assuming I'm a millennial because I'm 30.
That's literally not even close to the definition of prejudice.
Debating semantics is usually the bottom of the barrel for any argument, but here's the definition of
prejudice - an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
People there are trying to dismiss Yvette Felcara's arguments, in a case that had her and others stabbed by neo-nazis, based solely on her past activism history. That's "an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand" and it's pretty much textbook prejudice aka bias.
so basically having a reputation is prejudice. maybe this is a good thing. using this definition prejudice isn't actually a bad thing. Pre-judging people based on there past actions is actually intelligent. This is a good example of political correctness ruining our language. I have prejudice towards nazis and communists alike, I discriminate between intelligent people and shitheads like /u/adevland ... seee its what you discriminate based on that makes it bad, not noticing the differences between say a contributing adult and moronic millennial's that think theyre smart.
Pre-judging people based on there past actions is actually intelligent.
No, it's not. It's the same thing as the boy who cried wolf parable.
This is a good example of political correctness ruining our language.
It's not about political correctness. It's about people defending neo nazis who stabbed anti racist activists and calling these activists criminals although they were the ones who got stabbed. That's the exact opposite of political correctness. It's literally defending criminals.
I discriminate between intelligent people and shitheads like /u/adevland
a contributing adult and moronic millennial's that think theyre smart
Insulting me doesn't make you right. It only shows that you're biased against me and that doesn't help your argument.
It also shows that you are unable to be part of a civil discussion because, for some reason, you consider it to be too "politically correct" to obey the law and not stab people.
It's the same thing as the boy who cried wolf parable.
You've got it backwards. The point of that parable is that you shouldn't cry wolf when there's no wolf chasing you. It's not that you should be a sucker and believe a known liar just in case they might tell the truth someday.
Imagine how mentally stunted someone must be to not get the moral behind the Boy Who Cried Wolf, a story meant to teach to teach three year olds that lying for attention is a bad idea.
LMAO. We are talking about a children's fable, something you learn and understand at a very young age. The message is so simple and clear...
And yet somehow for /u/adevland it's just too complex to the point where they came up to the exact opposite message that the favble was actually presenting.
LMAO. We are talking about a children's fable, something you learn and understand at a very young age. The message is so simple and clear...
And yet somehow for /u/adevland it's just too complex to the point where they came up to the exact opposite message that the fable was actually presenting.
Oh dear, you're obtuse. This is hilarious, it is like everybody is yelling at a dumb brick wall.
How do you exist, much less function?
Oh, look! I have no arguments to uphold any of the things I've said so I'm going to resort to cheap insults in order to prove my frustration about my lack of arguments.
Seriously now, let me know when you'll have a mature answer and we can talk. Until then, consider this discussion over.
I am sorry that I have observed people's previous failed
efforts at explaining things to you (prejuidice? nahlol), I am also sorry I am not stupid enough to join the others in frustrating ourselves further in explaining your follies to you; there are simply too many and there's too little time left in the day.
I also don't argue with idiocy, it will invariably beat me from experience.
I am also sorry I am not stupid enough to join the others in frustrating ourselves further in explaining your follies to you; there are simply too many and there's too little time left in the day.
Yet here you are. :)
I also don't argue with idiocy, it will invariably beat me from experience.
Yet here you are. :)
Granted, you have no real arguments, but, again, here you are.
“Oh yes, he raped that child, but you shouldn’t judge him on that, because the rest of the time he is a nice guy”
You're generalizing and debating the semantics of what I've said while completely ignoring the current case and facts. She didn't rape anyone and, from what I know, she didn't stab anyone. She is the one who got stabbed, among others.
Don't blame me, though, I didn't make the rules. Autism is a serious issue and if you have you should seek professional help. If not, then it's just a cheap insult and a waste of your time.
Were you born retarded or did your parents attempt an abortion while you were in the womb and only manage to destroy 2/3s of your brain
My reply must have really frustrated people here because insults is all I'm getting.
I find it hilarious that so many people are having such a hard time to come up with arguments to uphold their opinions and resort to insults when they did not manage to find any.
This whole post is a testament towards the butthurt people who couldn't handle a mature discussion and cannot go beyond high school level insults.
No. It's not. And that you're the only person who thinks that and also the target of the ridicule should give you pause in saying anything like this.
But it doesn't. Can you guess why it doesn't?
How about you bring a few?
I mean there's literally countless..
You claim you don't support judging people for their past actions, but you're quite literally engaging with that right now. You were insulted in the past, why are you using those actions to judge people?
You're complaining that just because some antifa are loud and proud about their support for the disgusting philosophy that is communism that shouldn't tar ALL of them that way, but here you are engaging in that exact behavior when tarring all of your opposition as uninformed.
I hate to break this to you, I actually really do, but you're not some intellectual juggernaut like you seem to think.
You're barely coherent, you can't defend your beliefs to save your life, and you're talking directly out of your ass as evidenced by the simple fact that you act on none of the beliefs you state.
Now, watch what happens next. It's very critical. You're going to shut down, insist you're right, and then leave the conversation because of some imagined slight you are going to say necessitates it.
And that you're the only person who thinks that and also the target of the ridicule should give you pause in saying anything like this.
But it doesn't. Can you guess why it doesn't?
Yeah. It's like in commenting in a circle-jerk sub whose whole purpose is to give people the opportunity to insult others freely without having to fear moderation.
Oh, wait!
You were insulted in the past, why are you using those actions to judge people? It's the past.
I wasn't insulted in the past. I am still being insulted right now. My inbox is a gold mine of high school grade insults.
If you think that sounds stupid, I agree. It's what you sound like.
If you think that sounds stupid, I agree. It's what you sound like.
Congrats. You just insulted me right now and destroyed your own strawman argument.
Regardless of that, you were debating the semantics of what I said, not what I said.
Prejudice is about making a judgement based on information that has nothing to do with the current case. That woman is being judged as a criminal for being stabbed. Since when does getting stabbed make you the criminal? And the whole reasoning behind the prejudice is because she was "loud and proud" about her convictions.
That's a petty justification. Try harder.
You're complaining that just because some antifa are loud and proud about their support for the disgusting philosophy that is communism that shouldn't tar ALL of them that way, but here you are engaging in that exact behavior when tarring all of your opposition as uninformed.
Aren't you supposed to be against political correctness? Is this sub a snow flake collection? I wasn't aware of that.
Sarcasm aside, it's really hard to paint yourself as being an informed individual when all you could reply with are petty insults.
I hate to break this to you, I actually really do, but you're not some intellectual juggernaut like you seem to think.
Should I take your word on that or do you plan to explain it with arguments? :)
You're barely coherent, you can't defend your beliefs to save your life, and you're talking directly out of your ass as evidenced by the simple fact that you act on none of the beliefs you state.
How exactly should I be "acting based on my beliefs"? What are you referring to?
Now, watch what happens next. It's very critical. You're going to shut down, insist you're right, and then leave the conversation because of some imagined slight you are going to say necessitates it.
I'm more resilient than you think, bro.
And I've heard way better insults that what I've seen today. So yeah, I'm waiting for those arguments of yours to pop up.
You'll not get any insults from me, though. That's not my cup of tea. But I do find you and your buddies amusing. :D
Yeah. It's like in commenting in a circle-jerk sub whose whole purpose is to give people the opportunity to insult others freely without having to fear moderation.
Oh, right! I'm sorry, I forgot this thread started in ANOTHER subreddit where you also refused to actually defend what you're saying.
I wasn't insulted in the past. I am still being insulted right now. My inbox is a gold mine of high school grade insults.
Right. Minutes ago, get over it dude. It's the past. How does it matter now? Again, if this sounds stupid why are you saying it?
Congrats. You just insulted me right now and destroyed your own strawman argument.
I don't think you understand what is being said to you.
I will try again.
What you said: If something happens in the past, you can't judge someone for it.
What you are saying at the same time: These insults that happened in the past let me judge these people.
These are not consistent. Please address that fact.
Regardless of that, you were debating the semantics of what I said, not what I said.
No that isn't what semantics is. I'm pointing out a flaw in your stance. Please address it.
Prejudice is about making a judgement based on information that has nothing to do with the current case.
No, not really.
That woman is being judged as a criminal for being stabbed.
Show me one person, anywhere, that said "she is a criminal because she was stabbed.
You will not find it.
That's a petty justification. Try harder.
Show me where I actually said what you're arguing against.
Aren't you supposed to be against political correctness?
What the fuck does political correctness have to do with anything? you're not making sense.
Sarcasm aside, it's really hard to paint yourself as being an informed individual when all you could reply with are petty insults.
Well it's a good thing nothing like that happened or this would be a bit silly to say.
Should I take your word on that or do you plan to explain it with arguments? :)
Well judging from your attempt at responding to this, you can barely even comprehend a few basic sentences. It would likely take years to explain a complex subject to you.
How exactly should I be "acting based on my beliefs"? What are you referring to?
You shouldn't be judging people for things that happened in the past, but you are, you shouldn't be judging people as groups but you are.
Pretty simple stuff.
I'm more resilient than you think, bro.
No, you aren't. You did pretty close to what I predicted without the leaving. You seized on a bunch of imagined slights and didn't respond to the argument I made.
So yeah, I'm waiting for those arguments of yours to pop up.
Yeah, they've been stated, you ignored them and replied off topic.
You'll not get any insults from me, though. That's not my cup of tea. But I do find you and your buddies amusing. :D
Lol oh you're trying to be insulting. That's why you keep saying things about how the insults coming your way are "grade school" level and such. You're trying very hard to be insulting while also trying very hard to maintain some kind of moral high ground.
Again, you aren't some intellectual juggernaut. You're barely coherent and you can't reply to simple flaws pointed out in your beliefs and corresponding actions.
What you said: If something happens in the past, you can't judge someone for it.
That's not what I said.
What I said is that you can and should judge someone on a per action basis. There would be no redemption options otherwise and you would be forever branded as a bad person.
That means that it's not ok to judge someone for something based on what happened in their past.
If I get a fine for illegally parking, it's not fair to assume that I will always park illegally.
If someone insults neo nazis as an anti racist activist, you shouldn't hold that against them when a neo nazi stabs them. If anything, that provides the motive for the neo nazi's crime.
Show me one person, anywhere, that said "she is a criminal because she was stabbed."
Well judging from your attempt at responding to this, you can barely even comprehend a few basic sentences. It would likely take years to explain a complex subject to you.
Being patronizing isn't an argument for anything but it's a step up from petty insults.
You shouldn't be judging people for things that happened in the past, but you are, you shouldn't be judging people as groups but you are.
I've already addressed that silly point of yours and you've let it die. Besides the fact that it's besides the fact and a futile attempt at whataboutism.
You're grasping for straws, mate.
You seized on a bunch of imagined slights and didn't respond to the argument I made.
Which argument was that? The fact that you said people insulted me in the past and that it was over while immediately after insulting me yourself? Yeah, not a very good argument considering the very basic fact that you contradicted yourself and that it makes no sense since it deviates from the subject and is an attempt of whataboutism.
Try harder.
You're trying very hard to be insulting while also trying very hard to maintain some kind of moral high ground.
You're confusing insults with sarcasm, mate.
i'm actually trying to have a decent conversation but having trouble finding people here who are serious about it. Many openly admit that insults is what this sub is all about, so that kind of makes it hard to take anyone seriously.
Again, you aren't some intellectual juggernaut.
I never said I was. The point was to have a civil discussion. Is that really so hard?
You're barely coherent and you can't reply to simple flaws pointed out in your beliefs and corresponding actions.
I've written my answer to your "past insults argument" above in case you decide to ignore it. :)
The point is that it's not ok to judge someone for something in the present based on what happened in their past.
I cannot see the functional difference in this contrast. Please elucidate it clearly.
The whole discussion started when some guy tried to dismiss the article about the stabbing by mentioning the anti racism history of one of the stabbing victims.
So what you claimed is false and nobody said she was a criminal because she was stabbed? Correct?
Being patronizing isn't an argument for anything but it's a step up from petty insults.
I didn't say it was an argument for anything though, why say this?
I've already addressed that silly point of yours and you've let it die. Besides the fact that it's besides the fact and a futile attempt at whataboutism.
There were actually two points, one point you entirely ignored and the other point you responded with a non sequitur.
Which argument was that? The fact that you said people insulted me in the past? And that it was over while immediately after you insulted me yourself?
Correct. Insults happen and then they are, immediately, in the past.
Yeah, not a very good argument considering the very basic fact that you contradicted yourself and that it makes no sense since it deviates from the subject and is an attempt of whataboutism.
Here's a fun game: show explicitly the contradiction.
Also stop saying whataboutism. If you're just gonna say a word you clearly don't understand don't bother. Offer argumentation and explanation or realize it's worthless.
You're confusing insults with sarcasm, mate.
Oh god no. That isn't at all what's happening, no.
I'm actually trying to have a decent conversation but having trouble finding people here who are serious about it.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
This is bullshit. You're literally just dismissing repeatedly an argument you can't even state properly. Nor separate. You're treating two different points clearly made to you as one. This is a joke right?
I never said I was. The point was to have a civil discussion. Is that really so hard?
You're implying that the way you think of yourself, yes. It apperntly is. You cannot address what I am actually saying. It's pretty funny.
I've written my answer to your "past insults argument" above in case you decide to ignore it. :)
I cannot see the functional difference in this contrast. Please elucidate it clearly.
That's your problem, not mine. It's as clear as it can be.
And it's how justice works, meaning that everyone is innocent until proven guilty regardless of their past. And everyone deserves a fair trial, and not the prejudice of others.
So what you claimed is false and nobody said she was a criminal because she was stabbed? Correct?
I never said that people consider her a criminal because she was stabbed.
I said that people are downplaying her getting stabbed by mentioning her past anti racism activism.
"The whole discussion started when some guy tried to dismiss the article about the stabbing by mentioning the anti racism history of one of the stabbing victims." <<< That's what I literally said and you ignored it.
Please stop actively misinterpreting the things that I say. If they are unclear, ask me about them. Do not assume things on my behalf.
I didn't say it was an argument for anything though, why say this?
You refused to provide further arguments by saying that "It would likely take years to explain a complex subject to you.". That's you being patronizing instead of answering my questions.
There were actually two points, one point you entirely ignored and the other point you responded with a non sequitur.
You'll have to argument why my argument is a non sequitur because saying it doesn't make it so.
What's the other point?
Here's a fun game: show explicitly the contradiction.
Ok.
You said
You claim you don't support judging people for their past actions, but you're quite literally engaging with that right now. You were insulted in the past, why are you using those actions to judge people? It's the past. The insults happened and they are over. Get over it.
So, I should get over it because "insults happened in the past and that they are over".
followed by your own insult where you called me stupid
If you think that sounds stupid, I agree. It's what you sound like.
GG, mate.
Yeah, you didn't though.
If you cannot get past your own ignorance, you're only admitting you've got nothing else to say.
That's your problem, not mine. It's as clear as it can be.
LOL what? No.
That isn't how reasonable discourse works. If someone asks you for a clarification you clarify.
Please clarify the functional difference you were trying to point to.
And it's how justice works, meaning that everyone is innocent until proven guilty regardless of their past. And everyone deserves a fair trial, and not the prejudice of others.
This has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
I said that people are downplaying her getting stabbed by mentioning her past anti racism activism.
No. That is not what you said. That is not at all what you said. What you said, specifically, was the following:
That woman is being judged as a criminal for being stabbed.
That is what you said. You didn't say what you're pretending you said here.
"The whole discussion started when some guy tried to dismiss the article about the stabbing by mentioning the anti racism history of one of the stabbing victims." <<< That's what I literally said and you ignored it.
That is what you said AFTER you said that people were saying she was a criminal because she was stabbed. Chronology matters.
Please stop actively misinterpreting the things that I say. If they are unclear, ask me about them. Do not assume things on my behalf.
I'm not misinterpreting you. I'm quoting you from before you dishonestly tried to change point after the fact.
You refused to provide further arguments by saying that "It would likely take years to explain a complex subject to you.". That's you being patronizing instead of providing a valid argument.
Right. I refused to provide an explanation you wanted because it wasn't germane.
You'll have to argument why my argument is a non sequitur because saying it doesn't make it so.
You mean argue, and I did.
What's the other point?
Lol..... seriously? Didn't you just say at the start of this that needing clarification is your own problem? What happened to that?
So, I should get over it because "insults happened in the past and that they are over".
Correct.
followed by your own insult where you called me stupid
Sounds stupid and are stupid are different things, first of all, and econd of all that happened over 10 minutes ago. it's in the past. You can't judge me for that now.
GG, mate.
Not even fucking close.... LOL
If you cannot get past your own ignorance, you're only admitting you've got nothing else to say.
You once again ignored one of the points, even though it was clearly and explicitly stated to you.
That is what you said AFTER you said that people were saying she was a criminal because she was stabbed. Chronology matters
when you're cherry picking your arguments and ignoring the context.
Lol..... seriously? Didn't you just say at the start of this that needing clarification is your own problem? What happened to that?
Here's the clarification.
People are downplaying the news about her getting stabbed by mentioning her past anti racism activism. That's prejudice.
It's not ok to judge someone for something that happened in the present (like dismissing her getting stabbed) based on what happened in their past (like her past anti racist activism).
That's the whole point.
Sounds stupid and are stupid are different things
You're arguing semantics, mate. That's the bottom of the barrel for any argument.
when you're cherry picking your arguments and ignoring the context.
It's not cherry picking to ask you to prove a quote you keep repeating as a basic justification for your beliefs. Sorry. Try again.
Here's the clarification.
Ooooo
People are downplaying the news about her getting stabbed by mentioning her past anti racism activism. That's prejudice.
Just to be clear - you are now admitting that nobody said she was a criminal because she got stabbed? Right?
And no. That isn't prejudice. Prejudice is judging someone before you know anything about them based on superficial or misleading information. This isn't prejudice.
It's not ok to judge someone for something that happened in the present (like dismissing her getting stabbed)
That's not a judgement. A judgement would be saying she is a criminal because she was stabbed. That's why you tried to pretend that. This second thing isn't a judgement. It's dismissal. That's different.
based on what happened in their past (like her past anti racist activism).
But that also isn't why that is being said. It's being said because she's proven she's an unstable person that acts in a way that reflects thaat.
That's the whole point.
But, as I've said from the beginning, it doesn't make any sense.
You're arguing semantics, mate.
If you believe this, if you really believe this, explain what semantics is in your own words, okay? Do that first. Then explain how I am arguing semantics. If you're going to say something, be very clear and explicit about it.
That's the bottom of the barrel for any argument.
Well it isn't happening, and you're being prejudice by your own definition.
Just to be clear - you are now admitting that nobody said she was a criminal because she got stabbed? Right?
You took that quote out of context. I've already clarified the context. If you feel childish and feel the need to keep repeating an out of context quote, then this discussion is over.
Prejudice is judging someone before you know anything about them
like pointing out someone's past in order to dismiss something in the present about which you know nothing?
This second thing isn't a judgement. It's dismissal. That's different.
Call it whatever you like. I'm not debating semantics here.
The point is that it's not ok because it can be abused to dismiss all sorts of other crimes.
I'm glad that we finally agree.
But that also isn't why that is being said. It's being said because she's proven she's an unstable person that acts in a way that reflects thaat.
And how does that justify dismissing the news about her being stabbed? What's the point of dismissing a potential murder based on prejudice?
People are ignoring an attempted murder based on the victim's reputation of being a vocal anti racist activist. Their prejudice towards her is causing them to dismiss a serious crime.
No you didn't... you just said it was cherrypicking. Where do you think you explained that better? Quote it.
like pointing out someone's past in order to dismiss something in the present about which you know nothing?
No. Not at all like that. Pointing out someone's past is something you know about them.
Call it whatever you like. I'm not debating semantics here.
Ummmm it isn't semantics. If you think it is, explain how it is.
The point is that it's not ok because it can be abused to dismiss all sorts of other crimes.
What? I don't get what you're saying here.
I'm glad that we finally agree.
No that didn't happen - don't do that it's very dishonest.
And how does that justify dismissing the news about her being stabbed?
I don't understand the question.
What's the point of dismissing a potential murder based on prejudice?
Again, it isn't prejudice, and also I don't think anyone is dismissing her being stabbed. They were pointing out that she is a known agitator with a history of lies.
People are ignoring an attempted murder based on the victim's reputation of being a vocal anti racist activist.
False.
Their prejudice towards her is causing them to dismiss a serious crime instead of treating it for what it is.
No. Their foreknowledge of the person she is is causing them to not have much sympathy, if anything.
Where do you think you explained that better? Quote it.
**"People are downplaying the news about her getting stabbed by mentioning her past anti racism activism. That's prejudice.
It's not ok to judge someone for something that happened in the present (like dismissing her getting stabbed) based on what happened in their past (like her past anti racist activism)."**
Pointing out someone's past is something you know about them
that happened in their past. Using that to dismiss an event from their present is prejudice.
What? I don't get what you're saying here.
Having prejudice leads to all sorts of dismissals like saying that "she deserved it".
Some guy actually suggested that should get stabbed, either in an attempt at irony or out of pure ignorance and prejudice.
No that didn't happen - don't do that it's very dishonest.
You said that mentioning her past was a dismissal.
It's not ok to judge someone for something that happened in the present (like dismissing her getting stabbed)
That's not a judgement. A judgement would be saying she is a criminal because she was stabbed. That's why you tried to pretend that. This second thing isn't a judgement. It's dismissal. That's different.
Those are your words and the context in which you said them. Why are you backpedaling on this?
If your purpose here is trolling, then this discussion is over.
Again, it isn't prejudice, and also I don't think anyone is dismissing her being stabbed. They were pointing out that she is a known agitator with a history of lies.
Why are they doing that in the context of her and other people being stabbed by neo nazis? What's the purpose other than to try and dismiss this case as being unimportant?
Their foreknowledge of the person she is is causing them to not have much sympathy, if anything.
You're debating semantics again.
Not having "sympathy" towards someone based on their race is prejudice.
Not having "sympathy" towards someone based on their exaggerated anti racist activism when that person, and others, have been stabbed by the people they were protesting against goes beyond "not having sympathy".
**"People are downplaying the news about her getting stabbed by mentioning her past anti racism activism. That's prejudice.
It's not ok to judge someone for something that happened in the present (like dismissing her getting stabbed) based on what happened in their past (like her past anti racist activism)."**
Right? That isn't... do you not understand what you're saying? This isn't an explanation of how it is out of context...
that happened in their past. Using that to dismiss an event from their present is prejudice.
That is not what prejudice is. Prejudice is PRE - JUDGING. Judging before you have facts. Their past is a fact about them.
Some guy actually suggested that she should get stabbed, either in an attempt at irony or out of pure ignorance and prejudice.
And? One person said one thing? Whats your point there?
You said that mentioning her past was a dismissal.
No I said that's what you were trying to say.
Those are your words and the context in which you said them. Why are you backpedaling on this?
Lol... because you are just not reading them. What you described is a dismissal, not prejudice. That's what was said to you. Things can be dismissed for good reason. Dismissal doesn't mean undeserved.
If your purpose here is trolling, then this discussion is over.
Lol remember when I said you were gonna seize on something flimsy as an excuse to run away? Here it comes.
Why are they doing that in the context of her and other people being stabbed by neo nazis?
Because character is relevant. Just like how you're mentioning that they are "neo nazis" - you're trying to establish a lack of character so people know how to feel before hand.
You're debating semantics again.
If you think this, explain what semantics is in your own words and then explain how I'm doing that. I'm not engaging with this point until you do that.
Not having "sympathy" towards someone based on their race is prejudice.
Yes? Sure? But that has nothing to do with this situation. For one, race is something you can't control while your past is something you absolutely made decisions to reach.
Not having "sympathy" towards someone based on their exaggerated anti racist activism when that person, and others, have been stabbed by the people they were protesting against goes beyond "not having sympathy".
Hmmmm. No I don't think so. Basically you have a bunch of shitty violent far left activists and a bunch of shitty violent far right activists. I can dislike both, not have sympathy for both etc. None of that is prejudice because it is based on actual facts of their past, no based simply on something they couldn't control.
Judging before you have facts. Their past is a fact about them.
A fact from the past is not enough to judge situations from the present. Trying to do so or to dismiss present events is nothing but prejudice.
You're arguing semantics again and it's very petty.
And? One person said one thing? Whats your point there?
"Having prejudice leads to all sorts of dismissals like saying that "she deserved it"."
No I said that's what you were trying to say.
Wow, ok. You're obviously trolling at this point by misinterpreting your own words.
Because character is relevant. Just like how you're mentioning that they are "neo nazis" - you're trying to establish a lack of character so people know how to feel before hand.
The article already established the details, yet some people chose not to focus on the stabbing crimes, but on the activism history of one of the victims in order to dismiss the whole thing.
Basically you have a bunch of shitty violent far left activists and a bunch of shitty violent far right activists. I can dislike both, not have sympathy for both etc. None of that is prejudice because it is based on actual facts of their past, no based simply on something they couldn't control.
True, but you're judging their past and only their past.
We're talking about how the far left people got stabbed by the far right people and how other people are dismissing and diminishing this thing based on the past of the far left people while completely ignoring the actions of the far right people. That's picking sides based on bias. That's prejudice.
Why? Because both groups are guilty of fighting each other, yet, when the far right stabbed people in the far left, some people picked the far right and discredited the far left by saying that they were violent too while completely ignoring that the far right did much worse and resorted to stabbing the far left people. That's glaringly obvious prejudice and bias.
You can debate semantics about this all day and call it whatever you want, it still won't change the facts.
And the facts are that some people ignored an attempted murder on multiple people based on their political affiliations.
A fact from the past is not enough to judge situations from the present.
Sorry this is an opinion and a wildly unsupported one at best. Do you have anything better?
You're arguing semantics again and it's very petty.
Once again, if you think that's the case define the term and elucidate how. Otherwise I'm not engaging on it.
"Having prejudice leads to all sorts of dismissals like saying that "she deserved it"."
"Putting things in quotes doesn't make them right, or interesting, or do anything but put quotes around them actually"
Wow, ok. You're obviously trolling at this point by misinterpreting your own words.
No. That isn't happening. But keep looking for that reason to run.
The article already established the details, yet some people chose not to focus on the stabbing crimes, but on the activism history of one of the victims in order to dismiss the whole thing.
Just to be clear, when you say activism history, you mean trying to file a false restraining order, advocating for the use of violence against regular people, etc? That's what you mean by activism history?
True, but you're judging their past and only their past.
Oh god no. I'm not doing that, where did I do anything like that?
We're talking about how the far left people got stabbed by the far right people and how other people are dismissing and diminishing this thing based on the past of the far left people while completely ignoring the actions of the far right people.
You are talking about that. Everyone else is pointing out to you that that makes no sense to talk about exclusively. It's a wider issue than you want to make it because only narrowing it allows you to defend your precious far left activists.
That's picking sides based on bias. That's prejudice.
And it's neither of those two things.
Why?
Oh this is going to be objective and neutral...
Because both groups are guilty of fighting each other
This is true.
when the far right stabbed people in the far left, some people picked the far right and discredited the far left by saying that they were violent too while completely ignoring that the far right did much worse and resorted to stabbing the far left people.
This is not. You're trying to piggyback the second onto the first but it doesn't make sense.
Far left activists engage in violence: condemn it
Far right activists engage in violence: condemn it.
it isn't that hard.
You can debate semantics about this all day and call it whatever you want, it still won't change the facts.
For I think the sixth time, if you think it's semantics define the term and then explain your reasoning.
And the facts are that some people ignored an attempted murder on multiple people based on their political affiliations.
No it doesn't appear that anyone ignored anything. What you're criticizing is people pointing out that the far left activists you're feeling so sorry for have beaten people near to death.
A fact from the past is not enough to judge situations from the present.
Sorry this is an opinion and a wildly unsupported one at best. Do you have anything better?
Yeah, mate. It's called the US constitution which states that everyone is innocent until proved guilty and that everyone deserves a fair trial.
Feel free to consider the US constitution a "wildly unsupported opinion" and a "flimsy excuse" for having to need more than past events in order to judge actions in the present.
It's called the US constitution which states that everyone is innocent until proven guilty and that everyone deserves a fair trial.
That has nothing to do with this? You're not talking about a court of law. You're not talking about a prosecution? This doesn't make any sense. What does a fair trail guranteed under law have to do with this??
Feel free to consider the US constitution a "wildly unsupported opinion" and a "flimsy excuse" for having to need more than past events in order to judge actions in the present.
Are you actually this stupid?
This discussion is over.
Like I said, seize on your flimsy excuse tuck your tail between your legs and run away. You never had the intellectual chops for this conversation anyway, and just like I said at the start you're just gonna seize on something and run away.
What does a fair trail guranteed under law have to do with this??
That's my point. People are jumping to conclusions without knowing or voluntarily ignoring the facts and are dismissing present actions based on past ones.
That's like how Trump said that "both sides are to blame" when only one side killed people from the other side.
You never had the intellectual chops for this conversation anyway, and just like I said at the start you're just gonna seize on something and run away.
If you're going to treat this debate as something that you have to win, then you're openly ignoring the serious issues behind it.
The point is that people are taking sides and defending serious crimes by pointing to the other side and saying how they also perpetrated less serious crimes.
If you cannot understand the dangerous precedent this sets, then you're only enabling others to follow it and will probably suffer from it some day. And the precedent has already been set by the current US president.
If you feel that's a flimsy excuse to end the discussion, then, by all means, call this your victory.
I'm sorry if I've been unclear. I've done my best to explain things.
I've never insulted anyone while I've been the subject of many uncalled for insults. If this is what this sub is about, then you deserve to win this debate. Hopefully you'll also remember the discussion the next time you see something similar to what we've talked about.
No the admins have mandated that we can't insult people until they post one comment in our sub, so now that you're here we get to tell you what we really thing of your degenerate self
At this point, people opposed to history repeating itself should begin to be honest with the reality of the situation. An earlier poster stated this and while it's not pretty, it's more in line with reality than the naive notion that this will be culled by an (eroding) democracy. Gauging the history books, this only ends one of two ways for Americans:
A fascist state (followed by global war.)
Or
Violent revolution (which, undoubtedly, will be followed by global war.)
Not being honest about it because it sounds scary is akin to not calling Donald what he truly is because herp, derp, "Godwin's Law!"; a fascist seeking total control. This is only the silence before the storm and all the chips are falling into play for this party. It was as good as done the moment the Commander In chief began advocating for the censoring of the media. That's the textbook first chess move. The idea that poll booths alone will derail the train barreling towards us is naive. Coming to terms with the reality that a lot of politicians and those whom voted for Trump simply "didn't learn from history," is laughable. They understand history very well, and they understand that it's currently on their side (until of course, they inevitably fall.) But how much damage will be done by then? Again, this is nowhere close to being over. It hasn't even truly began yet and that should stir anyone whom has not only learned from history, but possesses a sliver of humanity.
76 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2018-02-09
Don't even try to kinkshame me. My kinks are my business.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 CultOfCuck 2018-02-09
"Judging wypipo for their past actions is still prejudice bro" - said no one ever, thank fuck.
1 Stuntman119 2018-02-09
Unfortunately there are quite a number of people who still believe this.
1 IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2018-02-09
I can't tell if you're retarded or just trolling.
Judging a PERSON for THEIR past actions
Judging a skin color or society for the actions of previous generations
Do you see a little fucking difference there, or has decades of huffing glue made your brain incapable of critical thinking?
1 Stuntman119 2018-02-09
Go huff mayonnaise you fucking cumskin
1 IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2018-02-09
:D u mad bro
1 JumbledFun 2018-02-09
/u/adevland you keep enjoying that life payed for by your parents
1 adevland 2018-02-09
Hello, guys. :)
The point was that people there are trying to dismiss the case being described in the article by bringing up her activism history. That's prejudice. Everyone has the right to a fair trial and everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
I appreciate the call-out, but I actually don't live with my parents. Haven't done that since I started college.
It's ok to stay with your parents, though. You shouldn't be ashamed by that. :)
Projecting it onto other people isn't nice, though. And it doesn't help you to prove how "millennials" are defending other people, either. Neither does assuming I'm a millennial because I'm 30.
Peace and kisses.
1 TFWnoLTR 2018-02-09
That's literally not even close to the definition of prejudice. That's just plain old judgment of character.
1 adevland 2018-02-09
Debating semantics is usually the bottom of the barrel for any argument, but here's the definition of
People there are trying to dismiss Yvette Felcara's arguments, in a case that had her and others stabbed by neo-nazis, based solely on her past activism history. That's "an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand" and it's pretty much textbook prejudice aka bias.
1 youngjusticeperv 2018-02-09
so basically having a reputation is prejudice. maybe this is a good thing. using this definition prejudice isn't actually a bad thing. Pre-judging people based on there past actions is actually intelligent. This is a good example of political correctness ruining our language. I have prejudice towards nazis and communists alike, I discriminate between intelligent people and shitheads like /u/adevland ... seee its what you discriminate based on that makes it bad, not noticing the differences between say a contributing adult and moronic millennial's that think theyre smart.
1 adevland 2018-02-09
No, it's not. It's the same thing as the boy who cried wolf parable.
It's not about political correctness. It's about people defending neo nazis who stabbed anti racist activists and calling these activists criminals although they were the ones who got stabbed. That's the exact opposite of political correctness. It's literally defending criminals.
Insulting me doesn't make you right. It only shows that you're biased against me and that doesn't help your argument.
It also shows that you are unable to be part of a civil discussion because, for some reason, you consider it to be too "politically correct" to obey the law and not stab people.
This discussion is over.
Have a nice day.
1 GeauxHouston22 2018-02-09
https://media.giphy.com/media/3oz8xPpsVTO7znHSrC/source.gif
1 Redactor0 2018-02-09
You've got it backwards. The point of that parable is that you shouldn't cry wolf when there's no wolf chasing you. It's not that you should be a sucker and believe a known liar just in case they might tell the truth someday.
1 -absolutego- 2018-02-09
Imagine how mentally stunted someone must be to not get the moral behind the Boy Who Cried Wolf, a story meant to teach to teach three year olds that lying for attention is a bad idea.
1 Therekrerf 2018-02-09
LMAO. We are talking about a children's fable, something you learn and understand at a very young age. The message is so simple and clear...
And yet somehow for /u/adevland it's just too complex to the point where they came up to the exact opposite message that the favble was actually presenting.
This is great.
1 Therekrerf 2018-02-09
LMAO. We are talking about a children's fable, something you learn and understand at a very young age. The message is so simple and clear...
And yet somehow for /u/adevland it's just too complex to the point where they came up to the exact opposite message that the fable was actually presenting.
This is great.
1 ExterminateWhiteMen 2018-02-09
You're being awfully prejudiced against the user above you by replying to a comment they made in the past. Check your priv, shitfaggot.
1 Eternal_Mr_Bones 2018-02-09
When I saw the title of OP i figured you were a moron, but here you are confirming my prejudice.
1 adevland 2018-02-09
Insulting me only makes you feel good about yourself in a situation where you where unable to come up with a better answer.
1 IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2018-02-09
Yes but you can't hold it against him, that'd be prejudice! (It's not really but you're too retarded to know the difference)
1 Eternal_Mr_Bones 2018-02-09
Your vanity is as overblown as your ego. I don't insult you to validate myself, I do it because the situation warrants it.
1 BussySundae 2018-02-09
Oh dear, you're obtuse. This is hilarious, it is like everybody is yelling at a dumb brick wall.
How do you exist, much less function?
1 adevland 2018-02-09
Oh, look! I have no arguments to uphold any of the things I've said so I'm going to resort to cheap insults in order to prove my frustration about my lack of arguments.
Seriously now, let me know when you'll have a mature answer and we can talk. Until then, consider this discussion over.
Cheers. :)
1 BussySundae 2018-02-09
I am sorry that I have observed people's previous failed efforts at explaining things to you (prejuidice? nahlol), I am also sorry I am not stupid enough to join the others in frustrating ourselves further in explaining your follies to you; there are simply too many and there's too little time left in the day.
I also don't argue with idiocy, it will invariably beat me from experience.
1 adevland 2018-02-09
Yet here you are. :)
Yet here you are. :)
Granted, you have no real arguments, but, again, here you are.
1 BussySundae 2018-02-09
SSDI or you got rich parents?
1 adevland 2018-02-09
Still here? Ok.
Neither. And still irrelevant to the discussion. :)
1 BussySundae 2018-02-09
Uh, nah, I was asserting a valid point. Please feel free to post your own eventually, we're all still waiting.
1 SocialistEphebophile 2018-02-09
"her past history" is LITERALLY the knowledge to judge her on.
Because she sucks stinky, smeggy trantifa dick.
1 adevland 2018-02-09
You might want to copy & paste LITERALLY a few more times in order to further enforce your argument because it's quite fragile right now.
1 SocialistEphebophile 2018-02-09
I'm judging you! I'm judging you!
1 BigDaddy_Delta 2018-02-09
“Oh yes, he raped that child, but you shouldn’t judge him on that, because the rest of the time he is a nice guy”
1 adevland 2018-02-09
You're generalizing and debating the semantics of what I've said while completely ignoring the current case and facts. She didn't rape anyone and, from what I know, she didn't stab anyone. She is the one who got stabbed, among others.
1 BigDaddy_Delta 2018-02-09
She assaulted others too, she should be judged by her actions. And I was just showing you how hypocrite is the logic you are trying to apply here
1 captainpriapism 2018-02-09
man i wish she had been stabbed
1 JumbledFun 2018-02-09
your parents are still paying for your life at college dumbass...
1 adevland 2018-02-09
I've already finished college. And it didn't cost me or my parents anything.
The insult only proves your frustration for not having a better reply. Let me know when and if you've got a better answer involving actual arguments.
Cheers. :)
1 JumbledFun 2018-02-09
Don't cheers me, I'm not your buddy guy
1 Corporal-Hicks 2018-02-09
ur a fagget bro
1 adevland 2018-02-09
That's what r/drama would call "surplus autism".
Don't blame me, though, I didn't make the rules. Autism is a serious issue and if you have you should seek professional help. If not, then it's just a cheap insult and a waste of your time.
1 IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2018-02-09
Nice you showed up, so we can insult you now.
Were you born retarded or did your parents attempt an abortion while you were in the womb and only manage to destroy 2/3s of your brain
1 adevland 2018-02-09
My reply must have really frustrated people here because insults is all I'm getting.
I find it hilarious that so many people are having such a hard time to come up with arguments to uphold their opinions and resort to insults when they did not manage to find any.
Have a nice day, I guess. :)
1 ABillionYearsOld 2018-02-09
Lol - you're being insulted for fun.
There's plenty of counter-arguments to what you're saying being posted all over the place, you're just ignoring them.
1 adevland 2018-02-09
This whole post is a testament towards the butthurt people who couldn't handle a mature discussion and cannot go beyond high school level insults.
How about you bring a few?
Saying that aliens exist doesn't actually prove it. :)
1 ABillionYearsOld 2018-02-09
No. It's not. And that you're the only person who thinks that and also the target of the ridicule should give you pause in saying anything like this.
But it doesn't. Can you guess why it doesn't?
I mean there's literally countless..
You claim you don't support judging people for their past actions, but you're quite literally engaging with that right now. You were insulted in the past, why are you using those actions to judge people?
You're complaining that just because some antifa are loud and proud about their support for the disgusting philosophy that is communism that shouldn't tar ALL of them that way, but here you are engaging in that exact behavior when tarring all of your opposition as uninformed.
I hate to break this to you, I actually really do, but you're not some intellectual juggernaut like you seem to think.
You're barely coherent, you can't defend your beliefs to save your life, and you're talking directly out of your ass as evidenced by the simple fact that you act on none of the beliefs you state.
Now, watch what happens next. It's very critical. You're going to shut down, insist you're right, and then leave the conversation because of some imagined slight you are going to say necessitates it.
1 adevland 2018-02-09
Yeah. It's like in commenting in a circle-jerk sub whose whole purpose is to give people the opportunity to insult others freely without having to fear moderation.
Oh, wait!
I wasn't insulted in the past. I am still being insulted right now. My inbox is a gold mine of high school grade insults.
Congrats. You just insulted me right now and destroyed your own strawman argument.
Regardless of that, you were debating the semantics of what I said, not what I said.
Prejudice is about making a judgement based on information that has nothing to do with the current case. That woman is being judged as a criminal for being stabbed. Since when does getting stabbed make you the criminal? And the whole reasoning behind the prejudice is because she was "loud and proud" about her convictions.
That's a petty justification. Try harder.
Aren't you supposed to be against political correctness? Is this sub a snow flake collection? I wasn't aware of that.
Sarcasm aside, it's really hard to paint yourself as being an informed individual when all you could reply with are petty insults.
Should I take your word on that or do you plan to explain it with arguments? :)
How exactly should I be "acting based on my beliefs"? What are you referring to?
I'm more resilient than you think, bro.
And I've heard way better insults that what I've seen today. So yeah, I'm waiting for those arguments of yours to pop up.
You'll not get any insults from me, though. That's not my cup of tea. But I do find you and your buddies amusing. :D
1 ABillionYearsOld 2018-02-09
Oh, right! I'm sorry, I forgot this thread started in ANOTHER subreddit where you also refused to actually defend what you're saying.
Right. Minutes ago, get over it dude. It's the past. How does it matter now? Again, if this sounds stupid why are you saying it?
I don't think you understand what is being said to you.
I will try again.
What you said: If something happens in the past, you can't judge someone for it.
What you are saying at the same time: These insults that happened in the past let me judge these people.
These are not consistent. Please address that fact.
No that isn't what semantics is. I'm pointing out a flaw in your stance. Please address it.
No, not really.
Show me one person, anywhere, that said "she is a criminal because she was stabbed.
You will not find it.
Show me where I actually said what you're arguing against.
What the fuck does political correctness have to do with anything? you're not making sense.
Well it's a good thing nothing like that happened or this would be a bit silly to say.
Well judging from your attempt at responding to this, you can barely even comprehend a few basic sentences. It would likely take years to explain a complex subject to you.
You shouldn't be judging people for things that happened in the past, but you are, you shouldn't be judging people as groups but you are.
Pretty simple stuff.
No, you aren't. You did pretty close to what I predicted without the leaving. You seized on a bunch of imagined slights and didn't respond to the argument I made.
Yeah, they've been stated, you ignored them and replied off topic.
Lol oh you're trying to be insulting. That's why you keep saying things about how the insults coming your way are "grade school" level and such. You're trying very hard to be insulting while also trying very hard to maintain some kind of moral high ground.
Again, you aren't some intellectual juggernaut. You're barely coherent and you can't reply to simple flaws pointed out in your beliefs and corresponding actions.
1 adevland 2018-02-09
That's not what I said.
What I said is that you can and should judge someone on a per action basis. There would be no redemption options otherwise and you would be forever branded as a bad person.
That means that it's not ok to judge someone for something based on what happened in their past.
If I get a fine for illegally parking, it's not fair to assume that I will always park illegally.
If someone insults neo nazis as an anti racist activist, you shouldn't hold that against them when a neo nazi stabs them. If anything, that provides the motive for the neo nazi's crime.
The whole discussion started when some guy tried to dismiss the article about the stabbing by mentioning the anti racism history of one of the stabbing victims.
Being patronizing isn't an argument for anything but it's a step up from petty insults.
I've already addressed that silly point of yours and you've let it die. Besides the fact that it's besides the fact and a futile attempt at whataboutism.
You're grasping for straws, mate.
Which argument was that? The fact that you said people insulted me in the past and that it was over while immediately after insulting me yourself? Yeah, not a very good argument considering the very basic fact that you contradicted yourself and that it makes no sense since it deviates from the subject and is an attempt of whataboutism.
Try harder.
You're confusing insults with sarcasm, mate.
i'm actually trying to have a decent conversation but having trouble finding people here who are serious about it. Many openly admit that insults is what this sub is all about, so that kind of makes it hard to take anyone seriously.
I never said I was. The point was to have a civil discussion. Is that really so hard?
I've written my answer to your "past insults argument" above in case you decide to ignore it. :)
1 ABillionYearsOld 2018-02-09
I cannot see the functional difference in this contrast. Please elucidate it clearly.
So what you claimed is false and nobody said she was a criminal because she was stabbed? Correct?
I didn't say it was an argument for anything though, why say this?
There were actually two points, one point you entirely ignored and the other point you responded with a non sequitur.
Correct. Insults happen and then they are, immediately, in the past.
Here's a fun game: show explicitly the contradiction.
Also stop saying whataboutism. If you're just gonna say a word you clearly don't understand don't bother. Offer argumentation and explanation or realize it's worthless.
Oh god no. That isn't at all what's happening, no.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
This is bullshit. You're literally just dismissing repeatedly an argument you can't even state properly. Nor separate. You're treating two different points clearly made to you as one. This is a joke right?
You're implying that the way you think of yourself, yes. It apperntly is. You cannot address what I am actually saying. It's pretty funny.
Yeah, you didn't though.
1 adevland 2018-02-09
That's your problem, not mine. It's as clear as it can be.
And it's how justice works, meaning that everyone is innocent until proven guilty regardless of their past. And everyone deserves a fair trial, and not the prejudice of others.
I never said that people consider her a criminal because she was stabbed.
I said that people are downplaying her getting stabbed by mentioning her past anti racism activism.
"The whole discussion started when some guy tried to dismiss the article about the stabbing by mentioning the anti racism history of one of the stabbing victims." <<< That's what I literally said and you ignored it.
Please stop actively misinterpreting the things that I say. If they are unclear, ask me about them. Do not assume things on my behalf.
You refused to provide further arguments by saying that "It would likely take years to explain a complex subject to you.". That's you being patronizing instead of answering my questions.
You'll have to argument why my argument is a non sequitur because saying it doesn't make it so.
What's the other point?
Ok.
You said
So, I should get over it because "insults happened in the past and that they are over".
followed by your own insult where you called me stupid
GG, mate.
If you cannot get past your own ignorance, you're only admitting you've got nothing else to say.
1 ABillionYearsOld 2018-02-09
LOL what? No.
That isn't how reasonable discourse works. If someone asks you for a clarification you clarify.
Please clarify the functional difference you were trying to point to.
This has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
No. That is not what you said. That is not at all what you said. What you said, specifically, was the following:
That is what you said. You didn't say what you're pretending you said here.
That is what you said AFTER you said that people were saying she was a criminal because she was stabbed. Chronology matters.
I'm not misinterpreting you. I'm quoting you from before you dishonestly tried to change point after the fact.
Right. I refused to provide an explanation you wanted because it wasn't germane.
You mean argue, and I did.
Lol..... seriously? Didn't you just say at the start of this that needing clarification is your own problem? What happened to that?
Correct.
Sounds stupid and are stupid are different things, first of all, and econd of all that happened over 10 minutes ago. it's in the past. You can't judge me for that now.
Not even fucking close.... LOL
You once again ignored one of the points, even though it was clearly and explicitly stated to you.
1 adevland 2018-02-09
when you're cherry picking your arguments and ignoring the context.
Here's the clarification.
People are downplaying the news about her getting stabbed by mentioning her past anti racism activism. That's prejudice.
It's not ok to judge someone for something that happened in the present (like dismissing her getting stabbed) based on what happened in their past (like her past anti racist activism).
That's the whole point.
You're arguing semantics, mate. That's the bottom of the barrel for any argument.
1 ABillionYearsOld 2018-02-09
It's not cherry picking to ask you to prove a quote you keep repeating as a basic justification for your beliefs. Sorry. Try again.
Ooooo
Just to be clear - you are now admitting that nobody said she was a criminal because she got stabbed? Right?
And no. That isn't prejudice. Prejudice is judging someone before you know anything about them based on superficial or misleading information. This isn't prejudice.
That's not a judgement. A judgement would be saying she is a criminal because she was stabbed. That's why you tried to pretend that. This second thing isn't a judgement. It's dismissal. That's different.
But that also isn't why that is being said. It's being said because she's proven she's an unstable person that acts in a way that reflects thaat.
But, as I've said from the beginning, it doesn't make any sense.
If you believe this, if you really believe this, explain what semantics is in your own words, okay? Do that first. Then explain how I am arguing semantics. If you're going to say something, be very clear and explicit about it.
Well it isn't happening, and you're being prejudice by your own definition.
1 adevland 2018-02-09
You took that quote out of context. I've already clarified the context. If you feel childish and feel the need to keep repeating an out of context quote, then this discussion is over.
like pointing out someone's past in order to dismiss something in the present about which you know nothing?
Call it whatever you like. I'm not debating semantics here.
The point is that it's not ok because it can be abused to dismiss all sorts of other crimes.
I'm glad that we finally agree.
And how does that justify dismissing the news about her being stabbed? What's the point of dismissing a potential murder based on prejudice?
People are ignoring an attempted murder based on the victim's reputation of being a vocal anti racist activist. Their prejudice towards her is causing them to dismiss a serious crime.
1 ABillionYearsOld 2018-02-09
No you didn't... you just said it was cherrypicking. Where do you think you explained that better? Quote it.
No. Not at all like that. Pointing out someone's past is something you know about them.
Ummmm it isn't semantics. If you think it is, explain how it is.
What? I don't get what you're saying here.
No that didn't happen - don't do that it's very dishonest.
I don't understand the question.
Again, it isn't prejudice, and also I don't think anyone is dismissing her being stabbed. They were pointing out that she is a known agitator with a history of lies.
False.
No. Their foreknowledge of the person she is is causing them to not have much sympathy, if anything.
1 adevland 2018-02-09
**"People are downplaying the news about her getting stabbed by mentioning her past anti racism activism. That's prejudice.
It's not ok to judge someone for something that happened in the present (like dismissing her getting stabbed) based on what happened in their past (like her past anti racist activism)."**
that happened in their past. Using that to dismiss an event from their present is prejudice.
Having prejudice leads to all sorts of dismissals like saying that "she deserved it".
Some guy actually suggested that should get stabbed, either in an attempt at irony or out of pure ignorance and prejudice.
You said that mentioning her past was a dismissal.
Those are your words and the context in which you said them. Why are you backpedaling on this?
If your purpose here is trolling, then this discussion is over.
Why are they doing that in the context of her and other people being stabbed by neo nazis? What's the purpose other than to try and dismiss this case as being unimportant?
You're debating semantics again.
Not having "sympathy" towards someone based on their race is prejudice.
Not having "sympathy" towards someone based on their exaggerated anti racist activism when that person, and others, have been stabbed by the people they were protesting against goes beyond "not having sympathy".
1 ABillionYearsOld 2018-02-09
Right? That isn't... do you not understand what you're saying? This isn't an explanation of how it is out of context...
That is not what prejudice is. Prejudice is PRE - JUDGING. Judging before you have facts. Their past is a fact about them.
And? One person said one thing? Whats your point there?
No I said that's what you were trying to say.
Lol... because you are just not reading them. What you described is a dismissal, not prejudice. That's what was said to you. Things can be dismissed for good reason. Dismissal doesn't mean undeserved.
Lol remember when I said you were gonna seize on something flimsy as an excuse to run away? Here it comes.
Because character is relevant. Just like how you're mentioning that they are "neo nazis" - you're trying to establish a lack of character so people know how to feel before hand.
If you think this, explain what semantics is in your own words and then explain how I'm doing that. I'm not engaging with this point until you do that.
Yes? Sure? But that has nothing to do with this situation. For one, race is something you can't control while your past is something you absolutely made decisions to reach.
Hmmmm. No I don't think so. Basically you have a bunch of shitty violent far left activists and a bunch of shitty violent far right activists. I can dislike both, not have sympathy for both etc. None of that is prejudice because it is based on actual facts of their past, no based simply on something they couldn't control.
1 adevland 2018-02-09
A fact from the past is not enough to judge situations from the present. Trying to do so or to dismiss present events is nothing but prejudice.
You're arguing semantics again and it's very petty.
"Having prejudice leads to all sorts of dismissals like saying that "she deserved it"."
Wow, ok. You're obviously trolling at this point by misinterpreting your own words.
The article already established the details, yet some people chose not to focus on the stabbing crimes, but on the activism history of one of the victims in order to dismiss the whole thing.
True, but you're judging their past and only their past.
We're talking about how the far left people got stabbed by the far right people and how other people are dismissing and diminishing this thing based on the past of the far left people while completely ignoring the actions of the far right people. That's picking sides based on bias. That's prejudice.
Why? Because both groups are guilty of fighting each other, yet, when the far right stabbed people in the far left, some people picked the far right and discredited the far left by saying that they were violent too while completely ignoring that the far right did much worse and resorted to stabbing the far left people. That's glaringly obvious prejudice and bias.
You can debate semantics about this all day and call it whatever you want, it still won't change the facts.
And the facts are that some people ignored an attempted murder on multiple people based on their political affiliations.
1 ABillionYearsOld 2018-02-09
Sorry this is an opinion and a wildly unsupported one at best. Do you have anything better?
Once again, if you think that's the case define the term and elucidate how. Otherwise I'm not engaging on it.
"Putting things in quotes doesn't make them right, or interesting, or do anything but put quotes around them actually"
No. That isn't happening. But keep looking for that reason to run.
Just to be clear, when you say activism history, you mean trying to file a false restraining order, advocating for the use of violence against regular people, etc? That's what you mean by activism history?
Oh god no. I'm not doing that, where did I do anything like that?
You are talking about that. Everyone else is pointing out to you that that makes no sense to talk about exclusively. It's a wider issue than you want to make it because only narrowing it allows you to defend your precious far left activists.
And it's neither of those two things.
Oh this is going to be objective and neutral...
This is true.
This is not. You're trying to piggyback the second onto the first but it doesn't make sense.
Far left activists engage in violence: condemn it
Far right activists engage in violence: condemn it.
it isn't that hard.
For I think the sixth time, if you think it's semantics define the term and then explain your reasoning.
No it doesn't appear that anyone ignored anything. What you're criticizing is people pointing out that the far left activists you're feeling so sorry for have beaten people near to death.
1 adevland 2018-02-09
Yeah, mate. It's called the US constitution which states that everyone is innocent until proved guilty and that everyone deserves a fair trial.
Feel free to consider the US constitution a "wildly unsupported opinion" and a "flimsy excuse" for having to need more than past events in order to judge actions in the present.
This discussion is over.
1 ABillionYearsOld 2018-02-09
Oh dear...
That has nothing to do with this? You're not talking about a court of law. You're not talking about a prosecution? This doesn't make any sense. What does a fair trail guranteed under law have to do with this??
Are you actually this stupid?
Like I said, seize on your flimsy excuse tuck your tail between your legs and run away. You never had the intellectual chops for this conversation anyway, and just like I said at the start you're just gonna seize on something and run away.
1 adevland 2018-02-09
That's my point. People are jumping to conclusions without knowing or voluntarily ignoring the facts and are dismissing present actions based on past ones.
That's like how Trump said that "both sides are to blame" when only one side killed people from the other side.
If you're going to treat this debate as something that you have to win, then you're openly ignoring the serious issues behind it.
The point is that people are taking sides and defending serious crimes by pointing to the other side and saying how they also perpetrated less serious crimes.
If you cannot understand the dangerous precedent this sets, then you're only enabling others to follow it and will probably suffer from it some day. And the precedent has already been set by the current US president.
If you feel that's a flimsy excuse to end the discussion, then, by all means, call this your victory.
I'm sorry if I've been unclear. I've done my best to explain things.
I've never insulted anyone while I've been the subject of many uncalled for insults. If this is what this sub is about, then you deserve to win this debate. Hopefully you'll also remember the discussion the next time you see something similar to what we've talked about.
This will be my last comment in this topic.
Best wishes, mate.
1 ABillionYearsOld 2018-02-09
Seize on your flimsy excuse. Just like I said you would.
1 keepittropical 2018-02-09
She didnt even get stabbed though. This article, that was written right after the event says she suffered a head wound and it says 10 people did actually get stabbed. The article even quotes Felarca who most likely would have mentioned getting stabbed when the LA times reached out for a quote. Getting stabbed is not something you quickly forget.
1 IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2018-02-09
No the admins have mandated that we can't insult people until they post one comment in our sub, so now that you're here we get to tell you what we really thing of your degenerate self
1 HodorTheDoorHolder 2018-02-09
XO
1 captainpriapism 2018-02-09
felarca is literally a crazy person that screams and attacks people
she has no redeeming qualities and does it every single time shes allowed anywhere near a protest
if you wont extend the same benefit of the doubt to people that marched in a nazi rally or beat up antifa then you dont really have a leg to stand on
1 Gothmog26 2018-02-09
Real prejudice is downvoting the lolcows.
1 Corporal-Hicks 2018-02-09
That chick is all over YT screaming about killing white people and instituting communism by force. How is that prejudice?
1 IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2018-02-09
Because u/adevland agrees with it, apparently
1 srehtamllahsram 2018-02-09
So we shouldn't judge Hitler either then, right?
1 SocialistEphebophile 2018-02-09
Judging a person's present character based on their past behavior is
LITERALLY LITERALLY LITERALLY LITERALLY LITERALLY LITERALLY #LITERALLY LITERALLY LITERALLY LITERALLY LITERALLY LITERALLY #LITERALLY LITERALLY LITERALLY LITERALLY LITERALLY LITERALLY #LITERALLY LITERALLY the opposite of prejudice LITERALLY LITERAL
LITERALLY LITERALLY LITERALLY LITERALLY LITERALLY LITERALLY #LITERALLY LITERALLY LITERALLY LITERALLY LITERALLY LITERALLY #LITERALLY LITERALLY LITERALLY LITERALLY LITERALLY LITERALLY
1 captainpriapism 2018-02-09
if you leave it for even a second its in the past and sorry youre not allowed to judge anymore
yeah i just punched you in the face but that was 5 seconds ago you prejudiced motherfucker
1 BumwineBaudelaire 2018-02-09
confusing prejudice with treating someone based on their behaviour is peak millennial
1 TheAltRightIsAlright 2018-02-09
u/--n3o--
At this point, people opposed to history repeating itself should begin to be honest with the reality of the situation. An earlier poster stated this and while it's not pretty, it's more in line with reality than the naive notion that this will be culled by an (eroding) democracy. Gauging the history books, this only ends one of two ways for Americans:
A fascist state (followed by global war.)
Or
Violent revolution (which, undoubtedly, will be followed by global war.)
Not being honest about it because it sounds scary is akin to not calling Donald what he truly is because herp, derp, "Godwin's Law!"; a fascist seeking total control. This is only the silence before the storm and all the chips are falling into play for this party. It was as good as done the moment the Commander In chief began advocating for the censoring of the media. That's the textbook first chess move. The idea that poll booths alone will derail the train barreling towards us is naive. Coming to terms with the reality that a lot of politicians and those whom voted for Trump simply "didn't learn from history," is laughable. They understand history very well, and they understand that it's currently on their side (until of course, they inevitably fall.) But how much damage will be done by then? Again, this is nowhere close to being over. It hasn't even truly began yet and that should stir anyone whom has not only learned from history, but possesses a sliver of humanity.
1 templesthataum 2018-02-09
/u/adevland so based on everything BUT your past action, I can say you're a pedophile and enjoy sex with dogs, like white women.
I say this because I'm not prejudice and you're LITERALLY the biggest fucking idiot to ever walk in here.