Forgiveness

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

MSK - I'm assuming that was an attempt to demonstrate some sort of inconsistency?

I don't see it.

Kacy,

Maybe I misremember, but I seem to recall you ranting at Greg that he does not know a thing about what you know or don't know in response to an assumption he made. You were pissed, too.

Yet because you perceive an emphasis on race in his comments (which, by the way, I do not perceive), you automatically "know" he is a racist. But, objectively speaking, you could only know that if you knew him better. One interpretation of one comment does not a racist make.

But, based on that one comment (and ensuing push-and-pull bickering about it), you "know" for a fact he's a racist and now you are on a mission to root it out and trounce him for it.

And then you claim that--unlike him--you do not claim knowledge you do not possess.

Double heh.

You not only know it, you act on it.

Michael

[anthony]

I have this general, simplistic notion that Christians cannot be racist. Because when all souls are equal in the sight of God, the colour of one's skin is immaterial.

(e.g. It was the churches in South Africa -including some of the Calvinist, Afrikaner ones -who historically took a stand against Apartheid, before most other people).

For a Christian, (again simplistically) by dint of a man having Faith- is pretty good; if a Christian, far better; and if a member of one's own church, wonderful!

That Christians transcend the entire racial issue by a seeming sleight of hand, matters not a thing, existentially. They believe in the collective of souls, and that's all there is to it. Though some could very well be bigots, on a culture-difference level.

I don't quite understand the Progressivist manner of dealing with racism. It seems that as secular collectivists, it is more of a moral struggle for them. At times it looks like they protesteth too much, and over-react to any hint of racism. Anyhow, if not explicitly racist, I have noticed they too can be bigoted.

Refreshingly, as is known, Objectivism cuts through it all: neither "souls", nor "collective man", simply an individual on his or her own merits, who must enjoy equal individual rights.

[KacyRay]

MSK - I'm assuming that was an attempt to demonstrate some sort of inconsistency?

I don't see it.

Kacy,

Maybe I misremember, but I seem to recall you ranting at Greg that he does not know a thing about what you know or don't know in response to an assumption he made.

You might be talking about the time someone assumed that everything I knew about Palin was nothing more than what the big bad MSM wants me to know.

You were pissed, too.

Ah yes, the obligatory assignment of emotions. Can't get through a thread without someone telling me how angry or upset I am. At least it's predictable at this point.

Yet because you perceive an emphasis on race in his comments (which, by the way, I do not perceive),

I said his comments contained a racist undertone. I said they were a feature of his position, not the essence of it. The only reason you might believe I perceived an emphasis is because I have had to spend roughly a dozen comments explaining why a comment that clearly had racist undertones clearly had racist undertones.

Notice he didn't say "blacks". He said "n-words". No racist undercurrent there, right? (I know, I know... only a liberal would notice such a thing.)

you automatically "know" he is a racist.

At no point have I called him a racist nor have I ever claimed certainty on that. Now you're making stuff up.

One interpretation of one comment does not a racist make.

I know. That's why I haven't called him a racist.

But, based on that one comment (and ensuing push-and-pull bickering about it), you "know" for a fact he's a racist and now you are on a mission to root it out and trounce him for it.

That's an interesting analysis of my motivations for doing something I did not do and claiming to know something I did not claim to know.

And then you claim that--unlike him--you do not claim knowledge you do not possess.

Come on man, I know your reading comprehension skills are better than this. I have said that his comment had racial undertones. I demonstrated that they did. I did not call him a racist. In fact, I have not passed judgment one way or the other... yet.

The only claim I made was that his comment had racist undertones. And that's NOT something I cannot have knowledge of.

Interesting that a commenter has made an observation regarding a specific behavior that seems to be dominated by a specific demographic (race), and you threw it in the garbage pile and put him in moderation.

And then another did the exact same thing and you rush to his defense.

I think SB's comments were dripping with racist undercurrents. So do you.

I think Greg's comment were dripping with racist undercurrents... but for some reason, you don't.

"Notice that all of the [Knockouts/Socio-economic Powergrabs] seem to be done predominantly by [n-words/Jews]"

I wonder how able you are to turn the looking glass in your own direction here? Do you really think you're being consistent?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Come on, Kacy.

Trying to bully him into using the n-word with taunts and snark?

And you want to come off as unbiased?

Gimmee a break!

This is me you're talking to, dude. Not an echo chamber.

Let's just take one from Mr. Innocent.

"Racial undertones" instead of "racist," huh?

You realize that by saying "n-word" you're not changing the racist nature of your comment, right? I mean, you don't just get to type away racism.

I think "nigger" is a horrible concept.... but if you're going to employ the concept, have the balls to use the word.

And that's just one post. I don't have all day to do this I said you said crap.

But man, do you sound fair and balanced.



Michael

EDIT: Oops. What happened to "racial undertone" which is now "racist undertone" in your post? Edited all that didja?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ah yes, the obligatory assignment of emotions. Can't get through a thread without someone telling me how angry or upset I am. At least it's predictable at this point.

Kacy,

Here's another one to make up for the previous, and I'm not quoting because just don't feel like chasing down posts with lack of substance in them because of this I said you said crap.

Here's the process.

You make a post with wording that comes off as angry if it were from about 99.999999% of humanity. Then someone (like me) says you were pissed. Then you say (or insinuate) that I don't know what's in your head. but (sigh), that's just the way biased conservative people do.

This is horseshit (respectfully speaking ).

Michael

[Selene]

Kacey, the fact that even you can't avoid denying is that the knockdown assaults were done by blacks.

Greg

Gregg,

I haven't investigated every instance of reported knockouts. I am reasonably certain that not all instances of the KG have made headlines, so I'm reasonably certain that you can't know the race of 100% of the assailants. But don't let that stop you from stating it with certainty.

I can't speak for the probity level on the Epoch Times.

However. here is what they discovered in their investigation of "reported" knockout "game" instances dating back to 1992:

Epoch Times analyzed 37 incidents that span from September 18, 1992 through November 24, 2013 using news reports and information from local governments. The analysis shows that the knockout game—where people try to knockout a random person with one punch—stretches back much further and was more widespread than previously thought.

The research also points to many of knockout game perpetrators being black.

In 18 of the researched incidents, black people were confirmed as the perpetrators. Many were arrested and charged with crimes, and some of those were sentenced to time in jail.

In another 15 of the incidents, race wasn’t given, and there are no photographs available of the accused assailants. In some of these cases, the suspects were never caught.

In the other four incidents, race was given and the perpetrator or perpetrators were white, Hispanic, and/or Indian.

Additionally, out of about 10 incidents reported on by the Riverfront Times in St. Louis in 2011—the story won an award from the National Association of Black Journalists—all of the “players” were black and all but two of the victims were white.

Therefore, that barely confirms Greg's statement about "most" being "black."

In terms of victims racial breakdowns, the Epoch Times discovered:

Race and Gender of Victims

In the 37 incidents analyzed by Epoch Times, 15 of the victims were confirmed white.

Another 18 victims were not identified by race.

The other victims were: one Asian, one Middle Eastern, one black, and one Hispanic.

The victims were overwhelmingly male, as were the perpetrators (in all but one case).

As to the starting date, the article refers to the following:

As early as 1992, the game was named as the reason for an attack on an unsuspecting victim. Yngve Raustein, a 21-year-old aeronautics major from Norway at M.I.T., was slugged by a group of three teenagers who decided to play a game the police called “knockout,” reported the New York Times.

“In the game, the police said, teenagers get drunk and challenge each other to knock out someone else with a single punch. If one fails, the others try it on that one.”

Raustein ended up dead after getting stabbed.

All in all, an informative article and does give us some data to work with.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/372342-knockout-game-and-blacks-are-perpetrators-of-the-game-mostly-black-people/

[moralist]

I have this general, simplistic notion that Christians cannot be racist. Because when all souls are equal in the sight of God, the colour of one's skin is immaterial.

Christians can be racist... but by then they have already disqualified themselves as being Christians.

Refreshingly, as is known, Objectivism cuts through it all: neither "souls", nor "collective man", simply an individual on his or her own merits, who must enjoy equal individual rights.

And that's one quality I like about Objectivism:

The actions of the individual man are the measure of himself.

Greg

[Selene]

This article provides a contrary argument:

But are these pundits correct? Are these crimes committed by roaming packs of black “savages” against white people?

Here’s the fascinating thing about this “spreading” trend: nobody seems to have any evidence that it’s spreading, or that it’s new, or that it’s racially motivated, or that black youths are the ones typically responsible, or that whites are typically targeted. This hasn’t stopped Mark Steyn, Thomas Sowell, and Matt Walsh from describing this specifically as a crime committed by blacks against whites, CNN from claiming that it is “spreading,” or Alec Torres at NRO from say it is “evidently increasing [in] popularity.” Most sources claim that it is spreading, and a number of sources claim that it is racially motivated. But how do they know? Where are they getting their data from?

The author also calls us to the problem of where is the data?

“Most” is an awfully slippery word to describe a increasingly popular, violent hate crime.

What’s very perplexing about Torres’s post is that he quotes multiple times from an award-winning article by John H. Tucker in Riverfront Times titled, Knockout King: Kids call it a game. Academics call it a bogus trend. Cops call it murder. I say this citation is perplexing because Tucker’s article explains quite clearly why sweeping claims about rising incidences of the “knockout game” and the racial identities of the perpetrators and victims are bogus. Tucker helps us see how many commentaries about these assaults are deeply flawed.

First of all, we don’t have reliable data:

A variety of factors make it impossible to quantify how many assaults can be attributed to Knockout King. For one, police often categorize such attacks as attempted robberies; though participants say theft isn’t the motive, they’ve been known to add larceny to injury when the opportunity presents itself. Moreover, because victims usually don’t get a good look at their assailant, incidents seldom result in charges. Many of the most vulnerable victims don’t file police reports, either because they fear revenge or were taught in their native countries not to trust police.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christandpopculture/2013/11/the-knockout-game-myth-and-its-racist-roots/

Now I am getting more interested in this perceptual media issue.

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

One place people are getting their data is from YouTube videos that are made of the knockouts.

I doubt those are faked.

Michael

[Selene]

Adam,

One place people are getting their data is from YouTube videos that are made of the knockouts.

I doubt those are faked.

Michael

Agreed. Refernce is made to that in the last article.

Also, it sems that a lot of folks dp not even report the attack because there is no robbery, or, identify the attacker(s)..

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's some information from our old buddy Wikipedia:

Knockout (violent game)

Is there media hype involved in the public perception of this?

Obviously.

Does that mean it doesn't exist?

Nope.

There's too much evidence on video, including one report I read of a guy in jail for playing the knockout game and explaining it as a dare game. This stuff is all over YouTube.

All anyone has to do is go to YouTube, type in:

"knockout game"

... and start watching.

Michael

[KacyRay]

And you want to come off as unbiased?

When did I ever claim unbias? I'm absolutely biased against racism.

You realize that by saying "n-word" you're not changing the racist nature of your comment, right? I mean, you don't just get to type away racism.

I think "nigger" is a horrible concept.... but if you're going to employ the concept, have the balls to use the word.

And that's just one post. I don't have all day to do this I said you said crap.

My charge of racism was against the comment, not the commenter. And before you start claiming that it's a distinction without a difference, the point is that I've been consistent about this the entire time. Making racist comments does not (necessarily) make one a racist, just as making religious comments does not (necessarily) make one religious.

EDIT: Oops. What happened to "racial undertone" which is now "racist undertone" in your post? Edited all that didja?

No, I've not edited anything for content ever since I've been on this forum. The only editing I've ever done was for formatting and spelling errors, and I generally only do that immediately after reading my post and realizing I goofed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Are you going to tell me with a straight face that this comment...

That's what the n-words look for... a stupid unaware mark.

... has no racist undertones? Are you really going to try to sell that bill of goods? Can you even assert that without flinching in your seat? Do you seriously think that substituting "n-word" for "nigger" changes the nature of the statement?

I guarantee that if SB had made that statement, but substituted "Jew" for "n-word", you'd have him in moderation quicker than he could say "Zeig Heil".

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

When did I ever claim unbias? I'm absolutely biased against racism.

Kacy,

Are you discussing an idea or do you want to play word games? You know exactly what I mean and I was not claiming you were unbiased against racism.

Is this part of a taunt or some mindgame you are playing all of a sudden? If so, I can bow out as quickly as I give you attention. I'm interested in ideas, not this kind of sophomoric pseudo-profundity.

My charge of racism was against the comment, not the commenter. And before you start claiming that it's a distinction without a difference, the point is that I've been consistent about this the entire time.

That would ring a lot more sincere if you were not on a hunt and taunt campaign where you are clearly demonstrating the contrary. You are not hunting and taunting the comment, but the person instead. This is what you transmit in your posts and I only have your posts to go on.

When you say one thing and do another, I generally go with what you do as a better indication of intent.

That's what the n-words look for... a stupid unaware mark.

... has no racist undertones? Are you really going to try to sell that bill of goods?

That's tasteless, all right. I can fully agree it is tasteless because it can be interpreted as racist (as many racists have expressed themselves that way).

It's not proof of racism, though. I wouldn't express myself that way. And I agree that someone who does it time and time again has a real issue. In fact, I once had to ban a guy on OL because every other post was like that (harping on what he claimed was a difference between blacks and that other word and preaching on and on about it). The dude was clearly a racist. A homophobe. An antisemite. The whole nine yards. I didn't ask if he was into white power, but I bet he was that, too.

In one isolated instance against a backlog of clear posts from Greg (whether you agree or disagree with them, they are clear opinions on chosen morality, not race), to me this is an indication of someone fed up with namby-pamby PC culture when assholes are out there knocking down innocent people and the PC culture Nazis wants to interfere with people correctly identifying the problem by putting priority on their little contextless guilt-games instead.

And the more you play that game, the more I believe you will keep making an error about Greg. There are real issues where you guys disagree. Real ideas worth exploring. Some of these I believe would be of good value to the readers if the discussion can get rolling. Instead, there's this crap. You don't need to make shit up because of a tasteless remark. Say that's disgusting and move on. If he keeps expressing himself that way, that's another issue.

From what I have seen, Greg is not an oppressor of poor little victims who need a superhero to save them from a fate worse than death. He's a self-reliant person who makes a lot of moral judgments on lack of self-reliance (in a rather Rand-friendly manner, except the metaphysics) and attributes his strength to the God he believes in.

That's the way I see him.

Do you really see him as a racist who thinks whites are a superior race, or at least blacks are an inferior one?

Really?

Michael

[moralist]

I guarantee that if SB had made that statement, but substituted "Jew" for "n-word", you'd have him in moderation quicker than he could say "Zeig Heil".

I'd sure never use that substitution because religious Jews have values just as religious blacks do. However the secular black culture has distinctly rotten values.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94INAruvOrA

Greg

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Greg,

The people in that place in the video have rotten values.

I would not extend that observation to all secular blacks. Thomas Sowell, for example, is a secular black. His values are just fine. In fact, I would be honored if he were in my family.

I have found over life and lots of travel that there are pockets of people with rotten values generally right next door to pockets of good people. And the rotten and good come in all kinds of ethnicities and cultures.

I say this from intimate familiarity (actual living experience) with all levels of economic conditions, from the homeless on up to millionaires and even the super-powerful, and everybody in between. I am well-liked and traverse well in diverse cultures, too, from outright bandits (including drug dealers, of course) to super-religious folks like Jehovah's Witnesses. My own boys (during my years of estrangement) grew up in a half Catholic and half Muslim household. I got along just fine there when my ex-wife and I were together.

In all of these travels, I have found it better (meaning more accurate) to judge pockets of people and not judge so much in overly-broad generalities. That habit has been honed by many, many personal inputs and has stood me well over the years.

btw - I never found the nobel bandit I was looking for back in my underworld days. But I did find a bunch of lowlifes who would sell out their own mothers for a song. Still, I got along just fine with them because I was able to distinguish the better folks from the total garbage and I always appealed to their better side.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I guarantee that if SB had made that statement, but substituted "Jew" for "n-word", you'd have him in moderation quicker than he could say "Zeig Heil".

Kacy,

Don't mind me.

I was brainwashed by the Zionists.

Michael

[moralist]

Greg,

The people in that place in the video have rotten values.

I would not extend that observation to all secular blacks. Thomas Sowell, for example, is a secular black. His values are just fine. In fact, I would be honored if he were in my family.

As would I!

I wouldn't even think to imply all blacks. It's the secular leftist black culture that's rotten at its core. But it's a given that all blacks don't buy into its depravity. Industrious productive self motivated blacks are enjoying as much upward mobility in the colorblind Capitalist private economic sector as any other group.

In the Capitalist business world there is only one color... GREEN.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

You take green; I'll take gold.

And I'll be in Scotland before ye.

--Brant

rotten white values match up with rotten black values; they are the spawn of the liberal we'll-take-care-of-you values and The Great Society of the 1960s.

might have put up videos of all those union thugs, public servants making their messes in Wisconsin's capital or statehouse--not many blacks were there--or of those looting Argentinians currently plying their trade

[moralist]

You take green; I'll take gold.

Green is perfectly suitable for transient day to day value for value financial transactions, but like quickly blackening bananas it is unsuitable for long term storage.

Greg

[KacyRay]

Can this really be healthy? Is this really a self-serving act?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/20/us/libya-widow-teacher-forgives-attackers/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

[Brant Gaede]

Why were they even there?

--Brant

first you condemn; then you can forgive--if you want to

[tmj]

I hope my wife would be pissed

[KacyRay]

tmj: Me too. And forgiveness in this case?

Not me.

[Selene]

Kacey, the fact that even you can't avoid denying is that the knockdown assaults were done by blacks.

Greg

Gregg,

I haven't investigated every instance of reported knockouts. I am reasonably certain that not all instances of the KG have made headlines, so I'm reasonably certain that you can't know the race of 100% of the assailants. But don't let that stop you from stating it with certainty.

I can't speak for the probity level on the Epoch Times.

However. here is what they discovered in their investigation of "reported" knockout "game" instances dating back to 1992:

Epoch Times analyzed 37 incidents that span from September 18, 1992 through November 24, 2013 using news reports and information from local governments. The analysis shows that the knockout game—where people try to knockout a random person with one punch—stretches back much further and was more widespread than previously thought.

The research also points to many of knockout game perpetrators being black.

In 18 of the researched incidents, black people were confirmed as the perpetrators. Many were arrested and charged with crimes, and some of those were sentenced to time in jail.

In another 15 of the incidents, race wasn’t given, and there are no photographs available of the accused assailants. In some of these cases, the suspects were never caught.

In the other four incidents, race was given and the perpetrator or perpetrators were white, Hispanic, and/or Indian.

Additionally, out of about 10 incidents reported on by the Riverfront Times in St. Louis in 2011—the story won an award from the National Association of Black Journalists—all of the “players” were black and all but two of the victims were white.

Therefore, that barely confirms Greg's statement about "most" being "black."

In terms of victims racial breakdowns, the Epoch Times discovered:

Race and Gender of Victims

In the 37 incidents analyzed by Epoch Times, 15 of the victims were confirmed white.

Another 18 victims were not identified by race.

The other victims were: one Asian, one Middle Eastern, one black, and one Hispanic.

The victims were overwhelmingly male, as were the perpetrators (in all but one case).

As to the starting date, the article refers to the following:

As early as 1992, the game was named as the reason for an attack on an unsuspecting victim. Yngve Raustein, a 21-year-old aeronautics major from Norway at M.I.T., was slugged by a group of three teenagers who decided to play a game the police called “knockout,” reported the New York Times.

“In the game, the police said, teenagers get drunk and challenge each other to knock out someone else with a single punch. If one fails, the others try it on that one.”

Raustein ended up dead after getting stabbed.

All in all, an informative article and does give us some data to work with.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/372342-knockout-game-and-blacks-are-perpetrators-of-the-game-mostly-black-people/

Now this is intriguing.

In this case, the man accused is 27-year-old Conrad Alvin Barrett, who the Justice Department says attacked a 79-year-old black man in Fulshear, Texas, just west of Houston. Justice Department officials said they brought the case to make a point about hate crimes.

“Suspected crimes of this nature will simply not be tolerated,” said Kenneth Magidson, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Texas. “Evidence of hate crimes will be vigorously investigated and prosecuted with the assistance of all our partners to the fullest extent of the law.”

Mr. Barrett’s attorney, George Parnham, told CNN that his client is on medication to treat bipolar disorder. Mr. Parnham said Mr. Barrett “is very sorry” for the victim.

He could face up to 10 years in prison if convicted of a hate crime under the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

This may be an interesting case.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/26/federal-authorities-charge-white-knockout-suspect-/

[moralist]

It can only be a hate crime when it's white on black... never black on white.

Greg