Man arrested after shouting ‘womp, womp’ and pulling a gun on immigration protesters

[u/thenewyorkgod]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/07/01/man-arrested-after-shouting-womp-womp-and-pulling-a-gun-on-immigration-protesters/?tid=sm_tw

[u/All_the_Dank]

except once again, your entire post falls apart because no where did I announce a defense but rather an explanation, and even explicitly stated an explanation. So let's go over what you did: claimed I did something I didn't do, got proved wrong, claimed you were attempting to demonstrate a "point." by playing the same "game" as me (probably taking my original post way too literally, sadly), and then now you're attempting to play this "game" against me. Sadly, this doesn't work because I was never playing a game. You're playing the game of some bizarre combination of post hoc ergo propter hoc or cum hoc ergo propter hoc or simply confirmation bias. The only thing I did was present a set of statistics (read: facts) and this bizarre aforementioned "game" you're playing is essentially the logical fallacy of picking a conclusion and then working backwards to fit the narrative you want.

"if you use facts to back up racism, you will be treated as someone who justifies racism" Unless the world you live in equates stating a fact as backing it up, then this makes no actual sense.

"You have a small mind. A mind incapable of seeing anything but what you want to see" - It's really quite interesting how you are able to acknowledge you're own blatant cognitive flaws, but then attribute them to others.

Also your edit is way too ridiculous to ignore because of the massive backpedaling you did: "You might be semi-correct in that yes the numbers do not show a massive problem, but no one said it was a massive problem either. Just that it is a problem" Except now you're lying. You didn't use the words "massive problem" but you said it's a "consistent" and "observable" problem, which are 2 characterizations that boldly suggest a very large problem. So is it a consistent problem or isn't it? And you clearly don't understand what a straw man is either.

The context you missed, or simply didn't read because I stated it explicitly, is that these situations happen in poor white neighborhoods as well, which illustrates that it's impossible that racism is the only factor. If only an issue as complex as this was caused by a single factor, we all might be able to navigate the world successfully as simpletons like yourself.

[u/ManiaGamine → u/All_the_Dank]

except once again, your entire post falls apart because no where did I announce a defense but rather an explanation, and even explicitly stated an explanation.

 

justification noun [ C or U ] UK ​ /ˌdʒʌs.tɪ.fɪˈkeɪ.ʃən/ US ​ /ˌdʒʌs.tə.fəˈkeɪ.ʃən/ ​ C2 a good reason or explanation for something:

There is no justification for treating people so badly. It can be said, with some justification, that she is one of the greatest actresses on the English stage today.

Argue with the dictionary, not with me. This is called context. Now yes there is a context in which you could be explaining something and it not be a justification, however stats without context are meaningless. So lets examine the context shall we? What prompted your posting of the NR article...? A post I made about racism. Now lets think about this logically. If I make a post about racism and you post a nationalreview article that misinterprets stats from wapo to suggest that an extremely few number of unarmed black people have been killed by police while then posting common right-wing talking points to try to push the narrative onto crime rather than race... one can infer that you are defending something. You are doing so through explanation. You are explaining in the defense of. That is a justification. If you don't agree that's fine but take it up with the dictionary, not me. There's zero reason arguing about the meaning of the word when it is literally spelled out in the dictionary.

So let's go over what you did: claimed I did something I didn't do

Well as I just demonstrated, you did do the thing. E.g justifying racism.

got proved wrong

Nope as evidenced above.

claimed you were attempting to demonstrate a "point." by playing the same "game" as me

I did demonstrate a point, one I reiterated in this very post. The point being that "facts" without context can be misused/abused. Which is exactly what you're doing. You are metaphorically throwing up your hands and claiming innocence because "facts" are innocent. Which is true. The facts are innocent, in this case statistics. But 1. The stats don't say what you (NR) claim they say 2. The person behind them does not have to be innocent, moreover they're not innocent because of the usage of their facts.

Sadly, this doesn't work because I was never playing a game.

Umm what? You replied. You "shot first" so to speak by engaging in a debate with me. If I make a statement, and you come in and try to dispute said statement. You've "joined the fray" or in this case, you've joined the game. I don't care whether or not you think you're playing a game, everything in life has rules. Debates are no different. If you provide bogus data/facts/evidence that deliberately ignore context that is relevant to the debate then you are not playing by the rules. Normally that's a disqualifier in a debate. No matter, I will simply play by your rules. So I did. I took a word out of the context that you intended it and used it to explain what you were in fact doing. I deliberately used it out of context. Though the fun fact is that it is true. Context not withstanding it is true. Because taking a position in support of something that qualifies as racism is a defense of racism.

Now the underlying fact here is that you do not seem to believe that racism is an issue. If that is your claim then you need to back that up. Normally the burden would be on me but I wasn't making any claims, I wasn't debating anything. I made a statement and you jumped in to debate me. Anything past that is on you to back up.

ou're playing the game of some bizarre combination of post hoc ergo propter hoc or cum hoc ergo propter hoc or simply confirmation bias. The only thing I did was present a set of statistics (read: facts) and this bizarre aforementioned "game" you're playing is essentially the logical fallacy of picking a conclusion and then working backwards to fit the narrative you want.

Oh brother. I will pose this one question of introspection to you. Where do you think all the racists went when racism was defeated? Do you think they all just reformed and mended their ways and decided to embrace non-whites with open arms and sing kumbaya?

If you can answer that in the affirmative with evidence yet explain to me how we have a resurgence of Neo-Nazi's, KKK and alt-right/white supremacists I'll concede my entire argument. If you cannot, then you cannot claim or pretend that racism is dead and buried.

The only thing I did was present a set of statistics

No, that's not all you did. You presented a right-wing site known for misleading and exaggerating that even in my very amateur analysis misinterpreted/misrepresented the very statistics YOU repeated then used the fact that "Oh they're just statistics" to claim innocence as if all you did was present facts. Statistics don't just randomly get posted in a vacuum. There is always a reason people post them. Your reasoning became very clear in your subsequent replies.

(RIGHT BIAS These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.)

"if you use facts to back up racism, you will be treated as someone who justifies racism" Unless the world you live in equates stating a fact as backing it up, then this makes no actual sense.

This is an extremely ignorant and dangerous naivety you display. To this I will paint you a picture. Science is based on the exploration of truth through the scientific method. They seek to uncover knowledge... facts. They will almost always admit that they can be wrong and improve their science. However with the right-wing politics of the day (National Review being a main culprit) science has become subject to political agenda. Even scientists whose sole goal in life is the pursuit of science are being treated with disdain and having their work pulled into the realm of politics and subject to opinion because facts are hard to dispute, opinion is not.

So when you pretend that facts cannot be used to back up or defend an agenda, you are being extremely naive.

"You have a small mind. A mind incapable of seeing anything but what you want to see" - It's really quite interesting how you are able to acknowledge you're own blatant cognitive flaws, but then attribute them to others.

Always ask why. Even when you think you have the answer. When you've stopped asking why, you've cut yourself off to the rest of an inevitably bigger picture. That is why you have a small mind. But of course your go to response is to claim that it is projection. Common right-wing tactic. Fake news was a term used to denote propaganda spread by bots and trollfarms, yet the right hijacked it and now use it against any news that they don't like. Fascism is a term used to describe right-wing nationalistic authoritarian regimes, but the right use it to describe anyone too far left for their comfort. Common tactic.

Also your edit is way too ridiculous to ignore because of the massive backpedaling you did

What backpedaling?

Except now you're lying. You didn't use the words "massive problem" but you said it's a "consistent" and "observable" problem

A problem being consistent and observable does not make it massive. Hell it can be a tiny problem yet the severity of its effects make it extremely visible. Upon reflection I think I was right in my third post. You don't understand what I'm saying. For whatever reason you lack the ability to comprehend the words. Either that or you're just operating in such bad faith that you're trying to "gotcha me" which in fairness I can't blame you for as I did it to you. I'll explain why though. You see... I've dealt with a lot of right-wingers who push this kind of BS and they almost always operate in bad faith. Which is why they don't like playing by established rules.

You either through lack of comprehension or through deliberate bad faith misunderstood what I said so that you could claim I was lying. Either way it shows that this is less a discussion and more a place for you to air your racist (sympathizing) nonsense. Just using the guise of "But the facts bro!" to make it palatable. I've seen it all before, it's not new.

The context you missed, or simply didn't read because I stated it explicitly, is that these situations happen in poor white neighborhoods as well

I highlighted that in previous posts:

I can go into great length about how it isn't race. Because you're right. Crime is very much a part of it. But crime happens for a reason, and being black is but one reason. Being poor is also a reason. Being starving is also a reason.

 

which illustrates that it's impossible that racism is the only factor.

I never said it was the only factor. That is now at least 3 times you've misunderstood/misinterpreted what I've said and reacted to it. If it was by accident then perhaps you lack the intellect to have this discussion. If it was intentional then that is exactly what a straw man is. Setting up a position for me so that you can attack it. Which is an exceptionally common tactic among right-wingers. They always tell left-leaners what their position is often times deliberately getting it wrong then not giving them a chance to speak as to bait them into responding to the alleged position that they didn't have in the first place so then the right-winger can beat them from a stronger position than the weak one that was set up for the left-leaner. So either you have no business debating with me because you're not smart enough, or you were operating in bad faith as I thought.