Teens Who Savagely Attacked Well-Known DOGE Staffer Avoid Jail Time

[Chesterton]

There's a key distinction, there has to be the mindset of "Race A is superior to Race B" in order for something to be racist by definition, the statements of that time period of slavery would be overtly racist.

I disagree with your definition. Any exercise of bias based on race is racist.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I disagree with your definition. Any exercise of bias based on race is racist.

If you're disagreeing with my definition, then you're disagreeing with the official definitions.

Various Dictionaries define it as follows:

-the belief that different races possess distinct qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another

-the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to inherited attributes and can be divided based on the superiority of one race or ethnicity over another.

-a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior

-the belief that there are different races of people with different characteristics and abilities, and that some races are better than others


If you notice, the definitions all include the theme of a sense of superiority.


A person wanting to handle a matter more "sensitively" due to certain dynamics isn't the same as thinking one's own identity is superior.


For example:
If I were inviting Jewish or Arab neighbors over for dinner, and I made the conscience decision to make sure not to serve any pork products, that's a race-based decision.

Now, it could be a presumptuous, fool-hearted decision that ends up being embarrassing if they say "Uh...we're not strict observant, the pork chops would've been fine bro lol", but that decision still wasn't coming from a place of "I think they're inferior to me based on racial characteristics alone"

 

[7thKeeper]

One got one year probation, the other nine months probation. You can get that for shoplifting a t-shirt.

So there WERE consequences.

 

[Chesterton]

If you're disagreeing with my definition, then you're disagreeing with the official definitions.

Yes, I disagree with lots of "official" things. I'm a realist. We live in a world where Apu was removed from the Simpsons, where there was no superiority referenced, and no bias referenced.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Yes, I disagree with lots of "official" things. I'm a realist. We live in a world where Apu was removed from the Simpsons, where there was no superiority referenced, and no bias referenced.

But reacting to the silly decisions made by woke people doesn't change the nature/definitions of concepts.

You don't win that argument (long-term) by lowering yourself to the other side's re-defining and watering down of concepts. If anything, it concedes to their premise, at which point, the writing is on the wall and they'll ultimately end up winning.

 

[BPPLEE]

If you're disagreeing with my definition, then you're disagreeing with the official definitions.

Various Dictionaries define it as follows:

-the belief that different races possess distinct qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another

-the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to inherited attributes and can be divided based on the superiority of one race or ethnicity over another.

-a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior

-the belief that there are different races of people with different characteristics and abilities, and that some races are better than others


If you notice, the definitions all include the theme of a sense of superiority.


A person wanting to handle a matter more "sensitively" due to certain dynamics isn't the same as thinking one's own identity is superior.


For example:
If I were inviting Jewish or Arab neighbors over for dinner, and I made the conscience decision to make sure not to serve any pork products, that's a race-based decision.

Now, it could be a presumptuous, fool-hearted decision that ends up being embarrassing if they say "Uh...we're not strict observant, the pork chops would've been fine bro lol", but that decision still wasn't coming from a place of "I think they're inferior to me based on racial characteristics alone"

Prejudiced is the word he's looking for

 

[Chesterton]

But reacting to the silly decisions made by woke people doesn't change the nature/definitions of concepts.

You don't win that argument (long-term) by lowering yourself to the other side's re-defining and watering down of concepts. If anything, it concedes to their premise, at which point, the writing is on the wall and they'll ultimately end up winning.

I'm not reacting, I'm simply remarking about what actually goes on, and about the people who want you to tear up your dictionaries.

 

[Chesterton]

Prejudiced is the word he's looking for

No, prejudice is often a good thing, a wise survival mechanism.

 

[BPPLEE]

No, prejudice is often a good thing, a wise survival mechanism.

It's often mistaken for racism

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Prejudiced is the word he's looking for

In the case of a judge giving culprits "a break" based on sociological circumstances, I don't know that would even qualify as prejudiced either in all cases.

Obviously there's the strict definition which means "pre-judging based on characteristics", then there's the more contemporary Merriam definition of "The meaning of PREJUDICE is an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics."


...but even going by the strict definition.... If I'm a judge, and hear that someone's had a hard life, grew up in poverty, and grew up under negative systemic circumstances, and that information leads me to cutting them a break or being lenient, that's not pre-judging. Quite the opposite.

That falls into what I mentioned before, which is the concept of social bias.

Suggesting that any inequity (regardless of intent) = "racism" is just conceding to the far left's premise.


While I disagree with this judge's lenient decision, I still don't see where it comes from a place of thinking one race is inferior/superior to another.

 

[BPPLEE]

In the case of a judge giving culprits "a break" based on sociological circumstances, I don't know that would even qualify as prejudiced either in all cases.

Obviously there's the strict definition which means "pre-judging based on characteristics", then there's the more contemporary Merriam definition of "The meaning of PREJUDICE is an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics."


...but even going by the strict definition.... If I'm a judge, and hear that someone's had a hard life, grew up in poverty, and grew up under negative systemic circumstances, and that information leads me to cutting them a break or being lenient, that's not pre-judging. Quite the opposite.

That falls into what I mentioned before, which is the concept of social bias.

Suggesting that any inequity (regardless of intent) = "racism" is just conceding to the far left's premise.


While I disagree with this judge's lenient decision, I still don't see where it comes from a place of thinking one race is inferior/superior to another.

I didn't mean in all cases. Would the judge do the same if the defendants were another race?
Favoritism comes to mind

 

[Valletta]

Could he? He had no permanent injuries, so considering that and how well he healed up in a few weeks, I'm kinda doubtful of your assesment that he was in danger of dying in this case. Considering the outcome of the situation with no permanent harm, jail seems to be a bit excessive. They pleased guilty to assault too, didn't seem to try to deny that. Were they first timers too?

Yes, all it takes is one blow, kicking someone in the head, the chest, or the kidney. We had a local guy who was in a similar situation and he is brain-damaged for life. A teacher was just killed from a blow to the chest:

‘Tragic loss’: Mass. school mourning staff member who died after being kicked by student

The worker collapsed to the ground during the altercation and was pronounced dead the next day.

www.yahoo.com

 

[Chesterton]

If I'm a judge, and hear that someone's had a hard life, grew up in poverty, and grew up under negative systemic circumstances,...

None of that was mentioned in the OP's news article. Where'd you get that from?

While I disagree with this judge's lenient decision, I still don't see where it comes from a place of thinking one race is inferior/superior to another.

You're naive. It's not about superiority. It's about asserting power regardless.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I didn't mean in all cases. Would the judge do the same if the defendants were another race?
Favoritism comes to mind

Probably not...

But giving leniency based on even a perceived status of "victimization" still isn't the same as giving leniency based on a perception of racial superiority.

For instance

A) A judge gives a lenient sentence to the perp because the person they assaulted were viewed as "less than"
vs.
B) A judge gives a lenient sentence due to perceived adversity the perp has endured as a result of their race.

Those are two very different mindsets.

Or to put it more bluntly, if the perpetrator is black and and victim is white....

If the judge is coming from a place of "I'm giving you a lenient sentence because those honkies had it coming" vs. "I'm giving you a lenient sentence because being a poor black teen in the US have a rough road and I feel sorry for you"

...that's two totally different mindsets.

While both can lead to disparate outcomes (even sometimes similar outcomes), one is more concerning than the other in terms of the concept of jurisprudence.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It's not about superiority. It's about asserting power regardless.

Then it's not about racism, which means that Musk's assertion about the judge being "racist against white people" was incorrect.

Look, I didn't say this was a good judge, I've said a few times now that I disagree with their sentencing decision. But Elon called the judge a racist. That word has a specific meaning... that meaning is contingent on intent.

Giving someone a break because of their own circumstances is very different that giving someone a break based on a perceived inferiority of the person they victimized.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

@Hans Blaster, @GoldenBoy89 ,@iluvatar5150

I believe you guys had implied before that I was feigning "moderate" status and never pushing back against conservatives the same way I push back against the left in other threads...

Happy? lol

 

[Chesterton]

Then it's not about racism, which means that Musk's assertion about the judge being "racist against white people" was incorrect.

Yes it's about racism, because it's about asserting power about one's race. Just like the Nazis.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Yes it's about racism, because it's about asserting power about one's race. Just like the Nazis.

Sorry, but that's ridiculous

Giving leniency to a person who's perceived to have had a "rougher road" isn't the same as giving leniency based on a disregard of their victim.

While I think both mindsets are flawed (and cut against the concept of blind justice), they're not the same in terms of judicial branch implications.

 

[Chesterton]

I believe you guys had implied before that I was feigning "moderate" status and never pushing back against conservatives the same way I push back against the left in other threads...

Happy? lol

You are a notorious fence-sitter. You need to come to Jesus.

"So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth." - Jesus

 

[Chesterton]

Sorry, but that's ridiculous

Giving leniency to a person who's perceived to have had a "rougher road" isn't the same as giving leniency based on a disregard of their victim.

While I think both mindsets are flawed (and cut against the concept of blind justice), they're not the same in terms of judicial branch implications.

I previously asked you where you got this "rougher road" stuff and you failed to reply about it. Are you just making stuff up to support an argument?