Ah okay. Yes, same thing. Not the same thing as confirmation bias, though. — Kenosha Kid

Yes, I didn't remember the term for the bias, so I described it; but I clearly parsed the two sentences, each of which was about a different bias.

I think he’s asking if they were in a position of power then. — Pfhorrest

Yes, obviously, this is what I'm asking. I omitted [in a position of power] because I thought it was clear from the context that this is what I was referring to, since my question followed directly upon his statement that "Everyone's in a position of power all the time."

Clearly, this doesn't seem to be the case with his girlfriends when they were alone and accosted by men.

Unless KK actually thinks they were in a position of power when they were alone and accosted by men.

More typically is that the response if someone brings up ideas of some thinker or philosopher is quite different depending on the political side. — ssu

Disagreeing with right wing members has so quickly and consistently seen me named as a communist, or an identity politician, or some such that I don't even bother to disagree. From my point of view, there's usually nothing meaningful to discuss.

I've always appreciated your pro-capitalist contributions though, even though they're entirely incorrect of course ;)

Clearly, this doesn't seem to be the case with his girlfriends when they were alone and accosted by men.

Unless KK actually thinks they were in a position of power when they were alone and accosted by men. — baker

In the dynamic of sexual predator/target, they do not occupy the position of power. That does not make them powerless in every conceivable dynamic. If you can do something about something, that is a position of power.

In the dynamic of sexual predator/target, they do not occupy the position of power. — Kenosha Kid

Then it's not true that "Everyone's in a position of power all the time."

That does not make them powerless in every conceivable dynamic. If you can do something about something, that is a position of power.

Sure.

Disagreeing with right wing members has so quickly and consistently seen me named as a communist, or an identity politician, or some such — Kenosha Kid

Yeah, it's their special power to see things in black-and-white like that.

Yeah, it's their special power to see things in black-and-white like that. — baker

As opposed to only seeing things in black, like lefty political correctness freaks do?

As opposed to only seeing things in black, like lefty political correctness freaks do? — counterpunch

Oh, orange is the new black ...

Okay, complete the sentence:

The _______ of George Floyd!

Revenge!

Disagreeing with right wing members has so quickly and consistently seen me named as a communist, or an identity politician, or some such that I don't even bother to disagree. From my point of view, there's usually nothing meaningful to discuss.

I've always appreciated your pro-capitalist contributions though, even though they're entirely incorrect of course ;) — Kenosha Kid

Jeering and ridicule simply don't work and tell far more about the person doing it than the object of ridicule.

When I was younger I had a similar kind of dismissive attitude towards the people on the other side of the political spectrum. Yet one has to remember that the World is so complex that totally reasonable, smart and educated people can have totally opposite views on just how to tackle the current problems of our time. When you weed out the fringes, the populists and the utopians, both sides do have points. The real difference are the solutions given, not noticing the problem.

Far better to know just exactly why they make the wrong conclusions.

Wrong answer! But good to know where your head is at!

Jeering and ridicule simply don't work and tell far more about the person doing it than the object of ridicule. — ssu

I used to think so too. But in the last four years, I've been beginning to change my opinion.
Being civilized is simply overrated.

*sigh*

I was speaking to a telemarketer when you so rudely interrupted me with this nothing of a comment!

This is from the BBC:

"Racism in education: How 'truth pages' helped students fight back

The killing of George Floyd was a catalyst moment for social justice movements across the world. But after the coronavirus pandemic worsened some of those movements were pushed aside."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-55655640

Can anyone tell me what's wrong with this?

Is it that it assumes racism isn't fictional?

Is it that it assumes racism isn't fictional? — frank

No. It's in relation to my earlier comment.

Complete the sentence:

The _______ of George Floyd! — counterpunch

You're supposed to be philosophers. You should be able to get this.

What's your point?

I'll make my point when you complete the sentence:

The _____ of George Floyd!

Just say the first thing that pops into your otherwise empty head!

A lot of people are convinced it was 1st degree murder. I think that would make more sense if the cops had taken him to a secluded location and made sure no one was videoing the entire interaction to subsequently show to the whole world.

I guess we'll find out when all the facts are examined.

Correct answer. Doesn't fit in the space provided, but yes, you get the point. Here's the thing. What does a refusal to answer signify? Do they know they're being biased - and won't answer because it would reveal that bias? Or do they not know? And it's right across left wing mainstream media. How can there be a fair trial when there's all this subconscious bias being pumped out in the media?

Then it's not true that "Everyone's in a position of power all the time." — baker

Well, yes it is. It's certainly not true that everyone is in every position of power all the time. That would be nonsensical.

The killing of George Floyd...

Can anyone tell me what's wrong with this? — counterpunch

The _____ of George Floyd! — counterpunch

Are you now trying to suggest he's not even dead?!?

He's being charged with 3rd degree murder.

No. He's dead. "Death" would be a perfectly appropriate word to use in the sentence

The ______ of George Floyd.

The term 'death' is accurate, and it's neutral. As opposed to 'killing' or worse, 'murder' - or worse yet, "racist murder". Those are not neutral terms. 'Killing' presumes to know what Floyd died of. 'Murder' presumes know what he died of, and that there was intent to kill. "Racist murder" - the term you used, presumes to know what Floyd died of, that there was intent to kill, and what motivated that intent. These are biased terms that should not be used by the media prior to a verdict.

The last philosophy forum I was in is also dominated by lefties. In fact, I was the last Conservative. I'm beginning to think that a Philo forum full of lefties is like saying Churches are full of righties.

Am I right to assume, it's a 'progressive' endeavour, to seek knowledge that explains the world we live in. Because Christians already know why and how the world exists?

I was more central as an agnostic 3 years ago. I sought a philosophical explanation for our creation/existence, and found science to be the least convincing. Now I guess I'd be considered a righty.

. 'Killing' presumes to know what Floyd died of. — counterpunch

Which, of course, we do. Twice. Just seems to be something that racists like to pretend is shrouded in a mystery that isn't there.

"Killing", btw, doesn't mean murder. You can be killed by cancer, for instance. Or by a racist cop kneeling on your neck for 8 minutes.

I wonder if Chauvin will plead guilty. He'll have to be protected while in jail. I guess he'll be spending a lot of time alone.

No. You think you know, but you don't. You think you know because that's what you want to believe, and are not intelligent enough to understand that wanting to believe something is not what makes it true.

You are not intelligent enough to understand that everyone deserves a fair trial - and that prejudging what happened, doesn't allow for a fair trial - particularly if you're a mainstream broadcaster like the BBC.

I mean, you personally - who gives a shit what you think, right? But the BBC is utterly in thrall to the same politically correct, lefty cultural paradigm that so demonstrably biases your thinking, and then broadcasts undue assumptions based on that politically correct bias. The BBC should know better!

Here's the difference between us. If George Floyd had been a white criminal, who resisted arrest by four police officers, while handcuffed, making it impossible to put him in the car - so they restrained him, and he died, possibly as a consequence of that restraint - I'd be saying the same thing. I'd be saying Floyd created the situation that led to his death, and the benefit of the doubt is with the police. You wouldn't. In fact, if George Floyd were a white criminal we'd never have heard of him. Floyd's skin colour changes things for you. That's what makes you a racist.