When someone kneels on the neck of a black man for 8 1/2 minutes until he's dead and you think an accurate description is:

he was restrained, and he died — counterpunch

one doesn't need to know jack shit about Marx to know you're a racist.

You seem to make the same vile, bullshit statements over and over, and yet seem surprised by the uniformity of the response. No one wants you to volunteer this inhumane crap. You can be a secret racist iyl. But if you insist on being an overt one, you're going to be called on it, and you're going to be despised by a lot of people.

I would be saying the same thing If George Floyd had been a white junkie criminal scumbag.

His skin colour ISN'T AN ISSUE FOR ME!

It's an issue for you though. What's up with that!

I would be saying the same thing If George Floyd had been a white junkie criminal scumbag. — counterpunch

Yeah bullshit. White woman in a mob attacking police officers is fine.

Was she a junkie criminal scumbag? No!

But okay, let's come at this from a different angle. I consider myself a philosopher. I didn't leap at the first easy I answer I was fed. I engaged in many years of soul searching, on everything - and you think I didn't see past the appearance of skin colour? It's insulting.

Was she a junkie criminal scumbag? — counterpunch

I have no idea if she was a junkie, it doesn't seem relevant. But, yes, she was a criminal scumbag. Which also isn't relevant.

and you think I didn't see past the appearance of skin colour? It's insulting. — counterpunch

Your racism is insulting.

You pick snippets from my argument you think you can digest in your own way, but leave behind my meaning.

I promote science as truth, I have an evolutionary conception of humankind - I think morality is a sense as opposed to a culturally specific set of laws, and I treat individuals as I find them, regardless of skin colour, gender, sexuality or whatever.

Stop trying to disgrace me, just because I don't drink the commie Kool aid. I don't drink anyone's kool aid. I'm a philosopher!

The "colourblind" approach is racist. "Race" is a proxy for the material conditions and signifcance of a body. When we ignore someone's skin colour, we do not recognise their body is one which belongs of our society. We leave the question of whether society values them up to unobserved whim. We do not recognise that it is our responsibility to value people of those bodies, such that we will give them a society which respects them (and acts to change itself when it doesn't).

Racial equality is not a question of ignoring race. It is one of asserting that people of each race belong to our community--i.e. not "I do not see race", but "I do see you, your community, that you belong of our society."

He was found to have a lethal quantity of narcotics in his system. — counterpunch

On what grounds are you cherry-picking this conclusion of the medical examiner's and not the conclusion that he died from

cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression

You claim to follow the science yet you decide which conclusions from which scientists you are going to accept on the basis of your political ideology. So you're effectively not following the science at all.

On the matter of cause of death only two scientific experts have spoken. They both concluded he was killed.

They may well be biased. They may well have political or ideological motivations which affected their judgment on top of their expertise.

But no-one is demonstrably less biased. In no-one can it be shown that scientific expertise is speaking more than in these two MEs.

If you want to know if a bridge will stand do you ask two (biased) engineers or two (equally biased) lawyers?

do you ask two ... (equally biased) lawyers — Isaac

My assumption is that the police behaved wrongfully, but where would one find unbiased lawyers? Whether they are prosecuting or defense attorneys, there are going to be biases. Can one set up double-blind medical type experiments in criminal cases? It would seem not.

Under the highly politicised circumstances created by BLM — counterpunch

BLM further politicized the already-politically charged issue of police-black community conflict. BLM only intensified it. I'm not a supporter or follower of BLM, but in all fairness, bad police-community interactions go back a long time. What is new is live coverage of police operations by way of cell-phone video. I have to assume the 4 cops in Floyd's arrest/death knew that there were critical witnesses on hand and that their actions either were, or could be, video recorded. Yet they persisted in using (what seems like excessive force) to complete the arrest and transport of GF.

Bad gay community-police conflict developed in Minneapolis in the early 1980s. The conflict was ignited by a relatively small number of cops--members of the vice squad and downtown street patrols. There was little conflict between gays and police most of the time. A minority of cops cause the majority of conflict with the black community too.

Bad actors in any field can give the whole a bad reputation.

thank you

I'm not the one claiming Floyd was killed, and/or murdered - ahead of a verdict. I'm demonstrating the mistake you are making prejudging the case; and more significantly, feeding those prejudices into the collective subconscious via political correctness hostages in the media, subliminally, by using terms like killing and murder, rather than the more neutral, but still entirely accurate term - death.

The "colourblind" approach is racist. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Is it?

So you're a racist then?

So why can't I, also - be a racist?

Is it because I is white?

Are you saying that black people can pursue their interests based on their race, but white people can't? How do you justify that?

I understand why you want to obscure it. You guys are a dying breed. Back in the day there was nothing odd about it.

These days you have to choose your words carefully. Is that frustrating? — frank

Well put.

Nihilist my arse! You neo marxist, post modernist, politically correct wretch! Take it back - and knock it the fuck off. It's not right to impugn people, over and over - just because they don't drink the commie kool aid. — counterpunch

White supremacist meltdowns are fun to watch.

Where?

Another one for the ignore list. Someone else can moderate this...

You may outnumber me, and be more abusive, and have the power of the moderators on your side - to get away with what I can't, but I'm still the only one making any sense. I'm blowing holes in your beloved lefty dogma - and all you can do about it is insult me. Try defending your position like a philosopher, and stop weeping about your sorely spanked arse!

Last words to you: I don't discuss or debate with "western" supremacists.

Your martyrdom will be a lesson to us all...

Supremacist is your term - not mine. Accused of being a white supremacist I said I'm pro-western. I'm proud of western civilisation. Its contributions to the world are vast. It isn't about race. As I explained, it's largely about the weather, and the proximity of European nations in competition that drove us to achieve so much. We got a lot right. So what about any of that is racist, or supremacist? Am I not allowed to be proud of my history?

Your martyrdom will be a lesson to us all... — Banno

Right, because on a philosophy forum - who might imagine one could discuss ideas freely, without fear of being insulted, provoked and banned. If that's the kind of forum you want, maybe you should change the name!

You feel insulted and provoked because you are being insulted and provoked. What's odd here is that you seem unable to see the racism implicit in what you have posted. You've come up against folk with a better understanding of both philosophy and social issues, and not surprisingly your views have been found wanting. You want to be able to insult and provoke, but cry when you are insulted and provoked.

Basically you look a bit of a fool.

Okay, let's go with that. I don't know what I'm talking about. You know better. Then why not explain it? This is a philosophy forum after all. What can I learn from being insulted and provoked? What can I learn from this:

You seem to make the same vile, bullshit statements over and over, and yet seem surprised by the uniformity of the response. No one wants you to volunteer this inhumane crap. You can be a secret racist iyl. But if you insist on being an overt one, you're going to be called on it, and you're going to be despised by a lot of people. — Kenosha Kid

or this:

I don't discuss or debate with "western" supremacists. — Baden

or:

Your martyrdom will be a lesson to us all... — Banno

What I'm getting is... shut up or else! And to me, that demonstrates precisely the quality of left wing thought. It's not able to deal with anything, so it's shut up, and look the other way, and sweep it under the rug - and then pat yourself on the back for what a good little dogmatist you are. Let none disturb your slumber - or else! It's pathetic.

What can I learn from this:

You seem to make the same vile, bullshit statements over and over, and yet seem surprised by the uniformity of the response. — counterpunch

...you might learn to make better posts...

I don't discuss or debate with "western" supremacists. — Baden

...you might learn to phrase your views with a bit more dignity...

Your martyrdom will be a lesson to us all... — Banno

...you might learn to fit in with the ethos of the forum rather than seeking to be banned.

...might...

It's you who have failed to deal with the comments here. You are replying to the least interesting comments, encouraging the responses you find so upsetting. Look as @NOS4A2's method; far more effective than yours.

Don't come into a forum such as this claiming to have all the answers; demonstrably you do not. Rather, you are serving as a textbook case of Dunning–Kruger;

• Overestimate their own skill levels
• Fail to recognize the genuine skill and expertise of other people
• Fail to recognize their own mistakes and lack of skill

In the end you do not have to be here. IF you find it unpleasant, do something else.

...you might learn to make better posts... — Banno

You think being insulted will teach me to make better posts? That's a bit vague. What do you mean by better?

...you might learn to phrase your views with a bit more dignity... — Banno

You're a subjectivist. So you should consider any such concept a matter of subjective interpretation. Do you imagine I think my posts undignified? Because, quite the contrary. I believe my argument an eloquent appeal for dignity that political correctness lacks.

...you might learn to fit in with the ethos of the forum rather than seeking to be banned. — Banno

Fit in? Sorry. I'm a philosopher. Fit in - is not what philosophers do. I'm not seeking to be banned. You're seeking to get me banned, because I have challenged your ideas. That's because you're not a philosopher. You're a left wing ideologue. There are lots of places for you to express your ideas on the internet. Try twitter or reddit, which explicitly support the neo marxist politically correct organisation BLM, and won't hear a word of criticism.

It's you who have failed to deal with the comments here. You are replying to the least interesting comments, encouraging the responses you find so upsetting. — Banno

I have tried to respond to all the comments directed at me. What did I miss?

Don't come into a forum such as this claiming to have all the answers; demonstrably you do not. Rather, you are serving as a textbook case of Dunning–Kruger; — Banno

Is that so? I have a degree that differs - but let us assume you're right. If I am so stupid I'm incapable of recognising the existence of thought of a superior quality to my own, how does insulting me help? All I'm getting now is, more insults - and more threats. Your post are poor quality, they lack dignity, you don't recognize the pearls of wisdom we have cast at your feet because you're so stupid, fit in or else!

Yeah....no!

You think being insulted will teach me to make better posts? — counterpunch

No. But one might hope that @Kenosha Kid pointing out the repetitive, self-serving (bullshit is a technical term in philosophy) nature of your posts might influence you towards improvement.

Let's take this one example:

His skin colour ISN'T AN ISSUE FOR ME! — counterpunch

It ought to be. That it isn't, should not be a source of pride; it is perhaps indicative of a lack of compassion, or of not being able to see things from the perspective of the other. The reply form Willow was a curtious invitation to reconsider your position. Your reply was at best trite. You pretend to the privilege of ignoring skin colour, only since that serves your rhetorical need. You didn't address her comments with a degree of seriousness.

That is simply not enough here. Go back and re-read her comment and re-think your reply.

Racial equality is not a question of ignoring race. It is one of asserting that people of each race belong to our community--i.e. not "I do not see race", but "I do see you, your community, that you belong in our society." — TheWillowOfDarkness

It's racist or supremacist because everyone else does the same, in their own conditions. The values and practices you identify aren't uniquely Western. People of other cultures partake in them or are just as capable of doing so (as with any culture, values and practices ebb and flow with the tides if history and circumstances).


Nothing is wrong with being happy with achievements within Western culture, of course. The "pro west" is a narrative of othering. People do not mention because they are proud we have antibiotics. They do so because they imagine a narrative by which the West are a superior people and culture: supposedly, it is unique of us to have these technologies, unlike all those other primitive cultures (which is of course hilarious because The West lagged behind other cultures in anti bacterial practices for ages-- such technologies are not unique to the West and Western culture).

His skin colour ISN'T AN ISSUE FOR ME!
— counterpunch

It ought to be. — Banno

Why 'ought' it? The question is whether a man was killed. What does his skin colour matter?

That it isn't, should not be a source of pride; it is perhaps indicative of a lack of compassion, or of not being able to see things from the perspective of the other. — Banno

Ultimately, there is no choice but to treat people as individuals. I cannot understand what it is to be you, because I am me. I can only treat you with compassion as an individual - the same as any other individual; regardless of arbitrary factors like your skin colour, gender, sexuality etc. I owe you respect for your basic human rights - integrity of the person, property, freedom of conscience and speech. But that's about it. If I take into consideration arbitrary facts about you; and act in your favour on that basis, I am necessarily discriminating against someone else.

The reply form Willow was a courteous invitation to reconsider your position. Your reply was at best trite. — Banno

It's not trite at all. It's the crux of the matter. She says:

"Race" is a proxy for the material conditions and signifcance of a body. — TheWillowOfDarkness

So what about my race?

You pretend to the privilege of ignoring skin colour, only since that serves your rhetorical need. You didn't address her comments with a degree of seriousness. — Banno

I didn't seem to - no. To the untrained eye - my comments might have seemed somewhat rude and dismissive of what is probably a very kind and well intentioned person. But let's cut through the maudlin sentiment to start with. These are serious matters with vast consequences for a great many people. Nice isn't enough.

Ultimately, there is no choice but to treat people as individuals. — counterpunch

You spent too much time listening to Thatcher.

Why 'ought' it? The question is whether a man was killed. What does his skin colour matter? — counterpunch

The question is, was he treated differently because he was black.

But you cannot address this issue unless you recognise that he was black. Hence, "His skin colour ISN'T AN ISSUE FOR ME!" is no more than your putting your hands over your ears and humming so as not to see what is before you.

I am not able to respond to your post because it doesn't seem to answer my question, and is expressed in terms that are opaque, jargonistic and inexact.

It's racist or supremacist — TheWillowOfDarkness

Colourblindness?

because everyone else does the same, in their own conditions. — TheWillowOfDarkness

So all people from all countries are colourblind, and that's racist and supremacist?

This doesn't make sense.

I'm not going to try.

Sorry.