Dammit, have 'em both. :party:

Trying a new title.

Maybe not the best title anyhow. If someone has a better suggestion that covers this, PM me.

I don't know, I can say about Ireland we have -list a bunch of unfavourable characteristics- in spades here without necessarily being prejudiced against the Irish, no?

I'm not going to justify my statements further. I'm also not going to retract them. — T Clark

OK, well, your accusations are unfounded then. Don't make any further threads like this.

No, you've avoided it and you don't get to do that. If you make an accusation, you need to justify it, or retract or it is presumed unfounded. If someone starts a thread accusing you of racist (or euphemistically "racial") language, you'll be done the same honour. We can't have people running around making threads about each other based on accusations they're not willing to back up with any evidence, can we?

Justify your presumption that this language was exclusively about whites or stop repeating the accusation and retract. Those are your choices. You can't procede without dealing with that.

Sorry, I guess we're here:
Me: I saw some fat unhealthy stupid drug addicts in Atlanta the other day.
T Clark: That exactly describes white Southerners! You are using unacceptable racial language!
Me: But why do you presume I was exclusively talking about whites??
T Clark: I don't have to justify that. Now as I was saying, should this language about white people be acceptable?
Me: What??

So, now we're here:
Me: I saw some fat unhealthy stupid drug addicts in Atlanta the other day.
T Clark: That exactly describes white Southerners! You racist!
Me: But why do you presume I was exclusively talking about whites??
T Clark: I don't have to justify that. Now as I was saying...

All your arguments fall apart because the assumption the comments are exclusively about white people is yours and 180 is not responsible for your assumptions. Further, we don't do moderation on the basis of unfounded assumptions. At some point you need to acknowledge that and stop pretending you have any basis for your argument/complaint.

By the way, @Hanover's a white Southerner and though being obese, a maskless moron, an opioid addict and an adulterer, he is, as far as I know, not an unwed mother. Stripper is 50/50. So, you've got at least one wrong, Clarky.

Me: I saw some fat unhealthy stupid drug addicts in Atlanta the other day.
T Clark: That exactly describes white Southerners! You racist!

You have to laugh.

Essentially, it's a nice little conundrum he's gotten himself into. The extent he can be sure the language refers to white people equals the extent we're justified in assuming white people in the South are actually like that equals the lack of prejudicial content. And the only way out of this circus of foolishness is an even worse circular presumption that it's because 180 wrote it that it must be racist? Why? Because he's black? Oh, more racism from T Clark.

In my opinion, the language clearly refers to white people. — T Clark

Why?

I don't feel any need to justify that. — T Clark

Yes, you do, because it forms the basis of your accusation of the use of racial language.

Now, please answer my question:

And why must all of the following, for example, "clearly" be white people:

1) Religious hypocrtites
2) Opioid addicts
3) Adulterers
4) Strippers
5) Maskless morons
6) Unwed mothers — Baden

I think I've set up this discussion in a clear and fair way. — T Clark

I disagree, but I'm not going to delete or close it quite yet (although maybe another mod will, which is fine by me). I expect the response will be more akin to my interpretation that this is not at all a fair way to represent someone's quote than your idea that this is just a low key civil thing to do.

You're again falsely accusing another poster of being racist with no evidence whatsoever when you've been informed on several occasions there is no evidence. Having no leg to stand on, you again present this in a misleading way and try a trial by poll. There's nothing civil or "low key" about that at all. Either show me the exact racist quote or retract the accusation.

if I text were about white people, would it be acceptable. — T Clark

Dude, if the cap fits, whoever it fits needs to wear it, whatever race they are. You are retroactively presuming it does fit a particular race and then asking if that's racist. If there's a racist in that scenario, it's you.

You have no right to inject your own racist inferences into other posters' posts.

And why must all of the following, for example, "clearly" be white people:

1) Religious hypocrtites
2) Opioid addicts
3) Adulterers
4) Strippers
5) Maskless morons
6) Unwed mothers

That, if anything, is a racist assumption on your part.

There's no mention of race in the quoted post. There's only a reference to "white Jesusism" which is not a race but the racist idea that Jesus was white. You're allowed to critize that obviously.

You're currently in the lead in the crowd of volunteers. :up:

Awesome yay. it's a holiday weekend but I may open up a thread tomorrow morning if I get time. Actually have your buddy Baden open up a separate category and just you and me duke it out — 3017amen

There's a debate category already. Put your proposal in proposals. I'd be happy to see this go ahead.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/categories/29/debate-proposals

It's a hazard to mental health to interact with him, — tim wood

That's your own problem, frankly. Ignore him or report him and stay on-topic here, please.

Deleted that.

True. But at some point you're going to have to link these quotes to an argument relevant to the OP.

Anyone who brings up anti-natalism again here will be mercilessly modded. Hope that answers your q.

And it wouldn't mitigate the atrocious moral wrong of this to examine how many children Israelis had. This is what makes you a nutter or a troll.

Yes, I think that outside of very specific contexts, most people who identify as religious and as atheists are hardly different in any significant way at all. Thats been my experience at least.

You'll need to get back on topic. As I said, this stuff is obvious, boring, predictable and no one cares.

The provocation stuff doesn't work on me, Amen. Nor should it on anyone, considering how long you've been doing it and how obvious it is.

Well, I do agree that this is the case in some atheists. But according to the OP this is not so in all cases: — Apollodorus

I've gone through the stage myself of being vocal and angry about religion. But I don't think it applies to most people outside online forums and I don't think it lasts for most people to whom it applies temporarily. It's an exaggerated phenomenon based on a small biased sample size in my view.

1. Would you like to live there? If not, why not? — 3017amen

I did live there for three years. I think I'd prefer Sweden, also atheist, but less polluted.

It's all about religion for the Einsteinian fanatical atheist, like yourself — 3017amen

Hm, I think I've made one post on atheism and religion in the past year. So, the bar for fanatical atheist is pretty low there. :lol:

BTW, I'll be happy to debate you one-on-one about atheism. — 3017amen

I don't think you get it. I really don't give a fuck. You can believe what you like.

Are you too, an angry atheist? — 3017amen

Dog help anyone who's angry about being an atheist. It's the freer and more fun position to be in, surely.

You're either an anti-Israel and possibly anti-semitic parody account or mentally ill. Either way, you're not contributing anything with these bizarre anti-natalist posts.

You need to consider the broader picture outside of, for example, the bubble of online forums. For the vast majority of the world's atheists, religion isn't an issue, and there is no connecting psychological thread between atheists. I mean, consider the one billion Chinese. Almost, everyone is an atheist. Do you think there's anything at all significant in that? Are they angrier than, say, Americans?

Being an atheist is not like supporting one football team over another (like being religious is). It's more like not giving a shit about football. So, generalizing about atheists in this way is laughably silly.

As I said, this level of parody, while very cutting, is kind of in bad taste. Anyway, you've been rumbled so you can pack up the circus now.

The problem with people using children as the face of victimhood here ignores the facts I pointed out earlier.
People are having more children they can afford and more than the land can house for often ideological reasons to outnumber the other side.

You can't just have loads of children and blame all their problems on someone else.

"Does Abu Talal not worry about bringing children into such a world?

"No, because if I lose 200 of my grandchildren, I will still have 200 left."" — Andrew4Handel

As readers have probably noticed, Andrew is a parody account aimed at making supporters of Israel look like sociopathic child murderers. I'm no fan of Israeli policy but I think you are probably taking this too far.

Rehumanization. It's a start. :pray: