The Derek Chauvin Trial

@vikorr,

In any event, the point I make remains the same:

- anytime anyone says something racist, they are being racist, no matter the circumstance.

- we are each responsible for anything we say, no matter the circumstance (and this includes anything racist we say)

1 Reply

@vikorr,

I am happy to take responsibility for my condemnation of your racism.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Keh - that is what both Glitterbag and I said you were not doing. But you implied same when you said "So in other words (obviously refering to my words & what I was saying - but with a twist of your perspective on it), you are responsible for being a racist, and I am responsible for taking a stand against your racism."

The only thing in my post that had anything to do with racism is the fact that I was condemning your racism.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

This started with a discussion of the racist comments you were quoted making in this post - see the post for links to the quotes - with you trying to make excuse after excuse about how you weren't responsible for your own racist comments, highlighted in blue:

Quote:

This is in relation to the Coopers discussion, where Christian Cooper offered Amy Coopers dog a treat (after saying 'you won't like the outcome):

-They do have the right to kill people who try to murder their pets.

-White people have every right to protect themselves when black people try to murder them. (My comment: Cooper didn't try to murder cooper, but you demonised him to the excess)

-That thug attacked her pet and she should have shot him in self defense and then walked away.

-There is also nothing wrong with gunning him down and slipping away undetected so that your life isn't destroyed by deranged progressives.

-She made the wrong choice. The correct option when a minority threatens you is to kill them and then slip away before the police arrive.

-White people have the right to protect themselves when black people try to rape or murder them. (my comment: non racist version is 'everyone has the right to protect themselves from anyone who tries to rape or murder them)

-This is why the proper way for white people to protect themselves when they feel threatened by a minority is to practice the three S's instead of calling the police.

You mentioned the 3 x S's multiple times in the Coopers discussion - though I only located the one in a skim through (but the others make it obvious what you support). And you did in that thread detail the 3 x S's as 'Shoot, Shovel and Shutup' - Shovel obviously being a reference to burying a person. But as I can't be bothered finding exactly where that it thread - instead, here is it from another of your posts that show up on a google search:

People out here in the countryside don't have to worry much about black people attacking us. And in the unlikely event that we are ever forced to defend ourselves in order to save our lives, we can just Shoot, Shovel, Shut-up.

The only reason this conversation has gone on so long is the degree to which you have gone to avoid taking responsibility for your own racist comments.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

You are lying again. There is nothing racist about my comments.

Only a racist like you would think that it is racist to suggest that it is wrong to rape and murder white people.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Well that response explains a LOT.

1 Reply

0 Replies

@vikorr,

Yes. And the explanation is that you are a racist and I oppose racism.

1 Reply

I understand all the angst. He kneeled on a guy’s neck, choked him until he died. Murder on video. He’s in prison where he belongs

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Yes. And the explanation is that you are a racist and I oppose racism.

To be brutally frank and to state the obvious, you only oppose racism against white people.

2 Replies

That should have read “Don’t understand “

0 Replies

@Mame,

No. That's just another progressive lie.

Progressives lie about people because they can't defend their demented ideology with facts or logic.

0 Replies

@Mame,

Quote:

To be brutally frank and to state the obvious, you only oppose racism against white people.

Yep, he does. Although really, he uses a lot of hyperbole and extreme demonisation to 'justify' himself (the Coopers incident is the most obvious, but others are similar).

His behaviour reminds me of two children fighting - with at least one going 'he started it'; or the old endless Scottish highlander clan tit for tat feuds; or the people who berate their partners going 'if you didn't make me so angry <followed by them justifying their bad behaviour>' etc - emotionally immature people attempting to justify why their own ugly behaviours are 'right'. It's not hard to take responsibility for your own behaviours, words, and writings - in all circumstances.

But not engaging in racism by trying to understand both why people say what they say + the principles involved would shatter his world view, which he wants to be black and white (no pun intended), so his most likely course of action is to double down....as he does frequently. Hence why he calls people liars so frequently - even if, like your accusation, it is 100% verifiably true - you won't find posts of his in these forums of him defending black people from racism.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

Quote:

even if, like your accusation, it is 100% verifiably true

For clarity, this should read:

- even if, like your accusation, your accusation is 100% verifiably true, - you won't find posts of his in these forums of him defending black people from racism.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Yep, he does.

That's a lie. You're not even capable of telling the truth.

vikorr wrote:

Although really, he uses a lot of hyperbole and extreme demonisation to 'justify' himself (the Coopers incident is the most obvious, but others are similar).

Another lie.

I use facts and logic to justify myself.

vikorr wrote:

His behaviour reminds me of two children fighting - with at least one going 'he started it'; or the old endless Scottish highlander clan tit for tat feuds; or the people who berate their partners going 'if you didn't make me so angry <followed by them justifying their bad behaviour>' etc - emotionally immature people attempting to justify why their own ugly behaviours are 'right'.

It is telling that you equate "my condemnation of racism" with "bad behavior on my part".

I guess to a racist like you, condemnation of racism is bad behavior. But to normal people, that you find this to be bad behavior just shows what a racist you really are.

vikorr wrote:

It's not hard to take responsibility for your own behaviours, words, and writings - in all circumstances.

I am happy to take responsibility for my condemnation of racism.

vikorr wrote:

But not engaging in racism by trying to understand both why people say what they say + the principles involved would shatter his world view, which he wants to be black and white (no pun intended), so his most likely course of action is to double down....as he does frequently.

The way someone doesn't engage in racism is by simply not engaging in racism.

I suppose by "double down" you mean where I refuse to back down from defending the truth. That's called basic honesty. It's nothing that you'd be familiar with.

vikorr wrote:

Hence why he calls people liars so frequently

I call you a liar because you keep lying. You have no honor and no integrity.

vikorr wrote:

even if, like your accusation, your accusation is 100% verifiably true,

There is nothing true about her accusation, and there is nothing about it that can be verified.

vikorr wrote:

you won't find posts of his in these forums of him defending black people from racism.

Racism against black people doesn't tend to occur on this forum. It is difficult to defend against something that does not exist.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

You see 'truth' differently than most people here. You might want to look at that. All you do is call people who disagree with you 'progressives' who are 'Stalinists' and 'liars'. And frankly, that gets old.

In order to win an argument or debate, you have to have some substance behind your stances. You have to be logical and frame your arguments that way. Name-calling, which you do when you call people 'progressives' or 'Stalinists', doesn't advance your position.

It's basically a no-brainer to 'argue' with you because you have no substance.

2 Replies

@Mame,

Mame wrote:

You see 'truth' differently than most people here.

Most people here are delusional.

Mame wrote:

You might want to look at that.

Nah. I like being correct.

Mame wrote:

All you do is call people who disagree with you 'progressives' who are 'Stalinists' and 'liars'. And frankly, that gets old.

Facts are facts.

Mame wrote:

In order to win an argument or debate, you have to have some substance behind your stances.

And I do. I am happy to provide cites to back up any of my facts.

Mame wrote:

You have to be logical and frame your arguments that way.

I do.

Mame wrote:

Name-calling, which you do when you call people 'progressives' or 'Stalinists', doesn't advance your position.

Referring to progressives by name is not name-calling.

Condemning Stalinist behavior is not name-calling.

Mame wrote:

It's basically a no-brainer to 'argue' with you because you have no substance.

That is incorrect. I have facts and logic on my side.

The reason why people are unable to argue with me is because they have no facts and no logic.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

If all that is the case, why are you still here? Dealing with low-IQers and such. Go somewhere where you might be appreciated... find a few friends.... have a few drinks... have a laugh...do a dance tonight... because you're not convincing anyone here that a) you're intelligent, b) you're willing to discuss, argue, or debate, c) you have anything worthwhile to say, or d) adding to the collective knowledge base. And I think I'm pretty much summing up 90%+ people on here.

Some may like you, some may not, but you're definitely not adding anything of value.

I'd try another site if I were you. Think about why you're still on here. That's always a great question to ask oneself (if one did ask oneself questions).

1 Reply

@Mame,

Quote:

It's basically a no-brainer to 'argue' with you because you have no substance.

Came to this conclusion a while back. Everytime I tried to argue ethics/right/wrong/perspectives based on principles with him - he would:
- ignore discussing principle to focus on anything other than the underlying principle (tactics for those with weak logic)
- would ignore the substance that disagrees with him to focus on minutae (tactics for those with weak logic)
- focus on race (tactics for racists and/or those with weak logic)
- and use hyperbole / demonisation (tactics for those with weak logic, and racists when the hyperbole/demonisation only targets one race that is not theirs)

He still does it now, as you noticed, producing substanceless waffle.

But when people point it out to him - he calls them liars. I don't think anyone will ever change this about him. It's gone on for way too many years without an inkling of bending.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

Well, if everyone put him on Ignore, he'd have no one to peddle his twaddle to. Simple. Beautific. Easy!

4 Replies

The Derek Chauvin Trial

Quick Links

My Account

able2know