Again, you have no ground whatsoever for calling me a racist other then you dislike what I have to say and therefore I am magically a racist in your eyes. For you, if anyone has anything seemingly negative to say about a people who are not their own, they are racist.

Again, people like you perpetuate the cycle. You might say, you are an enabler. Your no better then the black guy who flips out on the white guy for accidentally bumping into him screaming "its because I'm black isnt it!?". Your not Jesse Jackson, give it a rest.

You don't know how to say it any differently because your "philosophy" is crap.



It doesn't imply that you have the right, it only implies that you had control. Thanking you also does not imply this, it may imply gratitude, or that said control was not pleasant, but your "philosophy" still seems to be a stretch.

It's interesting that you didn't argue that you aren't an idiot.

I just ignore the name calling because its simply juvenile when brought into an argument. When you have run out of things to say except to purposefully insult someone, that is definitely saying something about the validity of anything you tried to say before hand.

Well, lets see, American ghetto's are made up mainly of black people and foreigners, is what I think Onimusha is trying to say. This isn't a racist statement.

How ever, this does not make some one disadvantaged, it simply puts them in lower economical and influential situation.

In other countries, the ghetto's are mainly made up of people of the other social statuses.

Of course there is a problem where loud obnoxious people of a certain skin color who seem to make big commotions and incite other people to make big shows. These people are actually being racist trying to gain priviledges, not equal rights.

I was more referring to a shared attitude then geographical location.

I pointed out a flaw in your logic, which you missed, and then went on a tirade of how I am "perpetuating the race war." I clarified my point, spelling out for you how you were being stupid. You still completely missed it. I pointed out that you didn't argue against it, which you now say is because I was being juvenile. This entire time you've been trying to argue against me, and only now have you actually acknowledged what I was even talking about.

It's not just name calling when the shoe fits.

What I meant by clarifying that I share similar thoughts with other racial groups is that no one can point and say that I am racist against blacks, such as you did. The point was to say I feel the same way about ANY race who holds the same attitude/sentiment about their disposition. Hispanic, oriental, etc etc. Even those white kids who have that same mentality, its all a destructive attitude to hold no matter the skin color.

There happy?

Where did I say that you were racist against just blacks?

Or racist in general. Do you make it a habit to knit pick to death anything anyone says to you? Jesus.

Some of your reactions to the smallest provocations are just fun. It makes pushing your buttons way too enticing. Props on the "perpetuating the race war" and the Jesse Jackson comment.

I would think you are racist if only because you are so eager to defend that you are not.

In colloquial speech, saying that one has the "right" to do something is sometimes meant to convey the same meaning as saying that one has the ability (or as you say, control) to do something, and I think that's how BobTheMasher meant it. Despite the fact that these two things (the right to do something vs. the ability [or control] to do it) are actually different, they are sometimes used interchangeably, and I think that if we interpret BobTheMasher's sentence the way he intended it to be interpreted (which is not difficult to do), it becomes evident that his point is valid (that giving permission implies that one had the capacity to give permission).

I believe that his other point is that thanking somebody for giving permission acknowledges and in some sense validates (or at least conveys acceptance, however begrudging) of the aforementioned capacity to give permission.

In general, I haven't really read this thread and what's being argued, but I have a pet peeve when debates go on not because there's more to discuss, but when each side is too aggressively trying to find holes in the other's arguments and rather than trying to discuss the message posted by the original poster, instead dissects the posts as literally as possible with no tolerance if the writing is not exact, causing either a perpetual misunderstanding in which the original poster is still arguing from his intended perspective and the responding poster is arguing from his or her own interpreted perspective, or a massive derailment from the actual, "big picture" matter at hand as both sides try to revise their writing and criticism in a futile effort to clarify the point they originally meant to convey. That is, it seems as if each side is trying as hard as it can to misinterpret the other's post and rebut it based on this misunderstanding, when it should be doing exactly the opposite -- trying to understand the real meaning or idea being communicated and debating the actual point being offered. The level of respect given to the person you're arguing with doesn't need to be zero. Cut the guy some slack; if he writes something incorrectly or doesn't articulate it in the greatest way but you know what he's TRYING to say, just take it as if he had written it correctly. If what's written is actually confusing or ambiguous, that's something else -- but it seems like most of the time it's not and people just like to nitpick to no end.

As you can see, this issue bothers me enough that I would write an uncharacteristically long and dry post about it.

Edit: In an attempt to pre-empt the situation I described above, I have edited certain words to better convey my meaning to careful readers of my post.

This is what I meant to say (not to SithGhost, but just as a general statement), but I was afraid that without articulating it in excruciating detail, my post would get nit-picked and the intended meaning forever lost.

You're missing half of what he said. Since you couldn't be bothered to read through a two page thread, I'll give you cliffnotes:





These imply that: when Group A oppresses Group B, it's wrong for Group A to say they are no longer oppressing Group B, because it confirms they were being oppressed. Which seems just completely backwards. That's not nit picking. Nit picking can be seen in one of my last posts to Onimusha, who claimed I was perpetuating the race war and felt the need to remind me that I wasn't Jesse Jackson.

BobTheMasher is a big boy. Only four of my posts were actually directed at him, the first of which was simply, "What?" As noble as it is for you to run in here to defend him, I think it was a little premature.

I am going to try taking the opposite approach this time and use bullet points instead of wall-of-text to see if it will yield better results

• The reason I did not read through the thread was because I don't actually wish to discuss what is being discussed nor do I have an opinion on it at the moment
• I am not trying to defend BobTheMasther; rather, I am using his posts and your responses as examples for my overarching point [and as an illustration of the type of comprehension I am encouraging]
• My overarching point is that the reason arguments like this always seem to pop up on Massassi is because of nitpicking, which inhibits the progression of actual, constructive discussion on something, and it is annoying
• This is not a complaint directed at you, as noted in my second post, but rather a general observation of the activity in the forums
• A secondary point is that through this nitpicking, many people are "missing the point" -- or rather, purposely argue about something that isn't the point
• I would say that your response to me is an illustration of this fact (you address my commentary on the subject matter of BobTheMasher's posts and this thread, and my 'defense' of him, rather than my major point as described above), but I do admit that I didn't preface my post and opened with my example, which could have been misleading as to the 'main point' of the post. As well, it was a long post, so it's understandable if one doesn't thoroughly read through it and/or bother to process the main idea. For short posts, though, (this was my third point), it is really not difficult to contemplate and comprehend the main idea.

I realize that by dissecting your bullet points you will take this as nit picking, further illustration of your point. However, I believe nit picking to be correcting somebody down to their spelling or to excruciating detail, details that don't make a difference, which this is not. Unless you concede that your bullet points are details that don't make a difference, in which case I will remove my comments accordingly, so as not to nit pick. This is an argument that your original post was, among other things, directed towards me, despite your post after it.



This is contradictory to the fact that your first post already attempted to discuss BobTheMasher's post in which you voiced an opinion on how it should be interpreted.



It seems strange then in an attempt to explain your point of nit picking, the focus of the first half of your post was explaining BobTheMasher. It would follow logically that if you are actually trying to point out nit picking, you would give details of that, and try to support that idea, which the first half of that long winded post does not. This is okay, if you reference that idea. However, you don't use it to illustrate anything. You mention it, and then put it aside. (You don't actually cite any examples of actual nitpicking--if anything, you just showed something you thought was nit picked, and tried to explain it.)

If then, it does not support your supposed aim of attacking nit picking, what is it but defending? And if you are defending, what is it but directed towards me?



This is true. However, this would make your including of BobTheMasher and myself in your example a bit premature since I did not nit pick him.



You pointed out a situation where I was the only other one in the argument, where you implied that nit picking had occurred. It is then contradictory to say that is not directed towards me, when you have implicitly said that I was nit picking. It further directs it towards me when I'm the only one in the example who supposedly nit picked, in the only example you gave.



Again, this makes the BobTheMasher and myself example a poor choice.



Odd, there was no nit picking in my post. Are you suggesting that simply arguing with you is nit picking? You could argue that I missed the point, but if I did, it had nothing to do with nit picking as it is not present in that particular post of mine. In which case, since you, by your own admittance, "don't actually wish to discuss anything being discussed," and because it had nothing to do with nit picking, you could have safely ignored it.

This is all disappointing, since, up to this point, my posts have been short, and the main ideas of which are not difficult to contemplate and comprehend.

Exactly this.
Why is mcdonalds creating more race separatism under the guise of equality?
What's next? Declaring the back of the bus the black seats?

No it's not; my take on how to interpret it was an example of how other people should think through something. It is an explanation of why you did not think through his post the way I describe later.



It's not strange, it's just sloppy writing because I was typing stream-of-consciousness and not an organized essay.

I understand how to construct and organize an essay, and already conceded in my previous post and again just now that it was sloppy writing. If anything, this is another example of you over-scrutinizing somebody's writing skills and over-interpreting in such a way that supports your point.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. The implication is clearly that you are nitpicking about the use of the word "right" (vs ability, or in your words, "control"). If the post was too long-winded for you, here it is in simpler terms:

"When people talk about having the right to do something, they sometimes use "right" and "ability" interchangeably when they actually mean having the ability to do something. In this case, BobTheMasher was clearly doing that, and it is fairly obvious." The implication, then, is that you knew that BobTheMasher meant "ability"/"control" but are nitpicking his choice of words to create another argument.

As aforementioned it does support my commentary on nitpicking.

As well, here is an example of me nitpicking you: A point does not necessarily need to defend or attack anything, or be directed towards anybody in specific. If my post did not in fact support my complaint about nitpicking, it regardless can stand without defending anything or anyone.

It was not premature (I am assuming you mean unwarranted), since you did indeed nitpick his choice of words and that has been my contention from the start.


It is not contradictory. You have an odd idea of what 'contradictory' means. The fact that you and Bob are the only ones in the argument and the fact I am making a post addressed to the community in general are not mutually exclusive. If I see a child running with scissors trip and stab himself and then tell the other children not to run with scissors, does it mean that I am directing a complaint at the stabbed child that he should not run with scissors? No, it means that I am using the shooter as a convenient example to convey a message to the general population. That is what has happened here. I came in this thread, I saw this happening. I was reminded of other instances in which it happened but found it easier to use this example than to find those other ones, since it was so readily available. The fact that I wrote "we" instead of "you" here:

should make it evident that I'm not trying to accuse you of anything, but rather trying to illustrate a situation in which "we" (somebody) do(es) think about a post properly instead of nitpicking.

Not to be presumptuous, but I think one thing that could have gotten you confused about whether or not my complaint was directed at you was the fact that I addressed you when I said "or, as you say, control". I did this because I quoted you and was referencing your quote and it would've been awkward to refer to you in third person ("Or, as SithGhost said, control").

No for aforementioned reasons



Again, you nitpicked his choice of words and if that was not obvious to you, either by your own contemplation or by reading my post, then I both apologize for my lack of clarity and your lack of self-reflection. From here onward, let it be clear that this is what I am talking about.

I haven't misunderstood any of your posts.


In case you (and yes, I am speaking to you directly now) felt that was too convoluted: My complaint was not "SithGhost, you are nitpicking everything and being an ***," but rather "People need to stop nitpicking everything and being asses. The argument between SithGhost and BobTheMasher is a good example."


Edit: For your benefit, here are examples using BobTheMasher and Oni as examples that illustrate my point that all nitpicking will do is drive an endless cycle of people trying to clarify details rather than progressing with the main argument

Also, not to nitpick, but nitpick is one word. Or a hyphenated word (nit-pick), but it hasn't been since 1966.

This post is separate from my previous posts and points and is actually directed at you and aims to discuss the content matter of this thread.




You are misinterpreting what he is saying. He is trying to say: When group A oppresses group B, it's wrong for group C to praise the leader of group A for declaring that group A is no longer oppressing group B, because by supporting that declaration, they are validating it, implying that the leader of group A had the ability ("right") to decide whether or not group B would be oppressed by group A (if you say that the fact that somebody did something is good, it is implied that that person in fact did that something and thus has the ability to do that something); this ability to decide whether or not group B would be oppressed by group A is contradictory to Bob's premise that all people are free (i.e. nobody is able to oppress anybody).

On the other hand, I don't necessarily agree with ---^, simply because the reality of the situation was that Lincoln DID have the ability in question and that as you mentioned, clearly, the enslaved were not free ==> Not all people were free.

Pommy gets it! Wow! And then he actually gave his own opinion on the matter, making possible further discussion of the actual point! It's a massassi miracle.

Competition from KFC.

Well if they have BlackDonalds, I want a JewDonalds.

none of the people in these pictures are fat

they be doin the 24 ghetto

I don't agree with your interpretation. I do agree with why you disagree. However, because you disagree, I must only be able to conclude that you are nitpicking.

I agree. The other day I was riding in this car with this Korean woman and I thought I was going to die the whole way, she was going 40 around blind corners on a road about 1.5 cars wide. And they have the nerve to complain about being stereotyped as bad drivers. ****ing slanteyes.

DOOT!

on the other hand McDonalds is a private company and can endorse whatever the hell they feel like... even if it is ridiculous.

365 black?

What about the extra quarter? This is so racist.

What about a leap year?

Yes, that would be the extra quarter.

Yo yo yo I be lovin dis

Sadly, I agree. I know that there are plenty of black people that are not bitter at all. Unfortunately, there are a lot that are. It seems that Black people care more about skin color now than White people do (I know this is not true 100% of the time, I am speaking on a personal level, the people I have contact with.)

My brother works Security at Universal Studios, and when he has to kick certain people out of the park, he gets "It's because I am black!" at least 4 or 5 times a night. It's like, "No, it's because you were breaking the RULES!"

I understand that they were slaves, but no blacks living in the US under the age of 50 were EVER slaves. And I have never owned a slave in my life. Why should I have to put up with the bitterness for something my ancestors did to someone else's ancestors? More than likely people neither of us have even met.

I have a lot of friends who are black, honestly I can tell they are black, and if someone asked me "Who is that again?" I'd probably say "you know, black kid, 5'8", kinda stocky", but it's not a racial thing, it's just descriptive and helpful when describing someone. If someone is cool, I don't care what color skin he/she has.

But I agree, there is a large number of blacks that instantly assume that all white people are racist, and that in itself is racist.

ITT: White people complain about how black people cause racism.

So you read the three or so posts that cover that and decided that's the entire thread?
And worse, through in a tired old "ITT" 'joke' just in case people might think you had some intellect.

All white people are racist. This exists as a natural consequence of all people being racist. People subconsciously accept the stereotyping and prejudices of their culture, even when those prejudices are applied to them.

Just to note a cool coincidence, "itt" is a word for "here" in Hungarian.

I like the ghetto workout video, btw, looks a lot like parkour training.

I don't think there's a person alive or who has lived that has never had one single racist thought. It's always been hilarious to me that if an asian or white culture were to do something like this black would be in an uproar over it pulling their racism card, etc. The same as if we had a "straight pride" day, every single gay person would take offense and protest most likely. I don't care what the excuse is (Oh we were slaves, yeah so what it was 200 years ago and now you're free, move on), it's a severe act of hypocrisy.

Either way



This.

that's the 1 day white people get

I remember reading or hearing (can't recall which) a question asked to a black guy about why he thought blacks deserved a month out of every year for Black History, and whites weren't allowed to have one single day of White Pride... He answered

"We've got 1 month. You guys get the other 11."

What a crock of ****.