I stopped abuse, but had to call a cop... I have mixed feelings about this.

[Zelenn]

So, I'm in a greyhound bus station and I am observing a little black boy being hit and yelled at by two women, presumably family. Knowing that I could not safely broach the issue without the women becoming hysterical and throwing the race card at me and fearing that I would be kicked off the bus for causing a scene, I resorted to alerting a black police officer to handle the matter.

 

Two officers are dealing with the issue as I type and I have mixed feelings about this. I stopped child abuse, but used the State to do it.

 

I'm glad I stopped the abuse, for now, I'm sure nothing will happen permanently, but was calling the State in my only option? How would you suggest a white male approach two black females and say, "Stop hitting your fucking kid, you soul destroying, violence edifying vermin!"

[prolix]

I don't understand how the race of the people in your situation have anything to do with the events. Maybe I am being over sensitive, heck, I know I am, but why bring up the race at all unless you are going to go on and make other cultural observations? Just something to think about, not calling you a racist or anything...

[Zelenn]

I'm not a racist, but with all the race baiting that happens in our culture, is it really so horrible that I would factor in the possibility of being race carded for addressing the issue?

[Three]

I think you did the right thing. That was a very honorable thing for you to do and that you should be very proud of yourself.

I wouldn't worry about the how you used state in that instance. I realize that's not an argument, but that's just what my get is telling me. 

 

[Zelenn]

And holy shit! Whaddaya know, the cop didnt do anything. And, bonus points, They're riding my bus... Its going to be a LONG 12 hours.

 

I am now forced to ask myself a very burning question.

 

Would my body be able to PHYSICALLY survive, the amount of pot, I would need to smoke to endure having a front row seat to this?

[Three]

Also, from my experience of intervening in a situation of child abuse perpetrated by a black woman, I was in fact accused of being a racist. 

"I think this might have something to do with my skin color", she said. 

So, I think your concern was probably valid, Zelenn.

[prolix]

I'm not a racist, but with all the race baiting that happens in our culture, is it really so horrible that I would factor in the possibility of being race carded for addressing the issue?

I didn't say anything was horrible. Also I went out of my way to say that I wasn't calling you a racist. I was simply asking a question. A question you didn't answer btw...

[Zelenn]

I didn't say anything was horrible. Also I went out of my way to say that I wasn't calling you a racist. I was simply asking a question. A question you didn't answer btw...

Im sorry. I thought you meant the question as a generality. I'll answer it now.

 

Why would I bring up race unless i intended to include further cultural observations?

 

No offense, but is this a real question? Assuming it is... Bringing up the race carding and mentioning the race in conjunction with the abuse IS mentioning a cultural observation.

[prolix]

Would my body be able to PHYSICALLY survive, the amount of pot, I would need to smoke to endure having a front row seat to this?

Yes, it would. Pot has a giant LD50. Also I would NOT smoke weed on greyhound, they will bust you super easy even if you smoke at a rest stop. I speak from experience. Also smoking weed to combat/counteract stress is not the ideal usage of that particular sacred herb according to many people. Again, just my experience.

 

Now although I do find the situation you describe very interesting, I was also struck by your assertion of race more than I was interested in this subject which I have considered many times before. I understand your concern that you may have race thrust into it by the other person., IE they "play the race card". I understand that and agree with Joel Patterson when he says, "I think your concern was probably valid, Zelenn"

 

That said I was struck by the importance race played in your setup non the less.  Could it have not been described as...

So, I'm in a greyhound bus station and I am observing a little boy being hit and yelled at by two women, presumably family. Knowing that I could not safely broach the issue without the women becoming hysterical and fearing that I would be kicked off the bus for causing a scene, I resorted to alerting a police officer to handle the matter.

Two officers are dealing with the issue as I type and I have mixed feelings about this. I stopped child abuse, but used the State to do it.

I'm glad I stopped the abuse, for now, I'm sure nothing will happen permanently, but was calling the State in my only option? How would you suggest I approach two  females and say, "Stop hitting your fucking kid, you soul destroying, violence edifying vermin!"

 

See if you typed that. I would have then commented on the last part. There are many varying things you could say to someone in this instance. I understand that what you typed is what you want to say, but come on guy, that is not what you would actually say. Which is why you said nothing. There is a way to confront people in this situation. It is not either "lash out in anger" or "do nothing and go smoke pot to chill out" as it appears you present it here. Do you recognize that there are some medium things you can say to somebody in that situation that could be less confrontational? Of course you do. So you have told us some of your reservations about confronting them. but do you have others? Is that something you want to explore? Maybe explore how and what you may ideally say to someone if you are in this situation, this unfortunate situation, that you find your self in now?

 

I mean, there is still time. You can go and be very nice to these ladies and still provide some good information to them in a non-confrontational way? A less confrontational way maybe? Even though, what you are doing is totally confrontational. Maybe the most important and most confrontational situation you can have besides violent combat...

No offense, but is this a real question?

Yes.

Why would I bring up race unless i intended to include further cultural observations?

No. That is not what I asked you. So you have yet to answer my question. Look, not that I deserve an answer, it is what it is. But I thought I would just point it out, as a matter of consideration to you, all the same...

[luxfelix]

If you can't confront them directly, and/or your explanation of their wrongdoings will fall upon deaf ears (even if the kid would probably understand), and authority figures don't do anything either, then maybe you could try subconscious influence?

 

Though there are pros and cons to these, some examples could be:

 

- If you have a way to play/hum/sing music, play something calming/classical in earshot of the aggressors (music without lyrics might be more effective). Even if the aggressors don't adjust their behavior and instead become annoyed with you, at least you've interrupted the child abuse; apologize and keep their attention with a story about how that music reminds you of good times or something (these days you can use Christmas tunes without it seeming too out of place) and ask them questions to make the cognitive dissonance in their minds apparent without directly stating it. The goal here is to use music's ability to affect their biology, and failing that, cool their tempers by distancing them in time and attention.

 

- You could politely interrupt to compliment them on their hair, eyes, clothing (whatever they seem to have spent the most effort on accentuating etc.) to disarm them by either causing them to be open to questions and later suggestions not to abuse, or again distancing their time and attention. If you're good with acting/accents, you can really hold their attention; if you can make them laugh, they'll be much less likely to return to abusing the child.

 

- This could be a bit offensive, but you could also pull out a five or ten dollar bill (without them seeing) and then interrupt them to ask them if they dropped it/if it is theirs... They'll either say no, and in exercising honesty throw off their time and attention to thoughts of morality, or they'll say yes and have to take time to put it in their wallet and/or look ridiculous abusing a child with money in their hand... in which case you can interrupt again and warn them that they might "drop" it again... 

 

- If you're with a group of friends, you can start up a conversation about the harms of child abuse in earshot of the aggressors (with friends who will back your move of course).

 

- Staring and maybe an *ahem* of disapproval (especially with a group) might work to delay or stop the abuse as well.

[dsayers]

I wouldn't worry about making use of the State to attempt to save a child from abuse. I've done that also and it doesn't bother me one bit. We live in a society where if you intervened directly, it could be spun into you were the aggressor.

 

It's a very difficult situation you've described. I want you to know that I realize this because one thing I wanted to point out might seem like I was indelicate about your circumstances. If you were to intervene directly, even just by way of speaking to the child directly as if the abusers weren't present, that demonstration of a contrast in what he's used to, could save him down the road. Like if you were to kneel down and talk to him at his level and just tell him that it's not okay for people to hit him, it could help him to not internalize or normalize the abuse.

[Zelenn]

Well, I guess Im not sure what you are saying then. I kind of feel like i need a decoder ring to translate your message.

 

It seems you're saying that I could have presented my thoughts in more "race neutral" wording. My only response is, "Yeah. But i didn't and i stated why and I think I had good reasons for considering the matter in such terms."

 

The pot comment was me being facetious. I dont do drugs.

 

Do you intend to reveal some of these "medium" things that can be said to two irrational, angry black women while speaking as a white male and stating, in no uncertain terms that the way they are behaving with their own child is inappropiate? I do not think that race is irrelevant here.

 

Yes, lets explore it. Please explain what ought to be said or done.

I think you did the right thing. That was a very honorable thing for you to do and that you should be very proud of yourself.

I wouldn't worry about the how you used state in that instance. I realize that's not an argument, but that's just what my get is telling me.

 

Misssed this in my first reading.

 

Thank you Sir.

[prolix]

So I got 10 negs and 0 comments on why. How is that productive or helpful?

 

[PGP]

Brainstorm answer: you could walk up to them with a notepad and say you are thinking of having children and you want the benefit of their experience on the best way to parent OR you are doing a survey on parenting. Random stuff like: why do black Americans hit their children so much? Are they racist against black kids?

[MysterionMuffles]

Oh man...you gotta use what's available to you I suppose. He's armed. You're not. Those women were more likely to listen to him than you because he was black and armed and in a position of "authority."

 

If you're white, I can see how it may have turned ugly if they placed the race card on you. good for you for stopping it in anyway you can. 

Sucks the cop didn't do anything, though...no surprise there.

[TheFreeMarketIsAnarchy]

It was definitely reasonable to be concerned  about getting the race card pulled. It sucks that that is the case though, this is what happens when we have media/culturally driven race divisions. It gives people a shield to hide behind so that they can disregard your perfectly justified criticism of them as being racially motivated. I mean as if it isn't an objectively awful thing to abuse your child! It's the same way feminists don't listen to any male criticism about their beliefs and actions because you know, we're just evil white men trying to preserve the patriarchy so they can just disregard our thoughts straight up. Convenient card to pull for people who have no interest in bettering themselves but oh so frustrating for those who simply want to make the world a more peaceful place. 

[luxfelix]

If you can't confront them directly, and/or your explanation of their wrongdoings will fall upon deaf ears (even if the kid would probably understand), and authority figures don't do anything either, then maybe you could try subconscious influence?

 

Though there are pros and cons to these, some examples could be:

 

- If you have a way to play/hum/sing music, play something calming/classical in earshot of the aggressors (music without lyrics might be more effective). Even if the aggressors don't adjust their behavior and instead become annoyed with you, at least you've interrupted the child abuse; apologize and keep their attention with a story about how that music reminds you of good times or something (these days you can use Christmas tunes without it seeming too out of place) and ask them questions to make the cognitive dissonance in their minds apparent without directly stating it. The goal here is to use music's ability to affect their biology, and failing that, cool their tempers by distancing them in time and attention.

 

- You could politely interrupt to compliment them on their hair, eyes, clothing (whatever they seem to have spent the most effort on accentuating etc.) to disarm them by either causing them to be open to questions and later suggestions not to abuse, or again distancing their time and attention. If you're good with acting/accents, you can really hold their attention; if you can make them laugh, they'll be much less likely to return to abusing the child.

 

- This could be a bit offensive, but you could also pull out a five or ten dollar bill (without them seeing) and then interrupt them to ask them if they dropped it/if it is theirs... They'll either say no, and in exercising honesty throw off their time and attention to thoughts of morality, or they'll say yes and have to take time to put it in their wallet and/or look ridiculous abusing a child with money in their hand... in which case you can interrupt again and warn them that they might "drop" it again... 

 

- If you're with a group of friends, you can start up a conversation about the harms of child abuse in earshot of the aggressors (with friends who will back your move of course).

 

- Staring and maybe an *ahem* of disapproval (especially with a group) might work to delay or stop the abuse as well.

 

I've striven to learn from others and take their constructive criticism and suggestions seriously. If my post broke the code of conduct and/or caused you distress, I sincerely apologize; that was not my intention. 

 

Please help me to understand what I did wrong to deserve the mark against my reputation so that I may course-correct my future conduct. 

[maieesa]

It was reasonable to be concerned about being called racist.  It would be a quick easy way to deflect, which they would immediately want to do, most likely.  The way I see it, you did the right thing.  Not only is it likely that they would attempt to turn the tables but that they would become physically violent with you. I do not feel this is a racist statement at all. You were observing them being violent. They are violent. I know that in the moment it is just so awful to see, that it is difficult to think of what to do. I praise you for doing what you did, and for opening this line of conversation around the issue. I would also have taken a moment to come down to one knee and speak to the little boy, as dsayers recommended.  And if I thought of it, I love the idea of pretending to take a survey.  Prolix, it is a racial situation, and we know the statistics show it.  But besides statistics and pravalent attitudes and practices, Zelenn was describing the situation exactly as it was. He did not put undue emphasis on that aspect of the situation.  Prolix, I do see the point that you are making, where the focus is most important is the little boy, of course.

[prolix]

He did not put undue emphasis on that aspect of the situation.  Prolix, I do see the point that you are making, where the focus is most important is the little boy, of course.

I agree, but I just found his emphasis to be peculiar, not wrong or anything like that. Certianly not undue, that would be racist. And yes, you got it, the emphasis or focus should be on treatment of children, not race. Now I was just saying that I thought he was setting up a further discussion on how different cultures treat childeren.

 

I guess to me it kinda struck me that he inserted (played?) the race card, by speculating that they would play the race card first. And the reason he pre-supposed that they could play the race card, in my opinion, is that he wanted to give himself an excuse for not saying something to the women.

 

Look, I don't pretend to say that he should or shouldn't confront the women hitting the kid. I don't think he needs to give an excuse. But it reads as an excuse to me. That is up to him looking at the situation. It is a personal decision you have to make for yourself and I do not intend to tell anyone what to do ever or judge them for doing/not doing something. I was simply very distracted by the role race played in his story. As I demonstrated, he could have told the story without race. It seems to me, that the only role race plays is to assuage his conflicting feelings about confronting the abusive women. Now either that is something to think about or it isn't. But it is just how it lands with me having been surrounded by a lot of racism in my own life. Sometimes it is very subtle and sometimes it is not there at all when it appears to be, I would not assume to know.

 

But I think it is a valid question worth asking. "Are our attitudes about race correct and fair?" I think that is a valid question to ask ourselves to a certain extent. Is you assuming that they would play the race card because they are black the same or similar to you assuming that someone is racist because they are white?

 

I am sorry, my ears poke up when I see extra emphasis on race. I tend to expect some other valid observations coming after. I asked about this and he immediately reinterpreted what I said to be the complete opposite of what I said. And then after that he restated his original comments in regards to my curiosity. Look, he brought it here for a reason, he wanted our thoughts, unless they could be re-interpreted as critical and dismissed without consideration apparently...

[Zelenn]

So, the thread appears to by dying, but before the embers go out I must ask, "Why did my posts get negs?" I secretly suspect the negs come from Prolix, though they may not, as the neg'ed posts follow our interactions. Trying real hard to maintain a good reputation and given my early post count and neutral reputation, even a small amount of negs could be a killing blow.

 

I won't ask anyone to change their vote if they feel I have earned it, but I would like an explanation as to why my posts get negs or have offended. Perhaps in a PM.

 

Thank you.

 

 

Luxfelix, like your suggestions.

 

Of course, now I palpably feel that, had I a stronger emotional bearing, I might have interacted with the child thus doing some real good for the boy, instead of merely alerting a useless cop and watching the train wreck.

 

So, I do feel a bit guilty now, for not having the "intestinal fortitude" to take action that might have actually helped.

 

I wonder, is this an example of... dare I say it... cowardice?

[Zelenn]

Wow. Prolix, are you TRYING to be antagonistic?

 

We've been through this, guy.

I wouldn't worry about making use of the State to attempt to save a child from abuse. I've done that also and it doesn't bother me one bit. We live in a society where if you intervened directly, it could be spun into you were the aggressor.

 

It's a very difficult situation you've described. I want you to know that I realize this because one thing I wanted to point out might seem like I was indelicate about your circumstances. If you were to intervene directly, even just by way of speaking to the child directly as if the abusers weren't present, that demonstration of a contrast in what he's used to, could save him down the road. Like if you were to kneel down and talk to him at his level and just tell him that it's not okay for people to hit him, it could help him to not internalize or normalize the abuse.

Thank you for addressing my core concern which was NOT race, although I tip my hat to Prolix for distracting the entire thread with that, but whether it is ethical to ask the State to use aggression to intervene in abuse.

 

And, I wish I hadn't been so paralyzed by my feelings of revulsion that I could have at least interacted with the boy.

 

I feel like I let the boy down with my personal inaction.

 

I suppose that's my question really. Looking at my actions, it seems that I used the cop as a substitute for taking personal action. Kind of like using the State to help the poor instead of buying a beggar a meal myself.

 

So, I ask myself, was using the cop a means of transferring responsibility? Did I have any responsibility? Given the possibility of "race carding" was any other option open to me? And if it was, how can I recognize it so that next time I am in a similar situation, I can take action immediately?

 

Training, training, training.

 

Always training.

[shirgall]

I guess to me it kinda struck me that he inserted (played?) the race card, by speculating that they would play the race card first. And the reason he pre-supposed that they could play the race card, in my opinion, is that he wanted to give himself an excuse for not saying something to the women.

 

You are constructing a vast edifice that could easily be explained by something as simple as reaction formation. We've been trained by shakedown artists like Jesse Jackson to take race into account, because they will if we don't.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_formation

[prolix]

1. You are constructing a vast edifice that could easily be explained by something as simple as reaction formation. 2. We've been trained by shakedown artists like Jesse Jackson to take race into account, because they will if we don't.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_formation

 

1. I don't think so. If  "reaction formation" can explain anything here to me, I fail to see how from your post.  I am "constructing a vast edifice"? Because I thought I was just explaining how I feel.

 

 

 2.  Who is this "we"? I don't feel that the "we" you describe describes me.

[shirgall]

If you have not been trained to be sensitive to race in your relations with others, you are a very lucky person. As a manager and a businessman I avoid angering people.

[prolix]

If you have not been trained to be sensitive to race in your relations with others, you are a very lucky person. As a manager and a businessman I avoid angering people.

I don't know what any of that means. Sorry, it could just be me...

Wow. Prolix, are you TRYING to be antagonistic?

 

We've been through this, guy.

I am not. But you are continually casting me as that. So I must counter-ask, "do you want me to be antagonistic?" I ask because that is how you clearly mis-interepreted my first post, And arguablly they way you choose to interpret my subsequent posts. Again, that is not my intention.

 

You say "we have been through this" But I don't see any definite end of the conversation. Except for your reference to it in past tense here.

 

I asked you "Is you assuming that they would play the race card because they are black the same or similar to you assuming that someone is racist because they are white?"

 

I don't deserve an answer or anything. But I do not think we have "been through it". Mostly because, as you admit, you view it as antagonistic. Despite my every attempt to stress that it is not intended as antagonistic to me...

[shirgall]

I don't know what any of that means. Sorry, it could just be me...

 

I'm going to overlook the argument from ignorance and explain myself in more detail.

 

It means I have to take race into account with my actions and words because they could be perceived as offensive, even if I never intend offense and even if I do not otherwise care what race or gender someone is. The whole point of calling out race and gender in the original post was because that person was afraid of the reaction that person would have to a personal intervention because of race and gender!

 

This is exactly opposite of what race and gender "relations" people say they want, but it is what they get because of their historical actions. Welcome to the law of unintended consequences. It is the outraged offended reactions of people who feel discriminated against, even when they weren't discriminated against, that creates reaction formation as a defense mechanism.

 

The reason you were asked not to antagonize people on the race issue is because this explanation has been given--in various formulations--repeatedly in this thread. It genuinely pains people to have it brought up again, because, frankly, people are ashamed that they have to do these things to avoid conflict over race and gender.

 

That's the bottom line. The easily offended, and those that excel at acting offended, have exactly what they want: deferral to their sensitivity to the point that they personally gain from interactions.

 

Now the entire thread has been derailed from a discussion of child abuse to a discussion of race relations. I would have preferred to talk about the intervention, because I am not brave enough to do it, and instead we have created a paragon example of bikesheding.

[Zelenn]

I don't know what any of that means. Sorry, it could just be me...

I am not. But you are continually casting me as that. So I must counter-ask, "do you want me to be antagonistic?" I ask because that is how you clearly mis-interepreted my first post, And arguablly they way you choose to interpret my subsequent posts. Again, that is not my intention.

 

You say "we have been through this" But I don't see any definite end of the conversation. Except for your reference to it in past tense here.

 

I asked you "Is you assuming that they would play the race card because they are black the same or similar to you assuming that someone is racist because they are white?"

 

I don't deserve an answer or anything. But I do not think we have "been through it". Mostly because, as you admit, you view it as antagonistic. Despite my every attempt to stress that it is not intended as antagonistic to me...

...

... ....

What? So much verbiage. So little said.

 

Alright. I'm calling it. Dude, you are trolling. Its killing this thread and I want you to stop. Now. I am trying trying to discuss real shit here and I will not tolerate juvenile questions like, " Do you want me to be antagonistic?"

 

The answer to that riddle is, "No. Now contribute meaningfully to the discussion or get out."

[prolix]

...

... ....

What? So much verbiage. So little said.

 

Alright. I'm calling it. Dude, you are trolling. Its killing this thread and I want you to stop. Now. I am trying trying to discuss real shit here and I will not tolerate juvenile questions like, " Do you want me to be antagonistic?"

 

The answer to that riddle is, "No. Now contribute meaningfully to the discussion or get out."

Ok, now I think you are being overtly antagonistic.  Is it not appropriate for me to ask that? When someone says to me "What? So much verbiage. So little said." I don't exactly feel as though they have read and considered my post. which is fine. Just telling you how it lands with me.

 

I asked you "Is you assuming that they would play the race card because they are black the same or similar to you assuming that someone is racist because they are white?"

 

I don't deserve an answer or anything. But I do not think we have "been through it". Mostly because, as you admit, you view it as antagonistic. Despite my every attempt to stress that it is not intended as antagonistic to me.

 

Ok, here we go. time to be direct and antagonistic. I guess. You didn't stop any abuse, you wanted to and you were conflicted. but your own prejudices, that were of a racial manner, prevented you from acting. Now when I bring up the racial aspect, you say I am derailing. but you are the one that put race at the center of your scenario and introduced it as a reason why you would not intervene. So I really do not understand why it is so difficult for you to talk about a prominent aspect of a scenario that you brought up....

[Zelenn]

Ok, now I think you are being overtly antagonistic.  Is it not appropriate for me to ask that? When someone says to me "What? So much verbiage. So little said." I don't exactly feel as though they have read and considered my post. which is fine. Just telling you how it lands with me.

 

I asked you "Is you assuming that they would play the race card because they are black the same or similar to you assuming that someone is racist because they are white?"

I don't deserve an answer or anything. But I do not think we have "been through it". Mostly because, as you admit, you view it as antagonistic. Despite my every attempt to stress that it is not intended as antagonistic to me.

 

Ok, here we go. time to be direct and antagonistic. I guess. You didn't stop any abuse, you wanted to and you were conflicted. but your own prejudices, that were of a racial manner, prevented you from acting. Now when I bring up the racial aspect, you say I am derailing. but you are the one that put race at the center of your scenario and introduced it as a reason why you would not intervene. So I really do not understand why it is so difficult for you to talk about a prominent aspect of a scenario that you brought up....

Prolix, all you did was repeat your previous comments. You've added nothing new and it was YOU, not I, that made this about race. You're trolling and everytime I interact with you, my reputation takes a hit because younkeep giving my posts neg votes with out just cause.

 

This has been my last warning. This is my ultimatum: Get out of my thread. Now. Don't respond. Just leave. If you refuse, this issue will be brought to the attention of a moderator. And un-neg my posts on your way out.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

Do you have similar mixed feelings about using the roads and spending Federal Reserve notes as currency?

[prolix]

I'm going to overlook the argument from ignorance and explain myself in more detail.

 

It means I have to take race into account with my actions and words because they could be perceived as offensive, even if I never intend offense and even if I do not otherwise care what race or gender someone is. The whole point of calling out race and gender in the original post was because that person was afraid of the reaction that person would have to a personal intervention because of race and gender!

 

This is exactly opposite of what race and gender "relations" people say they want, but it is what they get because of their historical actions. Welcome to the law of unintended consequences. It is the outraged offended reactions of people who feel discriminated against, even when they weren't discriminated against, that creates reaction formation as a defense mechanism.

 

The reason you were asked not to antagonize people on the race issue is because this explanation has been given--in various formulations--repeatedly in this thread. It genuinely pains people to have it brought up again, because, frankly, people are ashamed that they have to do these things to avoid conflict over race and gender.

 

That's the bottom line. The easily offended, and those that excel at acting offended, have exactly what they want: deferral to their sensitivity to the point that they personally gain from interactions.

 

Now the entire thread has been derailed from a discussion of child abuse to a discussion of race relations. I would have preferred to talk about the intervention, because I am not brave enough to do it, and instead we have created a paragon example of bikesheding.

I just don't get it....

[prolix]

The reason you were asked not to antagonize people on the race issue is because this explanation has been given--in various formulations--repeatedly in this thread.

If you can quote me being antagonistic that would be helpful. also if you could quote where I have been given an answer to my question, that would also be helpful. Because every time you try to quote me being antagonistic I can quote a nearby sentence explaining how it is not. And for every answer you post to my various inquiries, I can post a blatant avoidance of my question or a blatant misinterpretation of my question. I have yet to see any evidence for what you claim here sir...

[prolix]

Prolix, all you did was repeat your previous comments. You've added nothing new and it was YOU, not I, that made this about race.

You mentioned race 20 times in your original post. And one of the main points was your reluctance to intervene because of race. You are not making a lot of sense to me here...

[Zelenn]

Do you have similar mixed feelings about using the roads and spending Federal Reserve notes as currency?

Hmmm... No, I can't say I do. Not that I have much of a choice on those things. Better alternatives might exist, but we won't see it so long as the State is around.

 

Oh, is that your point maybe? That currently there's not much of an option?

 

I'm going to overlook the argument from ignorance and explain myself in more detail.

 

It means I have to take race into account with my actions and words because they could be perceived as offensive, even if I never intend offense and even if I do not otherwise care what race or gender someone is. The whole point of calling out race and gender in the original post was because that person was afraid of the reaction that person would have to a personal intervention because of race and gender!

 

This is exactly opposite of what race and gender "relations" people say they want, but it is what they get because of their historical actions. Welcome to the law of unintended consequences. It is the outraged offended reactions of people who feel discriminated against, even when they weren't discriminated against, that creates reaction formation as a defense mechanism.

 

The reason you were asked not to antagonize people on the race issue is because this explanation has been given--in various formulations--repeatedly in this thread. It genuinely pains people to have it brought up again, because, frankly, people are ashamed that they have to do these things to avoid conflict over race and gender.

 

That's the bottom line. The easily offended, and those that excel at acting offended, have exactly what they want: deferral to their sensitivity to the point that they personally gain from interactions.

 

Now the entire thread has been derailed from a discussion of child abuse to a discussion of race relations. I would have preferred to talk about the intervention, because I am not brave enough to do it, and instead we have created a paragon example of bikesheding.

^^^ This guy^^^ says what I think much more eloquently than I can. And he's much nicer about it. I'm kind of... A dick.

 

Thank you, Sir.

 

Now please, for Hells sake, can we talk about the abuse and what calling the state means. Can we delete Prolix's posts, undo his neg votes, mostly for the sake of my ever decreasing reputation from his exchanges, and let's get back on topic?

 

It'd be much appreciated.

[J. D. Stembal]

Negative 40 reputation should be a signal to everyone not to read a member's posts. I only read what other members have quoted. Stop engaging and the troll will go away.