Rob's House

If I knew you and trusted that you had a legitimate interest in an honest debate I would be more inclined to take you up on your offer. As is, I have no desire to do so. If you had the authority to bind a major news network, the contract would be easy to enforce. With you, I don't even know who you are. Even if I could establish your real identity and had an enforceable contract it would still not be worth my time to enforce it. I'd have to file suit against you, confirm your location, and serve you with process, then drag you into court to try the case. Even if I go through all that and prevail, I still may not be able to collect, and even if I could it would likely not be worth the hassle. I'm sure you have no insurance policy that would pay, and I doubt you have assets that I could collect against without going through additional legal proceedings and jumping through hoops. If you could establish your identity and address to my satisfaction and provide your credit report, and were willing to sign a contract with provisions for sufficient financial penalties, costs, and attorney's fees in case of breach, as well as choice of law and venue stipulations, and were willing to post a bond for the amount of the agreed upon penalty, I may agree to let you come to me, sit down in person, and do a Joe Rogan style podcast. To be honest though, that's a lot of work on my part, and I'm not terribly inclined to go through all of that to help you with your project.

That's the new answer to everything. I could say concern for your safety when an intruder breaks into your house at night not only comes from a place of white privilege, it's a soft form of white supremacy and get wild approval from the social justice cult. I can't tell you how many white spinsters I know who would read that statement and think they'd been bestowed with profound insight.

I would decline for the same reason I would never do an interview with a major news outlet unless there was a contractual agreement to air the interview unedited in its entirety. Additionally, having the courage of your convictions doesn't protect you from the potential collateral consequences of expressing an unpopular opinion. Although I like to say it, the truth is not a complete defense. I've posted pretty much all the opinions I express on this board under my real name in other areas of the internet, but I'm increasingly less inclined to do so. I have that luxury of open expression because my job is mostly safe, but for many people, expressing an unpopular opinion is at best a career limiting exercise, and at worst, career suicide. That's true even if the opinion is well grounded and supported. I was once pulled aside by management at a previous job and made to explain criticisms of Obama I had made in a private conversation that was overheard and reported by a co-worker. The conversation did not even touch on anything remotely related to race. It was a discussion about economic policy, specifically with regard to the efficacy of stimulus spending. Nevertheless, it was 2008 and Obama was not to be criticized. (Curiously, I never got push back for criticizing stimulus spending under Bush or Trump). My opportunities in that department mysteriously diminished immediately after that incident. If you can be blackballed for privately expressing your views about fiscal and monetary policy, imagine the danger of expressing controversial opinions on racial issues, especially in this environment. I see people on FB, including well-educated professionals, bragging about eliminating friends and family from their lives simply because they refuse to accept Critical Social Justice theory. I know of a company that ceased doing business with a woman because of her "racist" posts. The fact that there was nothing inherently racist about any of her posts was irrelevant. They challenged the doctrine and that was enough. The environment out there is not one that's safe for challenging prevailing views. Even in my current situation I'm not going out into the world unfiltered, even though nothing I have to say could be considered racist by any rational definition. My job situation could change at some point and I'm already marginalized in my professional community for making the outlandish statement that destroying the property and livelihoods of innocent people isn't a reasonable form of protest. Rocking the boat could be detrimental to my ability to provide for my kids, regardless of the level of courage I have in my convictions.

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/cult-dynamics-wokeness/

Does anyone else I feel like you've mistaken me for a 12 year old in a chat room.

As much as I'd like to help you make your documentary, I'm a little busy this week. Your track record here leads me to believe you're a straight shooter with the utmost integrity and a genuine passion for honest debate in the pursuit of truth, so I wish you the best, but I'll have to pass.

You old guys aren't privy to all the new *****, but luckily you have me to fill you in. The short version is, if you refuse to believe that the greatest challenge faced by black Americans in 2020 is the crushing strain of racial oppression due to the pervasive racism of white people across the country, then you have de facto taken the position that racism isn't real. It necessarily follows that you are a racist who thinks minorities are sub-human, slavery was just misunderstood, and Schindler's List was the feel good comedy of 1993. It's some really deep *****. You have to have taken Racial Oppression 101: The Evil that White Men Do to really understand it all. PM me if you want the cliff notes.

I'd be happy to hear about it, but I'm retiring to PPP for any further discussion on the matter. Glad to hear that from Lorax though. It's always nice when a player you like turns out to be a good guy.

Now you're twisting words, another tell tale sign of one who has no argument. You're also reinforcing my position as your post implies that non-believers will be made to suffer if they do not submit to the oppressed minority theory of America. It is not sufficient to refrain from racist behavior yourself - you must believe lest you be condemned. If you're right, American minorities must be the most widely protected class of oppressed people in the history of the world.

It's necessarily implied by your statement You're shifting. That wasn't the point of anything either of us said. You weren't discussing Fromm in the portion of your post that I responded to with that. Still waiting for an example. If they are so plentiful I would expect you could source several with ease. You can't even type censored.com into a Facebook post. If I have time I'll try to find the survey, but it showed that almost half of black people did not find racism to be a major obstacle in their own lives. Words, words, and more words, yet you continue to say nothing. Notice that still, after all these posts, not one of you has countered with any substantive evidence to support your position. Hapless is the only one who has even attempted to put forth an argument. You've offered nothing, because you clearly have nothing to offer.

I think if you expect others to accept your position and act affirmatively in accordance with that position you have an obligation to support and quantify your claims. I don't personally know anyone who is oppressing any minorities so I'm at a loss for how to address the issue. Assuming you are facing significant systemic oppression imposed upon you by racist white people I would be open to hearing about it. If there's something within reason I can do to remedy the problem I'm happy to help. But I'm not going to blindly throw my support behind movements that appear to me to have ulterior motives without something a little more clear than the vague platitudes that dominate the discourse. And telling me that I can't understand because I'm not you so I just have to take your word for it isn't very persuasive.

I would find this more persuasive if we were discussing a serious comment made publicly. I don't think one has an obligation to extensively study the history of an issue so as to avoid any topic that may offend the sensibilities of any particular group before making an off the cuff joke in a private text message. I think such an expectation highlights the absurdity of the situation. I didn't raise this as a free speech issue because I don't think that applies, but I generally don't think much of that statement. By this definition every society in the history of the world has had the unfettered right of free speech. From Stalin's Soviet Union, to Hitler's Germany, to Mao's China, everyone has had the unfettered right to speak freely, provided they were willing to accept the consequences. Certainly your freedom of speech does not eliminate my freedom to respond, or judge your speech. However, if I respect the principle of free speech I will not seek out to destroy those who say things I find incorrect or offensive. I may choose not to interact or do business with that person, but you will not catch me organizing boycotts to threaten others into silence. I've never suggested otherwise. My thoughts on this turns on how strictly we're defining the term "obligation." I'd like to hear some clear cut examples of this, because I don't know of many. I do, on the other hand, know of many people who have lost their livelihoods and been subject to organized boycotts because of comments that were deemed offensive to an historically oppressed minority. I can't think of a single instance where the inverse has occurred, but if you have examples I'm happy to listen. Good. That's what I was suggesting should happen. If you read back through this thread there were many others who disagreed and thought he should be cut. Several media commentators agreed. And there is a good likelihood that this will follow him for the rest of his career. Perhaps it will become an afterthought, but that is certainly far from certain. I don't see how that undercuts any points I have made in this thread. You have thirty minutes, but make sure you clock out.

That's a cop out. But it's exactly what I expected from you. If you were a little more honest you would have said "I have faith and like attention." So what do you say for the nearly half of the black community that doesn't believe racism is a major obstacle in their lives? Do they lack reading comprehension and empathy? Do they need a woke white man to explain their oppression to them? Because THAT sounds like a profound example of white privilege. You say that, but how do you know? How could you possibly have first hand experience of both the black and white experience?

I notice that neither of you has attempted to make any argument addressing the points themselves. "OMG" and "white privilege" aren't arguments. We both know that neither of you can back up your positions or explain the inconsistencies that are inherent in them, but you could at least try. Be the Little Engine that could. If this is really the best you can do you may want to question why are you so certain? People who are clearly right don't usually struggle so mightily to explain themselves.

Are you black? If not, how do you know anything about this? What forms the basis of your opinion?

Interestingly, white people often have more insight into the opinions of other white people on these issues than minorities do. Also, the fact that you make such broad assumptions about my experiences and observations without knowing anything about me, much less having spent a day in my shoes, is ironic given the point you attempted to make, but no matter. Taking the word of the aggrieved minority in isolation is not necessarily reliable data. It is subject to all manner of flaws, not the least of which is cognitive bias. Even if one genuinely believes he is the victim of racism it doesn't necessarily make it so. I personally know of countless examples of people claiming racism where I know for a fact that it was not present. I know of countless others where other factors were equally or more likely to be the cause of that to which racism was being attributed. Usually the person making the claim believes it because that is consistent with how the world as they perceive it works. But their belief, no matter how sincere, is not dispositive. Blindly accepting racism as the primary cause of problems in the black community isn't enlightened, it isn't compassionate, and it isn't productive. It's irresponsible. It's also destructive to society at large as well as the black community itself. Anyone who has ever watched House knows that before you can treat the disease you must first diagnose it. If you get the wrong diagnosis you run the risk of killing the patient. This is true even if that diagnosis feels like a really virtuous one and the patient agrees with it. You're not doing the black community any favors by pandering to the segment that believes racism is their biggest obstacle. You're actually distracting from and stifling efforts to identify the root causes and possible solutions.

I don't think Fromm is responsible for the acts of his state, much less the historical acts that occurred decades before he was born, nor do I believe they impose any obligation upon him. As to judging what the world is like for black people today, I cannot say what their perception of the world they grew up in may be, but I don't accept the theory that white racism is the overwhelming burden we're told it is based on the word of some black people when the evidence I see suggests otherwise. It does seem odd that in a country where minorities are oppressed by the systemic racism of the majority, that the slightest hint of racism by a member of the majority brings the clear and present threat of professional and social destruction, while the inverse is far from the case.

I'm not assuming Fromm will be cut, but there are several people calling for it. Hopefully it doesn't happen. I'm not unsympathetic to the historical argument but I think it gets overused to justify a narrative about modern day America that cannot be supported by the world as it exists today. Had Fromm made a serious and unambiguous statement suggesting that only white people are responsible enough to own firearms I'd be more understanding of Tre's position. I still wouldn't support cutting him (I wouldn't support cutting any player of any color for a similar comment made privately) but I'd understand. I think anyone reading this statement that way is trying really hard to get there.

I don't use the term "reverse racist" and I already understand why you think White's behavior is justified. I just don't agree. If I'm speaking with precision, I cannot definitively say that Tre White is an absolute piece of *****. I don't know him personally. If I did I may find that, despite these actions, he has redeeming characteristics. It's an approach Tre may want to consider.

That's a dishonest characterization. People who know they are on solid footing don't resort to such tactics. I'm not ignoring that context at all. Quite the opposite. I think doing that to a guy when he's already taking exponentially greater heat than he otherwise would because of the current climate makes Tre's behavior even worse.

I hope you're right wrt Fromm. I have some issues with the movement, but they are better reserved to PPP. I just hate seeing people unfairly punished with consequences grossly disproportionate to the offense.

Not sure I follow. Are you saying the events of the last two weeks somehow makes Fromm's decision to send that message a year earlier worse, or that Tre gets a pass on account of having enflamed emotions?

I'm not sure that qualifies as a substantive response, but whatever, I'll play. Fromm was undoubtedly having one of the worst days of his life for the crime of making an ironic joke in a private text. Not only is his career potentially over before it begins, but he's now a social pariah who will be burdened by this for life. The text, given what context we saw and the "haha" indicates it was a tongue in cheek comment. Sure, it's possible he's a closet klansman, but that text does little to nothing to make the case. Giving Tre the benefit of the doubt that he has at least a room temperature IQ, he knew all of this. He also knew the effect his tweets would have. If the roles were reversed and Fromm did that as the established player while White was the late round rookie under scrutiny I'd say the exact same thing. One told a stupid joke in a private text with no reason to believe it would affect anyone. The other made a concerted effort to kick a guy when he's down, destroy his shot at a career, and further fuel the animosity against him. If Tre White has never told a mildly offensive joke in his life I may view his Twitter behavior in a different light, but I think the odds of that being true are roughly equivalent to the odds of Fromm being league MVP this season.

That's about what I thought. Thanks for sharing.

Still waiting for a substantive response.