Todays tip in not making fools of ourselves: slander

Joe recently met Fred. And Fred is a racist white supremacist. Joe was appalled in his first interactions with Fred, the words and thoughts he expressed were like they were strait out of the Jim Crow South.

Yesterday a reporter asked Joe, what he thought of Fred. Joe was blunt, candid and to the point "Fred is a racist white supremacist".

On a blog a few hours later it merely showed a link saying "Joe was slandering Fred".

The rational observer weighted in and defended him, no he was answering a question honestly based on evidence. Joe is a good smart guy. Back off.

After the blog though, Joe decided he needed to warn his community of the dangers of Fred. So he went to a message board and described the events that took place, the evidence and quoted as many of the horrible words that Fred said he could remember.

On that old blog there were new post with stronger claims Joe was slandering Fred and offering a few bits of contradictory accounts of the events.

Joe response: “Gully fluff” look at what the rational observer said last time that's "false news" same as last time.

On this exchange though the rational observer weighted in and didn’t defend him: Joe was making an un-proked assertion that “Fred is a racist white supremacist” and he needs to defend the reading of the evidence if he is going to claim he beats the negative response. When you make a positive assertion your calling on objective not subjective evidence. Both could be true with specific analysis of individual logic but only the objective facts decide who is honest and who is fake.

Joe response: defending my logic is redundant I gave an honest case, with honest evidence, he clearly just trying to slander me.

The blog meanwhile acknowledges although “Joe believe the events” and accepts the validity of Joe’s evidence. He is choosing not to see it in the context which framed those arguments. Fred was responding to hyperbolic terms with hyperbolic terms. Fred beliefs outside that are consistent with the principles which reject racism and white supremacy. That those comments are isolated and not part of a larger body of evidence further speak to why Joe is "fake news".

Joe response: "more delusion by a slander calling the kettle black"

Joe was later considered a slanderer and bigot by most for his hate attacks on groups who he "disagreed" with. He become what he rallied against.

The moral of the story: embrace "racist white supremacists" (is that not redundant?). Or, at least, don't oppose and expose them.

Brought to you by the Blacks are Bad Foundation.




:lamo

ecofarm said:

The moral of the story: embrace "racist white supremacists" (is that not redundant?). Or, at least, don't oppose and expose them.

Brought to you by the Blacks are Bad Foundation.




:lamo

Click to expand...

Haha I suppose you could take it that way. To those that do. A warning: this story taken with hatred may well make you look even a little more foolish in such hatred.

Conaeolos said:

Haha I suppose you could take it that way. To those that do. A warning: this story taken with hatred may well make you look even a little more foolish in such hatred.

Click to expand...

Hatred of what?

Perhaps Fred is a racist. Does that mean he can't also be a generally good guy? What if he volunteers every week at the soup kitchen, helps out at the old folks home, and coaches youth baseball...even the black kids that he doesn't like very much?

OP does. Not describe slander.

I shrug off racists like I do rain drops on my eye glasses.

And I have seen many of all skin pigments.

ecofarm said:

Hatred of what?

Click to expand...

Doesn’t matter. When we read emotion into a neutral statement.The statement doesn’t change only your perception of the statement changes.

I still think your insight is clever.

KevinKohler said:

OP does. Not describe slander.

Click to expand...

As a legal term, no. The story leaves out the example of legal slander on purpose. it muddy the water. The title is not is not in reference to the detail of the story I was using as an example, being racist or not racist, rather how the objective lens doesn’t deal in absolutes only neutral obersvations.

The claim is relative to its context. And even though in one context we can easily be good faith. Good faith requires humility when that good faith context change our objective measure of its value changes with it.

Lutherf said:

Perhaps Fred is a racist.

Click to expand...

Sure. I never defined any terms on purpose. This was intend based on title to be about how objective evalution changes based on context.

Lutherf said:

Perhaps Fred is a racist. Does that mean he can't also be a generally good guy? What if he volunteers every week at the soup kitchen, helps out at the old folks home, and coaches youth baseball...even the black kids that he doesn't like very much?

Click to expand...

wtf

haha

Conaeolos said:

Doesn’t matter. When we read emotion into a neutral statement.The statement doesn’t change only your perception of the statement changes.

I still think your insight is clever.

Click to expand...

Since you have no idea what hate, perhaps my reading is not based in hate. Perhaps your story is just a lame attempt to apologize for racists and dissuade others from acting against them.

ecofarm said:

Since you have no idea what hate, perhaps my reading is not based in hate. Perhaps your story is just a lame attempt to apologize for racists and dissuade others from acting against them.

Click to expand...

I meant the people you refer not you. That is, the racists reading it to confirm their bigoted beliefs. My guess is your reading comes from the principles of critical theory not hatred.

Your assumption I am a racist for choosing that as my example is a silly one. I obviously could use any example. I choose “racist” since it more universally agreed to be negative.And since I doubt we have many racists here on debate politics, I am still confident it is a good choice.

Conaeolos said:

And since I doubt we have many racists here on debate politics, I am still confident it is a good choice.

Click to expand...

How many is 'many'? We've plenty. So many, in fact, it's a reasonable guess that such an OP is intended as I supposed.

But you're new, so I can understand you wouldn't expect an OP intended to excuse, apologize for and even support racism is common place.

ecofarm said:

How many is 'many’? We've plenty. So many, in fact, it's a reasonable guess that such an OP is intended as I supposed.

Click to expand...

I’d assume almost none. To think more is scary thought unproven enough to not take too seriously although no doubt an ever present possiblity.

But you're new, so I can understand you wouldn't expect an OP intended to excuse, apologize for and even support racism is common place.

Click to expand...

It never occurred to me till your reply. I like to believe we’re past that phase, but there are many bigoted beliefs so I’m never too surprised when I come across an authentic case. I also never encountered as much as when I was in Florida for whatever that means but then I do live in rich and educated circles, which I am told are a tad sheltered, so I suppose I only run into most of it by happenstance.

I do respect your warning, but the claims verses reality have rarely matched in my experience. I think most cases come back to old wounds can take awhile to heal and people love to play on the emotional buttons of others. As they say, who ever cares the most has lost control. An odd fascination this control in our society.

*pop corn*

Conaeolos said:

I’d assume almost none. To think more is scary thought unproven enough to not take too seriously although no doubt an ever present possiblity.


It never occurred to me till your reply. I like to believe we’re past that phase, but there are many bigoted beliefs so I’m never too surprised when I come across an authentic case. I also never encountered as much as when I was in Florida for whatever that means but then I do live in rich and educated circles, which I am told are a tad sheltered, so I suppose I only run into most of it by happenstance.

I do respect your warning, but the claims verses reality have rarely matched in my experience. I think most cases come back to old wounds can take awhile to heal and people love to play on the emotional buttons of others. As they say, who ever cares the most has lost control. An odd fascination this control in our society.

Click to expand...

hang around and read

also old wounds? huh? race is not a button any sane person would push just for an emotional response as it displays what is thought/felt (reality)

_Sal said:

Also old wounds? huh? race is not a button any sane person would push just for an emotional response as it displays what is thought/felt (reality)

Click to expand...

If I am joking with my friend, and I make a racist joke in a jest or he does to me. It's in good fun as that is how it is understand and how it is motivated. I certainly understand if one is analyzing that event might say that is racist but to then to infer from that I or he are racist is devoid of the context and not an accurate reflection of reality. Agreed?

Sane peope use emotional triggers to win arguments all the time.

also old wounds?

Click to expand...

Yes racism had a big impact in the united states for a long time. There are lingering consquences I refer to those as old wounds.

Conaeolos said:

If I am joking with my friend, and I make a racist joke in a jest or he does to me. It's in good fun as that is how it is understand and how it is motivated. I certainly understand if one is analyzing that event might say that is racist but to then to infer from that I or he are racist is devoid of the context and not an accurate reflection of reality. Agreed?

Click to expand...

no, I don't "agree"

DP is a forum with world wide participants, you are not amoungst friends...in fact for some reason you came in assumptive saying racism is dead and that there were no racists here at DP

you were told by another poster that you were wrong

instead of listening you stated why you were right...I attempted to assist you in viewing things from a different perspective...you are resisting...fine...but you are still wrong

Sane peope use emotional triggers to win arguments all the time.

Click to expand...

really, you think using a race trigger on another poster will win you the debate?

Yes racism had a big impact in the united states for a long time. There are lingering consquences I refer to those as old wounds.

Click to expand...

race had a big impact?

well yeah slavery: loss of freedom, torture, kidnapping, holding another against their will, using them to gain monetary advantage, raping them, whipping them no right for self determination...yup...it had a big impact for a long time

for a long time?

they should get over it because it's an old wound?

_Sal

You may want to reread my original comment.

Conaeolos said:

I’d assume almost none. To think more is scary thought unproven enough to not take too seriously although no doubt an ever present possiblity.


It never occurred to me till your reply. I like to believe we’re past that phase, but there are many bigoted beliefs so I’m never too surprised when I come across an authentic case. I also never encountered as much as when I was in Florida for whatever that means but then I do live in rich and educated circles, which I am told are a tad sheltered, so I suppose I only run into most of it by happenstance.

I do respect your warning, but the claims verses reality have rarely matched in my experience. I think most cases come back to old wounds can take awhile to heal and people love to play on the emotional buttons of others. As they say, who ever cares the most has lost control. An odd fascination this control in our society.

Click to expand...

_Sal said:

really, you think using a race trigger on another poster will win you the debate?

Click to expand...

I think there are rational people who believe it does yes. Personally, no.

they should get over it because it's an old wound?

Click to expand...

As my assertion is "we are past that" then yes wounds tend to heal with time but no I do not think someone has to “get over it”. I in fact expect them not to be hence I use the word wounds. Meaning I think resentment and sensitivity about it is real and has merit.

Conaeolos said:

_Sal

You may want to reread my original comment.




I think there are rational people who believe it does yes. Personally, no.

Click to expand...

okay, fair enough because it doesn't so we both agree

As my assertion is "we are past that" then yes wounds tend to heal with time but no I do not think someone has to “get over it”. I in fact expect them not to be hence I use the word wounds. Meaning I think resentment and sensitivity about it is real and has merit.

Click to expand...

perfect eace