Ahmaud Arbery; racist killing and attempted cover up.

[MaxVel]

I must hereby end all association with you for fear of being PROVEN a racist!
I shall hang my head in shame and report immediately to the Multicultural Sensitivity Training Room.

I hereby renounce any and all previous and future associations, connections and commonalities with Cow Poke, including ones neither he nor I know about.

I hereby declare that I have never entertained a single thought about this 'Cow Poke', whoever or whatever he/she/it/pronoun of preference may be.

May the priests of the Great Aspersion Casting absolve me of any and all faults, including ones that I may have committed by failing to castigate myself sufficiently. So help me Post-Modernism.

[Cow Poke]

I hereby renounce any and all previous and future associations, connections and commonalities with Cow Poke, including ones neither he nor I know about.

I hereby declare that I have never entertained a single thought about this 'Cow Poke', whoever or whatever he/she/it/pronoun of preference may be.

May the priests of the Great Aspersion Casting absolve me of any and all faults, including ones that I may have committed by failing to castigate myself sufficiently. So help me Post-Modernism.

And this in NO WAY is intended to represent any real person, living, dead or otherwise, and is not valid in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and parts of Houston south of I-10, expires at midnight two days ago, no purchase necessary, must be 18 or over and wearing pants, apply inside, wearing a proper mask, and keeping social distancing, and having a temperature not the same as room temperature.

[oxmixmudd]

Perhaps your manner in "explaining things" was as screwy back then as it is now?

Not an unexpected response CP. You are what you are.

Perhaps you could try to lay down the sword and just look into the research on the issue?

[Cow Poke]

Not an unexpected response CP. You are what you are.

And, back to the hypocrisy, I see.

Perhaps you could try to lay down the sword and just look into the research on the issue?

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

That's exactly what I would expect from a closet racist!

Done with you again, Jim - please feel free to ignore my posts in the future.

[oxmixmudd]

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

That's exactly what I would expect from a closet racist!

You mockery just reveals you ignorance. Just as it did my friends in high school. As you know black holes are real and have been observed. So is culturally induced racism.

Maybe it's time to move on from childish and immature ignorance and actually try to understand rather than mock?

[Cow Poke]

You mockery...

Bye, Jim!

[oxmixmudd]

You've dodged the issue - your malicious claims about me. I don't care whatever else you have to say, you had the chance to make some attempt to support your vile slander. You haven't.

Trying to change the topic is not OK.



You throw out these accusations, aimed at people, but dressed up as general comments about 'posters'. That's cowardly.

You can't support your accusations about me, I've given you several opportunities to do so. But you haven't retracted them, or apologised, or made any concession that you might have got carried away.


You don't get to just pretend you didn't say what you did. You don't get to just walk away without addressing just how offensive what you said was.

You've lost my respect. You need to get help. You're acting in a pathetic, cowardly, and shameful way. It's not a pleasant sight.

Saying you are saying things indicative of culturally induced racism is not 'vile'. Saying that this thread is a good example of that is not 'vile' either. It's just what I'm observing. I don't think a person that does that is 'bad', they just a product of a culture. That culture itself is bad in that area, but the people in it insofar as its effect is invisible to them are as much its victims as those that are oppressed by it. And we would all do well to become instruments of change rather than perpetrators of the problem.

As a person that does not want to be racist, would it not be wise to at least consider the possibility there are elements of your thinking and actions that - through no fault of your own - have been inherited from a racist culture and thus are themselves racist even though you never realized it before?

[Mountain Man]

That is a very easy charge to make, and difficult to defend against - how do you show that you're not doing something that you don't know that you're doing?

Like I said, it's a classic kafkatrap, and ox has proven to be a master of it.

[oxmixmudd]

Bye, Jim!

Bye CP.

Here are links to links should you decide to begin to educate yourself on the problem:

A start would be to get an overview of the differences between institutional racism, covert racism and cultural racism:


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

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

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

It would then do you well to get a bit more familiar with the history of slavery and especially the period between the civil war and the civil rights movement of the '60s: way more than the below is required:

https://www.nps.gov/subjects/african...nstruction.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separa...%20Plessy%20v.

https://www.historyextra.com/period/...n-south-1920s/

https://www.google.com/search?safe=a...4dUDCAw&uact=5

Finally, you need to look carefully at what followed the civil rights movement, both in terms of the sexual revolution, Johnson's 'great society', actions by Nixon and the overall war on drugs that tended to have racially motivated overtones and so on. There is a lot to understand CP. A lot to know.

[Cow Poke]

Bye CP.

Here are links to a few papers on cultural racism should you decide to begin to educate yourself on the problem:...

You talk - I'll do.

Bye

[oxmixmudd]

You talk - I'll do.

Bye

How do you know I'm not doing CP? Because I don't brag about it on TWEB?

But I do applaud that you are 'doing'. You have a great deal more time for that than I likely do. so my efforts will likely never have the potential effect yours will.

[Cow Poke]

Like I said, it's a classic kafkatrap, and ox has proven to be a master of it.

Interesting - had not encountered that term in the past.

[Mountain Man]

Interesting - had not encountered that term in the past.

One very notable pathology is a form of argument that, reduced to essence, runs like this: “Your refusal to acknowledge that you are guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…} confirms that you are guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…}.” I’ve been presented with enough instances of this recently that I’ve decided that it needs a name. I call this general style of argument “kafkatrapping”, and the above the Model A kafkatrap. In this essay, I will show that the kafkatrap is a form of argument that is so fallacious and manipulative that those subjected to it are entitled to reject it based entirely on the form of the argument, without reference to whatever particular sin or thoughtcrime is being alleged. I will also attempt to show that kafkatrapping is so self-destructive to the causes that employ it that change activists should root it out of their own speech and thoughts.

My reference, of course, is to Franz Kafka’s “The Trial”, in which the protagonist Josef K. is accused of crimes the nature of which are never actually specified, and enmeshed in a process designed to degrade, humiliate, and destroy him whether or not he has in fact committed any crime at all. The only way out of the trap is for him to acquiesce in his own destruction; indeed, forcing him to that point of acquiescence and the collapse of his will to live as a free human being seems to be the only point of the process, if it has one at all.

This is almost exactly the way the kafkatrap operates in religious and political argument. Real crimes – actual transgressions against flesh-and-blood individuals – are generally not specified. The aim of the kafkatrap is to produce a kind of free-floating guilt in the subject, a conviction of sinfulness that can be manipulated by the operator to make the subject say and do things that are convenient to the operator’s personal, political, or religious goals. Ideally, the subject will then internalize these demands, and then become complicit in the kafkatrapping of others.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122

[Cow Poke]

One very notable pathology is a form of argument that, reduced to essence, runs like this: “Your refusal to acknowledge that you are guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…} confirms that you are guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…}.” I’ve been presented with enough instances of this recently that I’ve decided that it needs a name. I call this general style of argument “kafkatrapping”, and the above the Model A kafkatrap. In this essay, I will show that the kafkatrap is a form of argument that is so fallacious and manipulative that those subjected to it are entitled to reject it based entirely on the form of the argument, without reference to whatever particular sin or thoughtcrime is being alleged. I will also attempt to show that kafkatrapping is so self-destructive to the causes that employ it that change activists should root it out of their own speech and thoughts.

My reference, of course, is to Franz Kafka’s “The Trial”, in which the protagonist Josef K. is accused of crimes the nature of which are never actually specified, and enmeshed in a process designed to degrade, humiliate, and destroy him whether or not he has in fact committed any crime at all. The only way out of the trap is for him to acquiesce in his own destruction; indeed, forcing him to that point of acquiescence and the collapse of his will to live as a free human being seems to be the only point of the process, if it has one at all.

This is almost exactly the way the kafkatrap operates in religious and political argument. Real crimes – actual transgressions against flesh-and-blood individuals – are generally not specified. The aim of the kafkatrap is to produce a kind of free-floating guilt in the subject, a conviction of sinfulness that can be manipulated by the operator to make the subject say and do things that are convenient to the operator’s personal, political, or religious goals. Ideally, the subject will then internalize these demands, and then become complicit in the kafkatrapping of others.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122

Yup! Looked it up.

[Littlejoe]

It's my understanding that entering a property with intent to steal (i.e. then or at a later time) is a felony, which would then give legal grounds for a citizen's arrest.... i.e. detaining a person until law enforcement arrives. So it's possible that there were legal grounds for the McMichaels to arrest Arbery

It's a misdemeanor unless they know he actually stole something. So, that could be shaky grounds for trying to stop him and hold him for the police....even though when he seen in the house, he ran away at a fast run, not a jog.

It appears that Arbery hit or was hit by the side of the truck of the person who filmed the incident. Not by tye McMichaels. Because it was the side of the vehicle it seems unlikely that the driver hit Arbery, unless he turned close in front of him, trying to cut him off...? We don't seem to have any footage of that...

I guess this came from the videographer in his interview with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation? I don't know how we verify this one way or the other without footage but if he admitted it then it's probably true. If all they were trying to do was hold him until the police got there, most likely it was a blocking attempt where Arbery was cut off shortly and couldn't avoid it? I'm not sure that the Bryan knew the score or not. His interview is being held from the public. (As it probably should be) From what I've read, the Sr. McMichaels knew Arbery and had previously arrested him on a weapons charge and it's speculated that knew that he could possibly be armed which was why they were armed.