Groups you can't criticize

[Symmetry]

Michael Scott really was one of the greatest television characters I've seen. God, he played him so well.

I actually think Michael Scott was Retarded... which is why he was also funny.

I always took it as thoroughly self-absorbed, rather than actually stupid.

Not half as funny as David Brent played by Ricky Gervais in the original series of the Office..check it out on youtube..

I never watched the second, US version of The Office. Well, I watched one episode and was disappointed at the low caliber of humor in comparison. The original UK version was/is excellent.

The US Office gets better as it gets away from aping the UK version. It became its own show.

Also, anything involving Creed.

[john9blue]

premise 1: blacks murder more people on average than whites
premise 2: murdering an abnormally large amount of people is worthy of criticism
premise 3: groups of people can be criticized if their collective actions are worthy of criticism

conclusion: blacks are worthy of criticism for their high murder rate

Disregarding the fact that your argument can be ripped to shreds when pressed, yes, it appears as though BBS's statement needs some revision lol.

go ahead and try to rip it to shreds. which premise do you disagree with?

Here's the positivist argument: See premise 1. You're omitting relevant variables. In other words, skin color alone does not explain the phenomenon. "But by 'blacks' I mean ____." [Insert problems associating with defining a race, which render conversations fitted into race useless]. Therefore, a criticism against blacks misses the point (which is why I won't support it).

Here's the normative argument: We shouldn't lump people into homogenous groups based on skin color, etc. because it creates adverse outcomes such as appealing to people's cognitive bias, thus reinforcing racism.

it seems to me that you take issue with premise 2, then.

it's not only the act of murder that we should be criticizing, but also the factors that led to the murder. for example, if there is a child who is relentlessly bullied and finally goes on a shooting spree at his school, the bullies should be criticized as well as the child. similarly, if blacks murder more people due to their disadvantageous socioeconomic standing (on average) due to past institutionalized racism, then that is a factor which must also be criticized (i don't personally think this is a very large factor, but you get the idea)

this doesn't invalidate my argument, but it does introduce additional problems that require additional solutions.

[john9blue]

also, obligatory "british comedy sucks"

i've never watched the british office, but i strongly suspect it's not as funny as the US version.

[Woodruff]

also, obligatory "british comedy sucks"

Egad! Troglodyte!

Black Adder and Red Dwarf may be my favorite comedies ever.

[Funkyterrance]

also, obligatory "british comedy sucks"

i've never watched the british office, but i strongly suspect it's not as funny as the US version.

Well, your suspicions are unwarranted. The US version is the poor man's version of the UK show and Steve Carell is a no-talent ass-clown. Imho, that is.

[john9blue]

Steve Carell is a no-talent ass-clown

you shut your whore mouth!

[Phatscotty]

president's who did not serve in the military...

[Funkyterrance]

Steve Carell is a no-talent ass-clown

you shut your whore mouth!

Have I found the one subject that will get john to lose his cool? That was way too easy.

[Woodruff]

president's who did not serve in the military...

And for Obama's primary opponent? What uniform does he wear, Phatscotty?

The only candidate who is a veteran is Gary Johnson's Vice President, Jim Gray. There you go, you've got yet another reason to vote for Gary Johnson!

[BigBallinStalin]

premise 1: blacks murder more people on average than whites
premise 2: murdering an abnormally large amount of people is worthy of criticism
premise 3: groups of people can be criticized if their collective actions are worthy of criticism

conclusion: blacks are worthy of criticism for their high murder rate

Disregarding the fact that your argument can be ripped to shreds when pressed, yes, it appears as though BBS's statement needs some revision lol.

go ahead and try to rip it to shreds. which premise do you disagree with?

Here's the positivist argument: See premise 1. You're omitting relevant variables. In other words, skin color alone does not explain the phenomenon. "But by 'blacks' I mean ____." [Insert problems associating with defining a race, which render conversations fitted into race useless]. Therefore, a criticism against blacks misses the point (which is why I won't support it).

Here's the normative argument: We shouldn't lump people into homogenous groups based on skin color, etc. because it creates adverse outcomes such as appealing to people's cognitive bias, thus reinforcing racism.

it seems to me that you take issue with premise 2, then.

it's not only the act of murder that we should be criticizing, but also the factors that led to the murder. for example, if there is a child who is relentlessly bullied and finally goes on a shooting spree at his school, the bullies should be criticized as well as the child. similarly, if blacks murder more people due to their disadvantageous socioeconomic standing (on average) due to past institutionalized racism, then that is a factor which must also be criticized (i don't personally think this is a very large factor, but you get the idea)

this doesn't invalidate my argument, but it does introduce additional problems that require additional solutions.

We seem to be running in circles. I'll respond to this if you respond to the following, which I view as more important in this conversation about criticizing groups and their actions:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=180364&start=75#p3943159

[Army of GOD]

f*ck white, short, atheist-agnostic rugby players. They're all pieces of shits. I hope they all die in fires.

[BigBallinStalin]

f*ck white, short, atheist-agnostic rugby players. They're all pieces of shits. I hope they all die in fires.

Exactly.

That is an insult. To me, that isn't criticism. It's not even an argument.

[Army of GOD]

f*ck white, short, atheist-agnostic rugby players. They're all pieces of shits. I hope they all die in fires.

Exactly.

That is an insult. To me, that isn't criticism. It's not even an argument.

YOUR FACE ISNT EVEN AN ARGUMENT

[Funkyterrance]

Can I criticize groups that get cranky because their power is out and they can't watch footballs on tv?

[Neoteny]

president's who did not serve in the military...

Man, look at all those officers. Maybe what this country actually needs is a decent Sergeant First Class to be president. Not these new kids though. One of the old school guys.

EDIT: Also, is there a reason Truman isn't included in that, you think?

[BigBallinStalin]

Because Truman didn't have any legs.

[stoicbird]

One can criticize a group because of its goals or actions successfully without being rightly labeled negatively--if one can clearly articulate the criticism and if one is actually correct to begin with (that helps!)

would you say that criticizing blacks because they murder more people on average is a successful criticism?

it's a clear, factually correct criticism, of course.

You (probably) stated a fact, but a fact itself is not criticism. Criticism to me requires an argument. Simply stating, "the clouds are white" is not criticism. Nor is "blacks ... murder more people on average" (which may be false).

You can't simply state "criticizing blacks" because such an example is incomplete. It depends on how you criticize them.

For example,

Racist: "those blacks murder more people on average because [insert dumb racist reasons here]."

Non-Racist: "Allegedly, more people on average are killed by blacks; however, the following literature review reveals several answers to explain this and to clarify misunderstandings. Also, this 'fact' does not get at the heart of the matter for reasons X, Y, and Z. And blah blah blah."

Neoteny: RACISTS!

________________________

Hopefully this helps:

Racist/Prejudiced/Ignorant: "Islam (GROUP) is a religion which breeds hate and terrorism (ACTIONS). [Therefore, Islam is an obamanation and must be prohibited!]
(that would constitute as an argument, thus is a criticism.)
(Without the "therefore...", the statement is asserting a truth-claim (if I recall that term correctly), thus is not a criticism. However, the criticism within the truth-claim is implied because something similar to the "therefore..." usually follows such a statement.

WOW!!!! I'm loving this lesson in "How a Liberal avoids the obvious trurh to protect their beloved minority".

Recently in England there was a network of Islamic Pakistani paedophiles caught and jailed for their heinous crimes. Most newspapers reported this as "Asian paedaphile ring bust". Only the racist Daily Mail told us what we already knew.

So, what we've learnt here in a nutshell is - Liberals live in denial! The truth or actual facts are not important! Be seen as politically correct even at the expense of truth and commonsense!

This is not funny anymore,

Are you angry because so few criminals are indentified by their chosen religion , or lack of it , you certainly have a point. After meticulous research I cannot find any editorials headlining the faith of any wrong doers , not a single Druid burglar nor Jewish underwear pilferer.....its a national disgrace !

Not if if religion is involved in the case then it normally is reported. Possibly you avoid realiry though. Trouble in middle east - Jews, muslims. Trouble in Ireland catholics/ protestants. You see, where its relevant they do mention religion.

Now, before you say religion wasn't involved here I ask you to read about the case in depth.

[Timminz]

If you're going to ask that someone reads a case in-depth, perhaps you should provide them with said case to read. While you're at it, be sure to include multiple sources, not just the racist one.