Do you hold the door open for strangers?
- Thread starter LetsGoDuke301
- Start date
What a bunch of bull.
Hell yes everything was dropped against the Harvard President because the President of the United States wanted that. Hell what in the fvck would you expect.
Trump has black unemployment much below Obamas best.
Larceny, theft and strong armed thuggery gets your ass shot. Where in hell do you get the idea that being a thug gets you anywhere with the legal authorities?
Dat you are a good guy but you need to wake up on the right side of the bed and smell the roses.
24 pages.....
The off season sucks.
The off season sucks.
He's making sense for accusing me of something I didn't do, and then doing that very thing to me. Yes, making perfect sense.
I think I see your problem... You're projecting your version of what makes sense and what doesn't onto others.
Why wouldn't you watch Fox, Brietbart, MSNBC, or CNN? To close your eyes and ears to every story just because it’s acronym doesn’t fit your agenda, is foolish beyond belief.
So here's a good video for you. This young woman asks about unconscious bias and Shapiro brings up implicit bias. IMO he's spot on. Instead of blowing it off, like most things I've mentioned to you ITT. Please try and explain to me what you think is wrong with his response. Given how you've labeled Shapiro in previous posts, I'd assume you don't agree.
For the record, I feel the video titles and imagery is over the top and dumb.
I got through 10 minutes of it, to about where he takes the third person's questions. I'm glad you mentioned the graphics and title as dumb. I might not have made it past that otherwise. I've known he was smart and eloquent for some time -- it's hard to miss -- but this is the first video of him I've seen where I didn't think he was a total d-bag. I disagree with him, but he seemed like an earnest, decent person.
Where I have been dismissive has been only after it is clear that I'm beating my head against a wall.
Shapiro essentially concedes that implicit bias may exist. He doesn't think we can do anything about it. His conclusion seems like it suffers from the same tunnel vision I referred to earlier: he wants to quantify everything. Pointing out someone's implicit bias and having them hear you makes them more aware of it, and perhaps avoid a behavior later that would have ended tragically. How do you chart terrible possibilities that we manage to avoid? Shapiro also doesn't show any interest in any other solution; he would just wait to react until a very obvious thing happens within a very narrow range of vision. Encouraging awareness so that we're more thoughtful and deliberate in our behaviors is a good thing.
Of course, nothing I'm responding to includes any address of my point from before. You cherry-picked a specific line and ran with it, now we're talking about something else.
Uh, no, I do check out news from several of the sources you mentioned, and across the spectrum. The articles I've cited speak to that, too.
snu regularly refuses to even look at links. He'll challenge a conclusion reached from info in the links, but he won't even click. He just falls back on "I WON'T CHANGE! YOU CAN'T MAKE ME!"
You did the same thing in dismissing a very carefully selected article from Vox without any address of the content at all.
Was copy and pasting UL’s post. You didn’t catch that. My response wasn’t about you. Hence the whoosh.
You're chasing ghosts (as he put it). You cannot possibly know what is in someone's head, especially if they don't know it's there. What you are arguing for is in essence impossible to combat. UNLESS, you do as Morgan Freeman spoke on in the video I linked with him earlier. The only way to stop racism 100% is to stop talking about it. I'm serious about this. Do you think kids are born knowing about racism? How do they learn about it? Because we constantly harp on it, even when it doesn't exist.
If there's implicit bias of someone doing an act of racism, then one could argue there's an equal implicit bias for someone to see racism where it doesn't exist.
And here we go w/ me hitting my head against a brick wall again.
I covered the ghosts right there.
But it's okay. Don't bother.
I watched as much of your video as I had time for. You want me to go in whole hog like you have. Sorry. Ain't happening. I addressed why. Sounds like you can't handle it.
I would expect charges stemming from an incident where a man was entering his own home lawfully would be dropped.
That's not why Michael Brown was shot.
If this is true, how have they not got him yet?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/about-that-fbi-source-1525992611
https://www.wsj.com/articles/about-that-fbi-source-1525992611
It's not that I can't handle it. It just doesn't seem realistic, because you cannot possibly know what is in someone's head. If there are actions being done, then that you can address. As far as I know we don't have thought police yet. Your example is extremely arbitrary because it doesn't address how you would even know someone is having those thoughts.
Last edited:
Sounds like Nunes and Gowdy are going after them hard. Don’t think there is any way their name doesn’t come out.
Same way you ever know anyone is having any thoughts.
I think we're done here.
Hence why I said, if someone does something, then I'd be there to combat it, but you can't combat what you don't even know is there. Same thing Shapiro was saying.
Dude... That's exactly what Shapiro was saying. You cannot possibly know what someone is thinking unless they say or do something.
Shapiro is actually a very level headed, intelligent person. He’s very fair and that’s why the left hates him. They don’t like what he says because he deals only in facts. And as Ben says, “facts don’t care about your feelings.”
He is clearly level-headed and intelligent. There are considerations beyond facts, so his dealing in only facts leads to a blind spot. That does a disservice to others and leads to a lack of fairness.
Obviously I know he doesn't exclusively deal in facts, he throws his own opinions out there about certain issues (abortion, religion, etc.). I apparently tend to make absolute statements regularly. Lol. Going forward know that I more often than not don't mean it to be that way. I'll try and use better phrasing, I just get lazy sometimes. Winking
After 24 pages, I’m still not entirely sure who does, and does not hold the door open for strangers......
You didn't suggest anything that would be preemptive either. You said you'd know what someone was thinking if they said something. That's where Shapiro and I stand too. You cannot know what someone is thinking if they don't ever say anything.
And you can't even know anyone exists until they walk through the door...
Do you think it would be wise to have a seminar on consent for incoming freshmen, or would you wait until after several rapes occur on campus and consider police involvement afterward good enough?
Considering how according to the DOJ, rape rates are extremely low (DOJ statistics 4.3 in 1000 or 0.43%) which is far too many still IMO, I don't think having a consent seminar is going to stop that, or do much good at all really.And you can't even know anyone exists until they walk through the door...
Do you think it would be wise to have a seminar on consent for incoming freshmen, or would you wait until after several rapes occur on campus and consider police involvement afterward good enough?
From the DOJ report on rape rates on College campuses:
From 1997 to 2013, females ages 18 to 24 consistently experienced higher rates of rape and sexual assault than females in other age brackets (figure 2). In 2013, college-age females had a similar rate of rape and sexual assault regardless of enrollment status (about 4.3 victimizations per 1,000).
Last edited:
Check out this ignorant douche. I can only assume he is the stereotypical trumptard and not the reasonable conservative who wants responsible immigration policies.
Similar threads
