Arlington Texas school shooting

First topic message reminder :

Timberview High School, Mansfield, TX, has been the site of another school shooting. Just breaking, so no details are available. A fight between two students resulted in shootings. This High School is right in the middle of the Dallas/Ft. Worth area, so several police departments have responded.

Four victims...a teacher and 3 students. Two are presently in surgery. High School is evacuated. Timothy George Simpson is the suspect...he is on the loose.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Which is not really a "derailing", but a legitimate observation.  In any other company, an 18-year old black being bullied in Texas would be appropriate for comment.  Except, as a member of the targeted group, you don't like it.  WELL, GET TEXAS TO STOP IT!

Southern racism still goes on.  Sandra Bland?  James Byrd Jr.?  The Texas ‘Voter Exclusion Bill’ of 2021?  Is it not legitimate to speak about such matters in the company of a southerner???  I don't do it to bait you, but to reveal to others (outside America) that it's a special circumstance.  It’s remarkable to us, too!  Racism is real...but it's not really what America is all about.

The "Ugly American" is not so much a typical American, but a typical southerner.  And, it's not even all southerners.  Ben has never felt it was about him.  Nor does Lurker ever feel targeted.  You get your hackles up quite voluntarily, because, incidentally, it's you and your ideology we're talking about.  

I don’t like distorting facts to fit a predetermined narrative, and you do that often. I reject the idea that stories are simple- it’s people who make stories simple by leaving out nuances.

Insisting that everything bad that happens to black people is because of racism is simplistic, and when you do that, you seem like you’re pushing an agenda.

You're being too kind.

He's obsessive about race and location.

Ben Reilly wrote:I don’t like distorting facts to fit a predetermined narrative, and you do that often. I reject the idea that stories are simple- it’s people who make stories simple by leaving out nuances.

Insisting that everything bad that happens to black people is because of racism is simplistic, and when you do that, you seem like you’re pushing an agenda.

I know...you don't like any sort of alarmism.  And you are more middle-of-of-the-road than I am.  That is the discussion that we have had in the past (more on that later).  But it is "a discussion"; you can't discuss disagreements if you don't have different viewpoints.  

It’s a matter of how you wage those differences: rational discussion vs. violence.  MD is trying to characterize those discussions as somehow in the same category as when he frequently goes off on his personal rants.  He tries to justify them, as if they were legitimate, rational thought.  I liken MD’s response to the classic southern personality (in the written world): long-standing propensity to intolerance, thinned-skinned, too quick to violence, and insular xenophobia.  It is the response that one would expect from a southerner, which got them into a civil war, and now motivates their Jim Crow duplicity, etc.

There is no equivalency between rational, intellectual discussion, and the displays that MD puts on.  When you enter into an exchange with him, you either agree with him, or you are dismissed as an “obsessive”, “liar” and a “Walter Mitty”.  That’s not debate, nor even a chance for rational thought.  That’s abuse…which is a southern trait.

Original Quill wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:I don’t like distorting facts to fit a predetermined narrative, and you do that often. I reject the idea that stories are simple- it’s people who make stories simple by leaving out nuances.

Insisting that everything bad that happens to black people is because of racism is simplistic, and when you do that, you seem like you’re pushing an agenda.

I know...you don't like any sort of alarmism.  And you are more middle-of-of-the-road than I am.  That is the discussion that we have had in the past (more on that later).  But it is "a discussion"; you can't discuss disagreements if you don't have different viewpoints.  

It’s a matter of how you wage those differences: rational discussion vs. violence.  MD is trying to characterize those discussions as somehow in the same category as when he frequently goes off on his personal rants.  He tries to justify them, as if they were legitimate, rational thought.  I liken MD’s response to the classic southern personality (in the written world): long-standing propensity to intolerance, thinned-skinned, too quick to violence, and insular xenophobia.  It is the response that one would expect from a southerner, which got them into a civil war, and now motivates their Jim Crow duplicity, etc.

There is no equivalency between rational, intellectual discussion, and the displays that MD puts on.  When you enter into an exchange with him, you either agree with him, or you are dismissed as an “obsessive”, “liar” and a “Walter Mitty”.  That’s not debate, nor even a chance for rational thought.  That’s abuse…which is a southern trait.

Again with the location.

I won't entertain your bigotry with debate

There are too many other places with far better people if I want that.

Ben Reilly wrote:I don’t like distorting facts to fit a predetermined narrative, and you do that often. I reject the idea that stories are simple- it’s people who make stories simple by leaving out nuances.

Insisting that everything bad that happens to black people is because of racism is simplistic, and when you do that, you seem like you’re pushing an agenda.

No, the difference between us is, you are middlin’, to RW Democrat, and I am a LW Progressive.  You can’t abide me as wrong, so you just characterize me as being too extreme.  To you, my examples are “distorting facts”, while to me they are fitting the proper pieces into the ‘real’ framework.

You once argued to me that racism was ended in the US.  We had a discussion as to how the conservative Supreme Court agreed with you, when they struck down the Voting-Rights Act.  Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013)

Then, the murder of George Floyd happened, and I was right, wasn’t I?  It showed that rampant racism is alive and well in the US.  Today, that earlier discussion about racism being fixed seems absurd, now that white supremacy and attacking the Nation's Buildings and the Constitution, seems commonplace.

But the point is, I am to the left of you, and I see things coming much sooner than you.  Middlin’ Democrats have that element of wishful thinking – they see things in pollyannish terms, that I don’t have.  I see things as they are.

As a result, I imagine remedies for what is wrong.  I envision the peaceful ‘cutting loose’ the south as a way of excising racism, violence and intolerance in the US.  I even have a back-up plan, which involves the Pacific States of America, in case the NE United States do not see the need for drastic measures.

All of these are what you call “distorting facts to fit a predetermined narrative”.  But they are just out in front of you… visualizing the country for things that would catch you, and the rest of middlin’ America, flat-footed.

You need me out there.  You need those who will sweep away the “Chamberlain” cobwebs of the middlin’ Democrats (Republicans call them Snowflakes - with good reason!), and see things as they really are.  Remember, I was correct about racism being just under the topsoil; I might just be right about the rest.  It’s a question merely of thinking that much further ahead.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I know...you don't like any sort of alarmism.  And you are more middle-of-of-the-road than I am.  That is the discussion that we have had in the past (more on that later).  But it is "a discussion"; you can't discuss disagreements if you don't have different viewpoints.  

It’s a matter of how you wage those differences: rational discussion vs. violence.  MD is trying to characterize those discussions as somehow in the same category as when he frequently goes off on his personal rants.  He tries to justify them, as if they were legitimate, rational thought.  I liken MD’s response to the classic southern personality (in the written world): long-standing propensity to intolerance, thinned-skinned, too quick to violence, and insular xenophobia.  It is the response that one would expect from a southerner, which got them into a civil war, and now motivates their Jim Crow duplicity, etc.

There is no equivalency between rational, intellectual discussion, and the displays that MD puts on.  When you enter into an exchange with him, you either agree with him, or you are dismissed as an “obsessive”, “liar” and a “Walter Mitty”.  That’s not debate, nor even a chance for rational thought.  That’s abuse…which is a southern trait.

Again with the location.

I won't entertain your bigotry with debate

There are too many other places with far better people if I want that.

Excuse me...the south didn't harbour slavery for 400-years? The south didn't start the civil war? It didn't invent Jim Crow laws, separate-but-equal, and segregation? Texas, Georgia and Alabama haven't just past voter-exclusion laws targeting black neighborhoods...proving the spirit is still alive?!

Dream on.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Again with the location.

I won't entertain your bigotry with debate

There are too many other places with far better people if I want that.

Excuse me...the south didn't harbour slavery for 400-years?  The south didn't start the civil war?  It didn't invent Jim Crow laws, separate-but-equal, and segregation?  Texas, Georgia and Alabama haven't just past voter-exclusion laws targeting black neighborhoods...proving the spirit is still alive?!

Dream on.

You're excused.

You're old and lonely.

Carry on.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Excuse me...the south didn't harbour slavery for 400-years?  The south didn't start the civil war?  It didn't invent Jim Crow laws, separate-but-equal, and segregation?  Texas, Georgia and Alabama haven't just past voter-exclusion laws targeting black neighborhoods...proving the spirit is still alive?!

Dream on.

You're excused.  

You're old and lonely.

Carry on.

What does that sort of subversive anger gain you?  You're just proving my point.  You don't contribute to the topic; you just destroy other people's opportunity to pick up ideas, or rebut concepts already discussed.

You're like the 'bully' fat kid, who doesn't want to play any of the games - because he's no good at it - but wants to destroy the game boards so no one else can play.  So typical of southerners - isn't that what the civil war was all about: if I can't have it my way, then no one can have it! Look up, dog in the manger: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dog_in_the_Manger

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You're excused.  

You're old and lonely.

Carry on.

What does that sort of subversive anger gain you?  You're just proving my point.  You don't contribute to the topic; you just destroy other people's opportunity to pick up ideas, or rebut concepts already discussed.

You're like the 'bully' fat kid, who doesn't want to play any of the games - because he's no good at it - but wants to destroy the game boards so no one else can play.  So typical of southerners - isn't that what the civil war was all about: if I can't have it my way, then no one can have it!  Look up, dog in the manger: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dog_in_the_Manger

You are not worth my time.

I read little of what you say and only post to you to be dismissive of you.

Don't expect me to engage with you like I do with everyone else.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

What does that sort of subversive anger gain you?  You're just proving my point.  You don't contribute to the topic; you just destroy other people's opportunity to pick up ideas, or rebut concepts already discussed.

You're like the 'bully' fat kid, who doesn't want to play any of the games - because he's no good at it - but wants to destroy the game boards so no one else can play.  So typical of southerners - isn't that what the civil war was all about: if I can't have it my way, then no one can have it!  Look up, dog in the manger: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dog_in_the_Manger

You are not worth my time.

I read little of what you say and only post to you to be dismissive of you.

Don't expect me to engage with you like I do with everyone else.  

Haha...yet, here you are.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You are not worth my time.

I read little of what you say and only post to you to be dismissive of you.

Don't expect me to engage with you like I do with everyone else.  

Haha...yet, here you are.

Yes, I can pop in. Remark about your blathering nonsense, and pop right back out and talk to folks elsewhere..

I can be dismissive without much effort.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Haha...yet, here you are.

Yes, I can pop in. Remark about your blathering nonsense, and pop right back out and talk to folks elsewhere..

I can be dismissive without much effort.

Well...if you can do that, you are still a sentient, responsive person.  

However, you seem to have run out of ideas on this thread.  

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yes, I can pop in. Remark about your blathering nonsense, and pop right back out and talk to folks elsewhere..

I can be dismissive without much effort.

Well...if you can do that, you can do other things as well.  

However, you seem to have run out of ideas on this thread.  

If someone else posts, I'll engage them.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well...if you can do that, you can do other things as well.  

However, you seem to have run out of ideas on this thread.  

If someone else posts, I'll engage them.

So will I.  By then maybe you'll have thought of something to say - not just altering the free expression of others.  It'll be fun.  

Quill, this boy was black and attacked by blacks....

What has that got to do with slavery?

eddie wrote:Quill, this boy was black and attacked by blacks....

What has that got to do with slavery?

What do you think that means? That all blacks think alike? Blacks are entitled to be as individual as whites. It was still a bulling case.

The comment was as to how the kid would be treated by a southern state...not the bully he attacked. Because the kid is black, he will not be coddled like Ethan Couch, that white kid in Texas who got off on the ‘Affluenza’ defense after killing four people. https://www.cnn.com/2015/12/29/us/affluenza-teen-ethan-couch-detained-in-mexico/index.html

Point goes over your head, as usual.

eddie wrote:Point goes over your head, as usual.

No...I'm pretty confident you followed a false point. If you follow where you are going, you end up with another brand of racism: all blacks think or behave one way, because their skin color somehow makes them agree or conform! Not very pretty, that.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Point goes over your head, as usual.

No...I'm pretty confident you followed a false point.  If you follow where you are going, you end up with another brand of racism: all blacks think or behave one way, because their skin color somehow makes them agree or conform!  Not very pretty, that.

Meh. If you say so. I know one thing for absolute sure:

You don’t talk to black people. You,read, you generalise, you theorise....but you don’t actually talk to black people, do you?

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No...I'm pretty confident you followed a false point.  If you follow where you are going, you end up with another brand of racism: all blacks think or behave one way, because their skin color somehow makes them agree or conform!  Not very pretty, that.

Meh. If you say so. I know one thing for absolute sure:

You don’t talk to black people. You,read, you generalise, you theorise....but you don’t actually talk to black people, do you?

I talk to black people every day.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

Meh. If you say so. I know one thing for absolute sure:

You don’t talk to black people. You,read, you generalise, you theorise....but you don’t actually talk to black people, do you?

I talk to black people every day.  

The hired help doesn't count.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No...I'm pretty confident you followed a false point.  If you follow where you are going, you end up with another brand of racism: all blacks think or behave one way, because their skin color somehow makes them agree or conform!  Not very pretty, that.

Meh. If you say so. I know one thing for absolute sure:

You don’t talk to black people. You,read, you generalise, you theorise....but you don’t actually talk to black people, do you?

I talk to black people every day.  

No you don’t. You converse with them. But you don’t talk to them.

Know the difference.