We are all Slave now.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That argument can be logically made. Refuting it is another issue.

??

Any argument can be made. This one gets dismissed pretrial with prejudice.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Also, the argument wasn't that the oppression is the oppressed group's fault. It's that the group's disadvantages can be argued, after a time, to be partly the group's fault.

Please make that argument for me. How the fuck can a group's disadvantages be partly the group's fault if they were oppressed? I think you'll need an example, but maybe not. So far, all I've heard from you is that this is a thing. You have yet to explain how the hell it's possible.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Totally agree that using groups here does not work when discussing allegations of personal responsibility.

You just did it like a sentence ago.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm pinning Ty down as advocating that certain arguments should not be made.

No. He's pinning you down by (i) stating that this argument can't actually be made in any logical way (and I have been arguing that as well) and (ii) asking you what the point of the argument is. The only people who want to make such an argument are looking to say, "This minority group is partly to blame for their own circumstances because as a group they ________."

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

At core, my point is very simple: If you wish to assert claims that certain groups have been oppressed and consequently suffer disadvantages, you invite a rebuttal that the groups may bear some responsibility for some of those disadvantages.

No I don't because that rebuttal is fucking ridiculous. It's like saying, "If you say that the sky is blue, you invite a rebuttal that it is not."

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Arguing whether it's true or not is of no interest to me.

Bullshit. Based on what you have posted, I think it is quite clear that you believe minority groups need to own a certain percentage of the blame for their circumstances.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

What is of interest to me is Ty's suggestion, and Klein's, that such rebuttal should not be raised or considered. That strikes me as soft censorship.

You are conflating a response to a ridiculous rebuttal that says the rebuttal is complete bullshit and steeped in racism with soft censorship. It is a ridiculous position to take. Every time an argument is proven to be stupid and/or racist is not an example of "soft censorship," whatever the fuck that means.

TM