GBear4Life said:

---

blungld said:

---

You can convince yourself to believe whatever nonsense you want, but I defy you to feel good about yourself and convince yourself that you are decent person after typing that.

Go ahead. Write it off. Act justified. Maybe laugh. I don't know how you deal with discomfort and self-consciousness.

You know it was a damaged heart that wrote that. You didn't imagine growing up to be the kind of person who writes stuff like that--or go to church (if you do) to do as Jesus and write stuff like that. I hope you get to a better place, and that you see whatever anger you feel reading my post as your conscience talking to you, your defensiveness parading as justified anger. Whatever you post in response I know it's just a mask. And you just try and pretend that I am not right. You keep pretending it's the Liberals you hate. But I know it's yourself you hate. I hope you make that peace before your death bed. I truly do.

Now, proceed with your choice expletives directed at me for cover. It's all bullies and the unenlightened know. Or you could take this opportunity to do better.

---

Only c*nts write like this.

---

Thank you D*CK. You should try and write like a C*NT sometimes, you might start making sense. FYI, it's called being articulate.

blungld said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

Do us all a favor, go down to Good Vibrations, buy yourself a nice size black dildo and go fsck yourselves with it to deal with your feelings.

---

You can convince yourself to believe whatever nonsense you want, but I defy you to feel good about yourself and convince yourself that you are decent person after typing that.

Go ahead. Write it off. Act justified. Maybe laugh. I don't know how you deal with discomfort and self-consciousness.

You know it was a damaged heart that wrote that. You didn't imagine growing up to be the kind of person who writes stuff like that--or go to church (if you do) to do as Jesus and write stuff like that. I hope you get to a better place, and that you see whatever anger you feel reading my post as your conscience talking to you, your defensiveness parading as justified anger. Whatever you post in response I know it's just a mask. And you just try and pretend that I am not right. You keep pretending it's the Liberals you hate. But I know it's yourself you hate. I hope you make that peace before your death bed. I truly do.

Now, proceed with your choice expletives directed at me for cover. It's all bullies and the unenlightened know. Or you could take this opportunity to do better.

---

I didn't imagine this country being filled with ******* like you who would pretend that you played no role in race relations being in the condition they are today.

calbear93 said:

---

My experience the last few days made me realize some really do not bother to read the post being responded to or even to what they themselves originally wrote.

---

Yes, including you.

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/95929/replies/1760329

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

My experience the last few days made me realize some really do not bother to read the post being responded to or even to what they themselves originally wrote.

---

Yes, including you.

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/95929/replies/1760329

---

Oh, really? I was trying to be generous by not calling you out but here goes.


Example 1 of Gaslighting by Sycasey and Oak

Goes from Republicans thought looting is a good thing to I never said Republicans said it was a good thing:


Part 1:

Quote from Sycasey :

"I remember when Republicans said looting was a good thing:


[url=https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2003/04/11/Rumsfeld-Looting-is-transition-to-freedom/63821050097983/?][/url]https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2003/04/11/Rumsfeld-Looting-is-transition-to-freedom/63821050097983/"

Part 2:

Quote from Oak:

" I don't think this is difficult.


Rumsfeld: "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression"

Republicans: "ho hum. Nothing to see here."

sycasey: "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression"

Republicans: "How dare you defend looters! Antifa! Antifa!"

Expressing that you may understand why years of repression would lead to anger that can be triggered by an act of murder against one's people and that leads someone to act out by looting does not mean you support looting."

Part 3:

Quote from Oak:

sycasey did not say that Rumsfeld or Republicans supported looting. In context, people were upset because looters destroyed and stole great treasures of antiquity. Rumsfeld never supported looters, but expressed understanding. I would point out that there is every reason to believe that there were just as many looters in Iraq stealing for personal gain as there were here. Again, sycasey's point was that NO ONE ACCUSED RUMSFELD OF SUPPORTING LOOTERS. So people should stop disingenuously accuse him of supporting looters.



Example 2 of Gaslighting by Sycasey and Oak

Goes from me pointing out that Rumsfeld's quote itself specifically qualified by context to a situation where a country is going from a dictatorship to a democracy. I point out that we are not in fact transition from a dictatorship where a whole country is oppressed by the tyranny of one man who used chemical weapons to wipe out an entire religious group. Then the goal post moves in response that the black community suffered more than Kurds and Shiite under Saddam to I am now lacking sympathy for looters for not understanding that they are responding to racial injustice.

Part 1.

My Quote to Sycasey:

Sycasey, you can't be serious.

• Are you or are not defending LOOTING? If not, you are not saying the same thing Rumsfeld said.
• We are not Iraq and we are not transitioning from a dictatorship
• And you want to align yourself to Rumsfeld?

What are you conveying? Maybe I missed it.


Part 2.


My Quote to Oak trying to explain my original response to Sycasey

OK, but we are not Iraq and we are not bunch of tortured masses having lived under one man's dictatorship. I promise I won't hold what Democrats supported about other countries and translate that to what we should do in our own country. So, maybe it's just me but this seems like such a stretch that it's really beneath you. And if you are not in support of rioters or excusing it. What disagreement do you have with those like me who are upset by it?


Part 3.

In direct response to me pointing out that Rumsfeld (whom I did not even support) only refer to a limited context, Oak now brings in racial issues and how I lack empathy for the black community's struggles by not trying to understand the looters and that the black community suffered more than the Kurds who were hit with massive bombs with mustard gas by its own leader. Completely ignores the fact that I never myself compared the plight of the black community with that of the Kurds, but apparently he assumed I did and states that I am wrong about one having suffered more than the other. Trying to gaslight me into believing I made a comparison or that by pointing out the context in which Rumsfeld made the comment, I am lacking empathy for the black community. I fell for it and started down the path of comparing the two in response, but at this point, Oak and Sycasey have completed twisted the conversation.

Quote from Oak

"sycasey has said over and over again that he doesn't support looting. He has said he understands the anger behind it. I don't see that he has said that you can't be upset by it. He is responding to he and others being accused of supporting it by merely expressing that he understands it. Rumsfeld did not support looting either. He merely expressed understanding.


And I'm sorry, we have some great conversations, but I keep coming back to empathy. Your first sentence is just a dramatic lack of understanding. [Note: my simple statement that we are not Iraq and we are not coming out of one man's dictatorship - the sole context in wihich Rumsfled made the statement.] Does it matter that it is one man's dictatorship? When as a result of slavery and historical oppression the current state of the median Black family is to have one tenth the wealth and less than half the income of the median White family. When income is about half even factoring in educational attainment. When Whites and Blacks have the same rates of drug usage but Blacks are 6 times more likely to be convicted of a drug crime? When too many police treat too many Blacks as prima facie criminals? When too many Black are killed by police. And your response is they don't have as much right to be mad as an Iraqi.

I disagree. They've been oppressed for far longer. It makes no difference to them that the oppression is from one guy or a couple hundred million. In fact I'd argue that the latter is worse.

Part 4:

Oak's follow up comment that he doesn't want to get into who suffered more and once again saying that I showed lack of empathy for the black community by pointing out that Rumsfeld made the comment in the context of a transition from a dictatorship in which he bombed his own people.

I wasn't saying you displayed lack of empathy for the looters. I was saying you displayed lack of empathy for the African American community by dismissing their grievances in comparison to the Iraqi's. [Note: He was the one who first made the comparison, but now I am showing lack of empathy by comparing. Talk about gaslighting.] Without going down a rathole of who has/had it worse, I think that is inappropriate. So basically no matter how much oppression someone faces, it won't match being Jewish in Nazi Germany, so the response can be "it's not like you are Jewish in Nazi Germany". [Note: Of course, someone has to bring up Hitler.[ Or, hell, you know Count Dracula? No, the REAL Count Dracula. He was known as the impaler. He impaled people all the time. Oh, no. Wait. Not that way. He had a six foot long pike driven through your ass and out your mouth. They perfected a way to do this so you died real slowly. Once, facing an approaching invading army that he had no hope of defeating he did this to hundreds of innocent people, his own people so that the invading army would see this and freak out and go back. So, you know, some people might think that is even worse than the Nazi's. Point being that humans have done a lot of horrible things and I don't think you have to be the worst treated in history to have a grievance.


Example 3 of Gaslighting by Oak

I explain that, while he encourages me to show empathy for the looters, he should also show empathy for the store owners. He says I did not pose an empathy question and he is just trying in all his benevolence to reach my heart and teach me empathy. He makes that claim even though I ask the empathy question in what he quoted in response. Then when I explain, he says I didn't say it in the original quote and I am throwing out there at the last minute as a gotcha. Then he twist this into saying, unlike my alleged claim, he never supported looters so he is showing plenty sympathy. When I ask him to show me one quote in which I say he "SUPPORTED" looters, of course he remains silent.

Part 1:

My quote (even bulleted) asking him to likewise show empathy for the store owners.

• Why is there such need to empathize with looters? Do you really believe the people who are truly angry about Floyd and want change are the ones who are looting local neighborhoods? Is that what you are seeing? We must be living in a different world. And do you believe empathizing with criminals causing harm to people who are particularly vulnerable makes one decent? What if someone were to say: No, I don't condone police brutality, but, considering how many police officers are injured, I also understand why they may sometimes overreact. Would that be acceptable to you in response to Floyd and show that they truly are against police brutality? Would that show how much empathy I have? No, there is no excuse for police brutality. There is no excuse for racism There is no excuse for mayhem or looting or burning down local neighborhoods. There is of course a reason for everything. I am sure that even tiki torch carriers have had tough childhoods, lack of parental guidance, etc. I don't give a ***** They are still scum, right? Do I really need to empathize with them? Do I need to empathize with criminals, Antifa, or armed militants causing havoc right now? No, I don't. So, sorry. You don't really seem to have empathy with the right people. How about the small business owners who had nothing to do with police brutality. You mentioned before that I show too much focus on one over another. I have not seem anything other than passing comments from you for middle class store owners. Where is your empathy for them?

Part 2:

Oak's response:

I'm not saying I'm right and you are wrong, but I don't get the response that I'm demonstrating lack of empathy. I get you don't think you are exhibiting lack of empathy, but nothing you argued about me was an empathy question. Which leads me to believe that using the word empathy has not been effective for me in trying to reach you with my argument. Because I am genuinely trying to reach you. [Note: What an arrogant and self-important and righteous comment. Thanks, but don't need empathy lessons from you. I don't honestly see you as someone I would ever want to emulate.] Your response indicates that I'm not reaching you, not because you disagree, but because your repeat back of my argument is not what I am saying.



Part 3:

My dumbfounded question on why me asking the question about his lack of empathy is not an empathy question/

My quote:

Why is your lack of equal concern for middle class shop owners who may not be adequately insured and who may have debt and now cannot support their family (many of them in the black community) not an empathy question for you?


Part 4.

Oak now trying to gaslight me into thinking that I never asked the question and now twisting it as saying it is irrelevant because he never "supported" the looters (who said he supported the looters? I said he is asking me to empathize with the looters, and I am saying also empathize with the middle class store owners). Another gaslighting trying to make me believe I said he supported the looter and since he didn't he hasn't failed to show empathy for the store owners by excusing the looters.

Oak quote:

So THAT would be an empathy question, which you did not raise in the first post. However, since I never supported the looters it is irrelevant. And sycasey never supported the looters. I feel terrible for the shop owners. [Note: He said I showed lack of empathy for Floyd even though I have explained how outraged I was with the police brutality that my blood was boiling. That was not enough. I was talking more about looting that Floyd - which is not true - but then he thinks this throw away comment shows his empathy.] You accused sycasey of something he didn't do. You are now spreading that to me. No one supported the looters. No one said you shouldn't be angry with the looters. Looters bad. Looters bad. Looters bad. Sycasey asked you for an example of someone here supporting the looters. You provided one. He said he didn't agree. He is asking you and others to stop saying we support looters. You keep responding with arguments about why we shouldn't support looters. And we respond by saying we don't support looters and asking you to stop saying we support looters. I don't know what else to say on this point. other than, oh yeah. I DON'T SUPPORT LOOTERS!!!! [Note: I never said he SUPPORTED the looters.]


Part 5:

I explain that I never said he supported looters and therefore him saying he doesn't support looters is not a correction of what I previously accused him of doing. And I also show why saying you don't support something while excusing it is not really showing empathy for the victim.

My quote in response.

When did I say you support looters? Please quote me. I said you are excusing looters and empathizing with looters. Are you not?

Let me apply your reasoning to something similar. No one here is saying they excuse police violence. But I suppose as long as one claims he does not support police violence (especially in all caps), it should be fine if he writes that he "understands" why police may use excessive violence in light of how much crime is committed in inner city and how many cops are killed every year. In that case, would you would really think - I guess it's all fine since he stated HE DOESN'T SUPPORT POLICE VIOLENCE. No?



So much more gaslighting by you and Oak and then you have the nerve to point out that discussion as my failure to read and listen. Wow.

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

My experience the last few days made me realize some really do not bother to read the post being responded to or even to what they themselves originally wrote.

---

Yes, including you.

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/95929/replies/1760329

---

Oh, really? I was trying to be generous by not calling you out but here goes.


Example 1 of Gaslighting by Sycasey and Oak

Goes from Republicans thought looting is a good thing to I never said Republicans said it was a good thing:


Part 1:

Quote from Sycasey :

"I remember when Republicans said looting was a good thing:


[url=https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2003/04/11/Rumsfeld-Looting-is-transition-to-freedom/63821050097983/?][/url]https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2003/04/11/Rumsfeld-Looting-is-transition-to-freedom/63821050097983/"

Part 2:

Quote from Oak:

" I don't think this is difficult.


Rumsfeld: "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression"

Republicans: "ho hum. Nothing to see here."

sycasey: "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression"

Republicans: "How dare you defend looters! Antifa! Antifa!"

Expressing that you may understand why years of repression would lead to anger that can be triggered by an act of murder against one's people and that leads someone to act out by looting does not mean you support looting."

Part 3:

Quote from Oak:

sycasey did not say that Rumsfeld or Republicans supported looting. In context, people were upset because looters destroyed and stole great treasures of antiquity. Rumsfeld never supported looters, but expressed understanding. I would point out that there is every reason to believe that there were just as many looters in Iraq stealing for personal gain as there were here. Again, sycasey's point was that NO ONE ACCUSED RUMSFELD OF SUPPORTING LOOTERS. So people should stop disingenuously accuse him of supporting looters.



Example 2 of Gaslighting by Sycasey and Oak

Goes from me pointing out that Rumsfeld's quote itself specifically qualified by context to a situation where a country is going from a dictatorship to a democracy. I point out that we are not in fact transition from a dictatorship where a whole country is oppressed by the tyranny of one man who used chemical weapons to wipe out an entire religious group. Then the goal post moves in response that the black community suffered more than Kurds and Shiite under Saddam to I am now lacking sympathy for looters for not understanding that they are responding to racial injustice.

Part 1.

My Quote to Sycasey:

Sycasey, you can't be serious.

• Are you or are not defending LOOTING? If not, you are not saying the same thing Rumsfeld said.
• We are not Iraq and we are not transitioning from a dictatorship
• And you want to align yourself to Rumsfeld?

What are you conveying? Maybe I missed it.


Part 2.


My Quote to Oak trying to explain my original response to Sycasey

OK, but we are not Iraq and we are not bunch of tortured masses having lived under one man's dictatorship. I promise I won't hold what Democrats supported about other countries and translate that to what we should do in our own country. So, maybe it's just me but this seems like such a stretch that it's really beneath you. And if you are not in support of rioters or excusing it. What disagreement do you have with those like me who are upset by it?


Part 3.

In direct response to me pointing out that Rumsfeld (whom I did not even support) only refer to a limited context, Oak now brings in racial issues and how I lack empathy for the black community's struggles by not trying to understand the looters and that the black community suffered more than the Kurds who were hit with massive bombs with mustard gas by its own leader. Completely ignores the fact that I never myself compared the plight of the black community with that of the Kurds, but apparently he assumed I did and states that I am wrong about one having suffered more than the other. Trying to gaslight me into believing I made a comparison or that by pointing out the context in which Rumsfeld made the comment, I am lacking empathy for the black community. I fell for it and started down the path of comparing the two in response, but at this point, Oak and Sycasey have completed twisted the conversation.

Quote from Oak

"sycasey has said over and over again that he doesn't support looting. He has said he understands the anger behind it. I don't see that he has said that you can't be upset by it. He is responding to he and others being accused of supporting it by merely expressing that he understands it. Rumsfeld did not support looting either. He merely expressed understanding.


And I'm sorry, we have some great conversations, but I keep coming back to empathy. Your first sentence is just a dramatic lack of understanding. [Note: my simple statement that we are not Iraq and we are not coming out of one man's dictatorship - the sole context in wihich Rumsfled made the statement.] Does it matter that it is one man's dictatorship? When as a result of slavery and historical oppression the current state of the median Black family is to have one tenth the wealth and less than half the income of the median White family. When income is about half even factoring in educational attainment. When Whites and Blacks have the same rates of drug usage but Blacks are 6 times more likely to be convicted of a drug crime? When too many police treat too many Blacks as prima facie criminals? When too many Black are killed by police. And your response is they don't have as much right to be mad as an Iraqi.

I disagree. They've been oppressed for far longer. It makes no difference to them that the oppression is from one guy or a couple hundred million. In fact I'd argue that the latter is worse.

Part 4:

Oak's follow up comment that he doesn't want to get into who suffered more and once again saying that I showed lack of empathy for the black community by pointing out that Rumsfeld made the comment in the context of a transition from a dictatorship in which he bombed his own people.

I wasn't saying you displayed lack of empathy for the looters. I was saying you displayed lack of empathy for the African American community by dismissing their grievances in comparison to the Iraqi's. [Note: He was the one who first made the comparison, but now I am showing lack of empathy by comparing. Talk about gaslighting.] Without going down a rathole of who has/had it worse, I think that is inappropriate. So basically no matter how much oppression someone faces, it won't match being Jewish in Nazi Germany, so the response can be "it's not like you are Jewish in Nazi Germany". [Note: Of course, someone has to bring up Hitler.[ Or, hell, you know Count Dracula? No, the REAL Count Dracula. He was known as the impaler. He impaled people all the time. Oh, no. Wait. Not that way. He had a six foot long pike driven through your ass and out your mouth. They perfected a way to do this so you died real slowly. Once, facing an approaching invading army that he had no hope of defeating he did this to hundreds of innocent people, his own people so that the invading army would see this and freak out and go back. So, you know, some people might think that is even worse than the Nazi's. Point being that humans have done a lot of horrible things and I don't think you have to be the worst treated in history to have a grievance.


Example 3 of Gaslighting by Oak

I explain that, while he encourages me to show empathy for the looters, he should also show empathy for the store owners. He says I did not pose an empathy question and he is just trying in all his benevolence to reach my heart and teach me empathy. He makes that claim even though I ask the empathy question in what he quoted in response. Then when I explain, he says I didn't say it in the original quote and I am throwing out there at the last minute as a gotcha. Then he twist this into saying, unlike my alleged claim, he never supported looters so he is showing plenty sympathy. When I ask him to show me one quote in which I say he "SUPPORTED" looters, of course he remains silent.

Part 1:

My quote (even bulleted) asking him to likewise show empathy for the store owners.

• Why is there such need to empathize with looters? Do you really believe the people who are truly angry about Floyd and want change are the ones who are looting local neighborhoods? Is that what you are seeing? We must be living in a different world. And do you believe empathizing with criminals causing harm to people who are particularly vulnerable makes one decent? What if someone were to say: No, I don't condone police brutality, but, considering how many police officers are injured, I also understand why they may sometimes overreact. Would that be acceptable to you in response to Floyd and show that they truly are against police brutality? Would that show how much empathy I have? No, there is no excuse for police brutality. There is no excuse for racism There is no excuse for mayhem or looting or burning down local neighborhoods. There is of course a reason for everything. I am sure that even tiki torch carriers have had tough childhoods, lack of parental guidance, etc. I don't give a ***** They are still scum, right? Do I really need to empathize with them? Do I need to empathize with criminals, Antifa, or armed militants causing havoc right now? No, I don't. So, sorry. You don't really seem to have empathy with the right people. How about the small business owners who had nothing to do with police brutality. You mentioned before that I show too much focus on one over another. I have not seem anything other than passing comments from you for middle class store owners. Where is your empathy for them?

Part 2:

Oak's response:

I'm not saying I'm right and you are wrong, but I don't get the response that I'm demonstrating lack of empathy. I get you don't think you are exhibiting lack of empathy, but nothing you argued about me was an empathy question. Which leads me to believe that using the word empathy has not been effective for me in trying to reach you with my argument. Because I am genuinely trying to reach you. [Note: What an arrogant and self-important and righteous comment. Thanks, but don't need empathy lessons from you. I don't honestly see you as someone I would ever want to emulate.] Your response indicates that I'm not reaching you, not because you disagree, but because your repeat back of my argument is not what I am saying.



Part 3:

My dumbfounded question on why me asking the question about his lack of empathy is not an empathy question/

My quote:

Why is your lack of equal concern for middle class shop owners who may not be adequately insured and who may have debt and now cannot support their family (many of them in the black community) not an empathy question for you?


Part 4.

Oak now trying to gaslight me into thinking that I never asked the question and now twisting it as saying it is irrelevant because he never "supported" the looters (who said he supported the looters? I said he is asking me to empathize with the looters, and I am saying also empathize with the middle class store owners). Another gaslighting trying to make me believe I said he supported the looter and since he didn't he hasn't failed to show empathy for the store owners by excusing the looters.

Oak quote:

So THAT would be an empathy question, which you did not raise in the first post. However, since I never supported the looters it is irrelevant. And sycasey never supported the looters. I feel terrible for the shop owners. [Note: He said I showed lack of empathy for Floyd even though I have explained how outraged I was with the police brutality that my blood was boiling. That was not enough. I was talking more about looting that Floyd - which is not true - but then he thinks this throw away comment shows his empathy.] You accused sycasey of something he didn't do. You are now spreading that to me. No one supported the looters. No one said you shouldn't be angry with the looters. Looters bad. Looters bad. Looters bad. Sycasey asked you for an example of someone here supporting the looters. You provided one. He said he didn't agree. He is asking you and others to stop saying we support looters. You keep responding with arguments about why we shouldn't support looters. And we respond by saying we don't support looters and asking you to stop saying we support looters. I don't know what else to say on this point. other than, oh yeah. I DON'T SUPPORT LOOTERS!!!! [Note: I never said he SUPPORTED the looters.]


Part 5:

I explain that I never said he supported looters and therefore him saying he doesn't support looters is not a correction of what I previously accused him of doing. And I also show why saying you don't support something while excusing it is not really showing empathy for the victim.

My quote in response.

When did I say you support looters? Please quote me. I said you are excusing looters and empathizing with looters. Are you not?

Let me apply your reasoning to something similar. No one here is saying they excuse police violence. But I suppose as long as one claims he does not support police violence (especially in all caps), it should be fine if he writes that he "understands" why police may use excessive violence in light of how much crime is committed in inner city and how many cops are killed every year. In that case, would you would really think - I guess it's all fine since he stated HE DOESN'T SUPPORT POLICE VIOLENCE. No?



So much more gaslighting by you and Oak and then you have the nerve to point out that discussion as my failure to read and listen. Wow.

---

I don't think this proves anything other than that you have failed to understand sarcasm/irony.

---

You are a little weasle. Everything I once thought about you as being one of the reasonable one has gone out the window. Oak was being sarcastic? You were being sarcastic. Do me a favor. **** off.

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

My experience the last few days made me realize some really do not bother to read the post being responded to or even to what they themselves originally wrote.

---

Yes, including you.

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/95929/replies/1760329

---

Oh, really? I was trying to be generous by not calling you out but here goes.


Example 1 of Gaslighting by Sycasey and Oak

Goes from Republicans thought looting is a good thing to I never said Republicans said it was a good thing:


Part 1:

Quote from Sycasey :

"I remember when Republicans said looting was a good thing:


[url=https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2003/04/11/Rumsfeld-Looting-is-transition-to-freedom/63821050097983/?][/url]https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2003/04/11/Rumsfeld-Looting-is-transition-to-freedom/63821050097983/"

Part 2:

Quote from Oak:

" I don't think this is difficult.


Rumsfeld: "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression"

Republicans: "ho hum. Nothing to see here."

sycasey: "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression"

Republicans: "How dare you defend looters! Antifa! Antifa!"

Expressing that you may understand why years of repression would lead to anger that can be triggered by an act of murder against one's people and that leads someone to act out by looting does not mean you support looting."

Part 3:

Quote from Oak:

sycasey did not say that Rumsfeld or Republicans supported looting. In context, people were upset because looters destroyed and stole great treasures of antiquity. Rumsfeld never supported looters, but expressed understanding. I would point out that there is every reason to believe that there were just as many looters in Iraq stealing for personal gain as there were here. Again, sycasey's point was that NO ONE ACCUSED RUMSFELD OF SUPPORTING LOOTERS. So people should stop disingenuously accuse him of supporting looters.



Example 2 of Gaslighting by Sycasey and Oak

Goes from me pointing out that Rumsfeld's quote itself specifically qualified by context to a situation where a country is going from a dictatorship to a democracy. I point out that we are not in fact transition from a dictatorship where a whole country is oppressed by the tyranny of one man who used chemical weapons to wipe out an entire religious group. Then the goal post moves in response that the black community suffered more than Kurds and Shiite under Saddam to I am now lacking sympathy for looters for not understanding that they are responding to racial injustice.

Part 1.

My Quote to Sycasey:

Sycasey, you can't be serious.

• Are you or are not defending LOOTING? If not, you are not saying the same thing Rumsfeld said.
• We are not Iraq and we are not transitioning from a dictatorship
• And you want to align yourself to Rumsfeld?

What are you conveying? Maybe I missed it.


Part 2.


My Quote to Oak trying to explain my original response to Sycasey

OK, but we are not Iraq and we are not bunch of tortured masses having lived under one man's dictatorship. I promise I won't hold what Democrats supported about other countries and translate that to what we should do in our own country. So, maybe it's just me but this seems like such a stretch that it's really beneath you. And if you are not in support of rioters or excusing it. What disagreement do you have with those like me who are upset by it?


Part 3.

In direct response to me pointing out that Rumsfeld (whom I did not even support) only refer to a limited context, Oak now brings in racial issues and how I lack empathy for the black community's struggles by not trying to understand the looters and that the black community suffered more than the Kurds who were hit with massive bombs with mustard gas by its own leader. Completely ignores the fact that I never myself compared the plight of the black community with that of the Kurds, but apparently he assumed I did and states that I am wrong about one having suffered more than the other. Trying to gaslight me into believing I made a comparison or that by pointing out the context in which Rumsfeld made the comment, I am lacking empathy for the black community. I fell for it and started down the path of comparing the two in response, but at this point, Oak and Sycasey have completed twisted the conversation.

Quote from Oak

"sycasey has said over and over again that he doesn't support looting. He has said he understands the anger behind it. I don't see that he has said that you can't be upset by it. He is responding to he and others being accused of supporting it by merely expressing that he understands it. Rumsfeld did not support looting either. He merely expressed understanding.


And I'm sorry, we have some great conversations, but I keep coming back to empathy. Your first sentence is just a dramatic lack of understanding. [Note: my simple statement that we are not Iraq and we are not coming out of one man's dictatorship - the sole context in wihich Rumsfled made the statement.] Does it matter that it is one man's dictatorship? When as a result of slavery and historical oppression the current state of the median Black family is to have one tenth the wealth and less than half the income of the median White family. When income is about half even factoring in educational attainment. When Whites and Blacks have the same rates of drug usage but Blacks are 6 times more likely to be convicted of a drug crime? When too many police treat too many Blacks as prima facie criminals? When too many Black are killed by police. And your response is they don't have as much right to be mad as an Iraqi.

I disagree. They've been oppressed for far longer. It makes no difference to them that the oppression is from one guy or a couple hundred million. In fact I'd argue that the latter is worse.

Part 4:

Oak's follow up comment that he doesn't want to get into who suffered more and once again saying that I showed lack of empathy for the black community by pointing out that Rumsfeld made the comment in the context of a transition from a dictatorship in which he bombed his own people.

I wasn't saying you displayed lack of empathy for the looters. I was saying you displayed lack of empathy for the African American community by dismissing their grievances in comparison to the Iraqi's. [Note: He was the one who first made the comparison, but now I am showing lack of empathy by comparing. Talk about gaslighting.] Without going down a rathole of who has/had it worse, I think that is inappropriate. So basically no matter how much oppression someone faces, it won't match being Jewish in Nazi Germany, so the response can be "it's not like you are Jewish in Nazi Germany". [Note: Of course, someone has to bring up Hitler.[ Or, hell, you know Count Dracula? No, the REAL Count Dracula. He was known as the impaler. He impaled people all the time. Oh, no. Wait. Not that way. He had a six foot long pike driven through your ass and out your mouth. They perfected a way to do this so you died real slowly. Once, facing an approaching invading army that he had no hope of defeating he did this to hundreds of innocent people, his own people so that the invading army would see this and freak out and go back. So, you know, some people might think that is even worse than the Nazi's. Point being that humans have done a lot of horrible things and I don't think you have to be the worst treated in history to have a grievance.


Example 3 of Gaslighting by Oak

I explain that, while he encourages me to show empathy for the looters, he should also show empathy for the store owners. He says I did not pose an empathy question and he is just trying in all his benevolence to reach my heart and teach me empathy. He makes that claim even though I ask the empathy question in what he quoted in response. Then when I explain, he says I didn't say it in the original quote and I am throwing out there at the last minute as a gotcha. Then he twist this into saying, unlike my alleged claim, he never supported looters so he is showing plenty sympathy. When I ask him to show me one quote in which I say he "SUPPORTED" looters, of course he remains silent.

Part 1:

My quote (even bulleted) asking him to likewise show empathy for the store owners.

• Why is there such need to empathize with looters? Do you really believe the people who are truly angry about Floyd and want change are the ones who are looting local neighborhoods? Is that what you are seeing? We must be living in a different world. And do you believe empathizing with criminals causing harm to people who are particularly vulnerable makes one decent? What if someone were to say: No, I don't condone police brutality, but, considering how many police officers are injured, I also understand why they may sometimes overreact. Would that be acceptable to you in response to Floyd and show that they truly are against police brutality? Would that show how much empathy I have? No, there is no excuse for police brutality. There is no excuse for racism There is no excuse for mayhem or looting or burning down local neighborhoods. There is of course a reason for everything. I am sure that even tiki torch carriers have had tough childhoods, lack of parental guidance, etc. I don't give a ***** They are still scum, right? Do I really need to empathize with them? Do I need to empathize with criminals, Antifa, or armed militants causing havoc right now? No, I don't. So, sorry. You don't really seem to have empathy with the right people. How about the small business owners who had nothing to do with police brutality. You mentioned before that I show too much focus on one over another. I have not seem anything other than passing comments from you for middle class store owners. Where is your empathy for them?

Part 2:

Oak's response:

I'm not saying I'm right and you are wrong, but I don't get the response that I'm demonstrating lack of empathy. I get you don't think you are exhibiting lack of empathy, but nothing you argued about me was an empathy question. Which leads me to believe that using the word empathy has not been effective for me in trying to reach you with my argument. Because I am genuinely trying to reach you. [Note: What an arrogant and self-important and righteous comment. Thanks, but don't need empathy lessons from you. I don't honestly see you as someone I would ever want to emulate.] Your response indicates that I'm not reaching you, not because you disagree, but because your repeat back of my argument is not what I am saying.



Part 3:

My dumbfounded question on why me asking the question about his lack of empathy is not an empathy question/

My quote:

Why is your lack of equal concern for middle class shop owners who may not be adequately insured and who may have debt and now cannot support their family (many of them in the black community) not an empathy question for you?


Part 4.

Oak now trying to gaslight me into thinking that I never asked the question and now twisting it as saying it is irrelevant because he never "supported" the looters (who said he supported the looters? I said he is asking me to empathize with the looters, and I am saying also empathize with the middle class store owners). Another gaslighting trying to make me believe I said he supported the looter and since he didn't he hasn't failed to show empathy for the store owners by excusing the looters.

Oak quote:

So THAT would be an empathy question, which you did not raise in the first post. However, since I never supported the looters it is irrelevant. And sycasey never supported the looters. I feel terrible for the shop owners. [Note: He said I showed lack of empathy for Floyd even though I have explained how outraged I was with the police brutality that my blood was boiling. That was not enough. I was talking more about looting that Floyd - which is not true - but then he thinks this throw away comment shows his empathy.] You accused sycasey of something he didn't do. You are now spreading that to me. No one supported the looters. No one said you shouldn't be angry with the looters. Looters bad. Looters bad. Looters bad. Sycasey asked you for an example of someone here supporting the looters. You provided one. He said he didn't agree. He is asking you and others to stop saying we support looters. You keep responding with arguments about why we shouldn't support looters. And we respond by saying we don't support looters and asking you to stop saying we support looters. I don't know what else to say on this point. other than, oh yeah. I DON'T SUPPORT LOOTERS!!!! [Note: I never said he SUPPORTED the looters.]


Part 5:

I explain that I never said he supported looters and therefore him saying he doesn't support looters is not a correction of what I previously accused him of doing. And I also show why saying you don't support something while excusing it is not really showing empathy for the victim.

My quote in response.

When did I say you support looters? Please quote me. I said you are excusing looters and empathizing with looters. Are you not?

Let me apply your reasoning to something similar. No one here is saying they excuse police violence. But I suppose as long as one claims he does not support police violence (especially in all caps), it should be fine if he writes that he "understands" why police may use excessive violence in light of how much crime is committed in inner city and how many cops are killed every year. In that case, would you would really think - I guess it's all fine since he stated HE DOESN'T SUPPORT POLICE VIOLENCE. No?



So much more gaslighting by you and Oak and then you have the nerve to point out that discussion as my failure to read and listen. Wow.

---

I don't think this proves anything other than that you have failed to understand sarcasm/irony.

---

You are a little weasle. Everything I once thought about you as being one of the reasonable one has gone out the window. Oak was being sarcastic? You were being sarcastic. Do me a favor. **** off.

---

No . . . I was being sarcastic in saying that Rumsfeld endorsed looting. The rest of your argument seems to rest on the idea that I was being serious about that.

Anyway, this is not the first time you said I was a reasonable person to discuss issues with and then a little bit later flew off the handle and started cursing me out. I look forward to our next go-round in a few months when you have forgotten all about this.

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

My experience the last few days made me realize some really do not bother to read the post being responded to or even to what they themselves originally wrote.

---

Yes, including you.

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/95929/replies/1760329

---

Oh, really? I was trying to be generous by not calling you out but here goes.


Example 1 of Gaslighting by Sycasey and Oak

Goes from Republicans thought looting is a good thing to I never said Republicans said it was a good thing:


Part 1:

Quote from Sycasey :

"I remember when Republicans said looting was a good thing:


[url=https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2003/04/11/Rumsfeld-Looting-is-transition-to-freedom/63821050097983/?][/url]https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2003/04/11/Rumsfeld-Looting-is-transition-to-freedom/63821050097983/"

Part 2:

Quote from Oak:

" I don't think this is difficult.


Rumsfeld: "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression"

Republicans: "ho hum. Nothing to see here."

sycasey: "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression"

Republicans: "How dare you defend looters! Antifa! Antifa!"

Expressing that you may understand why years of repression would lead to anger that can be triggered by an act of murder against one's people and that leads someone to act out by looting does not mean you support looting."

Part 3:

Quote from Oak:

sycasey did not say that Rumsfeld or Republicans supported looting. In context, people were upset because looters destroyed and stole great treasures of antiquity. Rumsfeld never supported looters, but expressed understanding. I would point out that there is every reason to believe that there were just as many looters in Iraq stealing for personal gain as there were here. Again, sycasey's point was that NO ONE ACCUSED RUMSFELD OF SUPPORTING LOOTERS. So people should stop disingenuously accuse him of supporting looters.



Example 2 of Gaslighting by Sycasey and Oak

Goes from me pointing out that Rumsfeld's quote itself specifically qualified by context to a situation where a country is going from a dictatorship to a democracy. I point out that we are not in fact transition from a dictatorship where a whole country is oppressed by the tyranny of one man who used chemical weapons to wipe out an entire religious group. Then the goal post moves in response that the black community suffered more than Kurds and Shiite under Saddam to I am now lacking sympathy for looters for not understanding that they are responding to racial injustice.

Part 1.

My Quote to Sycasey:

Sycasey, you can't be serious.

• Are you or are not defending LOOTING? If not, you are not saying the same thing Rumsfeld said.
• We are not Iraq and we are not transitioning from a dictatorship
• And you want to align yourself to Rumsfeld?

What are you conveying? Maybe I missed it.


Part 2.


My Quote to Oak trying to explain my original response to Sycasey

OK, but we are not Iraq and we are not bunch of tortured masses having lived under one man's dictatorship. I promise I won't hold what Democrats supported about other countries and translate that to what we should do in our own country. So, maybe it's just me but this seems like such a stretch that it's really beneath you. And if you are not in support of rioters or excusing it. What disagreement do you have with those like me who are upset by it?


Part 3.

In direct response to me pointing out that Rumsfeld (whom I did not even support) only refer to a limited context, Oak now brings in racial issues and how I lack empathy for the black community's struggles by not trying to understand the looters and that the black community suffered more than the Kurds who were hit with massive bombs with mustard gas by its own leader. Completely ignores the fact that I never myself compared the plight of the black community with that of the Kurds, but apparently he assumed I did and states that I am wrong about one having suffered more than the other. Trying to gaslight me into believing I made a comparison or that by pointing out the context in which Rumsfeld made the comment, I am lacking empathy for the black community. I fell for it and started down the path of comparing the two in response, but at this point, Oak and Sycasey have completed twisted the conversation.

Quote from Oak

"sycasey has said over and over again that he doesn't support looting. He has said he understands the anger behind it. I don't see that he has said that you can't be upset by it. He is responding to he and others being accused of supporting it by merely expressing that he understands it. Rumsfeld did not support looting either. He merely expressed understanding.


And I'm sorry, we have some great conversations, but I keep coming back to empathy. Your first sentence is just a dramatic lack of understanding. [Note: my simple statement that we are not Iraq and we are not coming out of one man's dictatorship - the sole context in wihich Rumsfled made the statement.] Does it matter that it is one man's dictatorship? When as a result of slavery and historical oppression the current state of the median Black family is to have one tenth the wealth and less than half the income of the median White family. When income is about half even factoring in educational attainment. When Whites and Blacks have the same rates of drug usage but Blacks are 6 times more likely to be convicted of a drug crime? When too many police treat too many Blacks as prima facie criminals? When too many Black are killed by police. And your response is they don't have as much right to be mad as an Iraqi.

I disagree. They've been oppressed for far longer. It makes no difference to them that the oppression is from one guy or a couple hundred million. In fact I'd argue that the latter is worse.

Part 4:

Oak's follow up comment that he doesn't want to get into who suffered more and once again saying that I showed lack of empathy for the black community by pointing out that Rumsfeld made the comment in the context of a transition from a dictatorship in which he bombed his own people.

I wasn't saying you displayed lack of empathy for the looters. I was saying you displayed lack of empathy for the African American community by dismissing their grievances in comparison to the Iraqi's. [Note: He was the one who first made the comparison, but now I am showing lack of empathy by comparing. Talk about gaslighting.] Without going down a rathole of who has/had it worse, I think that is inappropriate. So basically no matter how much oppression someone faces, it won't match being Jewish in Nazi Germany, so the response can be "it's not like you are Jewish in Nazi Germany". [Note: Of course, someone has to bring up Hitler.[ Or, hell, you know Count Dracula? No, the REAL Count Dracula. He was known as the impaler. He impaled people all the time. Oh, no. Wait. Not that way. He had a six foot long pike driven through your ass and out your mouth. They perfected a way to do this so you died real slowly. Once, facing an approaching invading army that he had no hope of defeating he did this to hundreds of innocent people, his own people so that the invading army would see this and freak out and go back. So, you know, some people might think that is even worse than the Nazi's. Point being that humans have done a lot of horrible things and I don't think you have to be the worst treated in history to have a grievance.


Example 3 of Gaslighting by Oak

I explain that, while he encourages me to show empathy for the looters, he should also show empathy for the store owners. He says I did not pose an empathy question and he is just trying in all his benevolence to reach my heart and teach me empathy. He makes that claim even though I ask the empathy question in what he quoted in response. Then when I explain, he says I didn't say it in the original quote and I am throwing out there at the last minute as a gotcha. Then he twist this into saying, unlike my alleged claim, he never supported looters so he is showing plenty sympathy. When I ask him to show me one quote in which I say he "SUPPORTED" looters, of course he remains silent.

Part 1:

My quote (even bulleted) asking him to likewise show empathy for the store owners.

• Why is there such need to empathize with looters? Do you really believe the people who are truly angry about Floyd and want change are the ones who are looting local neighborhoods? Is that what you are seeing? We must be living in a different world. And do you believe empathizing with criminals causing harm to people who are particularly vulnerable makes one decent? What if someone were to say: No, I don't condone police brutality, but, considering how many police officers are injured, I also understand why they may sometimes overreact. Would that be acceptable to you in response to Floyd and show that they truly are against police brutality? Would that show how much empathy I have? No, there is no excuse for police brutality. There is no excuse for racism There is no excuse for mayhem or looting or burning down local neighborhoods. There is of course a reason for everything. I am sure that even tiki torch carriers have had tough childhoods, lack of parental guidance, etc. I don't give a ***** They are still scum, right? Do I really need to empathize with them? Do I need to empathize with criminals, Antifa, or armed militants causing havoc right now? No, I don't. So, sorry. You don't really seem to have empathy with the right people. How about the small business owners who had nothing to do with police brutality. You mentioned before that I show too much focus on one over another. I have not seem anything other than passing comments from you for middle class store owners. Where is your empathy for them?

Part 2:

Oak's response:

I'm not saying I'm right and you are wrong, but I don't get the response that I'm demonstrating lack of empathy. I get you don't think you are exhibiting lack of empathy, but nothing you argued about me was an empathy question. Which leads me to believe that using the word empathy has not been effective for me in trying to reach you with my argument. Because I am genuinely trying to reach you. [Note: What an arrogant and self-important and righteous comment. Thanks, but don't need empathy lessons from you. I don't honestly see you as someone I would ever want to emulate.] Your response indicates that I'm not reaching you, not because you disagree, but because your repeat back of my argument is not what I am saying.



Part 3:

My dumbfounded question on why me asking the question about his lack of empathy is not an empathy question/

My quote:

Why is your lack of equal concern for middle class shop owners who may not be adequately insured and who may have debt and now cannot support their family (many of them in the black community) not an empathy question for you?


Part 4.

Oak now trying to gaslight me into thinking that I never asked the question and now twisting it as saying it is irrelevant because he never "supported" the looters (who said he supported the looters? I said he is asking me to empathize with the looters, and I am saying also empathize with the middle class store owners). Another gaslighting trying to make me believe I said he supported the looter and since he didn't he hasn't failed to show empathy for the store owners by excusing the looters.

Oak quote:

So THAT would be an empathy question, which you did not raise in the first post. However, since I never supported the looters it is irrelevant. And sycasey never supported the looters. I feel terrible for the shop owners. [Note: He said I showed lack of empathy for Floyd even though I have explained how outraged I was with the police brutality that my blood was boiling. That was not enough. I was talking more about looting that Floyd - which is not true - but then he thinks this throw away comment shows his empathy.] You accused sycasey of something he didn't do. You are now spreading that to me. No one supported the looters. No one said you shouldn't be angry with the looters. Looters bad. Looters bad. Looters bad. Sycasey asked you for an example of someone here supporting the looters. You provided one. He said he didn't agree. He is asking you and others to stop saying we support looters. You keep responding with arguments about why we shouldn't support looters. And we respond by saying we don't support looters and asking you to stop saying we support looters. I don't know what else to say on this point. other than, oh yeah. I DON'T SUPPORT LOOTERS!!!! [Note: I never said he SUPPORTED the looters.]


Part 5:

I explain that I never said he supported looters and therefore him saying he doesn't support looters is not a correction of what I previously accused him of doing. And I also show why saying you don't support something while excusing it is not really showing empathy for the victim.

My quote in response.

When did I say you support looters? Please quote me. I said you are excusing looters and empathizing with looters. Are you not?

Let me apply your reasoning to something similar. No one here is saying they excuse police violence. But I suppose as long as one claims he does not support police violence (especially in all caps), it should be fine if he writes that he "understands" why police may use excessive violence in light of how much crime is committed in inner city and how many cops are killed every year. In that case, would you would really think - I guess it's all fine since he stated HE DOESN'T SUPPORT POLICE VIOLENCE. No?



So much more gaslighting by you and Oak and then you have the nerve to point out that discussion as my failure to read and listen. Wow.

---

I forgot why I have had such an issue with you in the past. This experience reminded me that we've been through this before. You have a habit of paraphrasing what people say and then commenting on your paraphrase. This is a problem when your paraphrase of what I say is not an accurate statement of what I believe. I am fine with people thinking I'm horrible for something I have said. I am not fine with people thinking I'm horrible for something someone else says I said, particularly when I massively disagree with the statement attributed to me.

I'm sorry you went through all of this work. The bottom line is your whole point hangs on sycasey posting

Quote:

---

"I remember when Republicans said looting was a good thing

---

That was obviously a sarcastic statement. Sycasey had already said he did not support the looting and was questioning comments by you and others that somehow people on here were expressing support for the looting. It was clear from context that he was drawing a parallel between Rumsfeld's statement and his own statements. The sarcasm was that if sycasey's statements support looting than Rumsfeld supported looting. Since the whole point sycasey had been making was that HE WASN'T SUPPORTING LOOTING, it should have been clear to you that he wasn't saying Rumsfeld supported looting. I understand that sometimes sarcasm doesn't come across in writing. However, if it wasn't clear to you, he explained it very early in the conversation. You just keep wanting to go back and relitigate "what people said". I don't know what you think the purpose would be for me or sycasey to "gaslight" you and make 1 argument just for the purpose of denying the argument for like 10 pages. That would be nonsensical. We don't gain from doing that. Frankly, 90% of this argument has been not on the merits of the actual argument, but an argument about "what we said", which was a colossal waste of time for all of us. The reason why I kept responding to you is because I not only didn't say what you said I said, I drastically disagree with what you supposedly think I said. I don't want anyone attributing those comments to me. You force me to correct the record to protect myself.

At some point when someone says that was not the argument they were making, you back off and let them express their own point. You don't get wrapped around the axle on 25 posts ago you said "X" and I took that to mean "Y". Sycasey told you what he meant. I told you what I meant. Even if we at some point mispoke (to be honest I don't think we did) you should let us explain our own argument.

As for the actual merits of the "supporting looters" question. I'm going to present these results of two questions from a poll Monmouth just published:

Quote:

---

Fifty-seven percent of respondents in the Monmouth poll felt that, regardless of their actions, protesters' ANGER was "fully justified," while 21 percent said it was "partially justified" and 18 percent said it was "not at all justified."

---

and then:

Quote:

---

In Monmouth's poll, only 17 percent felt the ACTIONS of the protesters were fully justified, 37 percent said they were partially justified and 38 percent said they weren't justified at all.

---

This is exactly what both sycasey and I were talking about. And while I understand you do not want to distinguish between the two, not only did Monmouth see the distinction in asking the questions, the respondents did on a large scale. Fully 40% of the people asked said the anger was fully justified and then went on to say the actions were not fully justified. Which is EXACTLY HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE POLL and exactly what I was saying. There is a huge distinction between saying you understand the underlying causes of the anger behind certain actions, and believing that anger is justified, and saying you think the actions that a person took based on that anger are justified. If a man walks in on his friend having sex with his wife and shoots him, I deplore the act of shooting him. I want him prosecuted. I do understand why he was upset. And I would say to the friend, if you go around having sex with married women, you are running a big risk that someone else is going to get mad and shoot you again. Not saying I agree with it, but it is likely to happen.

I'm 100% cool if you say you disagree with that 40% that I am a part of. I'm 100% cool if you disagree with the statement that the anger of the protesters was fully justified but the actions were not fully justified. If that is your opinion, that is cool with me. I AM NOT COOL with you paraphrasing MY OPINION into saying the actions were fully justified. It is not what I said. It is not my belief. If we had a misunderstanding as to what I said, you should take me at my word that it is not my belief when I tell you that. If that was not your understanding of what I said, either because I misspoke, you misheard or something got lost in translation, you need to move passed what you think I said when I tell you now that is not my belief. It stops all progress in the conversation. To continue to say someone believes something when they have told you they don't is not cool. Further, I AM DEFINITELY NOT COOL with you spinning up MULTIPLE TIMES, my saying, what 57% of the people said in that poll - that the anger is justified, into somehow I said all the looters are Black and then calling me racist for believing all looters are Black. Especially when I said several times that many of the looters were not Black. That is completely below the belt. I'd like to think you'd think better of that now as I would think better of much of what I said to you.

I think we have had constructive conversations. Those constructive conversations have taken place when we have taken each other's words at face value. I cannot have a conversation with you if you just want to lock onto your first interpretation of my first argument and just keep repeating what you think I said after I have posted 10 times that wasn't what I said or what I meant. That isn't an argument on the merits. That is a semantics argument that does no good.

In this case, we could have had a good, constructive conversation about whether addressing the underlying anger behind violence condones violence. We could have discussed proper ways to deal with violent protests. We could have discussed how we could prevent violent protests in the future. We could have taken it in a myriad of different constructive directions. Instead we spent way too much time in our life on "You said looting good" "no I didn't" "Yes you did" "no I didn't" "Yes you did" "No I didn't".

I apologize for my part in this and massively losing my cool with you. I just can't abide by people telling me and more importantly others what my own argument is when I'm here to make it myself. No one is trying to gaslight you. I said what I said, and I stand by that. If you think I said X, fine. If you think you can prove I said X, fine. I'm telling you, I don't believe X. At some point, when I have said Not X, so many times, I think you have to accept that there was a miscommunication in the first place and move on, even if you think that miscommunication was totally my fault.

I will give you this. I will not paraphrase what I think you say. I will respond to your post. If I mean to represent what you say, I will only do so through a direct quote. And if you tell me that what I interpret from your statements is not what you meant to say or what you believe, I will take you at face value and move on. I hope you will try and do the same for me. I don't think there is any value in winning an argument by parsing words. The value comes in having an actual discussion. Me beating you or you beating me is not going to change the world.

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

My experience the last few days made me realize some really do not bother to read the post being responded to or even to what they themselves originally wrote.

---

Yes, including you.

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/95929/replies/1760329

---

Oh, really? I was trying to be generous by not calling you out but here goes.


Example 1 of Gaslighting by Sycasey and Oak

Goes from Republicans thought looting is a good thing to I never said Republicans said it was a good thing:


Part 1:

Quote from Sycasey :

"I remember when Republicans said looting was a good thing:


[url=https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2003/04/11/Rumsfeld-Looting-is-transition-to-freedom/63821050097983/?][/url]https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2003/04/11/Rumsfeld-Looting-is-transition-to-freedom/63821050097983/"

Part 2:

Quote from Oak:

" I don't think this is difficult.


Rumsfeld: "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression"

Republicans: "ho hum. Nothing to see here."

sycasey: "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression"

Republicans: "How dare you defend looters! Antifa! Antifa!"

Expressing that you may understand why years of repression would lead to anger that can be triggered by an act of murder against one's people and that leads someone to act out by looting does not mean you support looting."

Part 3:

Quote from Oak:

sycasey did not say that Rumsfeld or Republicans supported looting. In context, people were upset because looters destroyed and stole great treasures of antiquity. Rumsfeld never supported looters, but expressed understanding. I would point out that there is every reason to believe that there were just as many looters in Iraq stealing for personal gain as there were here. Again, sycasey's point was that NO ONE ACCUSED RUMSFELD OF SUPPORTING LOOTERS. So people should stop disingenuously accuse him of supporting looters.



Example 2 of Gaslighting by Sycasey and Oak

Goes from me pointing out that Rumsfeld's quote itself specifically qualified by context to a situation where a country is going from a dictatorship to a democracy. I point out that we are not in fact transition from a dictatorship where a whole country is oppressed by the tyranny of one man who used chemical weapons to wipe out an entire religious group. Then the goal post moves in response that the black community suffered more than Kurds and Shiite under Saddam to I am now lacking sympathy for looters for not understanding that they are responding to racial injustice.

Part 1.

My Quote to Sycasey:

Sycasey, you can't be serious.

• Are you or are not defending LOOTING? If not, you are not saying the same thing Rumsfeld said.
• We are not Iraq and we are not transitioning from a dictatorship
• And you want to align yourself to Rumsfeld?

What are you conveying? Maybe I missed it.


Part 2.


My Quote to Oak trying to explain my original response to Sycasey

OK, but we are not Iraq and we are not bunch of tortured masses having lived under one man's dictatorship. I promise I won't hold what Democrats supported about other countries and translate that to what we should do in our own country. So, maybe it's just me but this seems like such a stretch that it's really beneath you. And if you are not in support of rioters or excusing it. What disagreement do you have with those like me who are upset by it?


Part 3.

In direct response to me pointing out that Rumsfeld (whom I did not even support) only refer to a limited context, Oak now brings in racial issues and how I lack empathy for the black community's struggles by not trying to understand the looters and that the black community suffered more than the Kurds who were hit with massive bombs with mustard gas by its own leader. Completely ignores the fact that I never myself compared the plight of the black community with that of the Kurds, but apparently he assumed I did and states that I am wrong about one having suffered more than the other. Trying to gaslight me into believing I made a comparison or that by pointing out the context in which Rumsfeld made the comment, I am lacking empathy for the black community. I fell for it and started down the path of comparing the two in response, but at this point, Oak and Sycasey have completed twisted the conversation.

Quote from Oak

"sycasey has said over and over again that he doesn't support looting. He has said he understands the anger behind it. I don't see that he has said that you can't be upset by it. He is responding to he and others being accused of supporting it by merely expressing that he understands it. Rumsfeld did not support looting either. He merely expressed understanding.


And I'm sorry, we have some great conversations, but I keep coming back to empathy. Your first sentence is just a dramatic lack of understanding. [Note: my simple statement that we are not Iraq and we are not coming out of one man's dictatorship - the sole context in wihich Rumsfled made the statement.] Does it matter that it is one man's dictatorship? When as a result of slavery and historical oppression the current state of the median Black family is to have one tenth the wealth and less than half the income of the median White family. When income is about half even factoring in educational attainment. When Whites and Blacks have the same rates of drug usage but Blacks are 6 times more likely to be convicted of a drug crime? When too many police treat too many Blacks as prima facie criminals? When too many Black are killed by police. And your response is they don't have as much right to be mad as an Iraqi.

I disagree. They've been oppressed for far longer. It makes no difference to them that the oppression is from one guy or a couple hundred million. In fact I'd argue that the latter is worse.

Part 4:

Oak's follow up comment that he doesn't want to get into who suffered more and once again saying that I showed lack of empathy for the black community by pointing out that Rumsfeld made the comment in the context of a transition from a dictatorship in which he bombed his own people.

I wasn't saying you displayed lack of empathy for the looters. I was saying you displayed lack of empathy for the African American community by dismissing their grievances in comparison to the Iraqi's. [Note: He was the one who first made the comparison, but now I am showing lack of empathy by comparing. Talk about gaslighting.] Without going down a rathole of who has/had it worse, I think that is inappropriate. So basically no matter how much oppression someone faces, it won't match being Jewish in Nazi Germany, so the response can be "it's not like you are Jewish in Nazi Germany". [Note: Of course, someone has to bring up Hitler.[ Or, hell, you know Count Dracula? No, the REAL Count Dracula. He was known as the impaler. He impaled people all the time. Oh, no. Wait. Not that way. He had a six foot long pike driven through your ass and out your mouth. They perfected a way to do this so you died real slowly. Once, facing an approaching invading army that he had no hope of defeating he did this to hundreds of innocent people, his own people so that the invading army would see this and freak out and go back. So, you know, some people might think that is even worse than the Nazi's. Point being that humans have done a lot of horrible things and I don't think you have to be the worst treated in history to have a grievance.


Example 3 of Gaslighting by Oak

I explain that, while he encourages me to show empathy for the looters, he should also show empathy for the store owners. He says I did not pose an empathy question and he is just trying in all his benevolence to reach my heart and teach me empathy. He makes that claim even though I ask the empathy question in what he quoted in response. Then when I explain, he says I didn't say it in the original quote and I am throwing out there at the last minute as a gotcha. Then he twist this into saying, unlike my alleged claim, he never supported looters so he is showing plenty sympathy. When I ask him to show me one quote in which I say he "SUPPORTED" looters, of course he remains silent.

Part 1:

My quote (even bulleted) asking him to likewise show empathy for the store owners.

• Why is there such need to empathize with looters? Do you really believe the people who are truly angry about Floyd and want change are the ones who are looting local neighborhoods? Is that what you are seeing? We must be living in a different world. And do you believe empathizing with criminals causing harm to people who are particularly vulnerable makes one decent? What if someone were to say: No, I don't condone police brutality, but, considering how many police officers are injured, I also understand why they may sometimes overreact. Would that be acceptable to you in response to Floyd and show that they truly are against police brutality? Would that show how much empathy I have? No, there is no excuse for police brutality. There is no excuse for racism There is no excuse for mayhem or looting or burning down local neighborhoods. There is of course a reason for everything. I am sure that even tiki torch carriers have had tough childhoods, lack of parental guidance, etc. I don't give a ***** They are still scum, right? Do I really need to empathize with them? Do I need to empathize with criminals, Antifa, or armed militants causing havoc right now? No, I don't. So, sorry. You don't really seem to have empathy with the right people. How about the small business owners who had nothing to do with police brutality. You mentioned before that I show too much focus on one over another. I have not seem anything other than passing comments from you for middle class store owners. Where is your empathy for them?

Part 2:

Oak's response:

I'm not saying I'm right and you are wrong, but I don't get the response that I'm demonstrating lack of empathy. I get you don't think you are exhibiting lack of empathy, but nothing you argued about me was an empathy question. Which leads me to believe that using the word empathy has not been effective for me in trying to reach you with my argument. Because I am genuinely trying to reach you. [Note: What an arrogant and self-important and righteous comment. Thanks, but don't need empathy lessons from you. I don't honestly see you as someone I would ever want to emulate.] Your response indicates that I'm not reaching you, not because you disagree, but because your repeat back of my argument is not what I am saying.



Part 3:

My dumbfounded question on why me asking the question about his lack of empathy is not an empathy question/

My quote:

Why is your lack of equal concern for middle class shop owners who may not be adequately insured and who may have debt and now cannot support their family (many of them in the black community) not an empathy question for you?


Part 4.

Oak now trying to gaslight me into thinking that I never asked the question and now twisting it as saying it is irrelevant because he never "supported" the looters (who said he supported the looters? I said he is asking me to empathize with the looters, and I am saying also empathize with the middle class store owners). Another gaslighting trying to make me believe I said he supported the looter and since he didn't he hasn't failed to show empathy for the store owners by excusing the looters.

Oak quote:

So THAT would be an empathy question, which you did not raise in the first post. However, since I never supported the looters it is irrelevant. And sycasey never supported the looters. I feel terrible for the shop owners. [Note: He said I showed lack of empathy for Floyd even though I have explained how outraged I was with the police brutality that my blood was boiling. That was not enough. I was talking more about looting that Floyd - which is not true - but then he thinks this throw away comment shows his empathy.] You accused sycasey of something he didn't do. You are now spreading that to me. No one supported the looters. No one said you shouldn't be angry with the looters. Looters bad. Looters bad. Looters bad. Sycasey asked you for an example of someone here supporting the looters. You provided one. He said he didn't agree. He is asking you and others to stop saying we support looters. You keep responding with arguments about why we shouldn't support looters. And we respond by saying we don't support looters and asking you to stop saying we support looters. I don't know what else to say on this point. other than, oh yeah. I DON'T SUPPORT LOOTERS!!!! [Note: I never said he SUPPORTED the looters.]


Part 5:

I explain that I never said he supported looters and therefore him saying he doesn't support looters is not a correction of what I previously accused him of doing. And I also show why saying you don't support something while excusing it is not really showing empathy for the victim.

My quote in response.

When did I say you support looters? Please quote me. I said you are excusing looters and empathizing with looters. Are you not?

Let me apply your reasoning to something similar. No one here is saying they excuse police violence. But I suppose as long as one claims he does not support police violence (especially in all caps), it should be fine if he writes that he "understands" why police may use excessive violence in light of how much crime is committed in inner city and how many cops are killed every year. In that case, would you would really think - I guess it's all fine since he stated HE DOESN'T SUPPORT POLICE VIOLENCE. No?



So much more gaslighting by you and Oak and then you have the nerve to point out that discussion as my failure to read and listen. Wow.

---

I forgot why I have had such an issue with you in the past. This experience reminded me that we've been through this before. You have a habit of paraphrasing what people say and then commenting on your paraphrase. This is a problem when your paraphrase of what I say is not an accurate statement of what I believe. I am fine with people thinking I'm horrible for something I have said. I am not fine with people thinking I'm horrible for something someone else says I said, particularly when I massively disagree with the statement attributed to me.

I'm sorry you went through all of this work. The bottom line is your whole point hangs on sycasey posting

Quote:

---

"I remember when Republicans said looting was a good thing

---

That was obviously a sarcastic statement. Sycasey had already said he did not support the looting and was questioning comments by you and others that somehow people on here were expressing support for the looting. It was clear from context that he was drawing a parallel between Rumsfeld's statement and his own statements. The sarcasm was that if sycasey's statements support looting than Rumsfeld supported looting. Since the whole point sycasey had been making was that HE WASN'T SUPPORTING LOOTING, it should have been clear to you that he wasn't saying Rumsfeld supported looting. I understand that sometimes sarcasm doesn't come across in writing. However, if it wasn't clear to you, he explained it very early in the conversation. You just keep wanting to go back and relitigate "what people said". I don't know what you think the purpose would be for me or sycasey to "gaslight" you and make 1 argument just for the purpose of denying the argument for like 10 pages. That would be nonsensical. We don't gain from doing that. Frankly, 90% of this argument has been not on the merits of the actual argument, but an argument about "what we said", which was a colossal waste of time for all of us. The reason why I kept responding to you is because I not only didn't say what you said I said, I drastically disagree with what you supposedly think I said. I don't want anyone attributing those comments to me. You force me to correct the record to protect myself.

At some point when someone says that was not the argument they were making, you back off and let them express their own point. You don't get wrapped around the axle on 25 posts ago you said "X" and I took that to mean "Y". Sycasey told you what he meant. I told you what I meant. Even if we at some point mispoke (to be honest I don't think we did) you should let us explain our own argument.

As for the actual merits of the "supporting looters" question. I'm going to present these results of two questions from a poll Monmouth just published:

Quote:

---

Fifty-seven percent of respondents in the Monmouth poll felt that, regardless of their actions, protesters' ANGER was "fully justified," while 21 percent said it was "partially justified" and 18 percent said it was "not at all justified."

---

and then:

Quote:

---

In Monmouth's poll, only 17 percent felt the ACTIONS of the protesters were fully justified, 37 percent said they were partially justified and 38 percent said they weren't justified at all.

---

This is exactly what both sycasey and I were talking about. And while I understand you do not want to distinguish between the two, not only did Monmouth see the distinction in asking the questions, the respondents did on a large scale. Fully 40% of the people asked said the anger was fully justified and then went on to say the actions were not fully justified. Which is EXACTLY HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE POLL and exactly what I was saying. There is a huge distinction between saying you understand the underlying causes of the anger behind certain actions, and believing that anger is justified, and saying you think the actions that a person took based on that anger are justified. If a man walks in on his friend having sex with his wife and shoots him, I deplore the act of shooting him. I want him prosecuted. I do understand why he was upset. And I would say to the friend, if you go around having sex with married women, you are running a big risk that someone else is going to get mad and shoot you again. Not saying I agree with it, but it is likely to happen.

I'm 100% cool if you say you disagree with that 40% that I am a part of. I'm 100% cool if you disagree with the statement that the anger of the protesters was fully justified but the actions were not fully justified. If that is your opinion, that is cool with me. I AM NOT COOL with you paraphrasing MY OPINION into saying the actions were fully justified. It is not what I said. It is not my belief. If we had a misunderstanding as to what I said, you should take me at my word that it is not my belief when I tell you that. If that was not your understanding of what I said, either because I misspoke, you misheard or something got lost in translation, you need to move passed what you think I said when I tell you now that is not my belief. It stops all progress in the conversation. To continue to say someone believes something when they have told you they don't is not cool. Further, I AM DEFINITELY NOT COOL with you spinning up MULTIPLE TIMES, my saying, what 57% of the people said in that poll - that the anger is justified, into somehow I said all the looters are Black and then calling me racist for believing all looters are Black. Especially when I said several times that many of the looters were not Black. That is completely below the belt. I'd like to think you'd think better of that now as I would think better of much of what I said to you.

I think we have had constructive conversations. Those constructive conversations have taken place when we have taken each other's words at face value. I cannot have a conversation with you if you just want to lock onto your first interpretation of my first argument and just keep repeating what you think I said after I have posted 10 times that wasn't what I said or what I meant. That isn't an argument on the merits. That is a semantics argument that does no good.

In this case, we could have had a good, constructive conversation about whether addressing the underlying anger behind violence condones violence. We could have discussed proper ways to deal with violent protests. We could have discussed how we could prevent violent protests in the future. We could have taken it in a myriad of different constructive directions. Instead we spent way too much time in our life on "You said looting good" "no I didn't" "Yes you did" "no I didn't" "Yes you did" "No I didn't".

I apologize for my part in this and massively losing my cool with you. I just can't abide by people telling me and more importantly others what my own argument is when I'm here to make it myself. No one is trying to gaslight you. I said what I said, and I stand by that. If you think I said X, fine. If you think you can prove I said X, fine. I'm telling you, I don't believe X. At some point, when I have said Not X, so many times, I think you have to accept that there was a miscommunication in the first place and move on, even if you think that miscommunication was totally my fault.

I will give you this. I will not paraphrase what I think you say. I will respond to your post. If I mean to represent what you say, I will only do so through a direct quote. And if you tell me that what I interpret from your statements is not what you meant to say or what you believe, I will take you at face value and move on. I hope you will try and do the same for me. I don't think there is any value in winning an argument by parsing words. The value comes in having an actual discussion. Me beating you or you beating me is not going to change the world.

---

"I forgot why I have had such an issue with you in the past. This experience reminded me that we've been through this before. You have a habit of paraphrasing what people say and then commenting on your paraphrase. This is a problem when your paraphrase of what I say is not an accurate statement of what I believe. I am fine with people thinking I'm horrible for something I have said. I am not fine with people thinking I'm horrible for something someone else says I said, particularly when I massively disagree with the statement attributed to me.


I'm sorry you went through all of this work. The bottom line is your whole point hangs on sycasey posting."


Please stop with rewriting history. This experience reminded me of why I had issues with you as well.

Please don't explain to me that Sycasey point was sarcastic. I know it was. I told him as much. But thank you for thinking again in your pedestrian manner that you need to explain something that was obvious to all as if you are some intellectual giant talking to children.

What you fail to realize is that you jumped into my response to Sycasey when my intent was to remind him that Rumsfeld's quote was made in a completely different context and, as such, doesn't work (while knowing he meant it as a sarcastic poke at those at the conservatives on this board). You are the one who elevated the conversation into some bullshyte empathy discussion when it was each of us mocking the other.

And please tell me how I took things out of context and paraphrased when I took your DIRECT QUOTE. Just some more gaslighting.

I will say this. I really wonder what your point in all this is. Who cares whether some stranger like me is convinced you are right? You talk of empathy and integrity and you sell it down the river for this? You do realize that whatever valid point you may have in the future is going to be discounted.



"That was obviously a sarcastic statement. Sycasey had already said he did not support the looting and was questioning comments by you and others that somehow people on here were expressing support for the looting. It was clear from context that he was drawing a parallel between Rumsfeld's statement and his own statements. The sarcasm was that if sycasey's statements support looting than Rumsfeld supported looting. Since the whole point sycasey had been making was that HE WASN'T SUPPORTING LOOTING, it should have been clear to you that he wasn't saying Rumsfeld supported looting. I understand that sometimes sarcasm doesn't come across in writing. However, if it wasn't clear to you, he explained it very early in the conversation. You just keep wanting to go back and relitigate "what people said". I don't know what you think the purpose would be for me or sycasey to "gaslight" you and make 1 argument just for the purpose of denying the argument for like 10 pages. That would be nonsensical. We don't gain from doing that. Frankly, 90% of this argument has been not on the merits of the actual argument, but an argument about "what we said", which was a colossal waste of time for all of us. The reason why I kept responding to you is because I not only didn't say what you said I said, I drastically disagree with what you supposedly think I said. I don't want anyone attributing those comments to me. You force me to correct the record to protect myself."



NO shyte it was a sarcastic remark.

Here is what I wrote to Sycasey this morning (again an example of you talking more than listening):

"You are a little weasle. Everything I once thought about you as being one of the reasonable one has gone out the window. Oak was being sarcastic? You were being sarcastic. Do me a favor. **** off."

"Of course it is all about you. Forget that in what you quote, I asked if Oak was being sarcastic. I acknowledged that you were being sarcastic. Yes, thinking you are anything but a weasel won't be a mistake I make again."


My point in my original response to SYCASEY was that him making that sarcastic remark was not even that clever because instead of poking us, he brought something that was not even relevant and wasn't even where he wanted to end up (that he either supports Rumsfeld or looting). You think I missed the context or tone. Trust me, you are the one who missed it, whether it is butting in on this conversation where I was trying to point out TO Sycasey that he was not being that clever just like you missing the mark when I was pointing to blugld the silliness of accusing Yogi of being some conservative Christian. You think you need to come down and explain in your pedantic manner when it is you who is clearly not getting the tone or the context and twisting it into some empathy, morality matter.

AND STOP SAYING YOU DO NOT SUPPORT LOOTING. NO SHYTE. I AM SAYING STOP JUSTIFYING OR EXPLAINING THE MINDSET OF LOOTERS OR EVEN IMPLYING THAT IT IS A BLACK COMMUNITY ACTION. JUST FREAKING STOP. You go on a diatribe on something that was not even in discussion. Trust me on this. I know you see yourself as the rational, reasoned person among loonies. You are not the way you see yourself. You just come across as someone.so unaware of how tiring you are. And you come across as a "liberal" racist who cannot get his mind wrapped around the concept that it is not the black community who is looting, and looters are not doing so because they are tired of police violence. I stand with the black community on the anger against police violence and systemic racism. I do not stand with looters. Two different groups. Please accept that criminal looters do have to come from the black community, and you do not have to justify looting by saying you sympathize with them because you sympathize with the black community. That is some racist bullshyte. And don't tell me you did not do that. You quotes are readily available.

And I will ask you for the last time to quote me on when I said you or sycasey supported looters. Please, quote me. If you cannot, stop repeating that you don't support looters. I have never said you did.

Here. I DO NOT SUPPORT POLICE VIOLENCE. Are we good? Should I justify police violence or try to explain what the police officers may have been thinking? No, I won't do that, because I won't justify or explain bad actors or bad acts.


"At some point when someone says that was not the argument they were making, you back off and let them express their own point. You don't get wrapped around the axle on 25 posts ago you said "X" and I took that to mean "Y". Sycasey told you what he meant. I told you what I meant. Even if we at some point mispoke (to be honest I don't think we did) you should let us explain our own argument.

As for the actual merits of the "supporting looters" question. I'm going to present these results of two questions from a poll Monmouth just published:"


This again is you missing the plot. You do realize that my post was not rehashing out of the blue but a response to Sycasey again trying to be clever. You do realize that, right? And you do realize that I already told him affirmative that I knew he was being sarcastic but of course you have to interject in your typically manner with a 1,000 word post while completing missing the context and the point.


I am so done with you and your gaslighting. It is tiring dealing with such deluded and self-unaware person. And you think at most you are 40% responsible? What a jackass.

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

My experience the last few days made me realize some really do not bother to read the post being responded to or even to what they themselves originally wrote.

---

Yes, including you.

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/95929/replies/1760329

---

Oh, really? I was trying to be generous by not calling you out but here goes.


Example 1 of Gaslighting by Sycasey and Oak

Goes from Republicans thought looting is a good thing to I never said Republicans said it was a good thing:


Part 1:

Quote from Sycasey :

"I remember when Republicans said looting was a good thing:


[url=https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2003/04/11/Rumsfeld-Looting-is-transition-to-freedom/63821050097983/?][/url]https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2003/04/11/Rumsfeld-Looting-is-transition-to-freedom/63821050097983/"

Part 2:

Quote from Oak:

" I don't think this is difficult.


Rumsfeld: "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression"

Republicans: "ho hum. Nothing to see here."

sycasey: "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression"

Republicans: "How dare you defend looters! Antifa! Antifa!"

Expressing that you may understand why years of repression would lead to anger that can be triggered by an act of murder against one's people and that leads someone to act out by looting does not mean you support looting."

Part 3:

Quote from Oak:

sycasey did not say that Rumsfeld or Republicans supported looting. In context, people were upset because looters destroyed and stole great treasures of antiquity. Rumsfeld never supported looters, but expressed understanding. I would point out that there is every reason to believe that there were just as many looters in Iraq stealing for personal gain as there were here. Again, sycasey's point was that NO ONE ACCUSED RUMSFELD OF SUPPORTING LOOTERS. So people should stop disingenuously accuse him of supporting looters.



Example 2 of Gaslighting by Sycasey and Oak

Goes from me pointing out that Rumsfeld's quote itself specifically qualified by context to a situation where a country is going from a dictatorship to a democracy. I point out that we are not in fact transition from a dictatorship where a whole country is oppressed by the tyranny of one man who used chemical weapons to wipe out an entire religious group. Then the goal post moves in response that the black community suffered more than Kurds and Shiite under Saddam to I am now lacking sympathy for looters for not understanding that they are responding to racial injustice.

Part 1.

My Quote to Sycasey:

Sycasey, you can't be serious.

• Are you or are not defending LOOTING? If not, you are not saying the same thing Rumsfeld said.
• We are not Iraq and we are not transitioning from a dictatorship
• And you want to align yourself to Rumsfeld?

What are you conveying? Maybe I missed it.


Part 2.


My Quote to Oak trying to explain my original response to Sycasey

OK, but we are not Iraq and we are not bunch of tortured masses having lived under one man's dictatorship. I promise I won't hold what Democrats supported about other countries and translate that to what we should do in our own country. So, maybe it's just me but this seems like such a stretch that it's really beneath you. And if you are not in support of rioters or excusing it. What disagreement do you have with those like me who are upset by it?


Part 3.

In direct response to me pointing out that Rumsfeld (whom I did not even support) only refer to a limited context, Oak now brings in racial issues and how I lack empathy for the black community's struggles by not trying to understand the looters and that the black community suffered more than the Kurds who were hit with massive bombs with mustard gas by its own leader. Completely ignores the fact that I never myself compared the plight of the black community with that of the Kurds, but apparently he assumed I did and states that I am wrong about one having suffered more than the other. Trying to gaslight me into believing I made a comparison or that by pointing out the context in which Rumsfeld made the comment, I am lacking empathy for the black community. I fell for it and started down the path of comparing the two in response, but at this point, Oak and Sycasey have completed twisted the conversation.

Quote from Oak

"sycasey has said over and over again that he doesn't support looting. He has said he understands the anger behind it. I don't see that he has said that you can't be upset by it. He is responding to he and others being accused of supporting it by merely expressing that he understands it. Rumsfeld did not support looting either. He merely expressed understanding.


And I'm sorry, we have some great conversations, but I keep coming back to empathy. Your first sentence is just a dramatic lack of understanding. [Note: my simple statement that we are not Iraq and we are not coming out of one man's dictatorship - the sole context in wihich Rumsfled made the statement.] Does it matter that it is one man's dictatorship? When as a result of slavery and historical oppression the current state of the median Black family is to have one tenth the wealth and less than half the income of the median White family. When income is about half even factoring in educational attainment. When Whites and Blacks have the same rates of drug usage but Blacks are 6 times more likely to be convicted of a drug crime? When too many police treat too many Blacks as prima facie criminals? When too many Black are killed by police. And your response is they don't have as much right to be mad as an Iraqi.

I disagree. They've been oppressed for far longer. It makes no difference to them that the oppression is from one guy or a couple hundred million. In fact I'd argue that the latter is worse.

Part 4:

Oak's follow up comment that he doesn't want to get into who suffered more and once again saying that I showed lack of empathy for the black community by pointing out that Rumsfeld made the comment in the context of a transition from a dictatorship in which he bombed his own people.

I wasn't saying you displayed lack of empathy for the looters. I was saying you displayed lack of empathy for the African American community by dismissing their grievances in comparison to the Iraqi's. [Note: He was the one who first made the comparison, but now I am showing lack of empathy by comparing. Talk about gaslighting.] Without going down a rathole of who has/had it worse, I think that is inappropriate. So basically no matter how much oppression someone faces, it won't match being Jewish in Nazi Germany, so the response can be "it's not like you are Jewish in Nazi Germany". [Note: Of course, someone has to bring up Hitler.[ Or, hell, you know Count Dracula? No, the REAL Count Dracula. He was known as the impaler. He impaled people all the time. Oh, no. Wait. Not that way. He had a six foot long pike driven through your ass and out your mouth. They perfected a way to do this so you died real slowly. Once, facing an approaching invading army that he had no hope of defeating he did this to hundreds of innocent people, his own people so that the invading army would see this and freak out and go back. So, you know, some people might think that is even worse than the Nazi's. Point being that humans have done a lot of horrible things and I don't think you have to be the worst treated in history to have a grievance.


Example 3 of Gaslighting by Oak

I explain that, while he encourages me to show empathy for the looters, he should also show empathy for the store owners. He says I did not pose an empathy question and he is just trying in all his benevolence to reach my heart and teach me empathy. He makes that claim even though I ask the empathy question in what he quoted in response. Then when I explain, he says I didn't say it in the original quote and I am throwing out there at the last minute as a gotcha. Then he twist this into saying, unlike my alleged claim, he never supported looters so he is showing plenty sympathy. When I ask him to show me one quote in which I say he "SUPPORTED" looters, of course he remains silent.

Part 1:

My quote (even bulleted) asking him to likewise show empathy for the store owners.

• Why is there such need to empathize with looters? Do you really believe the people who are truly angry about Floyd and want change are the ones who are looting local neighborhoods? Is that what you are seeing? We must be living in a different world. And do you believe empathizing with criminals causing harm to people who are particularly vulnerable makes one decent? What if someone were to say: No, I don't condone police brutality, but, considering how many police officers are injured, I also understand why they may sometimes overreact. Would that be acceptable to you in response to Floyd and show that they truly are against police brutality? Would that show how much empathy I have? No, there is no excuse for police brutality. There is no excuse for racism There is no excuse for mayhem or looting or burning down local neighborhoods. There is of course a reason for everything. I am sure that even tiki torch carriers have had tough childhoods, lack of parental guidance, etc. I don't give a ***** They are still scum, right? Do I really need to empathize with them? Do I need to empathize with criminals, Antifa, or armed militants causing havoc right now? No, I don't. So, sorry. You don't really seem to have empathy with the right people. How about the small business owners who had nothing to do with police brutality. You mentioned before that I show too much focus on one over another. I have not seem anything other than passing comments from you for middle class store owners. Where is your empathy for them?

Part 2:

Oak's response:

I'm not saying I'm right and you are wrong, but I don't get the response that I'm demonstrating lack of empathy. I get you don't think you are exhibiting lack of empathy, but nothing you argued about me was an empathy question. Which leads me to believe that using the word empathy has not been effective for me in trying to reach you with my argument. Because I am genuinely trying to reach you. [Note: What an arrogant and self-important and righteous comment. Thanks, but don't need empathy lessons from you. I don't honestly see you as someone I would ever want to emulate.] Your response indicates that I'm not reaching you, not because you disagree, but because your repeat back of my argument is not what I am saying.



Part 3:

My dumbfounded question on why me asking the question about his lack of empathy is not an empathy question/

My quote:

Why is your lack of equal concern for middle class shop owners who may not be adequately insured and who may have debt and now cannot support their family (many of them in the black community) not an empathy question for you?


Part 4.

Oak now trying to gaslight me into thinking that I never asked the question and now twisting it as saying it is irrelevant because he never "supported" the looters (who said he supported the looters? I said he is asking me to empathize with the looters, and I am saying also empathize with the middle class store owners). Another gaslighting trying to make me believe I said he supported the looter and since he didn't he hasn't failed to show empathy for the store owners by excusing the looters.

Oak quote:

So THAT would be an empathy question, which you did not raise in the first post. However, since I never supported the looters it is irrelevant. And sycasey never supported the looters. I feel terrible for the shop owners. [Note: He said I showed lack of empathy for Floyd even though I have explained how outraged I was with the police brutality that my blood was boiling. That was not enough. I was talking more about looting that Floyd - which is not true - but then he thinks this throw away comment shows his empathy.] You accused sycasey of something he didn't do. You are now spreading that to me. No one supported the looters. No one said you shouldn't be angry with the looters. Looters bad. Looters bad. Looters bad. Sycasey asked you for an example of someone here supporting the looters. You provided one. He said he didn't agree. He is asking you and others to stop saying we support looters. You keep responding with arguments about why we shouldn't support looters. And we respond by saying we don't support looters and asking you to stop saying we support looters. I don't know what else to say on this point. other than, oh yeah. I DON'T SUPPORT LOOTERS!!!! [Note: I never said he SUPPORTED the looters.]


Part 5:

I explain that I never said he supported looters and therefore him saying he doesn't support looters is not a correction of what I previously accused him of doing. And I also show why saying you don't support something while excusing it is not really showing empathy for the victim.

My quote in response.

When did I say you support looters? Please quote me. I said you are excusing looters and empathizing with looters. Are you not?

Let me apply your reasoning to something similar. No one here is saying they excuse police violence. But I suppose as long as one claims he does not support police violence (especially in all caps), it should be fine if he writes that he "understands" why police may use excessive violence in light of how much crime is committed in inner city and how many cops are killed every year. In that case, would you would really think - I guess it's all fine since he stated HE DOESN'T SUPPORT POLICE VIOLENCE. No?



So much more gaslighting by you and Oak and then you have the nerve to point out that discussion as my failure to read and listen. Wow.

---

I forgot why I have had such an issue with you in the past. This experience reminded me that we've been through this before. You have a habit of paraphrasing what people say and then commenting on your paraphrase. This is a problem when your paraphrase of what I say is not an accurate statement of what I believe. I am fine with people thinking I'm horrible for something I have said. I am not fine with people thinking I'm horrible for something someone else says I said, particularly when I massively disagree with the statement attributed to me.

I'm sorry you went through all of this work. The bottom line is your whole point hangs on sycasey posting

Quote:

---

"I remember when Republicans said looting was a good thing

---

That was obviously a sarcastic statement. Sycasey had already said he did not support the looting and was questioning comments by you and others that somehow people on here were expressing support for the looting. It was clear from context that he was drawing a parallel between Rumsfeld's statement and his own statements. The sarcasm was that if sycasey's statements support looting than Rumsfeld supported looting. Since the whole point sycasey had been making was that HE WASN'T SUPPORTING LOOTING, it should have been clear to you that he wasn't saying Rumsfeld supported looting. I understand that sometimes sarcasm doesn't come across in writing. However, if it wasn't clear to you, he explained it very early in the conversation. You just keep wanting to go back and relitigate "what people said". I don't know what you think the purpose would be for me or sycasey to "gaslight" you and make 1 argument just for the purpose of denying the argument for like 10 pages. That would be nonsensical. We don't gain from doing that. Frankly, 90% of this argument has been not on the merits of the actual argument, but an argument about "what we said", which was a colossal waste of time for all of us. The reason why I kept responding to you is because I not only didn't say what you said I said, I drastically disagree with what you supposedly think I said. I don't want anyone attributing those comments to me. You force me to correct the record to protect myself.

At some point when someone says that was not the argument they were making, you back off and let them express their own point. You don't get wrapped around the axle on 25 posts ago you said "X" and I took that to mean "Y". Sycasey told you what he meant. I told you what I meant. Even if we at some point mispoke (to be honest I don't think we did) you should let us explain our own argument.

As for the actual merits of the "supporting looters" question. I'm going to present these results of two questions from a poll Monmouth just published:

Quote:

---

Fifty-seven percent of respondents in the Monmouth poll felt that, regardless of their actions, protesters' ANGER was "fully justified," while 21 percent said it was "partially justified" and 18 percent said it was "not at all justified."

---

and then:

Quote:

---

In Monmouth's poll, only 17 percent felt the ACTIONS of the protesters were fully justified, 37 percent said they were partially justified and 38 percent said they weren't justified at all.

---

This is exactly what both sycasey and I were talking about. And while I understand you do not want to distinguish between the two, not only did Monmouth see the distinction in asking the questions, the respondents did on a large scale. Fully 40% of the people asked said the anger was fully justified and then went on to say the actions were not fully justified. Which is EXACTLY HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE POLL and exactly what I was saying. There is a huge distinction between saying you understand the underlying causes of the anger behind certain actions, and believing that anger is justified, and saying you think the actions that a person took based on that anger are justified. If a man walks in on his friend having sex with his wife and shoots him, I deplore the act of shooting him. I want him prosecuted. I do understand why he was upset. And I would say to the friend, if you go around having sex with married women, you are running a big risk that someone else is going to get mad and shoot you again. Not saying I agree with it, but it is likely to happen.

I'm 100% cool if you say you disagree with that 40% that I am a part of. I'm 100% cool if you disagree with the statement that the anger of the protesters was fully justified but the actions were not fully justified. If that is your opinion, that is cool with me. I AM NOT COOL with you paraphrasing MY OPINION into saying the actions were fully justified. It is not what I said. It is not my belief. If we had a misunderstanding as to what I said, you should take me at my word that it is not my belief when I tell you that. If that was not your understanding of what I said, either because I misspoke, you misheard or something got lost in translation, you need to move passed what you think I said when I tell you now that is not my belief. It stops all progress in the conversation. To continue to say someone believes something when they have told you they don't is not cool. Further, I AM DEFINITELY NOT COOL with you spinning up MULTIPLE TIMES, my saying, what 57% of the people said in that poll - that the anger is justified, into somehow I said all the looters are Black and then calling me racist for believing all looters are Black. Especially when I said several times that many of the looters were not Black. That is completely below the belt. I'd like to think you'd think better of that now as I would think better of much of what I said to you.

I think we have had constructive conversations. Those constructive conversations have taken place when we have taken each other's words at face value. I cannot have a conversation with you if you just want to lock onto your first interpretation of my first argument and just keep repeating what you think I said after I have posted 10 times that wasn't what I said or what I meant. That isn't an argument on the merits. That is a semantics argument that does no good.

In this case, we could have had a good, constructive conversation about whether addressing the underlying anger behind violence condones violence. We could have discussed proper ways to deal with violent protests. We could have discussed how we could prevent violent protests in the future. We could have taken it in a myriad of different constructive directions. Instead we spent way too much time in our life on "You said looting good" "no I didn't" "Yes you did" "no I didn't" "Yes you did" "No I didn't".

I apologize for my part in this and massively losing my cool with you. I just can't abide by people telling me and more importantly others what my own argument is when I'm here to make it myself. No one is trying to gaslight you. I said what I said, and I stand by that. If you think I said X, fine. If you think you can prove I said X, fine. I'm telling you, I don't believe X. At some point, when I have said Not X, so many times, I think you have to accept that there was a miscommunication in the first place and move on, even if you think that miscommunication was totally my fault.

I will give you this. I will not paraphrase what I think you say. I will respond to your post. If I mean to represent what you say, I will only do so through a direct quote. And if you tell me that what I interpret from your statements is not what you meant to say or what you believe, I will take you at face value and move on. I hope you will try and do the same for me. I don't think there is any value in winning an argument by parsing words. The value comes in having an actual discussion. Me beating you or you beating me is not going to change the world.

---

"I forgot why I have had such an issue with you in the past. This experience reminded me that we've been through this before. You have a habit of paraphrasing what people say and then commenting on your paraphrase. This is a problem when your paraphrase of what I say is not an accurate statement of what I believe. I am fine with people thinking I'm horrible for something I have said. I am not fine with people thinking I'm horrible for something someone else says I said, particularly when I massively disagree with the statement attributed to me.


I'm sorry you went through all of this work. The bottom line is your whole point hangs on sycasey posting."


Please stop with rewriting history. This experience reminded me of why I had issues with you as well.

Please don't explain to me that Sycasey point was sarcastic. I know it was. I told him as much. But thank you for thinking again in your pedestrian manner that you need to explain something that was obvious to all as if you are some intellectual giant talking to children.

What you fail to realize is that you jump into my response to Sycasey when my intent was to remind him that Rumsfeld's quote was made in a completely different context and, as such, doesn't work (while knowing he meant it as a sarcastic poke at those who are not justifying looting). You are the one elevated into some bullshyte empathy discussion when it was each of us mocking the other.

And to say I took things out of context when I took your direct quote is just some more gaslighting.

I will say this. I really wonder what your point in all this is? Who cares whether some stranger like me is convinced you are right? You talk of empathy and integrity and you sell it down the river for this? You do realize that whatever valid point you may have in the future is going to be discounted.



"That was obviously a sarcastic statement. Sycasey had already said he did not support the looting and was questioning comments by you and others that somehow people on here were expressing support for the looting. It was clear from context that he was drawing a parallel between Rumsfeld's statement and his own statements. The sarcasm was that if sycasey's statements support looting than Rumsfeld supported looting. Since the whole point sycasey had been making was that HE WASN'T SUPPORTING LOOTING, it should have been clear to you that he wasn't saying Rumsfeld supported looting. I understand that sometimes sarcasm doesn't come across in writing. However, if it wasn't clear to you, he explained it very early in the conversation. You just keep wanting to go back and relitigate "what people said". I don't know what you think the purpose would be for me or sycasey to "gaslight" you and make 1 argument just for the purpose of denying the argument for like 10 pages. That would be nonsensical. We don't gain from doing that. Frankly, 90% of this argument has been not on the merits of the actual argument, but an argument about "what we said", which was a colossal waste of time for all of us. The reason why I kept responding to you is because I not only didn't say what you said I said, I drastically disagree with what you supposedly think I said. I don't want anyone attributing those comments to me. You force me to correct the record to protect myself."



NO shyte it was a sarcastic remark.

Here is what I wrote to Sycasey this morning (again an example of you talking more than listening):

"You are a little weasle. Everything I once thought about you as being one of the reasonable one has gone out the window. Oak was being sarcastic? You were being sarcastic. Do me a favor. **** off."

"Of course it is all about you. Forget that in what you quote, I asked if Oak was being sarcastic. I acknowledged that you were being sarcastic. Yes, thinking you are anything but a weasel won't be a mistake I make again."


My point in my original response to SYCASEY was that him making that sarcastic remark was not even that clever because instead of poking us, he brought something that was not even relevant and wasn't even where he wanted to end up (that he either supports Rumsfeld or looting). You think I missed the context or tone. Trust me, you are the one who missed it, whether it is butting in on this conversation where I was trying to point out TO Sycasey that he was not being that clever just like you missing the mark when I was pointing to blugld the silliness of accusing Yogi of being some conservative Christian. You think you need to come down and explain in your pedantic manner when it is you are clearly not getting the tone or the context and twist it into some empathy, morality matter.

AND STOP SAYING YOU DO NOT SUPPORT LOOTING. NO SHYTE. I AM SAYING STOP JUSTIFYING OR EXPLAINING THE MINDSET OF LOOTERS OR EVEN IMPLYING THAT IT IS A BLACK COMMUNITY ACTION. JUST FREAKING STOP. You go on a diatribe on something that was not even in discussion. Trust me on this. I know you see yourself as the rational, reasoned person among loonies. You are not the way you see yourself. You just come across as someone.so unaware of how tiring you are.

And I will ask you for the last time to quote me on when I said you or sycasey supported looters. Please, quote me. If you cannot, stop repeating that you don't support looters. I have never said you did.

Here. I DO NOT SUPPORT POLICE VIOLENCE. Are we good? Should I justify police violence or try to explain what the police officers may have been thinking? No, I won't do that, because I won't justify or explain bad actors or bad acts.


"At some point when someone says that was not the argument they were making, you back off and let them express their own point. You don't get wrapped around the axle on 25 posts ago you said "X" and I took that to mean "Y". Sycasey told you what he meant. I told you what I meant. Even if we at some point mispoke (to be honest I don't think we did) you should let us explain our own argument.

As for the actual merits of the "supporting looters" question. I'm going to present these results of two questions from a poll Monmouth just published:"


This again is you missing the plot. You do realize that my post was not rehashing out of the blue but a response to Sycasey again trying to be clever. You do realize that, right? And you do realize that I already told him affirmative that I knew he was being sarcastic but of course you have to interject in your typically manner with a 1,000 word post while completing missing the context and the point.


I am so done with you and your gaslighting. It is tiring dealing with such deluded and self-unaware person. And you think at most you are 40% responsible? What a jackass.

---

It was not me missing the context. I chose not to respond in a point by point blow where you snipped quotes and not quotes and then incorrectly explained what I meant in those quotes and not quotes because it was not going to go anywhere. Again, I can't have a conversation based on you incorrectly paraphrasing what I say and then commenting on the paraphrasing. I proposed a path forward where we both respect each other's words and arguments and decide not to get hung up on what we thought someone said but take each other's arguments and clarifications at face value.

I'm just pointing out that I didn't assign responsibility to you or me. The 40% was the people in the poll that said the anger of the protests was fully justified but that the actions were not. I would have answered the poll the same way. I am in that 40% group. I thought I was clear on that. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.

I am disappointed that you are so angry right now that you are not ready to moved beyond this, but I accept you get to process your emotions on your own timeline. I am not angry anymore and I have decided not to trade insults with you. If insulting me helps you work through your feelings, I won't stop you.

If you work through your anger on this and want to have conversations on future topics, I'm happy to participate.

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

My experience the last few days made me realize some really do not bother to read the post being responded to or even to what they themselves originally wrote.

---

Yes, including you.

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/95929/replies/1760329

---

Oh, really? I was trying to be generous by not calling you out but here goes.


Example 1 of Gaslighting by Sycasey and Oak

Goes from Republicans thought looting is a good thing to I never said Republicans said it was a good thing:


Part 1:

Quote from Sycasey :

"I remember when Republicans said looting was a good thing:


[url=https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2003/04/11/Rumsfeld-Looting-is-transition-to-freedom/63821050097983/?][/url]https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2003/04/11/Rumsfeld-Looting-is-transition-to-freedom/63821050097983/"

Part 2:

Quote from Oak:

" I don't think this is difficult.


Rumsfeld: "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression"

Republicans: "ho hum. Nothing to see here."

sycasey: "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression"

Republicans: "How dare you defend looters! Antifa! Antifa!"

Expressing that you may understand why years of repression would lead to anger that can be triggered by an act of murder against one's people and that leads someone to act out by looting does not mean you support looting."

Part 3:

Quote from Oak:

sycasey did not say that Rumsfeld or Republicans supported looting. In context, people were upset because looters destroyed and stole great treasures of antiquity. Rumsfeld never supported looters, but expressed understanding. I would point out that there is every reason to believe that there were just as many looters in Iraq stealing for personal gain as there were here. Again, sycasey's point was that NO ONE ACCUSED RUMSFELD OF SUPPORTING LOOTERS. So people should stop disingenuously accuse him of supporting looters.



Example 2 of Gaslighting by Sycasey and Oak

Goes from me pointing out that Rumsfeld's quote itself specifically qualified by context to a situation where a country is going from a dictatorship to a democracy. I point out that we are not in fact transition from a dictatorship where a whole country is oppressed by the tyranny of one man who used chemical weapons to wipe out an entire religious group. Then the goal post moves in response that the black community suffered more than Kurds and Shiite under Saddam to I am now lacking sympathy for looters for not understanding that they are responding to racial injustice.

Part 1.

My Quote to Sycasey:

Sycasey, you can't be serious.

• Are you or are not defending LOOTING? If not, you are not saying the same thing Rumsfeld said.
• We are not Iraq and we are not transitioning from a dictatorship
• And you want to align yourself to Rumsfeld?

What are you conveying? Maybe I missed it.


Part 2.


My Quote to Oak trying to explain my original response to Sycasey

OK, but we are not Iraq and we are not bunch of tortured masses having lived under one man's dictatorship. I promise I won't hold what Democrats supported about other countries and translate that to what we should do in our own country. So, maybe it's just me but this seems like such a stretch that it's really beneath you. And if you are not in support of rioters or excusing it. What disagreement do you have with those like me who are upset by it?


Part 3.

In direct response to me pointing out that Rumsfeld (whom I did not even support) only refer to a limited context, Oak now brings in racial issues and how I lack empathy for the black community's struggles by not trying to understand the looters and that the black community suffered more than the Kurds who were hit with massive bombs with mustard gas by its own leader. Completely ignores the fact that I never myself compared the plight of the black community with that of the Kurds, but apparently he assumed I did and states that I am wrong about one having suffered more than the other. Trying to gaslight me into believing I made a comparison or that by pointing out the context in which Rumsfeld made the comment, I am lacking empathy for the black community. I fell for it and started down the path of comparing the two in response, but at this point, Oak and Sycasey have completed twisted the conversation.

Quote from Oak

"sycasey has said over and over again that he doesn't support looting. He has said he understands the anger behind it. I don't see that he has said that you can't be upset by it. He is responding to he and others being accused of supporting it by merely expressing that he understands it. Rumsfeld did not support looting either. He merely expressed understanding.


And I'm sorry, we have some great conversations, but I keep coming back to empathy. Your first sentence is just a dramatic lack of understanding. [Note: my simple statement that we are not Iraq and we are not coming out of one man's dictatorship - the sole context in wihich Rumsfled made the statement.] Does it matter that it is one man's dictatorship? When as a result of slavery and historical oppression the current state of the median Black family is to have one tenth the wealth and less than half the income of the median White family. When income is about half even factoring in educational attainment. When Whites and Blacks have the same rates of drug usage but Blacks are 6 times more likely to be convicted of a drug crime? When too many police treat too many Blacks as prima facie criminals? When too many Black are killed by police. And your response is they don't have as much right to be mad as an Iraqi.

I disagree. They've been oppressed for far longer. It makes no difference to them that the oppression is from one guy or a couple hundred million. In fact I'd argue that the latter is worse.

Part 4:

Oak's follow up comment that he doesn't want to get into who suffered more and once again saying that I showed lack of empathy for the black community by pointing out that Rumsfeld made the comment in the context of a transition from a dictatorship in which he bombed his own people.

I wasn't saying you displayed lack of empathy for the looters. I was saying you displayed lack of empathy for the African American community by dismissing their grievances in comparison to the Iraqi's. [Note: He was the one who first made the comparison, but now I am showing lack of empathy by comparing. Talk about gaslighting.] Without going down a rathole of who has/had it worse, I think that is inappropriate. So basically no matter how much oppression someone faces, it won't match being Jewish in Nazi Germany, so the response can be "it's not like you are Jewish in Nazi Germany". [Note: Of course, someone has to bring up Hitler.[ Or, hell, you know Count Dracula? No, the REAL Count Dracula. He was known as the impaler. He impaled people all the time. Oh, no. Wait. Not that way. He had a six foot long pike driven through your ass and out your mouth. They perfected a way to do this so you died real slowly. Once, facing an approaching invading army that he had no hope of defeating he did this to hundreds of innocent people, his own people so that the invading army would see this and freak out and go back. So, you know, some people might think that is even worse than the Nazi's. Point being that humans have done a lot of horrible things and I don't think you have to be the worst treated in history to have a grievance.


Example 3 of Gaslighting by Oak

I explain that, while he encourages me to show empathy for the looters, he should also show empathy for the store owners. He says I did not pose an empathy question and he is just trying in all his benevolence to reach my heart and teach me empathy. He makes that claim even though I ask the empathy question in what he quoted in response. Then when I explain, he says I didn't say it in the original quote and I am throwing out there at the last minute as a gotcha. Then he twist this into saying, unlike my alleged claim, he never supported looters so he is showing plenty sympathy. When I ask him to show me one quote in which I say he "SUPPORTED" looters, of course he remains silent.

Part 1:

My quote (even bulleted) asking him to likewise show empathy for the store owners.

• Why is there such need to empathize with looters? Do you really believe the people who are truly angry about Floyd and want change are the ones who are looting local neighborhoods? Is that what you are seeing? We must be living in a different world. And do you believe empathizing with criminals causing harm to people who are particularly vulnerable makes one decent? What if someone were to say: No, I don't condone police brutality, but, considering how many police officers are injured, I also understand why they may sometimes overreact. Would that be acceptable to you in response to Floyd and show that they truly are against police brutality? Would that show how much empathy I have? No, there is no excuse for police brutality. There is no excuse for racism There is no excuse for mayhem or looting or burning down local neighborhoods. There is of course a reason for everything. I am sure that even tiki torch carriers have had tough childhoods, lack of parental guidance, etc. I don't give a ***** They are still scum, right? Do I really need to empathize with them? Do I need to empathize with criminals, Antifa, or armed militants causing havoc right now? No, I don't. So, sorry. You don't really seem to have empathy with the right people. How about the small business owners who had nothing to do with police brutality. You mentioned before that I show too much focus on one over another. I have not seem anything other than passing comments from you for middle class store owners. Where is your empathy for them?

Part 2:

Oak's response:

I'm not saying I'm right and you are wrong, but I don't get the response that I'm demonstrating lack of empathy. I get you don't think you are exhibiting lack of empathy, but nothing you argued about me was an empathy question. Which leads me to believe that using the word empathy has not been effective for me in trying to reach you with my argument. Because I am genuinely trying to reach you. [Note: What an arrogant and self-important and righteous comment. Thanks, but don't need empathy lessons from you. I don't honestly see you as someone I would ever want to emulate.] Your response indicates that I'm not reaching you, not because you disagree, but because your repeat back of my argument is not what I am saying.



Part 3:

My dumbfounded question on why me asking the question about his lack of empathy is not an empathy question/

My quote:

Why is your lack of equal concern for middle class shop owners who may not be adequately insured and who may have debt and now cannot support their family (many of them in the black community) not an empathy question for you?


Part 4.

Oak now trying to gaslight me into thinking that I never asked the question and now twisting it as saying it is irrelevant because he never "supported" the looters (who said he supported the looters? I said he is asking me to empathize with the looters, and I am saying also empathize with the middle class store owners). Another gaslighting trying to make me believe I said he supported the looter and since he didn't he hasn't failed to show empathy for the store owners by excusing the looters.

Oak quote:

So THAT would be an empathy question, which you did not raise in the first post. However, since I never supported the looters it is irrelevant. And sycasey never supported the looters. I feel terrible for the shop owners. [Note: He said I showed lack of empathy for Floyd even though I have explained how outraged I was with the police brutality that my blood was boiling. That was not enough. I was talking more about looting that Floyd - which is not true - but then he thinks this throw away comment shows his empathy.] You accused sycasey of something he didn't do. You are now spreading that to me. No one supported the looters. No one said you shouldn't be angry with the looters. Looters bad. Looters bad. Looters bad. Sycasey asked you for an example of someone here supporting the looters. You provided one. He said he didn't agree. He is asking you and others to stop saying we support looters. You keep responding with arguments about why we shouldn't support looters. And we respond by saying we don't support looters and asking you to stop saying we support looters. I don't know what else to say on this point. other than, oh yeah. I DON'T SUPPORT LOOTERS!!!! [Note: I never said he SUPPORTED the looters.]


Part 5:

I explain that I never said he supported looters and therefore him saying he doesn't support looters is not a correction of what I previously accused him of doing. And I also show why saying you don't support something while excusing it is not really showing empathy for the victim.

My quote in response.

When did I say you support looters? Please quote me. I said you are excusing looters and empathizing with looters. Are you not?

Let me apply your reasoning to something similar. No one here is saying they excuse police violence. But I suppose as long as one claims he does not support police violence (especially in all caps), it should be fine if he writes that he "understands" why police may use excessive violence in light of how much crime is committed in inner city and how many cops are killed every year. In that case, would you would really think - I guess it's all fine since he stated HE DOESN'T SUPPORT POLICE VIOLENCE. No?



So much more gaslighting by you and Oak and then you have the nerve to point out that discussion as my failure to read and listen. Wow.

---

I forgot why I have had such an issue with you in the past. This experience reminded me that we've been through this before. You have a habit of paraphrasing what people say and then commenting on your paraphrase. This is a problem when your paraphrase of what I say is not an accurate statement of what I believe. I am fine with people thinking I'm horrible for something I have said. I am not fine with people thinking I'm horrible for something someone else says I said, particularly when I massively disagree with the statement attributed to me.

I'm sorry you went through all of this work. The bottom line is your whole point hangs on sycasey posting

Quote:

---

"I remember when Republicans said looting was a good thing

---

That was obviously a sarcastic statement. Sycasey had already said he did not support the looting and was questioning comments by you and others that somehow people on here were expressing support for the looting. It was clear from context that he was drawing a parallel between Rumsfeld's statement and his own statements. The sarcasm was that if sycasey's statements support looting than Rumsfeld supported looting. Since the whole point sycasey had been making was that HE WASN'T SUPPORTING LOOTING, it should have been clear to you that he wasn't saying Rumsfeld supported looting. I understand that sometimes sarcasm doesn't come across in writing. However, if it wasn't clear to you, he explained it very early in the conversation. You just keep wanting to go back and relitigate "what people said". I don't know what you think the purpose would be for me or sycasey to "gaslight" you and make 1 argument just for the purpose of denying the argument for like 10 pages. That would be nonsensical. We don't gain from doing that. Frankly, 90% of this argument has been not on the merits of the actual argument, but an argument about "what we said", which was a colossal waste of time for all of us. The reason why I kept responding to you is because I not only didn't say what you said I said, I drastically disagree with what you supposedly think I said. I don't want anyone attributing those comments to me. You force me to correct the record to protect myself.

At some point when someone says that was not the argument they were making, you back off and let them express their own point. You don't get wrapped around the axle on 25 posts ago you said "X" and I took that to mean "Y". Sycasey told you what he meant. I told you what I meant. Even if we at some point mispoke (to be honest I don't think we did) you should let us explain our own argument.

As for the actual merits of the "supporting looters" question. I'm going to present these results of two questions from a poll Monmouth just published:

Quote:

---

Fifty-seven percent of respondents in the Monmouth poll felt that, regardless of their actions, protesters' ANGER was "fully justified," while 21 percent said it was "partially justified" and 18 percent said it was "not at all justified."

---

and then:

Quote:

---

In Monmouth's poll, only 17 percent felt the ACTIONS of the protesters were fully justified, 37 percent said they were partially justified and 38 percent said they weren't justified at all.

---

This is exactly what both sycasey and I were talking about. And while I understand you do not want to distinguish between the two, not only did Monmouth see the distinction in asking the questions, the respondents did on a large scale. Fully 40% of the people asked said the anger was fully justified and then went on to say the actions were not fully justified. Which is EXACTLY HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE POLL and exactly what I was saying. There is a huge distinction between saying you understand the underlying causes of the anger behind certain actions, and believing that anger is justified, and saying you think the actions that a person took based on that anger are justified. If a man walks in on his friend having sex with his wife and shoots him, I deplore the act of shooting him. I want him prosecuted. I do understand why he was upset. And I would say to the friend, if you go around having sex with married women, you are running a big risk that someone else is going to get mad and shoot you again. Not saying I agree with it, but it is likely to happen.

I'm 100% cool if you say you disagree with that 40% that I am a part of. I'm 100% cool if you disagree with the statement that the anger of the protesters was fully justified but the actions were not fully justified. If that is your opinion, that is cool with me. I AM NOT COOL with you paraphrasing MY OPINION into saying the actions were fully justified. It is not what I said. It is not my belief. If we had a misunderstanding as to what I said, you should take me at my word that it is not my belief when I tell you that. If that was not your understanding of what I said, either because I misspoke, you misheard or something got lost in translation, you need to move passed what you think I said when I tell you now that is not my belief. It stops all progress in the conversation. To continue to say someone believes something when they have told you they don't is not cool. Further, I AM DEFINITELY NOT COOL with you spinning up MULTIPLE TIMES, my saying, what 57% of the people said in that poll - that the anger is justified, into somehow I said all the looters are Black and then calling me racist for believing all looters are Black. Especially when I said several times that many of the looters were not Black. That is completely below the belt. I'd like to think you'd think better of that now as I would think better of much of what I said to you.

I think we have had constructive conversations. Those constructive conversations have taken place when we have taken each other's words at face value. I cannot have a conversation with you if you just want to lock onto your first interpretation of my first argument and just keep repeating what you think I said after I have posted 10 times that wasn't what I said or what I meant. That isn't an argument on the merits. That is a semantics argument that does no good.

In this case, we could have had a good, constructive conversation about whether addressing the underlying anger behind violence condones violence. We could have discussed proper ways to deal with violent protests. We could have discussed how we could prevent violent protests in the future. We could have taken it in a myriad of different constructive directions. Instead we spent way too much time in our life on "You said looting good" "no I didn't" "Yes you did" "no I didn't" "Yes you did" "No I didn't".

I apologize for my part in this and massively losing my cool with you. I just can't abide by people telling me and more importantly others what my own argument is when I'm here to make it myself. No one is trying to gaslight you. I said what I said, and I stand by that. If you think I said X, fine. If you think you can prove I said X, fine. I'm telling you, I don't believe X. At some point, when I have said Not X, so many times, I think you have to accept that there was a miscommunication in the first place and move on, even if you think that miscommunication was totally my fault.

I will give you this. I will not paraphrase what I think you say. I will respond to your post. If I mean to represent what you say, I will only do so through a direct quote. And if you tell me that what I interpret from your statements is not what you meant to say or what you believe, I will take you at face value and move on. I hope you will try and do the same for me. I don't think there is any value in winning an argument by parsing words. The value comes in having an actual discussion. Me beating you or you beating me is not going to change the world.

---

"I forgot why I have had such an issue with you in the past. This experience reminded me that we've been through this before. You have a habit of paraphrasing what people say and then commenting on your paraphrase. This is a problem when your paraphrase of what I say is not an accurate statement of what I believe. I am fine with people thinking I'm horrible for something I have said. I am not fine with people thinking I'm horrible for something someone else says I said, particularly when I massively disagree with the statement attributed to me.


I'm sorry you went through all of this work. The bottom line is your whole point hangs on sycasey posting."


Please stop with rewriting history. This experience reminded me of why I had issues with you as well.

Please don't explain to me that Sycasey point was sarcastic. I know it was. I told him as much. But thank you for thinking again in your pedestrian manner that you need to explain something that was obvious to all as if you are some intellectual giant talking to children.

What you fail to realize is that you jump into my response to Sycasey when my intent was to remind him that Rumsfeld's quote was made in a completely different context and, as such, doesn't work (while knowing he meant it as a sarcastic poke at those who are not justifying looting). You are the one elevated into some bullshyte empathy discussion when it was each of us mocking the other.

And to say I took things out of context when I took your direct quote is just some more gaslighting.

I will say this. I really wonder what your point in all this is? Who cares whether some stranger like me is convinced you are right? You talk of empathy and integrity and you sell it down the river for this? You do realize that whatever valid point you may have in the future is going to be discounted.



"That was obviously a sarcastic statement. Sycasey had already said he did not support the looting and was questioning comments by you and others that somehow people on here were expressing support for the looting. It was clear from context that he was drawing a parallel between Rumsfeld's statement and his own statements. The sarcasm was that if sycasey's statements support looting than Rumsfeld supported looting. Since the whole point sycasey had been making was that HE WASN'T SUPPORTING LOOTING, it should have been clear to you that he wasn't saying Rumsfeld supported looting. I understand that sometimes sarcasm doesn't come across in writing. However, if it wasn't clear to you, he explained it very early in the conversation. You just keep wanting to go back and relitigate "what people said". I don't know what you think the purpose would be for me or sycasey to "gaslight" you and make 1 argument just for the purpose of denying the argument for like 10 pages. That would be nonsensical. We don't gain from doing that. Frankly, 90% of this argument has been not on the merits of the actual argument, but an argument about "what we said", which was a colossal waste of time for all of us. The reason why I kept responding to you is because I not only didn't say what you said I said, I drastically disagree with what you supposedly think I said. I don't want anyone attributing those comments to me. You force me to correct the record to protect myself."



NO shyte it was a sarcastic remark.

Here is what I wrote to Sycasey this morning (again an example of you talking more than listening):

"You are a little weasle. Everything I once thought about you as being one of the reasonable one has gone out the window. Oak was being sarcastic? You were being sarcastic. Do me a favor. **** off."

"Of course it is all about you. Forget that in what you quote, I asked if Oak was being sarcastic. I acknowledged that you were being sarcastic. Yes, thinking you are anything but a weasel won't be a mistake I make again."


My point in my original response to SYCASEY was that him making that sarcastic remark was not even that clever because instead of poking us, he brought something that was not even relevant and wasn't even where he wanted to end up (that he either supports Rumsfeld or looting). You think I missed the context or tone. Trust me, you are the one who missed it, whether it is butting in on this conversation where I was trying to point out TO Sycasey that he was not being that clever just like you missing the mark when I was pointing to blugld the silliness of accusing Yogi of being some conservative Christian. You think you need to come down and explain in your pedantic manner when it is you are clearly not getting the tone or the context and twist it into some empathy, morality matter.

AND STOP SAYING YOU DO NOT SUPPORT LOOTING. NO SHYTE. I AM SAYING STOP JUSTIFYING OR EXPLAINING THE MINDSET OF LOOTERS OR EVEN IMPLYING THAT IT IS A BLACK COMMUNITY ACTION. JUST FREAKING STOP. You go on a diatribe on something that was not even in discussion. Trust me on this. I know you see yourself as the rational, reasoned person among loonies. You are not the way you see yourself. You just come across as someone.so unaware of how tiring you are.

And I will ask you for the last time to quote me on when I said you or sycasey supported looters. Please, quote me. If you cannot, stop repeating that you don't support looters. I have never said you did.

Here. I DO NOT SUPPORT POLICE VIOLENCE. Are we good? Should I justify police violence or try to explain what the police officers may have been thinking? No, I won't do that, because I won't justify or explain bad actors or bad acts.


"At some point when someone says that was not the argument they were making, you back off and let them express their own point. You don't get wrapped around the axle on 25 posts ago you said "X" and I took that to mean "Y". Sycasey told you what he meant. I told you what I meant. Even if we at some point mispoke (to be honest I don't think we did) you should let us explain our own argument.

As for the actual merits of the "supporting looters" question. I'm going to present these results of two questions from a poll Monmouth just published:"


This again is you missing the plot. You do realize that my post was not rehashing out of the blue but a response to Sycasey again trying to be clever. You do realize that, right? And you do realize that I already told him affirmative that I knew he was being sarcastic but of course you have to interject in your typically manner with a 1,000 word post while completing missing the context and the point.


I am so done with you and your gaslighting. It is tiring dealing with such deluded and self-unaware person. And you think at most you are 40% responsible? What a jackass.

---

It was not me missing the context. I chose not to respond in a point by point blow where you snipped quotes and not quotes and then incorrectly explained what I meant in those quotes and not quotes because it was not going to go anywhere. Again, I can't have a conversation based on you incorrectly paraphrasing what I say and then commenting on the paraphrasing. I proposed a path forward where we both respect each other's words and arguments and decide not to get hung up on what we thought someone said but take each other's arguments and clarifications at face value.

I'm just pointing out that I didn't assign responsibility to you or me. The 40% was the people in the poll that said the anger of the protests was fully justified but that the actions were not. I would have answered the poll the same way. I am in that 40% group. I thought I was clear on that. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.

I am disappointed that you are so angry right now that you are not ready to moved beyond this, but I accept you get to process your emotions on your own timeline. I am not angry anymore and I have decided not to trade insults with you. If insulting me helps you work through your feelings, I won't stop you.

If you work through your anger on this and want to have conversations on future topics, I'm happy to participate.

---

Listen. I wasn't even that angry with you. I was ready to put that conversation aside despite the fact that you truly were missing the mark and kept saying you didn't say something you said a few post before or saying that I failed to point something out that was clearly pointed out even in what you quoted.

You do realize that Sycasey was the one who pulled this thread up again this morning as a poke that I engaged in gaslighting. You do realize that, right? But then you tried to say I missed the point of Sycasey's original comment when I told him multiple times that I was fully aware. You really do need to read the context in which a comment is made before butting in and thinking you have something figured out. You often miss the tone and then come in and try to confuse people that they missed the point.

---

I'm just going to give this piece of advice. Talk to and about one person at a time. Sycasey made a joke at your expense. I had nothing to do with it. If you kept your response to sycasey, I would've stayed out of it. I felt I had to respond because you posted a long post that mentioned me many times, accused me of (Sesame Street is brought to you today by the word) gaslighting, and represented my argument in many places. I had nothing to do with this conversation

---

One likewise advice to you. Stop speaking on behalf of other posters and stop butting into the middle of snide fest when you are not involved. You jumped into the middle of my trying to shoot down his snide Rumsfeld remark with your lecture on empathy and with your condescending explanation of what Sycasey was explaining (he was just being snide) when there was no need while completely missing the tone and context. There was no way for me to point out Sycasey's attempt at sleight of hand without involving you when you forced yourself into the middle of the discussion and attempted to speak as his advocate and spokesperson.

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

My experience the last few days made me realize some really do not bother to read the post being responded to or even to what they themselves originally wrote.

---

Yes, including you.

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/95929/replies/1760329

---

Oh, really? I was trying to be generous by not calling you out but here goes.


Example 1 of Gaslighting by Sycasey and Oak

Goes from Republicans thought looting is a good thing to I never said Republicans said it was a good thing:


Part 1:

Quote from Sycasey :

"I remember when Republicans said looting was a good thing:


[url=https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2003/04/11/Rumsfeld-Looting-is-transition-to-freedom/63821050097983/?][/url]https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2003/04/11/Rumsfeld-Looting-is-transition-to-freedom/63821050097983/"

Part 2:

Quote from Oak:

" I don't think this is difficult.


Rumsfeld: "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression"

Republicans: "ho hum. Nothing to see here."

sycasey: "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression"

Republicans: "How dare you defend looters! Antifa! Antifa!"

Expressing that you may understand why years of repression would lead to anger that can be triggered by an act of murder against one's people and that leads someone to act out by looting does not mean you support looting."

Part 3:

Quote from Oak:

sycasey did not say that Rumsfeld or Republicans supported looting. In context, people were upset because looters destroyed and stole great treasures of antiquity. Rumsfeld never supported looters, but expressed understanding. I would point out that there is every reason to believe that there were just as many looters in Iraq stealing for personal gain as there were here. Again, sycasey's point was that NO ONE ACCUSED RUMSFELD OF SUPPORTING LOOTERS. So people should stop disingenuously accuse him of supporting looters.



Example 2 of Gaslighting by Sycasey and Oak

Goes from me pointing out that Rumsfeld's quote itself specifically qualified by context to a situation where a country is going from a dictatorship to a democracy. I point out that we are not in fact transition from a dictatorship where a whole country is oppressed by the tyranny of one man who used chemical weapons to wipe out an entire religious group. Then the goal post moves in response that the black community suffered more than Kurds and Shiite under Saddam to I am now lacking sympathy for looters for not understanding that they are responding to racial injustice.

Part 1.

My Quote to Sycasey:

Sycasey, you can't be serious.

• Are you or are not defending LOOTING? If not, you are not saying the same thing Rumsfeld said.
• We are not Iraq and we are not transitioning from a dictatorship
• And you want to align yourself to Rumsfeld?

What are you conveying? Maybe I missed it.


Part 2.


My Quote to Oak trying to explain my original response to Sycasey

OK, but we are not Iraq and we are not bunch of tortured masses having lived under one man's dictatorship. I promise I won't hold what Democrats supported about other countries and translate that to what we should do in our own country. So, maybe it's just me but this seems like such a stretch that it's really beneath you. And if you are not in support of rioters or excusing it. What disagreement do you have with those like me who are upset by it?


Part 3.

In direct response to me pointing out that Rumsfeld (whom I did not even support) only refer to a limited context, Oak now brings in racial issues and how I lack empathy for the black community's struggles by not trying to understand the looters and that the black community suffered more than the Kurds who were hit with massive bombs with mustard gas by its own leader. Completely ignores the fact that I never myself compared the plight of the black community with that of the Kurds, but apparently he assumed I did and states that I am wrong about one having suffered more than the other. Trying to gaslight me into believing I made a comparison or that by pointing out the context in which Rumsfeld made the comment, I am lacking empathy for the black community. I fell for it and started down the path of comparing the two in response, but at this point, Oak and Sycasey have completed twisted the conversation.

Quote from Oak

"sycasey has said over and over again that he doesn't support looting. He has said he understands the anger behind it. I don't see that he has said that you can't be upset by it. He is responding to he and others being accused of supporting it by merely expressing that he understands it. Rumsfeld did not support looting either. He merely expressed understanding.


And I'm sorry, we have some great conversations, but I keep coming back to empathy. Your first sentence is just a dramatic lack of understanding. [Note: my simple statement that we are not Iraq and we are not coming out of one man's dictatorship - the sole context in wihich Rumsfled made the statement.] Does it matter that it is one man's dictatorship? When as a result of slavery and historical oppression the current state of the median Black family is to have one tenth the wealth and less than half the income of the median White family. When income is about half even factoring in educational attainment. When Whites and Blacks have the same rates of drug usage but Blacks are 6 times more likely to be convicted of a drug crime? When too many police treat too many Blacks as prima facie criminals? When too many Black are killed by police. And your response is they don't have as much right to be mad as an Iraqi.

I disagree. They've been oppressed for far longer. It makes no difference to them that the oppression is from one guy or a couple hundred million. In fact I'd argue that the latter is worse.

Part 4:

Oak's follow up comment that he doesn't want to get into who suffered more and once again saying that I showed lack of empathy for the black community by pointing out that Rumsfeld made the comment in the context of a transition from a dictatorship in which he bombed his own people.

I wasn't saying you displayed lack of empathy for the looters. I was saying you displayed lack of empathy for the African American community by dismissing their grievances in comparison to the Iraqi's. [Note: He was the one who first made the comparison, but now I am showing lack of empathy by comparing. Talk about gaslighting.] Without going down a rathole of who has/had it worse, I think that is inappropriate. So basically no matter how much oppression someone faces, it won't match being Jewish in Nazi Germany, so the response can be "it's not like you are Jewish in Nazi Germany". [Note: Of course, someone has to bring up Hitler.[ Or, hell, you know Count Dracula? No, the REAL Count Dracula. He was known as the impaler. He impaled people all the time. Oh, no. Wait. Not that way. He had a six foot long pike driven through your ass and out your mouth. They perfected a way to do this so you died real slowly. Once, facing an approaching invading army that he had no hope of defeating he did this to hundreds of innocent people, his own people so that the invading army would see this and freak out and go back. So, you know, some people might think that is even worse than the Nazi's. Point being that humans have done a lot of horrible things and I don't think you have to be the worst treated in history to have a grievance.


Example 3 of Gaslighting by Oak

I explain that, while he encourages me to show empathy for the looters, he should also show empathy for the store owners. He says I did not pose an empathy question and he is just trying in all his benevolence to reach my heart and teach me empathy. He makes that claim even though I ask the empathy question in what he quoted in response. Then when I explain, he says I didn't say it in the original quote and I am throwing out there at the last minute as a gotcha. Then he twist this into saying, unlike my alleged claim, he never supported looters so he is showing plenty sympathy. When I ask him to show me one quote in which I say he "SUPPORTED" looters, of course he remains silent.

Part 1:

My quote (even bulleted) asking him to likewise show empathy for the store owners.

• Why is there such need to empathize with looters? Do you really believe the people who are truly angry about Floyd and want change are the ones who are looting local neighborhoods? Is that what you are seeing? We must be living in a different world. And do you believe empathizing with criminals causing harm to people who are particularly vulnerable makes one decent? What if someone were to say: No, I don't condone police brutality, but, considering how many police officers are injured, I also understand why they may sometimes overreact. Would that be acceptable to you in response to Floyd and show that they truly are against police brutality? Would that show how much empathy I have? No, there is no excuse for police brutality. There is no excuse for racism There is no excuse for mayhem or looting or burning down local neighborhoods. There is of course a reason for everything. I am sure that even tiki torch carriers have had tough childhoods, lack of parental guidance, etc. I don't give a ***** They are still scum, right? Do I really need to empathize with them? Do I need to empathize with criminals, Antifa, or armed militants causing havoc right now? No, I don't. So, sorry. You don't really seem to have empathy with the right people. How about the small business owners who had nothing to do with police brutality. You mentioned before that I show too much focus on one over another. I have not seem anything other than passing comments from you for middle class store owners. Where is your empathy for them?

Part 2:

Oak's response:

I'm not saying I'm right and you are wrong, but I don't get the response that I'm demonstrating lack of empathy. I get you don't think you are exhibiting lack of empathy, but nothing you argued about me was an empathy question. Which leads me to believe that using the word empathy has not been effective for me in trying to reach you with my argument. Because I am genuinely trying to reach you. [Note: What an arrogant and self-important and righteous comment. Thanks, but don't need empathy lessons from you. I don't honestly see you as someone I would ever want to emulate.] Your response indicates that I'm not reaching you, not because you disagree, but because your repeat back of my argument is not what I am saying.



Part 3:

My dumbfounded question on why me asking the question about his lack of empathy is not an empathy question/

My quote:

Why is your lack of equal concern for middle class shop owners who may not be adequately insured and who may have debt and now cannot support their family (many of them in the black community) not an empathy question for you?


Part 4.

Oak now trying to gaslight me into thinking that I never asked the question and now twisting it as saying it is irrelevant because he never "supported" the looters (who said he supported the looters? I said he is asking me to empathize with the looters, and I am saying also empathize with the middle class store owners). Another gaslighting trying to make me believe I said he supported the looter and since he didn't he hasn't failed to show empathy for the store owners by excusing the looters.

Oak quote:

So THAT would be an empathy question, which you did not raise in the first post. However, since I never supported the looters it is irrelevant. And sycasey never supported the looters. I feel terrible for the shop owners. [Note: He said I showed lack of empathy for Floyd even though I have explained how outraged I was with the police brutality that my blood was boiling. That was not enough. I was talking more about looting that Floyd - which is not true - but then he thinks this throw away comment shows his empathy.] You accused sycasey of something he didn't do. You are now spreading that to me. No one supported the looters. No one said you shouldn't be angry with the looters. Looters bad. Looters bad. Looters bad. Sycasey asked you for an example of someone here supporting the looters. You provided one. He said he didn't agree. He is asking you and others to stop saying we support looters. You keep responding with arguments about why we shouldn't support looters. And we respond by saying we don't support looters and asking you to stop saying we support looters. I don't know what else to say on this point. other than, oh yeah. I DON'T SUPPORT LOOTERS!!!! [Note: I never said he SUPPORTED the looters.]


Part 5:

I explain that I never said he supported looters and therefore him saying he doesn't support looters is not a correction of what I previously accused him of doing. And I also show why saying you don't support something while excusing it is not really showing empathy for the victim.

My quote in response.

When did I say you support looters? Please quote me. I said you are excusing looters and empathizing with looters. Are you not?

Let me apply your reasoning to something similar. No one here is saying they excuse police violence. But I suppose as long as one claims he does not support police violence (especially in all caps), it should be fine if he writes that he "understands" why police may use excessive violence in light of how much crime is committed in inner city and how many cops are killed every year. In that case, would you would really think - I guess it's all fine since he stated HE DOESN'T SUPPORT POLICE VIOLENCE. No?



So much more gaslighting by you and Oak and then you have the nerve to point out that discussion as my failure to read and listen. Wow.

---

I forgot why I have had such an issue with you in the past. This experience reminded me that we've been through this before. You have a habit of paraphrasing what people say and then commenting on your paraphrase. This is a problem when your paraphrase of what I say is not an accurate statement of what I believe. I am fine with people thinking I'm horrible for something I have said. I am not fine with people thinking I'm horrible for something someone else says I said, particularly when I massively disagree with the statement attributed to me.

I'm sorry you went through all of this work. The bottom line is your whole point hangs on sycasey posting

Quote:

---

"I remember when Republicans said looting was a good thing

---

That was obviously a sarcastic statement. Sycasey had already said he did not support the looting and was questioning comments by you and others that somehow people on here were expressing support for the looting. It was clear from context that he was drawing a parallel between Rumsfeld's statement and his own statements. The sarcasm was that if sycasey's statements support looting than Rumsfeld supported looting. Since the whole point sycasey had been making was that HE WASN'T SUPPORTING LOOTING, it should have been clear to you that he wasn't saying Rumsfeld supported looting. I understand that sometimes sarcasm doesn't come across in writing. However, if it wasn't clear to you, he explained it very early in the conversation. You just keep wanting to go back and relitigate "what people said". I don't know what you think the purpose would be for me or sycasey to "gaslight" you and make 1 argument just for the purpose of denying the argument for like 10 pages. That would be nonsensical. We don't gain from doing that. Frankly, 90% of this argument has been not on the merits of the actual argument, but an argument about "what we said", which was a colossal waste of time for all of us. The reason why I kept responding to you is because I not only didn't say what you said I said, I drastically disagree with what you supposedly think I said. I don't want anyone attributing those comments to me. You force me to correct the record to protect myself.

At some point when someone says that was not the argument they were making, you back off and let them express their own point. You don't get wrapped around the axle on 25 posts ago you said "X" and I took that to mean "Y". Sycasey told you what he meant. I told you what I meant. Even if we at some point mispoke (to be honest I don't think we did) you should let us explain our own argument.

As for the actual merits of the "supporting looters" question. I'm going to present these results of two questions from a poll Monmouth just published:

Quote:

---

Fifty-seven percent of respondents in the Monmouth poll felt that, regardless of their actions, protesters' ANGER was "fully justified," while 21 percent said it was "partially justified" and 18 percent said it was "not at all justified."

---

and then:

Quote:

---

In Monmouth's poll, only 17 percent felt the ACTIONS of the protesters were fully justified, 37 percent said they were partially justified and 38 percent said they weren't justified at all.

---

This is exactly what both sycasey and I were talking about. And while I understand you do not want to distinguish between the two, not only did Monmouth see the distinction in asking the questions, the respondents did on a large scale. Fully 40% of the people asked said the anger was fully justified and then went on to say the actions were not fully justified. Which is EXACTLY HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE POLL and exactly what I was saying. There is a huge distinction between saying you understand the underlying causes of the anger behind certain actions, and believing that anger is justified, and saying you think the actions that a person took based on that anger are justified. If a man walks in on his friend having sex with his wife and shoots him, I deplore the act of shooting him. I want him prosecuted. I do understand why he was upset. And I would say to the friend, if you go around having sex with married women, you are running a big risk that someone else is going to get mad and shoot you again. Not saying I agree with it, but it is likely to happen.

I'm 100% cool if you say you disagree with that 40% that I am a part of. I'm 100% cool if you disagree with the statement that the anger of the protesters was fully justified but the actions were not fully justified. If that is your opinion, that is cool with me. I AM NOT COOL with you paraphrasing MY OPINION into saying the actions were fully justified. It is not what I said. It is not my belief. If we had a misunderstanding as to what I said, you should take me at my word that it is not my belief when I tell you that. If that was not your understanding of what I said, either because I misspoke, you misheard or something got lost in translation, you need to move passed what you think I said when I tell you now that is not my belief. It stops all progress in the conversation. To continue to say someone believes something when they have told you they don't is not cool. Further, I AM DEFINITELY NOT COOL with you spinning up MULTIPLE TIMES, my saying, what 57% of the people said in that poll - that the anger is justified, into somehow I said all the looters are Black and then calling me racist for believing all looters are Black. Especially when I said several times that many of the looters were not Black. That is completely below the belt. I'd like to think you'd think better of that now as I would think better of much of what I said to you.

I think we have had constructive conversations. Those constructive conversations have taken place when we have taken each other's words at face value. I cannot have a conversation with you if you just want to lock onto your first interpretation of my first argument and just keep repeating what you think I said after I have posted 10 times that wasn't what I said or what I meant. That isn't an argument on the merits. That is a semantics argument that does no good.

In this case, we could have had a good, constructive conversation about whether addressing the underlying anger behind violence condones violence. We could have discussed proper ways to deal with violent protests. We could have discussed how we could prevent violent protests in the future. We could have taken it in a myriad of different constructive directions. Instead we spent way too much time in our life on "You said looting good" "no I didn't" "Yes you did" "no I didn't" "Yes you did" "No I didn't".

I apologize for my part in this and massively losing my cool with you. I just can't abide by people telling me and more importantly others what my own argument is when I'm here to make it myself. No one is trying to gaslight you. I said what I said, and I stand by that. If you think I said X, fine. If you think you can prove I said X, fine. I'm telling you, I don't believe X. At some point, when I have said Not X, so many times, I think you have to accept that there was a miscommunication in the first place and move on, even if you think that miscommunication was totally my fault.

I will give you this. I will not paraphrase what I think you say. I will respond to your post. If I mean to represent what you say, I will only do so through a direct quote. And if you tell me that what I interpret from your statements is not what you meant to say or what you believe, I will take you at face value and move on. I hope you will try and do the same for me. I don't think there is any value in winning an argument by parsing words. The value comes in having an actual discussion. Me beating you or you beating me is not going to change the world.

---

"I forgot why I have had such an issue with you in the past. This experience reminded me that we've been through this before. You have a habit of paraphrasing what people say and then commenting on your paraphrase. This is a problem when your paraphrase of what I say is not an accurate statement of what I believe. I am fine with people thinking I'm horrible for something I have said. I am not fine with people thinking I'm horrible for something someone else says I said, particularly when I massively disagree with the statement attributed to me.


I'm sorry you went through all of this work. The bottom line is your whole point hangs on sycasey posting."


Please stop with rewriting history. This experience reminded me of why I had issues with you as well.

Please don't explain to me that Sycasey point was sarcastic. I know it was. I told him as much. But thank you for thinking again in your pedestrian manner that you need to explain something that was obvious to all as if you are some intellectual giant talking to children.

What you fail to realize is that you jump into my response to Sycasey when my intent was to remind him that Rumsfeld's quote was made in a completely different context and, as such, doesn't work (while knowing he meant it as a sarcastic poke at those who are not justifying looting). You are the one elevated into some bullshyte empathy discussion when it was each of us mocking the other.

And to say I took things out of context when I took your direct quote is just some more gaslighting.

I will say this. I really wonder what your point in all this is? Who cares whether some stranger like me is convinced you are right? You talk of empathy and integrity and you sell it down the river for this? You do realize that whatever valid point you may have in the future is going to be discounted.



"That was obviously a sarcastic statement. Sycasey had already said he did not support the looting and was questioning comments by you and others that somehow people on here were expressing support for the looting. It was clear from context that he was drawing a parallel between Rumsfeld's statement and his own statements. The sarcasm was that if sycasey's statements support looting than Rumsfeld supported looting. Since the whole point sycasey had been making was that HE WASN'T SUPPORTING LOOTING, it should have been clear to you that he wasn't saying Rumsfeld supported looting. I understand that sometimes sarcasm doesn't come across in writing. However, if it wasn't clear to you, he explained it very early in the conversation. You just keep wanting to go back and relitigate "what people said". I don't know what you think the purpose would be for me or sycasey to "gaslight" you and make 1 argument just for the purpose of denying the argument for like 10 pages. That would be nonsensical. We don't gain from doing that. Frankly, 90% of this argument has been not on the merits of the actual argument, but an argument about "what we said", which was a colossal waste of time for all of us. The reason why I kept responding to you is because I not only didn't say what you said I said, I drastically disagree with what you supposedly think I said. I don't want anyone attributing those comments to me. You force me to correct the record to protect myself."



NO shyte it was a sarcastic remark.

Here is what I wrote to Sycasey this morning (again an example of you talking more than listening):

"You are a little weasle. Everything I once thought about you as being one of the reasonable one has gone out the window. Oak was being sarcastic? You were being sarcastic. Do me a favor. **** off."

"Of course it is all about you. Forget that in what you quote, I asked if Oak was being sarcastic. I acknowledged that you were being sarcastic. Yes, thinking you are anything but a weasel won't be a mistake I make again."


My point in my original response to SYCASEY was that him making that sarcastic remark was not even that clever because instead of poking us, he brought something that was not even relevant and wasn't even where he wanted to end up (that he either supports Rumsfeld or looting). You think I missed the context or tone. Trust me, you are the one who missed it, whether it is butting in on this conversation where I was trying to point out TO Sycasey that he was not being that clever just like you missing the mark when I was pointing to blugld the silliness of accusing Yogi of being some conservative Christian. You think you need to come down and explain in your pedantic manner when it is you are clearly not getting the tone or the context and twist it into some empathy, morality matter.

AND STOP SAYING YOU DO NOT SUPPORT LOOTING. NO SHYTE. I AM SAYING STOP JUSTIFYING OR EXPLAINING THE MINDSET OF LOOTERS OR EVEN IMPLYING THAT IT IS A BLACK COMMUNITY ACTION. JUST FREAKING STOP. You go on a diatribe on something that was not even in discussion. Trust me on this. I know you see yourself as the rational, reasoned person among loonies. You are not the way you see yourself. You just come across as someone.so unaware of how tiring you are.

And I will ask you for the last time to quote me on when I said you or sycasey supported looters. Please, quote me. If you cannot, stop repeating that you don't support looters. I have never said you did.

Here. I DO NOT SUPPORT POLICE VIOLENCE. Are we good? Should I justify police violence or try to explain what the police officers may have been thinking? No, I won't do that, because I won't justify or explain bad actors or bad acts.


"At some point when someone says that was not the argument they were making, you back off and let them express their own point. You don't get wrapped around the axle on 25 posts ago you said "X" and I took that to mean "Y". Sycasey told you what he meant. I told you what I meant. Even if we at some point mispoke (to be honest I don't think we did) you should let us explain our own argument.

As for the actual merits of the "supporting looters" question. I'm going to present these results of two questions from a poll Monmouth just published:"


This again is you missing the plot. You do realize that my post was not rehashing out of the blue but a response to Sycasey again trying to be clever. You do realize that, right? And you do realize that I already told him affirmative that I knew he was being sarcastic but of course you have to interject in your typically manner with a 1,000 word post while completing missing the context and the point.


I am so done with you and your gaslighting. It is tiring dealing with such deluded and self-unaware person. And you think at most you are 40% responsible? What a jackass.

---

It was not me missing the context. I chose not to respond in a point by point blow where you snipped quotes and not quotes and then incorrectly explained what I meant in those quotes and not quotes because it was not going to go anywhere. Again, I can't have a conversation based on you incorrectly paraphrasing what I say and then commenting on the paraphrasing. I proposed a path forward where we both respect each other's words and arguments and decide not to get hung up on what we thought someone said but take each other's arguments and clarifications at face value.

I'm just pointing out that I didn't assign responsibility to you or me. The 40% was the people in the poll that said the anger of the protests was fully justified but that the actions were not. I would have answered the poll the same way. I am in that 40% group. I thought I was clear on that. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.

I am disappointed that you are so angry right now that you are not ready to moved beyond this, but I accept you get to process your emotions on your own timeline. I am not angry anymore and I have decided not to trade insults with you. If insulting me helps you work through your feelings, I won't stop you.

If you work through your anger on this and want to have conversations on future topics, I'm happy to participate.

---

Listen. I wasn't even that angry with you. I was ready to put that conversation aside despite the fact that you truly were missing the mark and kept saying you didn't say something you said a few post before or saying that I failed to point something out that was clearly pointed out even in what you quoted.

You do realize that Sycasey was the one who pulled this thread up again this morning as a poke that I engaged in gaslighting. You do realize that, right? But then you tried to say I missed the point of Sycasey's original comment when I told him multiple times that I was fully aware. You really do need to read the context in which a comment is made before butting in and thinking you have something figured out. You often miss the tone and then come in and try to confuse people that they missed the point.

---

I'm just going to give this piece of advice. Talk to and about one person at a time. Sycasey made a joke at your expense. I had nothing to do with it. If you kept your response to sycasey, I would've stayed out of it. I felt I had to respond because you posted a long post that mentioned me many times, accused me of (Sesame Street is brought to you today by the word) gaslighting, and represented my argument in many places. I had nothing to do with this conversation

---

Longtime lurker here who hasn't posted in years, but I just can't help myself right now. Watching this back-and-forth between you, sycasey, and calbear93 feels almost like an exact allegory for how otherwise intelligent and honorable members of the GOP political class have gone down a path of blind anger and antagonism trying to stay loyal to "the team" and represent a faint semblance of rationality in a party that has lost almost all sense of discernment for reality.

I've been around long enough to know that calbear93 is a rather intelligent person who historically brings a reasoned conservative perspective on assorted issues. You OaktownBear hit upon this somewhere in another thread, that he probably feels a great deal of frustration at being left behind by an increasingly amoral and hypocritical GOP. I would extend this another step to say that after an extended layoff from posting on the OT boards earlier this year, calbear93 saw how ridiculous the vast majority of right-leaning posters here were making conservatives look and began posting more frequently to provide the reasonable conservative perspective.

Unfortunately, because of the absolute dearth of fellow reasonable conservatives on BI, he's had to resort to finding company with any fellow right-leaning posters he comes across; notice how often he attempts to create sanitized argumentative points in support of otherwise blatantly ridiculous or purposely inflammatory posts from resident trolls like GBear4Life, BearForce2, and hanky1. Perhaps realizing that it is becoming increasingly difficult to not write them off as the bad-faith posters they are, calbear93 has now determined that the next best thing he can do to prop up the conservative "team" is to take down the liberal "team" by chipping away wherever he can, no matter how minor or inconsequential the target:

• replying frequently to assorted, presumably left-leaning posters with snarky one-liners that aren't intended to extend discussions,
• imagining belief systems held by liberals as a whole when convenient, and
• in the present case, repeatedly hammering on points long after they have been dispelled as misinterpreted or irrelevant.

He reinforces this by *inflammatory alert* virtue signaling through proclamations of how much he dislikes Trump for the purposes of reestablishing a veneer of impartial analysis and intent. Realizing that he's not succeeding in the way he had hoped (perhaps through no fault of his own given the general lean of BI), he finally resorts, ironically, to the Trumpian tactic of insults as a means of foreclosing on the discussion at hand. If I had to provide an overall direct comparison, it might be Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana.

I realize a lot of this is basically psychoanalysis out of nowhere but hey, it felt good to put out there, so in that sense, at least I can say I get why calbear93 might be feeling so inclined to repeatedly indulge in this slide.

Me thinks 93 won't like that psychoanalysis very much.

93 never struck me as a conservative or a member of a political team. He struck me as more or less a center-left non-ideological liberal who has little patience for partisan and woke politics. Personally, that's why I like him even when I don't agree with the content of his posts.

I sense his frustration boiling over, and my advice would be to take everything on BI in stride. Me thinks he's disappointed that the current political circumstances and culture that underpins it have led other posters he respects into such ridiculous double speak -- and then when he calls them out, they gaslight for good measure.

Just gotta make like Fonzi and chiiiiillllll

JeffBear07 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

My experience the last few days made me realize some really do not bother to read the post being responded to or even to what they themselves originally wrote.

---

Yes, including you.

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/95929/replies/1760329

---

Oh, really? I was trying to be generous by not calling you out but here goes.


Example 1 of Gaslighting by Sycasey and Oak

Goes from Republicans thought looting is a good thing to I never said Republicans said it was a good thing:


Part 1:

Quote from Sycasey :

"I remember when Republicans said looting was a good thing:


[url=https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2003/04/11/Rumsfeld-Looting-is-transition-to-freedom/63821050097983/?][/url]https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2003/04/11/Rumsfeld-Looting-is-transition-to-freedom/63821050097983/"

Part 2:

Quote from Oak:

" I don't think this is difficult.


Rumsfeld: "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression"

Republicans: "ho hum. Nothing to see here."

sycasey: "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression"

Republicans: "How dare you defend looters! Antifa! Antifa!"

Expressing that you may understand why years of repression would lead to anger that can be triggered by an act of murder against one's people and that leads someone to act out by looting does not mean you support looting."

Part 3:

Quote from Oak:

sycasey did not say that Rumsfeld or Republicans supported looting. In context, people were upset because looters destroyed and stole great treasures of antiquity. Rumsfeld never supported looters, but expressed understanding. I would point out that there is every reason to believe that there were just as many looters in Iraq stealing for personal gain as there were here. Again, sycasey's point was that NO ONE ACCUSED RUMSFELD OF SUPPORTING LOOTERS. So people should stop disingenuously accuse him of supporting looters.



Example 2 of Gaslighting by Sycasey and Oak

Goes from me pointing out that Rumsfeld's quote itself specifically qualified by context to a situation where a country is going from a dictatorship to a democracy. I point out that we are not in fact transition from a dictatorship where a whole country is oppressed by the tyranny of one man who used chemical weapons to wipe out an entire religious group. Then the goal post moves in response that the black community suffered more than Kurds and Shiite under Saddam to I am now lacking sympathy for looters for not understanding that they are responding to racial injustice.

Part 1.

My Quote to Sycasey:

Sycasey, you can't be serious.

• Are you or are not defending LOOTING? If not, you are not saying the same thing Rumsfeld said.
• We are not Iraq and we are not transitioning from a dictatorship
• And you want to align yourself to Rumsfeld?

What are you conveying? Maybe I missed it.


Part 2.


My Quote to Oak trying to explain my original response to Sycasey

OK, but we are not Iraq and we are not bunch of tortured masses having lived under one man's dictatorship. I promise I won't hold what Democrats supported about other countries and translate that to what we should do in our own country. So, maybe it's just me but this seems like such a stretch that it's really beneath you. And if you are not in support of rioters or excusing it. What disagreement do you have with those like me who are upset by it?


Part 3.

In direct response to me pointing out that Rumsfeld (whom I did not even support) only refer to a limited context, Oak now brings in racial issues and how I lack empathy for the black community's struggles by not trying to understand the looters and that the black community suffered more than the Kurds who were hit with massive bombs with mustard gas by its own leader. Completely ignores the fact that I never myself compared the plight of the black community with that of the Kurds, but apparently he assumed I did and states that I am wrong about one having suffered more than the other. Trying to gaslight me into believing I made a comparison or that by pointing out the context in which Rumsfeld made the comment, I am lacking empathy for the black community. I fell for it and started down the path of comparing the two in response, but at this point, Oak and Sycasey have completed twisted the conversation.

Quote from Oak

"sycasey has said over and over again that he doesn't support looting. He has said he understands the anger behind it. I don't see that he has said that you can't be upset by it. He is responding to he and others being accused of supporting it by merely expressing that he understands it. Rumsfeld did not support looting either. He merely expressed understanding.


And I'm sorry, we have some great conversations, but I keep coming back to empathy. Your first sentence is just a dramatic lack of understanding. [Note: my simple statement that we are not Iraq and we are not coming out of one man's dictatorship - the sole context in wihich Rumsfled made the statement.] Does it matter that it is one man's dictatorship? When as a result of slavery and historical oppression the current state of the median Black family is to have one tenth the wealth and less than half the income of the median White family. When income is about half even factoring in educational attainment. When Whites and Blacks have the same rates of drug usage but Blacks are 6 times more likely to be convicted of a drug crime? When too many police treat too many Blacks as prima facie criminals? When too many Black are killed by police. And your response is they don't have as much right to be mad as an Iraqi.

I disagree. They've been oppressed for far longer. It makes no difference to them that the oppression is from one guy or a couple hundred million. In fact I'd argue that the latter is worse.

Part 4:

Oak's follow up comment that he doesn't want to get into who suffered more and once again saying that I showed lack of empathy for the black community by pointing out that Rumsfeld made the comment in the context of a transition from a dictatorship in which he bombed his own people.

I wasn't saying you displayed lack of empathy for the looters. I was saying you displayed lack of empathy for the African American community by dismissing their grievances in comparison to the Iraqi's. [Note: He was the one who first made the comparison, but now I am showing lack of empathy by comparing. Talk about gaslighting.] Without going down a rathole of who has/had it worse, I think that is inappropriate. So basically no matter how much oppression someone faces, it won't match being Jewish in Nazi Germany, so the response can be "it's not like you are Jewish in Nazi Germany". [Note: Of course, someone has to bring up Hitler.[ Or, hell, you know Count Dracula? No, the REAL Count Dracula. He was known as the impaler. He impaled people all the time. Oh, no. Wait. Not that way. He had a six foot long pike driven through your ass and out your mouth. They perfected a way to do this so you died real slowly. Once, facing an approaching invading army that he had no hope of defeating he did this to hundreds of innocent people, his own people so that the invading army would see this and freak out and go back. So, you know, some people might think that is even worse than the Nazi's. Point being that humans have done a lot of horrible things and I don't think you have to be the worst treated in history to have a grievance.


Example 3 of Gaslighting by Oak

I explain that, while he encourages me to show empathy for the looters, he should also show empathy for the store owners. He says I did not pose an empathy question and he is just trying in all his benevolence to reach my heart and teach me empathy. He makes that claim even though I ask the empathy question in what he quoted in response. Then when I explain, he says I didn't say it in the original quote and I am throwing out there at the last minute as a gotcha. Then he twist this into saying, unlike my alleged claim, he never supported looters so he is showing plenty sympathy. When I ask him to show me one quote in which I say he "SUPPORTED" looters, of course he remains silent.

Part 1:

My quote (even bulleted) asking him to likewise show empathy for the store owners.

• Why is there such need to empathize with looters? Do you really believe the people who are truly angry about Floyd and want change are the ones who are looting local neighborhoods? Is that what you are seeing? We must be living in a different world. And do you believe empathizing with criminals causing harm to people who are particularly vulnerable makes one decent? What if someone were to say: No, I don't condone police brutality, but, considering how many police officers are injured, I also understand why they may sometimes overreact. Would that be acceptable to you in response to Floyd and show that they truly are against police brutality? Would that show how much empathy I have? No, there is no excuse for police brutality. There is no excuse for racism There is no excuse for mayhem or looting or burning down local neighborhoods. There is of course a reason for everything. I am sure that even tiki torch carriers have had tough childhoods, lack of parental guidance, etc. I don't give a ***** They are still scum, right? Do I really need to empathize with them? Do I need to empathize with criminals, Antifa, or armed militants causing havoc right now? No, I don't. So, sorry. You don't really seem to have empathy with the right people. How about the small business owners who had nothing to do with police brutality. You mentioned before that I show too much focus on one over another. I have not seem anything other than passing comments from you for middle class store owners. Where is your empathy for them?

Part 2:

Oak's response:

I'm not saying I'm right and you are wrong, but I don't get the response that I'm demonstrating lack of empathy. I get you don't think you are exhibiting lack of empathy, but nothing you argued about me was an empathy question. Which leads me to believe that using the word empathy has not been effective for me in trying to reach you with my argument. Because I am genuinely trying to reach you. [Note: What an arrogant and self-important and righteous comment. Thanks, but don't need empathy lessons from you. I don't honestly see you as someone I would ever want to emulate.] Your response indicates that I'm not reaching you, not because you disagree, but because your repeat back of my argument is not what I am saying.



Part 3:

My dumbfounded question on why me asking the question about his lack of empathy is not an empathy question/

My quote:

Why is your lack of equal concern for middle class shop owners who may not be adequately insured and who may have debt and now cannot support their family (many of them in the black community) not an empathy question for you?


Part 4.

Oak now trying to gaslight me into thinking that I never asked the question and now twisting it as saying it is irrelevant because he never "supported" the looters (who said he supported the looters? I said he is asking me to empathize with the looters, and I am saying also empathize with the middle class store owners). Another gaslighting trying to make me believe I said he supported the looter and since he didn't he hasn't failed to show empathy for the store owners by excusing the looters.

Oak quote:

So THAT would be an empathy question, which you did not raise in the first post. However, since I never supported the looters it is irrelevant. And sycasey never supported the looters. I feel terrible for the shop owners. [Note: He said I showed lack of empathy for Floyd even though I have explained how outraged I was with the police brutality that my blood was boiling. That was not enough. I was talking more about looting that Floyd - which is not true - but then he thinks this throw away comment shows his empathy.] You accused sycasey of something he didn't do. You are now spreading that to me. No one supported the looters. No one said you shouldn't be angry with the looters. Looters bad. Looters bad. Looters bad. Sycasey asked you for an example of someone here supporting the looters. You provided one. He said he didn't agree. He is asking you and others to stop saying we support looters. You keep responding with arguments about why we shouldn't support looters. And we respond by saying we don't support looters and asking you to stop saying we support looters. I don't know what else to say on this point. other than, oh yeah. I DON'T SUPPORT LOOTERS!!!! [Note: I never said he SUPPORTED the looters.]


Part 5:

I explain that I never said he supported looters and therefore him saying he doesn't support looters is not a correction of what I previously accused him of doing. And I also show why saying you don't support something while excusing it is not really showing empathy for the victim.

My quote in response.

When did I say you support looters? Please quote me. I said you are excusing looters and empathizing with looters. Are you not?

Let me apply your reasoning to something similar. No one here is saying they excuse police violence. But I suppose as long as one claims he does not support police violence (especially in all caps), it should be fine if he writes that he "understands" why police may use excessive violence in light of how much crime is committed in inner city and how many cops are killed every year. In that case, would you would really think - I guess it's all fine since he stated HE DOESN'T SUPPORT POLICE VIOLENCE. No?



So much more gaslighting by you and Oak and then you have the nerve to point out that discussion as my failure to read and listen. Wow.

---

I forgot why I have had such an issue with you in the past. This experience reminded me that we've been through this before. You have a habit of paraphrasing what people say and then commenting on your paraphrase. This is a problem when your paraphrase of what I say is not an accurate statement of what I believe. I am fine with people thinking I'm horrible for something I have said. I am not fine with people thinking I'm horrible for something someone else says I said, particularly when I massively disagree with the statement attributed to me.

I'm sorry you went through all of this work. The bottom line is your whole point hangs on sycasey posting

Quote:

---

"I remember when Republicans said looting was a good thing

---

That was obviously a sarcastic statement. Sycasey had already said he did not support the looting and was questioning comments by you and others that somehow people on here were expressing support for the looting. It was clear from context that he was drawing a parallel between Rumsfeld's statement and his own statements. The sarcasm was that if sycasey's statements support looting than Rumsfeld supported looting. Since the whole point sycasey had been making was that HE WASN'T SUPPORTING LOOTING, it should have been clear to you that he wasn't saying Rumsfeld supported looting. I understand that sometimes sarcasm doesn't come across in writing. However, if it wasn't clear to you, he explained it very early in the conversation. You just keep wanting to go back and relitigate "what people said". I don't know what you think the purpose would be for me or sycasey to "gaslight" you and make 1 argument just for the purpose of denying the argument for like 10 pages. That would be nonsensical. We don't gain from doing that. Frankly, 90% of this argument has been not on the merits of the actual argument, but an argument about "what we said", which was a colossal waste of time for all of us. The reason why I kept responding to you is because I not only didn't say what you said I said, I drastically disagree with what you supposedly think I said. I don't want anyone attributing those comments to me. You force me to correct the record to protect myself.

At some point when someone says that was not the argument they were making, you back off and let them express their own point. You don't get wrapped around the axle on 25 posts ago you said "X" and I took that to mean "Y". Sycasey told you what he meant. I told you what I meant. Even if we at some point mispoke (to be honest I don't think we did) you should let us explain our own argument.

As for the actual merits of the "supporting looters" question. I'm going to present these results of two questions from a poll Monmouth just published:

Quote:

---

Fifty-seven percent of respondents in the Monmouth poll felt that, regardless of their actions, protesters' ANGER was "fully justified," while 21 percent said it was "partially justified" and 18 percent said it was "not at all justified."

---

and then:

Quote:

---

In Monmouth's poll, only 17 percent felt the ACTIONS of the protesters were fully justified, 37 percent said they were partially justified and 38 percent said they weren't justified at all.

---

This is exactly what both sycasey and I were talking about. And while I understand you do not want to distinguish between the two, not only did Monmouth see the distinction in asking the questions, the respondents did on a large scale. Fully 40% of the people asked said the anger was fully justified and then went on to say the actions were not fully justified. Which is EXACTLY HOW I WOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE POLL and exactly what I was saying. There is a huge distinction between saying you understand the underlying causes of the anger behind certain actions, and believing that anger is justified, and saying you think the actions that a person took based on that anger are justified. If a man walks in on his friend having sex with his wife and shoots him, I deplore the act of shooting him. I want him prosecuted. I do understand why he was upset. And I would say to the friend, if you go around having sex with married women, you are running a big risk that someone else is going to get mad and shoot you again. Not saying I agree with it, but it is likely to happen.

I'm 100% cool if you say you disagree with that 40% that I am a part of. I'm 100% cool if you disagree with the statement that the anger of the protesters was fully justified but the actions were not fully justified. If that is your opinion, that is cool with me. I AM NOT COOL with you paraphrasing MY OPINION into saying the actions were fully justified. It is not what I said. It is not my belief. If we had a misunderstanding as to what I said, you should take me at my word that it is not my belief when I tell you that. If that was not your understanding of what I said, either because I misspoke, you misheard or something got lost in translation, you need to move passed what you think I said when I tell you now that is not my belief. It stops all progress in the conversation. To continue to say someone believes something when they have told you they don't is not cool. Further, I AM DEFINITELY NOT COOL with you spinning up MULTIPLE TIMES, my saying, what 57% of the people said in that poll - that the anger is justified, into somehow I said all the looters are Black and then calling me racist for believing all looters are Black. Especially when I said several times that many of the looters were not Black. That is completely below the belt. I'd like to think you'd think better of that now as I would think better of much of what I said to you.

I think we have had constructive conversations. Those constructive conversations have taken place when we have taken each other's words at face value. I cannot have a conversation with you if you just want to lock onto your first interpretation of my first argument and just keep repeating what you think I said after I have posted 10 times that wasn't what I said or what I meant. That isn't an argument on the merits. That is a semantics argument that does no good.

In this case, we could have had a good, constructive conversation about whether addressing the underlying anger behind violence condones violence. We could have discussed proper ways to deal with violent protests. We could have discussed how we could prevent violent protests in the future. We could have taken it in a myriad of different constructive directions. Instead we spent way too much time in our life on "You said looting good" "no I didn't" "Yes you did" "no I didn't" "Yes you did" "No I didn't".

I apologize for my part in this and massively losing my cool with you. I just can't abide by people telling me and more importantly others what my own argument is when I'm here to make it myself. No one is trying to gaslight you. I said what I said, and I stand by that. If you think I said X, fine. If you think you can prove I said X, fine. I'm telling you, I don't believe X. At some point, when I have said Not X, so many times, I think you have to accept that there was a miscommunication in the first place and move on, even if you think that miscommunication was totally my fault.

I will give you this. I will not paraphrase what I think you say. I will respond to your post. If I mean to represent what you say, I will only do so through a direct quote. And if you tell me that what I interpret from your statements is not what you meant to say or what you believe, I will take you at face value and move on. I hope you will try and do the same for me. I don't think there is any value in winning an argument by parsing words. The value comes in having an actual discussion. Me beating you or you beating me is not going to change the world.

---

"I forgot why I have had such an issue with you in the past. This experience reminded me that we've been through this before. You have a habit of paraphrasing what people say and then commenting on your paraphrase. This is a problem when your paraphrase of what I say is not an accurate statement of what I believe. I am fine with people thinking I'm horrible for something I have said. I am not fine with people thinking I'm horrible for something someone else says I said, particularly when I massively disagree with the statement attributed to me.


I'm sorry you went through all of this work. The bottom line is your whole point hangs on sycasey posting."


Please stop with rewriting history. This experience reminded me of why I had issues with you as well.

Please don't explain to me that Sycasey point was sarcastic. I know it was. I told him as much. But thank you for thinking again in your pedestrian manner that you need to explain something that was obvious to all as if you are some intellectual giant talking to children.

What you fail to realize is that you jump into my response to Sycasey when my intent was to remind him that Rumsfeld's quote was made in a completely different context and, as such, doesn't work (while knowing he meant it as a sarcastic poke at those who are not justifying looting). You are the one elevated into some bullshyte empathy discussion when it was each of us mocking the other.

And to say I took things out of context when I took your direct quote is just some more gaslighting.

I will say this. I really wonder what your point in all this is? Who cares whether some stranger like me is convinced you are right? You talk of empathy and integrity and you sell it down the river for this? You do realize that whatever valid point you may have in the future is going to be discounted.



"That was obviously a sarcastic statement. Sycasey had already said he did not support the looting and was questioning comments by you and others that somehow people on here were expressing support for the looting. It was clear from context that he was drawing a parallel between Rumsfeld's statement and his own statements. The sarcasm was that if sycasey's statements support looting than Rumsfeld supported looting. Since the whole point sycasey had been making was that HE WASN'T SUPPORTING LOOTING, it should have been clear to you that he wasn't saying Rumsfeld supported looting. I understand that sometimes sarcasm doesn't come across in writing. However, if it wasn't clear to you, he explained it very early in the conversation. You just keep wanting to go back and relitigate "what people said". I don't know what you think the purpose would be for me or sycasey to "gaslight" you and make 1 argument just for the purpose of denying the argument for like 10 pages. That would be nonsensical. We don't gain from doing that. Frankly, 90% of this argument has been not on the merits of the actual argument, but an argument about "what we said", which was a colossal waste of time for all of us. The reason why I kept responding to you is because I not only didn't say what you said I said, I drastically disagree with what you supposedly think I said. I don't want anyone attributing those comments to me. You force me to correct the record to protect myself."



NO shyte it was a sarcastic remark.

Here is what I wrote to Sycasey this morning (again an example of you talking more than listening):

"You are a little weasle. Everything I once thought about you as being one of the reasonable one has gone out the window. Oak was being sarcastic? You were being sarcastic. Do me a favor. **** off."

"Of course it is all about you. Forget that in what you quote, I asked if Oak was being sarcastic. I acknowledged that you were being sarcastic. Yes, thinking you are anything but a weasel won't be a mistake I make again."


My point in my original response to SYCASEY was that him making that sarcastic remark was not even that clever because instead of poking us, he brought something that was not even relevant and wasn't even where he wanted to end up (that he either supports Rumsfeld or looting). You think I missed the context or tone. Trust me, you are the one who missed it, whether it is butting in on this conversation where I was trying to point out TO Sycasey that he was not being that clever just like you missing the mark when I was pointing to blugld the silliness of accusing Yogi of being some conservative Christian. You think you need to come down and explain in your pedantic manner when it is you are clearly not getting the tone or the context and twist it into some empathy, morality matter.

AND STOP SAYING YOU DO NOT SUPPORT LOOTING. NO SHYTE. I AM SAYING STOP JUSTIFYING OR EXPLAINING THE MINDSET OF LOOTERS OR EVEN IMPLYING THAT IT IS A BLACK COMMUNITY ACTION. JUST FREAKING STOP. You go on a diatribe on something that was not even in discussion. Trust me on this. I know you see yourself as the rational, reasoned person among loonies. You are not the way you see yourself. You just come across as someone.so unaware of how tiring you are.

And I will ask you for the last time to quote me on when I said you or sycasey supported looters. Please, quote me. If you cannot, stop repeating that you don't support looters. I have never said you did.

Here. I DO NOT SUPPORT POLICE VIOLENCE. Are we good? Should I justify police violence or try to explain what the police officers may have been thinking? No, I won't do that, because I won't justify or explain bad actors or bad acts.


"At some point when someone says that was not the argument they were making, you back off and let them express their own point. You don't get wrapped around the axle on 25 posts ago you said "X" and I took that to mean "Y". Sycasey told you what he meant. I told you what I meant. Even if we at some point mispoke (to be honest I don't think we did) you should let us explain our own argument.

As for the actual merits of the "supporting looters" question. I'm going to present these results of two questions from a poll Monmouth just published:"


This again is you missing the plot. You do realize that my post was not rehashing out of the blue but a response to Sycasey again trying to be clever. You do realize that, right? And you do realize that I already told him affirmative that I knew he was being sarcastic but of course you have to interject in your typically manner with a 1,000 word post while completing missing the context and the point.


I am so done with you and your gaslighting. It is tiring dealing with such deluded and self-unaware person. And you think at most you are 40% responsible? What a jackass.

---

It was not me missing the context. I chose not to respond in a point by point blow where you snipped quotes and not quotes and then incorrectly explained what I meant in those quotes and not quotes because it was not going to go anywhere. Again, I can't have a conversation based on you incorrectly paraphrasing what I say and then commenting on the paraphrasing. I proposed a path forward where we both respect each other's words and arguments and decide not to get hung up on what we thought someone said but take each other's arguments and clarifications at face value.

I'm just pointing out that I didn't assign responsibility to you or me. The 40% was the people in the poll that said the anger of the protests was fully justified but that the actions were not. I would have answered the poll the same way. I am in that 40% group. I thought I was clear on that. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.

I am disappointed that you are so angry right now that you are not ready to moved beyond this, but I accept you get to process your emotions on your own timeline. I am not angry anymore and I have decided not to trade insults with you. If insulting me helps you work through your feelings, I won't stop you.

If you work through your anger on this and want to have conversations on future topics, I'm happy to participate.

---

Listen. I wasn't even that angry with you. I was ready to put that conversation aside despite the fact that you truly were missing the mark and kept saying you didn't say something you said a few post before or saying that I failed to point something out that was clearly pointed out even in what you quoted.

You do realize that Sycasey was the one who pulled this thread up again this morning as a poke that I engaged in gaslighting. You do realize that, right? But then you tried to say I missed the point of Sycasey's original comment when I told him multiple times that I was fully aware. You really do need to read the context in which a comment is made before butting in and thinking you have something figured out. You often miss the tone and then come in and try to confuse people that they missed the point.

---

I'm just going to give this piece of advice. Talk to and about one person at a time. Sycasey made a joke at your expense. I had nothing to do with it. If you kept your response to sycasey, I would've stayed out of it. I felt I had to respond because you posted a long post that mentioned me many times, accused me of (Sesame Street is brought to you today by the word) gaslighting, and represented my argument in many places. I had nothing to do with this conversation

---

Longtime lurker here who hasn't posted in years, but I just can't help myself right now. Watching this back-and-forth between you, sycasey, and calbear93 feels almost like an exact allegory for how otherwise intelligent and honorable members of the GOP political class have gone down a path of blind anger and antagonism trying to stay loyal to "the team" and represent a faint semblance of rationality in a party that has lost almost all sense of discernment for reality.

I've been around long enough to know that calbear93 is a rather intelligent person who historically brings a reasoned conservative perspective on assorted issues. You OaktownBear hit upon this somewhere in another thread, that he probably feels a great deal of frustration at being left behind by an increasingly amoral and hypocritical GOP. I would extend this another step to say that after an extended layoff from posting on the OT boards earlier this year, calbear93 saw how ridiculous the vast majority of right-leaning posters here were making conservatives look and began posting more frequently to provide the reasonable conservative perspective.

Unfortunately, because of the absolute dearth of fellow reasonable conservatives on BI, he's had to resort to finding company with any fellow right-leaning posters he comes across; notice how often he attempts to create sanitized argumentative points in support of otherwise blatantly ridiculous or purposely inflammatory posts from resident trolls like GBear4Life, BearForce2, and hanky1. Perhaps realizing that it is becoming increasingly difficult to not write them off as the bad-faith posters they are, calbear93 has now determined that the next best thing he can do to prop up the conservative "team" is to take down the liberal "team" by chipping away wherever he can, no matter how minor or inconsequential the target:

• replying frequently to assorted, presumably left-leaning posters with snarky one-liners that aren't intended to extend discussions,
• imagining belief systems held by liberals as a whole when convenient, and
• in the present case, repeatedly hammering on points long after they have been dispelled as misinterpreted or irrelevant.

He reinforces this by *inflammatory alert* virtue signaling through proclamations of how much he dislikes Trump for the purposes of reestablishing a veneer of impartial analysis and intent. Realizing that he's not succeeding in the way he had hoped (perhaps through no fault of his own given the general lean of BI), he finally resorts, ironically, to the Trumpian tactic of insults as a means of foreclosing on the discussion at hand. If I had to provide an overall direct comparison, it might be Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana.

I realize a lot of this is basically psychoanalysis out of nowhere but hey, it felt good to put out there, so in that sense, at least I can say I get why calbear93 might be feeling so inclined to repeatedly indulge in this slide.

---

My larger suspicion is that the dearth of reasonable conservatives on BI mirrors the dearth of them in the broader American conversation. Most of the people you can have reasonable conversations with have already left the conservative "team" and haven't looked back.