barbox

@thewebgal the Stalker listing is here: @Anaximander your Stalker is a beautiful car for sure! But I’ve been looking for a bike-engined car for a while now and this is the first one I’ve seen in quite some time. It’s probably a little rough around the edges, but for the price I think that’s reasonable.

Thanks all for the great suggestions! looks like the closest person on the map is @SENC but still a bit of a drive for him, about 3.5hrs. The car is near Charlotte, in Fort Hill, SC. this is the car: CMC / Locost https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/item/385047247476776/

Anyone have any experience or tips they can share about buying a car on Facebook Marketplace, particularly when it's not close enough to go see the car in person on a single-day trip? The amount of info and pictures on a Facebook listing is substantially less than you'd get on a BaT/CnB type listing, and I'm not sure what a seller's tolerance would be for lots of detailed questions. Wondering if it would be better to just take it on a leap of faith, especially since the asking price of the car I'm looking at is significantly cheaper than most other Sevens I've been interested in. Also curious how the actual exchange of funds would go down if you're paying a shipper to collect the car. Would you wire the seller money once you have confirmation from the shipper that they're looking at the car? Or would that be too slow to be worth the seller's and shipper's time? Maybe it would be easier to rent a trailer and go pick it up myself? It's about 8 hours from me.

This is now the fourth time you've requested edits to other people's posts in this thread (BUT THE FIRST TO FEATURE CAPS LOCK). All of those requests came after you posted this in the original thread: To which Vovchandr correctly pointed out that there is certainly no Free Speech As Protected By The First Amendment issue here, as none of us represent the Government. But, giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you were talking about the principle of free speech, not the protected right to free speech, it's still a ridiculous thing to bring up, because your words were being criticized, but not controlled. And, of course, because the principle of free speech would protect those criticisms just as much as it protects your original words. But the sheer audacity to cry "Freeze Peach!" when your words are criticized without requests for edit or deletion, and to then go on to repeatedly request admins/mods edit others' posts... I mean, it would almost astound, if it weren't so predictable. I did say the hypocrisy was never-ending. Granted, the edits you've requested are not unreasonable. But, still, if you believe in the principle of free speech, shouldn't you want to leave people's posts as and where they chose to post them?

@SENC once again, thank you for your very reasonable and thoughtful response. I think I can meet you at least half way on most of that. The David Duke example in particular changed my stance - there are times when people are forthcoming with their intent, and give you no reason to doubt them. And particularly in cases like that, it'd be crazy to not consider their intent. I think my opinions on intent vs outcome were formed by countless examples of people in power straight up lying about their true intent. If someone wants to lie about their intent, then getting into a debate about their intent is akin to calling them a liar, and that just isn't going to go anywhere productive or change anything for the better. So, in those cases, I think it makes sense to sidestep the intent debate and focus on actions and outcomes. That doesn't mean intent isn't worth discussing in other scenarios. On the definitions front... language changes and evolves over time, often within our lifetime. We don't have to like it, but we're gonna struggle to understand people if we plug our ears and pretend it isn't happening. But, I particularly like this example of yours: When words are being used in new ways, particularly a word as historically charged as "racist", the onus should be on the person using it in the new way to clarify that meaning up front. Otherwise, the outcome of their using it will predictably be offense felt by the receiving party. Saying "hey man, that's kinda racist" is never going to go over as well as "hey man, I know you didn't mean it this way, but that's kinda racist".

I think I see where you're coming from here. My point with "But if I feel offended, even if that feeling is unjustified or whatever else you may say to dismiss the feeling or emotion, is it not true that I felt it?" (emphasis added) was to allude to the fact that one may feel genuine offense, but be unable to convince the other party that the offense felt was legitimate, or justified, or worthy of an apology, or any number of other things. Hypothetical example: I say something that offends you, and you claim offense, and we talk about it, but you're unable to convince me that what I said contained legitimate offense, so we agree to disagree and move on. Based on what you wrote (quoted above), it sounds like you think I should walk away thinking it rude for you to have raised the concern in the first place, because upon examination, I didn't find it contained offense. Am I understanding that correctly, or misinterpreting? I would say it's not rude to merely raise the concern, even if you're unable to convince the other party of whatever it is you're claiming. But I would agree that it would cross the line into rudeness if you continued to pester the person with the same arguments ad nauseam, rather than agreeing to disagree and moving on. Do the recent SFFA v. Harvard and SFFA v. UNC decisions address your concern here? I'll admit this is not a concern I've ever heard before from anyone. I'm not really sure what exactly the problem is. Do you think the prospectus of the relevant funds didn't adequately disclose their plans and goals? Do you think their managers shouldn't be allowed to invest in what they view as long-term, high-risk high-reward opportunities when shorter-term, lower-risk opportunities exist? Do you think fund managers should be held legally liable for the performance of their investments? What law is it you think was violated here? It's long been my opinion that private business would not invest in DEI or Green initiatives if it didn't make business sense (and that includes the possibility that the only benefit is "looking good", but that even then, they would only invest in it if they think there's profit to be made in looking good). You seem to acknowledge that there's a racial bias in quality of primary and secondary schools. How, then, can we claim to live in an egalitarian society? How is that equal opportunity? How is that not all the evidence you need to convince you that there is more work yet to be done?

I really appreciate your response, and I think there's no need to apologize for the length - you clearly put a lot of thought into it! And I think maybe you'd be surprised by how much I agree with you. First I'll say, with my example about the definition of "racist", I'm not trying to argue in favor of either definition, I'm merely trying to make the point that we should be cognizant of the fact that others might have different definitions of it. If we're not cognizant of that fact, we'll argue in circles and walk away thinking the other must be crazy, because nothing they said made any sense, and they reacted unreasonably to everything you said. If instead we are cognizant of it, then when someone says something that doesn't make sense, or they react in an unexpected way to something you said, then the conversation can turn to clarifying those definitions, and then we can communicate better and understand each other better. I think this is really the crux of it. Humans are far too complicated to be defined by a single action or statement. We all make mistakes, we all have done or said things that we look back on with embarrassment or regret. We need to be able to criticize actions or words without extending that criticism to the person. As for defining actions by their outcomes, I agree it's not the only thing that matters, but it does matter, particularly if that outcome was predictable. Based on what you've said, I think it's pretty clear you're not racist. But, as you acknowledge, that doesn't mean you're free of unconscious biases. Because of those unconscious biases, you might unintentionally say or do something racist. That action or statement doesn't make you a racist. Just like your not-being-a-racist doesn't prevent you from saying or doing racist things. Who said anything about defining people or actions? If I criticize a statement or action, it's not because I'm attempting to define or judge the person, or even the action - it's because I want them to not make similar actions or statements moving forward. Let's take the original reason for this thread as an example. I was critical of Bruce's Trump metaphor. I tried to keep that criticism limited to the statement itself, and to not have it be misinterpreted as criticism of him as a person. Bruce has since agreed not to make such comparisons in the future. That's great! If anything, that interaction says positive things, rather than critical things, about Bruce as a person, because he was willing to listen, learn, grow, and change. This is where I disagree. If you're critical of someone's intent, that's very likely to be interpreted by them as a criticism of their motivations, their values, or themselves. They're then likely to get defensive, and now your criticism is unlikely to change their future behavior. If, instead, you're critical of the effects that their action or words had, and you clarify that you're actively assuming there was no ill intent on their part, then they're much more likely to be open to listening, learning, growing, and changing. Another reason I think outcome is the critical piece, not intent, is because outcome is the only part that matters to people in the present, particularly when analyzing historical actions. Outcomes are the legacy, not intent. Is it any consolation to the people of Flint, MI that the responsible officials didn't intend to poison their children? Of course not! Regardless of intent, their children were still poisoned. The decisions that led to that outcome need to be analyzed critically so it never happens again. Analyzing the intent behind those decisions won't change anything.

Thank you, Bruce! I too have enjoyed our discussion thus far. And I feel like we're getting closer to some common ground here so I'm gonna try to keep on target with this one. This is a strawman. I never said people should share inconsequential feelings, nor did I suggest anyone should even attempt to share all the feelings they feel. I think the only examples I used were about feeling genuinely offended, for example due to a dog whistle or stereotype. And even then, I wouldn't advise sharing that feeling all the time, rather I'd say it's only worth it if you think there's a chance of a productive conversation. I certainly agree that if what someone said is a true dog whistle, you should consider communicating that fact. Though I'll note that proving to someone that something is a true dog whistle - that's not an easy task. Moreover, I think my disagreement here is on the phrase "the agreed and commonly understood meanings of his words" because I think often we are not operating with shared definitions. That doesn't mean we need to start all conversations by going over definitions of words, but it does mean we shouldn't assume everyone's definitely using the same definitions we are all the time, particularly when people have reactions to something we say that we did not anticipate, or that don't seem reasonable. After all, each of us comes to the table with a different upbringing, different cultures, different experiences - it's quite reasonable to assume that, along the way, we may have internalized slightly different meanings for certain things. As an example: the word "racist". I've had some surprisingly productive conversations with friends and family in the past few years about racism, and I've found that often, at some point in the conversation, we need to talk about how to define that term. This is because a lot of people have internalized a definition that revolves around intent (I'm starting to sense a theme in this thread...) - they think, in order for something to be racist, it has to be malicious, willful, conscious. This internalized definition often puts them on the defensive when you suggest that something they said might be racist. They think you're attacking them by calling them willfully and intentionally racist. That's not conducive to a productive conversation, and thus I don't think it's a productive definition for the term. To get a conversation back on track from that point, it helps to remind them that often racism can stem from unconscious biases, or from stereotypes that were socialized into us from childhood, and thus doesn't need to be intentional or malicious. What matters is the outcome, the effect - not the intent. For example, one can absolutely spread a racist stereotype without intending to spread it.

Well, we are in the "Politics, Religion, and Controversy" section, aren't we. We're now 3 for 3. Why do you keep jumping to extremes like this? Not everything is a slippery slope. When you were offended by what Vovchandr said, it wasn't because of the definitions of any of the words he used, it was because of the associations and implications of the cultural figures he referenced. Those associations and implications are not universal truths - different people have different associations for the same cultural figures, as you learned with Trump. That doesn't mean one's associations and implications are invalid or untrue, they just vary person to person. Why "better yet, withheld"? Like you'd actually prefer to not know if something you said unintentionally offended someone? I am looking to always learn, always grow, always improve. I need feedback to do that. I absolutely want someone to let me know if I said something that's a racist dog whistle or an insensitive stereotype or whatever else may have inadvertently caused offense. But if I feel offended, even if that feeling is unjustified or whatever else you may say to dismiss the feeling or emotion, is it not true that I felt it? Am I not speaking truth when I say I feel offense? Perhaps, but that doesn't mean they're any good at finding it. Their bar is generally "beyond all reasonable doubt", which is far from absolute truth. For example, did you know that, since 1973 (when executions were resumed in the US after Furman v. Georgia), for every 8 people executed, 1 person on death row has been exonerated? Especially impressive if you're at all familiar with the enormous challenge it is to exonerate a convict under our legal system.

@SENC that was a great summary, and definitely helped me consider a broader view on all this. I think you may be spot on with the analysis about it being an age/generational difference. Do go back and reread the thread - there's only 4 commenters between Bruce's initial metaphor and Croc's response. 2 are critical of the metaphor, 1 is in support of Bruce's right to say what he wants, and 1 praising the "No Political Talk" rules of other car forums. I think this one best highlights why the 2 critical comments felt compelled to chime in: It wasn't until after the dust in that thread had settled, and the conversation had moved into this thread, that I stumbled upon it (during my weekly review of Croc's for-sale aggregation). At that point, enough people had chimed in that it didn't feel weird. If I had been in the original thread when Bruce's compliment had just been posted, and no one else had chimed in, I may have said something along the lines of Vovchandr's first response ("that's maybe not the compliment you think it is"), or I may have said nothing, and merely thought to myself "man, I really hope he's familiar with Croc's opinion of Trump, otherwise that could backfire big time." I also want to comment on your last point: Big agree from me. From a moderator's point of view, I would absolutely prefer a "no politics" rule as it's much easier to enforce. But when every forum takes that stance, then there's nowhere left online to discuss hard topics with folks on the other side of the aisle, and I think that leaves us worse off. As a commenter that doesn't have to moderate, I'd like to say kudos to the mods and admins of this forum for allowing us this space to hash out these hard topics.

I'm trying to consider the context surrounding them. If he'd said it in a vacuum, I'd feel very differently about them. But, regardless of context, regardless of intent, you have every right to be offended. And he, in turn, has every right to decide for himself whether to acknowledge your offense as earnest, and/or take any responsibility for it. To use your earlier example, since I can't think of a better one at the moment, is an insult more like manslaughter or murder? I'd argue it could be either. An intended insult is certainly a worse offense than an unintended one, but an unintended one can definitely still be offensive. Proving intent is an enormous challenge, though, so in many cases I think it's simpler and more straightforward to keep a discussion focused on the effects that someone's words had. And to your last point in this quote, I couldn't disagree more - I would say you absolutely have every right to be offended by anything that offends you. I have said many, many things in my life that I meant no offense by, but which someone later took the time to educate me that it did cause or could have caused offense just the same - and thus my communication has evolved over time to become more respectful and less ignorant, a process that hopefully never ends. If you're "deciding" to call something insulting, without actually feeling insulted by it, then sure I'd agree with you. But, as long as your feeling is genuine, then I don't see the issue. Feeling insulted would be your truth in that scenario. And perhaps in this hypothetical scenario where I've accidentally insulted you, it's also my truth that I didn't mean to insult you... but I still did. And then with some conversation, we could find a middle ground where maybe you were a little overly sensitive, or maybe I was ignorant of something in my words that could be interpreted as offensive, or maybe it's a little of both. This feels like a false dichotomy. I'd argue these are extreme opposite ends of a spectrum with lots of middle ground.

I don't think comparing words to harmful or fatal actions ("...if someone gets killed..." and "I bumped him, and he put a bullet into me") helps to carry the conversation forward. And I agree there's much that's been repeated several times in this thread and doesn't need to be rehashed further; I'm not looking to beat a dead horse here. I also don't entirely disagree that "intent is important" - but I think that (1) you're misreading Vovchandr's true intent, and (2) by focusing on his intent, you're not leveraging what would be a stronger argument. On his true intent: You say "Vovchandr intended harm - as much as he could fit into words" - is it actually your belief that Vovchandr was just done with trying to convince you that your "compliment" could be offensive, so he decided to just write the meanest words he could think of to cause as much harm to you as possible? Do you really think his metaphor are the words he would've chosen if that was his intent? I certainly don't. I think it's clear from the way he parodied your own words that he was indeed making a "reductio ad absurdum". He was effectively saying, if intent is all that matters, then can I just compare you to heinous people and tell you I mean it as a compliment and you'll take it that way? And the intent in saying something like that, the real intent, is neither to offend nor to compliment, but to illustrate the point that your defense of your compliment, about how you only intended for it to be complimentary, when taken to the logical extreme, would mean that someone shouldn't be offended by something if it was well intentioned, which is obviously preposterous. Of course it was asymmetric, that's how reductio ad absurdum works. On what could be your stronger argument: Regardless of Vovchandr's intent, you found them offensive. That's all that matters. That's all you'd need to say to get an apology from a reasonable person. But once you start to debate their stated intent, you've lost the plot. Though, I suppose to make that argument you'd also need to actually be offended. It's entirely possible you became more and more offended by what he'd said the more you thought about it. But your initial reaction to what he said wasn't "how dare you!" or "that's an unconscionable comparison to make!" - it was "This is silly." And I, for one, think that was your reaction at the time because you understood he was merely trying to make an argument, not maximize harm per word.

This particular topic? No doubt. But, practicing respectful communication and debate, especially with fellow Americans who hold very different political beliefs - that I think is worthy of time and effort, especially in today's political climate. And it's damn hard to find on most corners of the Internet these days.

Let me get this straight. When you bring Trump into a conversation, referencing what you view as his positive qualities, that's not discussing politics. But after you've brought Trump into a conversation, and 3 separate people have already tried and failed to convey to you that your attempted compliment could come across as insulting regardless of your intent, for someone to then make allusions to Trump's negative qualities to make a point, that's discussing politics and therefore over the line? That is hypocrisy. When you reference a controversial figure in an attempted compliment and receive criticism, you fall back on your intent as a defense, and we're supposed to take your intent at your word, even though the criticisms were about how the comparison could be perceived, not your intent. But when Vovchandr references despicable figures, and claims to intend it in a complimentary way, then you won't take his intent at his word, and you want to argue about what you view as obviously his real intent. That is hypocrisy. And then when you (very reasonably) are offended by what he said, you practically demand an apology. But when Croc says he views your attempted compliment as an insult, you offer no apology (at least not a public one, or a public acknowledgement of a private one, from what I've seen), and you claim to have been "always a gentleman." That is hypocrisy.

Before I address the remainder of what you said, can you first clarify (1) how his metaphor is inferred to also be directed at Trump, and (2) why it matters whether it's directed at just you versus you and Trump? Cause this is a point you've made many times in this thread, and it has yet to make sense to me.