I experienced a fun little gotcha moment today that I might as well share.

A conversation partner defined racism this way: "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior". Plausible? OK, sure.

That same person separately, minutes apart, opined that it is "literally not possible to be racist against [some white guy]." OK, sure, other loonies have said this too.

But ... what can one deduce if one accepts both those points?

If racism is "a belief that one's own race is superior", and if racism is literally not possible toward someone of the white race, then this must be because no one could believe that their own race is superior to the white race.

Therefore, logically, the speaker must hold that no race can be believed superior to whites' ... as if whites were supreme.

Whoops.

I came across the following video yesterday. It's of the immediate aftermath of an attempted robbery in Chicago. It has me bothered.

Obvious things out of the way: Yes, the dude who disarmed the thug is brave and commendable. But, but but but ...

But why did maintain a tactically indefensible proximity to the bad guy the whole time, even after he passed off the firearm too? He's within easy range of a second weapon or even open-hand attack. IMO, he's lucky to be alive.

But why did a presumably-loaded pistol get handed around like a hot potato? Adults should know how to handle firearms, including holding, making them safe, or turning them around on the bad guy. If you are an adult (or hoping to become one), visit your nearby range and learn how! Adults should not be so foolish as to hand a firearm to a complete stranger - that can make things very much worse!

But why did everyone else in the train just sit there? Yes, most of them were of the same race as the thug, so who knows, some sort of kinship loyalty could have been part of it. But everyone must have seen the stakes - a pistol raises them to the max. Everyone must have seen the opportunity to resolve them - the disarmed thug. Everyone must have seen the problem - the thug not completely subdued yet. Even just one or two people could have reduced the remaining risk to near zero. Yet they just sat.

But why did the thug even dare do a daylight armed robbery on a subway train? He must have counted on victims being there - and no one to defend themselves or each other. (A solo guy, even if armed, walking up and down the subway aisle is very vulnerable to even just a handful of opponents. Too close to everyone, too easy to lose sight of everyone, too easy to trip.) So ... he must have had reason to expect just the sort of sheep world reaction that was seen in this video.

And that last BUT is the most depressing thing to me about the whole thing. The bulk of the people on these trains must been trained to be sheep - or actively bad. How does a city become that way? How can anyone trust people in such an environment? You can be sure I'm NEVER setting foot on a Chicago subway.