|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Jul 15, 2019 23:18:31 GMT -5
Conway's defying the subpoena against her and Trump is telling her to. That's obstruction of justice, no? So much for caring about the law. Also, as someone with a master's degree in political science, the idea that you "technically can't be racist against muslims" is fucking bollocks. It's predicated on a definition of what constitutes racism that is ignorant of the concept in research and its historical usage. I'll expand more once it's not three in the morning where I am. You can definitely be bigoted against Muslims, but not racist. "Muslim" is not a race, it's a religion. It's as silly as saying someone is racist against Catholics. I feel like I'm repeating myself For someone claiming to not wanting to defend his racism, you sure are doing an awful lot of it. To me, it says a lot about you, and none of it good. If it turns out Bill Clinton was part of this Epstein sex ring, you won't see me defending him, I'll be the first to call him a piece of shit who deserves to rot in hell for what he did. (not that there's any connection currently other than he was friends with Epstein AFAIK). I'm not gonna say "technically she was X age and the age of consent in Y place is X age." I'm just gonna call him a piece of shit. And you should do the same and stop defending the racism you claim to hate defending.
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Jul 16, 2019 4:51:46 GMT -5
You can definitely be bigoted against Muslims, but not racist. "Muslim" is not a race, it's a religion. It's as silly as saying someone is racist against Catholics. I am not really interested in the semantics here, and I don't think anyone else is. What we are interested about is the bigotry, and how it's bad, and how we should fight it. Tell us more about how you plan on letting bigoted people in charge if the wrong person comes out the winner of the Democrat primaries because you are afraid of, what exactly? You didn't say, I assume too much welfare state?
|
|
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Jul 16, 2019 6:55:07 GMT -5
Conway's defying the subpoena against her and Trump is telling her to. That's obstruction of justice, no? So much for caring about the law. Also, as someone with a master's degree in political science, the idea that you "technically can't be racist against muslims" is fucking bollocks. It's predicated on a definition of what constitutes racism that is ignorant of the concept in research and its historical usage. I'll expand more once it's not three in the morning where I am. You can definitely be bigoted against Muslims, but not racist. "Muslim" is not a race, it's a religion. It's as silly as saying someone is racist against Catholics. Well, I promised an explanation, so here we go. Before I start though, I'd like to ask you all to tell me to fuck off if I try to use an appeal to authority again; it's really not something I should be doing.
First, we need to examine what constitutes a "race". We'll quickly come to the conclusion that, objectively speaking, there is no such thing as race; that is, it is a social construct arbitrarily made up of traits both real and perceived. The status of Irish and Italians in the US is a classical example of this fact; they weren't "white" until they suddenly were; not because they had changed in any way but because the social construct adapted to include these two groups in what constitutes "white". As a further example, we don't talk about the "long" race despite the fact that someone who we've decided is "Caucasian" and someone who is "Arab" could both be of similar height. Skin colour is given an undue amount of relevance simply because we're biologically predisposed to be sceptical of things that look different at a glance (but even then, as the above example shows, skin colour sometimes doesn't matter).
Secondly, the idea of certain (non-phenotype) traits being inherent and unchanging in certain "races" is also integral to historical racism. Whether this be the "thieving Gypsy", the "greedy Jew", the "lazy Negro", (arguably) "Yamato-damashii" or the "Aryan Übermensch", the idea is that some "races" (that are arbitrarily defined, remember) have certain traits and that these will or can not ever change, despite the fact that (as we've seen above) what constitutes "whiteness" can change. You thus have a constructed identity that someone belongs to where people that are fitted into that mold are ascribed certain unchanging characteristics as a collective.
Having thus established the fact that race doesn't exist outside of what we define it as, it is fairly trivial to realize that other social constructs such as culture or religion (assuming religion is not simply culture) can slot into the exact same mechanism. Consider the following clearly racist statement:
"All gypsies are thieves".
Broken down, it can also be represented as
"All [Social Construct] are [inherent attribute]"
where "Social Construct" in this case equals the derogatory "Gypsies" and "Inherent attribute" equals "thieves". As can be readily seen, however, we could just as easily substitute "Muslims", a descriptor of someone belonging to (or being assumed to belong to) a particular social construct, for "Gypsies", making the sentence read:
"All Muslims are thieves".
Similarly, by replacing "thieves" with "terrorists" we get the sentence "All Muslims are terrorists". In both cases have we taken a social construct ("Gypsie" or "Muslim") and attached an inherent trait ("thief" or "terrorist") to that in an essentially arbitrary manner.
The key is in realizing that "race" is a social construct. The statement "you can't be racist towards X because X isn't a race" implicitly accepts that "race" is something that exists beyond us saying it does. That's a naïve understanding of the concept.
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Jul 16, 2019 7:21:25 GMT -5
Walrus, I was going to point out one part of your reasoning where I disagree, but let's rather not. Really. Let's focus on the fact that bigotry is bad and how Carlo87 (and every one else) should respond when some politician expose himself as a bigot, and why. Not on precise definitions of racism that do no answer either of those questions!
|
|
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Jul 16, 2019 8:41:23 GMT -5
Actually, please do point it out because that's how discussions are supposed to work. If you don't want to clog the thread up just PM me or something.
|
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 646
|
Post by carlo87 on Jul 16, 2019 10:35:23 GMT -5
You can definitely be bigoted against Muslims, but not racist. "Muslim" is not a race, it's a religion. It's as silly as saying someone is racist against Catholics. Well, I promised an explanation, so here we go. Before I start though, I'd like to ask you all to tell me to fuck off if I try to use an appeal to authority again; it's really not something I should be doing.
First, we need to examine what constitutes a "race". We'll quickly come to the conclusion that, objectively speaking, there is no such thing as race; that is, it is a social construct arbitrarily made up of traits both real and perceived. The status of Irish and Italians in the US is a classical example of this fact; they weren't "white" until they suddenly were; not because they had changed in any way but because the social construct adapted to include these two groups in what constitutes "white". As a further example, we don't talk about the "long" race despite the fact that someone who we've decided is "Caucasian" and someone who is "Arab" could both be of similar height. Skin colour is given an undue amount of relevance simply because we're biologically predisposed to be sceptical of things that look different at a glance (but even then, as the above example shows, skin colour sometimes doesn't matter).
Secondly, the idea of certain (non-phenotype) traits being inherent and unchanging in certain "races" is also integral to historical racism. Whether this be the "thieving Gypsy", the "greedy Jew", the "lazy Negro", (arguably) "Yamato-damashii" or the "Aryan Übermensch", the idea is that some "races" (that are arbitrarily defined, remember) have certain traits and that these will or can not ever change, despite the fact that (as we've seen above) what constitutes "whiteness" can change. You thus have a constructed identity that someone belongs to where people that are fitted into that mold are ascribed certain unchanging characteristics as a collective.
Having thus established the fact that race doesn't exist outside of what we define it as, it is fairly trivial to realize that other social constructs such as culture or religion (assuming religion is not simply culture) can slot into the exact same mechanism. Consider the following clearly racist statement:
"All gypsies are thieves".
Broken down, it can also be represented as
"All [Social Construct] are [inherent attribute]"
where "Social Construct" in this case equals the derogatory "Gypsies" and "Inherent attribute" equals "thieves". As can be readily seen, however, we could just as easily substitute "Muslims", a descriptor of someone belonging to (or being assumed to belong to) a particular social construct, for "Gypsies", making the sentence read:
"All Muslims are thieves".
Similarly, by replacing "thieves" with "terrorists" we get the sentence "All Muslims are terrorists". In both cases have we taken a social construct ("Gypsie" or "Muslim") and attached an inherent trait ("thief" or "terrorist") to that in an essentially arbitrary manner.
The key is in realizing that "race" is a social construct. The statement "you can't be racist towards X because X isn't a race" implicitly accepts that "race" is something that exists beyond us saying it does. That's a naïve understanding of the concept.
I totally accept that race is a social construct that has many nuances, some of them even contradictory.
However the premise that "(insert group) is (insert slur)" is always a racism is also flawed. I doubt anyone would say it's racist to claim "farmers are hicks" or "cops are pigs". Just like I doubt that anyone that made pedophilia jabs about Catholics (and it's happened many times in this thread) would have been considered racist. Catholics are every bit as legitimately a "race" as Muslims. If Race is a social construct, and I agree it is, then any group that has a unifying theme or culture could be considered a race and any slur towards them could then be racist. Heck, that means that this thread is chocked full of racisms every time someone has used "Libtard" or "republicunt".
Abhorrent behavior is what it is. I guess I'm just tired of overuse of the word "racist" to describe anyone that disagrees with you. Well, that and people that claim minorities can't be racist.
|
|
CommieCanUCK
Ye Olde King of OT
The poster formerly known as feeder
Posts: 979
|
Post by CommieCanUCK on Jul 16, 2019 11:36:45 GMT -5
"Racist" is to the left as "communist" is to the right. It is an often abused term used to broadly paint your opponent as something undesirable to your constituents.
Well, similar except there are actual genuine racists holding power on the right. There are no actual genuine communists holding power on the left.
|
|
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Jul 16, 2019 11:42:09 GMT -5
If someone argues that police are inherently assholes and that it can never be otherwise because of the nature of anyone who is a police officer then sure, that'd functionally be the same as racism. Same if someone argued that being a priest in the Catholic church inherently makes you a pedophile.
That's usually not the nature of those arguments though, because they tend to be made by stupid, unsophisticated people. "All cops are pigs!" is not necessarily the same as "All cops are pigs because being a pig is inherent in the nature of cops".
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Jul 16, 2019 12:07:41 GMT -5
However the premise that "(insert group) is (insert slur)" is always a racism is also flawed. [...]I guess I'm just tired of overuse of the word "racist" to describe anyone that disagrees with you. Well, that and people that claim minorities can't be racist. See, that's exactly why I thought we shouldn't go that route. Now, instead of discussing the president's racism, the big issue that matters, we are discussing the proper definition of racism, which... well, doesn't really have much in way of practical consequences. I mean, I asked you Carlo87 about what kind of policies you thought were so bad that they were worse than having a racist president, but instead of answering that, you went fully into that discussion on exactly which kind of bigotry is racism and which one isn't. One of these discussion is about who you are voting for. Pretty obvious consequence. The other? Won't change your vote either way.
|
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 646
|
Post by carlo87 on Jul 16, 2019 16:03:02 GMT -5
However the premise that "(insert group) is (insert slur)" is always a racism is also flawed. [...]I guess I'm just tired of overuse of the word "racist" to describe anyone that disagrees with you. Well, that and people that claim minorities can't be racist. See, that's exactly why I thought we shouldn't go that route. Now, instead of discussing the president's racism, the big issue that matters, we are discussing the proper definition of racism, which... well, doesn't really have much in way of practical consequences. I mean, I asked you Carlo87 about what kind of policies you thought were so bad that they were worse than having a racist president, but instead of answering that, you went fully into that discussion on exactly which kind of bigotry is racism and which one isn't. One of these discussion is about who you are voting for. Pretty obvious consequence. The other? Won't change your vote either way.
One issue I'm not keen on is reparations for slavery. Another is Cory Booker's rather extreme views on anti-gun policy.
|
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 646
|
Post by carlo87 on Jul 16, 2019 16:08:31 GMT -5
"Racist" is to the left as "communist" is to the right. It is an often abused term used to broadly paint your opponent as something undesirable to your constituents. Well, similar except there are actual genuine racists holding power on the right. There are no actual genuine communists holding power on the left. More like: similar except there are actual genuine racists holding power on both sides, but one side gets a pass. There are no actual genuine communists holding power on either side.
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Jul 16, 2019 16:48:16 GMT -5
One issue I'm not keen on is reparations for slavery. Pennies on the budget. See our 9/11 discussion. Definitely not on the same level as a racist president enacting racist policies while normalizing racist behavior. Another is Cory Booker's rather extreme views on anti-gun policy. What are the chance that you will actually be in a situation where you/others having a gun is going to make a difference, either way? For real? Look at what happens in countries with very strict gun control laws and those with very lax gun control laws and you'll see gun control laws aren't the determining factor… If you tell me you would take owning a gun over not having a racist president, how American of you really…
|
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 646
|
Post by carlo87 on Jul 16, 2019 17:10:58 GMT -5
One issue I'm not keen on is reparations for slavery. Pennies on the budget. See our 9/11 discussion. Definitely not on the same level as a racist president enacting racist policies while normalizing racist behavior. Another is Cory Booker's rather extreme views on anti-gun policy. What are the chance that you will actually be in a situation where you/others having a gun is going to make a difference, either way? For real? Some are calling out for thousands of dollars per person for 13% of our country, and not just a 1-time payment either. I'd hardly call that "pennies on the dollar".
As for the gun issue, I'm taking it you mean strictly for self defense. What are my chances, well I've all ready been there. It however goes further than that for Cory Booker, including unilateral removal of civil rights without due process or notification, no requirement to produce evidence, and virtually no way to appeal it. THAT is unamerican to me.
|
|
CommieCanUCK
Ye Olde King of OT
The poster formerly known as feeder
Posts: 979
|
Post by CommieCanUCK on Jul 16, 2019 17:46:16 GMT -5
...unilateral removal of civil rights without due process or notification, no requirement to produce evidence, and virtually no way to appeal it. THAT is unamerican to me. Literally the concentration camps, then. It won't be Booker, or O'Rourke, or Yang. It will be Biden, or maaaaaaaaaaybe Harris or even more maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe Buttigeig.
|
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 646
|
Post by carlo87 on Jul 16, 2019 18:39:41 GMT -5
|
|