|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 17 2017 06:02 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 05:32 Danglars wrote:On August 17 2017 05:22 Trainrunnef wrote:On August 17 2017 05:03 Danglars wrote:On August 17 2017 03:59 farvacola wrote:On August 17 2017 03:53 Danglars wrote:On August 17 2017 03:47 farvacola wrote:On August 17 2017 03:45 Danglars wrote:On August 17 2017 02:57 ninazerg wrote:
Of all the groups of people I have ever debated in my life, far-left progressives have been the most resistant to having an actual discussion with me. Not even a 'debate'. Just a discussion. And this is a problem because people who hold these beliefs (I know I'm not being very specific here, but I don't want to get into that right now. That's another discussion for another time.) sit in influential positions in some cases. This failure to articulate and defend ideas with evidence and reason is a hallmark of intellectual laziness, and when some white supremacist posts anywhere on any website that has a public forum, I kind of expect the internet to do what the internet does and brutally assail them in written form, but I would also expect people who consider themselves to be 'intellectual' to engage them in a serious discussion. For example, if a Neo-Nazi says something like "Jews control all the banks" or something to that effect, my first thought would be to open a tab up and look up the CEOs of major banks to see if they're actually all Jewish or not. I don't even consider myself to be a very 'intellectual' person, but I consider myself smart enough not to immediately just go straight to personal insults in a discussion. if the left wants to 'win' in the marketplace of ideas, shutting down dissent, relying on Antifa for physical intimidation, refusing to engage in debate, and calling political-moderates names for asking questions is ultimately going to be counterproductive to their platform. I've had the same experience. And same reaction. I find in-person to be loads better because there's less Kwark and Plansix "you're a racist" distractions, but there's still hurdles in people showing me why they think they're right versus justifying why its right to shut down people who think they're wrong. Your post was like a breath of fresh air. Dangles, we don't necessarily think that you're a racist, we just think you voted for someone who gave racists boners and you continue to defend the giver of racist-boners even after one of these excited racists killed someone. And you and others think any defense of him should be framed in racism. What, you you don't think he's Hitler incarnate? Way to defend racism, you racist sympathizer. Antifa, on the other end, is the natural consequence when you think speech is violence and call for deplatforming. Time to own up to your own sins, I think. Next week on forgetting the violent riots after Trump's election and the threats and physical assaults from free speech events... (Actually, you're about the quintessential case of what ninazerg addressed. You aren't allowed to defend Trump in any way shape or form because "you voted for someone who gave racists boners and defend the giver of racist-boners even after racists killed someone." Ahem, using political violence to shut down the speech of others is the problem here. You, farva, are part of the problem here.) Sounds like you need a safe space where people won't bring up the fact that you voted for someone who emboldened Nazis. TL doesn't appear to be that place. If you start out, buddy "we don't necessarily think that you're a racist," chances are you're dismissing the thought that any of his actions could be defensible. He'll do mostly things I disagree with, and a handful I agree with, and the difference between you and me is that I can tell one from the other. You're very interested tarring even reluctant defenders with the racism paintbrush, and thus emboldening antifa and sending moderates to the Trump 2020 camp. I think the real difference is not that you can tell one from the other, but that your line as to where racism, and the support of racism starts is at a very different place. He may have specific defensible actions, but on a whole, this has proven to be a red line for some that shouldn't have been crossed. it is not your red line though, and where it starts is something only you can decide. Your reluctance to defend, does not absolve the defense. And the only thing that will push moderates to a Trump 2020 campaign is a shitty democratic candidate, which is exactly what happened last year. Imagine the vitriol from the right had the roles been reversed, and ANTIFA counter-protesters ran over some innocent confederate history buff at the protest and Clinton goes. “I think there is blame on both sides,” Fox News may have imploded from the comments section (if they still even have one idk). So read the quote chain please and tell me if you agree with my take on ninazerg, and the racist-boner angle on me personally. I already condemned his first statement, and your "he may have specific defensible actions" is about as much of an admission I think may ever be hoped for. In terms of debating leftists i think that the biggest issue is that most arguments, for better or worse, come from an emotional place (anyone remember the bleeding heart leftist pejorative). Because of this the initial reaction on the left is going to be one of 3 - disgust, elation, pity. In this particular case we are rubbing up against the disgust angle obviously, which is a particularly visceral response. In order to really make progress with a leftist in a disgust discussion you must agree on certain terms. a) you are just as disgusted and state such in an open and sincere way b) you may actually need to be more disgusted /jk c) you can at no point attempt to play down the act or draw equivalences with the other side (aka whataboutism) If you can manage to play by those two rules, then you can fundamentally put away the particular event and start to deal with the underlying rationale in a positive way. Even when you disagree if you can at least admit that you understand their POV and geniuinely do understand it your conversations will go alot further. In most of my discussions with people on my left or right I never even give my opinion, I just ask questions to try and tease out the reasoning and thought process because otherwise it is useless. If I cant show you that I understand you and why you think what you think I have absolutely no chance to change your mind. If we apply this thinking to what Trump has done, and further onto your defense of Trump,... He definitely bypassed both of those rules, and you only followed one. You may think these rules stupid or childish, but when you are dealing with a fundamentally emotional argument (racism) you have to tread thin Ice whether you like it or not (and even more so when you claim to represent the party that has stood closest to true racists for the last 50 years) And RE Trump: I was speaking more hypothetically about the specific defensible actions as from my perspective and personal beliefs I haven't seen any yet that I agree with (it could be that I haven't looked hard enough), but I concede that he could at some point make a good decision, whether on accident or on purpose. Suffice it to say that I would have been happier with Ivanka...
So we largely agree on the emotional, non-rational response. You go a little further than I would, but good points.
|
On August 17 2017 06:18 mozoku wrote:
The reason terms like sexist/racist have become diluted is because they're currently used to blanket defend any socially progressive policy, even when socially progressive people (i.e. not racist) who disagree with the policy on its merits are the ones attacking it.
The existence of racists doesn't change the above statement. Nor does the fact that racists may attack a socially progressive policy for the same reason a non-racist such as above would, even if the racist's motivations may come from a different place.
EDIT: I've never argued Sessions is or isn't racist, so I'm not sure why what you're posting applies to what I said. What I said is that your argument makes no sense from a logical perspective.
How can you be so sure? Therein lies the rub, how can you be sure that the guy saying "trust me, I'm not a racist I just disagree with this anti-racist law" isn't actually a racist? How has he shown you that he understands your fundamental belief as to why the law should exist, but disagrees on the implementation rather than the fact that he is a racist himself.
|
United States41991 Posts
On August 17 2017 06:18 mozoku wrote:
The reason terms like sexist/racist have become diluted is because they're currently used to blanket defend any socially progressive policy, even when socially progressive people (i.e. not racist) who disagree with the policy on its merits are the ones attacking it.
The existence of racists doesn't change the above statement. Nor does the fact that racists may attack a socially progressive policy for the same reason a non-racist such as above would, even if the racist's motivations may come from a different place.
EDIT: I've never argued Sessions is or isn't racist, so I'm not sure why what you're posting applies to what I said. What I said is that your argument makes no sense from a logical perspective.
Ask the conservatives in this topic if Sessions is actually a racist or if the liberals just call him that as a slur because they just can't refute how awesome his beliefs are.
The reason I like Sessions as an example is because he's so incredibly obviously a massive racist and yet conservatives will go to tremendous lengths to remain oblivious to it. To them Sessions being called a racist is just another example of the word being diluted. He's an illustrative case of the two competing claims, "racist" being used against people who discriminate against people on the basis of skin colour, or "racist" being used against people who would never do anything racist because the liberals like name calling. Now a wily conservative might respond "okay, clearly Sessions is a racist, but that doesn't mean all people the liberals call racist are racists" and that argument would work. But they just can't do it, they insist on blanket dilution and a complete refusal to see racism anywhere.
|
If you don’t see race, how can you see racism?
|
@Artisreal
I find homeopathy a farce, so I just equate it with dilution lol. Funnily, you've arrived at a correct conclusion by interpreting my words differently. Use the words in a meaningful way and they'll become more impactful once again.
Calling out people more and more does not mean they are correct in their assessment. People are notoriously bad at seeing things in a nuanced way, as just this thread is evidence enough of that.
@Kwark
When someone says: everything is racist, everything is sexist, yaddayadda and has a huge platform, has a huge following of neo-feminists and gets the funds from her base to keep perpetuating falsehoods and the further negative impact of using words in the wrong contexts, I feel like that's them losing their impact. You might be forgetting that many people live their battles through social media, where it's easy to slap that label onto someone without having a nuanced, well established understanding of what that person you're labeling entails ideologically. Why would racist/sexist be any less easy to say than "kill yourself" or "I hope you get cancer"?
|
@Uldridge: I don't know what anyone to do about that, we cannot police people's speech. If people want to misuse sexism as a platform to make money, they won't be the first or the last. That doesn't diminish the word, since this argument has been used against feminism since the beginning of feminism.
|
On August 17 2017 06:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 05:59 Plansix wrote:On August 17 2017 05:54 Danglars wrote:On August 17 2017 05:35 Plansix wrote:On August 17 2017 05:30 Danglars wrote:On August 17 2017 05:09 farvacola wrote:
Why would anyone who witnessed the Republican tact of "obstruct everything Obama does" opt to give Republicans the benefit of the doubt when it comes to a nuanced (lol) perspective on Trump? Y'all can't cry out that the well is poisoned while doing your best to avoid admitting that you may have poured some in not long ago. Now it really seems like your caterwauling about obstruction was envy that Republicans got to do it first. The Democrats haven’t stone walled anything beyond a health care bill they were not allowed to work on. Unless you counter the Supreme Court nominee, which everyone should have seen coming after 2016. Trumps appointments are now in line with Obamas for politics positions, but Schumer's invoked the 30hour rule for confirmations, obstructing to a pace that would have unconfirmed nominees four years later. Still up to their tricks. Do you think I am stupid? Do we really need to go over how much judges were held up by McConnell? Do we need to compare it to the last 40 years of history? He reaps what he sows. Get new leadership in the senate and maybe things might be nicer. But right now, the Turtle gets exactly what he asked for. Obamas had like 180 confirmed at this point, GWB 130, and Trump's got about the same appointed but only about 50 confirmed. Start accepting the results of an election you lost, and let Trump have a shot at having his political appointees run things. It's literally that simple.
PS, elections have consequences, and the republican refusal to have a vote on garland as a resul tof the election was wrong. I presume you're still unable to admit that it was wrong and a blight upon the constitution and our democracy that the republicans did so.
you don't get to complain about other people doing something YOU started.
|
United States41991 Posts
On August 17 2017 06:28 Uldridge wrote:
@Artisreal
I find homeopathy a farce, so I just equate it with dilution lol. Funnily, you've arrived at a correct conclusion by interpreting my words differently. Use the words in a meaningful way and they'll become more impactful once again.
@Kwark
When someone says: everything is racist, everything is sexist, yaddayadda and has a huge platform, has a huge following of neo-feminists and gets the funds from her base to keep perpetuating falsehoods and the further negative impact of using words in the wrong contexts, I feel like that's them losing their impact. You might be forgetting that many people live their battles through social media, where it's easy to slap that label onto someone without having a nuanced, well established understanding of what that person you're labeling entails ideologically. Why would racist/sexist be any less easy to say than "kill yourself" or "I hope you get cancer"?
Sure, but note that when I point out when Danglars is being racist it's a two part claim.
A) You're a racist
and
B) because you insist that your philosophy is built on racially neutral axioms but you apply them in an incredibly selective way that narrowly excludes the concerns of non-whites
That's not the slapping on of a label because I can't find issue with what he's saying and want to dismiss him. That's a specific issue I have with his beliefs that he repeatedly refuses to examine.
Often part B is so incredibly obvious that it doesn't need saying but I'll grant you that if I just used part A then he might have to dismiss it because by itself it does not amount to a real critique.
|
On August 17 2017 06:20 Plansix wrote:
mozoku: You might want to consider the idea that sexism and racism are ever present in our lives and combating them requires talking about them. Even progressives to racist things. The difference is that when we are called out on them, I don't see it as someone calling me a racists. Just that I did something that was racist, likely without meaning to.
I think it's more a fundamental difference of how socially progressive 'conservatives' and socially progressive progressives see the world. I asked this question earlier:
Is it racist to see a random Chinese person and a random white person and speculate that the Chinese person is probably better at Mahjong?
Statistically, it's effectively demonstrable that the Chinese person is likely to be better at Mahjong. This creates a "stereotype" or a "prejudice" and would be considered racist by a lot of progressives I think. I don't see that as racist though. How society handles this a tradeoff: stereotypes are efficient/provide utility in a lot of ways (i.e. if you're making a bet), but they're also "unfair" in the sense that a white person has to provide extra evidence to prove he might be better at Mahjong that his Chinese opponent.
Efficiency vs fairness is a value proposition that depends on individual judgment, or the collective judgment of many individuals when it comes to governance. It isn't as simple as "stereotypes" = immoral and bad.
This doesn't at all excuse actual racists, and I denounce them whenever I'm confident I've found one. But when the Left starts calling everyone who harbors stereotypes as "racist" it dilutes the term because of what I said above.
|
Yes, it's actually sort of racist to assume that because not all Chinese people play Mahjong. It's conflating many different Chinese cultures into one single one.
What is the saying? Never ASSUME, because when you ASSUME, you make an ASS of U and ME.
|
|
|
United States41991 Posts
On August 17 2017 06:33 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 06:20 Plansix wrote:
mozoku: You might want to consider the idea that sexism and racism are ever present in our lives and combating them requires talking about them. Even progressives to racist things. The difference is that when we are called out on them, I don't see it as someone calling me a racists. Just that I did something that was racist, likely without meaning to. I think it's more a fundamental difference of how socially progressive 'conservatives' and socially progressive progressives see the world. I asked this question earlier: Is it racist to see a random Chinese person and a random white person and speculate that the Chinese person is probably better at Mahjong? Statistically, it's effectively demonstrable that the Chinese person is likely to be better at Mahjong. This creates a "stereotype" or a "prejudice" and would be considered racist by a lot of progressives I think. I don't see that as racist though. How society handles this a tradeoff: stereotypes are efficient/provide utility in a lot of ways (i.e. if you're making a bet), but they're also "unfair" in the sense that a white person has to provide extra evidence to prove he might be better at Mahjong that his Chinese opponent. Efficiency vs fairness is a value proposition that depends on individual judgment, or the collective judgment of many individuals when it comes to governance. It isn't as simple as "stereotypes" = immoral and bad. This doesn't at all excuse actual racists, and I denounce them whenever I'm confident I've found one. But when the Left starts calling everyone who has stereotypes as "racist" it dilutes the term because of what I said above.
You're conflating a culturally specific skillset with character. I don't think it's racist to think that an Asian person is more likely to be familiar with a game that is historically Asian. I don't know anyone that would think that.
|
On August 17 2017 06:36 rageprotosscheesy wrote:
Yes, it's actually sort of racist to assume that because not all Chinese people play Mahjong. It's conflating many different Chinese cultures into one single one.
What is the saying? Never ASSUME, because when you ASSUME, you make an ASS of U and ME.
I never said the Chinese was certainly better at Mahjong. I said he was likely better at Mahjong. I haven't assumed anything, only made a logical inference from an empirical distribution. If after 20 rounds of Mahjong, the Chinese has lost all 20 and you're still betting on the Chinese, then yes you're either an idiot, a racist, or both.
|
On August 17 2017 06:33 mozoku wrote:
Is it racist to see a random Chinese person and a random white person and speculate that the Chinese person is probably better at Mahjong?
Not really. No.
On August 17 2017 06:33 mozoku wrote:
This doesn't at all excuse actual racists, and I denounce them whenever I'm confident I've found one. But when the Left starts calling everyone who has stereotypes as "racist" it dilutes the term because of what I said above.
This is a pure stawman. You set up an example of something that isn’t racist and then said the left would say it was racist.
We are talking about voter suppression, civil rights and white supremacist worming their way into the police. We are talking about detained illegal immigrants being denied the right to counsel when some of them might be us citizens.
And when someone says something is racist, that doesn’t mean the person who did it is also a racist. That comes in how they respond to being told something is racist.
|
United States41991 Posts
On August 17 2017 06:36 rageprotosscheesy wrote:
Yes, it's actually sort of racist to assume that because not all Chinese people play Mahjong. It's conflating many different Chinese cultures into one single one.
What is the saying? Never ASSUME, because when you ASSUME, you make an ASS of U and ME.
:S
He's not saying that all Chinese people play Mahjong. He's saying if you took a random Chinese person and a random white person and were asked to place a bet, which would be the more likely. It's a reasonable proposition.
|
@Kwark
I never insinuated that your labeling of Danglars was wrong, I just wanted to clarify that it might be more difficult to get through to someone you're calling a racist, because of the reasons I've mentioned.
@Plansix
Neither do I. Free speech is free speech, but this sadly also means that meaningful/insightful words, explanations and thoughts might become drowned out by the buzzing of the hive.
|
It's like Hurling. Clearly an Irish person is going to be better at it on average and you'd assume so because they've actually grown up around it and 80 thousand people in Ireland attend the finals. Whereas if you took non Irish people I'd bet the vast majority of them wouldn't know what you're talking about. Cultures value different sports better. Assuming someone is x race therefore their great at something is racist. Thinking that on average they'd be better at a sport that they value culturally that isn't very big outside those cultures isn't racist.
Just like with Wushu or American football, or Jianzi. An Irish person living in Ireland is infinitely better than me at Gealic football because even if they don't play it they actually know how the game works.
|
On August 17 2017 06:42 Uldridge wrote:
@Plansix
Neither do I. Free speech is free speech, but this sadly also means that meaningful/insightful words, explanations and thoughts might become drowned out by the buzzing of the hive.
Agreed. But there is also a counter point, that increasing discussions about racism could simply be because there is more racism. That it is a rising issue. And for those who do not wish to deal with racism or discuss it, the argument that it is being over used is quite attractive. As MLK pointed out: the largest obstacle to equality is not the overt racists, but the moderate whites who simply cannot be bothered.
|
On August 17 2017 06:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 06:42 Uldridge wrote:
@Plansix
Neither do I. Free speech is free speech, but this sadly also means that meaningful/insightful words, explanations and thoughts might become drowned out by the buzzing of the hive. Agreed. But there is also a counter point, that increasing discussions about racism could simply be because there is more racism. That it is a rising issue. And for those who do not wish to deal with racism or discuss it, the argument that it is being over used is quite attractive. As MLK pointed out: the largest obstacle to equality is not the overt racists, but the moderate whites who simply cannot be bothered.
That can't be right, xDaunt and Danglars have assured us that racism isn't a serious problem needing immediate attention anymore.
|
On August 17 2017 06:43 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
It's like Hurling. Clearly an Irish person is going to be better at it on average and you'd assume so because they've actually grown up around it
Way to promote the irish drunk stereotype. Shame on you
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
