|
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 30 2017 06:05 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 06:01 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 05:43 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 05:40 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 05:10 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 05:09 KwarK wrote:
I think Danglars genuinely believes that we think Trump is a racist because he's a white man and to us all white men are racists. Nah, the occasional racist joke makes the racist. Btw, i don't think Danglars believes that, i actually think he knows full well that Trump is a racist because of other reasons. I still like the Chapell show. Funny thing, never watched it because i have trouble understanding what he's saying. Kevin Hart, and Ben Clover are the most watched black comedians for me. On August 30 2017 05:10 semantics wrote:On August 30 2017 04:19 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 04:15 Plansix wrote:
I’ve known way to may racists who use racist jokes as the test to find out if they are in favorable company. Never cracked a joke about stereotypes? Or disabled people? edit: or gender? I think, and don't get this wrong, that people like you are as big a part of the problem as racism itself. You're not helping by screamishly pointing at anyone who's cracking a race/nationality joke. It is racism either way...Just because jokes can often be taken in good light doesn't make it less racist. Both joke teller and audience can make a joke more or less a racist act. Jokes are about expectations, you subvert an exception or you play into it, either way you're doing it at the expense of that thing. Meaning a joke can be funny multiple ways, an absurd or a straight take on it. So a joke based on race depending on the joke teller and audience, it can be racist and shit or just that mild racism we all kinda are fine with depending on the people because it's understood it's in poor taste/is bad Funny enough, does it make it better m4ini if you're a racist for your jokes, and Trump's a racist for (likely) participation in his father's real estate controversies and Arpaio? I think there's a difference between making a funny about american stereotypes etc and pardoning someone who tortured and "hunted" down blacks and latinos. What kind of retarded question is that? Semantics just said "it is racism either way." As in, your behavior about cracking a joke about stereotypes will have people call you a racist. Now, if the bar is literally that low, and you're a racist, I'm a racist, Kwark's a racist, Hillary's a racist, Trump's a racist, do we go to calling like Level 10 Racism? The term gets bandied about for everything from cracking a joke about stereotypes to pardoning a racial profiling sheriff. I wonder if that concerns you at all. It concerns me for sure. Shit you are racist now if you're white and you exist. Unless you join the people saying you're racist, then you're not.
What if I told you that we can all do racist things and not be a Racist? That we can make mistakes and just fix them.
|
Someone can be racist even when he acts exclusively in selfish interest. They are most definitely not mutually exclusive.
If he has to become a racist to suit his self interest, or if he has to appeal to racists to suit his self interests, does that actually devoid him of being racist?
|
On August 30 2017 06:06 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 05:55 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 05:51 mozoku wrote:
While we're on the topic, I'll assert that I don't consider Trump necessarily a racist but an equal opportunity selfish scumbag that happens to be politically advantaged by appealing to racists. There's a subtle difference between being actively racist and being a selfish and morally bankrupt politician where being racist is advantageous. However, most of this thread has no interest in inconvenient nuance so the difference is apparently lost. Yes. People in the thread have a different opinion on what is racism and what makes someone racist. That is the topic in the thread right now. I'm confused how you can consider someone who acts exclusively in selfish interest as racist, or how a "definition" that covers that use of the term is a useful one in any conversation. It's like saying a blind punch-o-matic robot at a circus is racist after 3 punches because the first 3 people in line happened to be black. "Hey guys, the Sun is racist! It sunburns white people faster than other races! F*** that thing."
People are complex things. They can be selfish and racist all at the same times. Often racism is a way to obtain power and wealth. People didn’t fight for slavery because they hated blacks, it was for the free labor and wealth that came with it. In basic terms, I do not hold the same opinion of Trump as you. He is a racist person and has been since the 1980s. There is overwhelming evidence since then.
|
"I don't want black people to touch my money" is not Trump being selfish.
And yes that is an actual quote from him in the 80's.
|
On August 30 2017 05:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 05:45 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 05:30 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 05:29 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 04:58 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 04:56 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 04:51 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 03:17 Danglars wrote:
I find broad similarities between you and actual haters based on skin color. And we're straight back to "judging conservatives for racism is basically racism". And any criticism of liberal elites is folly. I call them like I see them, and your argument is basically the same fringe with the political epithets and sacred cows reversed. Again, when people say you're being racist, they're not doing it as an insult. They're doing it because you're being racist. You can keep telling yourself that it's not connected to anything you're doing but that won't make it true. It's not an insult. It's a description. If you don't want the description then stop doing the thing. I feel like we're living in the equivalent of a bizarro world where a bunch of actual literal rapists who actually rape people are insisting that rapist is a rude insult and that they won't engage in any kind of debate until the other side agrees to stop calling them rapists. And then they go out and vote to legalize marital rape or some shit but insist they only did it to get back at the people who keep saying they're fine with rape. Look, we don't need your fourth time saying half the country is racist, there's no problem calling half the country racist, and the solution is for racist people to stop being racist. I wrote my response that there's a great need to bring people that think like you do back to sanity from lunacy. I laid it out, and you backpedaled like calling tons of people racists makes everything better. It doesn't. You're equivalent in character to some of the worst Trump MAGA characters I know and I have the devil of the time persuading people that your opinion of half the country is a minority in the Democratic party ... aka not everybody sees themselves as the white knights against a racist country sent by some colonial power to save the indigenous racists. In your opinion was the American population ever racist? If so, when was racism fixed? Does your wife, neighbors, friends know you think they're racist or do you have an insular friend circle? What do they think about it? I mean, do they outright admit it and say they're recovering, or maybe get angry? Does it ever trouble you to insult half the country and then ask them to vote like you do? Pretty insular but we're all aware that we have our own racial biases and prejudices. I can admit that I'm not some kind of aracial superhuman, and so can my wife and my friends. You're still not getting it. It's not an insult. If my wife did a racist thing and I called her out on it, I wouldn't be insulting her, and she wouldn't take it as an insult. She'd try not to do the thing anymore. When I say that half the country is acting in a racist way I'm not saying it to look down on that half of the country, I'm saying it so they can try to not do the racist thing so much. You really have absolutely no clue how any of this works.
And as long as I'm in the hot seat responding to 5+, I thought I could gain a little more insight into why you're so eager to dump half the country into moral bigots. I read your dishonest response to the article. Your twin would've called it "ignoring all the points." But that's old hat. I then read
On August 30 2017 02:05 KwarK wrote:
If you vote for Trump because you're angry about being called a racist then you're a racist who lacks the moral courage of the members of the KKK.
It's pretty much the farthest I think you've stuck your tent pole of "I know you're angry at me insulting you, but you must let me teach you not to be a racist and you should vote like I do ... you racist." And after all these exchanges, I'm left wondering what kind of adult socialization and intellectual detachment you move in.
You don't consider racist an insult. Your own thinking on the matter has been developed in an insular community using your own powers of reasoning. So we definitely have a problem with language: you're way the hell off the reservation calling everybody racists, then bouncing back that you don't mean it as an insult. It's probably a measure of elitism, but at least you're honest with it. Secondly, your condescension about "they can try to not do the racist thing so much," is more in keeping with a benevolent dictator--clueless peasant approach rather than a democracy of shared working towards goals. I have to say the shared definitions of what constitutes evil or bad societal behavior will take some deep work.
|
United States43739 Posts
On August 30 2017 06:01 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 05:43 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 05:40 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 05:10 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 05:09 KwarK wrote:
I think Danglars genuinely believes that we think Trump is a racist because he's a white man and to us all white men are racists. Nah, the occasional racist joke makes the racist. Btw, i don't think Danglars believes that, i actually think he knows full well that Trump is a racist because of other reasons. I still like the Chapell show. Funny thing, never watched it because i have trouble understanding what he's saying. Kevin Hart, and Ben Clover are the most watched black comedians for me. On August 30 2017 05:10 semantics wrote:On August 30 2017 04:19 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 04:15 Plansix wrote:
I’ve known way to may racists who use racist jokes as the test to find out if they are in favorable company. Never cracked a joke about stereotypes? Or disabled people? edit: or gender? I think, and don't get this wrong, that people like you are as big a part of the problem as racism itself. You're not helping by screamishly pointing at anyone who's cracking a race/nationality joke. It is racism either way...Just because jokes can often be taken in good light doesn't make it less racist. Both joke teller and audience can make a joke more or less a racist act. Jokes are about expectations, you subvert an exception or you play into it, either way you're doing it at the expense of that thing. Meaning a joke can be funny multiple ways, an absurd or a straight take on it. So a joke based on race depending on the joke teller and audience, it can be racist and shit or just that mild racism we all kinda are fine with depending on the people because it's understood it's in poor taste/is bad Funny enough, does it make it better m4ini if you're a racist for your jokes, and Trump's a racist for (likely) participation in his father's real estate controversies and Arpaio? I think there's a difference between making a funny about american stereotypes etc and pardoning someone who tortured and "hunted" down blacks and latinos. What kind of retarded question is that? Semantics just said "it is racism either way." As in, your behavior about cracking a joke about stereotypes will have people call you a racist. Now, if the bar is literally that low, and you're a racist, I'm a racist, Kwark's a racist, Hillary's a racist, Trump's a racist, do we go to calling like Level 10 Racism? The term gets bandied about for everything from cracking a joke about stereotypes to pardoning a racial profiling sheriff. I wonder if that concerns you at all.
It's not complicated. We were all raised in a society that treats people differently based on the colour of their skin. That's something we all learned. Same as we learned to treat boys and girls differently, and learned about boy jobs and girl jobs and so forth.
Nobody expects you to treat everyone the same all the time. That's an unreasonable standard. Nobody expects you to feel as emotionally invested in issues that impact people you don't relate to as you do issues that feel closer to you. Nobody expects you to understand what it feels like to have a different skin colour to your own.
Literally the only requirement is for you to want to try and treat other people with respect. That's it. That if someone says "hey, that thing you just did, it was pretty racist" you reflect on it and try to do better. That you spend a minute thinking about the issues that matter to you and ask yourself "would these priorities be the same if my skin were a different colour?"
The problem is that some people seem to treat this very benign and entirely self evident claim that racial biases exist as an insult and attack on their character. But the issue isn't that they have the biases, it's that they refuse to think about their own biases and instead double down, turning those biases into a part of their self identity.
The country isn't divided between racists and aracial superhumans who are free of bias. It's divided between people who don't want to be racist and people who don't want anyone to call them racist.
|
|
|
On August 30 2017 06:07 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 06:05 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 30 2017 06:01 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 05:43 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 05:40 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 05:10 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 05:09 KwarK wrote:
I think Danglars genuinely believes that we think Trump is a racist because he's a white man and to us all white men are racists. Nah, the occasional racist joke makes the racist. Btw, i don't think Danglars believes that, i actually think he knows full well that Trump is a racist because of other reasons. I still like the Chapell show. Funny thing, never watched it because i have trouble understanding what he's saying. Kevin Hart, and Ben Clover are the most watched black comedians for me. On August 30 2017 05:10 semantics wrote:On August 30 2017 04:19 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 04:15 Plansix wrote:
I’ve known way to may racists who use racist jokes as the test to find out if they are in favorable company. Never cracked a joke about stereotypes? Or disabled people? edit: or gender? I think, and don't get this wrong, that people like you are as big a part of the problem as racism itself. You're not helping by screamishly pointing at anyone who's cracking a race/nationality joke. It is racism either way...Just because jokes can often be taken in good light doesn't make it less racist. Both joke teller and audience can make a joke more or less a racist act. Jokes are about expectations, you subvert an exception or you play into it, either way you're doing it at the expense of that thing. Meaning a joke can be funny multiple ways, an absurd or a straight take on it. So a joke based on race depending on the joke teller and audience, it can be racist and shit or just that mild racism we all kinda are fine with depending on the people because it's understood it's in poor taste/is bad Funny enough, does it make it better m4ini if you're a racist for your jokes, and Trump's a racist for (likely) participation in his father's real estate controversies and Arpaio? I think there's a difference between making a funny about american stereotypes etc and pardoning someone who tortured and "hunted" down blacks and latinos. What kind of retarded question is that? Semantics just said "it is racism either way." As in, your behavior about cracking a joke about stereotypes will have people call you a racist. Now, if the bar is literally that low, and you're a racist, I'm a racist, Kwark's a racist, Hillary's a racist, Trump's a racist, do we go to calling like Level 10 Racism? The term gets bandied about for everything from cracking a joke about stereotypes to pardoning a racial profiling sheriff. I wonder if that concerns you at all. It concerns me for sure. Shit you are racist now if you're white and you exist. Unless you join the people saying you're racist, then you're not. What if I told you that we can all do racist things and not be a Racist? That we can make mistakes and just fix them.
It depends on where you put the goalposts, because your post there could just be a paraphrase of my last two sentences.
|
On August 30 2017 06:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 06:01 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 05:43 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 05:40 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 05:10 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 05:09 KwarK wrote:
I think Danglars genuinely believes that we think Trump is a racist because he's a white man and to us all white men are racists. Nah, the occasional racist joke makes the racist. Btw, i don't think Danglars believes that, i actually think he knows full well that Trump is a racist because of other reasons. I still like the Chapell show. Funny thing, never watched it because i have trouble understanding what he's saying. Kevin Hart, and Ben Clover are the most watched black comedians for me. On August 30 2017 05:10 semantics wrote:On August 30 2017 04:19 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 04:15 Plansix wrote:
I’ve known way to may racists who use racist jokes as the test to find out if they are in favorable company. Never cracked a joke about stereotypes? Or disabled people? edit: or gender? I think, and don't get this wrong, that people like you are as big a part of the problem as racism itself. You're not helping by screamishly pointing at anyone who's cracking a race/nationality joke. It is racism either way...Just because jokes can often be taken in good light doesn't make it less racist. Both joke teller and audience can make a joke more or less a racist act. Jokes are about expectations, you subvert an exception or you play into it, either way you're doing it at the expense of that thing. Meaning a joke can be funny multiple ways, an absurd or a straight take on it. So a joke based on race depending on the joke teller and audience, it can be racist and shit or just that mild racism we all kinda are fine with depending on the people because it's understood it's in poor taste/is bad Funny enough, does it make it better m4ini if you're a racist for your jokes, and Trump's a racist for (likely) participation in his father's real estate controversies and Arpaio? I think there's a difference between making a funny about american stereotypes etc and pardoning someone who tortured and "hunted" down blacks and latinos. What kind of retarded question is that? Semantics just said "it is racism either way." As in, your behavior about cracking a joke about stereotypes will have people call you a racist. Now, if the bar is literally that low, and you're a racist, I'm a racist, Kwark's a racist, Hillary's a racist, Trump's a racist, do we go to calling like Level 10 Racism? The term gets bandied about for everything from cracking a joke about stereotypes to pardoning a racial profiling sheriff. I wonder if that concerns you at all. It's not complicated. We were all raised in a society that treats people differently based on the colour of their skin. That's something we all learned. Same as we learned to treat boys and girls differently, and learned about boy jobs and girl jobs and so forth. Nobody expects you to treat everyone the same all the time. That's an unreasonable standard. Nobody expects you to feel as emotionally invested in issues that impact people you don't relate to as you do issues that feel closer to you. Nobody expects you to understand what it feels like to have a different skin colour to your own. Literally the only requirement is for you to want to try and treat other people with respect. That's it. That if someone says "hey, that thing you just did, it was pretty racist" you reflect on it and try to do better. That you spend a minute thinking about the issues that matter to you and ask yourself "would these priorities be the same if my skin were a different colour?" The problem is that some people seem to treat this very benign and entirely self evident claim that racial biases exist as an insult and attack on their character. But the issue isn't that they have the biases, it's that they refuse to think about their own biases and instead double down, turning those biases into a part of their self identity. The country isn't divided between racists and aracial superhumans who are free of bias. It's divided between people who don't want to be racist and people who don't want anyone to call them racist.
I want to get this post printed onto a body pillow and make love to it.
|
On August 30 2017 06:03 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 05:56 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 05:42 Uldridge wrote:
Danglars, do you condem the fact that >1/5th of the eligible black population in Kentucky can't vote?
Do you think that Trump is racist? Do you think there's institutionalized racism in this country?
Let's stop pussyfooting around. Tell me, does Kentucky not have registration drives and courier services to poorer neighborhoods? Let's break it down into showing what you mean and not play a forumwide game of peppering me with questions. See, this is what people mean. Stop deflecting the questions I've asked you. You've read the posts before about the situation in Kentucky KwarK just mentioned AND you don't respond to the other two by focusing on the first with something entirely different. Why is it so difficult to just answer the questions? Your life would be SO much easier.
Then remind me. I read hundreds of pages a day, and Kwark's Alabama, other's North Carolina are in the forefront of my mind. If you're unwilling to explain yourself, then you're just some beat reporter shoving a microphone in somebody's face and demanding they give a statement.
The original post, however abused these days, contains some useful advice. Show, don't tell, and listen. I've heard from you that greater than 20% of the "eligible black population in Kentucky can't vote." With language, if they're eligible black population, why do you say they can't vote?
Just assuming the "eligible" stuff was in error, what are the details? Is it lifetime felon laws? Is it poverty? I'm sorry, but social issues are not Uldridge's one sentence with a question mark ... it actually takes some time or these would be solved by now.
|
United States43739 Posts
On August 30 2017 06:06 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 05:55 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 05:51 mozoku wrote:
While we're on the topic, I'll assert that I don't consider Trump necessarily a racist but an equal opportunity selfish scumbag that happens to be politically advantaged by appealing to racists. There's a subtle difference between being actively racist and being a selfish and morally bankrupt politician where being racist is advantageous. However, most of this thread has no interest in inconvenient nuance so the difference is apparently lost. Yes. People in the thread have a different opinion on what is racism and what makes someone racist. That is the topic in the thread right now. I'm confused how you can consider someone who acts exclusively in selfish interest as racist, or how a "definition" that covers that use of the term is a useful one in any conversation. It's like saying a blind punch-o-matic robot at a circus is racist after 3 punches because the first 3 people in line happened to be black. "Hey guys, the Sun is racist! It sunburns white people faster than other races! F*** that thing."
We'd give the punch-o-matic robot the benefit of the doubt and say "sure, 100% of the people it punched may have been black but from what we know about the mechanism we can posit that it would punch white people just as happily". I'm not sure Trump gets the benefit of the doubt there. I do see what you're saying though. It's just Trump isn't a machine that shits on everyone equally. He's a machine that shits on different people for different reasons.
|
On August 30 2017 06:08 Uldridge wrote:
Someone can be racist even when he acts exclusively in selfish interest. They are most definitely not mutually exclusive.
If he has to become a racist to suit his self interest, or if he has to appeal to racists to suit his self interests, does that actually devoid him of being racist?
On August 30 2017 06:10 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 06:06 mozoku wrote:On August 30 2017 05:55 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 05:51 mozoku wrote:
While we're on the topic, I'll assert that I don't consider Trump necessarily a racist but an equal opportunity selfish scumbag that happens to be politically advantaged by appealing to racists. There's a subtle difference between being actively racist and being a selfish and morally bankrupt politician where being racist is advantageous. However, most of this thread has no interest in inconvenient nuance so the difference is apparently lost. Yes. People in the thread have a different opinion on what is racism and what makes someone racist. That is the topic in the thread right now. I'm confused how you can consider someone who acts exclusively in selfish interest as racist, or how a "definition" that covers that use of the term is a useful one in any conversation. It's like saying a blind punch-o-matic robot at a circus is racist after 3 punches because the first 3 people in line happened to be black. "Hey guys, the Sun is racist! It sunburns white people faster than other races! F*** that thing." People are complex things. They can be selfish and racist all at the same times. Often racism is a way to obtain power and wealth. People didn’t fight for slavery because they hated blacks, it was for the free labor and wealth that came with it. In basic terms, I do not hold the same opinion of Trump as you. He is a racist person and has been since the 1980s. There is overwhelming evidence since then.
Exclusively in self-interest. As in, his manner of acting excludes all other motivations (e.g. racism). That is why I used the exact term "exclusive."
I had moved past Trump when I wrote that last post, if that's not clear.
@Plansix
You see that you're literally assuming your conclusion every time you enter this discussion, right? "Often racism is a way to obtain power and wealth." Using "racism" as a means to end is only "racist" by your own definition. Hence why my arguments rely on maintaining a definition of "racist" that has at least some conversational utility.
|
On August 30 2017 06:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 06:01 Danglars wrote:
Now, if the bar is literally that low, and you're a racist, I'm a racist, Kwark's a racist, Hillary's a racist, Trump's a racist, do we go to calling like Level 10 Racism? The term gets bandied about for everything from cracking a joke about stereotypes to pardoning a racial profiling sheriff. I wonder if that concerns you at all. Who do you consider to be a real racist? Where is your bar? Can you give us an example? Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 06:03 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 05:42 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 05:34 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 05:03 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 05:00 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 03:52 Logo wrote:On August 30 2017 03:49 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 03:41 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 03:37 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
More competent in her corruption and administration, greater corruption and abuse of power. So you voted for an incompetent and racist version of the same thing? Incompetence instead of competence in destruction. And I voted for a white man for president; so basically he was a racist by the metric of some here. I'm hardly joking, it's a pejorative and understood as one, but by definition it really had joined fascist for actual meaning. You know good and well there's like a dozen reasons people have brought up for Trump and racism that amounts to a lot more than he's a white male. You can dismiss it as circumstantial or not substantial enough, but it's silly to pretend that people don't have cause to see him that way. Presenting the election as a choice with an "incompetent and racist version of the same thing" is inviting scorn. It's a politically partisan attack and should be seen and treated as such. Your mythical "hmm let's go down the bullet points from immigration policy to Arpaio and reach a conclusion" isn't at issue. That is because you shit on people who voted for Clinton. You demand your views be respected at all costs, but then refuse to extend the same to others. Everything revolves around your feelings and that you feel respected and comfortable at the expense of everyone involved. Show me. You exaggerate like mad, but show me "you shit on people who voted for Clinton" and this bs about not extending the same to others. Nah, I’m all set. I won’t play into your victimhood any more. As I said before, you are more interested in proving the other side is terrible than having a discussion. You fail to provide other posters with the respect you constantly demand. Then I accept you claim ill behavior on both sides, but are unwilling to show what you mean. I really see no point in justifying all this racism-mongering with "You did it too with Clinton" except lacking any proof. I’ve been willing for two years or more. I’ve done this over and over with you. I’m not doing it again simply because you are to obtuse to remember. I am tired of explaining the same thing over and over when you won’t answer a simple question from 5 pages ago. You are not worth the effort of the paragraphs I would need to write again.
We'll let's just say I've proved you wrong for two years and done it over and over with you. See how that works? You haven't changed your behavior. I can see I probably should just let your posts pass by, however much I wish you were asking honest questions.
Also, for first post, setting a low bar for criticism cheapens the criticism.
|
|
|
On August 30 2017 06:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 06:06 mozoku wrote:On August 30 2017 05:55 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 05:51 mozoku wrote:
While we're on the topic, I'll assert that I don't consider Trump necessarily a racist but an equal opportunity selfish scumbag that happens to be politically advantaged by appealing to racists. There's a subtle difference between being actively racist and being a selfish and morally bankrupt politician where being racist is advantageous. However, most of this thread has no interest in inconvenient nuance so the difference is apparently lost. Yes. People in the thread have a different opinion on what is racism and what makes someone racist. That is the topic in the thread right now. I'm confused how you can consider someone who acts exclusively in selfish interest as racist, or how a "definition" that covers that use of the term is a useful one in any conversation. It's like saying a blind punch-o-matic robot at a circus is racist after 3 punches because the first 3 people in line happened to be black. "Hey guys, the Sun is racist! It sunburns white people faster than other races! F*** that thing." We'd give the punch-o-matic robot the benefit of the doubt and say "sure, 100% of the people it punched may have been black but from what we know about the mechanism we can posit that it would punch white people just as happily". I'm not sure Trump gets the benefit of the doubt there. I do see what you're saying though. It's just Trump isn't a machine that shits on everyone equally. He's a machine that shits on different people for different reasons.
Yeah, that's perfectly reasonable imo. I was careful avoid saying that I ruled out him being racist. It really wouldn't surprise me if he is, but when you're shamelessly shitting on everybody for your own benefit it's hard to tell if you enjoy shitting on black people more than you do everyone else.
|
United States43739 Posts
On August 30 2017 06:18 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 06:03 Uldridge wrote:On August 30 2017 05:56 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 05:42 Uldridge wrote:
Danglars, do you condem the fact that >1/5th of the eligible black population in Kentucky can't vote?
Do you think that Trump is racist? Do you think there's institutionalized racism in this country?
Let's stop pussyfooting around. Tell me, does Kentucky not have registration drives and courier services to poorer neighborhoods? Let's break it down into showing what you mean and not play a forumwide game of peppering me with questions. See, this is what people mean. Stop deflecting the questions I've asked you. You've read the posts before about the situation in Kentucky KwarK just mentioned AND you don't respond to the other two by focusing on the first with something entirely different. Why is it so difficult to just answer the questions? Your life would be SO much easier. Then remind me. I read hundreds of pages a day, and Kwark's Alabama, other's North Carolina are in the forefront of my mind. If you're unwilling to explain yourself, then you're just some beat reporter shoving a microphone in somebody's face and demanding they give a statement. The original post, however abused these days, contains some useful advice. Show, don't tell, and listen. I've heard from you that greater than 20% of the "eligible black population in Kentucky can't vote." With language, if they're eligible black population, why do you say they can't vote? Is it lifetime felon laws? Is it poverty? I'm sorry, but social issues are not Uldridge's one sentence with a question mark ... it actually takes some time or these would be solved by now.
http://www.kentucky.com/opinion/editorials/article143208169.html
Felon disenfranchisement basically. Felon disenfranchisement in the United States is directly traceable back to the post civil war south coming up with constitutional ways to disenfranchise African Americans. That's why it exists.
Here's the Mississippi Supreme court in 1896.Restrained by the federal constitution from discriminating against the negro race, the convention discriminated against its characteristics and the offenses to which its weaker member were prone….Burglary, theft, arson, and obtaining money under false pretenses were declared to be disqualifications [from voting], while robbery and murders, and other crimes in which violence was the principal ingredient, were not.33
|
On August 30 2017 06:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 06:01 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 05:43 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 05:40 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 05:10 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 05:09 KwarK wrote:
I think Danglars genuinely believes that we think Trump is a racist because he's a white man and to us all white men are racists. Nah, the occasional racist joke makes the racist. Btw, i don't think Danglars believes that, i actually think he knows full well that Trump is a racist because of other reasons. I still like the Chapell show. Funny thing, never watched it because i have trouble understanding what he's saying. Kevin Hart, and Ben Clover are the most watched black comedians for me. On August 30 2017 05:10 semantics wrote:On August 30 2017 04:19 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 04:15 Plansix wrote:
I’ve known way to may racists who use racist jokes as the test to find out if they are in favorable company. Never cracked a joke about stereotypes? Or disabled people? edit: or gender? I think, and don't get this wrong, that people like you are as big a part of the problem as racism itself. You're not helping by screamishly pointing at anyone who's cracking a race/nationality joke. It is racism either way...Just because jokes can often be taken in good light doesn't make it less racist. Both joke teller and audience can make a joke more or less a racist act. Jokes are about expectations, you subvert an exception or you play into it, either way you're doing it at the expense of that thing. Meaning a joke can be funny multiple ways, an absurd or a straight take on it. So a joke based on race depending on the joke teller and audience, it can be racist and shit or just that mild racism we all kinda are fine with depending on the people because it's understood it's in poor taste/is bad Funny enough, does it make it better m4ini if you're a racist for your jokes, and Trump's a racist for (likely) participation in his father's real estate controversies and Arpaio? I think there's a difference between making a funny about american stereotypes etc and pardoning someone who tortured and "hunted" down blacks and latinos. What kind of retarded question is that? Semantics just said "it is racism either way." As in, your behavior about cracking a joke about stereotypes will have people call you a racist. Now, if the bar is literally that low, and you're a racist, I'm a racist, Kwark's a racist, Hillary's a racist, Trump's a racist, do we go to calling like Level 10 Racism? The term gets bandied about for everything from cracking a joke about stereotypes to pardoning a racial profiling sheriff. I wonder if that concerns you at all. It's not complicated. We were all raised in a society that treats people differently based on the colour of their skin. That's something we all learned. Same as we learned to treat boys and girls differently, and learned about boy jobs and girl jobs and so forth. Nobody expects you to treat everyone the same all the time. That's an unreasonable standard. Nobody expects you to feel as emotionally invested in issues that impact people you don't relate to as you do issues that feel closer to you. Nobody expects you to understand what it feels like to have a different skin colour to your own. Literally the only requirement is for you to want to try and treat other people with respect. That's it. That if someone says "hey, that thing you just did, it was pretty racist" you reflect on it and try to do better. That you spend a minute thinking about the issues that matter to you and ask yourself "would these priorities be the same if my skin were a different colour?" The problem is that some people seem to treat this very benign and entirely self evident claim that racial biases exist as an insult and attack on their character. But the issue isn't that they have the biases, it's that they refuse to think about their own biases and instead double down, turning those biases into a part of their self identity. The country isn't divided between racists and aracial superhumans who are free of bias. It's divided between people who don't want to be racist and people who don't want anyone to call them racist.
I really wish this was true. It could be true.
In fact, this is true unless you are on Facebook or Twitter.
Then if someone thinks you are being racist you might be harassed, threatened, doxed, fired from your job etc.
The hard left social justice crew have raised the stakes but forgot to be specific about what they are fighting for. The general vague term racism, as applied in these online witch hunts, can vary from a massive range of things, from being a literal nazi to saying that the Quran contains violence.
This is why it is important to differentiate the various forms of racism. Its a language problem more than anything else, certainly more than an ideological one.
|
On August 30 2017 05:53 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 05:49 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 05:21 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 05:19 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 30 2017 05:17 zlefin wrote:On August 30 2017 05:14 LegalLord wrote:On August 30 2017 05:09 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 05:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Christ... She's going to run again...
Are democrats that dumb? I doubt it. They very well might be. They managed to get Trump elected, after all. that would be the republicans who got him elected; not the democrats. You're both right. Democrats failed to field a candidate that would win. Republicans were probably just as surprised by this win. Hillary could've won though, that's the point. The way they handled the entire campaign is what lost them. Keep in mind, the majority voted for HRC. It's not just the eMails, it's how they "handled" Sanders, how people had to resign because of fuckery, etc and so on. What in the campaign leads you to that conclusion?
How often are you gonna quote and answer the same post? Let me ask you this, lets see if you get a clear answer out: what conclusion would you come to now? At the risk of responding twice (and this thread moves quick, sorry), I'd say the situation with Arpaio starts to change things. Most of the accusations of racism in the campaign were intellectually bankrupt and obviously politically motivated. You seem to have an honesty streak, so I wondered what about his campaign struck you that way. I mean this as more than Trump sticking his foot in his mouth and being an incompetent communicator. I don't have an "honest streak", i just tell it how i see it (and in regards to the 2016 election, i never had a different opinion about either party). You seem to confuse the matter a little bit, it's not just about his campaign. He was a racist before he ran for office, factually. Denying black tenants, the stupid birth certificate bullshit, calling mexicans unisono "rapist" and "mexico isn't sending their good guys" doesn't help either. The list is long, and i really can't be bothered to point out every bit of racism by him - i feel like this was already enough, and it turned out to be correct to assume he's racist. That "incompetent communicator" really doesn't suit your argument either, because all that did is preventing him from hiding said racism. edit: jeez the thread does move fast. Too fast for me, back to Destiny2.
By honest streak, I mean you won't let our political disagreements stand in the way of understanding what I say. This forum doesn't consider that virtuous.
I give you the black tenant. The birther shit I disagree, it was just a dumb way to stay in the news and score political points ... similar to all this Russia nonsense. Unisono? I don't understand.
When he said Mexico wasn't sending it's best, he was making a campaign statement on illegal immigration. As in, we get drug lords, murderers ... there is no screening of immigrants for crime if nobody wants to build a double fence/wall to enforce immigration law. He might be wrong. Maybe the violent immigrants are no big deal, and the drug trade doesn't actually matter, and repeat offenders in the US should be ignored. But it is absolutely a political point and not some idiotic racist tint.
It turns out with this Arpaio thing that he's willing to just go with his gut on pardons for racial profiling and cruel and unusual punishments. That kind of indifference does rouse my disgust at racism (as fucking abused as that term is here and basically everywhere). So there's my difference. And I included "incompetent communicator" because we have these racial shibboleths in this country that you're supposed to begin topics with "I love this and that and the other thing," deal with the topic, and end with "And I love everything about all this." It doesn't happen with Trump.
|
On August 30 2017 06:18 Danglars wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Then remind me. I read hundreds of pages a day, and Kwark's Alabama, other's North Carolina are in the forefront of my mind. If you're unwilling to explain yourself, then you're just some beat reporter shoving a microphone in somebody's face and demanding they give a statement.
The original post, however abused these days, contains some useful advice. Show, don't tell, and listen. + Show Spoiler +I've heard from you that greater than 20% of the "eligible black population in Kentucky can't vote." With language, if they're eligible black population, why do you say they can't vote? Is it lifetime felon laws? Is it poverty? I'm sorry, but social issues are not Uldridge's one sentence with a question mark ... it actually takes some time or these would be solved by now.
Fine.
Felons in Kentucky can't vote. Even when they have finished their prison sentence, they are prohibited from voting.
Not only is it an issue for felons in general, it's indicative of the innate problem of the prison-industry complex. However, because there is racial bias because of infrastructural and other socio-economic factors and racial profiling (because it's one of the lesser things Kentucky can be faulted of when discussing racism), a disproportionate amount of black people are jailed. This makes them non-eligible for voting. Do you have issues with this?
Also; why don't you answer my other questions? Do they also need an exposition to frame the issue into context for you?
On August 30 2017 06:20 mozoku wrote:
Exclusively in self-interest. As in, his manner of acting excludes all other motivations (e.g. racism). That is why I used the exact term "exclusive."
I had moved past Trump when I wrote that last post, if that's not clear.
I didn't notice that you moved passed Trump. Still, how would one exclusively act in self interest in your scenario without using other forms of motivation to suit that? There's a whole kind of behaviors that goes into that: acting cowardly so you won't get shot, begging for you life so you won't be executed, hoarding resources so you have advantage over others (food). Right?
So if you want to become the apex individual of the entire Western world (which has now become a position of mockery and heavy controversy), and appealing to racist voters will make you become the apex, you still exclusively act in self interest imo.
|
On August 30 2017 06:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 06:01 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 05:43 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 05:40 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 05:10 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 05:09 KwarK wrote:
I think Danglars genuinely believes that we think Trump is a racist because he's a white man and to us all white men are racists. Nah, the occasional racist joke makes the racist. Btw, i don't think Danglars believes that, i actually think he knows full well that Trump is a racist because of other reasons. I still like the Chapell show. Funny thing, never watched it because i have trouble understanding what he's saying. Kevin Hart, and Ben Clover are the most watched black comedians for me. On August 30 2017 05:10 semantics wrote:On August 30 2017 04:19 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 04:15 Plansix wrote:
I’ve known way to may racists who use racist jokes as the test to find out if they are in favorable company. Never cracked a joke about stereotypes? Or disabled people? edit: or gender? I think, and don't get this wrong, that people like you are as big a part of the problem as racism itself. You're not helping by screamishly pointing at anyone who's cracking a race/nationality joke. It is racism either way...Just because jokes can often be taken in good light doesn't make it less racist. Both joke teller and audience can make a joke more or less a racist act. Jokes are about expectations, you subvert an exception or you play into it, either way you're doing it at the expense of that thing. Meaning a joke can be funny multiple ways, an absurd or a straight take on it. So a joke based on race depending on the joke teller and audience, it can be racist and shit or just that mild racism we all kinda are fine with depending on the people because it's understood it's in poor taste/is bad Funny enough, does it make it better m4ini if you're a racist for your jokes, and Trump's a racist for (likely) participation in his father's real estate controversies and Arpaio? I think there's a difference between making a funny about american stereotypes etc and pardoning someone who tortured and "hunted" down blacks and latinos. What kind of retarded question is that? Semantics just said "it is racism either way." As in, your behavior about cracking a joke about stereotypes will have people call you a racist. Now, if the bar is literally that low, and you're a racist, I'm a racist, Kwark's a racist, Hillary's a racist, Trump's a racist, do we go to calling like Level 10 Racism? The term gets bandied about for everything from cracking a joke about stereotypes to pardoning a racial profiling sheriff. I wonder if that concerns you at all. It's not complicated. We were all raised in a society that treats people differently based on the colour of their skin. That's something we all learned. Same as we learned to treat boys and girls differently, and learned about boy jobs and girl jobs and so forth. Nobody expects you to treat everyone the same all the time. That's an unreasonable standard. Nobody expects you to feel as emotionally invested in issues that impact people you don't relate to as you do issues that feel closer to you. Nobody expects you to understand what it feels like to have a different skin colour to your own. Literally the only requirement is for you to want to try and treat other people with respect. That's it. That if someone says "hey, that thing you just did, it was pretty racist" you reflect on it and try to do better. That you spend a minute thinking about the issues that matter to you and ask yourself "would these priorities be the same if my skin were a different colour?" The problem is that some people seem to treat this very benign and entirely self evident claim that racial biases exist as an insult and attack on their character. But the issue isn't that they have the biases, it's that they refuse to think about their own biases and instead double down, turning those biases into a part of their self identity. The country isn't divided between racists and aracial superhumans who are free of bias. It's divided between people who don't want to be racist and people who don't want anyone to call them racist.
It's actually pretty complicated when you arrive at comparing reflexive Trump voters to worse than the KKK (because at least the KKK aren't moral cowards in your rubric). You see, for ordinary Americans that is a logical leap. So you connect it with all these logical twists and turns involving racist not being an insult, and it's just like instructing boys and girls (sickening condescension if you ask me) to not hate people with different skin color.
When you move to the adult world, it's Kwark swapping between calling half the country racists, and telling them that it's okay that they're racists only try not to be as racist as you are. It doesn't jive with the history of using the topic as a political divide to incite Democratic support among minorities etc. Once you've heard the demagogues do "Vote for me, because these people hate you," then Kwarkian logic that racism is just a dialogue on treating people with respect vanishes. It's a very adult topic, and pretty harsh if it's the first exposure. You walk up to people that respect their neighbors, contribute their income to the needy, but thought Romney was the better choice. When Kwark comes along saying how numerous were the people that didn't vote for Obama out of racism, they obviously react with ire. It isn't true in their life and it isn't true universally. I'm sorry that the nuance has gotten lost and you usually jettison your logic to sound bites after a short countdown, but that's the truth as I see it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
