|
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 09:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 09:08 mozoku wrote:
Okay I think I've got a reasonable definition/explanation of racism that is consistent with its general use.
Racism is the idea that one race is superior to another. A racist believes the idea. Just as a speech can be conservative or liberal (as they're ideas), it can be racist. As a speech that espouses an idea is often described by the adjective form of the idea.
Since policies don't have ideas and their primary function isn't supposed to be communication (speech), a policy technically cannot be racist (though it can be discriminatory and consequently potentially immoral/unfair). On the other hand, we often say things like "it's a liberal policy" to describe policies promoted by liberals or policies that promote liberal beliefs, so using the phrase "it's a racist policy" can be an understandable linguistic shortcut. Still, it isn't valid grounds in a good faith debate about policy merits to argue against policy "because it's liberal." Likewise, arguing against a policy "because it's racist" isn't a real argument. The argument to be made would be "the policy is discriminatory." Using "racist" instead "discriminatory" in a policy merits debate serves no other purpose than to invoke a moral and/or emotional response.
Lastly, since a racist is someone who believes an idea, few people are actually racist. Since few people really believe some races are superior to another. When people say "everyone's a little racist", that's simply not true. Furthermore, it's difficult to know if someone is racist because knowing if someone actually believes an idea or not is really hard (impossible?). However, after observing someone for a while, you can conclude "this person is probably racist" and, with enough evidence, the "probably" approaches "certainly." What threshold someone wants to reach before labeling someone as a "racist" is up to the individual judging, but I'd argue it's wise to keep that threshold high to avoid weakening the term. You're using the definition which excuses everyone not currently burning a cross.
Did you even read my post? You can conclude someone is racist imo with as little evidence as you want. I even stated that.
|
United States42017 Posts
On August 30 2017 09:13 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 09:12 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 09:08 mozoku wrote:
Okay I think I've got a reasonable definition/explanation of racism that is consistent with its general use.
Racism is the idea that one race is superior to another. A racist believes the idea. Just as a speech can be conservative or liberal (as they're ideas), it can be racist. As a speech that espouses an idea is often described by the adjective form of the idea.
Since policies don't have ideas and their primary function isn't supposed to be communication (speech), a policy technically cannot be racist (though it can be discriminatory and consequently potentially immoral/unfair). On the other hand, we often say things like "it's a liberal policy" to describe policies promoted by liberals or policies that promote liberal beliefs, so using the phrase "it's a racist policy" can be an understandable linguistic shortcut. Still, it isn't valid grounds in a good faith debate about policy merits to argue against policy "because it's liberal." Likewise, arguing against a policy "because it's racist" isn't a real argument. The argument to be made would be "the policy is discriminatory." Using "racist" instead "discriminatory" in a policy merits debate serves no other purpose than to invoke a moral and/or emotional response.
Lastly, since a racist is someone who believes an idea, few people are actually racist. Since few people really believe some races are superior to another. When people say "everyone's a little racist", that's simply not true. Furthermore, it's difficult to know if someone is racist because knowing if someone actually believes an idea or not is really hard (impossible?). However, after observing someone for a while, you can conclude "this person is probably racist" and, with enough evidence, the "probably" approaches "certainly." What threshold someone wants to reach before labeling someone as a "racist" is up to the individual judging, but I'd argue it's wise to keep that threshold high to avoid weakening the term. You're using the definition which excuses everyone not currently burning a cross. Did you even read my post? You can conclude someone is racist imo with as little evidence as you want. I even stated that.
But your version requires an active belief to be racist. The person has to actively say "I'm going to dismiss this issue because fuck blacks". That's irrelevant to the actual incarnation of racism. People don't consciously decide to be racist, they just are. The issue isn't that they think about why they believe what they do and decide to be racist, it's that they don't stop to question why they believe what they do at all.
|
Kwarks assessment is fair, tbh. Your definition limits us to people who are not overtly and overwhelmingly racist. Like white power tattooed on the arm level of racist.
|
On August 30 2017 07:44 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
On one hand I'd say this is dumb strategy. On the other hand my Uncle thinks all taxes are evil and the government just wants to take your money so he probably doesn't care about being insulted as long as he gets his tax cut
Assuming for a second his father and mother aren't alive, you do know the inheritance tax isn't for someone in your uncles position - it's actually for the family/next of kin, because you know....the person has to die for the tax to be in effect. I'm sure Trumps parents are dead and that he isn't in line to inherit at his age, so people saying Trump is doing this to benefit himself (there are plenty out there) is rather funny actually. I'm going to eliminate this tax to benefit me...only when I die though! Do people not realize the insanity of that thought here?
|
If I clarified the racism definition debate contentions to merely conscious vs subconscious racism, I'd be more than satisfied. I don't have fully fleshed out thoughts on how to deal with conscious vs subconscious racism atm though, so maybe I'll post on it again later.
|
United States42017 Posts
On August 30 2017 09:23 Wegandi wrote:Assuming for a second his father and mother aren't alive, you do know the inheritance tax isn't for someone in your uncles position - it's actually for the family/next of kin, because you know....the person has to die for the tax to be in effect. I'm sure Trumps parents are dead and that he isn't in line to inherit at his age, so people saying Trump is doing this to benefit himself (there are plenty out there) is rather funny actually. I'm going to eliminate this tax to benefit me...only when I die though! Do people not realize the insanity of that thought here?
?
That doesn't follow.
Let's say Trump wants to leave his children $1b and there's a 50% estate tax rate. Trump has to make $2b to do that, right? Now let's say Trump removes the estate tax. Now he only has to make $1b. His cost to achieve his objective has halved. He can now fulfill his objective twice over with $2b.
|
On August 30 2017 09:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 08:27 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 08:21 Ghostcom wrote:
Discussing general concepts went about as well as I predicted. It's entirely pointless, really, because it, for the most part, is subjective. Of course there are things that are easy to spot, like racial profiling (which is less "racism" but more "discrimination", there's a legal difference) etc, but there's so many grey areas (as i brought up for example, comedians or funnies in general, satire) - you'll never get a consensus. It literally is impossible. It actually would've been easier to discuss the legal framework for discrimination and if it goes far enough. The main irritation is when posters start talking about racism in the US and then people come in claiming the definition is overly broad. They are never really interested in engaging in the discussion, only staying that racism should only be discussed in terms they are comfortable with. It is the same argument over and over.
When the definition starts with every white person is racist (white privilege) the term ceases to have any meaning. It lumps the KKK in with hipsters and everyone in between. In other words, as a descriptor used to communicate it fails miserably. There is certainly a too narrow definition, but the definition used by BLM and people like GH is far far too broad. In the end though, having such a broad definition makes people numb to the word and what it represents. It's over-used, so people just dismiss and ignore it now-a-days. That's a reality that can't be hand-waved away.
|
On August 30 2017 09:28 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 09:23 Wegandi wrote:On August 30 2017 07:44 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On one hand I'd say this is dumb strategy. On the other hand my Uncle thinks all taxes are evil and the government just wants to take your money so he probably doesn't care about being insulted as long as he gets his tax cut https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/902554310441099264 Assuming for a second his father and mother aren't alive, you do know the inheritance tax isn't for someone in your uncles position - it's actually for the family/next of kin, because you know....the person has to die for the tax to be in effect. I'm sure Trumps parents are dead and that he isn't in line to inherit at his age, so people saying Trump is doing this to benefit himself (there are plenty out there) is rather funny actually. I'm going to eliminate this tax to benefit me...only when I die though! Do people not realize the insanity of that thought here? ? That doesn't follow. Let's say Trump wants to leave his children $1b and there's a 50% estate tax rate. Trump has to make $2b to do that, right? Now let's say Trump removes the estate tax. Now he only has to make $1b. His cost to achieve his objective has halved. He can now fulfill his objective twice over with $2b.
You don't understand. It isn't "for" him, right? He receives no tangible living benefit as he has to die for the inheritance to kick in. So people saying these old rich people are going to benefit from the elimination of the tax and are doing it for themselves is a silly argument given the nature of the tax. People surely want to see the survival of their lineage, but eliminating the tax in this sense is for them (the deceased family/NoK - not the person who has to die), not the person who died. Capiche?
|
On August 30 2017 09:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 08:27 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 08:21 Ghostcom wrote:
Discussing general concepts went about as well as I predicted. It's entirely pointless, really, because it, for the most part, is subjective. Of course there are things that are easy to spot, like racial profiling (which is less "racism" but more "discrimination", there's a legal difference) etc, but there's so many grey areas (as i brought up for example, comedians or funnies in general, satire) - you'll never get a consensus. It literally is impossible. It actually would've been easier to discuss the legal framework for discrimination and if it goes far enough. The main irritation is when posters start talking about racism in the US and then people come in claiming the definition is overly broad. They are never really interested in engaging in the discussion, only staying that racism should only be discussed in terms they are comfortable with. It is the same argument over and over.
But nobody here's different, just with different viewpoints. You don't accept when someone says "this is overly broad" either, at that point the discussion is already poisoned.
You didn't accept when i said jokes aren't inherently racist. You told me that i can't say anything that would change your mind "because you know all the arguments, since you made them yourself X years ago". You don't want to engage in an actual discussion, you just want to look for the next circlejerk - by simply making clear that you'll only discuss on terms that you're comfortable with.
Again, we're arguing opinions here. The opinion that racism to defined overly broad is as valid as your point, yet you (again) make clear that if someone has that opinion and doesn't agree with yours, they're not interested in engaging. From where i sit, it's looks a bit like no one really here is willing in engaging/listening, but just getting confirmations on their own opinions. That's why it's not gonna work, and it never has as long as i'm a member of TL. That's why at the beginning of this topic, people already called the outcome.
As a footnote, i don't exclude myself from this either.
|
On August 30 2017 09:29 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 09:12 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 08:27 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 08:21 Ghostcom wrote:
Discussing general concepts went about as well as I predicted. It's entirely pointless, really, because it, for the most part, is subjective. Of course there are things that are easy to spot, like racial profiling (which is less "racism" but more "discrimination", there's a legal difference) etc, but there's so many grey areas (as i brought up for example, comedians or funnies in general, satire) - you'll never get a consensus. It literally is impossible. It actually would've been easier to discuss the legal framework for discrimination and if it goes far enough. The main irritation is when posters start talking about racism in the US and then people come in claiming the definition is overly broad. They are never really interested in engaging in the discussion, only staying that racism should only be discussed in terms they are comfortable with. It is the same argument over and over. When the definition starts with every white person is racist (white privilege) the term ceases to have any meaning. It lumps the KKK in with hipsters and everyone in between. In other words, as a descriptor used to communicate it fails miserably. There is certainly a too narrow definition, but the definition used by BLM and people like GH is far far too broad. In the end though, having such a broad definition makes people numb to the word and what it represents. It's over-used, so people just dismiss and ignore it now-a-days. That's a reality that can't be hand-waved away.
This is the exact shit I'm talking about. We must discuss racism in terms that won't make people uncomfortable, which prohibits discussing racism in any meaningful way.
|
United States42017 Posts
On August 30 2017 09:29 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 09:12 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 08:27 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 08:21 Ghostcom wrote:
Discussing general concepts went about as well as I predicted. It's entirely pointless, really, because it, for the most part, is subjective. Of course there are things that are easy to spot, like racial profiling (which is less "racism" but more "discrimination", there's a legal difference) etc, but there's so many grey areas (as i brought up for example, comedians or funnies in general, satire) - you'll never get a consensus. It literally is impossible. It actually would've been easier to discuss the legal framework for discrimination and if it goes far enough. The main irritation is when posters start talking about racism in the US and then people come in claiming the definition is overly broad. They are never really interested in engaging in the discussion, only staying that racism should only be discussed in terms they are comfortable with. It is the same argument over and over. When the definition starts with every white person is racist (white privilege) the term ceases to have any meaning. It lumps the KKK in with hipsters and everyone in between. In other words, as a descriptor used to communicate it fails miserably. There is certainly a too narrow definition, but the definition used by BLM and people like GH is far far too broad. In the end though, having such a broad definition makes people numb to the word and what it represents. It's over-used, so people just dismiss and ignore it now-a-days. That's a reality that can't be hand-waved away.
Except discrimination didn't end with the civil rights movement. We live in a world where there is an awful lot of racism and yet no "racists" are involved in perpetuating it.
|
United States42017 Posts
On August 30 2017 09:30 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 09:28 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 09:23 Wegandi wrote:On August 30 2017 07:44 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On one hand I'd say this is dumb strategy. On the other hand my Uncle thinks all taxes are evil and the government just wants to take your money so he probably doesn't care about being insulted as long as he gets his tax cut https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/902554310441099264 Assuming for a second his father and mother aren't alive, you do know the inheritance tax isn't for someone in your uncles position - it's actually for the family/next of kin, because you know....the person has to die for the tax to be in effect. I'm sure Trumps parents are dead and that he isn't in line to inherit at his age, so people saying Trump is doing this to benefit himself (there are plenty out there) is rather funny actually. I'm going to eliminate this tax to benefit me...only when I die though! Do people not realize the insanity of that thought here? ? That doesn't follow. Let's say Trump wants to leave his children $1b and there's a 50% estate tax rate. Trump has to make $2b to do that, right? Now let's say Trump removes the estate tax. Now he only has to make $1b. His cost to achieve his objective has halved. He can now fulfill his objective twice over with $2b. You don't understand. It isn't "for" him, right? He receives no tangible living benefit as he has to die for the inheritance to kick in. So people saying these old rich people are going to benefit from the elimination of the tax and are doing it for themselves is a silly argument given the nature of the tax. People surely want to see the survival of their lineage, but eliminating the tax in this sense is for them (the deceased family/NoK - NOT THEM), not the person who died. Capiche?
No tangible benefit is not the same thing as no benefit.
You're trying to play word games here but you're not doing a good job of it.
Requiring that a benefit be tangible to exist is silly. The entire life insurance industry is built on people receiving an intangible benefit for their premiums, in peace of mind, assurance for their family, the ability to take greater risks with their life and so forth. Intangible benefits are still benefits. It's in the name. It's the second word in the intangible benefits. The argument "it's not tangible so how can it be a benefit" isn't an argument.
|
I have no time to continue this discussion with two people who don't want a dialogue only a sermon. I'm surprised anyone outside the circle jerk stays around for long in this thread. Cheerio.
|
On August 30 2017 09:29 Wegandi wrote:
When the definition starts with every white person is racist (white privilege) the term ceases to have any meaning.
Reducing the concept of privilege to "privilege=racist" is just willfully misunderstanding the term and deliberately ignoring why the concept is useful to the discussion.
|
The binary racist/not racist debate is a rabbit hole of every shifting definitions and circumstances. I prefer the pyramid approach where there are shades of wickedness. Some things are more racist and problematic than others.
more overt
+ Show Spoiler +
more pc version
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On August 30 2017 09:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 09:13 mozoku wrote:On August 30 2017 09:12 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 09:08 mozoku wrote:
Okay I think I've got a reasonable definition/explanation of racism that is consistent with its general use.
Racism is the idea that one race is superior to another. A racist believes the idea. Just as a speech can be conservative or liberal (as they're ideas), it can be racist. As a speech that espouses an idea is often described by the adjective form of the idea.
Since policies don't have ideas and their primary function isn't supposed to be communication (speech), a policy technically cannot be racist (though it can be discriminatory and consequently potentially immoral/unfair). On the other hand, we often say things like "it's a liberal policy" to describe policies promoted by liberals or policies that promote liberal beliefs, so using the phrase "it's a racist policy" can be an understandable linguistic shortcut. Still, it isn't valid grounds in a good faith debate about policy merits to argue against policy "because it's liberal." Likewise, arguing against a policy "because it's racist" isn't a real argument. The argument to be made would be "the policy is discriminatory." Using "racist" instead "discriminatory" in a policy merits debate serves no other purpose than to invoke a moral and/or emotional response.
Lastly, since a racist is someone who believes an idea, few people are actually racist. Since few people really believe some races are superior to another. When people say "everyone's a little racist", that's simply not true. Furthermore, it's difficult to know if someone is racist because knowing if someone actually believes an idea or not is really hard (impossible?). However, after observing someone for a while, you can conclude "this person is probably racist" and, with enough evidence, the "probably" approaches "certainly." What threshold someone wants to reach before labeling someone as a "racist" is up to the individual judging, but I'd argue it's wise to keep that threshold high to avoid weakening the term. You're using the definition which excuses everyone not currently burning a cross. Did you even read my post? You can conclude someone is racist imo with as little evidence as you want. I even stated that. But your version requires an active belief to be racist. The person has to actively say "I'm going to dismiss this issue because fuck blacks". That's irrelevant to the actual incarnation of racism. People don't consciously decide to be racist, they just are. The issue isn't that they think about why they believe what they do and decide to be racist, it's that they don't stop to question why they believe what they do at all.
It's actually narrower than that. By mozoku's definition, someone saying "Fuck blacks" might not even be racist because they might or might not believe in the racial superiority of one race over another. We'd have to inquire with the person whether they were saying "fuck blacks" because they're inferior, because they're superior, or some other reason. If it's some other reason, it's not racist.
A broader definition than mozoku's, which I still think is too narrow, is any sort of biological essentialism with regards to race. If you believe that being black causes someone to be a certain way, even if that way is not necessarily superior or inferior, that's essentialist. Note that this doesn't include thinking that blacks tend to be a certain way because of cultural or socioecenomic factors; that wouldn't be "essential." But at least with this definition we can catch slaveowners who insisted "I don't think blacks are inferior, I just think they have different strengths and weaknesses than whites," which was a common belief from what I understand. Blacks were thought to be happy, carefree, musical folk who lacked the intelligence or concentration or discipline or something to make it on their own; by mozoku's definition, that's not racist.
The thing is, if you're using one of these specific definitions there's usually a more specific way to say it. Rather than saying "racist" and letting the reader guess at your definition, you can call something "essentialist," or say someone believes in racial superiority or inferiority. Usually when we talk about racism we're dealing with more ill-defined cases like that.
|
On August 30 2017 09:31 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 09:12 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 08:27 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 08:21 Ghostcom wrote:
Discussing general concepts went about as well as I predicted. It's entirely pointless, really, because it, for the most part, is subjective. Of course there are things that are easy to spot, like racial profiling (which is less "racism" but more "discrimination", there's a legal difference) etc, but there's so many grey areas (as i brought up for example, comedians or funnies in general, satire) - you'll never get a consensus. It literally is impossible. It actually would've been easier to discuss the legal framework for discrimination and if it goes far enough. The main irritation is when posters start talking about racism in the US and then people come in claiming the definition is overly broad. They are never really interested in engaging in the discussion, only staying that racism should only be discussed in terms they are comfortable with. It is the same argument over and over. But nobody here's different, just with different viewpoints. You don't accept when someone says "this is overly broad" either, at that point the discussion is already poisoned. You didn't accept when i said jokes aren't inherently racist. You told me that i can't say anything that would change your mind "because you know all the arguments, since you made them yourself X years ago". You don't want to engage in an actual discussion, you just want to look for the next circlejerk - by simply making clear that you'll only discuss on terms that you're comfortable with. Again, we're arguing opinions here. The opinion that racism to defined overly broad is as valid as your point, yet you (again) make clear that if someone has that opinion and doesn't agree with yours, they're not interested in engaging. From where i sit, it's looks a bit like no one really here is willing in engaging/listening, but just getting confirmations on their own opinions. That's why it's not gonna work, and it never has as long as i'm a member of TL. As a footnote, i don't exclude myself from this either.
Yes, but we discussed it and I feel we came to a reasonable understanding of each others views. To be honest, I feel our views are similar in the end. The main difference is how we choose define the scope the term harmless.
That is not the standard "racism is over used and people need to stop because it's meaningless." That is just code for don't talk about racism.
|
I'm an Act II racist on the more PC version. At least partially, i don't call names, nor do i avoid or exclude others.
Yes, but we discussed it and I feel we came to a reasonable understanding of each others views. To be honest, I feel our views are similar in the end. The main difference is how we choose define the scope the term harmless.
That is not the standard "racism is over used and people need to stop because it's meaningless." That is just code for don't talk about racism.
We're in the end both against racism, that one we can certainly set in stone.
|
On August 30 2017 09:35 Wulfey_LA wrote:The binary racist/not racist debate is a rabbit hole of every shifting definitions and circumstances. I prefer the pyramid approach where there are shades of wickedness. Some things are more racist and problematic than others. more overt + Show Spoiler +more pc version + Show Spoiler +
Where this leads is that some people consider some subset of those acts to be "fine" without consulting anyone those acts actually directly affects. And then get mad when someone says "you know, maybe you're not really in a position to be making that decision when you're not the one affected by it".
Then you go further down the rabbit hole where people consider questioning the social acceptability of anything that is now socially acceptable to be some form of cultural attack. When in reality, it's ridiculous to call re-evaluating social norms in the context of groups that are directly impacted by them to be an attack on anyone.
|
And by being willing to define where you stand on the subject, people can discuss their views. There is no winner in these discussions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7aP5JJSyAVk/WP0z1W8qTpI/AAAAAAAAUv0/RgRP-qO6Yn0GkEc_RLBl3tbt0bnsfAybgCLcB/s1600/tumblr_obr13kZDFN1u1ofgwo2_540.png)
![[image loading]](http://usmenglish7.wikispaces.com/file/view/PyramidGraphic.jpg/231578234/PyramidGraphic.jpg)
