• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 04:18
CEST 10:18
KST 17:18
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202533RSL Season 1 - Final Week8[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16
Community News
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams4Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension4
StarCraft 2
General
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Esports World Cup 2025 - Final Player Roster Why doesnt SC2 scene costream tournaments
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame
Brood War
General
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams BW General Discussion ASL20 Preliminary Maps BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Flash Announces (and Retracts) Hiatus From ASL
Tourneys
[CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance [Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL 2v2] ProLeague Season 3 - Friday 21:00 CET The Casual Games of the Week Thread
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Nintendo Switch Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread The Games Industry And ATVI Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 619 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8599

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 8597 8598 8599 8600 8601 10093 Next
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.
mozoku
Profile Joined September 2012
United States708 Posts
August 30 2017 00:13 GMT
#171961
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.
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42640 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-08-30 00:20:51
August 30 2017 00:16 GMT
#171962
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.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-08-30 00:20:21
August 30 2017 00:18 GMT
#171963
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.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
Wegandi
Profile Joined March 2011
United States2455 Posts
August 30 2017 00:23 GMT
#171964
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?
Thank you bureaucrats for all your hard work, your commitment to public service and public good is essential to the lives of so many. Also, for Pete's sake can we please get some gun control already, no need for hand guns and assault rifles for the public
mozoku
Profile Joined September 2012
United States708 Posts
August 30 2017 00:27 GMT
#171965
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.
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42640 Posts
August 30 2017 00:28 GMT
#171966
On August 30 2017 09:23 Wegandi wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
Wegandi
Profile Joined March 2011
United States2455 Posts
August 30 2017 00:29 GMT
#171967
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.
Thank you bureaucrats for all your hard work, your commitment to public service and public good is essential to the lives of so many. Also, for Pete's sake can we please get some gun control already, no need for hand guns and assault rifles for the public
Wegandi
Profile Joined March 2011
United States2455 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-08-30 00:32:27
August 30 2017 00:30 GMT
#171968
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?
Thank you bureaucrats for all your hard work, your commitment to public service and public good is essential to the lives of so many. Also, for Pete's sake can we please get some gun control already, no need for hand guns and assault rifles for the public
m4ini
Profile Joined February 2014
4215 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-08-30 00:33:07
August 30 2017 00:31 GMT
#171969
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 track to MA1950A.
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
August 30 2017 00:31 GMT
#171970
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.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42640 Posts
August 30 2017 00:32 GMT
#171971
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.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42640 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-08-30 00:41:08
August 30 2017 00:33 GMT
#171972
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.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
Wegandi
Profile Joined March 2011
United States2455 Posts
August 30 2017 00:34 GMT
#171973
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.
Thank you bureaucrats for all your hard work, your commitment to public service and public good is essential to the lives of so many. Also, for Pete's sake can we please get some gun control already, no need for hand guns and assault rifles for the public
TheYango
Profile Joined September 2008
United States47024 Posts
August 30 2017 00:35 GMT
#171974
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.
Moderator
Wulfey_LA
Profile Joined April 2017
932 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-08-30 00:36:01
August 30 2017 00:35 GMT
#171975
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 +
[image loading]


more pc version
+ Show Spoiler +
[image loading]

ChristianS
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
United States3188 Posts
August 30 2017 00:36 GMT
#171976
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.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." -Robert J. Hanlon
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
August 30 2017 00:36 GMT
#171977
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 have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
m4ini
Profile Joined February 2014
4215 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-08-30 00:38:10
August 30 2017 00:37 GMT
#171978
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 track to MA1950A.
TheYango
Profile Joined September 2008
United States47024 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-08-30 00:40:55
August 30 2017 00:39 GMT
#171979
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 +
[image loading]


more pc version
+ Show Spoiler +
[image loading]


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.
Moderator
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
August 30 2017 00:40 GMT
#171980
And by being willing to define where you stand on the subject, people can discuss their views. There is no winner in these discussions.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
Prev 1 8597 8598 8599 8600 8601 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 1h 43m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
ProTech73
StarCraft: Brood War
Nal_rA 7793
Hyuk 4148
BeSt 1736
Zeus 1275
ToSsGirL 243
Leta 86
Sacsri 56
Backho 47
ajuk12(nOOB) 26
NaDa 20
[ Show more ]
Sharp 13
Britney 0
Dota 2
XcaliburYe209
BananaSlamJamma102
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K960
Other Games
summit1g5292
ceh9629
Happy139
SortOf67
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick1128
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 13 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH479
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• WagamamaTV132
• lizZardDota273
Upcoming Events
Esports World Cup
1h 43m
ByuN vs Zoun
SHIN vs TriGGeR
Cyan vs ShoWTimE
Rogue vs HeRoMaRinE
Clem vs Solar
Reynor vs Maru
herO vs Cure
Serral vs Classic
Esports World Cup
1d 1h
Esports World Cup
2 days
CranKy Ducklings
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
CSO Cup
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
4 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
4 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
4 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
[ Show More ]
Sparkling Tuna Cup
6 days
Online Event
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.