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.
As President Donald Trump and other world leaders gather at the United Nations this week, a lot of important questions hang in the air, but none more important than this one: What does North Korea want? That is, what is North Korea’s real goal in its relentless, reckless pursuit of nuclear weapons as well as missiles that can carry them as far as the United States? The answer will determine whether it’s even possible to push the country off the nuclear path at this point, or whether a strategy of regime change or containment of a nuclear-armed country are the most realistic options—or, most ominously, whether armed conflict is likely. The international community is, of course, casting about for ways to deter North Korea, and U.S. officials say there will be conversations this week about imposing more severe economic sanctions than the ones already implemented in a pair of U.N. Security Council resolutions this year. Chinese and Russian companies doing business with North Korea are likely targets.
As President Donald Trump and other world leaders gather at the United Nations this week, a lot of important questions hang in the air, but none more important than this one: What does North Korea want? That is, what is North Korea’s real goal in its relentless, reckless pursuit of nuclear weapons as well as missiles that can carry them as far as the United States? The answer will determine whether it’s even possible to push the country off the nuclear path at this point, or whether a strategy of regime change or containment of a nuclear-armed country are the most realistic options—or, most ominously, whether armed conflict is likely. The international community is, of course, casting about for ways to deter North Korea, and U.S. officials say there will be conversations this week about imposing more severe economic sanctions than the ones already implemented in a pair of U.N. Security Council resolutions this year. Chinese and Russian companies doing business with North Korea are likely targets.
It's definitely a question I would like answered. Does North Korea even have a 10 year plan? What do they see the country looking like in 50 years? If this is just a hyper-corrupt family and associates trying to stay alive as long as possible, we're in for a rough ride.
On September 19 2017 05:07 LegalLord wrote: Relevant to earlier discussion.
As President Donald Trump and other world leaders gather at the United Nations this week, a lot of important questions hang in the air, but none more important than this one: What does North Korea want? That is, what is North Korea’s real goal in its relentless, reckless pursuit of nuclear weapons as well as missiles that can carry them as far as the United States? The answer will determine whether it’s even possible to push the country off the nuclear path at this point, or whether a strategy of regime change or containment of a nuclear-armed country are the most realistic options—or, most ominously, whether armed conflict is likely. The international community is, of course, casting about for ways to deter North Korea, and U.S. officials say there will be conversations this week about imposing more severe economic sanctions than the ones already implemented in a pair of U.N. Security Council resolutions this year. Chinese and Russian companies doing business with North Korea are likely targets.
It's definitely a question I would like answered. Does North Korea even have a 10 year plan? What do they see the country looking like in 50 years? If this is just a hyper-corrupt family and associates trying to stay alive as long as possible, we're in for a rough ride.
For your first question at least, the answer is a pretty obvious "yes." The second question is harder to answer.
On September 19 2017 05:07 LegalLord wrote: Relevant to earlier discussion.
As President Donald Trump and other world leaders gather at the United Nations this week, a lot of important questions hang in the air, but none more important than this one: What does North Korea want? That is, what is North Korea’s real goal in its relentless, reckless pursuit of nuclear weapons as well as missiles that can carry them as far as the United States? The answer will determine whether it’s even possible to push the country off the nuclear path at this point, or whether a strategy of regime change or containment of a nuclear-armed country are the most realistic options—or, most ominously, whether armed conflict is likely. The international community is, of course, casting about for ways to deter North Korea, and U.S. officials say there will be conversations this week about imposing more severe economic sanctions than the ones already implemented in a pair of U.N. Security Council resolutions this year. Chinese and Russian companies doing business with North Korea are likely targets.
It's definitely a question I would like answered. Does North Korea even have a 10 year plan? What do they see the country looking like in 50 years? If this is just a hyper-corrupt family and associates trying to stay alive as long as possible, we're in for a rough ride.
trying to stay alive is what it is; which is a pretty core motivation for most people really. plus some other stuff I reckon. it's been a rough ride for decades now, and it's not likely to change; since all the same pressures push it that way.
A longer story on NK: interviews with long time American officials. Would be nice to get some though from people from other countries but this is good.
Susan Glasser: I’m Susan Glasser and welcome back to The Global Politico. This week: a deep dive on the North Korea crisis, with Admiral Dennis Blair, who’s spent decades working on this. He is the former Director of National Intelligence and a former admiral whose job as commander of the US Pacific Fleet was to confront the North Koreans. And then we’ll hear from Ambassador Christopher Hill, the last senior US diplomat to negotiate face to face with the North Koreans when he did so during President George W. Bush’s second term.
On September 19 2017 02:37 Logo wrote: A bit off topic, but I think I missed the part of this thread where everyone collectively, led by the staunch free speech supporters, got up in arms over a government official pressuring a private institution to cancel & silence speech by someone that would be critical of them.
Anyone have links to those posts?
I don't recall such being covered; but without you naming the exact instance it's hard to be sure.
I kind of figured it'd be big news to those who have shown so much passion for free speech here and wouldn't need more specific naming.
Chelsea Manning, the former US soldier who leaked hundreds of thousands of state secrets and served seven years in military prison, abruptly terminated a phone call with the dean of the Harvard Kennedy school in an expression of her dismay at his decision to revoke her visiting fellowship in the face of severe pressure from the CIA.
When Elmendorf reached Manning on the phone he sounded audibly nervous, the source said. He argued that Harvard had to “weigh” what each visiting fellow “brought to the table”.
I'm aware they withdrew conferring upon her a "visiting fellow" designation, not that she was disinvited to speak. The statement was tailored to that honorific
We invited Chelsea Manning to spend a day at the Kennedy School. Specifically, we invited her to meet with students and others who are interested in talking with her, and then to give remarks in the Forum where the audience would have ample opportunity—as with all of our speakers—to ask hard questions and challenge what she has said and done. On that basis, we also named Chelsea Manning a Visiting Fellow. We did not intend to honor her in any way or to endorse any of her words or deeds, as we do not honor or endorse any Fellow.
Seems like he's still open to inviting her to have the opportunity to speak and answer hard questions.
However, I now think that designating Chelsea Manning as a Visiting Fellow was a mistake, for which I accept responsibility. I still think that having her speak in the Forum and talk with students is consistent with our longstanding approach, which puts great emphasis on the value of hearing from a diverse collection of people. But I see more clearly now that many people view a Visiting Fellow title as an honorific, so we should weigh that consideration when offering invitations.
Back to statues haha. He argues that the visiting fellow title was viewed by others as too much of an honorific.
She is still welcome to spend a day at the Kennedy School and speak at the school’s John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum, the dean said.
Earlier in the day, Mike Morell, former deputy director and acting director of the CIA, sent a resignation letter to Elmendorf. Morell told Elmendorf he was resigning immediately over the school's decision to invite Manning be a visiting fellow at the Kennedy School's Institute of Politics.
Morell said he could not be part of an organization that "honors a convicted felon and leaker of classified information."
"Manning was found guilty of 17 serious crimes, including six counts of espionage, for leaking hundreds of thousands of classified documents to WikiLeaks, an entity that CIA Director Mike Pompeo says operates like an adversarial foreign intelligence organization," said Morell, who was a non-resident senior fellow at Harvard.
So your argument is the government wasn't successful so it's not an issue? Whether or not Manning can still speak seems secondary to the CIA officials applying pressure to change the speech that Harvard permits and allows. Even so they *did* change the manner of speech and got Harvard to change its position.
It seems like a total sellout of ideals considering how engaged you and other have been over "the statues" and other issues of free speech.
I argue that her free speech was not at issue. She was invited as a visiting fellow and she's still invited to speak. The honorific is in contention. Her sentence for illegally leaking classified information was commuted, and maybe Harvard wants to draw the line for fellowship there ... I couldnt care less. Her speech quite simply isn't on the line. Show me otherwise.
You do recall that you thought free speech advocates would already know of this story? A story of a trans woman who was invited to speak and is invited to speak? Show me somebody that thinks she shouldn't be allowed to speak.
As President Donald Trump and other world leaders gather at the United Nations this week, a lot of important questions hang in the air, but none more important than this one: What does North Korea want? That is, what is North Korea’s real goal in its relentless, reckless pursuit of nuclear weapons as well as missiles that can carry them as far as the United States? The answer will determine whether it’s even possible to push the country off the nuclear path at this point, or whether a strategy of regime change or containment of a nuclear-armed country are the most realistic options—or, most ominously, whether armed conflict is likely. The international community is, of course, casting about for ways to deter North Korea, and U.S. officials say there will be conversations this week about imposing more severe economic sanctions than the ones already implemented in a pair of U.N. Security Council resolutions this year. Chinese and Russian companies doing business with North Korea are likely targets.
I also wonder what it is we expect. We often characterize their actions as irrational (I've done so myself) but I've come to realize I don't really know what we can reasonably expect them to do other than what they've been doing?
Imagining for a moment that NK was going to act as would be both in their best interest and an acceptable outcome for the US, what would that even be?
On September 19 2017 05:07 LegalLord wrote: Relevant to earlier discussion.
As President Donald Trump and other world leaders gather at the United Nations this week, a lot of important questions hang in the air, but none more important than this one: What does North Korea want? That is, what is North Korea’s real goal in its relentless, reckless pursuit of nuclear weapons as well as missiles that can carry them as far as the United States? The answer will determine whether it’s even possible to push the country off the nuclear path at this point, or whether a strategy of regime change or containment of a nuclear-armed country are the most realistic options—or, most ominously, whether armed conflict is likely. The international community is, of course, casting about for ways to deter North Korea, and U.S. officials say there will be conversations this week about imposing more severe economic sanctions than the ones already implemented in a pair of U.N. Security Council resolutions this year. Chinese and Russian companies doing business with North Korea are likely targets.
Imagining for a moment that NK was going to act as would be both in their best interest and an acceptable outcome for the US, what would that even be?
If I were a North Korean I would probably conclude that no such arrangement exists, unfortunately.
Also to make people a bit more worried: looking at the specs of the North Korean rocket I'd say that there is little to no chance that the US would be able to shoot one of those buggers down. Not if NK is smart about how they launch it and make sure it doesn't get hit upon launch.
Immigrant-rights protesters on Monday disrupted a San Francisco press conference with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to promote the DREAM Act.
Pelosi and Reps. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) were scheduled to speak about the legislation, which would provide a path to legal status to people approved for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and other undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. at a young age.
Instead, dozens of young people took over the event and called Pelosi “a liar” for saying she has fought against deportations.
A video from NBC Bay Area showed Pelosi shouting back at protesters, “You don’t know what you’re talking about.”
The protest was organized by several Bay Area social justice groups, according to Luis Serrano, an organizer with California Immigrant Youth Justice, one of the groups involved.
“Democrats are representing themselves as the resistance when the reality is they haven’t done anything,” Serrano told POLITICO.
A video tweeted by a reporter with the San Francisco Chronicle showed Pelosi and several others departing the event.
"We need to have a conversation, but that was completely one-sided," Pelosi told reporters afterward, according to a transcript from her office. "They don’t want any answers."
On September 19 2017 03:50 Danglars wrote: [quote] Your choice to forget what I said about the Nazi rallies, and then ask me to make things clear says all it needs to about your level of engagement. [quote]
Thread standards. Conservatives are asked to disavow and repeatedly give their proportional looks on outrage or they're assumed nazi sympathizers. Maybe I'm not playing your games anymore, GH.
I know specifically you didn't use the same words or even something comparable. I know for a fact that you didn't say anything about it being a slippery slope toward more white supremacy, and so on.
I suppose I could dig up whatever responses you had and prove it to people who don't remember but I think many do. What's the point anyway?
Like I've said, you've made clear your position and it is what it is. It's one advocating white supremacy by way of "law and order". An oldie but a goodie.
"Specifically" and "I don't think you said the same of the Nazi rallies" are incompatible. You're the one accusing me of "advocating white supremacy" and saying I need to make clear for you the difference between Trump/neonazi rallies and protesters/shrouded statues, or I'm letting my stance be unclear.
I'm not going to do a parrot act every time a forum troll asks for yet another declaration of proportional outrage. Particularly not to somebody that won't quote and tell me what he thought was lacking the first time around that he needs cleared up for the second time around. That's why I quoted
... I don't recall what you said about the Nazi rallies ... But you just sad something bad about shrouded statues ... Clear up for me that you think neonazis/WS are worse than shrouded statues or you're in cahoots with Hitler
We can just keep on doing this dance on the next controversial topic. You'll be just as confused to what I originally said about Topic B, and need my courtesy and assistance to somehow gather how I compare neonazi rallies to Jefferson protests. I think that activity is patently absurd.
I know you didn't make the same argument, you know you didn't, we all know you didn't. You did call the Nazi's mean names though.
I don't expect you demonstrate comparable outrage at people advocating for genocide and killing people as you do with shrouded statues, just don't expect me not to call it out.
Well, when you specifically want to drill down to what you mean that requires clarification, quote me what you found insufficient the first time around. I'll just presume most of the thread can guess my feelings on genocide marchers and shrouded statues.
I think most of the thread is in agreement that your condemnation of the people shrouding statues (a condemnation that was based in an alternate reality) is much stronger than your condemnation of Nazis.
I think there's a minority of the thread that wishes this were the case. The good news is this conversation is being recorded. You can read ten pages of the thread on the Charlottesville rally and my participation of it, and compare with the same on how I treat statue protestors. And make up your own mind.
I think you would find a lot less people getting annoyed with you if your condemnation of Nazis isn't always being drowned out by how vehemently you argue with people about how you shouldn't have to say that you condemn Nazis. Like, just fucking say it and move on. Everything's like pulling teeth with you.
I find the two sides of an argument on rights or movements much more interesting than proving to the latest thread shitlib that thinks I'm party to nazi ideology. They could always keep topics centered on who gets free speech rights and free assembly rights, and not who you can slander for defending them so vociferously.
And you mean "say it again and move on." Because it's been said repeatedly. Say, it's been a few posts since Antifa, and I don't seem to recall you forcefully condemning the violence, so could you place them in an ordered list with Trump-Charlottesville, statue protestors, Muslim terrorism, BLM protests, and the Obama presidency? I wouldn't want to think your recent silence on the issue shows endorsement of their violence. I will be keeping track of how long it takes you to disavow, and may renew this request next time you argue forcefully for something--just to make sure you aren't calling that topic worse in degree than a Molotov-throwing mob.
If I recall, when these things happen, we debate the effectiveness and political statements trying to be made, while at the same time condemning them. But some of us posters don't get around to condemning them, instead, we take roundabout ways of doing it. If you just say it, then the thread can move on. It's that simple.
I've been in this thread/prior thread for three elections. Posters calling conservatives racists, misogynists, and the like is just American leftist political discourse. The question becomes: are the biggest chumps the people that accuse then demand disavowal or you're the hated other ... or those that bark on command every few months. If Trump '16 is your first merry go round, you might be forgiven for thinking the response is anything but conditioned. That's why I sometimes humor the hyenas for the benefits of people just tuning in. Otherwise, I suppose you'd have to go to a right-wing dominant forum and endure cuck, globalist, and that schtick for four years and see if you're still willing to humor them and reissue the same disavowals.
On September 19 2017 03:38 GreenHorizons wrote: In the chain you see that you had different requirements for what made something racist before you advanced this more recent argument.
It looks to me like I'm using your definition of racism, not advancing one of my own.
Regardless, I'm not seeing that I said then that is materially different from what I am saying now. If I have done anything, I have expanded my definition of racism, which you should be pleased with.
In the chain you say that the "Websters" definition of racism is one you accept, until now.
I do, but you asked why I would think otherwise, it's because you and others accepted/advocated a different definition of racism several months ago.
But you changed the definition of racist so you could have a white person be racist without being a white supremacist, which is pretty ridiculous to anyone paying attention.
You do understand that the definition of racism that I am advocating now is broader than the one that I advanced before and necessarily includes the previous definition, right?
And why exactly are you objecting to the idea that someone can be a racist without being a racial supremacist? I really don't get what the hang up is.
I got sniped. But oh well.
To answer his hang up, it's that you changed the definition so that the two are exclusive of each other. It fits the narrative being ponied about. When we were discussing race issues, we had very clear and cut lines in the sand. Then you started shifting the line and blurring it, so that the definition was changed and that it was removed entirely. Now, we're discussing two separate issues instead of one; the supposition that white supremacists are racists. You can be prejudice and not think your race is superior. But you cannot be racist and not a racial supremacist. It doesn't make sense.
No, this is almost the exact opposite of what I have been saying.
To make sure I'm understanding, you are saying that you are a racial supremacist if you are racist? Or that you cannot be both racial and a racial supremacist, or that one can exist without the other? Not singling you out, just so we're clear.
1. Racial supremacism and racism are distinct concepts. 2. Racial supremacism is a subset of racism. 3. Racial supremacism is not a necessary element of racism.
Think of a two-circle Venn diagram where racism is the big circle and racial supremacism is the small circle that is entirely within the big circle.
On September 19 2017 03:38 GreenHorizons wrote: In the chain you see that you had different requirements for what made something racist before you advanced this more recent argument.
It looks to me like I'm using your definition of racism, not advancing one of my own.
Regardless, I'm not seeing that I said then that is materially different from what I am saying now. If I have done anything, I have expanded my definition of racism, which you should be pleased with.
In the chain you say that the "Websters" definition of racism is one you accept, until now.
I do, but you asked why I would think otherwise, it's because you and others accepted/advocated a different definition of racism several months ago.
But you changed the definition of racist so you could have a white person be racist without being a white supremacist, which is pretty ridiculous to anyone paying attention.
You do understand that the definition of racism that I am advocating now is broader than the one that I advanced before and necessarily includes the previous definition, right?
And why exactly are you objecting to the idea that someone can be a racist without being a racial supremacist? I really don't get what the hang up is.
See in order to make the argument that the 14 words weren't white supremacist, but were racist, you removed the supremacy clause of racism.
Unfortunately the supremacy clause was your argument for why we couldn't call you racist, now you've labeled yourself racist by your own definition in order to avoid acknowledging the white supremacy advocated in your posts.
You need to think this through better. If racism necessarily requires a sentiment of racial superiority, then Vox Day's use of the 14 words isn't even racist. I doubt that that is the result that you're looking for.
As for me, I still wouldn't be a racist under my expanded definition that requires mere discriminatory animus as opposed to actual white supremacy.
The problem with your nitpicking of my definition is that you've lost sight of the larger argument. The big difference between us is that I reject any definition of "racism" that encompasses incidental disparate impact between races.
I suspect this thread pulls out a particular part of yourself rather than display the full human complexity that is xDaunt. As such, I wouldn't really bother to make an assessment prepared for peer review that would label you a racist as a person. However, I'm more than comfortable with the assessment that your posts indicate a pattern of racist arguments formulated in the white supremacy swamp that is the American political spectrum and adorned in it's stench.
Same for Danglars.
In this context, I don't think that there's a particularly meaningful basis to distinguish between the posts and the man. And that's not really what I'm getting at, anyway. The real issue is why you'd find the posts to be emblematic of racism in the first place. My answer to that has always been that you, like many (likely most) on the left, employ an over-broad definition of racism.
On September 19 2017 03:38 GreenHorizons wrote: In the chain you see that you had different requirements for what made something racist before you advanced this more recent argument.
It looks to me like I'm using your definition of racism, not advancing one of my own.
Regardless, I'm not seeing that I said then that is materially different from what I am saying now. If I have done anything, I have expanded my definition of racism, which you should be pleased with.
In the chain you say that the "Websters" definition of racism is one you accept, until now.
I do, but you asked why I would think otherwise, it's because you and others accepted/advocated a different definition of racism several months ago.
But you changed the definition of racist so you could have a white person be racist without being a white supremacist, which is pretty ridiculous to anyone paying attention.
You do understand that the definition of racism that I am advocating now is broader than the one that I advanced before and necessarily includes the previous definition, right?
And why exactly are you objecting to the idea that someone can be a racist without being a racial supremacist? I really don't get what the hang up is.
See in order to make the argument that the 14 words weren't white supremacist, but were racist, you removed the supremacy clause of racism.
Unfortunately the supremacy clause was your argument for why we couldn't call you racist, now you've labeled yourself racist by your own definition in order to avoid acknowledging the white supremacy advocated in your posts.
You need to think this through better. If racism necessarily requires a sentiment of racial superiority, then Vox Day's use of the 14 words isn't even racist. I doubt that that is the result that you're looking for.
As for me, I still wouldn't be a racist under my expanded definition that requires mere discriminatory animus as opposed to actual white supremacy.
The problem with your nitpicking of my definition is that you've lost sight of the larger argument. The big difference between us is that I reject any definition of "racism" that encompasses incidental disparate impact between races.
I suspect this thread pulls out a particular part of yourself rather than display the full human complexity that is xDaunt. As such, I wouldn't really bother to make an assessment prepared for peer review that would label you a racist as a person. However, I'm more than comfortable with the assessment that your posts indicate a pattern of racist arguments formulated in the white supremacy swamp that is the American political spectrum and adorned in it's stench.
Same for Danglars.
In this context, I don't think that there's a particularly meaningful basis to distinguish between the posts and the man. And that's not really what I'm getting at, anyway. The real issue is why you'd find the posts to be emblematic of racism in the first place. My answer to that has always been that you, like many (likely most) on the left, employ an over-broad definition of racism.
The gestalt of one's posting is often more telling than any individual post can be. When someone makes a many-page long argument about how a drape on a statue is destroying America's social fabric, but makes what amounts to a tiny footnote when it comes to admitting how awful Charlottesville was, and only once pressed on the issue, that says something. Putting fingers in your ears and pretending it doesn't mean anything is robbing nuance from an adult conversation on the subject.
And before that generalization goes anywhere, what do you consider racism to encompass, and why do you think "the left" uses an overly-broad definition?
On September 19 2017 03:38 GreenHorizons wrote: In the chain you see that you had different requirements for what made something racist before you advanced this more recent argument.
It looks to me like I'm using your definition of racism, not advancing one of my own.
Regardless, I'm not seeing that I said then that is materially different from what I am saying now. If I have done anything, I have expanded my definition of racism, which you should be pleased with.
In the chain you say that the "Websters" definition of racism is one you accept, until now.
I do, but you asked why I would think otherwise, it's because you and others accepted/advocated a different definition of racism several months ago.
But you changed the definition of racist so you could have a white person be racist without being a white supremacist, which is pretty ridiculous to anyone paying attention.
You do understand that the definition of racism that I am advocating now is broader than the one that I advanced before and necessarily includes the previous definition, right?
And why exactly are you objecting to the idea that someone can be a racist without being a racial supremacist? I really don't get what the hang up is.
See in order to make the argument that the 14 words weren't white supremacist, but were racist, you removed the supremacy clause of racism.
Unfortunately the supremacy clause was your argument for why we couldn't call you racist, now you've labeled yourself racist by your own definition in order to avoid acknowledging the white supremacy advocated in your posts.
You need to think this through better. If racism necessarily requires a sentiment of racial superiority, then Vox Day's use of the 14 words isn't even racist. I doubt that that is the result that you're looking for.
As for me, I still wouldn't be a racist under my expanded definition that requires mere discriminatory animus as opposed to actual white supremacy.
The problem with your nitpicking of my definition is that you've lost sight of the larger argument. The big difference between us is that I reject any definition of "racism" that encompasses incidental disparate impact between races.
I suspect this thread pulls out a particular part of yourself rather than display the full human complexity that is xDaunt. As such, I wouldn't really bother to make an assessment prepared for peer review that would label you a racist as a person. However, I'm more than comfortable with the assessment that your posts indicate a pattern of racist arguments formulated in the white supremacy swamp that is the American political spectrum and adorned in it's stench.
Same for Danglars.
In this context, I don't think that there's a particularly meaningful basis to distinguish between the posts and the man. And that's not really what I'm getting at, anyway. The real issue is why you'd find the posts to be emblematic of racism in the first place. My answer to that has always been that you, like many (likely most) on the left, employ an over-broad definition of racism.
I know we've been through this a bunch of times but I'm ready to go again. What would you call a subconscious racism that certain groups have because they are an inherent part of their cultural identity? Do you think this phenomenon exists? I think this has been defined as just 'racism', supremacism even. I don't personally think that's correct but it'd be good if there could be appropriate language we could use to describe this stuff.
On September 19 2017 03:38 GreenHorizons wrote: In the chain you see that you had different requirements for what made something racist before you advanced this more recent argument.
It looks to me like I'm using your definition of racism, not advancing one of my own.
Regardless, I'm not seeing that I said then that is materially different from what I am saying now. If I have done anything, I have expanded my definition of racism, which you should be pleased with.
In the chain you say that the "Websters" definition of racism is one you accept, until now.
I do, but you asked why I would think otherwise, it's because you and others accepted/advocated a different definition of racism several months ago.
But you changed the definition of racist so you could have a white person be racist without being a white supremacist, which is pretty ridiculous to anyone paying attention.
You do understand that the definition of racism that I am advocating now is broader than the one that I advanced before and necessarily includes the previous definition, right?
And why exactly are you objecting to the idea that someone can be a racist without being a racial supremacist? I really don't get what the hang up is.
See in order to make the argument that the 14 words weren't white supremacist, but were racist, you removed the supremacy clause of racism.
Unfortunately the supremacy clause was your argument for why we couldn't call you racist, now you've labeled yourself racist by your own definition in order to avoid acknowledging the white supremacy advocated in your posts.
You need to think this through better. If racism necessarily requires a sentiment of racial superiority, then Vox Day's use of the 14 words isn't even racist. I doubt that that is the result that you're looking for.
As for me, I still wouldn't be a racist under my expanded definition that requires mere discriminatory animus as opposed to actual white supremacy.
The problem with your nitpicking of my definition is that you've lost sight of the larger argument. The big difference between us is that I reject any definition of "racism" that encompasses incidental disparate impact between races.
I suspect this thread pulls out a particular part of yourself rather than display the full human complexity that is xDaunt. As such, I wouldn't really bother to make an assessment prepared for peer review that would label you a racist as a person. However, I'm more than comfortable with the assessment that your posts indicate a pattern of racist arguments formulated in the white supremacy swamp that is the American political spectrum and adorned in it's stench.
Same for Danglars.
In this context, I don't think that there's a particularly meaningful basis to distinguish between the posts and the man. And that's not really what I'm getting at, anyway. The real issue is why you'd find the posts to be emblematic of racism in the first place. My answer to that has always been that you, like many (likely most) on the left, employ an over-broad definition of racism.
I know we've been through this a bunch of times but I'm ready to go again. What would you call a subconscious racism that certain groups have because they are an inherent part of their cultural identity? Do you think this phenomenon exists? I think this has been defined as just 'racism', supremacism even. I don't personally think that's correct but it'd be good if there could be appropriate language we could use to describe this stuff.
I'm willing to entertain and even stipulate to the existence of a variety of race-related issues ranging from disparate impact theories to profiling. There is no shortage of other like-minded people on the right.
EPT
