EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1167
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
On February 28 2019 23:37 Dangermousecatdog wrote: that was on the lines of: No. "ethno-nationalism" is not the same as heterogeneity and homogeneity or variance. That doesn't even make sense. They don't even interact. One is used in science, the other is politics, with totally different meanings. It's like saying heterogeneity and homogeneity is your(in layman's terms) "democracy". lol!" An entry in the Oxford English Dictionary (2008) simply defines racialism as "[a]n earlier term than racism, but now largely superseded by it", and cites it in a 1902 quote.[12] The revised Oxford English Dictionary cites the shortened term "racism" in a quote from the following year, 1903.[13][14] It was first defined by the Oxford English Dictionary (2nd edition, 1989) as "[t]he theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race"; the same dictionary termed racism a synonym of racialism: "belief in the superiority of a particular race". racialism, (what people used early on/since the beginnings of time/fuck know since when((assumed for the sake of argument/as placeholder, the origin and initial form is not known)), to differentiate between different groups of people; you morphed it into racism, gave it intent and heading(superiority, etc) and left the layman without the original meaning and the original word. (mainly, you replaced an/the ancestral word and its meaning) basically, people run to concepts that exemplify differences but reject the guilt. so, ethno-nationalism. now, before going <epithets>, realize that for some/many people, difference is good, is positive. maybe i should've wrote "there's no loaded word left to describe differences", but come on ... Edit: and those terms are similar in this context; they pertain to ethnicity(in research you use ethnicity when trying to not offend people by using the word race), ethnic variance. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom10006 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Now mind you, racist and bigoted people are not confined to such ridged definitions and are always evolving their ways to promote racism and oppress people based on their race. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom10006 Posts
On March 01 2019 00:41 Plansix wrote: I think it is pretty clear that xM(Z’s goal in defining racism in this narrow method is to prohibit anyone from using the word “racism” to describe the intent of another person. Ever. It is to narrowly define the word to such an extent that any person can argue easily their actions or views do not fit that narrow definition. I would always argue in favour of using specific terms for types of racism instead of the blanket term 'racism'. For me, this is just better communication and more conducive to mutual understanding. Some things, though, are just racist. | ||
|
Slydie
2013 Posts
On February 28 2019 22:36 Plansix wrote: There is a difference a clear difference racism and prejudice. Prejudice is distinctly personal and doesn't not have to relate to race. I could be prejudice against my brother in law because he is from a specific town, even if we are both white as the driven snow. And no one is talking about medicine or genetics here. That is a silly non sequitur. Prejudice includes many more things, but I challenge you to point out a clear difference between racial prejudice and racism. In most cases, they are interchangeable. In Norwegian, at least, being accused of ethnical prejudice is almost as bad as being called a racist. Avoiding unwanted labels is pretty silly at this point. "I think white western people are superior in every way, but I am not a racist".... | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 01 2019 00:43 Jockmcplop wrote: I would always argue in favour of using specific terms for types of racism instead of the blanket term 'racism'. For me, this is just better communication and more conducive to mutual understanding. Some things, though, are just racist. The problem is that even staying there are different types of racism is quickly undercut by people who argue that “the rules are being changed.” People are uncomfortable with the concept of racism and that they might have contributed to it in the past, so they want it strictly defined as something they can easily avoid. People want rules. But the problem is that the racists want to exploit that very desire. So they talk about being color blind and not seeing race, while also talking about black on black crime. Racism is the hydra of myth, ever growing new heads. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On February 28 2019 23:38 Plansix wrote: Words mean different things. There is no single color red. Especially if one is color blind. The more I've been exposed to the tactics of the "I'm totally not-racist" crowd, the more I enjoy the double entendre in "color blind". On March 01 2019 00:54 Plansix wrote: The problem is that even staying there are different types of racism is quickly undercut by people who argue that “the rules are being changed.” People are uncomfortable with the concept of racism and that they might have contributed to it in the past, so they want it strictly defined as something they can easily avoid. People want rules. Similarly, incels and other sexual harassers always want to know what the "rules" are for what constitutes sexual harassment. Or the "rules" for accessing a woman's pants. Or like how people who frequently get banned from forums always want to know what the exact rules are to not being banned. There seems to be a pattern. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7684 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States44368 Posts
On March 01 2019 01:47 IgnE wrote: why would you hide the rules from people who want to know what they are? seems cruel Some things are a little more complicated than Boolean logic. | ||
|
brian
United States9643 Posts
| ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On March 01 2019 01:50 brian wrote: so we’re going to see alan weisselberg on the stand next, right(though perhaps not literally?) is that within the committees power? I saw an article (I don't have the link at the ready) today that explained that while under an immunity deal, Weisselberg was NOT a cooperating witness in most of these proceedings. He could be subpoenaed, I guess, but I doubt he'd come willingly. | ||
|
Howie_Dewitt
United States1416 Posts
On March 01 2019 01:47 IgnE wrote: why would you hide the rules from people who want to know what they are? seems cruel The assumption seems to be that they behave in opposition to the rules, and want to know what they are so they can skirt the social construct line and adjust their behavior to keep their core (on this case, racist) beliefs without facing consequences. It reminds me of a kid being told not to touch someone, then putting their hand inches from that person's face and say "I'm not touching you!" While they are right, it's clear that they would touch you if they could, and it's still a dick move. Asking someone like "what constitutes touching" is a question almost always followed by some kind of negative action as close to the line as possible. | ||
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On March 01 2019 01:56 Howie_Dewitt wrote: The assumption seems to be that they behave in opposition to the rules, and want to know what they are so they can skirt the social construct line and adjust their behavior to keep their core (on this case, racist) beliefs without facing consequences. It reminds me of a kid being told not to touch someone, then putting their hand inches from that person's face and say "I'm not touching you!" While they are right, it's clear that they would touch you if they could, and it's still a dick move. Asking someone like "what constitutes touching" is a question almost always followed by some kind of negative action as close to the line as possible. Take this thread as an example. The mods have to use a subjective moderation policy for the thread because putting down hard boundaries for what is or is not acceptable only led to posters skirting the line in the previous thread. Several posters who continued doing their thing in this thread have gotten banned, either permanently, or temporarily, sometimes multiple times. If your goal is to maintain the spirit of constructive discourse, a discrete set of hard rules will be very bad at accomplishing the goal. Basically, rule #1 for not getting banned is to care about not getting banned. It's the same with being racist. Or not being a sexual harasser. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7684 Posts
On March 01 2019 01:56 Howie_Dewitt wrote: The assumption seems to be that they behave in opposition to the rules, and want to know what they are so they can skirt the social construct line and adjust their behavior to keep their core (on this case, racist) beliefs without facing consequences. It reminds me of a kid being told not to touch someone, then putting their hand inches from that person's face and say "I'm not touching you!" While they are right, it's clear that they would touch you if they could, and it's still a dick move. Asking someone like "what constitutes touching" is a question almost always followed by some kind of negative action as close to the line as possible. it seems in that case that the rule is just a bit more complex than “no touching” (like kwark suggests), so perhaps it needs more elaboration, with the ultimate goal being to persuade them that the complicated rules you follow are good rules. obviously if they are still being a “dick” they are breaking some social rule of etiquette even if they aren’t breaking the no-touching rule. | ||
| ||
