|
On July 22 2019 04:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2019 04:03 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 22 2019 03:36 Nebuchad wrote:
I don't think xDaunt should be banned for being a racist. I just think when people say he's a racist, that's not an insult, which is what you went with in your post. Well it most certainly is an insult in almost any context today, save ones like an Aryan Nation compound in Wyoming or an 8chan discord A place like TL, it most certainly is an insult, and is intended to shame and delegitimize and silence, or, alternatively, anger, the person being labeled with it. I don't see how you could not think it is an insult, that it is simply a term of classification or something. Calling someone a racist is not mere classification. It is supposed to be an insult. The insult is inherent. Racists are not nice people. The label describing them - racist - is not supposed to make them feel good about their character and judgment Like I said, in other company it comes with a different mileage. But polite company is thankfully still the majority of company, and thankfully we aren't living 150 years ago, when things would be reversed and calling someone a racist would simply be reaffirming their good character and judgment in polite company Would you call someone that advocates racist positions (let's imagine whether they are racist is not in dispute) racist? Personally I've taken the position that people aren't racist, actions, beliefs, policy, etc... are. So I wouldn't say xDaunt "is a racist" but I would absolutely say he advocates racist policy and believes racist ideas.
I do agree with this distinction actually, I got carried away.
|
On July 22 2019 04:24 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2019 04:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 04:03 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 22 2019 03:36 Nebuchad wrote:
I don't think xDaunt should be banned for being a racist. I just think when people say he's a racist, that's not an insult, which is what you went with in your post. Well it most certainly is an insult in almost any context today, save ones like an Aryan Nation compound in Wyoming or an 8chan discord A place like TL, it most certainly is an insult, and is intended to shame and delegitimize and silence, or, alternatively, anger, the person being labeled with it. I don't see how you could not think it is an insult, that it is simply a term of classification or something. Calling someone a racist is not mere classification. It is supposed to be an insult. The insult is inherent. Racists are not nice people. The label describing them - racist - is not supposed to make them feel good about their character and judgment Like I said, in other company it comes with a different mileage. But polite company is thankfully still the majority of company, and thankfully we aren't living 150 years ago, when things would be reversed and calling someone a racist would simply be reaffirming their good character and judgment in polite company Would you call someone that advocates racist positions (let's imagine whether they are racist is not in dispute) racist? Personally I've taken the position that people aren't racist, actions, beliefs, policy, etc... are. So I wouldn't say xDaunt "is a racist" but I would absolutely say he advocates racist policy and believes racist ideas. I do agree with this distinction actually, I got carried away.
He has that effect on people lol
|
Jesus, have we seriously gotten to the point where we can't call someone a racist because it's insulting, and instead have to say that "They support racist beliefs"? Yes, racism is definitively an insult, but that is entirely because people aren't suppose to be exactly that. If you support racist ideals and beliefs, but simultaneously find being called a racist an insult, then you are the worst kind of hypocrite.
A racist is a racist, whether he enjoys the label or not.
|
Are we supposed to pretend that Trump (or whoever wrote trump's twitter) just wrote a racist post, and xdaunt wrote that he agrees with it?
Are we supposed to ignore that xdaunt connected anti-american with immigrant? Are we supposed to ignore that xdaunt argued that elected American politicians aren't Americans and they hate America and are anti-American and should be ridiculed, humiliated, and marginalized?
Are we supposed to ignore that xdaunt wrote that the election of an anti-American immigrant to congress is ludicrous and the importance of Trump's twitter message is to regain their sense of pride, dignity, and conviction?
It's a shame that due to successive accusations of "bias" the mod team have to wrap their language around reasons that seem contrived, when in actuality it is because that poster has been promoting white supremacism, to the point it cannot be denied anymore?
We all know that when xdaunt says that "send her back" is quite principled, but won't say how that is, it is because she isn't white. We know that when xdaunt says a politician is anti-american, but wouldn't say why, it is because they aren't white enough. We know that when xdaunt says an American elected politician hates America, but wouldn't say how, the hatred is that she is not white.
Are we supposed to pretend that xdaunt hasn't wrapped his arguments in so much dog-whistles over the years that we have to pretend that we cannot hear it when it is simply a whistle?
Are we supposed to ignore that at one point xdaunt openly defended the words of a white supremacist terrorist?
xdaunt is a white supremacist. I don't see why I should not write so, when after Trump's message, xdaunt is not afraid of proclaiming it so either.
You can write that you disagree with immigration in general. But when you write that immigrant politicians are anti-american; should be ridiculed, humiliated, and marginalized, you are a racist, it is descriptive, and yes deepelmblues you are not supposed to feel good about their character and judgement.
Go keep the promotion of white supremacism out of TL.
|
On July 22 2019 04:31 Excludos wrote:
Jesus, have we seriously gotten to the point where we can't call someone a racist because it's insulting, and instead have to say that "They support racist beliefs"? Yes, racism is definitively an insult, but that is entirely because people aren't suppose to be exactly that. If you support racist ideals and beliefs, but simultaneously find being called a racist an insult, then you are the worst kind of hypocrite.
A racist is a racist, whether he enjoys the label or not.
It's not because it's insulting, it's just a question of consistency for me. I wouldn't say that someone is a bad person because they've done a bad thing, as I don't think "doing bad things" is a state of being. If the person who just did the bad thing goes home and does a bunch of good things, it isn't a contradiction, and it doesn't "make them good". I would apply the same thought process to racism.
The issue that I have with "racism as an insult" is that obviously a racist doesn't believe that being racist is morally wrong. So if all we do is insult them, we encourage them to avoid being called racist, as that's insulting, rather than to avoid being racist, which would be a better result for everyone.
In my view as in yours, racism is morally wrong; I just don't think it's a particularly useful information.
|
|
|
On July 22 2019 04:40 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2019 04:38 Nebuchad wrote:On July 22 2019 04:31 Excludos wrote:
Jesus, have we seriously gotten to the point where we can't call someone a racist because it's insulting, and instead have to say that "They support racist beliefs"? Yes, racism is definitively an insult, but that is entirely because people aren't suppose to be exactly that. If you support racist ideals and beliefs, but simultaneously find being called a racist an insult, then you are the worst kind of hypocrite.
A racist is a racist, whether he enjoys the label or not. It's not because it's insulting, it's just a question of consistency for me. I wouldn't say that someone is a bad person because they've done a bad thing, as I don't think "doing bad things" is a state of being. If the person who just did the bad thing goes home and does a bunch of good things, it isn't a contradiction, and it doesn't "make them good". I would apply the same thought process to racism. The issue that I have with "racism as an insult" is that obviously a racist doesn't believe that being racist is morally wrong. So if all we do is insult them, we encourage them to avoid being called racist, as that's insulting, rather than to avoid being racist, which would be a better result for everyone. In my view as in yours, racism is morally wrong; I just don't think it's a particularly useful information. Because a racist doesn't believe they are a racist. They believe what they do about race, think others do do and are just to PC to say.
Whether they don't believe they are being racist (Which most probably don't, including my father who just happens to hate all immigrants and brown people), or are actively avoiding it because they know it carries a negative meaning for most, I think it's important that we label the racists as such when we come across them. They shouldn't get to eel their way out of a label because it's inconvenient for them.
Nebuchad: I understand what you mean, but I fundamentally disagree. If you show racist tendencies, you are by definition a racist. It doesn't matter if you donate to doctors without borders one day, only to beat up random people on the street because of their skin color the next. Like you said, one doesn't outweigh the other. If you support certain racist beliefs, it doesn't matter what else you do: you are a racist. (Although where the line goes can be difficult to see. Citing research about how certain minorities commit more crime than others doesn't automatically mean you're racist, even though it's one of the favorite pastime for actual racists to do. You can usually spot the difference from the gleeful expression on their face)
|
|
|
Racist is but one of many characteristics of a person which is independent of any other characterists. It has negative connoctations, but that in itself should not disqualify it as a descriptor.
Many posters use "socialists" as an insult in the US pol thread and seem confused when that poster do not seem perturbed by being labelled as such.
Like socialist, it is independent of any other political position not on it's same axis.
|
I believe at one point, there were multiple posters arguing for a nationalist ideology in the thread. We called it out and it went away for a bit. Some of the posters decided to cool their tempers and then came back to join discussions.
You can't be afraid to call wrong or foul when you come across it. If you stand in the background and hope they just go away, you only empower them.
|
While I can't speak to the PMs, I think the ban reason "We no longer feel comfortable with a user who believes, 'These are people who need to be ridiculed, humiliated, and marginalized.' " is illustrative. This is a regular occurrence, everyone does it, everyone wishes it upon politicians they don't like, etc. But this is the example of a trend? How could a statement so benign be an example of bad behavior? xDaunt said straight up what people do and always want to happen. And that is considered bad form, presumably because he was the one saying it.
While everyone else rings up a small infraction here or there, some posters have to deal with all that incoming focused squarely on them. Of course we would expect the volume of replies in kind to be higher for that person. Actions like promote dog-piling behavior.
|
On July 22 2019 05:09 Introvert wrote:
While I can't speak to the PMs, I think the ban reason "We no longer feel comfortable with a user who believes, 'These are people who need to be ridiculed, humiliated, and marginalized.' " is instructive. This is a regular occurrence, everyone does it, everyone wishes it upon politicians they don't like, etc. But this is the example of a trend? How could a statement so benign be an example of bad behavior? xDaunt said straight up what people do and always want to happen. And that is considered bad form, presumably because he was the one saying it.
While everyone else rings up a small infraction here or there, some posters have to deal with all that incoming focused squarely on them. Of course we would expect the volume of replies in kind to be higher for that person. Actions like promote dog-piling behavior.
It's who he said it about. These are Americans, same as me and you. They were elected. But because they criticized trump, xD felt the need to defend him. His disdain for minorities who aren't in his camp is palpable and anyone who goes against his camp should be ridiculed, humiliated, and marginalized. That he said it about a group of 4 minority women is the straw. As I've said before, he's said much, much worse things over the years.
|
On July 22 2019 05:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2019 05:09 Introvert wrote:
While I can't speak to the PMs, I think the ban reason "We no longer feel comfortable with a user who believes, 'These are people who need to be ridiculed, humiliated, and marginalized.' " is instructive. This is a regular occurrence, everyone does it, everyone wishes it upon politicians they don't like, etc. But this is the example of a trend? How could a statement so benign be an example of bad behavior? xDaunt said straight up what people do and always want to happen. And that is considered bad form, presumably because he was the one saying it.
While everyone else rings up a small infraction here or there, some posters have to deal with all that incoming focused squarely on them. Of course we would expect the volume of replies in kind to be higher for that person. Actions like promote dog-piling behavior. It's who he said it about. These are Americans, same as me and you. They were elected. But because they criticized trump, xD felt the need to defend him. His disdain for minorities who aren't in his camp is palpable and anyone who goes against his camp should be ridiculed, humiliated, and marginalized. That he said it about a group of 4 minority women is the straw. As I've said before, he's said much, much worse things over the years.
That line about ridicule and marginalization clearly had nothing to do with race. Moreover, is that not a part of politics? A disdain for political opponents. What have seen people say about Trump for the last few years. Do people not mock politicians, do they not try to humiliate them? Certainly you want them marginalized, as that goes towards winning. Do you think xDaunt's statement would have been any different had if it was a French immigrant (or American of French heritage)? To me the answer is obviously "no". Those three things he mentioned are standard fare, even if we don't go around shouting "now I am going to ridicule you!"
|
|
|
On July 22 2019 05:21 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2019 05:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 22 2019 05:09 Introvert wrote:
While I can't speak to the PMs, I think the ban reason "We no longer feel comfortable with a user who believes, 'These are people who need to be ridiculed, humiliated, and marginalized.' " is instructive. This is a regular occurrence, everyone does it, everyone wishes it upon politicians they don't like, etc. But this is the example of a trend? How could a statement so benign be an example of bad behavior? xDaunt said straight up what people do and always want to happen. And that is considered bad form, presumably because he was the one saying it.
While everyone else rings up a small infraction here or there, some posters have to deal with all that incoming focused squarely on them. Of course we would expect the volume of replies in kind to be higher for that person. Actions like promote dog-piling behavior. It's who he said it about. These are Americans, same as me and you. They were elected. But because they criticized trump, xD felt the need to defend him. His disdain for minorities who aren't in his camp is palpable and anyone who goes against his camp should be ridiculed, humiliated, and marginalized. That he said it about a group of 4 minority women is the straw. As I've said before, he's said much, much worse things over the years. Do you think xDaunt's statement would have been any different had if it was a French immigrant (or American of French heritage)?
Undoubtedly, yes. First Trump wouldn't have told them to go back to their country, and xDaunt wouldn't have had to defend that.
There are a bunch of white socialists in the US, they aren't told to go back to their country if they don't like it.
|
United States43758 Posts
National origin is a protected class in the US by the way. Treating naturalized US citizens differently to citizens by birth is covered within the legal definition of discrimination.
|
Not sure why you are mentioning that, as it is irrelevant to what is being discussed.
|
On July 22 2019 04:49 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2019 04:40 JimmiC wrote:On July 22 2019 04:38 Nebuchad wrote:On July 22 2019 04:31 Excludos wrote:
Jesus, have we seriously gotten to the point where we can't call someone a racist because it's insulting, and instead have to say that "They support racist beliefs"? Yes, racism is definitively an insult, but that is entirely because people aren't suppose to be exactly that. If you support racist ideals and beliefs, but simultaneously find being called a racist an insult, then you are the worst kind of hypocrite.
A racist is a racist, whether he enjoys the label or not. It's not because it's insulting, it's just a question of consistency for me. I wouldn't say that someone is a bad person because they've done a bad thing, as I don't think "doing bad things" is a state of being. If the person who just did the bad thing goes home and does a bunch of good things, it isn't a contradiction, and it doesn't "make them good". I would apply the same thought process to racism. The issue that I have with "racism as an insult" is that obviously a racist doesn't believe that being racist is morally wrong. So if all we do is insult them, we encourage them to avoid being called racist, as that's insulting, rather than to avoid being racist, which would be a better result for everyone. In my view as in yours, racism is morally wrong; I just don't think it's a particularly useful information. Because a racist doesn't believe they are a racist. They believe what they do about race, think others do do and are just to PC to say. Whether they don't believe they are being racist (Which most probably don't, including my father who just happens to hate all immigrants and brown people), or are actively avoiding it because they know it carries a negative meaning for most, I think it's important that we label the racists as such when we come across them. They shouldn't get to eel their way out of a label because it's inconvenient for them. Nebuchad: I understand what you mean, but I fundamentally disagree. If you show racist tendencies, you are by definition a racist. It doesn't matter if you donate to doctors without borders one day, only to beat up random people on the street because of their skin color the next. Like you said, one doesn't outweigh the other. If you support certain racist beliefs, it doesn't matter what else you do: you are a racist. (Although where the line goes can be difficult to see. Citing research about how certain minorities commit more crime than others doesn't automatically mean you're racist, even though it's one of the favorite pastime for actual racists to do. You can usually spot the difference from the gleeful expression on their face)
Is being a racist different from something like being a liar? If you've lied in your life and will lie again does that make you a liar?
Maybe we should think about the different ways the phrase "X is a racist" operates. It can be constative: disinterestedly descriptive, a statement of fact that applies a label to a referent. It can be one or many kinds of speech act: a statement of condemnation, an expression of personal feeling, a pseudojudicial judgment.
Let's assume for the moment that someone walking home alone in the evening sees a black person walking towards them on the sidewalk and crosses the street to avoid them. Let's assume that we agree this is racist, because such a person does not cross the street under similar circumstances when a white person is approaching them. This person has racist inclinations, maybe has committed a racist act. Would you call them a racist in a public forum?
The illocutionary content and the perlocutionary consequences of calling someone a racist today might be inordinately punitive, regardless of the objective merit of some constative utterance about that person's (un)conscious beliefs, actions, or role in society. Saying "X is a racist" may essentially be a demand that X be ostracized and silenced. Under this framework, it might be considered unfair, or even immoral to call someone a racist who nonetheless "shows racist tendencies" simply because the perlocutionary consequences have drifted so far from the locutionary content.
Whether or not you think calling xDaunt a racist is fair is, of course, another question entirely.
|
On July 22 2019 05:21 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2019 05:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 22 2019 05:09 Introvert wrote:
While I can't speak to the PMs, I think the ban reason "We no longer feel comfortable with a user who believes, 'These are people who need to be ridiculed, humiliated, and marginalized.' " is instructive. This is a regular occurrence, everyone does it, everyone wishes it upon politicians they don't like, etc. But this is the example of a trend? How could a statement so benign be an example of bad behavior? xDaunt said straight up what people do and always want to happen. And that is considered bad form, presumably because he was the one saying it.
While everyone else rings up a small infraction here or there, some posters have to deal with all that incoming focused squarely on them. Of course we would expect the volume of replies in kind to be higher for that person. Actions like promote dog-piling behavior. It's who he said it about. These are Americans, same as me and you. They were elected. But because they criticized trump, xD felt the need to defend him. His disdain for minorities who aren't in his camp is palpable and anyone who goes against his camp should be ridiculed, humiliated, and marginalized. That he said it about a group of 4 minority women is the straw. As I've said before, he's said much, much worse things over the years. That line about ridicule and marginalization clearly had nothing to do with race. Moreover, is that not a part of politics? A disdain for political opponents. What have seen people say about Trump for the last few years. Do people not mock politicians, do they not try to humiliate them? Certainly you want them marginalized, as that goes towards winning. Do you think xDaunt's statement would have been any different had if it was a French immigrant (or American of French heritage)? To me the answer is obviously "no". Those three things he mentioned are standard fare, even if we don't go around shouting "now I am going to ridicule you!"
I don't remember him saying that about Bernie at all. Or Clinton (except that she's the highest form of criminal and should be locked up.) But he jumped on Obama pretty damn hard. Same with these 4 women. He comes out strongest against people of color and only feigns disdain on the others because they look somewhat like him (I'm assuming he's a white guy). So yes, that line had everything to do with race with their political backdrop being a cover.
On July 22 2019 05:40 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2019 04:49 Excludos wrote:On July 22 2019 04:40 JimmiC wrote:On July 22 2019 04:38 Nebuchad wrote:On July 22 2019 04:31 Excludos wrote:
Jesus, have we seriously gotten to the point where we can't call someone a racist because it's insulting, and instead have to say that "They support racist beliefs"? Yes, racism is definitively an insult, but that is entirely because people aren't suppose to be exactly that. If you support racist ideals and beliefs, but simultaneously find being called a racist an insult, then you are the worst kind of hypocrite.
A racist is a racist, whether he enjoys the label or not. It's not because it's insulting, it's just a question of consistency for me. I wouldn't say that someone is a bad person because they've done a bad thing, as I don't think "doing bad things" is a state of being. If the person who just did the bad thing goes home and does a bunch of good things, it isn't a contradiction, and it doesn't "make them good". I would apply the same thought process to racism. The issue that I have with "racism as an insult" is that obviously a racist doesn't believe that being racist is morally wrong. So if all we do is insult them, we encourage them to avoid being called racist, as that's insulting, rather than to avoid being racist, which would be a better result for everyone. In my view as in yours, racism is morally wrong; I just don't think it's a particularly useful information. Because a racist doesn't believe they are a racist. They believe what they do about race, think others do do and are just to PC to say. Whether they don't believe they are being racist (Which most probably don't, including my father who just happens to hate all immigrants and brown people), or are actively avoiding it because they know it carries a negative meaning for most, I think it's important that we label the racists as such when we come across them. They shouldn't get to eel their way out of a label because it's inconvenient for them. Nebuchad: I understand what you mean, but I fundamentally disagree. If you show racist tendencies, you are by definition a racist. It doesn't matter if you donate to doctors without borders one day, only to beat up random people on the street because of their skin color the next. Like you said, one doesn't outweigh the other. If you support certain racist beliefs, it doesn't matter what else you do: you are a racist. (Although where the line goes can be difficult to see. Citing research about how certain minorities commit more crime than others doesn't automatically mean you're racist, even though it's one of the favorite pastime for actual racists to do. You can usually spot the difference from the gleeful expression on their face) Is being a racist different from something like being a liar? If you've lied in your life and will lie again does that make you a liar? Maybe we should think about the different ways the phrase "X is a racist" operates. It can be constative: disinterestedly descriptive, a statement of fact that applies a label to a referent. It can be one or many kinds of speech act: a statement of condemnation, an expression of personal feeling, a pseudojudicial judgment. Let's assume for the moment that someone walking home alone in the evening sees a black person walking towards them on the sidewalk and crosses the street to avoid them. Let's assume that we agree this is racist, because such a person does not cross the street under similar circumstances when a white person is approaching them. This person has racist inclinations, maybe has committed a racist act. Would you call them a racist in a public forum? The illocutionary content and the perlocutionary consequences of calling someone a racist today might be inordinately punitive, regardless of the objective merit of some constative utterance about that person's (un)conscious beliefs, actions, or role in society. Saying "X is a racist" may essentially be a demand that X be ostracized and silenced. Under this framework, it might be considered unfair, or even immoral to call someone a racist who nonetheless "shows racist tendencies" simply because the perlocutionary consequences have drifted so far from the locutionary content. Whether or not you think calling xDaunt a racist is fair is, of course, another question entirely.
I'd probably call that person prejudiced. Not racist. I cross the street when I see white women. Am I racist or cautious or prejudiced?
|
On July 22 2019 05:42 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2019 05:21 Introvert wrote:On July 22 2019 05:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 22 2019 05:09 Introvert wrote:
While I can't speak to the PMs, I think the ban reason "We no longer feel comfortable with a user who believes, 'These are people who need to be ridiculed, humiliated, and marginalized.' " is instructive. This is a regular occurrence, everyone does it, everyone wishes it upon politicians they don't like, etc. But this is the example of a trend? How could a statement so benign be an example of bad behavior? xDaunt said straight up what people do and always want to happen. And that is considered bad form, presumably because he was the one saying it.
While everyone else rings up a small infraction here or there, some posters have to deal with all that incoming focused squarely on them. Of course we would expect the volume of replies in kind to be higher for that person. Actions like promote dog-piling behavior. It's who he said it about. These are Americans, same as me and you. They were elected. But because they criticized trump, xD felt the need to defend him. His disdain for minorities who aren't in his camp is palpable and anyone who goes against his camp should be ridiculed, humiliated, and marginalized. That he said it about a group of 4 minority women is the straw. As I've said before, he's said much, much worse things over the years. That line about ridicule and marginalization clearly had nothing to do with race. Moreover, is that not a part of politics? A disdain for political opponents. What have seen people say about Trump for the last few years. Do people not mock politicians, do they not try to humiliate them? Certainly you want them marginalized, as that goes towards winning. Do you think xDaunt's statement would have been any different had if it was a French immigrant (or American of French heritage)? To me the answer is obviously "no". Those three things he mentioned are standard fare, even if we don't go around shouting "now I am going to ridicule you!" I don't remember him saying that about Bernie at all. Or Clinton (except that she's the highest form of criminal and should be locked up.) But he jumped on Obama pretty damn hard. Same with these 4 women. He comes out strongest against people of color and only feigns disdain on the others because they look somewhat like him (I'm assuming he's a white guy). So yes, that line had everything to do with race with their political backdrop being a cover. Show nested quote +On July 22 2019 05:40 IgnE wrote:On July 22 2019 04:49 Excludos wrote:On July 22 2019 04:40 JimmiC wrote:On July 22 2019 04:38 Nebuchad wrote:On July 22 2019 04:31 Excludos wrote:
Jesus, have we seriously gotten to the point where we can't call someone a racist because it's insulting, and instead have to say that "They support racist beliefs"? Yes, racism is definitively an insult, but that is entirely because people aren't suppose to be exactly that. If you support racist ideals and beliefs, but simultaneously find being called a racist an insult, then you are the worst kind of hypocrite.
A racist is a racist, whether he enjoys the label or not. It's not because it's insulting, it's just a question of consistency for me. I wouldn't say that someone is a bad person because they've done a bad thing, as I don't think "doing bad things" is a state of being. If the person who just did the bad thing goes home and does a bunch of good things, it isn't a contradiction, and it doesn't "make them good". I would apply the same thought process to racism. The issue that I have with "racism as an insult" is that obviously a racist doesn't believe that being racist is morally wrong. So if all we do is insult them, we encourage them to avoid being called racist, as that's insulting, rather than to avoid being racist, which would be a better result for everyone. In my view as in yours, racism is morally wrong; I just don't think it's a particularly useful information. Because a racist doesn't believe they are a racist. They believe what they do about race, think others do do and are just to PC to say. Whether they don't believe they are being racist (Which most probably don't, including my father who just happens to hate all immigrants and brown people), or are actively avoiding it because they know it carries a negative meaning for most, I think it's important that we label the racists as such when we come across them. They shouldn't get to eel their way out of a label because it's inconvenient for them. Nebuchad: I understand what you mean, but I fundamentally disagree. If you show racist tendencies, you are by definition a racist. It doesn't matter if you donate to doctors without borders one day, only to beat up random people on the street because of their skin color the next. Like you said, one doesn't outweigh the other. If you support certain racist beliefs, it doesn't matter what else you do: you are a racist. (Although where the line goes can be difficult to see. Citing research about how certain minorities commit more crime than others doesn't automatically mean you're racist, even though it's one of the favorite pastime for actual racists to do. You can usually spot the difference from the gleeful expression on their face) Is being a racist different from something like being a liar? If you've lied in your life and will lie again does that make you a liar? Maybe we should think about the different ways the phrase "X is a racist" operates. It can be constative: disinterestedly descriptive, a statement of fact that applies a label to a referent. It can be one or many kinds of speech act: a statement of condemnation, an expression of personal feeling, a pseudojudicial judgment. Let's assume for the moment that someone walking home alone in the evening sees a black person walking towards them on the sidewalk and crosses the street to avoid them. Let's assume that we agree this is racist, because such a person does not cross the street under similar circumstances when a white person is approaching them. This person has racist inclinations, maybe has committed a racist act. Would you call them a racist in a public forum? The illocutionary content and the perlocutionary consequences of calling someone a racist today might be inordinately punitive, regardless of the objective merit of some constative utterance about that person's (un)conscious beliefs, actions, or role in society. Saying "X is a racist" may essentially be a demand that X be ostracized and silenced. Under this framework, it might be considered unfair, or even immoral to call someone a racist who nonetheless "shows racist tendencies" simply because the perlocutionary consequences have drifted so far from the locutionary content. Whether or not you think calling xDaunt a racist is fair is, of course, another question entirely. I'd probably call that person prejudiced. Not racist. I cross the street when I see white women. Am I racist or cautious or prejudiced?
Stuck in the wrong side of the 60's? But I do lock my car doors and peer out the window when white women come near my car, but that's just to see the look on their face.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
