|
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?
Kinda out of time here so I'm going to focus on this bit: Yes. If you lie, you're a liar. However, whether you continue to be a liar depends on whether you continue to lie. Just like whether you continue to be a racist depends on whether you continue to hold those beliefs. Being a racist doesn't stamp you as such for the rest of your life, it stamps you as such right now. If you want all jews to die, then wake up the next morning realizing how awful of a person you are, you are no longer a racist. I'm pretty sure if I told you I was once an astronaut, you'd call me a liar too. It's only one lie, and I might never tell another one, but at that moment I'm a liar.
|
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?
perhaps I am no being clear. xDaunt quite obviously did or contributed to all three things he mentioned about both Obama and Clinton, as well as plenty of other Democrats (and Republicans) he didn't like. You appear to be attributing "send them back" to xDaunt, which isn't something he said or even something Trump said when xDaunt made that post. I'm talking about "ridicule, humiliate, and marginalize."
My point here is that using that post as an example of his bad behavior may actually demonstrate that perhaps people aren't reading his posts well or correctly, as he would often contend.
|
On July 22 2019 05:50 Excludos wrote: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. This 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? Kinda out of time here so I'm going to focus on this bit: Yes. If you lie, you're a liar. However, whether you continue to be a liar depends on whether you continue to lie. Just like whether you continue to be a racist depends on whether you continue to hold those beliefs. Being a racist doesn't stamp you as such for the rest of your life, it stamps you as such right now. If you want all jews to die, then wake up the next morning realizing how awful of a person you are, you are no longer a racist. I'm pretty sure if I told you I was once an astronaut, you'd call me a liar too. It's only one lie, and I might never tell another one, but at that moment I'm a liar.
So are you a liar right now or are you sure that you won't ever lie again? Or does not being a liar require some guilt about lying?
The point of my post in any case is that once you start going down this road you tend to find that everyone is a liar and everyone is a little bit racist. I would rather focus on the force of the accusation, what its intention is, what its consequences are, etc.
|
On July 22 2019 05:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2019 05:42 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: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. 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.
I don't actually cross the street for anyone. If I'm walking and there's a person in my path, I'll move over to share the walk, but other than that, I move for no one. Not because I'm big and bad, but because why should I?
|
On July 22 2019 05:54 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2019 05:42 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: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. 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? perhaps I am no being clear. xDaunt quite obviously did or contributed to all three things he mentioned about both Obama and Clinton, as well as plenty of other Democrats (and Republicans) he didn't like. You appear to be attributing "send them back" to xDaunt, which isn't something he said or even something Trump said when xDaunt made that post. I'm talking about "ridicule, humiliate, and marginalize." My point here is that using that post as an example of his bad behavior may actually demonstrate that perhaps people aren't reading his posts well or correctly, as he would often contend.
I'm speaking about xDaunt defending the tweets and then saying that line. I've stated in the past that the posts they pick aren't always the best examples. But I can understand that they grab the most recent one and be done with it. That they should maybe take a minute to find the actual inflammatory post would probably save a lot of back and forth.
|
On July 22 2019 05:54 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2019 05:42 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: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. 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? You appear to be attributing "send them back" to xDaunt, which isn't something he said or even something Trump said when xDaunt made that post.
Do you think the difference between "go back to your country" and "send them back" is especially meaningful here?
|
On July 22 2019 04:20 NewSunshine 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 Do you think we should be nice to people who say that Cortez, Omar, et al. are likely not going to remain Americans, should be sent back to where they came from, and deserve to be ridiculed and marginalized, all for the act of being duly elected US congresswomen? Is it an insult to call someone who can't read illiterate? And if it is, is it undeserved, is it slander?
I would strenuously disagree that all Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have done are the acts of a duly elected United States Representative. I would call that characterization disingenuous
Be nice? Well apparently that is part of the rules here, so maybe yes? I admit that I am unsure precisely how one is to follow those rules, as the standard for violation appears to be subjective, so perhaps I am wrong and it is perfectly okay to be not nice if you wish. Although that may be considered toxic and not conducive to worthwhile discussion. Or may not. You makes your bet and you takes your chances, I suppose
I do not believe there is a social expectation of a visceral, negative reaction towards someone who is illiterate the way there is towards someone who is racist. So, no, calling someone illiterate is not an insult, unless it is obviously being used as one. I don't think the issue arises on an internet forum that communicates via prose, because, again obviously, calling someone here illiterate would almost certainly be done as an insult
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 suspect it would be easier to do so if the term had not been carelessly bandied about as a political cudgel as often, if not more so, than a meth addict takes a hit from his or her stem
Your way is the more correct, in my view. People are quite capable of making inferences, and if you demonstrate the racism of said ideas and policies, then the person believing and advocating them is obviously going to have conclusions drawn about his or her character by others. It does not entirely preclude the possibility of a big bitch fight over 'I'm not racist' - 'Yes you are!' but it does require the racist to take that first step, accusing the other person of calling them racist. The one who takes this first step is usually at a disadvantage, as they were the first to openly tread that dangerous ground
On July 22 2019 04:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
1. 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?
2. 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?
3. 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?
4. 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?
5. 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.
6. 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?
7. Are we supposed to ignore that at one point xdaunt openly defended the words of a white supremacist terrorist?
8. 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.
9. 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.
I think this is an excellent example of the kind of toxic post that is not conducive to worthwhile discussion
1. "Just"? That is quite a lot, to be using the word "just." Accepting your description, further declarations would seem to be superfluous
2. I see absolutely nothing wrong with saying what I bolded, save for the part that they are not American. They are American, and it is a disappointment that America produces such people, just as it is a disappointment that America produces white supremacists
3. I think you have unintentionally touched upon something that is quite complex and important. There is a sense, among conservatives, that conservatives have been Two Minutes Hated on unceasingly since Bush beat Gore, and have restrained themselves to some degree in response. I am not here to argue the validity, or lack thereof, of that sense. What is important is that it exists. What people believe makes up a very large part of political motivation and reality. You can see the same phenomenon in any political group. Then Donald Trump comes along and in effect tells them, "When you get slandered, when I get slandered and that is slandering you by proxy, by God I will rear back and let loose on those people who hate you and slander you." I am sure that you are aware of the studies where left-wingers and right-wingers diverge on feeling able to voice their political opinions in social interactions, right-wingers feeling that they must keep their mouths shut far more often than left-wingers because of a fear of social retribution. Well, such things breed resentment. Contempt. And eventually hate. I believe that in large part - considering other information including the consistent public polling showing that traditionally racist markers like opposition to miscegenation have almost completely disappeared from society - this antipathy towards politicians like Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not racial in nature in terms of their race, but is still an issue of identity. These conservatives believe that they are hated, and they hate back. They hate Nancy Pelosi. They hate Bernie Sanders. They hate all of the left. They even hate Joe Biden, who is about the most authentic and unhateable politician of national prominence around. Which may not be saying much, but still
4. I do not think it is a shame that your personal perceptions have not been the standard. I do not believe them to be reliable, judging from this admittedly small sample size. Those perceptions, again from this small sample size, seem to be motivated in a not inconsiderable portion by animus
5. Perhaps you are correct. I don't know. Personally, I think that Ilhan Omar has committed immigration fraud and made repeated statements that no conservative politician would ever be permitted to make and continue their political career. If she has committed immigration fraud, I would unreservedly "send her back" considering her unsavory, Jew-hating, troll character. If she was just a typical left-wing agitprop disseminator and had committed immigration fraud, I would favor her being punished but not being sent back. Most people deserve a second chance. Her, I must decline
6. I look askance at accusations and denials of dog whistles, I simply do not trust your judgment or anyone else's on that matter. I keep my own counsel and if I believe someone is dog whistling, or not, then that belief is what I will rely on. No one else's
7. I do not know which white supremacist terrorist you are referring to, what his words were, or what xD's defense of them was. I will say that if those words concerned racial matters, then I do not think I could find any value in them. If they were about more general political matters, then, well, I find value on occasion in the words of communist terrorists, even if I disagree with them entirely. So perhaps this white supremacist terrorist had something to say that was not incorrect simply because he was a white supremacist terrorist. I doubt it, but it's not impossible
8. If you say so, then you say so. But that is the end of all things. There is no more discussion to be had then. Your choices are bitter struggle, or attempts at persuasion. Persuasion is harder, less often rewarding, more frustrating, etc., so I understand your preference for simply declaring 'that person is a white supremacist/racist.' I do not myself react well when in the situation you claim to be in
9. Frankly, I disagree with your premise. I share the feeling that the Squad should be:
-marginalized
-humiliated
-disrespected
And my disdain has nothing to do with 1 of them being an immigrant and none of them being white. I have my reasons, which are solely based on their words and behavior
Now according to your formulation, if I have understood it aright, 1 of them being an immigrant and none of them being white means that my feelings must come from xenophobia or racial bigotry. I do not deny that in the case of xD, you have prodigious amounts of other evidence that leads you to believe that, in his case, such a formulation is appropriate. Whether you are correct or not in your interpretation of that other evidence, is not something that can be determined without spending more time and frustration than it is worth. I tell you now, though, that it is not an appropriate formulation for me
I do not know what you are and are not supposed to pretend, but from reading and considering your words, I do not believe that I could have a discussion with you that would not soon devolve into a pointless and meandering quagmire of accusations and counteraccusations that would accomplish little but stoking personal ill-will, if this is the manner of your communication to me right out of the gate
And I will say that I think Trump's tweet rant about go back to where you came from and fix things there then come back and show us how it's done is the exact same thing I talked about in 8. It is a declaration there is no way to go forward from. It is the rejection of attempting persuasion in favor of bitter struggle.
|
On July 22 2019 05:59 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2019 05:54 Introvert wrote:On July 22 2019 05:42 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: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. 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? perhaps I am no being clear. xDaunt quite obviously did or contributed to all three things he mentioned about both Obama and Clinton, as well as plenty of other Democrats (and Republicans) he didn't like. You appear to be attributing "send them back" to xDaunt, which isn't something he said or even something Trump said when xDaunt made that post. I'm talking about "ridicule, humiliate, and marginalize." My point here is that using that post as an example of his bad behavior may actually demonstrate that perhaps people aren't reading his posts well or correctly, as he would often contend. I'm speaking about xDaunt defending the tweets and then saying that line. I've stated in the past that the posts they pick aren't always the best examples. But I can understand that they grab the most recent one and be done with it. That they should maybe take a minute to find the actual inflammatory post would probably save a lot of back and forth.
I don't think any of the conservatives defended the tweets as written, if for no other reason than the factual inaccuracy. From all the context it's clear to me xDaunt meant exactly what he said: with the exception of Omar, who may or may not have actually committed immigration fraud, xDaunt wishes that people (politicians) constantly trash talking the country would be ridiculed, humiliated, and marginalized.
I think the fact that the mods reach for these posts as examples demonstrates, quite frankly, the shallow evaluations they are making.
On July 22 2019 06:00 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2019 05:54 Introvert wrote:On July 22 2019 05:42 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: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. 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? You appear to be attributing "send them back" to xDaunt, which isn't something he said or even something Trump said when xDaunt made that post. Do you think the difference between "go back to your country" and "send them back" is especially meaningful here?
Yes and no. No, in the sense that neither would happen. Yes, in the sense that one is government force and one is a choice. But that's still not what we're talking about. It's clear, however, the mods have made the same connection you guys are making.
|
On July 22 2019 06:00 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2019 05:54 Introvert wrote:On July 22 2019 05:42 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: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. 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? You appear to be attributing "send them back" to xDaunt, which isn't something he said or even something Trump said when xDaunt made that post. Do you think the difference between "go back to your country" and "send them back" is especially meaningful here?
You forgot to add "you can" or "why don't you" before "go back to your country".
|
On July 22 2019 06:12 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2019 06:00 Nebuchad wrote:On July 22 2019 05:54 Introvert wrote:On July 22 2019 05:42 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: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. 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? You appear to be attributing "send them back" to xDaunt, which isn't something he said or even something Trump said when xDaunt made that post. Do you think the difference between "go back to your country" and "send them back" is especially meaningful here? You forgot to add "you can" or "why don't you" before "go back to your country".
Sure, let's add that, no problem. The sentence in its entirety strikes me as expressing a clearly racist sentiment. Would you disagree?
|
On July 22 2019 06:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2019 04:20 NewSunshine 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 Do you think we should be nice to people who say that Cortez, Omar, et al. are likely not going to remain Americans, should be sent back to where they came from, and deserve to be ridiculed and marginalized, all for the act of being duly elected US congresswomen? Is it an insult to call someone who can't read illiterate? And if it is, is it undeserved, is it slander? I would strenuously disagree that all Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have done are the acts of a duly elected United States Representative. I would call that characterization disingenuous
How so? What have they done that is out of line for being in the sphere of a public representative? And how does it compare to casually "joking" about shooting immigrants and sending brown Americans back to "their home country"?
On July 22 2019 06:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Be nice? Well apparently that is part of the rules here, so maybe yes? I admit that I am unsure precisely how one is to follow those rules, as the standard for violation appears to be subjective, so perhaps I am wrong and it is perfectly okay to be not nice if you wish. Although that may be considered toxic and not conducive to worthwhile discussion. Or may not. You makes your bet and you takes your chances, I suppose
Would "they're not being nice" be the answer to the above? I suppose you think we weren't nice enough to actual Nazis about 70 years ago too? Why should we be obliged to always be nice to people, especially when they espouse hateful rhetoric and are an unremitting dick to anyone who disagrees with them?
There is a big difference between being nice, and being kind. I absolutely refuse to let "but you're not being nice" be used as an excuse to enable hateful bullshit. The same with "let's be civil".
On July 22 2019 06:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:
I do not believe there is a social expectation of a visceral, negative reaction towards someone who is illiterate the way there is towards someone who is racist. So, no, calling someone illiterate is not an insult, unless it is obviously being used as one. I don't think the issue arises on an internet forum that communicates via prose, because, again obviously, calling someone here illiterate would almost certainly be done as an insult
And our nation wasn't built by a bunch of illiterates, either. It wasn't meant to be an extended metaphor. The problem is people will happily do, say, and believe racist shit, but absolutely hate, with every fibre of their being, getting called out for it. They're more upset with being called racist than the notion that maybe they're actually acting racist, and find every rationalization you can imagine for why they're not-racist. In my book, if you hate being called racist, and everybody keeps throwing it at you, maybe you ought to stop and do some self-reflection, because you're probably acting fucking racist. People don't just make this up.
|
As Neb alluded, the reason I have the position I do is consistency in my morality and political philosophy, I'd much rather call people racist dickbags and be done with it but I like to sleep sometimes so the consistency thing is important for me.
I'm not sure you have that same issue? You make this argument about why it's bad to call people holding/advocating racist things "a racist"
Your way is the more correct, in my view. People are quite capable of making inferences, and if you demonstrate the racism of said ideas and policies, then the person believing and advocating them is obviously going to have conclusions drawn about his or her character by others. It does not entirely preclude the possibility of a big bitch fight over 'I'm not racist' - 'Yes you are!' but it does require the racist to take that first step, accusing the other person of calling them racist. The one who takes this first step is usually at a disadvantage, as they were the first to openly tread that dangerous ground
But not before you completely undermined your argument to take a partisan cheapshot.
I suspect it would be easier to do so if the term had not been carelessly bandied about as a political cudgel as often, if not more so, than a meth addict takes a hit from his or her stem
|
On July 22 2019 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:As Neb alluded, the reason I have the position I do is consistency in my morality and political philosophy, I'd much rather call people racist dickbags and be done with it but I like to sleep sometimes so the consistency thing is important for me. I'm not sure you have that same issue? You make this argument about why it's bad to call people holding/advocating racist things "a racist" Show nested quote +Your way is the more correct, in my view. People are quite capable of making inferences, and if you demonstrate the racism of said ideas and policies, then the person believing and advocating them is obviously going to have conclusions drawn about his or her character by others. It does not entirely preclude the possibility of a big bitch fight over 'I'm not racist' - 'Yes you are!' but it does require the racist to take that first step, accusing the other person of calling them racist. The one who takes this first step is usually at a disadvantage, as they were the first to openly tread that dangerous ground But not before you completely undermined your argument to take a partisan cheapshot. Show nested quote +I suspect it would be easier to do so if the term had not been carelessly bandied about as a political cudgel as often, if not more so, than a meth addict takes a hit from his or her stem
Also it's very revealing anytime someone tries to trot out the "people use the word racist so much it's lost all its meaning" line. I'm very certain it has the same meaning now that it had 100 years ago. People would just prefer it didn't mean anything, because then they don't have to care that people are saying it about them.
|
It definitely does not have the same meaning it had 100 years ago.
|
On July 22 2019 06:18 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2019 06:12 Sent. wrote:On July 22 2019 06:00 Nebuchad wrote:On July 22 2019 05:54 Introvert wrote:On July 22 2019 05:42 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: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. 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? You appear to be attributing "send them back" to xDaunt, which isn't something he said or even something Trump said when xDaunt made that post. Do you think the difference between "go back to your country" and "send them back" is especially meaningful here? You forgot to add "you can" or "why don't you" before "go back to your country". Sure, let's add that, no problem. The sentence in its entirety strikes me as expressing a clearly racist sentiment. Would you disagree?
It strikes me as an expression of utter contempt and disdain and rejection of finding any common ground, made in response to expressions of utter contempt and disdain and rejection of finding any common ground, which were in response to expressions... well you get the idea. I don't think it was racist, the main thrust to me was not 'leave,' it was 'you like to talk shit, go back it up then talk shit.'
The conclusion that it was an expression of racist sentiment is not entirely unreasonable though based on exactly what was said and how it was said, which is why if the president was so cheesed off at them, he should have found a different way to say 'back up your shit-talking.' Most of his troubles stem from his inability to say and write things in a non-stream-of-consciousness way
|
On July 22 2019 06:42 IgnE wrote:
It definitely does not have the same meaning it had 100 years ago.
Its meaning, or its context and implications?
|
On July 22 2019 06:18 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2019 06:12 Sent. wrote:On July 22 2019 06:00 Nebuchad wrote:On July 22 2019 05:54 Introvert wrote:On July 22 2019 05:42 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: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. 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? You appear to be attributing "send them back" to xDaunt, which isn't something he said or even something Trump said when xDaunt made that post. Do you think the difference between "go back to your country" and "send them back" is especially meaningful here? You forgot to add "you can" or "why don't you" before "go back to your country". Sure, let's add that, no problem. The sentence in its entirety strikes me as expressing a clearly racist sentiment. Would you disagree?
I would disagree that it was expressing a racist sentiment "clearly". I'm not ruling out that there was a racist sentiment. That depends on the definition on racism and whatever was going through Trump's head when he making those tweets.
I asked you to add those words to your question because I think the difference between "you can leave" and "we should kick you out" is important. Important in general, but not that important in the context of xDaunt's first ban (I get that the second was for the "totality of actions"). It seems like he got banned not for defending allegedly racist statements but for firing back in kind as someone who shouldn't expect leniency from the moderation.
|
On July 22 2019 06:54 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2019 06:18 Nebuchad wrote:On July 22 2019 06:12 Sent. wrote:On July 22 2019 06:00 Nebuchad wrote:On July 22 2019 05:54 Introvert wrote:On July 22 2019 05:42 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: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. 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:
[quote]
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? You appear to be attributing "send them back" to xDaunt, which isn't something he said or even something Trump said when xDaunt made that post. Do you think the difference between "go back to your country" and "send them back" is especially meaningful here? You forgot to add "you can" or "why don't you" before "go back to your country". Sure, let's add that, no problem. The sentence in its entirety strikes me as expressing a clearly racist sentiment. Would you disagree? I would disagree that it was expressing a racist sentiment "clearly". I'm not ruling out that there was a racist sentiment. That depends on the definition on racism and whatever was going through Trump's head when he making those tweets. I asked you to add those words to your question because I think the difference between "you can leave" and "we should kick you out" is important. Important in general, but not that important in the context of xDaunt's first ban (I get that the second was for the "totality of actions"). It seems like he got banned not for defending allegedly racist statements but for firing back in kind as someone who shouldn't expect leniency from the moderation.
I personally don't think adding a "you can" changes anything. Saying "well, you can go back to being a slave if you don't like police treatment of blacks" is still the same obviously heinous thing to say that it was without the "you can".
|
I share the feeling that the Squad should be:
-marginalized
-humiliated
-disrespected
I missed this, but it seems bold.
|
On July 22 2019 06:32 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2019 06:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 22 2019 04:20 NewSunshine 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 Do you think we should be nice to people who say that Cortez, Omar, et al. are likely not going to remain Americans, should be sent back to where they came from, and deserve to be ridiculed and marginalized, all for the act of being duly elected US congresswomen? Is it an insult to call someone who can't read illiterate? And if it is, is it undeserved, is it slander? I would strenuously disagree that all Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have done are the acts of a duly elected United States Representative. I would call that characterization disingenuous 1. How so? What have they done that is out of line for being in the sphere of a public representative? And how does it compare to casually "joking" about shooting immigrants and sending brown Americans back to "their home country"? Show nested quote +On July 22 2019 06:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Be nice? Well apparently that is part of the rules here, so maybe yes? I admit that I am unsure precisely how one is to follow those rules, as the standard for violation appears to be subjective, so perhaps I am wrong and it is perfectly okay to be not nice if you wish. Although that may be considered toxic and not conducive to worthwhile discussion. Or may not. You makes your bet and you takes your chances, I suppose 2. Would "they're not being nice" be the answer to the above? I suppose you think we weren't nice enough to actual Nazis about 70 years ago too? Why should we be obliged to always be nice to people, especially when they espouse hateful rhetoric and are an unremitting dick to anyone who disagrees with them? There is a big difference between being nice, and being kind. I absolutely refuse to let "but you're not being nice" be used as an excuse to enable hateful bullshit. The same with "let's be civil". Show nested quote +On July 22 2019 06:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:
I do not believe there is a social expectation of a visceral, negative reaction towards someone who is illiterate the way there is towards someone who is racist. So, no, calling someone illiterate is not an insult, unless it is obviously being used as one. I don't think the issue arises on an internet forum that communicates via prose, because, again obviously, calling someone here illiterate would almost certainly be done as an insult
3. And our nation wasn't built by a bunch of illiterates, either. It wasn't meant to be an extended metaphor. The problem is people will happily do, say, and believe racist shit, but absolutely hate, with every fibre of their being, getting called out for it. They're more upset with being called racist than the notion that maybe they're actually acting racist, and find every rationalization you can imagine for why they're not-racist. In my book, if you hate being called racist, and everybody keeps throwing it at you, maybe you ought to stop and do some self-reflection, because you're probably acting fucking racist. People don't just make this up.
1. I would suggest that implications of dual loyalty, other anti-Semitic remarks, and constant race-baiting are extremely divisive and unworthy of a member of the House of Representatives. Or the Senate. Or the current tenant of the Oval Office, whoever it may be. Unfortunately, as we have seen, such unworthiness does not seem to be much of a concern
2. Well this was more in reference to whatever the rules are at TL, not to social interaction in general. You suppose... what? Really? Suffice it to say that I do not think the United Nations were insufficiently kind to Nazi Germany from September 1939 on, and were far too kind prior to September 1939
I think you would be better served to take my proffered hand instead of thrusting it away like that and rationalizing bad behavior because the target allegedly deserves it, but that is up to you
3. People certainly do make it up, they make it up all the time. That does not mean that all the times it is made up
On July 22 2019 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:As Neb alluded, the reason I have the position I do is consistency in my morality and political philosophy, I'd much rather call people racist dickbags and be done with it but I like to sleep sometimes so the consistency thing is important for me. I'm not sure you have that same issue? You make this argument about why it's bad to call people holding/advocating racist things "a racist" Show nested quote +Your way is the more correct, in my view. People are quite capable of making inferences, and if you demonstrate the racism of said ideas and policies, then the person believing and advocating them is obviously going to have conclusions drawn about his or her character by others. It does not entirely preclude the possibility of a big bitch fight over 'I'm not racist' - 'Yes you are!' but it does require the racist to take that first step, accusing the other person of calling them racist. The one who takes this first step is usually at a disadvantage, as they were the first to openly tread that dangerous ground But not before you completely undermined your argument to take a partisan cheapshot. Show nested quote +I suspect it would be easier to do so if the term had not been carelessly bandied about as a political cudgel as often, if not more so, than a meth addict takes a hit from his or her stem
It is quite a thing to see, you taking my agreeing with you and trying to turn it against me
It is not going to work though. I made the argument that it is counterproductive to get into a big bitch fight over 'You said I was racist, I'm not you jerk' - 'You are racist, you racist jerk!' and it is not counterproductive to demonstrate someone's racism and let those watching draw their own conclusions. I believed this was essentially what you were saying, and agreed with it. The assumption underlying this argument is that most people are decent, and the conclusions they draw will be appropriate
I apologize if I misunderstood you
I did not take a partisan cheapshot. It was not my intention to portray either side as being more or less iniquitous than the other. What I was saying, and am saying, is that repeated invocations of racism have lessened their impact, have made racism cheap, and caused various negative consequences in discourse and social advancement. So many things, so many people, are called racist, that the main contest is over whether or not those allegations are true. A rather pointless endeavor, wouldn't you say? If the last few years have proven anything, they have proven that. No, not opposing racism. Not that. But you would think that after ~3 years of total frustration and lack of progress, you might want to examine your tactics and try to discover if there is a better way than big bitch fights over calling people racist. 3. Goddamn. Years. And we're further away from things getting better than we were at the start. Quite quickly, I get asked if I thought we weren't nice enough to the Nazis. Yeah, that is really going to take us places. The conversation has nowhere to go but up from there at least. I guess
I could cast aspersions on your characters, too, get pissed off and have a big bitch fight about what you've said that would be totally toxic and not conducive to worthwhile discussion, and would inevitably end in us getting told to knock it the hell off. Let's not do that. I don't think racists should be immune from social criticism, I don't think we were too nice to the Nazis, or any other silly things. No wonder things seem so unsolvable. Although I do not think the gulf is really that large. I'm perfectly prepared to believe that you are coming from a good place, and in fact I have no real reason to believe otherwise. Remembering what a jerk GH has been so many times is a reason, but not a real one. It's a shame that you two feel incapable of returning the courtesy
On July 22 2019 07:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote + I share the feeling that the Squad should be:
-marginalized
-humiliated
-disrespected I missed this, but it seems bold.
I don't find it any more bold than saying that Donald Trump should be marginalized, humiliated, and disrespected. I gave my reasons for feeling that way. I think the country would be better off if large proportions of the caucuses of both parties were marginalized, humiliated, disrespected, and ultimately kicked out of office by an indignant public
The president included in that, although he's not actually a part of any caucus
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
