Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

SCOTUS aren't morons....today.Follow

#102 Jul 03 2014 at 4:26 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,847 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Translation: Everyone else is just stupid and don't realize how non-racist the GOP is. Also: 47%, Party of Santa Claus, blacks were better off on the plantation because they had jobs, Obama wants to end welfare regulations, illegal immigrants are just like criminal @#%^philes and axe-murderers, Obamaphone Outrage and don't forget that Cadillac Queens are stealing all your tax money.


You forgot about women's automatic rape sensing fallopian tubes.


And even if that doesn't work, those rape kits that the doctors have just get up in there an clean everything out making sure you can't get pregnant.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#103 Jul 03 2014 at 4:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,851 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
What's funny is that your quote from Atwater

Completely shatters your worldview, entirely, leaving broken pieces of your integrity scattered on the floor?


Not remotely. I read the quote (read the whole interview and it's even more obvious) and see a guy talking about how Reagan's campaign didn't use any racism at all, in contrast to southern campaigns in previous decades (by both parties btw). And I laugh at liberals who are so desperate to hang racism around the neck of the GOP, that they'll quote a guy out of context from an interview he gave nearly 35 years ago and repeat it over and over as apparently their best "proof" of this.

So yeah. That's pretty darn laughable.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#104 Jul 03 2014 at 4:30 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
Not remotely.

Oh, yeah, obviously. We knew you had no integrity. I was just kidding. No one is under the impression that you're remotely capable of independent thought and changing your mind based on data. That's even funnier than my intention that you might have thought it was a serious critique. Never forget that you're the town drunk we keep around because we want to kick something once in a while. Nothing more. Don't make the crazy mistake of thinking that anyone is trying to persuade you of something. Why would they bother?

Edited, Jul 3rd 2014 6:31pm by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#105 Jul 03 2014 at 4:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
You forgot about women's automatic rape sensing fallopian tubes.

I also forgot voter ID laws designed to suppress minority votes and the always popular "fliers mysteriously sent to minority neighborhoods giving the wrong voting date/location" stories each election cycle. But you have to look at it logically, Smash.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#106 Jul 03 2014 at 4:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
they'll quote a guy out of context from an interview he gave nearly 35 years ago and repeat it over and over as apparently their best "proof" of this.

Multiple Republican National Committee chairmans admitting to it seems like decent proof by itself but that's just my opinion.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#107 Jul 03 2014 at 4:42 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,278 posts
gbaji wrote:
How about we start the discussion with a workable definition of "racism" though. To me, racism involves treating people differently primarily based on their skin color.

Interesting insight into your psyche. Thinking people would define it this way: racism involves treating people negatively primarily based on their skin color
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#108 Jul 03 2014 at 4:59 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,851 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
To start I'm not accusing Republicans of acting any differently than any other group in the world. Every ethnic group has a set of morals and values which are intrinsically beneficial to them. Traditional American values reflect moral stances that your stereotypical WASP would find very agreeable and preferable. That's the reason they became laws in this country in the first place. Every other culture in the world has a similar set of values that make the most sense to them.


The GOP is a party, not an ethnic group. And I'm not sure at the connotation you're using. The logic is backwards. Yes, your stereotypical WASP may find traditional values agreeable, but so do middle class Americans of all races and religions. It's not about skin color.


Quote:
However those same values aren't held by other groups to the same degree. Many things about WASP values will not sit well with people from a different background and they'll find adapting to those values more difficult.


Which things though? Let's look at the positions and policies themselves and assess them. Doesn't that make more sense? Otherwise we end out making absurd arguments like "Hitler liked to paint, so anyone who enjoys paintings must agree with Hitler". It's ridiculous. And frankly, I'm not even sure what you mean by "WASP values".

Quote:
If given a voice in government they'll use that voice to attempt to alter the laws of the region to be more inline with values they feel are natural and intrinsic. This in turn will put more pressure on the WASP who now finds themselves adapting to cultural values they don't share.


Cultural values aren't always aligned with ethnic groups though. That's the problem I have with much of what you (and many other posters) appear to be saying. It's like you believe that the conservative principles are indelibly aligned with "white majority", and all the other absurdities that follow from that assumption. I don't see that at all though. I see conservative principles as principles which benefit everyone equally. They are fundamentally those which align most closely with those upon which this nation was founded and that they embody the most practical approach to the creation and maintenance of a free society. Those principles have nothing to do with race.

The racial elements are introduced by the political left. They're the ones who create the "we're for minority groups, so conservatives are against them (cause they're against us), so conservatives are racists" narrative. But that's wholly fabricated and entire made up by the left. While this does not mean that no conservatives are racist, they aren't racist *because* they are conservative. Racism exists on both "sides" of our politics. But if we're going to assess which party has a platform which is explicitly racist, we'd have to conclude that it's the Democrats.

Quote:
In one sense this isn't racism *****, people aren't setting out to kill each other, deprive each other of jobs, etc. On the other hand it's very passive aggressive as these value conflicts weight more heavily on other groups. On the first hand though, many of these things are held as important beliefs that define a particular culture, and members of a group can hardly be blamed for upholding the things they believe in.


I disagree. I think that there is a perception of this (largely because that's what the Left keeps telling people). But the reality is that a middle class black man benefits from conservative positions exactly as much as a middle class white man. And a poor white woman benefits from conservative positions exactly as much as a poor black woman. Our positions are about maximizing liberty and minimizing the degree to which the government decides our outcomes. There is no racial element to this and any perception of a racial element steps entirely from the other side intentionally creating one.

Quote:
Simply put the values that our country is founded on aren't as universally agreeable as they once were.


Of course they are. Why would you say otherwise? Be specific. I suspect that your idea of what our "founding values are" has been manipulated by the very folks who are trying to convince you that conservatives are inherently racist.

Quote:
Those who share the older set of values will view the intrusion of new laws as an attack on them, as it necessitates they act in ways that aren't natural to them. On the other hand those who have been struggling to adapt to values that aren't reflective of their own culture will view the older set of values as oppressive.

Myself, I would view this as passive racism.


Again, I disagree entirely. Can you be specific? Give me an example of a "new law" that is being proposed and which conservatives oppose, and explain why you think that this is aligned on cultural or racial lines, and why it's the conservatives who are being racist in their opposition to said law.

Quote:
However, it's also something that's universal across ethnic groups (as I mentioned earlier), and not necessarily evil. It's simply human nature, and something we're all guilty of to one degree or another. The best we can hope for is to minimize the parts of the different cultures that negatively impact others outside the group, while at the same thing trying to celebrate the things that make the different groups unique. There's no clear black line here, and people are often terrible at assessing things in their own culture that negatively impact other groups.

So that's the kind of "racism" I'm talking about, whether or not you'd consider that racism. I would certainly understand why someone would view it in a different manner.


See. This is what I don't get. The whole point of the principles of the right is to create and use a set of rules that allow us to have a society in which outcomes are determined via a process as unbiased and free of corruption and racism as possible. By clearly defining rights and minimizing the degree to which our system of government infringes those rights, we can also minimize the degree to which any one group within our society (racial, cultural, or other) can impose and infringe upon any other. It's not perfect, but it's better than the left's approach of empowering the government to "fix" perceived imbalances between every group in society.

The left's approach is doomed to creating more racism, not less. Which is why I find it so strange that so many people just swallow this idea that by *not* having the government decide which racial group gets what that we're being racist. I think it's the other way around. We can't *not* have racism in a system like the one the Left wants. It's inevitable.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#109 Jul 03 2014 at 5:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
In one sense this isn't racism *****, people aren't setting out to kill each other, deprive each other of jobs, etc.

Well, they are setting out to deprive them of their right to vote. And both Ron and Rand Paul have said that they wouldn't have voted for the Civil Rights Act and businesses should be allowed to discriminate based on race (Rand Paul backtracked on this one pretty quickly once it got out).


Edited, Jul 3rd 2014 6:08pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#110 Jul 03 2014 at 5:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Recognizing that a minority currently has a disadvantage isn't racism, it's reality.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#111 Jul 03 2014 at 5:16 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,851 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
How about we start the discussion with a workable definition of "racism" though. To me, racism involves treating people differently primarily based on their skin color.

Interesting insight into your psyche. Thinking people would define it this way: racism involves treating people negatively primarily based on their skin color


So if a white person gives free stuff only to white people, he's not being racist? That's an unworkable definition of racism. "Differently" is the correct method to use. If you treat one group "better", then kinda by default, you're treating another group "worse", right?

You must not consider the race of a person when making decisions that affect that person. It has to apply both negatively and positively, or the whole thing is meaningless. If you give preference in hiring to people of a given skin color, then you are racially discriminating against everyone who isn't that same color. That's racism. This is why racial preferences are racist. Period. The idea that it's not racist based on what the race is that you're preferring is *also* racist.

Please tell me you understand why this must be so?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#112 Jul 03 2014 at 5:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,851 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Recognizing that a minority currently has a disadvantage isn't racism, it's reality.


Sure. But reacting to that by creating programs which benefit that minority *is* racism. The correct way to deal with a disadvantage is to eliminate the disadvantage, not to try to offset it with something else. Because the latter approach only institutionalizes the racism even more.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#113 Jul 03 2014 at 5:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Racism is when someone thinks someone is inherently better or worse based on race.

Recognizing disadvantages and attempting to deal with them is something else. You may disagree with it, but it's not racism.

Edited, Jul 3rd 2014 6:20pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#114 Jul 03 2014 at 5:21 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,851 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
they'll quote a guy out of context from an interview he gave nearly 35 years ago and repeat it over and over as apparently their best "proof" of this.

Multiple Republican National Committee chairmans admitting to it seems like decent proof by itself but that's just my opinion.


Admitting to what? When? Who? I assume you have a source for this?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#115 Jul 03 2014 at 5:29 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,851 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Racism is when someone thinks someone is inherently better or worse based on race.


That's *also* racism, but that's racism inside someone's own head. Unless you're proposing some kind of thought police system, we kinda have to stick to external acts of racism. And those are absolutely when you use race as the determining factor for what you choose to do.

Quote:
Recognizing disadvantages and attempting to deal with them is something else.


If what you do is to benefit or disadvantage a group of people based on their race then it is racism.

This really isn't that freaking difficult. The problem is that those on the left don't want to believe that they support racist policies, so they deny that the policies that the left engages in are racist, even though they obviously are by any workable definition of racism. And this tends to require some really strange mental gyrations to accomplish. What's so laughable about the whole thing is that most of these same people will point out how white racists in the south in the first half of the 20th century used to use all sorts of excuses to convince themselves that what they were doing (segregation specifically) wasn't really racist at all, while unable to see that they are doing the exact same thing today.

When you defend affirmative action you are being just as racist as some white guy in Alabama defending segregation back in the 50s. And the really funny thing is that segregation was created for nearly the same exact reason as affirmative action was. I suspect that most modern liberals are unaware of that as well. You guys are simply repeating the same mistakes made in the past and failing to see it.

The correct answer to the problem is to stop trying to force a solution. It's really that simple.

____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#116 Jul 03 2014 at 5:55 PM Rating: Excellent
No, it's not racism. Racism has to involve the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

Policies can be bad without being racist. Racism tends to lead towards certain types of policies, so a particular type of policy might indicate that there is racism at play.

We shouldn't try to force a solution sure, but your approach appears to be to stick your fingers in your ears and ignore the problem, which also won't help.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#117 Jul 03 2014 at 5:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,368 posts
gbaji wrote:
The GOP is a party, not an ethnic group. And I'm not sure at the connotation you're using. The logic is backwards. Yes, your stereotypical WASP may find traditional values agreeable, but so do middle class Americans of all races and religions. It's not about skin color.
Yes, the logic is extendable to any two groups of people, be they political parties, races, ethnic groups, or 2 groups of 20 school kids picked at random. The same mechanism is at the heart of all those, and the differences evolve over time. At some point we were all simply the group of 20ish people who happened to chase a group of deer around the next bend in the river.

The ethnically based problem I'd consider racism, as for the others, is "groupism" a word?

There's also no homogeneous group of course, and shared group values can be difficult to define and pinpoint at times. I vastly oversimplified the problem for the sake of fitting it all into a single post (that was already becoming way too lengthy for my tastes). However it seems you're already well aware of the inherent complexities, so I'll leave that well enough alone.

gbaji wrote:
See. This is what I don't get. The whole point of the principles of the right is to create and use a set of rules that allow us to have a society in which outcomes are determined via a process as unbiased and free of corruption and racism as possible. By clearly defining rights and minimizing the degree to which our system of government infringes those rights, we can also minimize the degree to which any one group within our society (racial, cultural, or other) can impose and infringe upon any other. It's not perfect, but it's better than the left's approach of empowering the government to "fix" perceived imbalances between every group in society.
I generally agree with the concept that government should be as little involved in this as possible (I mean, I do lean Libertarian after all...), though we may well disagree on the specific cases I'd imagine. That, by the way, makes for a good example of a cultural value that's commonly American but not universally appreciated and shared to the same degree elsewhere.

Also, just for fun, I'd say that the Democrats' biggest error is assuming the changes necessitated by urban living are applicable and necessary outside of an ethnically diverse, densely populated, city core.

Edited, Jul 3rd 2014 5:00pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#118 Jul 03 2014 at 6:41 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,851 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
No, it's not racism. Racism has to involve the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.


No. That's *also* racism (it's like I'm saying the same thing), but is not the whole of what is racism. Again, you can't read people's minds, so what they believe isn't relevant to any sane legal system. What they *do* and why they do it is what matters. If you pay a black man a higher wage than a white man for the exact same job because you want the black man to earn more money, then that is racism. If you do it because the black man does better work, then it is not.

If you create a policy where the direct intention is to give one group of people an advantage based solely on their skin color, that is racism. I know that this is hard to accept for people who have supported a political platform which includes this and who also don't think of themselves as racists, but no matter how much you want to deny it, it is racism. And the fact is that there is no racism in the Republican party platform, and a whole **** of a lot of it in the Democratic party platform.

Quote:
Policies can be bad without being racist.


Of course. But the issue I was responding to wasn't "that's a bad policy", but "the policies of your party are racist, so therefore you are racist, or at least a racist sympathizer". And yeah, I find that amusing coming from anyone who has voted Democrat.

Quote:
Racism tends to lead towards certain types of policies, so a particular type of policy might indicate that there is racism at play.


Yes. Like a policy which says "we're going to use your race as a factor when determining whether to admit you to a college or employ you". You mean those kinds of blatantly racist policies? ****. Even under your own definition above, this qualifies as racism. Assuming an "historical disadvantage in society" can be viewed as a racial trait, right? I'm honestly curious how far you'll go with the mental gyrations to try to deny this?

Quote:
We shouldn't try to force a solution sure, but your approach appears to be to stick your fingers in your ears and ignore the problem, which also won't help.


Not at all. My approach is to understand the difference between negative and positive actions and recognize that the government can and should work via negative actions, but *not* positive ones. As long as we follow those guidelines we can fight things like racism without utilizing racism ourselves. What this means is that we recognize that there's a difference between elimination of a negative factor and creation of a positive factor. So the government should work to eliminate negative actions within the context of racism. So if you see an employer hiring and paying people based on race, you punish him so as to eliminate that behavior. If you see a law which treats people unfairly based on their race, you eliminate the law. It's all about eliminating things which negatively impact people on the basis of race.


What you *don't* do is try to create "positive" actions. By that I mean, create a program which benefits the members of one race in order to counteract the negative racial effects in society believed to be affecting them. The reason you don't do this is because it relies on faulty human interpretation of those negative effects, is imminently susceptible to corrupting influences, and ends out simply institutionalizing racism as the means of implementing social policy. Oh. And it also apparently has the side effect of making people not realize what racism actually *is*, thus making it harder to recognize actual negative effects when they occur.

You seem to be assuming that if we don't do what you think we should, that we're not doing anything. We absolutely should oppose acts of racism where they exist. But we should *not* be creating new acts of racism ourselves. That's completely counterproductive.

Edited, Jul 3rd 2014 6:20pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#119 Jul 03 2014 at 7:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,851 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
I generally agree with the concept that government should be as little involved in this as possible (I mean, I do lean Libertarian after all...), though we may well disagree on the specific cases I'd imagine. That, by the way, makes for a good example of a cultural value that's commonly American but not universally appreciated and shared to the same degree elsewhere.


Elsewhere meaning nations other than the US? Oh, absolutely. This is not surprising, given that US liberalism was based on the principles of Locke, while most other western nations adopted versions of liberalism based on the principles of Rousseau. Which in itself is not surprising given the historical conditions of those nations and their need to implement the ideas of liberty and rights within the context of societies accustomed to more or less feudal(ish) expectations of government responsibilities. That's in stark contrast to the US, which formed among a group of individualists who had long since abandoned the idea that the government was responsible for providing them with anything at all (or that such a thing was even desirable).

Quote:
Also, just for fun, I'd say that the Democrats' biggest error is assuming the changes necessitated by urban living are applicable and necessary outside of an ethnically diverse, densely populated, city core.


I agree with that, but will go a step further and say that the Democrats first mistake is in making assumptions about what changes are needed by those living in urban environments in the first place. I think the Dems (and a lot of surrogates in various social organizations) spend an amazing amount of time and money convincing people that the biggest things they should care about are X, Y, and Z, when in many cases, and in the absence of such insistent instruction, those same people might really care more about A, B, and C.

Want to talk about "coded messages", just think about that whenever a Democrat talks about the need to "educate people on the issues". More often than not, it's not about educating people about how to resolve issues, but about teaching them what things they should prioritize as "issues" in the first place. And yes, they then expand that to assume that folks in rural communities have the same concerns about those same things. Which is just a step too far past absurdity in many cases.

Edited, Jul 3rd 2014 6:23pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#120 Jul 03 2014 at 8:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Well you can certainly insist that racism means something other than what it actually means, but the result is that people won't take you seriously and dismiss you as a lunatic living in a bubble world. which is too bad, because there might actually be something meaningful somewhere in your rambling posts.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#121 Jul 03 2014 at 8:44 PM Rating: Good
******
49,650 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Which is too bad, because there might actually be something meaningful somewhere in your rambling posts.
I read them all. There really isn't.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#122 Jul 03 2014 at 8:59 PM Rating: Excellent
My biggest problem with Gbaji's re-definition of racism is that it waters down what is still a legitimate problem, and if you take him seriously disallows any actual discussion on how to deal with racism, and also how to deal with segments of society that are disadvantaged. There are arguments against affirmative action that could be addressed as part of a productive conversation, but when you insist that it's somehow racism, you stop the conversation before it gets started, and also dismiss the disproportionate lack of representation of said minority as an actual problem.

That and it's completely wrong.

For the record, I don't consider the voting policies as racist even though the disproportionately affect minorities. I don't think most of the people enacting them care about the race of the voters, I think they just care that they vote for democrats. I do think racism is one of the factors that allow this sort of policy to persist mind you.

Edited, Jul 3rd 2014 10:00pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#123 Jul 03 2014 at 10:04 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,278 posts
Does gbaji's strange and convoluted definition of racism remind anyone else of Alma's strange and convoluted definition of discrimination?
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#124 Jul 03 2014 at 11:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
**
670 posts
gbaji wrote:


This has nothing to do with anything though. The GOP isn't calling for a return to Jim Crow, or to segregation, or anything remotely like that. What we do is oppose the idea that the way to counteract those historical inequalities in our system is to balance them out with new inequalities today. We believe that equality under the law means just that: everyone is treated the same. Those are the kinds of traditional ideas we want this country to return to. Because we believe that we can't ever achieve anything remotely resembling actual racial equality as long as we're constantly rigging the system to benefit or disadvantage groups of people based on race. We believed this a hundred years ago when the Democrats were arguing for segregation, and we believe this today when the Democrats argue for affirmative action.
Edited, Jul 3rd 2014 2:55pm by gbaji

Sure, equality is great. Unless you are *** and want to get married. Or you want special exemptions because of your faith. Or any other attempts spent changing the law so that it only benefits a targeted group of people. Remember, everybody is equal, but some are more equal than others.
#125 Jul 07 2014 at 7:29 AM Rating: Good
******
49,650 posts
Equality for all white male hetero Christians of Germanic ancestry.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#126 Jul 07 2014 at 4:27 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,851 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
... Gbaji's re-definition of racism...


Friar Bijou wrote:
... gbaji's strange and convoluted definition of racism...


What's strange or convoluted (or "re-defined") about my definition of racism? It's very simple. Using someone's race as a determining factor when making decisions about that person, or which affect that person is racism. That's not convoluted at all. It's a very clear and useable definition.

What's convoluted is a definition of racism that determines whether an action is racist based on the direction of harm/help of the action in the context of historical real or perceived advantages or disadvantages of a given racial group within the society in question. That's an absurd definition. It's one that also happens to be racist itself since you're using the persons race to determine whether the action being made is racist.


And no, Xsarus, I disagree with your assessment about opening or closing discussion. What closes discussion is when someone insists that the course of action they support cannot be questioned and/or must not be assessed via any sort of objective external criteria. When someone says something like "Hey maybe we should rethink this whole affirmative action thing because we're really just using racism to fight racism, and I don't think that's a good way to go about this", and the response "It's not racism and you're weird/evil/whatever for saying such a horrible thing!", it's the response that's designed to prevent discourse.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 62 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (62)