Racist

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5
 

Abomination:
I already said earlier why they were chosen, they were profiled because the hiring manager found they perform better than other ethnicities in that job.

So they're being profiled because of their race but you seem to be trying to argue that thats not racial profiling?

Abomination:
Time management does not mean "turn up to work on time" it means being able to prioritise tasks in a manner that saves time and allows a good work flow.

Its also something that is required of literally every job. If you don't do your job on time, you don't keep that job. Its not something that is special to the role of courier

Abomination:
They are paid more. I do not see how this is making them seem menial as if it was menial they would not be offered more pay.

I'm sorry but I don't follow, how does that answer my question? Are you suggesting that because it pays more then its more attractive to poorer people who need the money, and minorities tend to be poorer people? If so I don't see how that covers the department only being non-white. There are poor white people out there. Something has made your recruiter select non-whites and only non-whites. What do you think his reasoning is?

Lil devils x:
Yes, what you are stating is racial profiling. It also appears you may have a different understanding of " menial" than others do. Some examples of menial jobs here are :
garbage man
delivery boy
bus driver
taxi driver
sanitation worker
construction worker
stock boy
warehouse worker
maid
landscaper
assembler
cook
bus boy

These are all low tier menial jobs and to racially profile anyone for these jobs is terribly racist. They should be equally considered for employment in " white collar" jobs as well as CEO's, Physicians, lawyers, accountants, analysts, financial advisers ect. If they are lacking education to be able to participate equally in these fields, you increase access to resources to them to make education for these fields obtainable. Part of the problem is not that they are not "inclined" for this work, it is that they lack the proper support structures throughout their early development and childhood to be able to obtain the necessary skills for the work. If their parents and grandparents were restricted from such education and work, they lack the skills to instill this in their children and grandchildren. This can be supplemented by having resources made available to them in both their community and home environment during early development. This should be started from the time they take their infant home from the hospital, not waiting until after their brains are more fully formed as you can teach skills necessary for engineering while they are a toddler, not an adult. It is vital to have support throughout the entire time their brains are forming, not wait until they already have.

Education is not something that is limited to "school" it is what a child experiences throughout their entire life.

It is not the hiring manager's job to put people into the role of a CEO, physician, lawyer, accountant or any other white collar job. They are looking for someone to fill the role of courier. In this case, the ethnicity of people applying for the role are also predominately of certain ethnicities. The hiring manager does not get to decide who applies, only who is hired from the applicants.

Every single courier at my company is non-white. All the people who were applying for the job were non-white. If the courier aspect of the business was to be dismantled, only non-white people would lose their jobs.

To be a courier, one requires a significant amount of skill in order to be successful. There is far more to it than just driving from one location to another and dropping off packages. They are paid well, far more than non-tertiary education roles.

Palindromemordnilap:
So they're being profiled because of their race but you seem to be trying to argue that thats not racial profiling?

Not at all. I've said multiple times that they are racially profiled. But what is being discussed was if that aspect of the business was to be shut down, if that would be racist or not.

Its also something that is required of literally every job. If you don't do your job on time, you don't keep that job. Its not something that is special to the role of courier

It is a MAJOR factor for couriers. There are varying levels of time management required for all jobs, but couriers require far more than most others as there are X number of packages that require a genuine delivery attempt and only so many daylight hours or businesses open between certain times.

I'm sorry but I don't follow, how does that answer my question? Are you suggesting that because it pays more then its more attractive to poorer people who need the money, and minorities tend to be poorer people? If so I don't see how that covers the department only being non-white. There are poor white people out there. Something has made your recruiter select non-whites and only non-whites. What do you think his reasoning is?

That in their experience, certain ethnicities perform better at the role and are retained longer than other ethnicities. And yes, if a job pays better it is more attractive to poorer people, and people of non-white ethnicities tend, on average, to be poorer.

Abomination:

Palindromemordnilap:
So they're being profiled because of their race but you seem to be trying to argue that thats not racial profiling?

Not at all. I've said multiple times that they are racially profiled. But what is being discussed was if that aspect of the business was to be shut down, if that would be racist or not.

Simply shutting down a department that need to be shut down? No. Shutting down a department you knew was the most expendable and have knowingly staffed with entirely non-white employees? Suspect.

Abomination:

Its also something that is required of literally every job. If you don't do your job on time, you don't keep that job. Its not something that is special to the role of courier

It is a MAJOR factor for couriers. There are varying levels of time management required for all jobs, but couriers require far more than most others as there are X number of packages that require a genuine delivery attempt and only so many daylight hours or businesses open between certain times.

Again, same as pretty much every job. And I'm curious as to why you think its this one aspect that means the job is not menial labour

Abomination:

I'm sorry but I don't follow, how does that answer my question? Are you suggesting that because it pays more then its more attractive to poorer people who need the money, and minorities tend to be poorer people? If so I don't see how that covers the department only being non-white. There are poor white people out there. Something has made your recruiter select non-whites and only non-whites. What do you think his reasoning is?

That in their experience, certain ethnicities perform better at the role and are retained longer than other ethnicities. And yes, if a job pays better it is more attractive to poorer people, and people of non-white ethnicities tend, on average, to be poorer.

So its is just stereotyping then? The exact thing you were trying to tell us it wasn't?

Saelune:

runic knight:
Racist is a word that implies motivation. It says that someone is acting a certain way because of race.

What?...No seriously, what?

Actions do not have motivation? What? That is just absurd. The saying 'Actions speak louder than words' exists for a reason.

Abomination:
He never said actions do not have motivation, but in order for an act to be racist, it requires a racist motivation.

It is exactly as they said, and as I stated in that very first sentence to my post. An action that is defined as "racist" requires there be a motivation behind it related to how one views race.

The action itself has no motivation. That comes exclusively from the person committing it. A hammer thrown has no motivation to fall or go forward, it just is the act of falling at an incline. Someone intentionally throwing a hammer however may have a variety of motivations, or even none themselves if it was an accidental throw.

Calling any action racist, however, instantly attributes a motivation behind that action, and it is the exact same as calling the person who committed the action a "racist". There is no way to call an action racist without requiring that the person who committed it BE racist in their motivation.

Saelune:
If not for runic knight's political history, I might accept that, but he regularly defends that white supremacists are not ya know, racist pieces of garbage, and even when their actions are clearly racist, he often argues otherwise.

What "political history" are you speaking of? Is it my criticism of your radicalism? Or is it just my criticism of YOU and your frequent inept and unfounded "arguments" for the fact they are inept and unfounded that makes you unable to actually read the words I have said and instead simply try to manufacture an excuse to raise complaint?

As I have said many times before, being critical of you is not a defense of your claimed foes, it is criticism of you and your failings in argument and rhetoric. You lie to yourself if you pretend that is a defense of your religious enemies, and you lie to others when you keep claiming it.

But please, keep repeating your lie about me as you keep getting caught making shit up. I am sure it does wonders for how trustworthy you look to others.

trunkage:
So... Slavery for African Americans was beneficial. Becuase someone else decided it was.

....What?!

I don't know what your stance here is, but I fail to get how me saying "An action defined as racist requires a racist motivation, so a claim an action is racist is the same as calling the actor racist themselves" is in any way claiming slavery was beneficial. But hey, if you want to claim that, you do you. I disagree, though this is honestly so far beyond what I actually said or argued, I kind of doubt you even actually read my reply. You certainly did not with any sort of good faith willingness to engage if THIS is how you open it up, with a baldfaced accusation like that.

I'd be like me opening up with saying you deny the holocaust. Just... what?!?

The first thing to understand about anyone accused of... well anything, but including racist, is that they will find an excuse or just deny being racist.

And that is irrelevant to my point. My point is calling something racist inherently requires that you also claim there is a racist motivation, which in turn means you are calling that person themselves racist. That people sometimes hide their racist motivations does not relate to my point at all. Perhaps you should stop swinging at strawmen, or imagining I am making claims or arguments I am not. It is very dishonest, and I honestly thought better of you in that regard.

It ended up being a political fight that, like most poictal fights, never discussed the issues.

Sort of like how you entirely ignored my simple point to instead accuse me of a position I didn't hold nor supported, and to rail against some imagined argument I never made nor supported?

Yeah, I can easily see why calling actions "racist" would lead to never discussing issues when it makes people respond to arguments like you have here.

I do listen to explanations of situations

A shame you didn't even listen to what I actually said.

runic knight:

trunkage:
So... Slavery for African Americans was beneficial. Becuase someone else decided it was.

....What?!

I don't know what your stance here is, but I fail to get how me saying "An action defined as racist requires a racist motivation, so a claim an action is racist is the same as calling the actor racist themselves" is in any way claiming slavery was beneficial. But hey, if you want to claim that, you do you. I disagree, though this is honestly so far beyond what I actually said or argued, I kind of doubt you even actually read my reply. You certainly did not with any sort of good faith willingness to engage if THIS is how you open it up, with a baldfaced accusation like that.

I'd be like me opening up with saying you deny the holocaust. Just... what?!?

Isn't it common knowledge that slave owners thought that slavery was beneficial for slaves? I thought they still taught that in history...

Anyway, your definition: "An action defined as racist requires a racist motivation, so a claim an action is racist is the same as calling the actor racist themselves" falls flat on its face with slavery owners. They were benefiting the slaves, so clearly they cant be racist.

Now, I am assuming here that your against "victims" saying anything about racism. I've seen you're replies about Hate Speech and stating that the "victim" can lie and turning any argument they don't like into Hate Speech. Or how many "rape victims" lie and are just trying to ruin men's lives. I did infer that to be true here too.

I also used these comments:

This is often used to intentionally disparage someone, to shut down discussion, or to just simplify something into far simplier "black and white" political positions. But all of that is bad for conversation and discussion.
Because of the cancerous nature of the current use of the word to any sort of discussion, I can fully understand why people would respond to the use of it so negatively. Because it very rarely is meant to be used in one in good faith to begin with.

(Actually, most of that post is evidence) Which implies that, regularly, racist is used as a lie.

If I'm mistake, perhaps looking at these other situations and how you interpret "victim motivation." Because far too often, you forget that the accuser deserves the assumption of innocence, not just the accused.

So..

The first thing to understand about anyone accused of... well anything, but including racist, is that they will find an excuse or just deny being racist.

And that is irrelevant to my point. My point is calling something racist inherently requires that you also claim there is a racist motivation, which in turn means you are calling that person themselves racist. That people sometimes hide their racist motivations does not relate to my point at all. Perhaps you should stop swinging at strawmen, or imagining I am making claims or arguments I am not. It is very dishonest, and I honestly thought better of you in that regard.

Assuming that your interested in finding out if something that happened was/not racist. Your paragraph discusses how you would prove that - by proving their racists motivation. The South thought slavery was beneficial, the North... not so much. But, since you think that most of the times that word racist is used, it's in bad faith, then the South should be believed more.

In fact, you could point out that Lincoln was a Free Soiler. He was very concerned about how the slaves could take white jobs because they had no wages. He liked the idea of Liberia and shipping the rest back to Africa. If he wasn't assassinated, I do wonder if there would be any African Americans left. Clearly this is a racist motivation, so the North was doing racist things. But that didn't happen. Maybe... Perhaps... It might have something to do with actions and results to?? What do you think.

So, anyway, if someone lies is incredibly important. I was stating that when someone tells me something, I don't automatically think it's true. I like to do some more research. I know that might be offensive to some people

It ended up being a political fight that, like most poictal fights, never discussed the issues.

Sort of like how you entirely ignored my simple point to instead accuse me of a position I didn't hold nor supported, and to rail against some imagined argument I never made nor supported?

Yeah, I can easily see why calling actions "racist" would lead to never discussing issues when it makes people respond to arguments like you have here.

You literally read from a conservative pamphlet. Please being your own ideas next time. "Stigma" and "Actual Harm." "Poison" "It's a Problem" "It's a bludgeon" Yep, sure. That sounds exactly like someone coming in with good faith. All you are doing is trying to insult the problem away.

As I said, people are too worried about whether they look racist, rather than IF they are racist. I was asking people who get accused to discuss the situation rationally instead of calling the accuser a liar or crying about how their reputation might be hurt. You decided to go immediately on the attack, accusing many people of being a liar. That's the political infighting I was talking about. You were trying to shut everyone down. I'm not having it. I'll have a discussion with you despite your actions.

I do listen to explanations of situations

A shame you didn't even listen to what I actually said.

This whole sentence of mine was a problem. I was going to go into another spiel but GOD your comment was utter nonsense. You decided that you hated it and did everything you could to discredit it without thinking. You made me tired and I gave up. My fault. Should have deleted that sentence.

Let me be clear. I am very concerned about racist being used as a weapon. You're using the term liar as a weapon here. I'm concerned about that too. I try not to hate on a word just becuase my side dislikes it.

trunkage:
Isn't it common knowledge that slave owners thought that slavery was beneficial for slaves? I thought they still taught that in history...

Why would I care what people who owned other people thought? And how does that relate, at all, with anything I said?

This is at best a non sequitur, and at worst an intentional attempt to associate me with something quite vile. I don't appreciate either, and while after reading this reply I at least get the feeling you have some sort of reason for it now, as oppose to last post where I thought you were entirely detached from what I was saying, I still think it is irrelevant to my point, and rather wrong to associate my position with this sort of thing in the first place.

Anyway, your definition: "An action defined as racist requires a racist motivation, so a claim an action is racist is the same as calling the actor racist themselves" falls flat on its face with slavery owners. They were benefiting the slaves, so clearly they cant be racist.

No, that does not relate at all.

If we wish to use your opinion about slavery being a good thing, and I really think that is a pretty dumb thing to use, it still does not change what I said because I never excluded beneficial treatment. I specifically included positive aspects as well as negative when I said
"It is not an interaction between two different races, but one shaped by how someone views those races. This can be positive or negative even, but that motivation behind their behavior and actions is what defines if it is racism or not."

If someone is treating races differently specifically because of their race, be it positively or negatively, that is still racism.

So slavers thinking it is good for that race of people doesn't make it no longer racist. It is still treating people of a race different because of their race itself, which would be racism defined.

All this does is show you really didn't read my post very well.

Now, I am assuming here that your against "victims" saying anything about racism.

Victims of... what? Racism itself? Being called racists? You are not clear, and at this point I can't presume you are even talking about this topic in the same way as I was anymore.

I've seen you're replies about Hate Speech and stating that the "victim" can lie and turning any argument they don't like into Hate Speech. Or how many "rape victims" lie and are just trying to ruin men's lives. I did infer that to be true here too.

So, we are talking about victims of hate speech or rape now? This is a pretty far derailment, as I don't see how it is relevant me pointing out, in other threads, the fact that some people will intentionally lie because of the culture of protection for victims and of uncritical belief of the accusers grants them the power to sway mobs against their enemies. You know, the same thing that defined things like "witch hunt" in the common usage in language, as well as was undeniable in situations like McCarthyism and the Red Scare. Someone claims someone else wronged them in a horrible and socially reviled way, so the community responds by directing ire if not harm towards the accused. There are numerous stories of faked accusations. Hell, to tied this back in with racism in a relevant way, the book To Kill a Mockingbird is famous for that EXACT plot of false accusations applied through the lens of southern racism, where they were treating an accused differently because of their race (thus racism) based on the lies of an accuser who was believed uncritically.

But all that is getting away from my point. How does your bringing up my stance on the existence of false allegations utilized by opportunists relate to calling an action racist inherently meaning the same as calling the actor racist?

I also used these comments:
"This is often used to intentionally disparage someone, to shut down discussion, or to just simplify something into far simplier "black and white" political positions. But all of that is bad for conversation and discussion.
Because of the cancerous nature of the current use of the word to any sort of discussion, I can fully understand why people would respond to the use of it so negatively. Because it very rarely is meant to be used in one in good faith to begin with. "
(Actually, most of that post is evidence) Which implies that, regularly, racist is used as a lie.

No, it implies that calling people racist is regularly used as a weapon to harm someone, and a tool to poison discussions. And that I will stand behind, as the calling of someone disagreed with a "racist" is very frequent, especially in online discussion.

Saying it is a lie presumes an intentional desire to speak the untruth. While I am sure many do know that the people they are labeling a racist are not one, many others may fully believe that when they claim it, or simply don't care if it is or is not and utilize it as a rhetorical weapon. The frequency of the use in modern discussion though, especially with relation to applying to others in that conversation, would likely still support me even if I was claiming that most calling others "racist" were outright lying about it (if we go with lying being telling something they don't know is true).

Again though, I do not see how that relates to my point about calling an action racist inherently meaning the same as calling the actor themselves racist.

If I'm mistake, perhaps looking at these other situations and how you interpret "victim motivation." Because far too often, you forget that the accuser deserves the assumption of innocence, not just the accused.

Looking at a facebook post calling someone a racist for saying something like "I want a border wall".
Looking at someone arguing on youtube calling someone a racist for saying something like "I think kappernack is an attention-hungry asshole"
Looking at someone on twitter calling anyone who disliked Black Panther racist.

I... don't quite get what you are talking about with presuming the person calling those people racist are innocent, when those sorts of interactions are both common, and horribly unjust applications of the label in order to poison the discussion. Which was what I had in mind when talking about it before since you started the topic talking about discussions.

Assuming that your interested in finding out if something that happened was/not racist. Your paragraph discusses how you would prove that - by proving their racists motivation. The South thought slavery was beneficial, the North... not so much. But, since you think that most of the times that word racist is used, it's in bad faith, then the South should be believed more.

With this, I feel you at least have some argument you are making, so I will take back my previous disparaging of you for using them in my last post. I still do not get what you are trying to argue, or how you got there, and I still think the association made by using them is little better than an accusation of me holding a horrible position, but I at least see the tracks in the sand that there actually is some chain of reasoning there.

I don't get why you are using beneficial though, or how it related to my argument when I clearly said it did not matter if it was positive or negative. As such, nothing here relates to anything I was actually arguing..

In fact, you could point out that Lincoln was a Free Soiler. He was very concerned about how the slaves could take white jobs because they had no wages. He liked the idea of Liberia and shipping the rest back to Africa. If he wasn't assassinated, I do wonder if there would be any African Americans left. Clearly this is a racist motivation, so the North was doing racist things. But that didn't happen. Maybe... Perhaps... It might have something to do with actions and results to?? What do you think.

He was thinking of treating people of a race differently because of their race? That would be a racist motivation. Seems pretty simple there, albeit a pretty old example to use and discuss. Lincoln wanting to move all the people of one race to another nation would be pretty easy to describe as racist. It being "benevolent" or not wouldn't change that.

So, anyway, if someone lies is incredibly important. I was stating that when someone tells me something, I don't automatically think it's true. I like to do some more research. I know that might be offensive to some people

And that is fine, and a good mindset to have. But again, I don't get how you are relating it to my point about how calling an action racist inherently mean the same as calling the actor themselves racist.

You literally read from a conservative pamphlet. Please being your own ideas next time. "Stigma" and "Actual Harm." "Poison" "It's a Problem" "It's a bludgeon" Yep, sure. That sounds exactly like someone coming in with good faith. All you are doing is trying to insult the problem away.

No, I am not. Sort of why I made an actual argument.

Kind of funny though that the person who still hasn't actually addressed that argument yet is accusing me of insulting the problem away. Especially when you are again accusing me of quite a bit there while doing it.

Calling someone a racist carries a stigma. That people you dislike point out this fact as well doesn't make it less true, not any less needing to be addressed. You attempting to use the fact that people you dislike point at this fact as evidence of my association to them is not engaging in good faith though.

Nor is ignoring those points raised because of your attempts to associate my using them with a group you dislike. You still should address the points and arguments raised, not just rely on fallacies of guilt by manufactured association to try to ignore them because of shared words.

Furthermore, you are outright saying that I am not presenting my own ideas and am instead parroting someone else's, despite your arguing against someone else's an not my own this whole time. That's just sort of funny.

Also, implying that conservatives don't engage in good faith is pretty terrible for someone claiming they want to have a discussion in the first place. Makes it sound like you had no honest intentions, and just want to listen to people who already share your opinions. Not a good look when you try to argue your response isn't motivated by political partisanship.

As I said, people are too worried about whether they look racist, rather than IF they are racist. I was asking people who get accused to discuss the situation rationally instead of calling the accuser a liar or crying about how their reputation might be hurt. You decided to go immediately on the attack, accusing many people of being a liar. That's the political infighting I was talking about. You were trying to shut everyone down. I'm not having it. I'll have a discussion with you despite your actions.

I defined how to determine if someone is racist entirely devoid of what they attempt to look like, but I pointed out that if you call an action racist, you are really just calling the person who committed the action racist. You cared more about what you thought I resembled than my argument itself, and have accused me of some pretty terrible stuff because of it.

That is going on the attack.

My pointing out the people can, and do use the term as an insult, as a means to kill conversations, and as a way to demonize their opponents is not. It is a discussion on how the term is used, and while certainly disparaging of the term's usage, it goes no further than that. It makes no claim that all people do, and pointing out that there are people who will lie frequently does not mean that all people are liars. But it seems you have taken exception to that, so I will just ask you plain on this.

Do you think most people who call others racist are being accurate in their accusations? To point back at the simple examples I mentioned above, is the person who disliked Black Panther a racist? Is every person who wants border control racist?

Or do you think those accusations are incorrect?

Because I look at them and I see a huge variety of people from all walks of life who can hold the same opinion on a topic with all sorts of different reasons and motivations. But only one motivation is what defines if it is racist, and that is if it is based on their opinions because of the race involved.

This whole sentence of mine was a problem. I was going to go into another spiel but GOD your comment was utter nonsense. You decided that you hated it and did everything you could to discredit it without thinking. You made me tired and I gave up. My fault. Should have deleted that sentence.

Let me be clear. I am very concerned about racist being used as a weapon. You're using the term liar as a weapon here. I'm concerned about that too. I try not to hate on a word just becuase my side dislikes it.

Where did I call someone a liar here?
I point out the term "racist" is often used to disparage, to shut down conversation, or to reduce things to gross simplifications. And it is.
I point out that the current use in discussions is cancerous and disruptive, and how it is rarely used in good faith. And with regard to it being used to describe people or others in the discussion, that too is the simple truth.

But I didn't call someone a liar for using the term itself. Nor did I say that all claims are lies.

Why would you be concerned about a term I wasn't using being weaponized?

And why would you be so much more concerned about a term I wasn't using being weaponized by someone who wasn't using it instead of the actual argument I was making?

Calling people racist and nazis is an essential use of my right to free speech. Facts don't care about your feelings.

That quote commonly misattributed to Voltaire instead of the white supremacist, Kevin Alfred Strom who really produced it, whatever it was, insert that here.

runic knight:
snip

Let's back up

Here's how I see the situation. Racist is a term that is sometimes used to shut down conversations. It is sometimes used to damage people reputations.

Is that similar to your views?

Also, just for posterity, do you think slave owners were racist?

trunkage:

runic knight:
snip

Let's back up

Here's how I see the situation. Racist is a term that is sometimes used to shut down conversations. It is sometimes used to damage people reputations.

Is that similar to your views?

Also, just for posterity, do you think slave owners were racist?

I will agree that racist is a term that is sometimes used to shut down conversations and is sometimes used to damage people reputations.

I do not think that was the core of my argument as I was more going into how calling actions racist is still calling someone who commits the action racist by extension because of the intrinsic requirement of motivation in the application of the label, and then using that to launch into a little of how some would use the term to damage reputation or why it would shut down conversations as a result of that property of transference between calling an action racist and claiming a person is. But yes, I am comfortable with that stance above about the use of the term, specifically with relation to modern discussions (especially online ones).

As for slave owners, which ones? If you only mean southern american slave owners near the civil war period of american history, then absolutely yes, their actions towards other races is entirely directed by a view of the other races as inferior and thus would be racism defined. Generations of the view of slaves as apart from them cemented the view it was race justified, so the cultural mindset of those slave owners were entirely racist (explaining why it leaked out to general racism towards even free black people, as the slave class was base on race so the inverse was assumed as well by those in power).

If you mean slave owners in general, considering across africa, the middle east, and elsewhere people enslaved their own race, that becomes a lot less accurate to say. As would the modern illegal slave trade such as slave sex workers, where race being seen as better or worse doesn't really factor in to the horribleness of what they are doing.

runic knight:
I do not think that was the core of my argument as I was more going into how calling actions racist is still calling someone who commits the action racist by extension because of the intrinsic requirement of motivation in the application of the label, and then using that to launch into a little of how some would use the term to damage reputation or why it would shut down conversations as a result of that property of transference between calling an action racist and claiming a person is. But yes, I am comfortable with that stance above about the use of the term, specifically with relation to modern discussions (especially online ones).

I want to break things apart a bit

As for slave owners, which ones? If you only mean southern american slave owners near the civil war period of american history, then absolutely yes, their actions towards other races is entirely directed by a view of the other races as inferior and thus would be racism defined. Generations of the view of slaves as apart from them cemented the view it was race justified, so the cultural mindset of those slave owners were entirely racist (explaining why it leaked out to general racism towards even free black people, as the slave class was base on race so the inverse was assumed as well by those in power).

Firstly, I did mean American South Slave Owners. I'll be talking specifically about them here. But first, let's bring up your racism and motivation link/defintion (whatever you want to call it)

Racist is a word that implies motivation. It says that someone is acting a certain way because of race.
You can not point at something being "racist" without expressly attributing motivation, and therefor calling someone a racist with the same action. Racism is defined by its motivation and actions themselves do not have any.
It is not an interaction between two different races, but one shaped by how someone views those races. This can be positive or negative even, but that motivation behind their behavior and actions is what defines if it is racism or not

So the American South's motivation for slavery was that being a slave was benefical for Africans. They could become productive citizens this way, they could learn the Western culture and become devote Chrisitains.

When you claim that these American South Slave Owners that racist, your attributing your judgment of their motivations. They thought they were pure, unracist, helpful. So you are being like all those people who use the word racist today, using your interpretation of their motivation to justify calling them racist. These slave owners can rebut your claim by pointing they were helping, not hindering. (And they did so at the time.) They aren't racist.

Now, personally, I think think the claim that they arent racist is wrong. But the Slave Owners certainly thought they were right. Thus we had to have Reconstruction and Jim Crowe and now South Rising thing. Becuase they still disagree with Slave Owners being racist. So let's take an example from today. The Dems call the Trump border wall racist. It's designed to stop specific people from entering the country. This claimed can be back up with the rhetoric from Trump, Mexicans are rapist, drug dealers and murderers. Trump see this as a humanitarian issue. He can save the US and Mexican lives if he puts up the wall. Trump thinks that he's helping a specific group of people (Mexicans). The Dems disagree. Strongly.

If you think you can claim the Slave Owners are Racist, then anyone should be able to claim Trump is Racist. There is a clear pattern of attack and denegration against a certain population.

Also, calling someone a Racist damaging Reputations? That's a feature, not a bug. That's a feedback loop to cutrail racism. And looking at Jim Crowe era, without that feedback loop, racism runs rampant. Yes, as with all things, it can be weaponised against people. There is no way to stop that, it's unfortuante but that's how any of these feedback loops work

trunkage:

runic knight:
I do not think that was the core of my argument as I was more going into how calling actions racist is still calling someone who commits the action racist by extension because of the intrinsic requirement of motivation in the application of the label, and then using that to launch into a little of how some would use the term to damage reputation or why it would shut down conversations as a result of that property of transference between calling an action racist and claiming a person is. But yes, I am comfortable with that stance above about the use of the term, specifically with relation to modern discussions (especially online ones).

I want to break things apart a bit

I will as well, as there is a lot of problem in even this short reply.

Firstly, I did mean American South Slave Owners. I'll be talking specifically about them here. But first, let's bring up your racism and motivation link/definition (whatever you want to call it)

Racist is a word that implies motivation. It says that someone is acting a certain way because of race.
You can not point at something being "racist" without expressly attributing motivation, and therefor calling someone a racist with the same action. Racism is defined by its motivation and actions themselves do not have any.
It is not an interaction between two different races, but one shaped by how someone views those races. This can be positive or negative even, but that motivation behind their behavior and actions is what defines if it is racism or not

So the American South's motivation for slavery was that being a slave was benefical for Africans. They could become productive citizens this way, they could learn the Western culture and become devote Chrisitains.

I wholly disagree with this being their motivation. That may have been their justification of their actions, and some may have even actually believed it, but it certainly did not change that their motivation was driven by a view of the other people was based on race. This does not change that they viewed people as acceptable to enslave based on their race at the beginning when their drive was to have the labor needed to establish their wealth, and nor near the end when it was to maintain the power and wealth they had established.

Also, note the bolded since it seems you continue to ignore that. But more on that below.

When you claim that these American South Slave Owners that racist, your attributing your judgment of their motivations.

No, I am attributing a definition to their behavior based on their motivations. The defining of them as racist is not a judgement on them for it (even if I do couple it with a judgement of them for being it). Instead it is taking that definition above of "Racism ...is not an interaction between two different races, but one shaped by how someone views those races." and looking at a massive race-based system of slavery and going "yep, that system of slavery was certainly shaped how they looked at race."

They thought they were pure, unracist, helpful.

What does it matter what they thought with regard to benificality?

You again entirely miss my point from before where their actions being described by them as "beneficial" does not mean a thing one way or another. Them being racist is in no way changed if they thought they were beneficial instead of harmful. I mentioned this before, see the bolded above again. I do wonder why you keep ignoring that I have clarified this point before.

Do you think an action that is beneficial cannot be racist?

So you are being like all those people who use the word racist today, using your interpretation of their motivation to justify calling them racist.

No, I am using the fact they differentiate behavior based on race to define them as racist.

Because, even if we accept your idea that they think they are helping those black people, the fact still remains they are treating those black people differently entirely because they are black in the first place.

They are treating another race differently because of that race itself.

Racism is treating people of another race, or another race in entirety differently because of that race itself.

Therefore, they are racists.

They are racist if they think they are helping the other race, or if they think they are harming the other race. All that defines them being racist is that they are treating people of another race, or another race in entirety differently because of that race itself.

These slave owners can rebut your claim by pointing they were helping, not hindering. (And they did so at the time.) They aren't racist.

See my earlier point about it not mattering AT ALL if they are helpful or not.

Also see my earlier explanations of this in nearly every post and explain to me why you keep trying to use this idea of "beneficial racism" in response to someone who already said that it being beneficial doesn't make it racist.

Now, personally, I think think the claim that they arent racist is wrong. But the Slave Owners certainly thought they were right. Thus we had to have Reconstruction and Jim Crowe and now South Rising thing. Becuase they still disagree with Slave Owners being racist.

Nothing in this relates to my point, my argument, or my positions.

So let's take an example from today. The Dems call the Trump border wall racist. It's designed to stop specific people from entering the country. This claimed can be back up with the rhetoric from Trump, Mexicans are rapist, drug dealers and murderers. Trump see this as a humanitarian issue. He can save the US and Mexican lives if he puts up the wall. Trump thinks that he's helping a specific group of people (Mexicans). The Dems disagree. Strongly.

If you think you can claim the Slave Owners are Racist, then anyone should be able to claim Trump is Racist. There is a clear pattern of attack and denegration against a certain population.

Incorrect.

You are working from an assumption of my position that I have already clarified multiple times that you have continued to ignore.

When you stop misrepresenting my position, please reword this and try again.

I feel there IS something in this modern example that can be used to expand the topic, but I will not bother if even after being told your assumption about my position is wrong, you continue to misrepresent my position as something else.

Also, calling someone a Racist damaging Reputations? That's a feature, not a bug. That's a feedback loop to cutrail racism. And looking at Jim Crowe era, without that feedback loop, racism runs rampant. Yes, as with all things, it can be weaponised against people. There is no way to stop that, it's unfortuante but that's how any of these feedback loops work

You are right, it is a feature. As in, it is the outright intent. But that is like calling Clinton a muderer, or her husband a rapist. The intent to cause harm doesn't make conversation better, it just reduces them to demonizing labels and worthless shouting matches. It does not help discussion, and it does not get results out of them.

It is not done to aid discussion, it is done to shame people directly. It is, as you outright define the usage here, nothing but an attack on their character. That you attempt to justify this as acceptable or required is irrelevant to what it is and what you are using it for. That you attempt to justify this as acceptable or required is irrelevant to how what it is and what it is used for harms discussion.

As for the "feedback loop", how has the rise of intentionally calling people "rapist" to harm their reputations affected sexual assaults? Better yet, how has calling people "nazi" affected white supremacy? Have they decreased with the rise of such demonizing labels in conversations? I do not think demonizing people as "racist" has helped with race relations at all. I think much like any demonizing label, using it freely on any "acceptable" target results in the weight of it lessening, and the idea itself being more accepted since it feeds the inherent persecution complexes that very often couple those sorts.

In that, it is sort of similar to the problem with martial law. If it doesn't matter if you do a minor crime or a major one when both result in the same harsh consequence, those fearing the consequence don't care if they are already targeted by the law. And those already demonized as a "racist" will equally not care if their actions look bad. I'd say the only reason things haven't gotten worse in that regard is most people aren't the horrible monsters they are accused of being and genuinely don't want to cause harm to begin with, so don't start becoming racists outright.

runic knight:
You are working from an assumption of my position that I have already clarified multiple times that you have continued to ignore.

When you stop misrepresenting my position, please reword this and try again.

Okay, I'm not trying to misrepresent you. I 'm trying to point out something I think you missed. "If they are being benefitted, then there is nothing wrong." Let's detour here for a quick sec.

I feel there IS something in this modern example that can be used to expand the topic, but I will not bother if even after being told your assumption about my position is wrong, you continue to misrepresent my position as something else.

During the national speech made by Trump a couple of weeks ago, he stated the wall was to help his country AND Mexicans. Becuase he stated this, some Republicans who were worried about Trump and racism can just say, "It's FOR the Mexicans. It will help them." Now, you might be able to point out that that's not his motivation, that its just a justification. But other people wont, and will claim that he's not doing anything wrong. Acting this way doesnt hurt them, so its not a problem. (This is not what you believe, its what others believe)

It's why Obama can put up a travel ban against Muslim countries and Trump had trouble. Obama focused on protection, Trump focussed on how much they explode around white people. It's why Obama could easily put up more border fences and Trump cant get his wall. Obama focused on protection, Trump focussed on how murderous and rapey the Mexcians are.

But, since Mexicans arent being hurt, as decreed by Trump, it's not a problem for his supporters.

Also, I do find it funny when people complaining about 'racist' damaging to someone's reputation when Mexicans are blanket blamed for crimes that they didnt commit. IMO, if you want the former fixed, you fix the latter first. (But then if you fixed the latter, you wouldnt be the former.)

Marik2:
Do images still work on the site?

image

Yeah, except it isn't a silencing tactic because it doesn't silence people. It causes them to howl in histrionic rage.

Dreiko:
Calling someone a racist is an ad-hominem so it's a logical fallacy.

Two things wrong in that single sentence.

"Ad hominem" is only a fallacy if you attack someone's character as an alternative to the issue at hand. Calling David Duke a racist when he talks shit about black people is an ad hominem, but not a fallacy. Calling David Duke a racist to solve an argument over which the better beer was would be the informal fallacy of ad hominem.

Calling someone a racist is quite often non-fallacious and/or valid. Calling someone a racist and using it to invalidate an unrelated argument is when it becomes fallacious.

Interestingly, this could arguably be used as an example of the "fallacy" fallacy.

Racism is especially tricky to sort out in terms of fallacious argument, because whether or not you personally like it, the issue of race tends to have pretty pervasive affects across social, economic and political strata. This is where most people start getting triggered over the use of racism...they would never burn a cross or scream the n-word, and how dare you accuse them of racism because this is what I mean and that'sthe onlyu valid version.

Though these days, we have people who literally talk about killing Jews, wearing swastika armbands, Heiling Hitler and goose stepping who get triggered by the term racist, so it's not a guarantee. That's more an aside, tough, to the issue of arguing fallacy where oe doesn't (necessarily) exist.

Gethsemani:
The context is not the same in these discussions, but in terms of fostering discussion and trust, leading with an accusation or slur is rarely a good way to go. It doesn't matter if the slur used is racist, fascist, misogynist, snowflake, SJW, NPC, communist, asshole or psychopath, because whoever is on the receiving end will not stop to think "Huh, I never realized I was a SJW communist racist misogynist". No, they'll see the attack on their character and will react to the attack by getting defensive.

It's interesting within this context, though, as one can't control the reaction one receives. You can see right on this forum that you don't need to say someone is racist or misogynist for them to invoke those words anyway, because they are primed to hear "racist" or "sexist" or what have you. That response doesn't really shut down conversation because there was never going to be a discussion in the first place. It's hard to argue in good faith with people who respond in this fashion, whether the word was uttered or not.

It's been my experience it's a "the lady doth protest too much" scenario, because the people most prone to proptest (or hear)( the term racist are the ones behaving in a racist fashion.

To use your later examples of communism and SJW, the value of those words to me is utterly dependent on who's saying that, and I think most members of the species can discern things like intent. I don't see "communist" as offensive, although I do see it as inaccurate. My economic principles fall somewhere towards a socialist mindset, but not exclusively, and I tend to find polar solutions don't work, and I'd be generally happy to explain the difference.

I've been racist before. I've been sexist before. I've been homophobic and transphobic before. I've been antisemitic. I've been Islamophobic. I've probably been other tings. And to go back to the example I used with Dreiko, it's not becaue I call black people the n-word or want to gas Jewish people. Christ, I'm bi and trans and have managed to be bigoted to people just like me. There are many more insidious ways we develop prejudices and many of them are imitated social behaviour. I grew up in a family with everyone but my parents and brother were Fox News fans before it even existed. I picked up a lot of behaviour from them specifically. And if I wasn't called out on it, I never would have learned and adjusted my behaviour. It changed my outlook and I appreciate it.

Often times, we can't know what the response will be beforehand, but that's true even of terms which aren't loaded. Certain people are pre-disposed to be offended at perceived challenges. I can't eat red meat, because of a medical condition whose name I forget, but which is similar to lactose intolerance. Saying "no thank you" to a hamburger is a minefield, because many people--at least in 'Murrica--take it as a personal affront to their way of life.

My experience has largely been that the people who take "racist" as a blanket slur are outnumbered by those who don't, and I live in a country where the President looked at a rally to end Jewish influence in America and decided there were "very fine people." It honestly seems like the only people you can guarantee will be offended are the self-identified nazis and the people screaming about black people.

And I don't see many of them on the sites I frequent.

I suppose we could argue argue a blanket caution (and I already shy away from calling people racist), but to relegate the word to a slur because contextually the people for which it's most accurate will take umbrage seems a bit much. Grown-ups still use words like "communist" in adult conversations.

There are multiple ways to reach people, and some people need to hear they're being racist. Some people need a more gentle approach. Some people need to be coddled, and yet others will probably never be reached.

But that could just be me. I became frustrated trying to make peace with the people who kept trying to murder me and rape the "queer" out of me. I used to try so hard to keep my head down and avoid conflict, but I've come to appreciate the firebrand's necessity, as even the luminary MLK did.

trunkage:

runic knight:
You are working from an assumption of my position that I have already clarified multiple times that you have continued to ignore.

When you stop misrepresenting my position, please reword this and try again.

Okay, I'm not trying to misrepresent you. I 'm trying to point out something I think you missed. "If they are being benefitted, then there is nothing wrong." Let's detour here for a quick sec.

That viewpoint is not my own though, nor does it relate to my position or arguments. It honestly seems tacked on to concentrate on that instead, rather then my positions or arguments as they were stated.

Hell, I said from the start that it being "good" or not doesn't change if something is racism or not, so your concentration on it is particularly off.

I did not miss the idea at all, I openly addressed how it was irrelevant to my stance.

I am curious though, as my stance was about what is or is not racism. Why do you mention benevolent racism being moral there at all?

I feel there IS something in this modern example that can be used to expand the topic, but I will not bother if even after being told your assumption about my position is wrong, you continue to misrepresent my position as something else.

During the national speech made by Trump a couple of weeks ago, he stated the wall was to help his country AND Mexicans. Becuase he stated this, some Republicans who were worried about Trump and racism can just say, "It's FOR the Mexicans. It will help them." Now, you might be able to point out that that's not his motivation, that its just a justification. But other people wont, and will claim that he's not doing anything wrong. Acting this way doesnt hurt them, so its not a problem. (This is not what you believe, its what others believe)

It's why Obama can put up a travel ban against Muslim countries and Trump had trouble. Obama focused on protection, Trump focussed on how much they explode around white people. It's why Obama could easily put up more border fences and Trump cant get his wall. Obama focused on protection, Trump focussed on how murderous and rapey the Mexcians are.

But, since Mexicans arent being hurt, as decreed by Trump, it's not a problem for his supporters.

Also, I do find it funny when people complaining about 'racist' damaging to someone's reputation when Mexicans are blanket blamed for crimes that they didnt commit. IMO, if you want the former fixed, you fix the latter first. (But then if you fixed the latter, you wouldnt be the former.)

Illegal mexicans are blamed, yes. How unfair that generalization is I wont argue here, it is too far removed from my point, and too messy a topic since it is very subjective. I will say that two wrongs do no equal a right though, so the existence of that problem does not justify or diminish the harm of the other problem. But that does lead me into what I see as a flaw in your view of things.

For starters, just off the bat, you seem to be assuming this is all motivated by race. It primarily discusses nationality though, and a very narrow aspect of it at that. Lets set aside for a moment the motivations for a wall range from securing borders to stop the drug trade, to stopping human trafficking, to stopping illegal border crossing and migration, to protecting workers of lower income jobs from unfair competition, to even more outlandish claims of it stopping voter manipulation via some of the previous stuff, or it bringing back lower income jobs. Even going purely from the view "the wall is to stop mexicans specifically from entering america", that is still an issue of nationality, not race. It is a matter of america wanting to wall to stop illegal border crossing from mexico, not of "white people want wall to stop brown people from entering". The Wall is not called for because they want to stop anyone who has brown skin, and despite how it is portrayed as such, those hispanic illegal immigrants aren't opposed because they are hispanic.

Now yes, I am aware that the people affected are near exclusively of one race and that because of that it demonstrates treating people of a specific race differently, so that may still seem like it fits the definition of racism, but the motivation is not clearly for race and instead seems far more concerned with the illegal immigration and crossing aspects. That is not to say there aren't clearly racist motivation in some of those supporting the wall, I am sure there is just as much as there is in support of affirmative action. But as racism is defined as differential treatment motivated by a view on the race itself, there is far, far too many motivations beside race in play to so casually dismiss them all just to justify picking the one that paints poorest the person you dislike.

It is easy to see behavior towards a group of people and define it on being because of a specific trait of that people. But in this case, and in many others, in order for the claim to be justified it has to demonstrate consistency. With the wall, nothing is restricted towards legal immigrants with it. Nothing says members of other hispanic heavy nations can't immigrate and nothing about the wall affects them at all. Nothing about it affects existing legal migrants in america currently. Nothing about the wall affects existing legal citizens because of it.

The only group affected would be those seeking to illegally travel into the nation. A group that is primarily hispanic, but which is very doubtful are being singled out because of that race alone, compared to the other, far more likely and relevant reasons why people would support the wall. A very narrow selection of the entire group you are attributing people's prejudice towards as the motivation for their action, and with greater weight than all the other, more consistently attributed motivations for it.

And do note, that is not to say the wall needs to be supported if it isn't racist. You can oppose it without the person you oppose being racist. It is just that as it was defined from the start here, the wall as an issue doesn't fit the definition of "racism" any more than walls do for any other nation.

Now, you mention that the same behavior of obama compared to trump is treated differently, and that is a good point to do so, as it shows what I argued from the start that it is purely in motivation that racism is defined, not in actions themselves, not even if those actions affect a group that happens to be predominantly of one race. But you attribute a goodwill to obama's motivation and an ill will towards trump's motivation in order to justify your stance there, and that is where I see the flaw, one primarily driven by your own bias seeking justification and finding it, rather than lookng at their motivatons as they are and applying the definition to them.

Trump called up mention of the threat he saw as his justification, Obama called for protection from such a threat. Both attributed to those nations the threat that needed to be protected from. Again, this is an issue of nationality (since that was what the restrictions defined as) not race, and as we see in the previous topic of the wall, so too do we see the same overall flaw where the claims of racism make less sense to apply so narrowly to the "race".

In the end, you see obama's motivations as not motivated by race because of the same bias that does attribute trumps as motivated by race. Obama generalized those nations as risks for the exact same reasons trump did: the volatile conflicts around and in those nations, and the the risks travelers from them would carry. And regardless if that generalization was fair and warranted or not, that was the motivation behind both of them. They are both guilty of making those generalizations about the nations on the list, but they were based in the nationality and situation of them, not the race or religious ethnicity of the people predominantly in those areas. Saying one was and yet one wasn't is still special pleading to justify it. At best you have that obama is more tactful in how he presents it and trump is more oafish.

As for the label damaging people's reputation compared to how illegal immigrants reputation damages them, given they both cause harm, pretending you have to accept one to beat the other is disingenuous. Neither should be accepted. Fixing how bad reputation of illegal immigrants causes harm does not make calling someone a racist suddenly less harmful. Though I think that preventing or ending illegal immigration as a source of conflict and issues would probably go a long way in making the harm it causes on people's reputations lessen. So solutions toward that end should be examined and worked towards instead of fought over to stalemates as the president and congress have done in america.

runic knight:

I am curious though, as my stance was about what is or is not racism. Why do you mention benevolent racism being moral there at all?

Becuase, the people who you would call 'benevolent racist', would call themselves benevolent. I.e. not racist at all.

trunkage:

runic knight:

I am curious though, as my stance was about what is or is not racism. Why do you mention benevolent racism being moral there at all?

Becuase, the people who you would call 'benevolent racist', would call themselves benevolent. I.e. not racist at all.

That people who call themselves benevolent racist may not think of themselves as racist at all is true. You can see this in things from supporters of affirmative action based around race, to those who defend racist practices of the past as good for the people they were done to, to even more current situations where racial identity is viewed as a reason to treat someone better, believe them more readily, or to demonize criticisms of them as something more sinister.

But what they call themselves is irrelevant to the definition. That is why at no point did my definition depend upon what someone calls or views themselves as, and instead it concentrated on if their actions towards a racial group or members of that group were motivated by their being part of said racial group. If someone thinks they are doing a good thing or not doesn't matter, nor does their personal view on the benevolence of their actions.

But, once again, why do you mention benevolent racism at all in reply to me? I already specified from my first post that racism could be benevolent and that its definition does not indicate good or bad, so bringing it up in response to me seems very out of place.

I just don't see the relation to my point about what defines racism, nor the use of it as support of anything else. It is just sort of a "but other people do this" thing. Seems very irrelevant to anything said thus far.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here