ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 24th August 2017, 09:10 AM   #81
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,292
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I wouldn't say that I am passionate about preserving Conservative statues, but in previous threads, I was passionate about preserving Confederate flags attached to gravestones of Confederate soldiers. So am I on the same side as the Nazis? I guess on one issue, I probably am.
It is about showing the pride of the white race and being proud of segregation. That is what these where always about. America is and needs to stay a white nation. That is what the rally was about.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2017, 09:14 AM   #82
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 29,862
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
No it was a white nationalism rally. Everyone there was there to hear people like Richard Spencer give a talk. Why would people who are not white nationalists go to a rally for white nationalism?
Indeed:
Here's what we know about the 'pro-white' organizer of 'Unite the Right,' who was chased out of his own press conference
Quote:
Kessler told a local radio station last week that the rally was meant as a show of "support" for Charlotteville's monument to the Confederate general Robert E. Lee, which he said local politicians were trying to remove as part of "a push to take down all of these white historical figures."

"We're trying to do a pro-white demonstration," Kessler said. "We're trying to show that folks can stand up for white people. The political correctness has gotten way out of control, and the only way to fight back against it has been to stand up for our own interests."

Kessler, who has written for right-wing publications like The Daily Caller and the anti-immigration outlet VDARE, said that he is "pro-white" and wants to "stand up" for his people against "ethnic cleansing" by "liberal social policies." But he denied that he is a white supremacist.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2017, 09:16 AM   #83
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK
Posts: 5,137
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
And why we need to stop pretending Martin Luther King was anything more than the thug everyone knew he was at the time.
There's a difference between campaigning for what's right, and acting like you're a political renegade by throwing rocks at people you don't agree with, though.

Closer to home, the Toxteth riots of the 80's; the cause may have been a noble one, but at the end of the day it was just a bunch of people fighting one another and ruining their own neighbourhood.

I always see it from a purely neutral and logical side. The last thing anyone wants or needs is a battleground full of injured people, broken property, and all paid for by hard-working tax-payers who would rather not have to dole out money to pay for things like broken windows just because two groups of people don't like each other. On the face of it, it's as silly as rival football fans doing battle in the streets because they don't like the opposing teams.

Politics, and the fight for causes, shouldn't take place on the street, and if they do, they should aim to be peaceful and problem-free.
__________________
Generic proclamation of positivity:

Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up.

Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.'
Gilbert Syndrome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2017, 09:20 AM   #84
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,292
Originally Posted by Gilbert Syndrome View Post
There's a difference between campaigning for what's right, and acting like you're a political renegade by throwing rocks at people you don't agree with, though.
And blocking traffic is a tactic favored by both. At least the cops put a proper stop to the march on Selma, even if we refuse to give them the credit they deserve.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2017, 09:24 AM   #85
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK
Posts: 5,137
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
And blocking traffic is a tactic favored by both. At least the cops put a proper stop to the march on Selma, even if we refuse to give them the credit they deserve.
Both sides tend to use similar tactics. One the face of it, they're both creating trouble in the name of their own preferred causes.

I think if we're civilized people, then we obviously don't want to have such trouble on our doorsteps, regardless of what we feel is right or wrong.

Once you're involved in such activities, whether left or right, you can't expect sympathy if you get hurt or arrested.
__________________
Generic proclamation of positivity:

Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up.

Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.'
Gilbert Syndrome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2017, 09:25 AM   #86
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,126
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
It wouldn't be a strange thing to say in response to a scientific claim, but to "that's racist" it's not like they can pull out a mathematical proof or something.
And yet I can somehow say that buying a Toyota isn't racist, because "racism" has a definition that, once we agree on it, allows us to determine what fits it and what doesn't. I'm not asking for a peer-reviewed physics paper.

So, tell you what: how do you define "racism"?

Quote:
Having a pre-formed negative opinion of a group of people based on race isn't racist to you?
Careful now. If you're going to play games, this is going to go south really fast.

The negative opinion is based on the fact that he doesn't know them. After all he's fine with the ones he knows despite their ethnicity.

Quote:
But you're quite obviously wrong to call it a non sequitur.
I have a thing with the word "obvious". It's usually brought up in place of an actual argument, so it sounds like a cop out.

It's not necessary that the opinion apply equally to all groups for it to be not racist.
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2017, 09:27 AM   #87
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,292
Originally Posted by Gilbert Syndrome View Post
Both sides tend to use similar tactics. One the face of it, they're both creating trouble in the name of their own preferred causes.
He was doing all the same things as BLM and should be viewed as such. If cops are heroes for killing a boy with a toy gun, why not for putting a stop to a criminal march?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2017, 09:29 AM   #88
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 16,405
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
No it was a white nationalism rally. Everyone there was there to hear people like Richard Spencer give a talk. Why would people who are not white nationalists go to a rally for white nationalism?
Free Hat?

__________________
I have a permanent room at the Home for the Chronically Groovy - Floyd from the Muppets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2017, 09:32 AM   #89
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK
Posts: 5,137
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
He was doing all the same things as BLM and should be viewed as such. If cops are heroes for killing a boy with a toy gun, why not for putting a stop to a criminal march?
Well, I don't personally subscribe to the notion that you're a hero for killing a kid with a toy gun, but then again, I don't see any heroes in the recent protests, whether they be on the left or the right. They're people involving themselves in things which they have no real control over. It's a never-ending cycle of stupidity.

The problem is in the idea that people think they're justice-warriors, battling wrongdoing.

There's a time and a place to fight for what you believe in, and for me, that place isn't on the street with a bottle in one hand and a brick in the other.
__________________
Generic proclamation of positivity:

Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up.

Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.'
Gilbert Syndrome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2017, 09:40 AM   #90
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,303
The current day Nazis and KKK attempt to soften their public image by denying that they are racist or white supremacists. They claim that they are not anti-Black, anti-Jewish, anti-Catholic, but that they are only defenders of "white culture." They claim to be "separatists" without a value judgement as to which race is better. Members of this forum are quite familiar with this public relations campaign.

Although even this white separatism is itself horribly reprehensible, even this sorrowful attempt to deny racism and white supremacy has a fundamental flaw- why do these groups still identify themselves so completely with the Nazis and the KKK of the past? Not only is there a continuity in their membership and leadership over the years, but they proudly use the same names and the same symbols as did their murderous predecessors. They idolize the founders of their organizations, the very men who committed atrocity after atrocity.

Although they are willing to lie to the public as to their views, in reality they can't bear to distance themselves from the murderous scum from which they came and whose actions they still worship. If you call yourself a Nazi and match under a swastika, or KKK and use KKK symbols, then you are clearly proud of what these groups are famous for.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2017, 09:42 AM   #91
Imhotep
Critical Thinker
 
Imhotep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 405
It's weird to think of the Blues Brothers scene where they drive right at the Nazis and make them jump off the bridge, in light of recent events.
Imhotep is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2017, 09:47 AM   #92
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK
Posts: 5,137
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
The current day Nazis and KKK attempt to soften their public image by denying that they are racist or white supremacists. They claim that they are not anti-Black, anti-Jewish, anti-Catholic, but that they are only defenders of "white culture." They claim to be "separatists" without a value judgement as to which race is better. Members of this forum are quite familiar with this public relations campaign.

Although even this white separatism is itself horribly reprehensible, even this sorrowful attempt to deny racism and white supremacy has a fundamental flaw- why do these groups still identify themselves so completely with the Nazis and the KKK of the past? Not only is there a continuity in their membership and leadership over the years, but they proudly use the same names and the same symbols as did their murderous predecessors. They idolize the founders of their organizations, the very men who committed atrocity after atrocity.

Although they are willing to lie to the public as to their views, in reality they can't bear to distance themselves from the murderous scum from which they came and whose actions they still worship. If you call yourself a Nazi and match under a swastika, or KKK and use KKK symbols, then you are clearly proud of what these groups are famous for.
They're not very bright. It's like when I see Swastikas sprayed onto walls beside EDL logos, I just have a chuckle to myself and walk along. Same with the National Front stuff, it just makes me laugh at how weird you have to be to be really "patriotic" for Britain, and yet openly identify with Nazi symbolism.
__________________
Generic proclamation of positivity:

Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up.

Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.'
Gilbert Syndrome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2017, 10:02 AM   #93
sir drinks-a-lot
Master Poster
 
sir drinks-a-lot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Cole Valley, CA
Posts: 2,893
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
I had never heard of Antifa before Charlottesville, so I can't speak about that.
This is amazing and surprising. The West Coast podcast I listen to was saying a few days ago how the East Coast media somehow missed the Antifa thing, and is just hearing of them now. I guess they're right, and Saint Louis falls under the East Coast umbrella somehow.

Here on the West Coast, most everyone has heard about them for quite a while now, especially since this is where they've been doing most of their "protesting".
__________________
I drink to the general joy o' th' whole table. --William Shakespeare
sir drinks-a-lot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2017, 10:33 AM   #94
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,101
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Careful now. If you're going to play games, this is going to go south really fast.
I have no idea what you mean by that. What about my reply seems like I'm trying to play games?

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
The negative opinion is based on the fact that he doesn't know them. After all he's fine with the ones he knows despite their ethnicity.
And yet you say it's irrelevant whether or not they also dislike non-black people they don't know?

That doesn't make sense.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
It's not necessary that the opinion apply equally to all groups for it to be not racist.
If you have a baseline negative opinion of specifically black people prior to meeting them based solely on them being black, that's racist.

If you have a baseline negative opinion of humans in general prior to meeting them that's not racist.
SOdhner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2017, 10:42 AM   #95
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,126
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
I have no idea what you mean by that. What about my reply seems like I'm trying to play games?
You knowing exactly what I'm saying but pretending that I said something different in order to make it seem like I'm talking nonsense.

Quote:
And yet you say it's irrelevant whether or not they also dislike non-black people they don't know?
I said it doesn't follow. You're either deliberately twisting my words or you're simply unable to follow simple sentences.

Quote:
If you have a baseline negative opinion of specifically black people prior to meeting them based solely on them being black, that's racist.
Highlight mine.

I would agree to that, but this isn't the situation we're discussing, is it? It isn't solely race, and it might not have anything to do with race either.

I notice you didn't provide your definition of the word "racism" for us to work with. I'd call that strange, but somehow I don't find it surprising at all.
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2017, 10:47 AM   #96
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,101
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
You knowing exactly what I'm saying but pretending that I said something different in order to make it seem like I'm talking nonsense.
Nope. I genuinely don't understand what about my reply made you think I was "playing games".

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I said it doesn't follow. You're either deliberately twisting my words or you're simply unable to follow simple sentences.
Pot, kettle.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I would agree to that, but this isn't the situation we're discussing, is it? It isn't solely race, and it might not have anything to do with race either.
It's... not about race? Literally the only variable is race.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I notice you didn't provide your definition of the word "racism" for us to work with.
Because it's irrelevant and I don't want to get sucked down into a pit of semantics.
SOdhner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2017, 10:51 AM   #97
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,126
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
Nope. I genuinely don't understand what about my reply made you think I was "playing games".
I just told you in the bit you quoted!

Quote:
Pot, kettle.
What? Where have I done this? Are you just throwing words around to avoid addressing my points?

Do you not understand that "this doesn't follow" doesn't mean "it's irrelevant"?

Quote:
It's... not about race? Literally the only variable is race.
We just established that an important criterion was whether the person is part of the in-group or not. How is that not a variable? You can't possibly claim to not have understood this.

Quote:
Because it's irrelevant and I don't want to get sucked down into a pit of semantics.
We're clearly using different definitions of the thing we're discussing. If you think that's irrelevant then any conversation with you is pointless.
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2017, 11:12 AM   #98
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,101
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I just told you in the bit you quoted!
Ah, I thought you were accusing me of doing that just then, not saying that that's what I was doing earlier. Either way you're wrong, but whatever. I'm not trying to misrepresent you.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
What? Where have I done this? Are you just throwing words around to avoid addressing my points?

Do you not understand that "this doesn't follow" doesn't mean "it's irrelevant"?
You dismissed that part of his statement even though it DID follow from what he was saying and was relevant to the topic at hand.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
We just established that an important criterion was whether the person is part of the in-group or not. How is that not a variable? You can't possibly claim to not have understood this.
It's a blanket statement about a group of people defined by race.

It's not "I dislike people I don't know" which would be strange and misanthropic but not racist (because there's no mention of race) or "I dislike people who talk loudly in the theater" which is based on a specific action and not race. It's "I dislike black people I don't know" which is specifically based on race. If it wasn't about race then even saying the "black people" part would be odd, misleading, and irrelevant to the actual scenario.

I'm really not understanding how a negative blanket statement about a group of people defined by race isn't counting as racist to you.

The only thing I can think of is that you're saying it can't be racism because this hypothetical person has black friends? I'm not sure that's your point, but I'm going to reply to it anyway just in case to save time:

Sometimes people who have biases against a particular group will still end up liking some specific person from that group. Once you get to know someone you may like them, but if you continue to assume that the rest of that group is bad based on their race (or whatever other thing, let's not get off track too far) then you are still racist because you are still judging the rest of that group based on prejudiced assumptions. Having some specific people from a group that you like does not mean that prejudice against that group is no longer racism. You're still setting the starting point in a relationship at "dislike" rather than "neutral".

If that's not what you were trying to say, just come out and state your case. You've pretty much been saying "nuh-uh" and not articulating your argument.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
We're clearly using different definitions of the thing we're discussing. If you think that's irrelevant then any conversation with you is pointless.
I think that my broader definition for racism isn't relevant to why I find this specific thing racist, since I've already made that very clear. I don't want to get pulled into a semantic argument about the specific words I choose to define this term when we can easily discuss the one example we were talking about without it.

But fine. Here's one, I cobbled one together for you. Try not to get all picky with it:

Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or group based (either knowingly or subconsciously) on their perceived race.

Last edited by SOdhner; 24th August 2017 at 11:14 AM.
SOdhner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2017, 11:16 AM   #99
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 29,862
How many times is this statement going to be appropriate in this thread?
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
...and this is why we need more nuanced language for dealing with racism biases, prejudices, and/or preconceived notions of ethnicity within individuals, society, and the law. Using the r-word inevitably results in people getting defensive and objecting to the word rather than addressing the situation.

....I'm guessing it will be more than twice.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2017, 11:16 AM   #100
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,126
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
You dismissed that part of his statement even though it DID follow from what he was saying and was relevant to the topic at hand.
1) What part did I dismiss?
2) How does that relate to calling me pot or kettle?

Quote:
It's a blanket statement about a group of people defined by race.
But not defined solely by race, contrary to what you said.

Quote:
It's not "I dislike people I don't know" which would be strange and misanthropic but not racist
Misanthropic? Again, that's a peculiar way to use that word.

Quote:
It's I dislike black people I don't know" which is specifically based on race.
And again you're ignoring the other criteria. Why?

Me: "I don't like cold pizza."
You: "Why, what do you have against pizza?"
Me: "What? I said cold pizza."
You: "How about cold sandwiches?"
Me: "No, those are fine."
You: "See? You are anti-pizza!"

Quote:
I think that my broader definition for racism isn't relevant to why I find this specific thing racist, since I've already made that very clear.
If a narrower definition makes it not racist, you can bet a slice of cold pizza it's relevant.

Quote:
Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or group based (either knowingly or subconsciously) on their perceived race.
That works for me, though I notice you removed the earlier "solely" from the definition.
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2017, 11:34 AM   #101
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,101
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
But not defined solely by race, contrary to what you said.
That's literally the whole thing. If he doesn't know them, what other criteria is he basing the dislike on?

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Misanthropic? Again, that's a peculiar way to use that word.
Well I certainly don't want to derail into a conversation about what misanthropic means, but I feel like disliking literally everyone as a default until you get to know them is pretty misanthropic. Whatever though, not worth arguing over.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
And again you're ignoring the other criteria. Why?
There's no other criteria! This is a group of people about which we know exactly one thing: that they're black.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Me: "I don't like cold pizza."
You: "Why, what do you have against pizza?"
Me: "What? I said cold pizza."
You: "How about cold sandwiches?"
Me: "No, those are fine."
You: "See? You are anti-pizza!"
That's a terrible analogy.
1. Being cold is a specific property that objectively changes the quality of pizza as a food item (whether it's for the better or worse is opinion, but it's objectively true that it's a relevant change).
2. Pizza and sandwiches are completely different foods, with completely different properties.
3. Neither of these things are true of what you're comparing them to. Being black isn't a property that inherently changes the quality of you being a likable person or not. Black people and non-black people aren't completely different things.

There is exactly ONE property known about the group in the hypothetical. They're black. Dislike of this group must therefore be based on that one property.

You seem to feel that "I don't know them" changes this somehow. It doesn't. All that means is that you don't know anything else about them to make a judgement on.

Picture a Monty Hall type scenario. There's a room with a door, the host tells you that there's a person behind the door. You have to say if you like them, dislike them, or are neutral towards them. All that you know is their race.

You're saying that in this scenario, if the contestant always hit "dislike" for black people but not for all contestants in general, it wouldn't be based on race?

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
That works for me, though I notice you removed the earlier "solely" from the definition.
That word was used in a prior post in reference to a specific thing, not as a definition of racism in general.
SOdhner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2017, 11:39 AM   #102
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,126
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
That's literally the whole thing.

<snip>

There's no other criteria!
So that he knows or doesn't know them is not a criterion?

Quote:
That's a terrible analogy.
It's not great but it illustrates the logic of ignoring part of the equation. You don't get to decide which criteria are relevant and which aren't, since to the hypothetical person they both count.

Quote:
You seem to feel that "I don't know them" changes this somehow. It doesn't.
Then it turns out my analogy is pretty good: liking cold sandwiches means I'm anti-pizza!
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2017, 11:45 AM   #103
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,101
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
So that he knows or doesn't know them is not a criterion?
I would argue that it's not - it's a LACK of knowledge. It's just a way of saying "all I know is that they're black".

But even if it is, that wouldn't really change anything. If you dislike black people you don't know but don't dislike non-black people you don't know then the only variable is that they're black.

What information does "I don't know them" convey that would make you dislike them, and why wouldn't that apply to everyone?
SOdhner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2017, 11:47 AM   #104
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,126
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
I would argue that it's not - it's a LACK of knowledge. It's just a way of saying "all I know is that they're black".
And yet when you know them you still know they're black and don't dislike them for it. Seems that being black isn't the deciding factor.

Quote:
But even if it is, that wouldn't really change anything.
Even if it's relevant, it's still irrelevant!
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2017, 11:52 AM   #105
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,101
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
And yet when you know them you still know they're black and don't dislike them for it. Seems that being black isn't the deciding factor.
Read it again:

Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
The only thing I can think of is that you're saying it can't be racism because this hypothetical person has black friends? I'm not sure that's your point, but I'm going to reply to it anyway just in case to save time:

Sometimes people who have biases against a particular group will still end up liking some specific person from that group. Once you get to know someone you may like them, but if you continue to assume that the rest of that group is bad based on their race (or whatever other thing, let's not get off track too far) then you are still racist because you are still judging the rest of that group based on prejudiced assumptions. Having some specific people from a group that you like does not mean that prejudice against that group is no longer racism. You're still setting the starting point in a relationship at "dislike" rather than "neutral".
What about this specific group makes them less likeable when you don't know them? Is it that they're black? If so, it's racist. If not, you're making up additional properties not stated in the scenario.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Even if it's relevant, it's still irrelevant!
What I said was that even if it was a criterion, it wouldn't be a relevant one.
SOdhner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2017, 11:54 AM   #106
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,126
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
What about this specific group makes them less likeable when you don't know them? Is it that they're black? If so, it's racist. If not, you're making up additional properties not stated in the scenario.
You forgot the other criterion that I keep bringing up. That is so weird. It's like you don't like the fact that it's right there for all to see. You're the one who said it had to be "solely" race.
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2017, 11:58 AM   #107
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,101
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
You forgot the other criterion that I keep bringing up. That is so weird. It's like you don't like the fact that it's right there for all to see. You're the one who said it had to be "solely" race.
Let me repeat myself with annotations so you can follow along better:

Originally Posted by Me, a second ago
What about this specific group [THIS SPECIFIC GROUP = "PEOPLE"] makes them less likable when you don't know them? Is it that they're black? If so, it's racist. If not, you're making up additional properties not stated in the scenario.
There, does that make it easier to actually answer my question?

Last edited by SOdhner; 24th August 2017 at 12:03 PM. Reason: Moved some stuff.
SOdhner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2017, 11:59 AM   #108
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,126
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
Let me repeat myself with annotations so you can follow along better:

There, does that make it easier to actually answer my question?
Since I've already responded to this, and you keep expecting different results by repeating yourself endlessly, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2017, 12:05 PM   #109
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,101
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Since I've already responded to this, and you keep expecting different results by repeating yourself endlessly, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
I'd love a link if you could provide one.

I don't see it here for sure.

There is one thing that is a variable between "people in general I don't know" and "black people I don't know". You keep saying there's another, but you won't say what that is.
SOdhner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2017, 12:08 PM   #110
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,126
There is one thing that is a variable between "black people I know" and "black people I don't know".

You keep ignoring that for some reason, but I won't.
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2017, 12:12 PM   #111
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,389
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
You forgot the other criterion that I keep bringing up. That is so weird. It's like you don't like the fact that it's right there for all to see. You're the one who said it had to be "solely" race.
The idea that liking black people you have met somehow makes not liking black people you haven't met less racist is akin to thinking that pointing to someone you haven't murdered makes you less of a murderer if you kill other people
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2017, 12:14 PM   #112
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,126
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
The idea that liking black people you have met somehow makes not liking black people you haven't met less racist is akin to thinking that pointing to someone you haven't murdered makes you less of a murderer if you kill other people
Where have I made this argument? Nowhere, is where.
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2017, 12:22 PM   #113
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,340
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
You can quibble with cherry-picked bits of data and hand wave all you like, but systemic racism in the justice system is not just an assumption, which was my purpose in that post.

So it's just an assumption, then?
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2017, 12:25 PM   #114
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,101
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
There is one thing that is a variable between "black people I know" and "black people I don't know".

You keep ignoring that for some reason, but I won't.
I'm not ignoring it. I addressed that, several times. You aren't answering my question though:

Let's take the group of people "People I Don't Know".

In this scenario, you dislike a specific subset of that group. The only thing you know about them is that they're black.

If you aren't deciding you dislike this particular subset of the "people I don't know" group because they're black, then what other property are you making this jugement call based on?

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Where have I made this argument? Nowhere, is where.
You haven't made any argument at all, actually. You've just said "there's a difference between knowing someone and not knowing someone" and then not actually tried to formulate a coherent argument for what is actually being discussed.
SOdhner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2017, 12:27 PM   #115
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,126
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
Let's take the group of people "People I Don't Know".
Which is already one variable/criterion. That's my whole point. If you say you've removed the "solely" from your definition because it was a mistake, and racism requires race as a variable and that's it, then fine, by your definition the man's racist. I might not necessarily agree with your definition then but at least you're being consistent. Is that the case?

Quote:
You haven't made any argument at all, actually. You've just said "there's a difference between knowing someone and not knowing someone"
Well, that's an argument, really. You do know what an argument is, right?
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2017, 12:40 PM   #116
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,389
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Where have I made this argument? Nowhere, is where.
Great then stop pretending that the statement ' I don't like black people I haven't met' isn't racist then
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2017, 12:43 PM   #117
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,101
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Which is already one variable/criterion.
No, that's you trying to avoid answering my question.

You might as well say "people" is a relevant variable. After all, what about black dogs? What about crows? Heck, why are we talking about animals at all? I have some black shoes...

But you know that's silly (I hope). Likewise, you avoiding my question by starting with "people" instead of "people I don't know" is silly. You can just answer the question as I asked it. (Or maybe you can't, because you know you don't like the answer.)

But cool, fine. Let's do this your way. here's a handy chart!

Code:
                 A     B
HUMAN            X     X
DON'T KNOW THEM  X     X
BLACK            X     
LIKE THEM              X
There, I have included "don't know them". What is the difference between group A and group B?

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
If you say you've removed the "solely" from your definition because it was a mistake
At no point did I say that. I posted a definition exactly once at your request, and didn't add or remove anything afterwards.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
and racism requires race as a variable and that's it, then fine, by your definition the man's racist. I might not necessarily agree with your definition then but at least you're being consistent. Is that the case?
Racism does require 'race' to be the primary factor for the prejudice, yeah. Thus the name.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Well, that's an argument, really.
No, it's just a statement.
SOdhner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2017, 12:54 PM   #118
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 29,862
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
So it's just an assumption, then?
Clearly not.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2017, 12:57 PM   #119
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 15,143
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
The FBI report on Ferguson shows systemic racism in action at the local level. The US News & World Report shows that it is hardly isolated. The Jeff Sessions link shows that such policies are being actively pursued in the modern-day justice system.

You can quibble with cherry-picked bits of data and hand wave all you like, but systemic racism in the justice system is not just an assumption, which was my purpose in that post. If you care to argue the history and validity of racism in the War on Drugs, fine. Take it to another thread. As I already said, I'm not derailing this one for that purpose.

If anything, you are helping me prove my overall point in this thread about language and defensiveness. As is Bob.
Ferguson has had a lower vehicle-stop disparity index for blacks than the State of Missouri since 2007. Blacks being "only" 1.3-1.5 times overrepresented in the stopped population in Ferguson, compared to about 1.6 times in the whole state.

https://ago.mo.gov/home/vehicle-stops-report?lea=161
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2017, 01:05 PM   #120
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,126
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
No, that's you trying to avoid answering my question.
I've addressed your points as you presended them. It's dishonest at this point to pretend that I haven't.

Quote:
Racism does require 'race' to be the primary factor for the prejudice, yeah.
Ok, so on that we agree, so your use of "solely" in a previous post will be considered retracted. Now if we could only agree that "people I don't know" is not necessarily the minor criterion here...

Quote:
No, it's just a statement.
Pray tell: what is the secret ingredient that would transform it into an argument?
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:44 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.