|
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. |
26th April 2017, 11:47 PM | #1 |
Non credunt, semper verificare
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,571
|
"One cannot be racist against mexican..."
"...Because Mexican is not a race" has been told more than once in this forum and others.
I think this is not well reasoned. Firstly "racist" under its modern meaning is actually "xenophobia" which can indeed be the sole xenophobia against Mexican. But nobody or nearly use that word among lay, and most people understand "racist". Secondly, you can be racist against any non white, but single out Mexican as being the nearest in proximity. The sentence ignore this fully. As such the various statement of Trump are definitively xenophobic in nature, and almost certainly racist. What do you think ? Should we encourage the more accurate word at the risk that nobody else use it, or should the modern meaning of racist be taken and simply qualify Trump as racist ? |
26th April 2017, 11:51 PM | #2 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
You could use "bigoted."
|
27th April 2017, 12:05 AM | #3 |
Lackey
Administrator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 113,982
|
Seems as if racist is a word constantly being re-defined. We shouldn't find that surprising since "race" in regards to humans has also always been redefined ( because it is a social construct not based on any objective facts).
I would say that being "racist" was the default position of most folk for at least recorded history and we have only seen a widespread push against such a subjective view in just the last 50 or 60 years. Perhaps it would be better as marplots suggests to use the word "bigot" as that sidesteps any attempt to ignore or obscure the actual criticism being made by a silly semantic dance as to the meaning of the word "racist"? |
__________________
“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago |
|
27th April 2017, 12:06 AM | #4 |
Non credunt, semper verificare
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,571
|
|
27th April 2017, 12:07 AM | #5 |
Non credunt, semper verificare
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,571
|
The problem as per above is that bigotry contain far more than xenophobia. You then open to an even worst semantic dance IMO then.
ETA: and i think it is quite clear that the "justification" used for the hate against mexican , is founded in xenophobia/racism. IMO it is quite right to have all 3 prejudices put together : "prejudice against race/ethnicity/nationality". That is why it is IMO correct for example for wiki and dictionaries to put all 3 together under the chapter of racism (yeah I know "proof by wiki" and "proof by dictionary" is frowned upon, but it should be IMO acceptable to reflect current zeitgeist and definition). |
27th April 2017, 12:34 AM | #6 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 37,582
|
IMO it's a pretty weak defence of someone to say that their prejudice in a particular area is driven by xenophobic bigotry rather than racist bigotry.
Perhaps in this case, Trump was being a bigoted xenophobe rather than a racist but that doesn't make his comments any less inaccurate, doesn't make his behaviour any more excusable and doesn't mean that he hasn't been racist in the past (indeed a long time ago his business was found to have racist business practices and Trump himself is on record making racist comments. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...book_says.html |
27th April 2017, 12:49 AM | #7 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,950
|
It's like raping a 15 year old and objecting to the term pedophile. Yes, in a pedantic sort of way you are correct in trying to avoid this stigma, but it does not address the problem.
|
27th April 2017, 01:01 AM | #8 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
You have a similar dance with xenophobia if you have to parse out which nation is of concern. I'm not even clear that Mexican-hating doesn't include Guatemala and points south as "understood." I've always assumed someone who dislikes Mexicans doesn't do so based on nationality, but some imagined ethnicity.
How about "ethnophobic"? Actually, I don't think the "phobia" part is warranted. Do they really fear these folks or is it more like thinking them sub-human or even hateworthy? |
27th April 2017, 01:30 AM | #9 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,064
|
If you are willing to redefine terms in such arbitrary ways, then anything, except contradiction, can be true, and we can 'fix' the 'contradiction/tautology' problem by merely redefining 'true' and 'false'.
The problem your original quote appears to be addressing is the sort of language distortion that you are endorsing. It's impossible to have reasonable communication when people use these distorted and often loaded revision to semantic meaning. -- On topic - it's an an appeal motive fallacy that lies at the core of this thread. Certainly the Trump-ites wish to treat illegal immigrants distinctly from legal residents, but there is a lawful reason for that, and a reasonable expectation that an executive officer would enforce such law. Differentiation with a reason cannot be described as prejudice. Is there evidence of anything more ? (note the "modern meaning" of 'evidence' is not seething bile and emotionalism). |
27th April 2017, 02:20 AM | #10 |
Non credunt, semper verificare
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,571
|
|
27th April 2017, 02:24 AM | #11 |
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
|
I think we should respect the meaning of words and not constantly redefine them on the basis of cloudy agendas.
|
27th April 2017, 02:57 AM | #12 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
Yep this is as crazy as classifying all blacks as one race, when as group there is more genetic diversity in africa than the entirety of the rest of the world. Racism needs a solid scientific basis people!
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
27th April 2017, 03:18 AM | #13 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 20,145
|
Racism is a cudgel
|
27th April 2017, 03:25 AM | #14 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,726
|
Given that, much like the Islamaphobic folks will usually freak out over any perceived Arab (eg. the guy who shot two Indian men earlier this year), folks like Trump perceive "Mexican" as some sort of race - thus, why Judge Curiel was so horribly unfair towards him, despite being an American. No, "He's Mexican, we're building a wall. We're building a wall." Race is, in the end, a sociopolitical construct, and not something with a well-defined, inherent meaning. If someone treats "Mexican" as a race, and then is prejudiced again st "Mexicans", then we can reasonably call that person a racist.
|
27th April 2017, 03:55 AM | #15 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,423
|
|
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list. "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1 |
|
27th April 2017, 04:19 AM | #16 |
Featherless biped
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 26,431
|
|
27th April 2017, 04:47 AM | #17 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
In other words, "racist" doesn't mean "racist" anymore. It means a host of things that have nothing to do with what the word actually means.
But yes, mexican isn't a race, it's a nationality. It doesn't prevent people from being bigoted or intolerant. Hey, why not use those words instead? |
27th April 2017, 04:49 AM | #18 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
27th April 2017, 04:53 AM | #19 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,837
|
|
27th April 2017, 04:58 AM | #20 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
27th April 2017, 05:05 AM | #21 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 37,582
|
I thought that, strictly speaking, paedophilia only applied to people who are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children.
Hebephiles OTOH are attracted to adolescents Ehebophiles are attracted to young, sexually mature, people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia If that's the case the person is, strictly speaking, not a paedophile and is instead a hebephile or ehebophile. |
27th April 2017, 05:06 AM | #22 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
Exactly my point. Saying that he's not a pedophile is not a distraction or a pedantic argument: it's actually correct, and it doesn't mean that the person making the distinction is somehow supporting the rape of the 15 year-old.
I think I've been pretty consistent over the years about the need for precise language, even though I'm sometimes guilty of messing it up myself. |
27th April 2017, 05:07 AM | #23 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 37,582
|
|
27th April 2017, 05:08 AM | #24 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 21,398
|
Much like one can't be racist against Jews, because Judaism is a religion, not a race.
Much like it, and just as nonsensical. |
__________________
Gunter Haas, the 'leading British expert,' was a graphologist who advised couples, based on their handwriting characteristics, if they were compatible for marriage. I would submit that couples idiotic enough to do this are probably quite suitable for each other. It's nice when stupid people find love. - Ludovic Kennedy |
|
27th April 2017, 05:18 AM | #25 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
|
27th April 2017, 05:34 AM | #26 |
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
|
|
27th April 2017, 05:52 AM | #27 |
King of the Pod People
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 25,628
|
|
27th April 2017, 06:04 AM | #28 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
27th April 2017, 06:06 AM | #29 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 1,245
|
May a I respectfully point out that I think you may be on something of a fool's errand there? That is, I agree that it would be nice, but I'm also pretty sure it is not possible. The meaning of words and phrases constantly changes over time, that is the natural trend of language.
Thus, while I understand the difference between that various "philes" mentioned upthread, for instance, I don't believe that a rigid insistence on those definitions is useful for the purposes of more precise conversation. In fact, if often leads to the opposite. To all practical purposes, words mean what people think they mean, not what the dictionary says they mean, and I don't see any likelihood of that changing. tl/dr: langauge is messy, and the mess can't be cleaned up. |
__________________
There’s only four things you can be in life: sober, tipsy, drunk and hungover. Tipsy is the only one where you don’t cry when you’re doing it. ~ James Acaster |
|
27th April 2017, 06:08 AM | #30 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 21,398
|
"You can be ethnically [Mexican]. Racism against [Mexicans] tends to be directed at [Mexicans] for their heritage, not [whether they are from Mexico]."
In fact, we know that Trump's "bigotry" against Mexicans is directed at them for their heritage. Recall the "Mexican" judge who was born in Gary, IN, for example. Ethnically Mexican. Yet, Trump went after him. Thanks for proving my point. It works the exact same way. |
__________________
Gunter Haas, the 'leading British expert,' was a graphologist who advised couples, based on their handwriting characteristics, if they were compatible for marriage. I would submit that couples idiotic enough to do this are probably quite suitable for each other. It's nice when stupid people find love. - Ludovic Kennedy |
|
27th April 2017, 06:19 AM | #31 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
Yeah I feel like Sisyphus here.
Quote:
In other words the word didn't change meaning. It means all sorts of different things depending on the emotional state of the person you're talking to. So yeah, Sisyphus. |
27th April 2017, 06:19 AM | #32 |
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
|
|
27th April 2017, 06:41 AM | #33 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,423
|
|
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list. "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1 |
|
27th April 2017, 06:41 AM | #34 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 21,398
|
Um, that is a claim that I called nonsense.
I agree. Racism against Jews is based on them being ethnically Jewish, and irrespective of religion. And it is still considered racism. Similarly, racism against Mexicans is based on them being ethnically Mexican (as Trump's attack on the "Mexican" judge proves). Therefore, "it's not racism" applies equally the same to Jews and Mexicans. Either it applies to both, or it applies to neither. My position is that it applies to neither. There are indeed those who claim that hatred of Jews is not racism because Judaism is religion not a race, but they are just as wrong as those who claim that hatred of "Mexicans" (including those of Mexican heritage) is based on where they are from and not a race. |
__________________
Gunter Haas, the 'leading British expert,' was a graphologist who advised couples, based on their handwriting characteristics, if they were compatible for marriage. I would submit that couples idiotic enough to do this are probably quite suitable for each other. It's nice when stupid people find love. - Ludovic Kennedy |
|
27th April 2017, 06:52 AM | #35 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
But that isn't the objection we're discussing. We're discussing someone saying:
- "Hey, this guy raped a 15 year old! *********** pedophile!" - "Careful, now. Pedophiles are attracted to pre-pubescent children. This asshat is a rapist but he's not a pedo." - "Well, I guess you see no problem with this guy raping children!" |
27th April 2017, 06:56 AM | #36 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,423
|
That's not what I am discussing, nor what the original comment was discussing. It was an analogy about someone claiming Trump isn't a racist because mexicans aren't a race. Similarily saying someone who rapes a child isn't a pedophile because the child was 15 is technically correct, but completely misses the point.
Not to mention the fact that colloquially, pedophile is often used to describe people attracted to minors of any age, while racist is used to describe someone who is bigoted towards someone for their ethnic or religious background. |
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list. "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1 |
|
27th April 2017, 06:57 AM | #37 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,985
|
When and where I was a kid, "Mexican" meant "Hispanic". There was no such word as "Hispanic". If you were from Guatemala, you were "a Mexican". Trump is older than me, and may have experienced similar common use of the word and never gone past that. I still hear some older people use the word that way, in various parts of the country.
|
27th April 2017, 06:58 AM | #38 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
27th April 2017, 07:04 AM | #39 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,423
|
|
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list. "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1 |
|
27th April 2017, 07:05 AM | #40 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|