|
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. |
27th April 2017, 05:05 PM | #81 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,985
|
But they rape and murder at a rate lower than that of US citizens, while "... some of them, I assume, are good people" was an implication that most of them are murderers and rapists. Unless you thought he meant that some of the rapists and murderers are good people, which is entirely possible.
|
27th April 2017, 05:52 PM | #82 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
|
|
27th April 2017, 06:28 PM | #83 |
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,468
|
No, the point he was making was "Run! Browner people than you are coming! They're going to take your jobs, murder your neighbors and eat your brains with rusty spoons!"
But do try to keep up. We've established that since Mooslim and Beaner are not races, he can't be a racist and his supporters cannot be racists or racist enablers. Instead, in generally accepted parlance, Trump is a bigot. His supporters are therefore either bigots or bigot-enablers. We assume you will now correct people who say Trump's a racist with..... "LOL Libruls! Conservatives don't see race. We're bigots!" |
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable. |
|
27th April 2017, 06:38 PM | #84 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
|
Lol
I've never heard him say "run brown people are coming" looks like he only talks about sealing our border and stopping illegal immigration. But please continue with your man worthy dramatic rant.
Quote:
|
27th April 2017, 06:39 PM | #85 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
|
|
27th April 2017, 10:12 PM | #86 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,985
|
Said it wrong? Perhaps he meant to say "They're reducing the overall rates of murder and rape slightly by coming here, though increasing the raw numbers a bit." It really came out wrong.
How about something honest that can still support his position? "They're committing identity theft at a high rate, and the overall cost of that crime is probably quite high." |
27th April 2017, 10:17 PM | #87 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
|
Yeah, that's not really relevant in this context. You've just engaged in a massive equivocation. Why are the standards for workplace discrimination causes of action relevant to what is meant when we describe someone as "racist" or as a "bigot"?
You know, there's a legal definition for "assault" that is rarely meant when someone says an assault took place. Just listing a specific cause of action yields little to no insight on language usage. Again, this is a doofy "Well, Actually..." It's a comical effort at dissecting an issue that is well understood. Notice that when ICE goes looking for "Mexicans" they end up harassing a lot of Americans. Why do you think that is? How would you identify a suspicious looking Mexican, compared with someone who was born here? |
27th April 2017, 11:29 PM | #88 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,726
|
That's not going to fly when the GOP leader is birther Donald Trump, and he's brought white nationalists like Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller, and neo-nazis like Sebastian Gorka, into the White House. There's also the obvious attempts at suppressing black voters, the absurd claims that Black Lives Matter is "violent" or "terrorists", the claim that the rapper Common (!) is a "thug" or a "gangsta", the lily-white republicans of around 1900, and so forth, but the current President is more than enough.
For now, the GOP is the party of white supremacy. Don't like it? Get rid of Trump, or at least reign him in, and stop trying to oppress black people and fear-mongering against "Arabs". |
28th April 2017, 02:00 AM | #89 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,092
|
Your ignorance of history is astounding. In the wake of the Civil Rights movement, Nixon's racist Southern Strategy of supporting "states rights" reversed the meaning the Solid South, which produced the bulk of the Republican political power that you're so proud of today. And speaking of division, you seem to have missed the purging of liberals from the Republican Party and the rise of Rush Limbaugh.
|
28th April 2017, 02:23 AM | #90 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 483
|
[quote=superfreddy;11816040]And what race would that be? This is akin to saying Arabic is a race. <snip>
[quote] Arabic is a language. Arabian is an ethnic origin. |
28th April 2017, 03:34 AM | #91 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
|
|
28th April 2017, 03:38 AM | #92 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
|
|
28th April 2017, 03:42 AM | #93 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
|
Interesting how so many of those known racist southern democrats were still democrats.
Quote:
|
28th April 2017, 04:34 AM | #94 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
28th April 2017, 04:35 AM | #95 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
28th April 2017, 04:37 AM | #96 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
28th April 2017, 06:44 AM | #97 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
|
|
28th April 2017, 07:10 AM | #98 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
|
|
28th April 2017, 07:11 AM | #99 |
Lackey
Administrator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 113,982
|
|
__________________
“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 |
|
28th April 2017, 07:33 AM | #100 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
|
|
28th April 2017, 07:54 AM | #101 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 828
|
You are correct. Strictly speaking, Mexican is a national origin.
However, when the word "Mexican" becomes a code word for anyone with a darker complexion coming from any country South of the border or anybody with a Spanish sounding name, then it becomes flagrant racism. |
28th April 2017, 08:37 AM | #102 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,726
|
As I recall, the last so-called "illegal crisis" was not from Mexicans at all, but rather Central Americans, mostly teens and young adults, fleeing violence related to the major drug gangs in those countries. And it pretty much stopped when Mexico - you know, the country that Toupee Fiasco spent his campaign bad mouthing - cooperated with us to stop them and send them back (which - wow, Obama, what a jerk move!).
And they certainly weren't "bringing" drug or crime, and they were not "rapists", regardless of what Minute Maid Mao babbled about. Now, of course, if you take "Mexico" literally, then the idiot's claims are nonsense. And of course, we could go into all the different countries, and the distinction between Hispanic and Latino, and the fact that both can be of various races - Trump isn't thinking about that. He's thinking, as you said, of fear-mongering against non-white people. |
28th April 2017, 09:25 AM | #103 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
|
Except that you aren't.
If you said, "this guy hit me; I was assaulted." Only an ******* would respond, "Technically you were battered. You may have also be assaulted, but the hitting isn't assault according the Model Penal Code. Assault is placing one in apprehension of violence....blah, blah" It's a "Well, Actually..." You're applying a strict legal standard in employment discrimination cases to colloquial use of language. It's an equivocation and pretty silly. Well, Actually, now that I think about it, your inappropriate use of employment discrimination law doesn't apply to accepted standards concerning the meaning of the term "racism":
Quote:
|
28th April 2017, 09:36 AM | #104 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
|
|
28th April 2017, 09:39 AM | #105 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
|
|
28th April 2017, 09:45 AM | #106 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
|
I have never ever witnessed such a vigorous advocacy in favor of being wrong, sloppy and imprecise. I am really, really impressed!
Nevertheless, I am just going to go ahead and continue being correct, precise and not saying things like "Mexican is a race." By the way? Might want to take a gander at your "accepted standards" "any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin." "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion." Notice anything significant?? Hmmmm |
28th April 2017, 10:10 AM | #107 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
|
So, you're saying the UN definition is wrong and imprecise?
Quote:
Quote:
Just because you would prefer a different definition based on legal distinctions in discrimination cases does not make that usage incorrect anymore than the technical definition of "assault" in criminal codes renders the colloquial use of assault unintelligible. Like a Big Dog, you have a mouthful of poo and refuse to let it go. |
28th April 2017, 10:11 AM | #108 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
|
That is a, unsurprisingly, massive and incoherent leap of logic. Restricting immigration from certain areas need not be racist. It just turns out that the people in this country who want to restrict immigration want to do so because they're racists.
It's a truth of fact about Republicans, not one of logic based on travel between nations. |
28th April 2017, 10:16 AM | #109 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
|
Doesn't matter. He signed the Civil Rights Act, that's what lead to the exodus of conservatives from the Democratic Party. This is historical fact, the sad effort and ad hominem reasoning from you is just silly deflection.
Quote:
The Republican Convention of 1912 when the electors gave the nomination to Taft despite Roosevelt being favored by the vote. This caused an exodus of progressives from the Republican Party. And the signing of the Civil Rights Act. Over the next several decades this caused a steady realignment of conservatism with Republicans and liberalism with Democrats. That continues to this day. This is true of the entire nation, but it was only in the South where large numbers of Democrats were exceptionally conservative, and the was because Lincoln was a Republican. The Republican Party was identified with abolition, so Southern ******** were Democrats. Thanks to LBJ and the Civil Rights Movement, now those Southern ******** are Republicans. |
28th April 2017, 10:29 AM | #110 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
|
|
28th April 2017, 10:31 AM | #111 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,726
|
And similarly, the fact that you think that a movement opposed to racist police violence is itself racist tells us much about you.
Quote:
|
28th April 2017, 10:44 AM | #112 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
|
No, it isn't. It's included in an accepted national charter. None of your sources contradict that use, they simply specify the language for legal purposes.
This is a common, common phenomenon.
Quote:
You are just wrong. It is perfectly accepted usage to include bias against national origin in a definition of "racism." There are other definitions of the word that exclude that use, but that is irrelevant. It is appropriately applied. |
28th April 2017, 10:46 AM | #113 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
|
|
28th April 2017, 10:47 AM | #114 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
|
|
28th April 2017, 10:48 AM | #115 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
|
|
28th April 2017, 10:49 AM | #116 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
|
|
28th April 2017, 10:49 AM | #117 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
|
|
28th April 2017, 10:52 AM | #118 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
|
I mean, that's why the phrase "over the next few decades" was used. I don't know why you think it had to happen instantly. It's just a point of fact that the parties changed after the Civil Rights Act.
Quote:
We were talking about "conservative dems." Is this just some silly game where we play patty-cake over how you're defining those terms? Again, the major realignment of the parties occurred because the mass of Conservative Democrats in the South left the Party eventually joining up with the Republicans after the signing of the Civil Rights Act. That there are some outliers today in no way negates the historical trend. |
28th April 2017, 11:01 AM | #119 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
|
|
28th April 2017, 11:04 AM | #120 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|