"One cannot be racist against mexican..."

Aepervius

Non credunt, semper verificare
A
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
14,571
Location
Sigil, the city of doors
"...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 ?
 
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"?
 
Darat said:
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"?
Click to expand...

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).
 
Last edited:
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_slat..._blacks_inherent_laziness_1991_book_says.html
 
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.
 
Aepervius said:
Bigoted encompass hate or prejudice toward other groups, like for example against LGBT.
It is a more generic term used to represent all sort of form of prejudice.
Click to expand...

Aepervius said:
The problem as per above is that bigotry contain far more than xenophobia. You then open to an even worst semantic dance IMO then.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Aepervius said:
... Firstly "racist" under its modern meaning is actually "xenophobia" which ...
Click to expand...

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).
 
Last edited:
stevea said:
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).
Click to expand...

Saying they are not sending the best and are rapist and so forth is not "Differentiation with a reason". We are not speaking about illegals and legality of their stay. We are speaking on what sort of prejudice are put on them.
 
I think we should respect the meaning of words and not constantly redefine them on the basis of cloudy agendas.
 
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!
 
Porpoise of Life said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mumbles said:
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.
Click to expand...

This.

It really isn't complicated.
 
Mumbles said:
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.
Click to expand...

Excellent.
 
Aepervius said:
"...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".
Click to expand...

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?
 
Porpoise of Life said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's not correct in a pedantic sort of way. It's just correct.

There are plenty of words to describe such an act so we don't have to butcher one which doesn't.
 
Argumemnon said:
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?
Click to expand...

Because they're clumsily, especially in Trump's case, using Mexican as a code word for Hispanic. As Mumbles noted:

Mumbles said:
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.
Click to expand...

Much in the same way Zionist and Muslim aren't being used in their dictionary defined manner by racists and bigots.
 
Argumemnon said:
It's not correct in a pedantic sort of way. It's just correct.
Click to expand...

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.
 
The Don said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Argumemnon said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sorry, misread/misunderstood your previous post :o
 
Much like one can't be racist against Jews, because Judaism is a religion, not a race.

Much like it, and just as nonsensical.
 
The Don said:
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.
Click to expand...

What happened to "kiddie diddler?"
 
pgwenthold said:
Much like one can't be racist against Jews, because Judaism is a religion, not a race.

Much like it, and just as nonsensical.
Click to expand...

You can be ethnically Jewish. Racism against Jews tends to be directed at Jews for their heritage, not the tenets of their religion (should they even follow it).
 
Argumemnon said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
baron said:
You can be ethnically Jewish. Racism against Jews tends to be directed at Jews for their heritage, not the tenets of their religion (should they even follow it).
Click to expand...

"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.
 
beren said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah I feel like Sisyphus here.

The meaning of words and phrases constantly changes over time, that is the natural trend of language.
Click to expand...

Sure. However the problem I see is not that languages evolves, but that language is misused in a way that makes it very confusing. When someone who likes 15 year olds is called a pedophile, it effectively lumps all of them together, but the causes of their "preferences" and the treatment are different, when they're needed at all. I'd also argue that one's more dangerous than the others.

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.
 
pgwenthold said:
"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.
Click to expand...

I haven't proved your point, I proved that you were wrong when you said you can't be racist against Jews because Judaism is not a race. That is all I commented on and it has no relationship whatsoever with Trump. You were wrong, end of story.
 
Argumemnon said:
Using the wrong term doesn't address the problem either, and creates more problems, so I don't see why it's such an insightful post.
Click to expand...

It effectively hilites the absurdity of the objection.

"I may be guilty of raping a child, but at least I'm not a pedophile."
 
baron said:
I haven't proved your point, I proved that you were wrong when you said you can't be racist against Jews because Judaism is not a race. .
Click to expand...

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.
 
uke2se said:
It effectively hilites the absurdity of the objection.

"I may be guilty of raping a child, but at least I'm not a pedophile."
Click to expand...

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!"
 
Argumemnon said:
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!"
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
uke2se said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know if he's a racist but he sure seems like a bigot.

Similarily saying someone who rapes a child isn't a pedophile because the child was 15 is technically correct, but completely misses the point.
Click to expand...

If it's said without going further and addressing said point, sure. But the mere act of clarifying and correcting the mistake does not make one miss the point.
 
Argumemnon said:
Well, I don't know if he's a racist but he sure seems like a bigot.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with that.


Argumemnon said:
If it's said without going further and addressing said point, sure. But the mere act of clarifying and correcting the mistake does not make one miss the point.
Click to expand...

The hilited was the way it was originally said.

In another thread, by a poster we all know and love.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom