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, 01:07 PM   #121
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 65,989
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Great then stop pretending that the statement ' I don't like black people I haven't met' isn't racist then
Why? What's the relationship between one and the other?

My point here is very simple: the mere presence of race as a factor in one's decision doesn't make the decision or the person racist. Otherwise electing not to cast a black man as Julius Caesar for a play would be racist. It depends on the weight of the criterion in the decision, and the reason for its inclusion.
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is online now   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, 01:20 PM   #122
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,824
I thought that Nazis were allowed to march.

Yes, they are racist and wrong, but I thought ACLU vs. Skokie said the Nazis were allowed to march.

Chucking rocks at the Nazis only seemed to give them coverage they wouldn't have otherwise gotten.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot 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, 01:41 PM   #123
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I've addressed your points as you presended them. It's dishonest at this point to pretend that I haven't.
...he says as he avoids answering yet again.

Hey, could you maybe answer the question this time? You can do it, I believe in you!

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Ok, so on that we agree, so your use of "solely" in a previous post will be considered retracted.
I didn't retract it. I meant what I said, and there was nothing wrong with the use of that word in my original statement.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Pray tell: what is the secret ingredient that would transform it into an argument?
I can blindly assert stuff all day, it's not really an argument. For that I would need to argue my case, which you have not done. Here, I'll ask for the fifth(?) time:

In this scenario you like or feel neutral towards some people you don't know, but always dislike black people you don't know. What criteria, specifically, causes you to consistently decide you don't like black people you don't know but doesn't have the same effect on non-black people you don't know?
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, 01:58 PM   #124
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 15,128
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.
I'd disagree about Bob, he merely likes an insane level of proof for anything.

You could have included the DoJ report on Baltimore as well
__________________
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 online now   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, 04:26 PM   #125
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 13,779
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.

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.

And it's precisely this sort of false equivalency born of passive cultural racism that provides indirect support for the white supremacists and enforces the status quo of institutionalized racism.

If a people is being systematically denied their rights by those in power, how exactly do you expect them to fight back? Or do you deny them the right to fight back? Would you just have them remain good little second-class citizens? Know their place and not try to get all uppity?

It's what John Blake at CNN referred to as "white supremacist by default".


'White supremacists by default': How ordinary people made Charlottesville possible
Excerpt:
Quote:
That was the twisted formula that made the Holocaust and Rwanda possible and allowed Jim Crow segregation to survive: Nice people looked the other way while those with an appetite for violence did the dirty work, says Mark Naison, a political activist and history professor at Fordham University in New York City.

''You have to have millions of people who are willing to be bystanders, who push aside evidence of racism, Islamophobia or sexism. You can't have one without the other,'' Naison says.

"We are a country with a few million passionate white supremacists -- and tens of millions of white supremacists by default," he says.

Many people prefer to focus on the usual suspects after a Charlottesville happens -- the violent racial extremists who are so easy to condemn. Yet there are four types of ordinary people who also play a part in the country's racial divisions, Naison and others say:
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon
luchog 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, 04:36 PM   #126
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 13,779
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
I thought that Nazis were allowed to march.

Yes, they are racist and wrong, but I thought ACLU vs. Skokie said the Nazis were allowed to march.

When you show up with weapons in hand, dressed in body armour and shields, you're not there to march, you're there to commit an act of terrorism.

Quote:
Chucking rocks at the Nazis only seemed to give them coverage they wouldn't have otherwise gotten.

This is so wrong as to be borderline nonsense. Coverage is what we need to get them out where they cannot hide what they are. When they're allowed to operate out of the public eye, they thrive. "Sunlight is the best disinfectant". These people can no longer claim to be ordinary citizens, not anymore.

As for tactics, these are people who have taken it as their worldview that millions of people should be oppressed and killed just because of their ethnic heritage, and sexual orientation. Chucking rocks at such people doesn't "empower" them, it demonstrates that they and their genocidal hatred will not be tolerated. Seriously, we fought an entire war against nazis. Doing so did not empower them, it ended their threat and saved lives.

On the one side we have the fascist crowd: nazis and KKKers and other white supremacists who want to oppress and kill black people, hispanics, Jews, LGBTs, and so on. That's their whole ideology, and they've demonstrated a willingness to carry it out by killing passive, peaceful protesters in Charlottesville.

On the other side we have the Anti-Fascists, who want to stop the fascists from killing people, and will do so by whatever means prove effective. Despite the fascist propaganda, the Antifa resistance did not start using violence until the marchers did. The fascists started it in Charlottesville even before the murders with the car, when they attacked peaceful protesters, knocking them down, kicking them, and hitting them with their batons. Antifa responded in defense.

There is no equivalency between "kill everyone who isn't white", and "punch fascists to stop them from killing everyone who isn't white". Anyone who says otherwise is a fascist sympathizer, or painfully deluded.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon
luchog 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, 04:52 PM   #127
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 65,989
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
...he says as he avoids answering yet again.
It's not avoidance when you just refuse to repeat yourself after addressing something previously.

Quote:
I didn't retract it. I meant what I said, and there was nothing wrong with the use of that word in my original statement.
Ok here's the original statement you made in response to the hypothetical:

Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
If you have a baseline negative opinion of specifically black people prior to meeting them based solely on them being black, that's racist.
That was despite two criteria in conjunction being used. And then:

Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
Racism does require 'race' to be the primary factor for the prejudice, yeah.
So which is it? Is it racist because it's the sole criterion, or merely because it's an important one? Personally I'd say the latter. I've been trying to get you to clarify that all day.

Quote:
I can blindly assert stuff all day, it's not really an argument.
Ok then by your silly logic, saying that "the earth is 40,000 km in circumference, so you're wrong to say that it's half that" is not an argument. It's just a statement. We use statements as arguments all the time. This semantic game of yours smacks of desperation.

Quote:
In this scenario you like or feel neutral towards some people you don't know, but always dislike black people you don't know. What criteria, specifically, causes you to consistently decide you don't like black people you don't know but doesn't have the same effect on non-black people you don't know?
I'm assuming this is a general "you". Well, for example, the person in question could simply be going with the statistics of crime being higher for black people. Misguided or ignorant, sure, but hardly racist in and of itself.
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is online now   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 25th August 2017, 12:36 AM   #128
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,388
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Why? What's the relationship between one and the other?

My point here is very simple: the mere presence of race as a factor in one's decision doesn't make the decision or the person racist. Otherwise electing not to cast a black man as Julius Caesar for a play would be racist. It depends on the weight of the criterion in the decision, and the reason for its inclusion.
I know you seem to be in some contrarian mission to explore the limits of bad behaviour that you can excuse in a technicality but this isn't one of them.

The statement is quite clear. Of the group of people 'people i don't know' you assign a subset of those to the group 'people i don't like' based on their race. That's racism. Quite undeniably so.

The statement is meaningfully different from I don't like anyone I haven't met as it clearly identifies why you are assigning them to the group people I don't like. Because they are black.

It's not even close to saying you won't cast a black person as Julius Caesar but closer to saying you won't cast a black person in any role at all.
__________________
"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 25th August 2017, 01:41 AM   #129
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,804
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
And it's precisely this sort of false equivalency born of passive cultural racism that provides indirect support for the white supremacists and enforces the status quo of institutionalized racism.
Yep. Some people posting in this thread are very much part of the problem. I know you guys don't want to hear that, but it's true.
__________________
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
uke2se 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 25th August 2017, 01:43 AM   #130
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,804
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
There is no equivalency between "kill everyone who isn't white", and "punch fascists to stop them from killing everyone who isn't white". Anyone who says otherwise is a fascist sympathizer, or painfully deluded.
And this too. It's time to start picking sides.
__________________
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
uke2se 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 25th August 2017, 01:50 AM   #131
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 65,989
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
I know you seem to be in some contrarian mission to explore the limits of bad behaviour that you can excuse in a technicality but this isn't one of them.
More personalisation. Focus on the argument.

Quote:
The statement is quite clear. Of the group of people 'people i don't know' you assign a subset of those to the group 'people i don't like' based on their race. That's racism. Quite undeniably so.
You could just as easily say that of the group of "black" people, I assign a subset of those to the group "people I don't know" based on knowing them, which is not racism. For some reason everyone keeps ignoring that, and I've given non-racist reasons why someone might -- admittedly mistakingly -- discriminate based partly on race.

Quote:
It's not even close to saying you won't cast a black person as Julius Caesar but closer to saying you won't cast a black person in any role at all.
And again, this ignores the presence of another criterion. This gives the impression that you think race as a criterion, regardless of its reason or weight in the decision, is racist no matter what. Your claims become contradictory at that point.

So tell me: is it racist to refuse to cast a black person as Caesar?
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is online now   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 25th August 2017, 05:42 AM   #132
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,388
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
More personalisation. Focus on the argument.
The motivation for the argument also matters. Why some people seem to delight in finding 'get outs' for racism escapes me. The number of times I see 'that's not racism because of spurious technicality X' suggests there are questionable motives at play. At best it's the argumentation equivalent of the child who holds his hands a cm from your face and repeatedly states 'I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you.'

Quote:
You could just as easily say that of the group of "black" people, I assign a subset of those to the group "people I don't know" based on knowing them, which is not racism. For some reason everyone keeps ignoring that, and I've given non-racist reasons why someone might -- admittedly mistakingly -- discriminate based partly on race.
This makes no sense as written and I can't parse what you meant to say from it.

Whatever way you cook it you are discriminating based on race. And yes your 'reasons' were still racist. It's racist to assume that a black person you don't know is more likely to be a criminal simply based on them being black.

None of this is very difficult and it puzzles me that you are confused by it. You are separating a group of people based on race and pre-judging them based on that criterion. It's the definition of racial prejudice.

Quote:
And again, this ignores the presence of another criterion.
Yes. Because we already established that you didn't want to argue that the other criterion made the racism any less racist so its irrelevant. And since that criterion is only being used in relation to black people it's still racist.

Quote:
This gives the impression that you think race as a criterion, regardless of its reason or weight in the decision, is racist no matter what.
If you discriminate based on race without good reason then yes it is racism.
Regardless of what other irrelevant criteria you try to then use to muddy the waters.

If the reason for the discrimination is the other criteria then you have no need to ever bring up race in the first place.

Let's try examples:

1. I won't let women except my wife drive my car (because women are bad drivers)
2. I won't let a Muslim except my childhood friend Mohammed work in my store (because they are terrorists)
3. I won't let a Jew except my brother in law watch my children (because they are untrustworthy)
3. I don't like black people except those I have met (because they are criminals)

Any of the above you would object to?

Quote:
Your claims become contradictory at that point.
I have no idea where you think the contradiction is.

Quote:
So tell me: is it racist to refuse to cast a black person as Caesar?
This example is nothing like what you originally said and is a complete red herring. But yes it probably is.
__________________
"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 25th August 2017, 05:57 AM   #133
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 65,989
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
The motivation for the argument also matters.
Except that you're making it up as you go along. Stick to the argument.

Quote:
Why some people seem to delight in finding 'get outs' for racism escapes me.
That's not what we're doing here. What I've been arguing since the beginning is that the word "racist" has been broadened to a ridiculous extent. Upchurch seems to agree with me on that. I'm making the -- I think very clear -- point that race must not only be a factor in the discrimination but a principal factor and one that isn't justified. Again, I think it's justified to discriminate against black people and women if I'm casting Julius Caesar. It's not justified if I'm rejecting tennants to an appartment building based solely or principally because of their skin colour.

Quote:
The number of times I see 'that's not racism because of spurious technicality X' suggests there are questionable motives at play.
What the hell do you expect? We're on a skeptics forum (nominally) and one of the things we should do is examine the terms we're using and our reasoning to make sure we're A) communicating clearly and B) reaching proper conclusions. Naturally that's going to lead to semantics and technicalities on a regular basis, but is it better to ignore those and just go with our guts?

Quote:
Whatever way you cook it you are discriminating based on race.
So is the theatre guy who casts Caesar. So's the black man who only dates white women.

Quote:
And yes your 'reasons' were still racist. It's racist to assume that a black person you don't know is more likely to be a criminal simply based on them being black.
Why? The stats are right. The person is doing an improper calculation of risk based on them, but how is that racist?

Quote:
None of this is very difficult and it puzzles me that you are confused by it.
Ah, another poster who thinks "disagrees with X" means "confused by X".

Quote:
Yes. Because we already established that you didn't want to argue that the other criterion made the racism any less racist so its irrelevant.
You misunderstand. I said that the presence of other criteria may make the whole reasoning not racist, not less or more, whatever that means.

Quote:
This example is nothing like what you originally said and is a complete red herring.
What are you talking about? I've brought up this example multiple times.

Quote:
yes it probably is.
That's insane! I guess you think I should cast a woman as Caesar even though Caesar was a man because not doing so is sexist, as well? I suppose you think someone who only dates asians is racist, too?
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is online now   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 25th August 2017, 06:37 AM   #134
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,388
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Except that you're making it up as you go along. Stick to the argument.

Upchurch seems to agree with me on that. I'm making the -- I think very clear -- point that race must not only be a factor in the discrimination but a principal factor and one that isn't justified. Again, I think it's justified to discriminate against black people and women if I'm casting Julius Caesar. It's

That's not what we're doing here. What I've been arguing since the beginning is that the word "racist" has been broadened to a ridiculous extent. not justified if I'm rejecting tennants to an appartment building based solely or principally because of their skin colour.



What the hell do you expect? We're on a skeptics forum (nominally) and one of the things we should do is examine the terms we're using and our reasoning to make sure we're A) communicating clearly and B) reaching proper conclusions. Naturally that's going to lead to semantics and technicalities on a regular basis, but is it better to ignore those and just go with our guts?



So is the theatre guy who casts Caesar. So's the black man who only dates white women.



Why? The stats are right. The person is doing an improper calculation of risk based on them, but how is that racist?



Ah, another poster who thinks "disagrees with X" means "confused by X".



You misunderstand. I said that the presence of other criteria may make the whole reasoning not racist, not less or more, whatever that means.



What are you talking about? I've brought up this example multiple times.



That's insane! I guess you think I should cast a woman as Caesar even though Caesar was a man because not doing so is sexist, as well? I suppose you think someone who only dates asians is racist, too?
If you do actually want to stick to the argument its not useful to selectively edit out all the parts actually relating to the argument you made.

Saying that I don't black people is racist. Saying I don't like black people I have never met is equally racist. The addition of the extra criterion is completely irrelevant. All it means is that you are prepared to make some exceptions to your racist judgement for some black people some times provided they meet your additional criteria to not be disliked.

The only way it would not be racist is if you also equally don't like people you have never met of other races and even then the fact that you felt the need to include the word black rather than just say 'I don't like people I have never met' is probably racist anyway.

If you think the comparisons to cold pizza and Julius Caesar are valid then you may well be beyond help.

If you want me to address your completely different an unrelated example of Julius Caesar then saying you wouldn't cast a black person as Julius Caesar is probably racist as it would mean there would be no situation in which a black person could be better for the role than a white person. So if Denzel Washington and me both go for the role of Julius Caesar the conclusion would be that I am the better candidate because I am not black. Which would clearly be insane.

And yes a black man who says he would only date white women would be racist as well. You keep throwing out clear examples of racism as if somehow they support your argument which is why I can only contend that you are confused.
__________________
"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 25th August 2017, 06:45 AM   #135
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,844
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Again, I think it's justified to discriminate against black people and women if I'm casting Julius Caesar.
That is not justified. They are actors. The whole point of the craft is to master a different identity than yourself.
BobTheCoward is online now   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 25th August 2017, 06:45 AM   #136
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 65,989
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
If you do actually want to stick to the argument its not useful to selectively edit out all the parts actually relating to the argument you made.
I'd editing out the parts that aren't relevant in an effort to not end up with five page long posts, and focusing on the meat of the issue. If you think that's bad, that's your problem.

Quote:
Saying that I don't black people is racist.
Well, there's the crux of the disagreement, then. The whole discussion stems from this peculiar definition you're using of "racism". For me, racism isn't merely disliking someone, or selecting against them. It's "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior." (Oxford, emphasis mine.)

As I said earlier, you are using too broad a definition of "racism" for it to be of any use.
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is online now   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 25th August 2017, 06:47 AM   #137
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 65,989
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
That is not justified. They are actors. The whole point of the craft is to master a different identity than yourself.
And so the black woman cast as Caesar just has to pretend that she's a white male for the role!

Sheer insanity. Or would you think that a white ten year old child playing Martin Luther King would be justified?
__________________
<Roar!>

Last edited by Argumemnon; 25th August 2017 at 06:48 AM.
Argumemnon is online now   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 25th August 2017, 06:47 AM   #138
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,844
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
The motivation for the argument also matters. Why some people seem to delight in finding 'get outs' for racism escapes me. The number of times I see 'that's not racism because of spurious technicality X' suggests there are questionable motives at play. At best it's the argumentation equivalent of the child who holds his hands a cm from your face and repeatedly states 'I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you.'

.
I don't understand this point. The child is right that they are not touching you. What is the issue?
BobTheCoward is online now   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 25th August 2017, 06:48 AM   #139
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK
Posts: 5,080
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Otherwise electing not to cast a black man as Julius Caesar for a play would be racist.
The funny and sad reality is that there are some silly buggers out there who'd claim that that was racist!
__________________
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 online now   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 25th August 2017, 06:48 AM   #140
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,388
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post

As I said earlier, you are using too broad a definition of "racism" for it to be of any use.
If you can't accept that saying 'I don't like black people' is racist then I think it's your definition that is of no use.

Seriously. You are arguing that 'I don't like black people' is not a racist statement and you think you have a sound argument?
__________________
"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 25th August 2017, 06:49 AM   #141
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Well, for example, the person in question could simply be going with the statistics of crime being higher for black people. Misguided or ignorant, sure, but hardly racist in and of itself.
"I don't like black people because they're criminals" is, in fact, racist. Also, if we can't call anything racist as long as they can say "But I read in an article on InfoWars that that group of people is dangerous!" then the term loses all meaning. It's not enough to say "Well technically it's not directly because they're black, it's actually because I've done a threat assessment based on fearmongering websites I read online!"

Almost no racism is people saying "Oh man, I really hate the melanin content of their skin! That's not natural! It's all justifications like your example of crime statistics, or IQ tests, or whatever. If we say it's not racism just because "Well, they're wrong but it's not their fault the data was bad/misinterpreted/etc." there would be essentially nothing left to call racism.

Ask someone in the KKK about why black people are bad, and you're likely to get a whole lot of reasons - none of which will be "because they're black".

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
You could just as easily say that of the group of "black" people, I assign a subset of those to the group "people I don't know" based on knowing them, which is not racism.
Oh my goodness you're still on this. Okay cool! But if the motivation factor is "I don't know them" then it would apply to everyone that they don't know. Does it? If so it's not racism. If "I don't know them" is only a problem if the person is black, then they are prejudiced against black people.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
So tell me: is it racist to refuse to cast a black person as Caesar?
Depends on the details. Is it racist to say that nobody black should ever get to play the role? Absolutely. Is it racist for one specific black person to be told they didn't get the part? Depends on why. If they're a great actor and your only complaint is "but they're black" then I'd say you're being racist. The theater rarely worries about historically accuracy in casting and to draw the line at this particular characteristic is discriminatory. On a related note, if you went to see that play and felt you couldn't enjoy it because the actor playing Julius Ceasar was black I would say that you're racist as well.

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
If the reason for the discrimination is the other criteria then you have no need to ever bring up race in the first place.

Let's try examples:

1. I won't let women except my wife drive my car (because women are bad drivers)
2. I won't let a Muslim except my childhood friend Mohammed work in my store (because they are terrorists)
3. I won't let a Jew except my brother in law watch my children (because they are untrustworthy)
3. I don't like black people except those I have met (because they are criminals)

Any of the above you would object to?
It's interesting what he has chosen to respond to and what he has chosen to ignore in this discussion.
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 25th August 2017, 06:50 AM   #142
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,844
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
And so the black woman cast as Caesar just has to pretend that she's a white male for the role!

Sheer insanity. Or would you think that a white ten year old child playing Martin Luther King would be justified?
I wouldn't call acting pretend. If the actor has the chops to assume another identity, then that doesn't matter. I haven't seen many good child actors, but if she was like Daniel day Lewis in the audition she should get the role.
BobTheCoward is online now   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 25th August 2017, 06:53 AM   #143
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 65,989
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
If you can't accept that saying 'I don't like black people' is racist then I think it's your definition that is of no use.

Seriously. You are arguing that 'I don't like black people' is not a racist statement and you think you have a sound argument?
You're confusing arguments with definitions, here. And your argument above is one of incredulity. My point is that we're using different definitions, that mine is based on the dictionary's, contrary to use, and that yours is too broad.
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is online now   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 25th August 2017, 06:58 AM   #144
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,388
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
And so the black woman cast as Caesar just has to pretend that she's a white male for the role!

Sheer insanity. Or would you think that a white ten year old child playing Martin Luther King would be justified?
You'd pick me over Denzel or not?

Can a 6'2 white man play Caesar and just pretend to be 5'7?

Why is height seen as unimportant but skin tone is vital?

The only question in casting should be who best encapsulates the character that the person doing the casting wishes to portray.
__________________
"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 25th August 2017, 06:58 AM   #145
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK
Posts: 5,080
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
And it's precisely this sort of false equivalency born of passive cultural racism that provides indirect support for the white supremacists and enforces the status quo of institutionalized racism.
Everything supposedly provides indirect support for white supremacists, which I find hilariously pathetic, tbh. I got called a racist because I gave legit reasons for why AntiFa members find themselves getting arrested at protests. We live in delicate times.

Originally Posted by luchog View Post
If a people is being systematically denied their rights by those in power, how exactly do you expect them to fight back? Or do you deny them the right to fight back? Would you just have them remain good little second-class citizens? Know their place and not try to get all uppity?
All I'm saying is that fighting in the streets and endangering your own and other people's lives is not the way to go, regardless of who you are, what country you're from, or what you believe in. What does fighting in the streets honestly achieve? It generally just makes matters worse and nothing gets resolved. I'm not for or against anyone's right to protest, I could care less whether the blacks, gays or Nazi's want to march, as long as they do it sensibly and peacefully. Nobody is telling anyone to "know their place," certainly not me.

Being that it is my job to work at such rallies providing security, I could honestly care less who believes in what, or why. My concern is directed towards everyone doing their thing in a calm and controlled manner. If someone is causing trouble, I don't give a toss whether they're Nazi's, Black Panthers, AntiFa, or the cast of the Jersey Boys musical.
__________________
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 online now   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 25th August 2017, 06:58 AM   #146
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 65,989
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
"I don't like black people because they're criminals" is, in fact, racist.
And AGAIN with the misrepresentation. That is NOT the example I gave.

And yes, it would be racist if said that way.

Quote:
Almost no racism is people saying "Oh man, I really hate the melanin content of their skin!
You'd be surprised how many people in the US right now fit my narrower definition. It's actually rather depressing.

Quote:
Oh my goodness you're still on this. Okay cool! But if the motivation factor is "I don't know them" then it would apply to everyone that they don't know. Does it? If so it's not racism. If "I don't know them" is only a problem if the person is black, then they are prejudiced against black people.
You just can't wrap your head around the idea that the two criteria may work in conjunction, can you?

Quote:
Depends on the details.
No it doesn't. You're casting the part of a white man. It shouldn't even be a question: if you cast a white man as the actor, that's entirely justified, even if the casting director is a gigantic racist.

Quote:
It's interesting what he has chosen to respond to and what he has chosen to ignore in this discussion.
I ignored them because they have no bearing on the discussion, and do not ressemble the hypothetical we're discussing. You can't just throw irrelevancies and then complain when I decide not to address them. There's nothing "interesting" (wink, nudge) about it.
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is online now   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 25th August 2017, 07:01 AM   #147
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK
Posts: 5,080
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
Yep. Some people posting in this thread are very much part of the problem. I know you guys don't want to hear that, but it's true.
Can you name them? I'd like to know who you regard as being sympathetic to fascists. Tread carefully, son.
__________________
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 online now   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 25th August 2017, 07:02 AM   #148
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 65,989
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I wouldn't call acting pretend. If the actor has the chops to assume another identity, then that doesn't matter. I haven't seen many good child actors, but if she was like Daniel day Lewis in the audition she should get the role.
So the ten year old is playing a middle-aged person of a different gender and colour and it wouldn't seem odd to you?

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
You'd pick me over Denzel or not?
False dichotomy. No one said the casting director would settle for the first white man he found.

Quote:
Can a 6'2 white man play Caesar and just pretend to be 5'7?

Why is height seen as unimportant but skin tone is vital?
Who said it was unimportant? I wouldn't cast Peter Dinklage as Caesar either.

Quote:
The only question in casting should be who best encapsulates the character that the person doing the casting wishes to portray.
Speak for yourself. Some of us want a semblance of historical accuracy. The point is that casting the white man is not racist.
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is online now   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 25th August 2017, 07:03 AM   #149
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,388
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
You're confusing arguments with definitions, here. And your argument above is one of incredulity. My point is that we're using different definitions, that mine is based on the dictionary's, contrary to use, and that yours is too broad.
Argument by dictionary definition is tedious. Especially when you exclude the full definition:

"the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."

The statement 'I don't like black people' carries an implicit value judgement that there is something inferior about black people that justifies not liking them based on no information other than their race. So it fits your definition perfectly well.

If your interpretation of the definition somehow leads you to believe that saying 'I don't black people' is just fine then your interpretation is not useful. If you think the statement 'I don't like black people' is not fine but not 'racist' then you are simply engaging in pointless hair splitting to no purpose and we are back to the annoying child not touching me.
__________________
"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 25th August 2017, 07:03 AM   #150
rdwight
Thinker
 
rdwight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 199
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
When you show up with weapons in hand, dressed in body armour and shields, you're not there to march, you're there to commit an act of terrorism.
So you would have to admit this characterization is attached to those on the other side correct?

Originally Posted by luchog View Post
As for tactics, these are people who have taken it as their worldview that millions of people should be oppressed and killed just because of their ethnic heritage, and sexual orientation. Chucking rocks at such people doesn't "empower" them, it demonstrates that they and their genocidal hatred will not be tolerated. Seriously, we fought an entire war against nazis. Doing so did not empower them, it ended their threat and saved lives.
Are you really going to equate ww2 with anti-protesters chucking rocks into crowds of protesters?


Originally Posted by luchog View Post
On the other side we have the Anti-Fascists, who want to stop the fascists from killing people, and will do so by whatever means prove effective. Despite the fascist propaganda, the Antifa resistance did not start using violence until the marchers did. The fascists started it in Charlottesville even before the murders with the car, when they attacked peaceful protesters, knocking them down, kicking them, and hitting them with their batons. Antifa responded in defense.
Yes, because Antifa has always behaved in such a manner.. I'll ignore all evidence to the contrary.



Originally Posted by luchog View Post
There is no equivalency between "kill everyone who isn't white", and "punch fascists to stop them from killing everyone who isn't white". Anyone who says otherwise is a fascist sympathizer, or painfully deluded.
Your right, there is a difference. Beliefs are not against the law in this country. Physical violence against others is.

And at the base of your argument, you are simply wrong in the premise. There is no evidence, or logic, to the idea that physically attacking these groups is deterring their behavior or minimizing their reach. It is having the exact opposite effect.


To more directly get back to the OP, I think there are issues with grouping every group together. Especially currently where they attach themselves to other movements, and then allow people to use the most extreme elements of these groups to dehumanize and attack without thought anyone on the opposing side. I hate slippery slope arguments but having violence against any group become the norm, and then having that's groups membership be expanded arbitrarily by location, shared interest in any way, political party, etc is a problem.

We saw the violence against Trump supporters. We have seen the violence against students looking to hear conservative speakers. When you see the jump made from 'punching Nazi's in the face is fine' to 'punching conservatives in the face is fine', you can see there is a problem.
rdwight 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 25th August 2017, 07:05 AM   #151
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK
Posts: 5,080
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
And this too. It's time to start picking sides.
Is it? So you're going to be out in the streets with a stick in your hand and a mask covering your face? lol.

I'd rather enjoy my life and deal with my family's real-world problems than pretend to be a justice warrior doing battle on the streets.
__________________
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 online now   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 25th August 2017, 07:05 AM   #152
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 65,989
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Argument by dictionary definition is tedious.
Well what definition would you rather use? The accepted definition of the language we're using, or a custom-made one used by a member of a forum somewhere on the internet? Why would your definition trump the dictionary's just because you find it tedious? What a strange thing to say.

Anyway, we're not going to agree on anything unless we find common grounds on the definition.
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is online now   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 25th August 2017, 07:06 AM   #153
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,844
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
So the ten year old is playing a middle-aged person of a different gender and colour and it wouldn't seem odd to you?
No.
BobTheCoward is online now   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 25th August 2017, 07:07 AM   #154
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 65,989
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
No.
Surreal. That's all I can say. I'm not even sure I believe you.
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is online now   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 25th August 2017, 07:09 AM   #155
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,328
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
And so the black woman cast as Caesar just has to pretend that she's a white male for the role!

Sheer insanity. Or would you think that a white ten year old child playing Martin Luther King would be justified?
If the portrayal is compelling, why not?
__________________
"The presidentís voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesnít exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba 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 25th August 2017, 07:13 AM   #156
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 65,989
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
If the portrayal is compelling, why not?
Because compelling implies convincing.
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is online now   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 25th August 2017, 07:16 AM   #157
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,667
Originally Posted by Gilbert Syndrome View Post
Is it? So you're going to be out in the streets with a stick in your hand and a mask covering your face? lol.
When it comes to people wearing hoods, I'm not sure if I like black hoods any better than white.

If you can't show your face, you're probably up to no good.
Meadmaker 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 25th August 2017, 07:16 AM   #158
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,388
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
False dichotomy. No one said the casting director would settle for the first white man he found.
So you are no longer selecting on race but on a holistic view of who is better suited to the role?

Would Denzel be a better Caesar than me or not? It's not a trick question.

Quote:
Who said it was unimportant? I wouldn't cast Peter Dinklage as Caesar either.
Well nobody cared when for example Timothy Dalton played Caesar that he was a 6'2 man "pretending" to be a 5'7 man.

Quote:
Speak for yourself. Some of us want a semblance of historical accuracy. The point is that casting the white man is not racist.
No you want a semblance of historical accuracy on certain things and not others. You couldn't care less that a tall white man pretended to be a shorter white man. But it matters to you that the skin tones are within an acceptable range to you but not for example hair colour or eye colour.

And in any case this wasn't the example you gave. Preferring to cast someone who looks like Julius Caesar for the role of Julius Caesar is not the same thing as outright refusing to cast a black man for the role.
__________________
"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 25th August 2017, 07:16 AM   #159
sir drinks-a-lot
Master Poster
 
sir drinks-a-lot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Cole Valley, CA
Posts: 2,888
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
No.
How about an overweight white woman with a southern drawl starring in a film as Micheal Jackson?
__________________
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 25th August 2017, 07:17 AM   #160
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,388
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Well what definition would you rather use? The accepted definition of the language we're using, or a custom-made one used by a member of a forum somewhere on the internet? Why would your definition trump the dictionary's just because you find it tedious? What a strange thing to say.

Anyway, we're not going to agree on anything unless we find common grounds on the definition.
And yet again you edited out the bit that directly referred to the point you are making. That's not helpful or honest.
__________________
"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
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 02:47 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.