![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
Nice argument there...
The threads subject was long gone before I ever joined in the discussion.
Read the OP again.
Moderator: Moderators
I have, fucktard. It's about someone accusing others of racism. It's only natural to then ask how racism is defined, you idiot. Without a definition, it is impossible to confirm or refute the accusation, or are you honestly too goddamned stupid to understand that?Spoonist wrote:![]()
Nice argument there...
The threads subject was long gone before I ever joined in the discussion.
Read the OP again.
1st, I stayed out of the topic until everyone else had conceded or quit. I did not interfere with the topic discussion itself.Darth Wong wrote:I have, fucktard. It's about someone accusing others of racism. It's only natural to then ask how racism is defined, you idiot. Without a definition, it is impossible to confirm or refute the accusation, or are you honestly too goddamned stupid to understand that?
It is not natural to turn it into a thread about politically motivated self-censorship. That's just your dumb-shit hijack, asshole.
Merriam Webster wrote:Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
- rac·ist /-sist also -shist/ noun or adjective
then prove that this at all is possible:Merriam Webster wrote:Main Entry: dis·crim·i·na·tion
Pronunciation: dis-"kri-m&-'nA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 a : the act of discriminating b : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently
2 : the quality or power of finely distinguishing
3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination>
synonym see DISCERNMENT
- dis·crim·i·na·tion·al /-shn&l, -sh&-n&l/ adjective
You can look at my last longwinded post to see my argument.Darth Wong wrote:And it is possible to function in life without discriminating on the basis of race, so don't be too eager to say that racial discrimination is something that everyone does,
you must use this:Merriam Webster wrote:1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
Which because of semantics will lead to a catch22:Merriam Webster wrote:2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
Carry on I say, I'm interested to see where this goes.Spoonist wrote:Oh, and if someone else is still reading this topic could you point out if I'm not making any sense at all or if I and Wong are just misunderstanding eachother.
Yes, because at first I assumed that you were actually trying to address the thread subject, asshole. That is normally a reasonable assumption. When you clarified that you were trying to change the subject, I told you to shut the fuck up and get back on topic, and you have been refusing for reasons which are not obvious to me unless you think it is wise to test my patience by repeatedly ignoring my warnings.Spoonist wrote:5th, if you think that I changed the topic, then how come you didn't call me on it in the first place? Or split it? Your answer to my first post, to me, indicated instead that you had misunderstood my post.
Yes, I agree with that definition. I've only been saying that for several fucking pages already.To make it easier for you I will boil it down to this issue:
If you agree with the dictionary definition of racism:Merriam Webster wrote:Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
- rac·ist /-sist also -shist/ noun or adjectiveMerriam Webster wrote:Main Entry: dis·crim·i·na·tion
Pronunciation: dis-"kri-m&-'nA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 a : the act of discriminating b : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently
2 : the quality or power of finely distinguishing
3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination>
synonym see DISCERNMENT
- dis·crim·i·na·tion·al /-shn&l, -sh&-n&l/ adjective
I'm supposed to prove a negative now? Don't be a fucktard. You have to show that someone is discriminating, not ask him to prove that he does not discriminate. If you don't care what race of person you date, then you're not discriminating.then prove that this at all is possible:Darth Wong wrote:And it is possible to function in life without discriminating on the basis of race, so don't be too eager to say that racial discrimination is something that everyone does,
And why do you think people should not lump the two actions together? Why is "aesthetically superior" somehow different from "superior"? Why do I need to make this point repeatedly?You can look at my last longwinded post to see my argument.
To counter this:you must use this:Merriam Webster wrote:1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular raceWhich because of semantics will lead to a catch22:Merriam Webster wrote:2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
To counter racism you must use racism. (Which doesn't make sense if you use the word racism instead of a descriptive sentence, hence why I've been trying to explain that you need to seperate racism from racial behavioral actions otherwise accusing people of the 2nd definition will make them think that you also accuse them of the 1st definition).
As I told you in my former post, personally I think it to be on topic but if you don't, then just split it or just say you don't want to bother with this line of reasoning. Until you do I'm assuming that you wish to continue this discussion in this thread.Darth Wong wrote:When you clarified that you were trying to change the subject, I told you to shut the fuck up and get back on topic, and you have been refusing for reasons which are not obvious to me unless you think it is wise to test my patience by repeatedly ignoring my warnings.
That one's easy. Consult Parting Shots for people who thought they were clever to ignore moderators telling them to stop playing Stupid Fuckers.Spoonist wrote:Clarify exactly what you mean by "warnings". Until you do I will not continue this discussion.
I do not like the implied innuendo.
I'm quite familiar with Parting Shots.SirNitram wrote:That one's easy. Consult Parting Shots for people who thought they were clever to ignore moderators telling them to stop playing Stupid Fuckers.Spoonist wrote:Clarify exactly what you mean by "warnings". Until you do I will not continue this discussion.
I do not like the implied innuendo.
As far as I can tell, your contrabution to this thread has amounted to saying that we shouldn't use the word "racist" because its meaning is too broad. I personally do not agree with this notion at all, it would seem to be a way of allowing actual racists to get away with what they do by spending hours trying to pin down exactly what they did wrong with a long-winded and incomprehnsible statement rather than just condeming them in clear terms. In any event, as Lord Wong has stated before, the point is off subject any ways. Perhaps you should start a new thread, but right now, your just clogging this one with what amounts to a semantics gripe. So no, in effect, your not making any sense.If I'm not making any sense to anyone then I will off course retract my posts.
But if it's only Darth Wong who doesn't think I'm making sense then it would seem more prudent to continue the discussion.
Well racism is a heavily loaded word. It is a word associated with the worst people and acts in all of history. It's not surprising that so many people in this thread want to distance themselves from the word. This board is one of the few places where admitting to being racist will not immediately draw comparisons to Hitler and the KKK being made.Edi wrote: For some reason a lot of people in this thread seemed to have a big fucking problem with the last two, especially the very last one. Mostly it seemed that it hit a little too close to home and they made the leap in logic of assuming they were being treated as if they were equally bad compared to KKK members and white supremacists instead of just having questionable values/preferences that were racist in nature, even if of a mild form.
Edi
Loaded or not, still accurate. The reason those comparisons don't immediately come up here is that people have learned the hard way that it is a good method of getting thoroughly curbstomped.Hobot wrote:Well racism is a heavily loaded word. It is a word associated with the worst people and acts in all of history. It's not surprising that so many people in this thread want to distance themselves from the word. This board is one of the few places where admitting to being racist will not immediately draw comparisons to Hitler and the KKK being made.
What's the fucking point? Even if you don't call them racists for their views, but instead say that they are wrong and give reasons why, they will often just pull the equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling "LALALALALAAA, CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!" at the top of their lungs, or they come back with the oh-so-clever "Are you accusing me of being a racist but are too cowardly to say it outright?" defense where they try to paint anyone who doesn't accept their bigotry as the offender. I've been hit by that a couple of times, and I've always fired back that, yes, they're being racists and if they don't like it, too fucking bad. There is no need to add some nerfed down half-measure PC bullshit definition that just gives the racists more ammo and the bullfuckery tactic of saying "No, I'm not a racist, I'm just a <insert bullshit nerfed term here>, that's A-okay" and everyone will nod sagely and slap themselves on the back for avoiding a confrontation and possible bad words that tend to upset all the fucking sheep who insist on always being politically correct.Hobot wrote:While it might seem dangerous, perhaps it would be useful to have a different word for the milder forms of racism. The reason being that if, for example, you try to point out to a friend or colleague that they're being racist, they will most likely become very defensive and angry. They will interpret it as an attack and assume that you're being unreasonable. I think with a milder word you would be more successful in convincing them to reconsider their actions/words.
I expect he will do just that. Thing is, as I said before, it's in people's own best interests to be forced to look into the mirror, because otherwise bad shit tends to happen. Dehumanization and demonization is the first step toward casual murder and genocide, and racism and jingoism are one of the quickest ways to accomplish them. I don't see why there is any need to give those two or other forms of bigotry any breaks or opportunities to thrive uncontested.Hobot wrote:Of course, I'd expect someone with more backbone and stronger convictions than I, like Darth Wong, would disagree. But not all of us are capable of being so forthright.
And this is precisely the same logic of the fucktards who say "the US isn't becoming a theocracy; real theocracy is much worse" or "the Patriot Act is not an infringement on civil liberties; real police states are much worse".Zero132132 wrote:Sexual preferences (which was the subject of debate earlier in this thread) won't lead to genocide.
He's not making a strawman. The point is, the logic in committing a genocide based on skin color, discrimination in hiring based on skin color and discrimination in choosing a partner based on skin color is the same. The magnitude of the action varies, the underlying logic does not. Do you now understand the point?Zero132132 wrote:I didn't say that anything less then genocide is okay. Never expected to accuse the leader of this forum of strawmanning... oh well, I'll let it go.
Not really, but I do not expect that skin color is the sole factor that makes or breaks your attraction to a woman. Am I right?Zero132132 wrote:Wong, discriminating in terms of sexuality isn't going to harm anyone. If I prefer light-skinned women over dark-skinned, I'm not going to go out denying black women jobs or any such bullshit. There's no correlation here. As long as I cause no one harm, there's no reason to bitch and moan about it.
No, it doesn't make you evil. But again, does plumpness or lack thereof make or break the attraction? When speaking of sexual attraction, it is usually not a good idea to isolate some single feature and then declare it a binary on-off switch that makes or breaks the attraction. It leaves you vulnerable to accusations of discrimination, whether racial or otherwise and your opponent will run circles around you.Zero132132 wrote:The line is very simple to draw. Am I causing anyone specific pain with my sexual preferences? I happen to go for fat chicks.. does this make me evil? What am I allowed to find attractive/unattractive?
Fuck you, you little shit.Zero132132 wrote:I didn't say that anything less then genocide is okay. Never expected to accuse the leader of this forum of strawmanning... oh well, I'll let it go.
You said that unless some form of racism is "equally horrific" to genocide, it should not be classified at all, you worthless little lying cunt.Zero132132 the lying cunt wrote:Sexual preferences (which was the subject of debate earlier in this thread) won't lead to genocide. Grouping sexual preferences with genocide doesn't seem quite right to me. Are you saying that the two are equally horrific, or just that they fall under the same extremely broad catagory of 'racism'?
So you would have absolutely no problem with a society where no one ever racially intermarries, since that particular form of discrimination apparently does not count as discrimination in your eyes?Wong, discriminating in terms of sexuality isn't going to harm anyone.
I'm not an apologist - hopefully my first post here illustrates that my position isnt quite the same as some others here, but to my mind that statement is clearly racist, and I would also contend that it's a harmful thing to say - stating that an entire racial group of people arent as good looking as another is divisive and may damage the self esteem of individuals who are placed in that group or who identify with it.Darth Wong wrote:Question for the apologists: do you believe that the statement "white people are better-looking than black people" is innocent of the charge of racism?