2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby SlyReaper » Sat Dec 03, 2016 8:37 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:(Also, as mentioned before, *everyone* who voted for Trump chose a racist (perceived) solution to their problems, which is a racist choice. The lecture might be ineffective because people of all political persuasions prefer to ignore arguments about their own shortcomings, but that doesn't mean it's undeserved.)

GMal, do you have any experience successfully holding a conversation with real life to turn them away from Trump while lecturing them that they are a racist?

KnightExemplar, do you have any experience successfully responding in a relevant way to the claim that Trump (or his voters) are racist?

Honest question. Because so far your (and others') response to the claim, "X is true," has been to repeatedly state, "Saying X is true isn't a persuasive argument."

Which, y'know, speaking of things that are literally a fallacy of irrelevance...

You may perceive him as racist. I'm betting most of the people who voted for him don't.
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

elasto
Posts: 3107
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:14 pm UTC

I find that implausible. I think most of them thought him racist and didn't care.

Not everyone thinks not being racist is an important character trait - just like many people don't see not being sexist as an important character trait. Ditto ageist, transphobic etc.

Once you get to the smaller -ist's even many liberals don't see it as important. Different people draw the line in different places. Just didn't think so many didn't see the value in not being racist in 2016...

Sheikh al-Majaneen
Name Checks Out On Time, Tips Chambermaid
Posts: 1051
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:17 am UTC
Location: couldn't even find coffee in copenhagen

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sheikh al-Majaneen » Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:40 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Of course he's this clueless with international politics. How could anyone in their right mind listen to Donald Trump for more than five minutes and not realize that he's this clueless with international politics? This is not an M. Night Shyamalan movie; the election does not end with Donald Trump ripping off his mask to reveal himself as Kofi Annan. He's Donald fucking Trump. It's going to be a goddamn disaster -- and if you didn't see that coming, you haven't been paying attention.

Like, dude -- this Taiwan stuff isn't even a blip on the radar. I'm going to be pleasantly surprised if he gets through the Presidency without directly threatening to nuke anyone. That's the bar we're working at, here.


I'm less worried about his accepting the call from Taiwan's president than I am about his reaction to the consequent shitstorm. There are diplomatic ways to say "oops" or let everyone agree it never happened. A childish response like "we sell weapons to them but we can't talk to them?" is not one of them.

If he's not being a moron, then this looks like some attempt to pivot in a way that China becomes the Big Bad, rather than Russia the way it's been over the Obama administration. But what's the point, and who gains what?

I'm not talking about a case where the military has a surplus of tanks, and cuts a deal to shove 'em over to the police (which yes, has happened, and yes, is horrible). I'm talking about a case where Trump decides that the problem here is that there isn't enough 'law' and 'order', and solves this problem by actively sending them more tanks.

Fair enough. I can't imagine this happening though--if this ever actually happened, then this country will have already crossed into civil war.

Angua wrote:I haven't seen any mention of Trump's phone call to Pakistan yet (if I have, it bears repeating as it happened with Taiwan as well).

Let's hope India doesn't see that as the US supporting Pakistan.

I don't actually see the problem here. Pakistan is not our enemy, and they are not actively at war with India. If there are any secret motivations to improving relations with Pakistan, it's probably got something to do with the Taliban in the north and in Afghanistan rather than taking sides in any future conflict with India.

I think that Trump is actually somewhat popular in India, at least among supporters of the BJP (though probably not supporters aiming to get H1B visas or US green cards), and as far as anyone over there would care about American politics. In the few discussions I've had about subcontinental politics with Indian coworkers and roommates, I get the impression that Narendra Modi receives a lot of credit for the IT boom in India, so at least in those areas he's well-liked...but this is coming entirely from members of the Hindu majority who are almost all from Tamil Nadu, rather than a good representative sample...and my coworkers who are here on H1B visas are worried about what Donald Trump's election means for their prospects here.
Last edited by Sheikh al-Majaneen on Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:59 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby SlyReaper » Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:54 pm UTC

elasto wrote:I find that implausible. I think most of them thought him racist and didn't care.

Not everyone thinks not being racist is an important character trait - just like many people don't see not being sexist as an important character trait. Ditto ageist, transphobic etc.

Once you get to the smaller -ist's even many liberals don't see it as important. Different people draw the line in different places. Just didn't think so many didn't see the value in not being racist in 2016...


Racism (bigotry of any stripe, really) is a massive taboo. It's one of the worst things a person can be, short of outright criminality. I find it hard to believe a huge percentage of people can just ignore that. When Trump has attacked Mexicans and Muslims, he's always couched it in terms of their culture being inferior/threatening (or at least, incompatible with western liberalism), not their race. I think that gives people enough wiggle-room to interpret his remarks as not racist - especially if they're predisposed to vote Republican anyway.
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25789
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Sun Dec 04, 2016 4:41 am UTC

Pretending religious and cultural intolerance are somehow categorically different from racism might help you rationalize away how steeped in white supremacy our society is, but it's still just a nice story you're telling yourself.

morriswalters wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:A Muslim registry would move from racist to prodent if there were evidence that it would actually have an effect on the risk of terrorism that balanced out the negative consequences of such a registry. Racist fear is still racist.
That statement has zero meaning. If it worked how would you measure it since your trying to measure something that didn't happen?
The fact that you don't understand a statement doesn't mean it has zero meaning.

If it worked, it would presumably decrease the incidence of radical Islamic terrorism, or we'd see a number of additional potential attacks get thwarted because of the super effective registry. If you want to demonstrate that it might work before actually trying it, you'd have to point to attacks that could have been prevented if we had a registry. Furthermore, you have to demonstrate that the risk of attack is high enough in the first place that a reduction in that risk is worth the violation of civil liberties inherent in a registry.

Of course, you are the one who posted an excerpt from Mein Kampf, which in context was about how Jews use propaganda to convince everyone of "the great lie" that they're a religious group rather than a race, so I'm somewhat doubtful of the utility of debating religious bigotry (and its political use in inspiring fear in one's fellow racists) with you.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9423
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby addams » Sun Dec 04, 2016 7:57 am UTC

A childish response like "we sell weapons to them but we can't talk to them?" is not one of them.

gee...I'm no fan of the man.
But, if it is true, then it is, kind'a, ok with me.

If we sell them weapons, then we should be on speaking terms.
I'm too tired to fact check. Do we sell them weapons?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5653
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Angua » Sun Dec 04, 2016 9:05 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:A Muslim registry would move from racist to prodent if there were evidence that it would actually have an effect on the risk of terrorism that balanced out the negative consequences of such a registry. Racist fear is still racist.
That statement has zero meaning. If it worked how would you measure it since your trying to measure something that didn't happen?
Angua wrote:There were plenty of people, in France and otherwise, who denounced the French polices as racist/Islamophobic.
Me among them. And? Just to keep the argument in focus, are we discussing racism or are we discussing religious intolerance?

You literally just used France as an example of a society where some racism was deemed acceptable or prudent for their policies. I pointed out that many poeple in France and 9ut said it wasn't acceptable.

Do you not understand how that was a rebuttal of your point that it was deemed acceptable?
'Look, sir, I know Angua. She's not the useless type. She doesn't stand there and scream helplessly. She makes other people do that.'
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby PeteP » Sun Dec 04, 2016 10:51 am UTC

addams wrote:
A childish response like "we sell weapons to them but we can't talk to them?" is not one of them.

gee...I'm no fan of the man.
But, if it is true, then it is, kind'a, ok with me.

If we sell them weapons, then we should be on speaking terms.
I'm too tired to fact check. Do we sell them weapons?

As far as I understand the US is on speaking terms with Taiwan unofficially they just don't officially recognize them, it is a complicated weird mess of diplomatic pretenses. (And yeah there was a weapon deal under Obama.) Anyway if there was a plan to change the position towards Taiwan that would be one thing. (And maybe there is a hidden plan I guess, hard to be certain.) But it seems like he just did it without a diplomatic plan (probably because of business interests in Taiwan.) I don't think it will be much of a problem (though that might be because I have little real understanding of the situation), but if it is indicative of with how little care he treats diplomacy in the future that is worrisome. (And I assume it is because it seems to fit his normal behavior.) For what it is worth I think it would probably be good to officially recognize Taiwan, but I doubt he did it to deliberately do that.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:20 am UTC

Well, China's practice has been to cut relations with anyone who recognizes the ROC – though who knows what would happen if the US tried it.

It is curious that the PRC and ROC haven't been able to achieve the sort of grudging dual UN membership that we got with the two Germanies and the two Koreas. Maybe the huge size disparity between the two is responsible for that.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7303
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Sun Dec 04, 2016 12:16 pm UTC

For what it is worth I think it would probably be good to officially recognize Taiwan, but I doubt he did it to deliberately do that.

It's a tad complicated - Taiwan itself is not claiming independence from the mainland, so it's far from obvious what should be 'recognized'. Part of that is that Taiwan wants to keep (relatively) good relations with its big neighbour, but there is also an internal tension between the descendants of the pre-1949 population, and those of the mainlanders who took over the country. And deeper divisions yet - there's people who still want to claim the mainland as theirs, former mainlanders who want to move towards unification with the PRC in some form, on the other side people who consider the RoC itself as a illegitimate foreign government, etc. If I am not mistaken, there's even a party of aborigal Taiwanese (so, different again from the pre-1949 ethnic Chinese Taiwanenese) who also favour unification with mainland China.

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby SlyReaper » Sun Dec 04, 2016 12:24 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Pretending religious and cultural intolerance are somehow categorically different from racism...

Aren't they? Race only affects how a person looks; culture and religion affect how people behave. No kind of intolerance is okay, of course, but it is different. Pretending it isn't is a large part of why accusations of racism have pretty much lost all of their power.
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

Mutex
Posts: 1044
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:46 pm UTC

SlyReaper wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Pretending religious and cultural intolerance are somehow categorically different from racism...

Aren't they? Race only affects how a person looks; culture and religion affect how people behave. No kind of intolerance is okay, of course, but it is different. Pretending it isn't is a large part of why accusations of racism have pretty much lost all of their power.

I agree. I don't have any tolerance for female genital mutilation. That's part of some cultures. People get to choose what they do and how they behave, and I don't have to agree with their choices.

Then again there's a difference between that and not tolerating some aspect of a culture that isn't hurting anyone. I guess what I really mean is just because something's cultural shouldn't make it immune to criticism or even being outlawed.
Last edited by Mutex on Sun Dec 04, 2016 2:00 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby SlyReaper » Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:59 pm UTC

You're right - I misspoke when I said no kind of intolerance is okay. Intolerance of FGM (or even MGM, for that matter) is definitely okay. Intelligent criticism is better, however.
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

morriswalters
Posts: 6904
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Sun Dec 04, 2016 2:14 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Of course, you are the one who posted an excerpt from Mein Kampf, which in context was about how Jews use propaganda to convince everyone of "the great lie" that they're a religious group rather than a race, so I'm somewhat doubtful of the utility of debating religious bigotry (and its political use in inspiring fear in one's fellow racists) with you.
It was about Hitler defining a technique while using it. But as usual you see what is convenient for you to see. If it states a desire to stop the conversation you may consider it "mission accomplished".
Angua wrote:You literally just used France as an example of a society where some racism was deemed acceptable or prudent for their policies. I pointed out that many poeple in France and 9ut said it wasn't acceptable.

Do you not understand how that was a rebuttal of your point that it was deemed acceptable?
What I asked was,
morriswalters wrote:When fear is involved, at what point does a Muslim Registry move from racist to prudent? Certainly the French seem to look at a different bar for that then we do. That is at least one potential counterargument.
Some number of people will always find something wrong with any given policy so the fact that many people say it isn't acceptable isn't a meaningful statement. Do you deny that? The question was, is the path that France has taken prudent. Does the response match the threat? The threat is real. And the only markers that set the attackers apart from the general population is their religion and their desire to murder to achieve their goals. If you are going to prevent attacks you will have to look at Muslims since it is Muslims that are attacking. How many dead French citizens are required before it becomes prudent and not racist? That is an emotional decision not a rational one. I just wanted to make that point clear. However I don't think any further discussion from me on this point would be worthwhile.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25789
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Sun Dec 04, 2016 3:31 pm UTC

SlyReaper wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Pretending religious and cultural intolerance are somehow categorically different from racism...

Aren't they? Race only affects how a person looks; culture and religion affect how people behave.
Race is as much a social construct as religion and culture. Perceptions of race correlate with how people look, but they also correlate with how people behave religiously and culturally.

When Islamophobes attack Sikhs but not white Muslims and when anti-immigrant xenophobes attack dark-skinned Americans but not white Latinx immigrants, you don't get to claim either type of bigotry is separate, in actual practice, from racism and how people look.

Also, many fundamentalist Muslims have more in common, culturally and behaviorally, with most fundamentalist Christians than they do with liberal Muslims.

SlyReaper wrote:Racism (bigotry of any stripe, really) is a massive taboo. It's one of the worst things a person can be, short of outright criminality.
It might actually be one of the worst non-criminal things a person can be, but it's evidently not perceived as such by tens of millions of people. It's obviously worse in some circles than others, and the circles made up of Trump voters at minimum don't see it as a bad thing to be accused of racism, even if they claim it would be a bad thing to actually be racist. (I only buy that line of reasoning so far before the denial becomes impassably deep. You're no longer someone who really has a problem with racism if you conveniently continue to pretend it doesn't exist no matter how egregious the example.)

And at the very least, it is far less bad to be accused of racism than to be the target of racism, so I still feel less than zero sympathy for all those whiny white people who don't like their racism called what it is.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

morriswalters
Posts: 6904
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Sun Dec 04, 2016 4:54 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:I agree. I don't have any tolerance for female genital mutilation. That's part of some cultures. People get to choose what they do and how they behave, and I don't have to agree with their choices.

Then again there's a difference between that and not tolerating some aspect of a culture that isn't hurting anyone. I guess what I really mean is just because something's cultural shouldn't make it immune to criticism or even being outlawed.
You did so well until the second paragraph. There is no question as to your right to feel and choose to speak about something in your own culture or any other culture. If however you choose to see your cultures version of the truth as the correct version than not only do you give yourself the right to ban what you consider abhorrent practice, FGM, but you open the door to repressive practices by your culture against weaker cultures. European culture ran up against Native American culture, and predicated their actions on just that type of thinking. You may think that a modern moral baseline is better, but then again so did they. Oddly enough this line of thought was enshrined as a tenet of a certain SF show and was called the Prime Directive.

I'll make a narrow distinction. Within common governing area we will define certain things as moral or as immoral. With those things being subject to ongoing revisions as mores change. And as such we will then make things legal or illegal, as a common minimal agreement as to those mores.

Mutex
Posts: 1044
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Sun Dec 04, 2016 5:01 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Mutex wrote:I agree. I don't have any tolerance for female genital mutilation. That's part of some cultures. People get to choose what they do and how they behave, and I don't have to agree with their choices.

Then again there's a difference between that and not tolerating some aspect of a culture that isn't hurting anyone. I guess what I really mean is just because something's cultural shouldn't make it immune to criticism or even being outlawed.

You did so well until the second paragraph. There is no question as to your right to feel and choose to speak about something in your own culture or any other culture. If however you choose to see your cultures version of the truth as the correct version than not only do you give yourself the right to ban what you consider abhorrent practice, FGM, but you open the door to repressive practices by your culture against weaker cultures. European culture ran up against Native American culture, and predicated their actions on just that type of thinking. You may think that a modern moral baseline is better, but then again so did they. Oddly enough this line of thought was enshrined as a tenet of a certain SF show and was called the Prime Directive.

I'll make a narrow distinction. Within common governing area we will define certain things as moral or as immoral. With those things being subject to ongoing revisions as mores change. And as such we will then make things legal or illegal, as a common minimal agreement as to those mores.

What I meant is that cultural traditions shouldn't be above the law. And the law in a country is developed through a common consensus of what is right and wrong. We don't allow people to cause physical harm to others, with a range of punishments reflecting the varying seriousness of assault through to mutilation. I'm not following the rest of what you said, seems like you basically agree with this.

morriswalters
Posts: 6904
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Sun Dec 04, 2016 5:22 pm UTC

Up until the point where it crosses a national boundary.

Mutex
Posts: 1044
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Sun Dec 04, 2016 5:25 pm UTC

Oh, of course.

Mambrino
Posts: 388
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:45 pm UTC
Location: No we don't have polar bears. Except in zoos.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mambrino » Sun Dec 04, 2016 5:30 pm UTC

Is that kind relativistic view of culture and moral workable in when "the other culture" is not some distant place but next door and you need to establish legal standards and the school nurse or maternity ward need some procedures to follow?

For reasons like I don't believe idea of "separate" cultures ("I have my culture and you have your") can work in the same temporal and spatial location. Your culture is ultimately characterized by what your society does and how it functions, and unless you want to maintain separate societies instead of one society, some work must be done to make that there's melting happening in the melting pot.

edit. Missed the bit and the posts about the national boundaries, so we seem to be in agreement on that part. But this day and age we live in a global world of interconnected trade and travel and internet. And your next door neighbors may very well have relatives and friends in some other part of the world, many national boundaries away, and those boundaries are not magic walls that can stop ideas flowing.

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby SlyReaper » Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:01 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
SlyReaper wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Pretending religious and cultural intolerance are somehow categorically different from racism...

Aren't they? Race only affects how a person looks; culture and religion affect how people behave.
Race is as much a social construct as religion and culture. Perceptions of race correlate with how people look, but they also correlate with how people behave religiously and culturally.

So if a white guy acts in a stereotypically "black" way, everyone starts to perceive him as black, or vice versa? This is not my understanding of how the world works.

When Islamophobes attack Sikhs but not white Muslims and when anti-immigrant xenophobes attack dark-skinned Americans but not white Latinx immigrants, you don't get to claim either type of bigotry is separate, in actual practice, from racism and how people look.

There will always be a fringe of idiots and actual racists. You can point to as many examples as you like, but I don't think you can show they make up a significant proportion of the population.

Also, many fundamentalist Muslims have more in common, culturally and behaviorally, with most fundamentalist Christians than they do with liberal Muslims.


Only with more beheadings and throwing gays off rooftops and whatnot. Also, so what?

SlyReaper wrote:Racism (bigotry of any stripe, really) is a massive taboo. It's one of the worst things a person can be, short of outright criminality.
It might actually be one of the worst non-criminal things a person can be, but it's evidently not perceived as such by tens of millions of people. It's obviously worse in some circles than others, and the circles made up of Trump voters at minimum don't see it as a bad thing to be accused of racism, even if they claim it would be a bad thing to actually be racist. (I only buy that line of reasoning so far before the denial becomes impassably deep. You're no longer someone who really has a problem with racism if you conveniently continue to pretend it doesn't exist no matter how egregious the example.)


Nobody has claimed racism doesn't exist. I'm simply disputing that the majority of Trump voters fall into that category.

And at the very least, it is far less bad to be accused of racism than to be the target of racism, so I still feel less than zero sympathy for all those whiny white people who don't like their racism called what it is.

They're not whiny, they just don't believe you any more when you call people racist.
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:02 pm UTC

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... n-the-u-s/
Is this a campaign ploy? Like I can really imagine his staffers/Pence trying to keep all the promises Trump agreed to. I dunno.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25789
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:04 pm UTC

SlyReaper wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
SlyReaper wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Pretending religious and cultural intolerance are somehow categorically different from racism...

Aren't they? Race only affects how a person looks; culture and religion affect how people behave.
Race is as much a social construct as religion and culture. Perceptions of race correlate with how people look, but they also correlate with how people behave religiously and culturally.
So if a white guy acts in a stereotypically "black" way, everyone starts to perceive him as black, or vice versa?
I said "correlate with", not "are completely determined by".

This is not my understanding of how the world works.
Has it occurred to you that your understanding of how the world works may be incorrect or incomplete?

They're not whiny, they just don't believe you any more when you call people racist.
Right, because they're in denial about what racism is and how it applies to them.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:19 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
SlyReaper wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
SlyReaper wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Pretending religious and cultural intolerance are somehow categorically different from racism...

Aren't they? Race only affects how a person looks; culture and religion affect how people behave.
Race is as much a social construct as religion and culture. Perceptions of race correlate with how people look, but they also correlate with how people behave religiously and culturally.
So if a white guy acts in a stereotypically "black" way, everyone starts to perceive him as black, or vice versa?
I said "correlate with", not "are completely determined by".

This is not my understanding of how the world works.
Has it occurred to you that your understanding of how the world works may be incorrect or incomplete?


Dude, you split his statement. You apparently agree with the first half and then make a snarky remark about the second half. The two sentences were together as follows:

So if a white guy acts in a stereotypically "black" way, everyone starts to perceive him as black, or vice versa? This is not my understanding of how the world works.


It seems like you agree with him, at least on your concession to the first half of his statement.

-------------

Honestly, I think a lot of racism is cultural stereotyping. If you have a gun-touting African American Veteran drinking beer in a trailer with some redneck buddies, they'll all be as aghast at the turf wars of inner-city "Ghetto Blacks" or "Liberal Elites want to take away my Guns".

To to bring it back to the election: Its why Ben Carson "isn't really black".
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5653
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Angua » Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:24 pm UTC

'Look, sir, I know Angua. She's not the useless type. She doesn't stand there and scream helplessly. She makes other people do that.'
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby SlyReaper » Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:29 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
SlyReaper wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
SlyReaper wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Pretending religious and cultural intolerance are somehow categorically different from racism...

Aren't they? Race only affects how a person looks; culture and religion affect how people behave.
Race is as much a social construct as religion and culture. Perceptions of race correlate with how people look, but they also correlate with how people behave religiously and culturally.
So if a white guy acts in a stereotypically "black" way, everyone starts to perceive him as black, or vice versa?
I said "correlate with", not "are completely determined by".

Then what's your point? You're right that race is social construct - it's a broad system for categorising people based on superficial visual characteristics. Humans do love categorising and labelling each other after all. You're basically stuck with the "race" you're born into. Adopting another religion or culture isn't going to change that. Hence my point that race is visual, culture is behavioural, and criticism of one is not the same an attacking the other.

This is not my understanding of how the world works.
Has it occurred to you that your understanding of how the world works may be incorrect or incomplete?

It always occurs to me. I will change my mind if I'm shown to be wrong about something. Care to show me where I'm going wrong?

They're not whiny, they just don't believe you any more when you call people racist.
Right, because they're in denial about what racism is and how it applies to them.

They won't accept the new expanded definition of racism. Annoying, isn't it.
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25789
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Sun Dec 04, 2016 8:10 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Dude, you split his statement. You apparently agree with the first half and then make a snarky remark about the second half. The two sentences were together as follows:

So if a white guy acts in a stereotypically "black" way, everyone starts to perceive him as black, or vice versa? This is not my understanding of how the world works.


It seems like you agree with him, at least on your concession to the first half of his statement.
There was no concession to the first half of his statement. It was a straw man that misinterpreted my use of the word "correlate" to mean behavior completely determines perceptions of race.

SlyReaper wrote:Then what's your point?
My point is that how someone looks is insufficient to characterize their race. Many people can be perceived as one race or another depending on what they say or do, how they dress, how they wear their hair, etc.

You're right that race is social construct - it's a broad system for categorising people based on superficial visual characteristics.
As well as ethnic and cultural characteristics.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby SlyReaper » Sun Dec 04, 2016 8:58 pm UTC

Well now we're reduced to arguing over definitions. Okay, if you stretch the definition of race to include cultural characteristics, you can stretch the definition of racism to include criticism of behaviour. But I do not think that is what the majority of people are referring to when they talk about black people/white people/etc. And is it useful to define race that way, when a) it's possible to adopt a culture of your choosing, independent of your ethnic background, and b) the logical result is that criticism of behaviour is racist? To use the earlier example, it makes criticism of FGM racist.
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

Mutex
Posts: 1044
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Sun Dec 04, 2016 9:20 pm UTC

Different races often have various types of behaviour, way of speaking, way of dressing etc associated with them, but I've not heard anyone argue that that's an intrinsic part of the race before. I've only seen people use "race" to talk about people's genetic background, and the definitions I've found with a quick search all describe is as a biological term. Also, using race this way is overly broad, because for example, black people in different countries can act and dress very differently.

Basically, race and culture are often correlated, but that doesn't make one part of the other by definition.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25789
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:41 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:Basically, race and culture are often correlated, but that doesn't make one part of the other by definition.
One may not be part of the other, but if you're consistently biased against cultural elements that pretty exclusively correspond to one particular race or another, I'm perfectly comfortable calling you racist. You might tell yourself linguistic or cultural lies to justify a dislike of AAVE or dreadlocks, for example, but they're just stories so you don't have to admit you're racist.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1860
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Panama

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Weeks » Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:47 pm UTC

SlyReaper wrote:To use the earlier example, it makes criticism of FGM racist.
That's kind of disingenuous.
Am I gregnant
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Quercus wrote:Agreed, but "constitutional fetishism" doesn't have that lovely alliteration between fetishism, first and fucking
rath358 wrote:I have been replaced D:

morriswalters
Posts: 6904
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Mon Dec 05, 2016 12:34 am UTC

Weeks wrote:
SlyReaper wrote:To use the earlier example, it makes criticism of FGM racist.
That's kind of disingenuous.
Why?

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 930
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Mon Dec 05, 2016 1:05 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Weeks wrote:
SlyReaper wrote:To use the earlier example, it makes criticism of FGM racist.
That's kind of disingenuous.
Why?

Because it's practically the most extreme possible case. It is orders of magnitude away from something like requiring women to wear a hijab.
He wondered could you eat the mushrooms, would you die, do you care.

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1860
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Panama

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Weeks » Mon Dec 05, 2016 1:07 am UTC

I didn't think I'd have to spell it out, but yeah. Thanks Liri.
Am I gregnant
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Quercus wrote:Agreed, but "constitutional fetishism" doesn't have that lovely alliteration between fetishism, first and fucking
rath358 wrote:I have been replaced D:

morriswalters
Posts: 6904
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Mon Dec 05, 2016 1:22 am UTC

Weeks wrote:I didn't think I'd have to spell it out, but yeah. Thanks Liri.
Paraphrasing Gmalivuk. Don't assume everyone hears the same stories inside their head when they read a phrase. I took it as argument to absurdity rather than a statement of belief. The argument may be good or bad but I questioned the use of disingenuous. But obviously you differ.

edited order

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5570
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Mon Dec 05, 2016 3:42 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:One may not be part of the other, but if you're consistently biased against cultural elements that pretty exclusively correspond to one particular race or another, I'm perfectly comfortable calling you racist. You might tell yourself linguistic or cultural lies to justify a dislike of AAVE or dreadlocks, for example, but they're just stories so you don't have to admit you're racist.
Racist isn't not liking dreadlocks. Racist is not liking people because they wear dreadlocks. And even so, it's stretching the idea of racism to cover other kinds of sometimes related prejudice.

A key component of racism (and other kinds of unmolpish prejudice) is that one is judging a person inferior by dint of belonging to some group.

Racism itself is the kind that depends on bloodline. It is reasonably extended to traits for which the offending bloodline is reasonably inferred. But it is stretched beyond recognition in the service of emotional impact when it is applied to other groupings. When you call prosecco "Champagne", it diminishes champagne, and it diminishes prosecco.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25789
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Dec 05, 2016 3:46 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Weeks wrote:
SlyReaper wrote:To use the earlier example, it makes criticism of FGM racist.
That's kind of disingenuous.
Why?
Because criticizing something due to the actual harm it causes is miles away from criticizing something because you're under the mistaken impression that your personal fashion choices (be they in dress, hair, language, or anything else) carry some kind of objective normative weight.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6847
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Mon Dec 05, 2016 3:59 am UTC

ucim wrote:Racism itself is the kind that depends on bloodline. It is reasonably extended to traits for which the offending bloodline is reasonably inferred. But it is stretched beyond recognition in the service of emotional impact when it is applied to other groupings. When you call prosecco "Champagne", it diminishes champagne, and it diminishes prosecco.
The problem with limiting racism to matters of blood and genealogy is that the people who practice it often ignore such limitations. Jüdische Physik came from the idea that there was something inherently (and unforgivably) 'Jewish' about Einstein's theories; it's pretty much as racist as a narrative can get. But how can anyone reasonably infer that being Jewish makes your theories innately wrong?

The moment you say 'a thing is only racist if it's concerned with genetics', you leave me free to talk about the inherent inferiority of black culture rather than black people -- and really, is that much different? Isn't this the same sentiment, just dressed up in a way that makes it harder to point out?

Racism tends to be neither reasonable nor rational; that's probably why the definition is so fuzzy.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8752
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Dec 05, 2016 4:39 am UTC

So criticizing culture is inherently racist? Does that mean that I'm a racist for being horrified at the Afghani Dancing Boys?

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6847
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Mon Dec 05, 2016 4:42 am UTC

I don't think criticizing a culture is inherently racist, but I think there are times where we're criticizing a culture for racist reasons -- and I think in those circumstances, it's fair to call that criticism racist.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests