MovieChat Forums > David1616 > Replies
David1616's Replies
"Focus on that that this aimless tirade at the term "racist"."
You still don't see that the term "racism" and it's lack of specificity tends to guide people's thoughts?
"That's not what I asked you: Should black people should be allowed to, legally, be prevented from any access to any public service?"
Private businesses should calculate themselves if risk is worth the extra income from Black customers. Legally they shouldn't be able to force anyone to take needless risks if they don't want to. If Blacks don't want to be discriminated, then they shouldn't live among Whites.
"Criticizing someone's understanding of language and the context behind the term has nothing to do with race."
You're not criticizing my understanding of language. If hadn't told you English is not my first language after you made a typo, you wouldn't have known.
""Racist" is a precise term. It refers to a form of discrimination or prejudice towards someone purely because of their heritage."
No it's not precise. There are dozens of different definitions from respected sources online. ADL itself was forced to change the definition 3 times in one year. Things that clearly aren't prejudiced like test cores or AI are called racist.
""Unwarranted" is subjective. Someone has to make a value judgement as to whether or not someone's "tribalism" is justified or not. Someone could easily call someone an "unwarranted tribalist" and you would disagree. But they'd still persist. So you'd end up in the exact same situation as you are in now."
It's much less subjective than blanket term "racism". All words are subjective to a degree. Some more than others. Blasphemy, degeneracy and racism are among the most subjective.
"And do you honestly expect to somehow make the entire western world use the word 'racist'? Like is that a goal you think remotely achievable?"
Yes. Difficulty in achieving a goal is not an argument of the illegitimacy of that goal.
<blockquote>The power that the allegation of racism has depends on where wider society is in relation to whatever you did or said.</blockquote>
And what I'm saying is that the power of the word racist comes from the fact that it isn't precisely defined. "Unwarranted tribalist" is more precise and wouldn't have this ambiguity and thus abuse.
<blockquote>Someone has not automatically won an argument just because they call you "blasphemous" or racist.</blockquote>
He is as long as "blasphemy" or "racism" is respected word and what you are arguing is considered "racist" or "blasphemous" in society.
<blockquote>There's no reason to believe this. You just made assertions. And again, you can't just dictate replacement terminology.</blockquote>
I gave you examples. You really think math and test scores could be considered "unwarrantedly tribalistic" by almost anyone?
<blockquote>There are many times where "racist" doesn't fly either, or has limited impact. .</blockquote>
It would fly even less if we used more precise and less subjective terms.
<blockquote>But if 'racism' didn't exist, the scope for 'unwarranted tribalist' would increase.</blockquote>
You just asserted that without evidence. I don't think such a specific term could be used so widely.
<blockquote>Right. And this impacts language. We as a culture and society have changed. So what?</blockquote>
So even you admit that practical use of "racism" expanded over time yet you still can't see the problem with the term?
It has changed because the term isn't precisely defined and can be used for almost anything and silence people.
<blockquote>No, they don't. No reason to believe that all leftists do this. No reason to believe it's a common thing at all. </blockquote>
Leftist who control the media academia think so. My argument doesn't depend on all leftist thinking the same.
<blockquote>No, people can judge whoever they like for whatever reason they like.</blockquote>
That's not the point. They judge unfairly because the term "racist" has brainwashed them.
<blockquote>black people should be allowed to, legally, be prevented from any access to any public service.</blockquote>
If they are a danger to people, people will discriminate against them as long as they don't have the ability to read minds. They should blame their own communities for raising their children in such way and instilling such values that makes them behave so.
<blockquote>No, it's not. You think language is the same thing as ethnicity? It just isn't. You're imposing your own interpretation of how words are used onto a language that is not your first language.</blockquote>
I already addressed this. The word "racist" is exactly the same as in my language and used in exactly equal situations.
<blockquote>And I'm sure you'd say that a woman couldn't be accused of racism in such a scenario either, but they are. .... Whether or not they're called "racist" or "unwarranted tribalist" doesn't much matter.</blockquote>
That's exactly my point. She is accused of "racism" because this is the term in our society for any racial discrimination regardless if it's justified. It does matter because "unwarranted tribalist" is a precise term. It has the word "unwarranted" in it so you have to show that tribalism isn't warranted before you accuse. With racism you don't because all you have to show is racial discrimination. There is a very interesting old book called "Tyranny of words". You should read it.
<blockquote>There is NO support for this. There are nearly 2 million people of mixed ethnicity in the UK.</blockquote>
Lack of current support doesn't debunk the validity of the principle. Also I am talking about the US where Blacks were taken against their will. Immigrants in the UK could return.
<blockquote>There's no reason to believe this at all. Anyone can defend themselves for anything.</blockquote>
I literally see no argument except denial
<blockquote>You can tell the Islamist to go fuck themselves and that you don't care about 'blasphemy'. Similarly, you can tell someone who might call you racist that you disagree. You can dispute any allegation.</blockquote>
Telling someone to F.O is not winning an argument. You can disagree, but as long as the audience respects the term "racist" you will be seen as losing the argument.
<blockquote>If "racist" didn't exist as a term, another term would be used instead that would inherit all of the negative connotations of "racist". You cannot get away from this.</blockquote>
No, it won't because with more precise and specific terms like "irrational", "unfair" and "unwarranted tribalism" it's easier to defend oneself. I gave you examples yet you refuse to address them.
<blockquote>"Unwarranted tribalist" is just a wordy way of saying "bigoted". It's an umbrella term. And again, in an alternative reality being labeled "unwarranted tribalist" could be just the same, just as impactful now as being called a racist.</blockquote>
No. I gave you examples of situations where accusations "unwarranted tribalist" would not fly. With "racism" they fly, because all the term needs to justify itself is some kind of racial discrimination regardless if it's justified or not.
<blockquote>Yes, there was. People used the word 'racist' differently. But the phenomenon of discrimination against people because of their race existed. How people use words, and the extent in which those words are used changes over time..</blockquote>
No, the Overton window what is considered immoral when it comes to race was radically different 60 years ago than today. Today leftist call every White who doesn't feel guilty for being White "racist". This couldn't happen if we used "unwarranted tribalist".
I am not shy. All others besides Whites. Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Muslims...etc. When all others do it, it's healthy ethnic pride, when Whites do it it's "racism".
<blockquote>Today, the scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between groups, and that observed differences are environmental in origin. </blockquote>
No it' hasn't. This claim is just a desperate attempt on behalf of well intentioned people to prevent the political consequence of admitting the obvious truth. They HAVE TO lie about this. To them admitting race and IQ is another holocaust.
<blockquote>However few would agree that this is a reason to argue in favour of white supremacism since it would seem a matter of education and culture while seeking a genetic proclivity for wife-beating would be a hard ask</blockquote>
How is an undisputed fact of higher domestic abuse in interracial couples not a good argument to not celebrate interracial relationships?
<blockquote>I suppose it has never occurred to you that black children, say, may be exposed to stereotypes and discrimination due to their genetic and phenotypic makeup, which can challenge their search for a positive sense of identity?</blockquote>
How do mixed race children express more abuse than Black children but less than Whites?
<blockquote>But if they have been demanding purity for the white population in general and then marry a black person in particular that still doesn't count? I see. It really is an obvious example such as you ask for, your special pleading notwithstanding. Love of a different person is 'not the practical consequences' of marrying outside your race, but, logically vice versa.</blockquote>
If he changed his views it's not a double standard. If he didn't, it may be hypocrisy from him, but not White nationalists in general.
First of all, how the hell did you get to write such a long post here? When I try it, I can't type anymore.
<blockquote>The scientific consensus is that there is no evidence that mixed race people have lower IQs than white people or other racial groups. Difference in academic test scores, if any, have different reasons than 'race':
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/multi-racial-adolescents-show-no-test-score-gap-with-whites/
"The black-white test score gap does not appear to be an inevitable fact of nature. It is true that the gap shrinks only a little when black and white children attend the same schools... But despite endless speculation, no one has found genetic evidence indicating that blacks have less innate intellectual ability than whites."</blockquote>
This is complete rubbish. All studies on mixed race children show scores are in the middle of races of their parents. "Bad schools" myths has been debunked to death. Rich Black children score worse on SAT and IQ than poor White children. The claim that genetics cannot be identified as a source for IQ difference is the "equality of the gaps" argument similar to creationists. Science hasn't identified all the genes for intelligence yet, so you can't 100% prove genetics is the cause. All other circumstantial evidence says otherwise.
- Blacks adopted by White families score almost just as low as other Blacks.
- Blacks have smaller brains
- Controlling for SES Blacks still score lower on IQ test and SAT.
- Black and White IQ gap is most present in subtests that are the most heritable (where twins score the most similar) strongly suggesting a genetic cause.
- Blacks in the UK also score lower and didn't have segregation or slavery despite being somewhat IQ selected by immigration
- Mixed race people with more White admixture score higher than those with more Black admixture
- There isn't a single example of an affluent Black run society in the entire world...etc, etc.
<blockquote>He can think what he wants. But he is performing a public service.
And people can judge him however they like.</blockquote>
They shouldn't judge him as long as he doesn't have an obligation to his employer. Protecting oneself from being needlessly mugged or killed is more important than inconveniencing someone you don't owe anything. Leftist could never accuse him of being irrational or even unfair, but they can accuse him of being "racist". Still don't see the problem with this term?
<blockquote>I'm not criticising your ethnicity, I'm criticising you based on English not being your first language.</blockquote>
This is the same thing. The fallacy of "your argument must be wrong because of where you were born" remains.
<blockquote>How is it any different if I instead call them racist? Why is "unwarranted tribalist" a valid term, but not "racist". All people would do is instead of using "racist" they'd just "unwarranted tribalist" and it would inherit the negative connotations of racist.</blockquote>
No they couldn't. A woman could not be accused of "unwarranted tribalism" when she refused to let in her apartment a young Black male in the middle of the night. Her decision to do so is not tribalism, but rational safety concern and it is not unwarranted given the situation. Any racial discrimination in any situation can and is being called racist because it's ethnically discrimination on race. This couldn't be the case with "unwarranted tribalist"
<blockquote>And shelter, job, banking, internet aren't essential?</blockquote>
One could depend the nuances of specific situations and compromises could be made, but that doesn't de-legitimize the principle. My view is the final goal should be geographical racial separation, that would solve the discrimination problem immediately.
<blockquote>Yes you can. You can dispute anything you're accused of. They don't "automatically win".</blockquote>
Denying something like a child is not an argument. I cannot defend national immigration origin quotas for example from being "racist" since they are seen as "racist" by mainstream society just like I can't defend my views from being "blasphemy" from an Islamist. But I can defend them from being irrational and unfair. When you label your accusation "unfair" instead of racist, it puts it in the entirely different light and the conversation goes in the entirely different direction. Word we use matter because they subconsciously direct our thought processes without us even realizing it.
<blockquote>Because it's not the common term of reference. Languages are built on consensus on what words mean. "Unwarranted tribalist" doesn't have such, and nor does it even get to the nub of identifying specific forms of prejudice.</blockquote>
This is not an argument about why "unwarranted tribalist" is not a good term. Give me an example of a legit grievance that could not be condemned using "unwarranted tribalist". How does "unwarranted tribalist" fail to identify specific forms of prejudice? Consensus comes from people who have power in society and they have their own agendas and prejudices. Before the 1960s the consensus was there was no "racism".
<blockquote>I don't recall calling test scores or AI racist</blockquote>
Who's talking about you? I'm talking about the left which dominates the culture.
OK name me an example of a double standard from Jared Taylor. Caveat: even if you find one, that doesn't prove White identatarians in general have double standards. I am one, yet I don't have a single double standard. I can't necessarily defend Jared Taylor, I'm not Jared Taylor. But I can defend myself and my views.
Whites never captured anyone. They bought existing slaves, 30-50% of Africa were slaves before European colonization. Since slavery was naturally seen as moral in a scarcity ridden society, and Whites bought them with their own money, one could even easily argue Whites had the right to own them. Then they freed them at their own will. Arab countries abolished slavery in the 1960s when Whites were singing under the rainbow with flowers in their hair, yet Whites are the only people today to feel guilty about slavery.
So you are saying all those videos of Whites kissing Black people's feet are fake? And you have said nothing in response to my third paragraph.
<blockquote> I'm sorry but this just special pleading. If one believes in the 'superiority' of one's race one does not accept a representative of another as an equal, let alone promise to 'love honour and obey'. The infamous Miscegenation Laws of the past show how racists then viewed such things as unacceptable. </blockquote>
There are plenty of downsides of race mixing, from lower IQ to higher chance of domestic abuse and divorce, to identity crisis of mixed race children. Nobody has an obligation to race mix, so refusing to do so is not a double standard unless you push other to do so, but won't yourself.
<blockquote>This is irrelevant and just your opinion; but thank you anyway.</blockquote>
No, it's a valid argument unless you can show this isn't the case.
<blockquote>And I note you didn't offer examples of white supremacist hypocrisy you would accept. I wonder why?</blockquote>
There would be hypocrisy.....if they say demanded independence and purity for White countries, but pushed for multiracialism for brown countries. But they don't.
I know one guy despite living in a country that has been subject to much less White guilt than USA. If I lived in America or England, I'm sure I would know more.
Also even if did not anyone, how does that negate the clips of Whites clearly expressing White guilt? Are those staged?
Even if no White person in the world would feel guilty for being White, that would not negate the fact that the left wants them to fee guilty and privileged. My original post was about principles from the left and right.
They are under ideological and demographic attack from hypoctical White liberals and other ethnic groups who explicitly push their ethnic interests.
Those are not double standards. There are practical consequences of marrying outside your race. Nobody has an obligation to race mix. The left doesn't think twice when a Black person explicitly says he/she would prefer to marry within his/her race. But when a White person explicitly says so, he/she has to apologize. The left has double standards, not White identatarians.
<blockquote>It's considered racist by most of contemporary society to reject the application of someone purely because of their racial background.</blockquote>
That's precisely my point. It's considered "racist" yet you can't prove to me that it's either irrational or unfair. There are good practical reasons to favor some ethnic groups over others and no country owes the right to immigrate to any other country.
<blockquote>I will rephrase: Some people will call things unfair that you do not think are unfair. Ergo by your logic "unfair" should be discarded.</blockquote>
Exactly. If they call them unfair when I disagree, I can dispute it. When they call it "racist" I can't dispute it since its seen as "racist" by society. They automatically win. I'm baffled that you still pretend you don't see the problem with this term.
<blockquote>It doesn't at all. You are reading meanings into a word that aren't there.</blockquote>
I still haven't heard an argument from you what would be the problem of saying "unwarranted tribalist" instead of racist. I've explained the benefits of doing so and you haven't argued what would be the downsides.
<blockquote>And you're still dictating to english people about their language.</blockquote>
That's because English is a universal world language and I am able to reach more people this way. Weather or not English is my mother tongue shouldn't matter, the only thing that should matter is the validity of my arguments. I've also debated exactly the same topic in my country in my language. Arguments are the same.
<blockquote>No, that's data. We're talking about people who express prejudicial ideas about someone purely because of their race.</blockquote>
Yes, both of those (test scores and AI) ARE called racist despite the fact they are neutral. Still don't see the problem with term "racism"?
<blockquote>A taxi driver who did that would find his right to be a taxi driver under threat. It's incredibly important that all people in any society have general access to public services: banking, internet, housing, jobs, shops etc.</blockquote>
You're right that one could argue that a taxi driver has an obligation to pick up customers of all races because he signed a contract do that and he accepted the risk is part of a job. But the allegation that he is "racist" still isn't warranted as long as data shows Blacks are more dangerous. "Racism" implies irrationality and this isn't the case. Also if a private taxi driver who works for himself doesn't pick Black customers he is also called racist despite the fact he has no obligation to his employer.
<blockquote>I'm more noting your presumption that we should change our language to suit your ideals.</blockquote>
Why should the ethnicity of someone matter when discussing that some terms do more harm than good to society? This is a typical example of an ad hominem fallacy. "Your argument is wrong, because you're not an American".
<blockquote>I see no reason why an "unwarranted tribalist" is not just a racist if their prejudice is rooted in the heritage of the other person.</blockquote>
Because with "racist" you don't have to show how one is being irrational or unfair. With "unwarranted tribalism" the "unwarranted" can be disputed depending on the situation. There is nothing unwarranted in a White person being on the side of his ethnic group if they are under attack. Yet a White is called "racist" for being on the side of his group, but a Black person is not.
<blockquote>So should it be justifiable for every business, every service provider, every job, everything offering housing to specifically reject access to their service based on the person's race? Should that be enshrined in law?</blockquote>
Depends on the risk/cost involved. For essentials like food and medicine there should be an exception
Go watch any clip of White people kneeling during BLM riots or any clip of White people kissing Black people's shoes on public streets or White people recreating themselves as slaves with "So sorry" painted on their faces.
Even if no White person would feel guilty, that would not negate the fact that the left wants White people to feel guilty. The left wants Whites to feel guilty, but no right winger wants Blacks to feel guilty so it's an example of a double standard.
How is a personal story of someone who changed their views an example of a double standards from White identatarians? I can give you plenty of examples of people who were leftists but then became right wingers, myself to start.