MovieChat Forums > David1616 > Replies
David1616's Replies
<blockquote>No, it doesn't. It has negative connotations of use, but that's because racial prejudice in western society is generally frowned upon.</blockquote>
I've already shown how perfectly rational postjudice is labelled "racist". A taxi driver isn't "prejudiced" to pick up a Black customer if he is correct to assume Blacks are more likely to mug him. Yet he's called racist. If - as I propose - instead of racist he would be called "irrational", the argument wouldn't fly if the data shows Blacks are more dangerous.
<blockquote>It's apparently your second language. </blockquote>
So you used this ad hominem fallacy twice in your reply instead of addressing my argument. Suppose I never said English is not my first language? What would your response be?
<blockquote>Racism is the term used to refer to people who have prejudice against others because of their ethnic background. A term will always exist for it regardless of it being 'racist' or something else.</blockquote>
I already explained how it's not used only with prejudice but with postjudice as well. That's exactly what I propose. Something else. Irrational and unfair, unwarrantedly tribalistic. It exposes the same problems with a person's attitude, but doesn't thwart rational thought.
<blockquote>That would be xenophobia</blockquote>
No, xenophobia is the fear of the other or unknown. "Unwarranted tribalist" is a perfect word for someone irrationally favoring his ethnic group over others and being prejudiced.
<blockquote>No, that is 100% fundamentally racist. Her response was rooted in racial stereotypes.</blockquote>
No, It would be prejudice if her belief that Blacks are more dangerous wasn't supported by facts. Her safety and the safety of the building's residents are more important than inconveniencing someone. Also she would probably do the same to a White man, but in that case she never would be condemned despite just as well inconveniencing someone.
<blockquote>It absolutely is rooted in racial prejudice.</blockquote>
It isn't "prejudice" if the data shows some ethnic groups do better than others. It's posjudice. If the data shows differences it's actually unfair to citizens to import bad behaving ethinc groups. Even if all ethnic groups behaved equally, no country owes anyone the right to immigrate so preventing them isn't unfair.
<blockquote>The left is not a uniform bloc that all thinks the same thing. You are wrong.</blockquote>
It is considered "racist" by the large chunk of the left if not majority. My argument that the term "racist" is a thought stopper does not depend on all leftist thinking the same.
<blockquote>And everything is considered "unfair" and thus by your logic "unfair" should be discarded.</blockquote>
What? No, not everything is considered unfair. When you actually make the claim that something is unfair, you have to show how it's unfair. You stimulate critical thinking. By saying "racist" or taboo you just appeal to the manipulated Overton window.
<blockquote>By this logic many words should be discarded because they're used inaccurately.</blockquote>
It isn't just the the word "racist" is used inaccurately. The entire word is unjustified since it implies that taking race into consideration is always unjustified in every situation. It also implies that there are no differences between he raeces. Both those are wrong. Please give me examples of other words being used inaccurately and we can discuss if the analogy is fair.
<blockquote>you're dictating to English people how they should use their language.</blockquote>
The word "racist" is also a word in my language.
<blockquote>"Racism" is just a shorthand descriptor people use to describe someone who they believe has racial prejudice.</blockquote>
So test scores have racial prejudice? They are called "racist" How about AI?
Yes they do. Are you living under a rock? The left wants White to feel bad about being White so that they will be more tolerant towards Blacks. Why do you think the left went crazy when someone simply wrote "it's OK to be White"?
<blockquote>Favoring a particular ethnic group might be considered racist (and I would argue it can be easily based on racist presuppositions), but simply reducing the overall number is not considered racist.</blockquote>
There is nothing unfair favoring certain ethnic groups over others because no country owes any ethnic group the right to immigrate. Also even just reducing overall numbers is considered racist by the left, so you are wrong. Everything is considered "racist" today because the term isn't clearly defined. If we used the term "unfair" this couldn't happen.
<blockquote>No. By this logic many wards should be discarded because they're used inaccurately.</blockquote>
I don't know what you mean by ward in this context. English is not my fist language.
<blockquote>All you're doing here is saying that you disagree with why people are called racist.</blockquote>
Essentially yes, but my point is that as long as a term like "racism" exists, perfectly fair and moral positions will be able to be labelled as unfair because it is a term without a specific definition. The term "racist" implies that taking race into consideration when deciding policy and attitude is always irrational and unfair when it isn't. I don't deny that people can have irrational prejudice against others because of their ethnicity, but a term "racist" shouldn't be used. A better term would be something like "unwarranted tribalism". This way you could still condem someone for being irrational and unfair, but you would still have to show how his tribalism is indeed unwarranted in a given situation. For example there was recently an incident when a White woman was condemned as "racist" when she refused to let an unknown Black man in her building in the middle of the night when he said he lost his key. This is totally crazy.
<blockquote>Why is "racialist" somehow acceptable to you, but not "racist"? Why not just embrace racism?</blockquote>
I already explained. Because "a racist" implies unfairness, racialist doesn't.
So you don't deny that the left wants me to be ashamed for being White, but it's still somehow a strawman when I claim the left wants Whites to be ashamed for being White?
I am not ashamed because I am from Europe, thankfully here we don't have such White guilt as in US.
"Are you ashamed of being White?"
According to the left, I should be.
<blockquote>I have never called anyone racist purely for objecting to immigration rates. Sure, some have, but at the same time that doesn't inherently devalue the "racist" descriptor.</blockquote>
It is widely accepted not just among the left but in our general culture that favoring certain ethnic groups over others in immigration is "racist". Yet I bet you a million bucks you can't win a debate that it is inherently unfair because no country owes any ethnic group the right to immigrate. It's even easier to argue it's fair because it would be better for the country and more fair to the indigenous ethnic groups or groups that built the country. When a word gets away with labeling something unfair when it isn't, the word is inherently deceptive and should stop being used. The purpose of words is to be tools for thinking. When a word is a source of confusion and inhibits thoughts rather than stimulating it, it's not a good word. It only serves as a tool for people who are currently in power. Just like the term "blasphemy", "counter revolutionary" and "degeneracy".
<blockquote>I also used the term fascist, reactionary, conservative etc. Plenty of people take issue with being described in such a way despite holding positions that would fairly make them describable as such.</blockquote>
I said no true communist or fascist takes issue with being labelled as such. Kamala is a socialist or a social democrat, but gets called Communist by the right just like Trump is a conservative but gets called a fascist or Nazi by the left. Ever wondered why the term "racialist" doesn't have the same stigma as the term "racist"? It essentially means the same thing. I would have no problem calling myself a racialist, but I do have a problem calling myself a "racist". The former doesn't imply unfairness the latter does. I can easily defend my views on race from being unfair, but I can't defend them from the label "racist" because all that is needed to justify the latter is the Overton window appeal (which is a logical fallacy, but people don't know that) .
<blockquote>What views are stigmatized by using the term "racism"? You haven't even provided a single example of a viewpoint that is stigmatized in this way.</blockquote>
Yes I have. Immigration. But I have an even better one. How about test scores. Those are also being called racist today.
<blockquote>People can be unfairly called racist. That does not mean other people cannot be called racist fairly. As I said: the term is descriptive. It's shorthand. You are essentially complaining about how language works. It's bizarre.</blockquote>
No. My issue isn't people falsely being called racist. My issue is the term "racist" dishonestly labelling perfectly fair views are immoral. You just keep dodging my main argument and straw manning me.
Descriptive term eh? Heretic is also a descriptive term. I'll even throw one right wing one for you which I never use despite being a right winger: "Degenerate". Those are all "descriptive" terms but they are dishonest propagandistic thought stoppers. They are a source of confusion, not clarity. They are the enemies of critical thinking. Examples you gave are different. Real communists don't deny that they're communists and don't have a problem with this term. The same with fascists. They also have clearer definition. On the other hand nobody calls himself "racist" because the term implies unfairness. The term racist is just like the term "degenerate". It doesn't have a clear definition meaning it can be used on almost anything (that's why math today is called racist) and implies someone is being immoral without having to show why or how he's immoral.
Do they explicitly exclude Blacks? No. Could a Black person sue them for exclusion if they did? Yes. Yet reverse organizations exclusively for Blacks are allowed.
"Republicans don't want minorities to succeed and Democrats don't think minorities can succeed."
That is not true. Republicans are only against minorities being artificially elevated at the expense of more successful groups and at the expense of entire society.
But you haven't responded to my main argument why we shouldn't use the term "racism". By using it, we can stigmatize views that are not unfair (and thus immoral) which can have devastating consequences. A good example is immigration policy in Western countries which are destroying the West.
No sane person would argue that a Serb cannot be irrationally hateful towards a Croat or a Japanese towards a Chinese. That is not an argument that there aren't important differences between groups and that we should pretend that there are non even if doing so is detrimental.
5. I never said they were Arabs, I said they looked like Arabs. They weren't Black. At least most of them. Also you never replied to my argument about the difference between practical racial casting and political.
6. No, i'm putting in a proper context given what our disagreement is about. White includes Hispanic. Whites are majority of the population so this isn't per capita. Interracial rape is overwhelming Black on White. The revers is vanishingly small.
7. Brown was a political decision based on doll studies which hid what the data about those dolls actually showed. Besides this has nothing to to with my original point. Left wants less capable Blacks accepted ahead of more capable Whites. Even if poor Black performance was proven to be 100% due to past exclusion (which the data contradicts) it would still be a double standard. My point stands.
8. The culture bias argument has been so debunked it's even been dropped by the left. Black kids from rich families score lower on SAT than White kids from poor families. Your politically motivated leftist books prove nothing but the fact society is afraid to admit the truth. Even if Black and White IQ gap was 100% due to toxic Black culture it would still explain overrepresentation of Whites among billionaires and it would be Black people's fault for perpetuating the toxic culture in their community.
It only sounds "racist" and "KKK" to your far left ass
1. They built American society. They founded America and they are a people. Jesus is portrayed as Korean in Korea, yet you don't have a problem with that. But when Whites portray Jesus or God as White, you whine. No White so called "racist" has a problem with God or Jesus being portrayed as Black in Africa. You just have double standards against Whites.
2. That's not a reply to my argument. I explained why Whites are overrepresented, you failed to show how that is not a valid reply.
3. No ethnic groups don't allow everyone. Jewish organizations are for Jews. Hispanic ones for Hispanics and so on. Only Whites aren't allowed theirs.
4. Calling Spade a Spade is not a double standard. Tell me of a Trump plan where he proposed immigration policy only for Whites. One comment isn't an official proposition. He was also called Hitler way before 2018 when he made that comment.
That's not a counter argument to my point. Semantics is what matters because words subconsciously guide human thought processes without people realizing. It matters a lot if we call it "racism" or "unfair", because if you call views "unfair" you have to show how they are indeed unfair. When you call them "racist" all you have to do is appeal to the Overton window and automatically win. It's a catch 22.
No it's not. If Germans changed their names to Anglo despite not being slaves, how does Black Anglo names prove Anglos were the only slave owners. I'm not saying Anglos weren't slave owners (they were historically the founding group in America and an overwhelming majority up to a certain point in time), but many Jews were also slave owners, yet you don't see Blacks with Jewish names. Plenty of Jews also have Anglo names because they changed them.
5. Egyptians looked like Arabs when they weren't under the sun. Not far different from Whites. Also it wasn't political, but practical. There weren't many Egyptian actors in Hollywood 50 years ago. There still aren't. Cleopatra swap was on the other hand 100% political.
6. Name me a historic war where men didn't rape women of the enemy tribe. That was during conquest ethic, not today. Blacks today rape much much more than Whites. They rape in peace which is a better indication of inherent violence propensities.
7. Again data shows school quality doesn't matter. It's not the school, it's the student. Also why should White people fund Black schools? Who is stopping Blacks from funding their own schools? As far as I'm concerned they can have their own country and schools how ever they want them. Also this is not a counter argument of my main point which is that the left wants less capable Blacks ahead of more capable Whites. No prominent White person wants the opposite. Today a rich Black kid with worse test scores gets ahead of a poor White. This is what the left calls justice.
8. Ever heard of race and IQ? How many of those Whites are Jews who are only 2% of the population? The same reason. IQ.
First of all calling things "racist" and "KKK" is not an argument.
1. Because Whites are a historic majority and this is a historic White country. How is Jesus portrayed in Korea? Ever seen the movie Bruce Almighty? Morgan Freeman doesn't look White to me.
2. If an ethnic group is an overwhelming majority of the population (especially for adult population) they are going to be majority of the people who run the institutions. Especially since the largest minorities have almost a standard deviation lower IQs than them. Blacks have ever imaginable ethnic organization from association
of Black cardiologists to Black student unions to congressional Black caucuses. For Whites this is seen as an outrage and illegal. Double standard.
3 And if an Irish American organization excludes a Black person who is partially Irish it would be an outrage. Imagine if only Mexican or Guatemalan organizations were allowed but not Hispanic ones. Imagine if only Cherokee and Navajo organizations were allowed but not Native American ones. Whites are a meta ethnicity and in an increasingly "diverse" America, European ethnicities are going to matter less and collective Whites ones more. A majority brown America isn't going to see someone half Polish half German by their ethnicity, but as White. Also most Whites have plenty of European ethnic backgrounds so it doesn't make sense they identify with their ethnic background but by their race. The left doesn't talk about English-American privilege, but White privilege. A White American can shed his German heritage, but not his White one.
4. No he didn't. He never proposed stopping non Whites immigrate. Even his RAISE ACT only proposed cutting immigration in half and imposing merit based as opposed to family reunification policy. His main agenda was stopping illegal immigration and that was enough for the media to call him Hitler.
Why should I start when Europe is my ancestral homeland and I live in Europe?
"What would you accept as racist comments towards black people?"
I don't think "racism" should be a word. Irrational views towards race and unfair to a given race. Not any word calling views heresy.
"I happen to think making unpleasant comments about someone, or proposing discriminatory policy because of their racial background is wrong regardless of the person's race."
That is unfairness. (depending on the situation). You said it's possible to be a "racist" without being unfair.