The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[nonobaddog]

Obviously when I said prejudice, I meant racial prejudice. I think most people picked up on that. Prejudice has many forms which have nothing to do with race. For clarity's sake I will try to include the 'racial' in racial prejudice if I ever use that word in the future.

But the statement is racist - think about it - why do they feel the need to protect the poor little congresswomen from criticism because of their color? Can't they handle it? Is it unfair because they are so deserving of criticism? Are they susceptible to criticism because of their color?

I also disagree that all racism is prejudice. It also includes discrimination and antagonism that may or may not be based on preconceived notions.

 

[Kutnupe14]

How much weight does the word "racist" carry anymore? What, with all of those who have come to use the word for their own personal gain, rather than anything resembling a definable meaning?

Meh, aren't we all "racists" now, according to those that throw around the word like some used to throw around "awesome" or "seriously" or "groovy"?

Not much, because people so often use it incorrectly.

 

[nonobaddog]

Agreed. It used to be a bad thing to call somebody racist, now it merely means 'I disagree with you'.

 

[printcraft]

Agreed. It used to be a bad thing to call somebody racist, now it merely means 'I'm a leftist tool and you just destroyed my ridiculous argument with facts and logic, I can't accept reality and that you are correct so I'll try anything to shut you up'.

FTFY

 

[nonobaddog]

FTFY

Thank you!

 

[ghitch75]

Not much, because people so often use it incorrectly.

99.9% of the Democrat party....

 

[Kutnupe14]

99.9% of the Democrat party....

The poll places it closer to 33.3333_%, I don't know what the margin of error is, if expanding on the notion, but somehow I doubt its in the 66.666% area.

 

[nonobaddog]

The poll places it closer to 33.3333_%, I don't know what the margin of error is, if expanding on the notion, but somehow I doubt its in the 66.666% area.

Apples and bananas - the poll is talking about criticizing politicians - the 99.9% is talking about misusing racist.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Apples and bananas - the poll is talking about criticizing politicians - the 99.9% is talking about misusing racist.

Hence why I included "expanding the notion" in my post.

 

[nonobaddog]

Hence why I included "expanding the notion" in my post.

That extrapolation is invalid.

 

[jamil]

You posts questions the whole idea of rights and it's relationship to morality. It further questions the founders understanding of rights, insofar that denying someone of their rights is inherently evil and immoral. If by their moral code, the founders didn't believe they were infringing on many people's rights, then they had a very limited understand of what rights are. I actually don't subscribe to that belief though. There are plenty of writing by the Founders that illustrate that they knew they were in the wrong, but only did so to create the Union.

False dichotomies aren’t very useful. Maybe think things out a little more.

 

[Kutnupe14]

That extrapolation is invalid.

Actually it's not. Here I'll break it down for you:
-Poll says 33% of registered Democrats think criticizing a politician of color is racist
-Members are in agreement that it is far too often incorrectly used
-Glitch places it's incorrect usage, amongst the Democrats at 99.9%
-If one were to take the poll and extrapolate further about what it means generally about Democrats, and their incorrect understanding of the word racist, then it is sound to believe that the 33% of those Democrats referenced in the poll, are not not a subsection of the 99%, and the real number is probably closer to the 33% that the 99%, if provided a margin of error. That's just common sense, which sometimes is inaccurate, but if it were so, the originally referenced poll would be unreliable.

 

[Kutnupe14]

False dichotomies aren’t very useful. Maybe think things out a little more.

I did. There's no false dichotomy, unless one believes rights and morality (from the western perspective) aren't aligned. If that's what you believe then I understand why you believe it to be false.

 

[nonobaddog]

Actually it's not. Here I'll break it down for you:
-Poll says 33% of registered Democrats think criticizing a politician of color is racist
-Members are in agreement that it is far too often incorrectly used
-Glitch places it's incorrect usage, amongst the Democrats at 99.9%
-If one were to take the poll and extrapolate further about what it means generally about Democrats, and their incorrect understanding of the word racist, then it is sound to believe that the 33% of those Democrats referenced in the poll, are not not a subsection of the 99%, and the real number is probably closer to the 33% that the 99%, if provided a margin of error. That's just common sense, which sometimes is inaccurate, but if it were so, the originally referenced poll would be unreliable.

False.
Dumocraps saying criticizing a politician of color is racist is one thing.
Dumocraps misusing the term racist, such as calling white politicians racist, is obviously much more common and is another thing completely.
They would be have to be completely different poll questions.
Your attempts to equate them are doomed to failure.

 

[Kutnupe14]

False.
Dumocraps saying criticizing a politician of color is racist is one thing.
Dumocraps misusing the term racist, such as calling white politicians racist, is obviously much more common and is another thing completely.
They would be have to be completely different poll questions.
Your attempts to equate them are doomed to failure.

I will resign myself to the notion that we're talking past each other.

 

[BigRed]

How much weight does the word "racist" carry anymore? What, with all of those who have come to use the word for their own personal gain, rather than anything resembling a definable meaning?

Meh, aren't we all "racists" now, according to those that throw around the word like some used to throw around "awesome" or "seriously" or "groovy"?

I cannot speak for others, but for me it carries no weight whatsoever.

When anything and everything is "racist", nothing is.

The boy that cried wolf has simply cried wolf too many times for me to even give a damn...he can deal with the wolves.

 

[jamil]

No, it's racist which includes prejudice.

Prejudice is just an initial judgement one makes prior to reasoning. Plenty of studies show none of us apply reasoning prior to making judgements. We make judgments from intuition. That intuition is based on the mental model we have of the world. The definition of “racist” is morphing into something it never was. But lets stick with the traditional definition because the more modern definitions are themselves racist.

From Webster...
Racism: 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.

So, if you have this belief integrated into your mental model of the world, whatever intuitive judgements (prejudice) you make regarding people of various races will be based on racism. So, everyone pre-judges, that’s a feature not a bug. So clearly, all prejudging is not racism. But all prejudging based on a racist world view is racism. To say racism includes prejudging is a tautology. It’s inherent in a racist worldview.

Another point, you can have intuitive judgements about people of different races without that being a racist sort of prejudice. For example, if your only interaction with Asians are with smart people you might develop an intuition about Asians that they’re smart, without having a racist world view. Sort of in a pavlovian way...not intentional. There’s nothing morally wrong with that. It’s just inaccurate.

 

[jamil]

I did. There's no false dichotomy, unless one believes rights and morality (from the western perspective) aren't aligned. If that's what you believe then I understand why you believe it to be false.

I believe the concept of natural rights was derived from a particular set of moral foundations. I wouldn’t call it an alignment. And it’s not “God” if that’s the way you’re thinking of it.

And I wouldn’t say that because the concept of natural rights was derived from one or more moral foundations, that the morality of those who derived it had the same moral reasoning that we have today. Moral thinking evolves. There’s nothing about that which forms the dichotomy you proposed.

 

[BugI02]

No, it's the other way around, racism is a subset of prejudice. All racism is prejudice, but not all prejudice is racist. Thinking solely based on skin color, while a component, isn't completely indicate of racism. For instance, saying "I don't like black people," isn't technically racist. Saying "I don't like black people because they are dumber than white people" is. It's nuanced, but that is the difference.

Gotta go with Kut on this one. Racist is a propere subset of prejudiced

Someone saying "I don't like black people" or "I don't like deplorables" has written off people based on shallow external characteristics, they don't acknowledge the individual may not conform to their pre-judgement were they to take the time to get to know them

Someone saying "I don't like black people because they are inferior and are polluting the white race by miscegenation" is racist, he considers his own race to be superior to that of the other

 

[jamil]

Gotta go with Kut on this one. Racist is a propere subset of prejudiced

Someone saying "I don't like black people" or "I don't like deplorables" has written off people based on shallow external characteristics, they don't acknowledge the individual may not conform to their pre-judgement were they to take the time to get to know them

Someone saying "I don't like black people because they are inferior and are polluting the white race by miscegenation" is racist, he considers his own race to be superior to that of the other

Hoe-lee ****. Bug, Kut, and jamil all agree. IN THE SAME THREAD!