User Tag List

Page 29 of 31 FirstFirst ... 19262728293031 LastLast
Results 421 to 435 of 463

Thread: What is your definition of racism?

  1. #421
    Over 1000 post club 7djengo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,142
    Thanks
    1,055
    Thanked 856 Times in 546 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    75049
    What is your definition of racism?
    Better yet, what (if anything) should be called "race" or "a race"?

    Anybody who cannot say anything meaningful and coherent regarding this much parroted word, "race", is necessarily going to fare at least as poorly when it comes to trying to say something about derivative words such as "racism" and "racist".

  2. #422
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    26,386
    Thanks
    4,755
    Thanked 10,350 Times in 7,663 Posts

    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147797
    I would consider that we're all members of the human race.

    Those who want to treat blacks as a separate race must think they're not human

  3. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ok doser For Your Post:

    genuineoriginal (September 17th, 2019),JudgeRightly (September 15th, 2019),Lon (September 14th, 2019)

  4. #423
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    21,153
    Thanks
    3,952
    Thanked 8,477 Times in 4,950 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147843
    "To see those, those monkeys from those African countries — damn them, they're still uncomfortable wearing shoes!" Ronald Reagan

    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    Wrong. Sure. Racist?
    Wrong why? When you answer that you get the larger answer.

    Long ago I've come to the decision to not use derogatory names. I'm working on it.
    That's a high bar, but good on you if it seems the way to go for you.

    Point? I'm disinterested as a third party but to me, it certainly looks 'snowflakey' to me.
    You think "snowflakey" isn't derogatory?

    Democrats and liberals cater to cry-baby mentality and entitlement.
    And those terms that you wed to Democrats and liberals are what? Also, maybe you're just an insulated white guy who doesn't understand what generational dehumanization and racism can do in terms of sensitizing. Maybe words that have never been aimed at you with that sort of emotional impact don't really register with you and you haven't made enough of an effort on the point.

    Imagine you're a woman. Now imagine someone calls you the most loathsome name you can think of as a woman. Now imagine a lot of people will address you that way without provocation. You're beginning to get the picture if you do.

    We have 'certain' inalienable rights, not every whim. To me, and I've been called naive likely appropriately
    I think you have a blind spot when it comes to racism. I'm thinking of how you didn't see it where you're ensconced, though BLM takes issue with your perception. And now you don't see a pretty clear expression of it with Reagan. . . I'm beginning to suspect you won't see it until it marches down your street in a sheet.

    much racism problems are caused by people who needlessly take personal offense where the original was mostly none of their business.
    To my most of the racist problems are caused by racists, and you don't get to decide if a racial insult doesn't concern everyone of that race.

    I don't believe Reagan's comment was racist.
    It exists as a racist statement with or without your belief. Want proof? Go into any black neighborhood you like. You pick it. Walk up to a group of black men and choose one, just one man to aim that same language at. You can even say, prior to it (though Reagan didn't qualify it at all) that you're only meaning it about the one guy. Get back to us on how it turns out.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  5. #424
    TOL Legend Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9,969
    Thanks
    2,823
    Thanked 4,866 Times in 2,924 Posts

    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147740
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    "To see those, those monkeys from those African countries — damn them, they're still uncomfortable wearing shoes!" Ronald Reagan


    Wrong why? When you answer that you get the larger answer.
    It isn't wrong because it's racist. It's wrong because it is derogatory. If we try and lower another by poor comparison, it is about demeaning a being made in the image of God. It is demeaning His character and love. If applied to much of an entire group unfairly, it is racism.


    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    That's a high bar, but good on you if it seems the way to go for you.
    For all of us.1 Peter 2:1 Titus 3:2 Ephesians 4:29-31


    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    You think "snowflakey" isn't derogatory?
    Difference between metaphor and adjective? One can be snowflakey without being a snowflake (fragil). No, I don't think snowflakey is much more than a description of fragile. Does such cut them down below actual?


    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    And those terms that you wed to Democrats and liberals are what?
    An action, like catering to cry-baby entitlement mentality? If it is untrue, let me be corrected.

    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    Also, maybe you're just an insulated white guy who doesn't understand what generational dehumanization and racism can do in terms of sensitizing. Maybe words that have never been aimed at you with that sort of emotional impact don't really register with you and you haven't made enough of an effort on the point.
    Words only have power over those who believe them. I've been called names, inappropriately and even after my color by those of another. Yes, I'm insulated, but because greater is He that is in me, than he who is in the world. Woe to him that causes a little one to stumble, however, so I agree but am not as naive, if insulated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    Imagine you're a woman. Now imagine someone calls you the most loathsome name you can think of as a woman. Now imagine a lot of people will address you that way without provocation. You're beginning to get the picture if you do.
    I had a very difficult childhood and have enough reasons to be 'prejudice' if that was going to be a problem. Christ is the equalizer.


    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    I think you have a blind spot when it comes to racism. I'm thinking of how you didn't see it where you're ensconced, though BLM takes issue with your perception. And now you don't see a pretty clear expression of it with Reagan. . . I'm beginning to suspect you won't see it until it marches down your street in a sheet.
    Incorrect. Rather I don't see it under every bush nor can I suggest Reagan applied this to all Africans. I can say he made a derogatory statement about several African delegates. I cannot say he meant it toward a complete race of people.


    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    To my most of the racist problems are caused by racists, and you don't get to decide if a racial insult doesn't concern everyone of that race.
    I disagree. As I've said, Chris Rock doesn't mean all blacks, nor even just blacks when he uses the "N-word." Reagan could have meant

    If I say something about two ignorant shirtless hillbillies, do I by any necessity mean all people who live in the country are?
    Further, does the derogatory statement have to go as far as 'applying' to every other country dweller?


    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    It exists as a racist statement with or without your belief. Want proof? Go into any black neighborhood you like. You pick it. Walk up to a group of black men and choose one, just one man to aim that same language at. You can even say, prior to it (though Reagan didn't qualify it at all) that you're only meaning it about the one guy. Get back to us on how it turns out.
    You are creating a different scenario. If a guy came over and took the hub caps off my car and I called him a derogatory name according to the crime such as the "N-word" I know for a fact the rest of the community wouldn't. Why? Because I've friends in that community where most are black, some white, and I've heard the white guy say it. He's still alive.

    The problem further is that I believe all derogatory language is wrong, just for the intent of demeaning (lowering) the value of another being. I don't want to excuse Reagan. 1) I don't want to discount all the good he'd done, despite that and will attempt to weigh every action or word upon its own merit rather than dragging up 'monkey' after every and anything I don't agree with. 2) I don't want to assume something wrong said to one person was intended for the greater audience and 3) finally, I don't want to excuse it, but I certainly don't want to talk about the topic on an unrelated thread or conversation.
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  6. #425
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    26,386
    Thanks
    4,755
    Thanked 10,350 Times in 7,663 Posts

    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147797
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    It isn't wrong because it's racist. It's wrong because it is derogatory. If we try and lower another by poor comparison, it is about demeaning a being made in the image of God. It is demeaning His character and love. If applied to much of an entire group unfairly, it is racism.
    Christ should be our example in such matters - did He ever use derogatory or demeaning language when referring to a being made in His image?

  7. #426
    TOL Legend Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9,969
    Thanks
    2,823
    Thanked 4,866 Times in 2,924 Posts

    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147740
    Quote Originally Posted by ok doser View Post
    Christ should be our example in such matters - did He ever use derogatory or demeaning language when referring to a being made in His image?
    No. He called the pharisees 'vipers' as a metaphor, not to devalue them, but to address the lack. It could have been demeaning, but the intent was to call out a flaw in white washed tombs.
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  8. #427
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    21,153
    Thanks
    3,952
    Thanked 8,477 Times in 4,950 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147843
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    It isn't wrong because it's racist.
    Yes, Lon, that's the only reason it could be wrong.

    It's wrong because it is derogatory.
    It's derogatory because it's racist. If I said it about my brother you'd laugh at me. If he'd said it about some white guys everyone would be scratching their heads, because that's not where the trope sits or how it has power. You can make fun of someone by saying they look like a monkey, white or black. It would be a poor choice, even so, for a white person, because it invites confusion on the motivation, given the existence of that ape/gorilla/monkey trope connection. But that's not what he did. He just called them monkeys.

    "To see those, those monkeys from those African countries — damn them, they're still uncomfortable wearing shoes!" Ronald Reagan


    Words only have power over those who believe them.
    And that, my friend, is the whitest, most insulated thing you've written so far. Rather, power lends words power. And that power can be good or evil. With racism, it's evil that empowers and can harm an entire race of people if those in power believe in it and act on it.

    I've been called names, inappropriately and even after my color by those of another.
    Someone call you a cracker, did they? Trading on a history of inhuman treatment, discrimination and outright brutality done to the white man, was it? How you managed to type that, let alone publish it is remarkable to me.

    I had a very difficult childhood and have enough reasons to be 'prejudice' if that was going to be a problem.
    No one has reasons to be prejudiced, Lon, only excuses.

    Incorrect. Rather I don't see it under every bush
    If you think calling blacks monkeys who are still discomforted by shoes is under a bush I think my "marching down main street in sheets" or Hitler cramming kids into an oven feels a lot less like exaggeration than I intended.

    nor can I suggest Reagan applied this to all Africans.
    So if he only calls one black guy who shoves past him a N.... it's nothing really.

    I can say he made a derogatory statement about several African delegates.
    A man comfortable with calling even one black man a monkey has already told us what's wrong with his thinking.


    You are creating a different scenario.
    No, I'm not. No one did anything to Reagan. They voted their conscience. He just didn't like it and he slipped. The scenario I paint is simple, it only requires that people understand the words, the trope. I'm betting if you try it you'll find out in a hurry that they do and to a man. If they're kind enough to let you off with a look, count that audience remarkably restrained.

    The problem further is that I believe all derogatory language is wrong, just for the intent of demeaning (lowering) the value of another being. I don't want to excuse Reagan.
    Then don't.

    I don't want to discount all the good he'd done
    You don't have to. Respect the good, where you find it.

    ,despite that and will attempt to weigh every action or word upon its own merit rather than dragging up 'monkey' after every and anything I don't agree with.
    Which isn't what was done here and by me either. I made a point, indirectly, about the fallacy of resting on the authority of declarations by men who have been recognized for some measure of greatness. It's a common error, best dispelled by demonstrating that there are thoughts those men have which are anything but great. I prefer arguments in parts, subject to reason to establish their worth.

    I don't want to assume something wrong said to one person was intended for the greater audience
    Many a racist in business or politics, or relying on a broader public for his appeal hid that darkness under something absent the clear knowledge that the party spoken to was of a likened mind, as with Nixon, who was a racist.

    The third point has been addressed, I think, prior.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  9. #428
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    26,386
    Thanks
    4,755
    Thanked 10,350 Times in 7,663 Posts

    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147797
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    No. He called the pharisees 'vipers' as a metaphor, not to devalue them, but to address the lack. It could have been demeaning, but the intent was to call out a flaw in white washed tombs.
    I could argue against that, but instead will suggest that Reagan was doing something similar when he referred to those specific UN members as "monkeys" - he was calling out their flaw in reasoning/intelligence, as evidenced by their vote.

    He might just as easily have called them "backward" or "foolish" or "retarded"

    I see nothing in Reagan's comments that suggest he was denying their humanity, nothing to suggest that he actually thought them simian and not human

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to ok doser For Your Post:

    Lon (September 16th, 2019)

  11. #429
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    26,386
    Thanks
    4,755
    Thanked 10,350 Times in 7,663 Posts

    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147797
    Widely publicized at the time and known to both Reagan and Nixon, was the victory dance:


    The previously undisclosed exchange took place after the United Nations voted to expel Taiwan in order to seat representatives from Beijing, a move that the United States opposed. Delegates from Tanzania celebrated with a victory dance in the General Assembly hall.



    ... which might well have evoked images of monkeys jumping around, especially as they may well have been dancing barefoot
    Last edited by ok doser; September 16th, 2019 at 10:06 AM.

  12. #430
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    26,386
    Thanks
    4,755
    Thanked 10,350 Times in 7,663 Posts

    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147797
    Worth mentioning as well is the fact that the Tanzanian vote helped to give legitimacy to an enemy country during a time of war, the leader of which country is widely recognized today as being the most prolific mass murderer in history

  13. #431
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    21,153
    Thanks
    3,952
    Thanked 8,477 Times in 4,950 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147843
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    Well, again, as above, if there is even an inkling of doubt, I think it best to take the high road.
    A racist trope doesn't really lend itself to that, but beyond that I'd say if it's reasonable to read a thing more than one way and what I know of the source inclines me, I'll choose the better reading. Absent that I'll look harder at the larger body of work to make the determination.

    I think there is a difference between real tears and just a complaining spirit and I really don't want to empower the latter. We'd cave to every whim as a country at that point. Is this grounds for that? It might be, but does it 'have' to be, in this case?
    So it's an inkling for Reagan, whom you admire and more roundly agree with and far less than an inkling for the complaining party, with whom you lack that fundamental regard. Why not believe the grievance legitimate, given the historical foundation? It seems more consistent with your approach otherwise.

    Hurtful and totally unhelpful so it is just ugly angst. If she thinks all women of color are simian, she's a racist.
    Same company. Bad company at that.
    She can be a racist without believing every woman of color is a monkey. By way of example, you could be reared in a social class where it is common to find at least one black woman who would be in charge of the youngest children of a family and be beloved by those children. Those same children might often retain that affection even as they grew into the social notions and exclusions of their kin relating to most others of color.

    No, you only have to believe the person you dislike is a monkey to evidence a thing that's rooted in you. Though chances are if you find that true of one it will color your thinking beyond that, to one extent or another.

    Not seeing how I'm standing in mud-slinging or dirt digging robes...
    Then I'd suggest you read the terms you're using, the subjective valuations you're applying to some in your rhetorical choices. I pointed directly at a few of them.

    Bringing up one thing about a person to cast him or her in a poor light, when on the discussion table is an unrelated presentation concerning societal blame.
    You need to understand that two things were happening. A quote without support in reason was proffered and the authority of the messenger was used instead. A bit like quoting Jefferson on the tree of liberty, as if a reputed great man believing a thing makes the thing believable, or true. So it's entirely appropriate to attack that foundation.

    Here's the parallel. A fellow on trial introduces evidence of his character as reproof of the charges, which themselves suggest a lower character. When that's done it is permissible (and wise) to address that character being offered in evidence.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  14. #432
    TOL Legend Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9,969
    Thanks
    2,823
    Thanked 4,866 Times in 2,924 Posts

    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147740
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    A racist trope doesn't really lend itself to that, but beyond that I'd say if it's reasonable to read a thing more than one way and what I know of the source inclines me, I'll choose the better reading. Absent that I'll look harder at the larger body of work to make the determination.
    It's appreciable.


    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    So it's an inkling for Reagan, whom you admire and more roundly agree with and far less than an inkling for the complaining party, with whom you lack that fundamental regard. Why not believe the grievance legitimate, given the historical foundation? It seems more consistent with your approach otherwise.
    Specifically, because it believes the worst in than the best of... It looks often exactly as you describe 'willful naivety.'


    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    She can be a racist without believing every woman of color is a monkey. By way of example, you could be reared in a social class where it is common to find at least one black woman who would be in charge of the youngest children of a family and be beloved by those children. Those same children might often retain that affection even as they grew into the social notions and exclusions of their kin relating to most others of color.
    As I said, I really need the context to go that far. It certainly does appear by even a casual glance to be. She didn't seem to be disparaging Michelle over anything but being of African descent. If it was fostered by some severe frustration, there is still more in play than racism in general.

    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    No, you only have to believe the person you dislike is a monkey to evidence a thing that's rooted in you. Though chances are if you find that true of one it will color your thinking beyond that, to one extent or another.
    Dr. Lizardo (lizard descent) called his landlord a 'monkey boy.' He wasn't black. I really don't like disparaging comments and I don't think they should be lost in a greater worldly sense of racism in that such language and implication already makes 'us/them' mentality and accentuates a difference. That in and of itself doesn't stop racism, it is further fuel for it because it underscores such difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    Then I'd suggest you read the terms you're using, the subjective valuations you're applying to some in your rhetorical choices. I pointed directly at a few of them.
    Snowflakey simply means and only means 'fragil' by the comparison. Enabling complainers is certainly a valuation. I believe it a correct one.


    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    You need to understand that two things were happening. A quote without support in reason was proffered and the authority of the messenger was used instead. A bit like quoting Jefferson on the tree of liberty, as if a reputed great man believing a thing makes the thing believable, or true. So it's entirely appropriate to attack that foundation.
    Too obscure to be meaningfully applied imho. It simply distracted and looked the part of what it evoked.

    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    Here's the parallel. A fellow on trial introduces evidence of his character as reproof of the charges, which themselves suggest a lower character. When that's done it is permissible (and wise) to address that character being offered in evidence.
    So "He's a racist, so of course he can't do sociological quotes?" Again, I think the chasm is much larger than the possibility of comparison.
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  15. #433
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    1,425
    Thanks
    74
    Thanked 790 Times in 532 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    179459
    It makes me laugh when socialists and evolutionists cry racism over calling someone a monkey. It's just plain hilarious. How is it an insult to be called a monkey when the claim is we're all descended from monkeys? Is it an insult to call someone the descendant of their ancestors? It's such a two-faced lunacy to make the claim of racism it just makes me laugh. To me it just highlights the deceit that both evolution and socialism are built upon.
    “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”
    ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

    “One and God make a majority.”
    ― Frederick Douglass

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to ffreeloader For Your Post:

    ok doser (September 17th, 2019)

  17. #434
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    21,153
    Thanks
    3,952
    Thanked 8,477 Times in 4,950 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147843
    Quote Originally Posted by ffreeloader View Post
    It makes me laugh when socialists and evolutionists cry racism over calling someone a monkey. It's just plain hilarious. How is it an insult to be called a monkey when the claim is we're all descended from monkeys?
    I suppose their answer is going to be the same as anyone else's: the history and intent of the usage. Because the person hurling the insult isn't suggesting everyone is descended from apes and so the point remains, regardless of who uses it.

    Is it an insult to call someone the descendant of their ancestors? It's such a two-faced lunacy to make the claim of racism it just makes me laugh. To me it just highlights the deceit that both evolution and socialism are built upon.
    It isn't though. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you were born out of wedlock. It doesn't follow that someone saying that you're a real bastard is making anything like a literal point. So hypocrisy doesn't really, necessarily follow.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  18. #435
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    21,153
    Thanks
    3,952
    Thanked 8,477 Times in 4,950 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147843
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    Specifically, because it believes the worst in than the best of... It looks often exactly as you describe 'willful naivety.'
    My point is that you're not applying the same standard, Lon. You like Reagan, so you're literally ready to think a racist trope was something (what, you don't say) other than what it was while you off-handedly describe people you lack that investment in, those complaining, without that same benefit.

    As I said, I really need the context to go that far. It certainly does appear by even a casual glance to be. She didn't seem to be disparaging Michelle over anything but being of African descent. If it was fostered by some severe frustration, there is still more in play than racism in general.
    My response remains, if you use a racist trope you label yourself with the use and the "more" would be what? Anger over her political ideas? Maybe, even likely, but that's just a part of what provokes the glimpse into her mindset, in the same way that being rebuffed even indirectly gave us an insight into Reagan's.

    Dr. Lizardo (lizard descent) called his landlord a 'monkey boy.' He wasn't black.
    I love a Buckaroo Banzai reference. Sure. When a fictional alien character aims it at humans it has a different meaning and comes from a different place. When two black people use it between one another it's also different.

    Snowflakey simply means and only means 'fragil' by the comparison.
    And it's insulting, derogatory. Right.

    Enabling complainers is certainly a valuation. I believe it a correct one.
    You're using that in connection to our current conversation. And everyone believes they have the correct idea.

    Too obscure to be meaningfully applied imho
    Then your humble opinion isn't reasonable, because it's a direct parallel. I'll try it without illustration: if you use a quote by someone who has been, historically speaking, beloved and respected, and your quote is offered without any other effort aimed as supporting the point of the quote by reason, you are then premising the value of that position on the authority of the speaker. When you do that it is reasonable to question that assumption, the basis of your "argument."

    So "He's a racist, so of course he can't do sociological quotes?"
    Rather, he's using the rhetoric of racists, so resting on his character alone to establish the weight of his (and the user's) claim, is rationally suspect.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us