It contains a legitimate response. It also contains an ad hominem attack.
Because apparently saying someone's statements are racist is not a legitimate response.
Look it's simple. If I say, "X is a better third baseman than Y," and you reply, "Well X is racist," that's an ad hominem fallacy. It's a fallacy because you're not attacking X on the merits that he's an inferior baseball player, but instead on a quality of his character that his wholly irrelevant to the discussion.
However, saying, "Your argument is racist" is hardly an ad hominem fallacy. It's addressing the argument, and it's ENTIRELY relevant whether or not your argument is racist.
------
On another note, Trump settled the lawsuits against him for Trump University when he previously said he would not.
It contains a legitimate response. It also contains an ad hominem attack.
Because apparently saying someone's statements are racist is not a legitimate response.
Look it's simple. If I say, "X is a better third baseman than Y," and you reply, "Well X is racist," that's an ad hominem fallacy. It's a fallacy because you're not attacking X on the merits that he's an inferior baseball player, but instead on a quality of his character that his wholly irrelevant to the discussion.
However, saying, "Your argument is racist" is hardly an ad hominem fallacy. It's addressing the argument, and it's ENTIRELY relevant whether or not your argument is racist.
------
On another note, Trump settled the lawsuits against him for Trump University when he previously said he would not.
Racists don't like being called racist because it hurts their feelings. The politically correct term is "politically incorrect."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
It contains a legitimate response. It also contains an ad hominem attack.
Because apparently saying someone's statements are racist is not a legitimate response.
Look it's simple. If I say, "X is a better third baseman than Y," and you reply, "Well X is racist," that's an ad hominem fallacy. It's a fallacy because you're not attacking X on the merits that he's an inferior baseball player, but instead on a quality of his character that his wholly irrelevant to the discussion.
However, saying, "Your argument is racist" is hardly an ad hominem fallacy. It's addressing the argument, and it's ENTIRELY relevant whether or not your argument is racist.
------
On another note, Trump settled the lawsuits against him for Trump University when he previously said he would not.
Racists don't like being called racist because it hurts their feelings. The politically correct term is "politically incorrect."
Disagree. Very politically correct people love calling others racist.
I think the correct approach with issues of racism is to focus on and start from the ideas not the person- the person should be a secondary consideration. It’s easier to substantiate and reduces emotional conflict.
EDIT: was written poorly on my phone
Disagree. Very politically correct people love calling others racist.
I think the correct approach with issues of racism is to focys on and start from the ideas not the person- the person shoukd be a secobdary consideration. It’s easier to substantiate and reduces emotional conflict.
Racism is an idea. Any time you are addressing racism, you're focusing on the ideas. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here.
Disagree. Very politically correct people love calling others racist.
I think the correct approach with issues of racism is to focys on and start from the ideas not the person- the person shoukd be a secobdary consideration. It’s easier to substantiate and reduces emotional conflict.
Racism is an idea. Any time you are addressing racism, you're focusing on the ideas. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here.
Yes, racism is an idea- which is why it's at all applicable to ideas, but people are partly composed of ideas in the form of beliefs. You could apply it to what is being said, or to the people saying them. Applying it to the person means you are arguing somethings they believe are racist- it doesn't necessarily mean the idea in question is.
EDIT: Relevant note here- saying racist things doesn't necessarily mean you are racist. Engaging with the person means you have to deal with intent- which is what I was getting at with substantiation earlier.
Yes, racism is an idea- which is why it's at all applicable to ideas, but people are partly composed of ideas in the form of beliefs. You could apply it to what is being said, or to the people saying them. Applying it to the person means you are arguing somethings they believe are racist- it doesn't necessarily mean the idea in question is.
EDIT: Relevant note here- saying racist things doesn't necessarily mean you are racist. Engaging with the person means you have to deal with intent- which is what I was getting at with substantiation earlier.
If racism is an idea, then when you're talking about racism, you're "focusing on the ideas". I don't see how this could be any simpler.
Yes, racism is an idea- which is why it's at all applicable to ideas, but people are partly composed of ideas in the form of beliefs. You could apply it to what is being said, or to the people saying them. Applying it to the person means you are arguing somethings they believe are racist- it doesn't necessarily mean the idea in question is.
EDIT: Relevant note here- saying racist things doesn't necessarily mean you are racist. Engaging with the person means you have to deal with intent- which is what I was getting at with substantiation earlier.
If racism is an idea, then when you're talking about racism, you're "focusing on the ideas". I don't see how this could be any simpler.
A conversation is not composed of just throwing ideas at each other. Yes, talking about racism is talking about an idea. But we aren't talking about about discussions of the concept of racism itself. We are talking about applying it, mainly as part of an argument, to a discussion centered around a separate point- a key idea or couple of related key ideas. You introduce an idea like racism by relating it to those key ideas, and you do so in order to come to a resolution about those key ideas. The accusation of racism could be to the opponent or to the ideas that are positions of that opponent- you have to relate it to something in particular. Are you going to say what the person is saying is racist or that the person themselves is racist?
I am arguing the former is usually easier to substantiate and less likely to incite emotional conflicts, so should be the default.
A conversation is not composed of just throwing ideas at each other. Yes, talking about racism is talking about an idea. But we aren't talking about about discussions of the concept of racism itself. We are talking about applying it, mainly as part of an argument, to a discussion centered around a separate point- a key idea or couple of related key ideas. You introduce an idea like racism by relating it to those key ideas, and you do so in order to come to a resolution about those key ideas. The accusation of racism could be to the opponent or to the ideas that are positions of that opponent- you have to relate it to something in particular. Are you going to say what the person is saying is racist or that the person themselves is racist?
I am arguing the former is usually easier to substantiate and less likely to incite emotional conflicts, so should be the default.
There is no difference. That's like saying there's a difference between a conservative, and someone who has conservative ideas. It's nonsense - there's nothing to being a conservative except for the ideas. People aren't innately racist or conservative or liberal or christian or whatever.
A conversation is not composed of just throwing ideas at each other. Yes, talking about racism is talking about an idea. But we aren't talking about about discussions of the concept of racism itself. We are talking about applying it, mainly as part of an argument, to a discussion centered around a separate point- a key idea or couple of related key ideas. You introduce an idea like racism by relating it to those key ideas, and you do so in order to come to a resolution about those key ideas. The accusation of racism could be to the opponent or to the ideas that are positions of that opponent- you have to relate it to something in particular. Are you going to say what the person is saying is racist or that the person themselves is racist?
I am arguing the former is usually easier to substantiate and less likely to incite emotional conflicts, so should be the default.
There is no difference. That's like saying there's a difference between a conservative, and someone who has conservative ideas. It's nonsense - there's nothing to being a conservative except for the ideas. People aren't innately racist or conservative or liberal or christian or whatever.
1. One racist belief could be an outlier. People aren't just racist or not racist- there are degrees of racism. People could change for an outlying belief.
3. People do not only say things they fully understand, that are fully coherent with their other beliefs and always tell the truth.
1. One racist belief could be an outlier. People aren't just racist or not racist- there are degrees of racism. People could change for an outlying belief.
3. People do not only say things they fully understand, that are fully coherent with their other beliefs and always tell the truth.
Those statements are true of literally any ideology. Does that same logic apply to calling someone "liberal" or "Christian"?
1. One racist belief could be an outlier. People aren't just racist or not racist- there are degrees of racism. People could change for an outlying belief.
3. People do not only say things they fully understand, that are fully coherent with their other beliefs and always tell the truth.
Those statements are true of literally any ideology. Does that same logic apply to calling someone "liberal" or "Christian"?
In different ways, but yes. Do you really think there aren't people who have lied about being liberal or Christian or lied by affirming liberal or Christian beliefs, or misunderstood their actual position (more towards the liberal example)? It seems to me that those aren't all that uncommon things.
If it could possibly apply, it could possibly apply, so you have to give it at least some consideration if you want to be logical about it.
You seem to accept the validity of this reasoning here- do you?
1) Nobody likes being called a racist, whether they are a huge racist, or only harbor a few benign prejudices.
2) the argument over whether an idea is "racist" or not is not persuasive. The purpose of a debate is to persuade.
3) Calling an idea racist may be apt, and may actually be appropriate in some circumstances, but it is rarely going to be the argument that persuades the other person that they are wrong.
Within the context of an election post mortem, this should be more evident than ever. Calling everyone who voted for Trump "Racist" serves only to dig them in and make them defensive. It didn't work in the run up to the election, I have no idea why some people think doubling down on it now would work any better.
1) Nobody likes being called a racist, whether they are a huge racist, or only harbor a few benign prejudices.
2) the argument over whether an idea is "racist" or not is not persuasive. The purpose of a debate is to persuade.
3) Calling an idea racist may be apt, and may actually be appropriate in some circumstances, but it is rarely going to be the argument that persuades the other person that they are wrong.
Within the context of an election post mortem, this should be more evident than ever. Calling everyone who voted for Trump "Racist" serves only to dig them in and make them defensive. It didn't work in the run up to the election, I have no idea why some people think doubling down on it now would work any better.
Are you are suggesting it's going to be more persuasive to an opponent to argue they are themselves racist rather than what they have said is racist? I really don't believe that.
On your later point, I don't think the focus going forward should be on racial issues- I think it should be on Trump's effectiveness as a leader and holding Trump to his promises. He's already well on track to disappoint.
It contains a legitimate response. It also contains an ad hominem attack.
Because apparently saying someone's statements are racist is not a legitimate response.
Look it's simple. If I say, "X is a better third baseman than Y," and you reply, "Well X is racist," that's an ad hominem fallacy. It's a fallacy because you're not attacking X on the merits that he's an inferior baseball player, but instead on a quality of his character that his wholly irrelevant to the discussion.
However, saying, "Your argument is racist" is hardly an ad hominem fallacy. It's addressing the argument, and it's ENTIRELY relevant whether or not your argument is racist.
------
On another note, Trump settled the lawsuits against him for Trump University when he previously said he would not.
Racists don't like being called racist because it hurts their feelings. The politically correct term is "politically incorrect."
Disagree. Very politically correct people love calling others racist.
I think the correct approach with issues of racism is to focus on and start from the ideas not the person- the person should be a secondary consideration. It’s easier to substantiate and reduces emotional conflict.
EDIT: was written poorly on my phone
Because I apparently have to spell out the joke:
The people who complain about the term "racist" are the same people who whine that we are too politically correct as a society. They want to be able to make broad generalizations about all sorts of different groups, from African Americans to Latinos to Muslims to Jews to Atheists, etc, but HATE being called out on it. Granted, racist is often the incorrect term due to specificity, and "bigot" or "bigoted" are more accurate descriptors due to the hate/discrimination/bias being directed at groups other than races, but that's beside the point. The point is that the label of racist is almost always thrown at people who complain about political correctness restricting speech and preventing us from "calling it like it is", and then who throw a fit about being called racist for the racist or bigoted things they say or beliefs they hold, without realizing the irony. Decrying the use of the words "racism" "racist" "bigot" and "bigoted" IS political correctness. They want everyone else to check their words and be more polite TO THEM, avoiding labels that hurt their feelings and minimize their arguments, while wanting to be allowed to to the same, openly and loudly, to EVERYONE ELSE, without social repercussion. Its cowardice and hypocrisy.
When it comes to individual racist beliefs in an otherwise decent person, then yes, you can take an approach of polite correction, or better yet simply opening their understanding to other ideas without direct confrontation. But those aren't the people who are crying loudest about the word, and getting labeled with it. The people who are steeped in racism and bigotry, either the ones who openly embrace it or the ones who try to deny it while embracing ideas like "all Muslims are terrorists", "worry about black on black violence instead of state actors murdering people", or "illegals are diseased criminals who simultaneously steal our good paying jobs and drain our welfare system", those people can't be reasoned with. They are as fully bought in to their beliefs, as much as any true believer, and that belief only shatters, sometimes, when life events force it to. Minimizing these people, separating them from the populace by labeling them what they are and showing their beliefs to be abhorrent and in opposition to the values held by most of the population, that is the same strategy used against Islamic extremism.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
In different ways, but yes. Do you really think there aren't people who have lied about being liberal or Christian or lied by affirming liberal or Christian beliefs, or misunderstood their actual position (more towards the liberal example)? It seems to me that those aren't all that uncommon things.
If it could possibly apply, it could possibly apply, so you have to give it at least some consideration if you want to be logical about it.
You seem to accept the validity of this reasoning here- do you?
I accept that those are true statements about any ideology. What I don't accept is that they imply that we shouldn't call people "racist" any more than they imply we shouldn't call people "Christian" or "liberal".
1) Nobody likes being called a racist, whether they are a huge racist, or only harbor a few benign prejudices.
2) the argument over whether an idea is "racist" or not is not persuasive. The purpose of a debate is to persuade.
3) Calling an idea racist may be apt, and may actually be appropriate in some circumstances, but it is rarely going to be the argument that persuades the other person that they are wrong.
Within the context of an election post mortem, this should be more evident than ever. Calling everyone who voted for Trump "Racist" serves only to dig them in and make them defensive. It didn't work in the run up to the election, I have no idea why some people think doubling down on it now would work any better.
Better that racism go unchallenged - we wouldn't want to make anyone feel bad.
1) Nobody likes being called a racist, whether they are a huge racist, or only harbor a few benign prejudices.
2) the argument over whether an idea is "racist" or not is not persuasive. The purpose of a debate is to persuade.
3) Calling an idea racist may be apt, and may actually be appropriate in some circumstances, but it is rarely going to be the argument that persuades the other person that they are wrong.
Within the context of an election post mortem, this should be more evident than ever. Calling everyone who voted for Trump "Racist" serves only to dig them in and make them defensive. It didn't work in the run up to the election, I have no idea why some people think doubling down on it now would work any better.
Better that racism go unchallenged - we wouldn't want to make anyone feel bad.
That's not the point behind the general argument that goes "nobody likes being called a racist".
What point are you trying to make when you call someone a racist?
If you have any intent whatsoever to eventually persuade that person that he/she indeed is a racist and should reconsider their thinking, then calling them a racist simply does not work. You'd likely have a far better time engaging and simply talking with them.
That's not the point behind the general argument that goes "nobody likes being called a racist".
What point are you trying to make when you call someone a racist?
If you have any intent whatsoever to eventually persuade that person that he/she indeed is a racist and should reconsider their thinking, then calling them a racist simply does not work. You'd likely have a far better time engaging and simply talking with them.
We'll persuade them that they're a racist by never saying that they're a racist? Good luck with that.
We'll persuade them that they're a racist by never saying that they're a racist? Good luck with that.
Person A- "Asian women are terrible drivers."
Person B- "You're racist and sexist. You don't have the information to make a collective judgment on such a broad group. It may be that most of the Asian women you know are terrible drivers, but that doesn't mean that Asian women are bad drivers."
vs.
Person A- "Asian women are terrible drivers."
Person B- "It's not fair to say that. You don't have the information to make a collective judgment on such a broad group. It may be that most of the Asian women you know are terrible drivers, but that doesn't mean that Asian women are bad drivers."
Person A- "Asian women are terrible drivers."
Person B- "You're racist and sexist. You don't have the information to make a collective judgment on such a broad group. It may be that most of the Asian women you know are terrible drivers, but that doesn't mean that Asian women are bad drivers."
vs.
Person A- "Asian women are terrible drivers."
Person B- "It's not fair to say that. You don't have the information to make a collective judgment on such a broad group. It may be that most of the Asian women you know are terrible drivers, but that doesn't mean that Asian women are bad drivers."
What part of the second one is going to persuade someone they're racist?
What part of the second one is going to persuade someone they're racist?
The point I wanted to make is that it's not necessary to actually flat-out state that they're racist/sexist/etc to argue with their argument.
I'm simply saying that one should apply very simple and commonly used argumentative technique-namely, don't put the other fellow on the defensive or otherwise give them an opportunity to put up walls if you have any intent whatsoever in actually persuading them.
What part of the second one is going to persuade someone they're racist?
Precisely. It's a problem to call someone racist when they're not being racist. When someone's being racist, there's exactly zero problem with calling people that.
And frankly, you should. Nobody likes to be confronted? Too ******* bad. If you don't like the truth or the truth is inconvenient to point out, guess what? That's PRECISELY when it needs to be pointed out the most. There's been over 700 incidents of hateful harassment since Trump took office, a Trump surrogate recently discussed the creation of a Muslim registry, and we're sitting here debating about whether it's ok to call someone racist? MTGSalvation, let's get our big boy pants on and get it the **** together.
Now can you all about how you can't say "racist" because of how delicate and sensitive the racists - who voted for a president who chastised political correctness and advocated a "tell it like it is" policy - are in another thread? We have important things to discuss, such as the recent news that Donald Trump supporters have planned to #BoycottHamilton. You know, the show that's sold out for like a decade. Seriously. They're boycotting a show you can't get tickets for. You cannot make this ***** up.
The point I wanted to make is that it's not necessary to actually flat-out state that they're racist/sexist/etc to argue with their argument.
I'm simply saying that one should apply very simple and commonly used argumentative technique-namely, don't put the other fellow on the defensive or otherwise give them an opportunity to put up walls if you have any intent whatsoever in actually persuading them.
The point you WERE making was, "If you have any intent whatsoever to eventually persuade that person that he/she indeed is a racist", but apparently you've already given up on that.
The problem is that "racist" is such a loaded word that it's not as meaningful as it is simply derogatory. If you call someone a racist, they don't hear, "It appears that you hold beliefs about broad groups of people which aren't in line with what we know scientifically," they just hear, "You're a terrible person." So I agree with magickware, even if someone says something that's racist, then pragmatically, it may be best to avoid using that word, at least in your initial response.
The problem is that "racist" is such a loaded word that it's not as meaningful as it is simply derogatory. If you call someone a racist, they don't hear, "It appears that you hold beliefs about broad groups of people which aren't in line with what we know scientifically," they just hear, "You're a terrible person." So I agree with magickware, even if someone says something that's racist, then pragmatically, it may be best to avoid using that word, at least in your initial response.
God forbid anyone actually have to confront the terribleness of their beliefs.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Look it's simple. If I say, "X is a better third baseman than Y," and you reply, "Well X is racist," that's an ad hominem fallacy. It's a fallacy because you're not attacking X on the merits that he's an inferior baseball player, but instead on a quality of his character that his wholly irrelevant to the discussion.
However, saying, "Your argument is racist" is hardly an ad hominem fallacy. It's addressing the argument, and it's ENTIRELY relevant whether or not your argument is racist.
------
On another note, Trump settled the lawsuits against him for Trump University when he previously said he would not.
Racists don't like being called racist because it hurts their feelings. The politically correct term is "politically incorrect."
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Disagree. Very politically correct people love calling others racist.
I think the correct approach with issues of racism is to focus on and start from the ideas not the person- the person should be a secondary consideration. It’s easier to substantiate and reduces emotional conflict.
EDIT: was written poorly on my phone
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Racism is an idea. Any time you are addressing racism, you're focusing on the ideas. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here.
Yes, racism is an idea- which is why it's at all applicable to ideas, but people are partly composed of ideas in the form of beliefs. You could apply it to what is being said, or to the people saying them. Applying it to the person means you are arguing somethings they believe are racist- it doesn't necessarily mean the idea in question is.
EDIT: Relevant note here- saying racist things doesn't necessarily mean you are racist. Engaging with the person means you have to deal with intent- which is what I was getting at with substantiation earlier.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
If racism is an idea, then when you're talking about racism, you're "focusing on the ideas". I don't see how this could be any simpler.
A conversation is not composed of just throwing ideas at each other. Yes, talking about racism is talking about an idea. But we aren't talking about about discussions of the concept of racism itself. We are talking about applying it, mainly as part of an argument, to a discussion centered around a separate point- a key idea or couple of related key ideas. You introduce an idea like racism by relating it to those key ideas, and you do so in order to come to a resolution about those key ideas. The accusation of racism could be to the opponent or to the ideas that are positions of that opponent- you have to relate it to something in particular. Are you going to say what the person is saying is racist or that the person themselves is racist?
I am arguing the former is usually easier to substantiate and less likely to incite emotional conflicts, so should be the default.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
There is no difference. That's like saying there's a difference between a conservative, and someone who has conservative ideas. It's nonsense - there's nothing to being a conservative except for the ideas. People aren't innately racist or conservative or liberal or christian or whatever.
1. One racist belief could be an outlier. People aren't just racist or not racist- there are degrees of racism. People could change for an outlying belief.
3. People do not only say things they fully understand, that are fully coherent with their other beliefs and always tell the truth.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Those statements are true of literally any ideology. Does that same logic apply to calling someone "liberal" or "Christian"?
In different ways, but yes. Do you really think there aren't people who have lied about being liberal or Christian or lied by affirming liberal or Christian beliefs, or misunderstood their actual position (more towards the liberal example)? It seems to me that those aren't all that uncommon things.
If it could possibly apply, it could possibly apply, so you have to give it at least some consideration if you want to be logical about it.
You seem to accept the validity of this reasoning here- do you?
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
2) the argument over whether an idea is "racist" or not is not persuasive. The purpose of a debate is to persuade.
3) Calling an idea racist may be apt, and may actually be appropriate in some circumstances, but it is rarely going to be the argument that persuades the other person that they are wrong.
Within the context of an election post mortem, this should be more evident than ever. Calling everyone who voted for Trump "Racist" serves only to dig them in and make them defensive. It didn't work in the run up to the election, I have no idea why some people think doubling down on it now would work any better.
Are you are suggesting it's going to be more persuasive to an opponent to argue they are themselves racist rather than what they have said is racist? I really don't believe that.
On your later point, I don't think the focus going forward should be on racial issues- I think it should be on Trump's effectiveness as a leader and holding Trump to his promises. He's already well on track to disappoint.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Because I apparently have to spell out the joke:
The people who complain about the term "racist" are the same people who whine that we are too politically correct as a society. They want to be able to make broad generalizations about all sorts of different groups, from African Americans to Latinos to Muslims to Jews to Atheists, etc, but HATE being called out on it. Granted, racist is often the incorrect term due to specificity, and "bigot" or "bigoted" are more accurate descriptors due to the hate/discrimination/bias being directed at groups other than races, but that's beside the point. The point is that the label of racist is almost always thrown at people who complain about political correctness restricting speech and preventing us from "calling it like it is", and then who throw a fit about being called racist for the racist or bigoted things they say or beliefs they hold, without realizing the irony. Decrying the use of the words "racism" "racist" "bigot" and "bigoted" IS political correctness. They want everyone else to check their words and be more polite TO THEM, avoiding labels that hurt their feelings and minimize their arguments, while wanting to be allowed to to the same, openly and loudly, to EVERYONE ELSE, without social repercussion. Its cowardice and hypocrisy.
When it comes to individual racist beliefs in an otherwise decent person, then yes, you can take an approach of polite correction, or better yet simply opening their understanding to other ideas without direct confrontation. But those aren't the people who are crying loudest about the word, and getting labeled with it. The people who are steeped in racism and bigotry, either the ones who openly embrace it or the ones who try to deny it while embracing ideas like "all Muslims are terrorists", "worry about black on black violence instead of state actors murdering people", or "illegals are diseased criminals who simultaneously steal our good paying jobs and drain our welfare system", those people can't be reasoned with. They are as fully bought in to their beliefs, as much as any true believer, and that belief only shatters, sometimes, when life events force it to. Minimizing these people, separating them from the populace by labeling them what they are and showing their beliefs to be abhorrent and in opposition to the values held by most of the population, that is the same strategy used against Islamic extremism.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
http://68.media.tumblr.com/faaa34433858e021c3f5d3c358c00009/tumblr_ogn9bnMPI61v76hd0o1_r2_1280.jpg
Removed Image Leeching - Osieorb18
I accept that those are true statements about any ideology. What I don't accept is that they imply that we shouldn't call people "racist" any more than they imply we shouldn't call people "Christian" or "liberal".
Better that racism go unchallenged - we wouldn't want to make anyone feel bad.
That's not the point behind the general argument that goes "nobody likes being called a racist".
What point are you trying to make when you call someone a racist?
If you have any intent whatsoever to eventually persuade that person that he/she indeed is a racist and should reconsider their thinking, then calling them a racist simply does not work. You'd likely have a far better time engaging and simply talking with them.
We'll persuade them that they're a racist by never saying that they're a racist? Good luck with that.
Person A- "Asian women are terrible drivers."
Person B- "You're racist and sexist. You don't have the information to make a collective judgment on such a broad group. It may be that most of the Asian women you know are terrible drivers, but that doesn't mean that Asian women are bad drivers."
vs.
Person A- "Asian women are terrible drivers."
Person B- "It's not fair to say that. You don't have the information to make a collective judgment on such a broad group. It may be that most of the Asian women you know are terrible drivers, but that doesn't mean that Asian women are bad drivers."
What part of the second one is going to persuade someone they're racist?
The point I wanted to make is that it's not necessary to actually flat-out state that they're racist/sexist/etc to argue with their argument.
I'm simply saying that one should apply very simple and commonly used argumentative technique-namely, don't put the other fellow on the defensive or otherwise give them an opportunity to put up walls if you have any intent whatsoever in actually persuading them.
Precisely. It's a problem to call someone racist when they're not being racist. When someone's being racist, there's exactly zero problem with calling people that.
And frankly, you should. Nobody likes to be confronted? Too ******* bad. If you don't like the truth or the truth is inconvenient to point out, guess what? That's PRECISELY when it needs to be pointed out the most. There's been over 700 incidents of hateful harassment since Trump took office, a Trump surrogate recently discussed the creation of a Muslim registry, and we're sitting here debating about whether it's ok to call someone racist? MTGSalvation, let's get our big boy pants on and get it the **** together.
Now can you all about how you can't say "racist" because of how delicate and sensitive the racists - who voted for a president who chastised political correctness and advocated a "tell it like it is" policy - are in another thread? We have important things to discuss, such as the recent news that Donald Trump supporters have planned to #BoycottHamilton. You know, the show that's sold out for like a decade. Seriously. They're boycotting a show you can't get tickets for. You cannot make this ***** up.
The point you WERE making was, "If you have any intent whatsoever to eventually persuade that person that he/she indeed is a racist", but apparently you've already given up on that.
God forbid anyone actually have to confront the terribleness of their beliefs.