Do we really need to get into a discussion about logic and epistemology on this thread? Keep in mind this is me saying this.
I think it actually gets at the crux of what this thread is about.
I used a word, and tried to find out why people should get offended at me using it, even if I wasn't using it in a racist context. The answer was "Your using that word gives us reason to believe you are a racist."
The only way I can fight this is if I can logically prove that me using the word doesn't, in and of itself, give anyone reason to believe I am a racist.
Whether this is even possible, I think, is an interesting thing to think about. The best way I can currently think of to try doing this would be to show that the word has multiple contexts, some racist, some not so much. To assume all uses of the word are racist, I think, is illogical.
Mrmaul has no obligation to prove to us whether or not he really is a racist, because as the epistemic condition of humanity is concerned it's impossible to know such a thing.
However, I can take his actions and use them to show whether or not he is a racist. If his actions and words meet the qualifications of a racist, then we can safely conclude he is one, but we must also be aware that he might not be and for whatever reason is acting as one. I would confirm it simply by saying:
Theoretically:
If Mrmaul exhibits racist actions and/or sentiments (P) then he is a racist (Q).
Mrmaul meets those qualifications.
Therefore he is a racist.
I've affirmed the antecedent, which is logically proper. He might, however, not actually be a racist and people who think he is could be misinterpreting his sentiments, or he could be acting or not be aware of what he's doing, etc. But I don't see how that's relevant inside the equation.
So, is the statement: "Ulfsaar thinks mrmaul558 isn't racist" true or false?
Is the statement: "Babies believe God doesn't exist," true or false? If it's false, then is the statement: "Babies believe God does exist," true?
Otherwise "educated guesses" are very reasonable, if not logical, IMO.
Let's say you're roaming the plain of Mirrodin and there are robots with circle heads that, in your experience, have always killed your kind on sight. Does this mean that all robots of that type kill your kind on sight? You don't know that, so you can't conclude it, but in order to survive you act as if they will.
If robots have circle heads (P) they will kill you (Q).
That robot has a circle head.
Therefore it will kill you.
Alternatively, let's say you see a robot with a rectangle head. You have never known these kind to be aggressive to you or your kin.
If robots have rectangle heads (P) they will not be aggressive (Q)
That robot has a rectangular head.
Therefore, it will not attack me on site.
Isn't this modus ponens? One could elaborate by noting that rarely a rectangle-bot might kill one of your kind (perhaps for territorial reasons, or perhaps it felt it was being threatened) or that there are a group of circle-bots that don't kill your kind on sight (but are currently indistinguishable from the ones that will), but does the information we currently have, or don't have, make our form incorrect? This is ultimately where I'm curious: does the possibility of a robot that does not conform to the statements make the form flawed and logic impossible to use? I would say that it might be fallacious to come to that conclusion because of the possibility of a passive circle-bot or an aggressive rectangle-bot, but does that mean I can't use modus ponens to come to those conclusions?
Because, as far as I understand it, making the first assumption is not a concern inside the equation, but outside of it. Kind of like looking at a graph and knowing what it actually means.
Do we really need to get into a discussion about logic and epistemology on this thread? Keep in mind this is me saying this.
Yes, because there might be something I'm missing and my lack of a formal education could be biting me in the ass right now. If you don't want to do it here, please PM me.
PS I haven't forgotten your last PM, I just haven't come up with a good enough answer yet.
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Who are you to say that Affirmative action isn't racism? Anything that makes one race more favorable over another is by definition racism. Just because its "good" racism doesn't change that fact.
I have been in discussions where my boss can't hire a person because "he is white" or "he is not black/Hispanic/female". I worked at university admissions and saw a white male with a 1390 get denied but a black male with a 1170 be accepted (similar resumes obviously in these cases). I saw the "eyes only" rubric that showed a table with race-to-SAT coefficient.
Also, black people in the day enslaved their own. White people were enslaved as "indentured servants". Slavery throughout ancient times was common place, so don't give me this guilt crap. I had white, I say again, white relatives that were enslaved in my native Ireland. I am also on the Dawes list as 16th native american, and my people were genocided, and to pay that debt off, they pay us ~32,000 dollars a year. 32,000 dollars for taking our land and killing our people,
Also, there is government sponsored slavery still in effect in form of the draft. Honestly, get over it.
Do we really need to get into a discussion about logic and epistemology on this thread?
Based on other's reactions, I guess so. I am ever a product of my environment. (I mean, one is supposed to get indigent and defend ones ideas from being called ridiculous, right? That is how normal humans act?)
I've affirmed the antecedent, which is logically proper. He might, however, not actually be a racist and people who think he is could be misinterpreting his sentiments, or he could be acting or not be aware of what he's doing, etc. But I don't see how that's relevant inside the equation.
Let's say you're roaming the plain of Mirrodin and there are robots with circle heads that, in your experience, have always killed your kind on sight. Does this mean that all robots of that type kill your kind on sight? You don't know that, so you can't conclude it, but in order to survive you act as if they will.
One could elaborate by noting that rarely a rectangle-bot might kill one of your kind (perhaps for territorial reasons, or perhaps it felt it was being threatened) or that there are a group of circle-bots that don't kill your kind on sight (but are currently indistinguishable from the ones that will), but does the information we currently have, or don't have, make our form incorrect? This is ultimately where I'm curious: does the possibility of a robot that does not conform to the statements make the form flawed and logic impossible to use? I would say that it might be fallacious to come to that conclusion because of the possibility of a passive circle-bot or an aggressive rectangle-bot, but does that mean I can't use modus ponens to come to those conclusions?
Ah, I see how I was being obtuse. Here's an example of when denying the antecedent seems reasonably OK to me:
There's a fire in a house and a fireman runs inside. He hears a scream from behind a closed door and walks up to feel the door. The door is not hot, so he assumes the room is not burning (maybe parts of it are, but he concludes it's safe) and opens the door to see who needs help.
That is:
If the room is on fire (P) then the door will be hot (Q).
The door is not hot.
Therefore the room is not on fire.
Now, a smart fireman will know that the room could be on fire, but he's choosing to act as if it were safe because he lacks the proper knowledge. Opening the door could even cause an inflow of oxygen which will refuel the fire.
There is also another falsifiable claim here: that the scream is a living entity. It could be a TV or a radio, etc.
My "formal education" in logic comes mainly from Blinking Spirit and wiki.
I regard BS as an authority on the subject.
I will be more than happy to answer this question, in depth, just as soon as you answer mine.
The statement: "Ulfsaar thinks mrmaul isn't a racist," is not true... it's poorly worded. The correct statement would be: "Ulfsaar does not believe mrmaul is a racist, nor does he believe he is one."
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Whether this is even possible, I think, is an interesting thing to think about. The best way I can currently think of to try doing this would be to show that the word has multiple contexts, some racist, some not so much. To assume all uses of the word are racist, I think, is illogical.
But to assume that MOST uses of the word by whites are racist is not illogical. Just 150 years ago, the word meant that the target was not considered a human being in the eyes of the law. Only 60 years ago, it meant that the target had to be separated from "polite society", and a second-class citizen in his own country.
You are arguing as if nothing that has happened prior to the 1980s matters at all. Please answer me this - would you walk into South Central LA, or into Harlem, or Oakland, and start calling everyone ☺☺☺☺☺? Of course not. Historical and societal context matters, whether you choose to consciously acknowledge it or not.
Whether this is even possible, I think, is an interesting thing to think about. The best way I can currently think of to try doing this would be to show that the word has multiple contexts, some racist, some not so much. To assume all uses of the word are racist, I think, is illogical.
You're still looking at it only from one angle. Since communication involves two people you need to look at it from both the speaker's and the listener's preservative.
As I said, even if you can 100% convince the other person that you mean nothing bad by the word, they STILL might take offense, AND their offense might be reasonable given their own person history.
YOU might think they have "no good reason" to get upset, but it's immaterial because THEY think they do.
You're still looking at it only from one angle. Since communication involves two people you need to look at it from both the speaker's and the listener's preservative.
As I said, even if you can 100% convince the other person that you mean nothing bad by the word, they STILL might take offense, AND their offense might be reasonable given their own person history.
YOU might think they have "no good reason" to get upset, but it's immaterial because THEY think they do.
Remember that one time how you nagged the ☺☺☺☺ out of me for an answer? Don't be a hypocrite... answer the latter part of the post.
Quote from me »
The statement: "Ulfsaar thinks mrmaul isn't a racist," is not true... it's poorly worded. The correct statement would be: "Ulfsaar does not believe mrmaul is a racist, nor does he believe he is one."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Remember that one time how you nagged the ☺☺☺☺ out of me for an answer? Don't be a hypocrite... answer the latter part of the post.
Ah Sorry, I honestly did not see your post. I had been thinking about my response to mrmaul558 for a while and in my hast to make it (having seen someone else, CherryBoom!, posted) missed yours. (However, I do feel the need to point out you NEVER gave me that answer I nagged you about[though, I can guess what it is], so I don't feel there would be anything hypocritical about me sidestepping yours. But, I actually like answering questions, and was hard for me not to earlier...)
Ah, I see how I was being obtuse. Here's an example of when denying the antecedent seems reasonably OK to me:
There's a fire in a house and a fireman runs inside. He hears a scream from behind a closed door and walks up to feel the door. The door is not hot, so he assumes the room is not burning (maybe parts of it are, but he concludes it's safe) and opens the door to see who needs help.
That is:
If the room is on fire (P) then the door will be hot (Q).
The door is not hot.
Therefore the room is not on fire.
Now, a smart fireman will know that the room could be on fire, but he's choosing to act as if it were safe because he lacks the proper knowledge. Opening the door could even cause an inflow of oxygen which will refuel the fire.
There is also another falsifiable claim here: that the scream is a living entity. It could be a TV or a radio, etc.
Right, there we go. His conclusions are reasonable, but not logical.
And to extend the same courtesy:
I do agree there are many many cases when it is completely unreasonable to act on a fallacy.
The statement: "Ulfsaar thinks mrmaul isn't a racist," is not true... it's poorly worded. The correct statement would be: "Ulfsaar does not believe mrmaul is a racist, nor does he believe he is one."
The answer to the baby question is that the baby both does not believe in God AND does not believe there is not a God.
~B(G) ^ ~B(~G) = True
B(G) ∨ B(~G) = False (or something like that my formal logic is a little rusty.)
The baby has no belief at all regarding "God," thus all statements regarding it having a positive belief about "God" or "not God" are false.
As are yours, if I remember correctly. (and I usually do)
I've got a minor qualm regarding this thread. I've been reading it for a while now, and it seems that it's taken for granted that the epithet in question is "racist". Looking at the definition from Webster, the word is descriptive of the individual's race, not of the individual's inherent inferiority based on their race. I would say that, in it's commonly perjorative usage, that it is a bigoted word, rather than a racist one. I dunno, it sometimes seems that slamming someone with a racist tag is a method used to try and discredit people and the opinions they represent, specifically in other, much less civil, forums.
Flattering, but my credentials consist of a B.A. in Philosophy, and logic was not my focus. If you see Godel1 around, I think he's the closest thing we've had to an authority on logic.
I've got a minor qualm regarding this thread. I've been reading it for a while now, and it seems that it's taken for granted that the epithet in question is "racist". Looking at the definition from Webster, the word is descriptive of the individual's race, not of the individual's inherent inferiority based on their race. I would say that, in it's commonly perjorative usage, that it is a bigoted word, rather than a racist one. I dunno, it sometimes seems that slamming someone with a racist tag is a method used to try and discredit people and the opinions they represent, specifically in other, much less civil, forums.
No, it's pretty definitely a racist epithet. Did you happen to read Webster's usage note?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
it seems that it's taken for granted that the epithet in question is "racist".
We didn't "take it for granted." mrmaul558 and I discussed, in detail, when it was, when it was not, and how we both defined what a "racist word" meant to us.
I'm pretty sure that's the opposite of "taking it for granted." You sure you read this thread?
If you see Godel1 around, I think he's the closest thing we've had to an authority on logic.
Oddly enough, he and I had a rather lengthy discussion, on aim, about whether or not an illogical line of reasoning could be called "reasonable." He assured it could not, and I asserted what I've assured here.
He came around in the end, if I recall correctly. (but this time, maybe I don't. I believe he agreed with me in the end, but did not like that use of the word "reasonable." We might have agreed to disagree.)
No, it's pretty definitely a racist epithet. Did you happen to read Webster's usage note?
I did not, but it seems to confirm what I have written. It is "an inflammatory racial slur ... expressive of racial hatred and bigotry." What I'm seeing is that racial =/= racist, rather that it is an expression that demonstrates a condemnatory attitude toward persons of black heritage, which does not necessarily mean that they believe their own race to be inherently superior.
We didn't "take it for granted." mrmaul558 and I discussed, in detail, when it was, when it was not, and how we both defined what a "racist word" meant to us.
Indeed, and I saw that. However, my qualm is not over whether it is racist/non-racist/it just depends, but rather between racist/bigoted, which AFAIK, has not been raised. The way I see it, racism is a whole... belief system, if you will, where the individual's race is seen as inherently better than another, while bigotry can be as simple as "doesn't like black people". I can see evident bigotry in the word, but none of the hallmarks of honest-to-goodness racial superiority. Maybe it's just because racism is a full-on worldview, whereas bigotry needn't necessarily be codified into a comprehensive system.
I'm pretty sure that's the opposite of "taking it for granted." You sure you read this thread?
Actually, now that I think about it, I may have been looking at the healthcare thread. My bad.
I did not, but it seems to confirm what I have written. It is "an inflammatory racial slur ... expressive of racial hatred and bigotry." What I'm seeing is that racial =/= racist, rather that it is an expression that demonstrates a condemnatory attitude toward persons of black heritage, which does not necessarily mean that they believe their own race to be inherently superior.
I guess you missed that one definition of "racism" is simply "hatred or intolerance of another race or other races" (according to dictionary.com anyway). You don't have to believe in your own race's superiority to be a racist.
Although I'd argue it's pretty strongly implied you think lowly of another race if you're using a racially charged epithet that "[demonstrates] a condemnatory attitude toward persons of black heritage."
So I was just checking SMBC and saw this comic and it reminded me of this thread. I think it is one of most poignant comics I have read in a long time. Original can be found here.
Ah Sorry, I honestly did not see your post. I had been thinking about my response to mrmaul558 for a while and in my hast to make it (having seen someone else, CherryBoom!, posted) missed yours.
I was just taunting you
However, I do feel the need to point out you NEVER gave me that answer I nagged you about[though, I can guess what it is], so I don't feel there would be anything hypocritical about me sidestepping yours. But, I actually like answering questions, and was hard for me not to earlier...
My actions do not make someone else a hypocrite... you should know that.
The answer to the baby question is that the baby both does not believe in God AND does not believe there is not a God.
~B(G) ^ ~B(~G) = True
B(G) ∨ B(~G) = False (or something like that my formal logic is a little rusty.)
The baby has no belief at all regarding "God," thus all statements regarding it having a positive belief about "God" or "not God" are false.
As are yours, if I remember correctly. (and I usually do)
So what's the problem with what I said?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I think it actually gets at the crux of what this thread is about.
I used a word, and tried to find out why people should get offended at me using it, even if I wasn't using it in a racist context. The answer was "Your using that word gives us reason to believe you are a racist."
The only way I can fight this is if I can logically prove that me using the word doesn't, in and of itself, give anyone reason to believe I am a racist.
Whether this is even possible, I think, is an interesting thing to think about. The best way I can currently think of to try doing this would be to show that the word has multiple contexts, some racist, some not so much. To assume all uses of the word are racist, I think, is illogical.
My 360 Commons Cube
Your favorite MTG website
However, I can take his actions and use them to show whether or not he is a racist. If his actions and words meet the qualifications of a racist, then we can safely conclude he is one, but we must also be aware that he might not be and for whatever reason is acting as one. I would confirm it simply by saying:
Theoretically:
If Mrmaul exhibits racist actions and/or sentiments (P) then he is a racist (Q).
Mrmaul meets those qualifications.
Therefore he is a racist.
I've affirmed the antecedent, which is logically proper. He might, however, not actually be a racist and people who think he is could be misinterpreting his sentiments, or he could be acting or not be aware of what he's doing, etc. But I don't see how that's relevant inside the equation.
Is the statement: "Babies believe God doesn't exist," true or false? If it's false, then is the statement: "Babies believe God does exist," true?
Let's say you're roaming the plain of Mirrodin and there are robots with circle heads that, in your experience, have always killed your kind on sight. Does this mean that all robots of that type kill your kind on sight? You don't know that, so you can't conclude it, but in order to survive you act as if they will.
If robots have circle heads (P) they will kill you (Q).
That robot has a circle head.
Therefore it will kill you.
Alternatively, let's say you see a robot with a rectangle head. You have never known these kind to be aggressive to you or your kin.
If robots have rectangle heads (P) they will not be aggressive (Q)
That robot has a rectangular head.
Therefore, it will not attack me on site.
Isn't this modus ponens? One could elaborate by noting that rarely a rectangle-bot might kill one of your kind (perhaps for territorial reasons, or perhaps it felt it was being threatened) or that there are a group of circle-bots that don't kill your kind on sight (but are currently indistinguishable from the ones that will), but does the information we currently have, or don't have, make our form incorrect? This is ultimately where I'm curious: does the possibility of a robot that does not conform to the statements make the form flawed and logic impossible to use? I would say that it might be fallacious to come to that conclusion because of the possibility of a passive circle-bot or an aggressive rectangle-bot, but does that mean I can't use modus ponens to come to those conclusions?
Because, as far as I understand it, making the first assumption is not a concern inside the equation, but outside of it. Kind of like looking at a graph and knowing what it actually means.
Yes, because there might be something I'm missing and my lack of a formal education could be biting me in the ass right now. If you don't want to do it here, please PM me.
PS I haven't forgotten your last PM, I just haven't come up with a good enough answer yet.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
I have been in discussions where my boss can't hire a person because "he is white" or "he is not black/Hispanic/female". I worked at university admissions and saw a white male with a 1390 get denied but a black male with a 1170 be accepted (similar resumes obviously in these cases). I saw the "eyes only" rubric that showed a table with race-to-SAT coefficient.
Also, black people in the day enslaved their own. White people were enslaved as "indentured servants". Slavery throughout ancient times was common place, so don't give me this guilt crap. I had white, I say again, white relatives that were enslaved in my native Ireland. I am also on the Dawes list as 16th native american, and my people were genocided, and to pay that debt off, they pay us ~32,000 dollars a year. 32,000 dollars for taking our land and killing our people,
Also, there is government sponsored slavery still in effect in form of the draft. Honestly, get over it.
Based on other's reactions, I guess so. I am ever a product of my environment.
(I mean, one is supposed to get indigent and defend ones ideas from being called ridiculous, right? That is how normal humans act?)
Did anything I said leading up to this make you think I would disagree with this statement? 'Cuz I don't.
You mean to say "reasonably show."
Except, going by the definition for racist provided earlier we both agreed to, this is an assumption based on reason alone.
It's relevant to how you arrived at the equation.
I will be more than happy to answer this question, in depth, just as soon as you answer mine.
How very reasonable of you.
I believe the answer to your questions lie in the classic statement: All swans we have seen are white, and therefore all swans are white.
Or maybe: All swans are white.
However, it's still not based on logic.
What does "formal education" have to do with it?
My "formal education" in logic comes mainly from Blinking Spirit and wiki.
There's a fire in a house and a fireman runs inside. He hears a scream from behind a closed door and walks up to feel the door. The door is not hot, so he assumes the room is not burning (maybe parts of it are, but he concludes it's safe) and opens the door to see who needs help.
That is:
If the room is on fire (P) then the door will be hot (Q).
The door is not hot.
Therefore the room is not on fire.
Now, a smart fireman will know that the room could be on fire, but he's choosing to act as if it were safe because he lacks the proper knowledge. Opening the door could even cause an inflow of oxygen which will refuel the fire.
There is also another falsifiable claim here: that the scream is a living entity. It could be a TV or a radio, etc.
I regard BS as an authority on the subject.
The statement: "Ulfsaar thinks mrmaul isn't a racist," is not true... it's poorly worded. The correct statement would be: "Ulfsaar does not believe mrmaul is a racist, nor does he believe he is one."
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
But to assume that MOST uses of the word by whites are racist is not illogical. Just 150 years ago, the word meant that the target was not considered a human being in the eyes of the law. Only 60 years ago, it meant that the target had to be separated from "polite society", and a second-class citizen in his own country.
You are arguing as if nothing that has happened prior to the 1980s matters at all. Please answer me this - would you walk into South Central LA, or into Harlem, or Oakland, and start calling everyone ☺☺☺☺☺? Of course not. Historical and societal context matters, whether you choose to consciously acknowledge it or not.
You're still looking at it only from one angle. Since communication involves two people you need to look at it from both the speaker's and the listener's preservative.
As I said, even if you can 100% convince the other person that you mean nothing bad by the word, they STILL might take offense, AND their offense might be reasonable given their own person history.
YOU might think they have "no good reason" to get upset, but it's immaterial because THEY think they do.
Remember that one time how you nagged the ☺☺☺☺ out of me for an answer? Don't be a hypocrite... answer the latter part of the post.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
(However, I do feel the need to point out you NEVER gave me that answer I nagged you about[though, I can guess what it is], so I don't feel there would be anything hypocritical about me sidestepping yours. But, I actually like answering questions, and was hard for me not to earlier...)
Right, there we go. His conclusions are reasonable, but not logical.
And to extend the same courtesy:
I do agree there are many many cases when it is completely unreasonable to act on a fallacy. He's not, but I would call it reasonable to act like he is
And I certainly respect him as if he was one.
(you know, unless we are arguing)
The answer to the baby question is that the baby both does not believe in God AND does not believe there is not a God.
~B(G) ^ ~B(~G) = True
B(G) ∨ B(~G) = False
(or something like that my formal logic is a little rusty.)
The baby has no belief at all regarding "God," thus all statements regarding it having a positive belief about "God" or "not God" are false.
As are yours, if I remember correctly.
(and I usually do)
Flattering, but my credentials consist of a B.A. in Philosophy, and logic was not my focus. If you see Godel1 around, I think he's the closest thing we've had to an authority on logic.
No, it's pretty definitely a racist epithet. Did you happen to read Webster's usage note?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
We didn't "take it for granted." mrmaul558 and I discussed, in detail, when it was, when it was not, and how we both defined what a "racist word" meant to us.
I'm pretty sure that's the opposite of "taking it for granted." You sure you read this thread?
Oddly enough, he and I had a rather lengthy discussion, on aim, about whether or not an illogical line of reasoning could be called "reasonable." He assured it could not, and I asserted what I've assured here.
He came around in the end, if I recall correctly.
(but this time, maybe I don't. I believe he agreed with me in the end, but did not like that use of the word "reasonable." We might have agreed to disagree.)
I did not, but it seems to confirm what I have written. It is "an inflammatory racial slur ... expressive of racial hatred and bigotry." What I'm seeing is that racial =/= racist, rather that it is an expression that demonstrates a condemnatory attitude toward persons of black heritage, which does not necessarily mean that they believe their own race to be inherently superior.
Indeed, and I saw that. However, my qualm is not over whether it is racist/non-racist/it just depends, but rather between racist/bigoted, which AFAIK, has not been raised. The way I see it, racism is a whole... belief system, if you will, where the individual's race is seen as inherently better than another, while bigotry can be as simple as "doesn't like black people". I can see evident bigotry in the word, but none of the hallmarks of honest-to-goodness racial superiority. Maybe it's just because racism is a full-on worldview, whereas bigotry needn't necessarily be codified into a comprehensive system.
Actually, now that I think about it, I may have been looking at the healthcare thread. My bad.
I guess you missed that one definition of "racism" is simply "hatred or intolerance of another race or other races" (according to dictionary.com anyway). You don't have to believe in your own race's superiority to be a racist.
Although I'd argue it's pretty strongly implied you think lowly of another race if you're using a racially charged epithet that "[demonstrates] a condemnatory attitude toward persons of black heritage."
Like smashing face? Like not worrying about pitiful tokens or life gain? Check out Stonebrow, Krosan Hero for all your face smashing needs
I was just taunting you
My actions do not make someone else a hypocrite... you should know that.
So what's the problem with what I said?
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited