Is this also your opinion of gang warfare, communist insurgency, and Islamic terrorism? Because normally when you say this sort of thing about violent people, you're asked to turn in your liberal card.
I was just restating Yamaha's apparent position, and pointing out that his doesn't seem to jive with your proposed explanation.
You are presenting the situation very dichotomously, and I don't think fairly so.
There are a number of different circumstances for the issue of racism to be brought up in and those different circumstances call for different approaches.
General statements about a bigoted movement is not the same as personally speaking to all of those people- perhaps most importantly because the former does not draw any exact line about who is being spoken to. People have never made a general statement about such movements and specified just exactly how bigoted , or how involved in the movement, you needed to be. Speaking about the movement generally is mostly in effect speaking about the idea of the movement or the effects of the movement not directed exactly at its members. In this case there is very little harm that could be done by being aggressive and confrontational about it.
Personally speaking to a supporter of such a movement is a different affair. Being aggressive and confrontational is much more likely to prevent progress being made because the discussion is by its nature more personal, making it much harder for anyone to distance themselves from it. In this case I think you should be more reserved about how you apply the concept of racism.
The Allies were very clear about just how involved you had to be - any involvement at all implied guilt. All Germans were responsible. There can be no clearer or exact line than that.
Responsibility around a war is not the same thing as being racist. I'm pretty sure what didn't happen was people announcing all Germans to be racist. That would be stupid and kinda racist itself.
Also, the idea that literally all Germans were responsible is foolish. I hardly think, for instance, most of the German Jews who managed to survive, had any real hand in what happened.
Letting people distance themselves from the realities of racism allows them to shield their racist ideas from criticism. It allows them to sweep under the rug the consequences of their beliefs, and it allows them to dismiss arguments against racism by thinking those arguments don't apply to them.
I'm not saying people shouldn't be called out in debate I am saying it should be done in the right way. And that is not a way that allows people to distance themselves from the criticism but in a way that allows them to distance themselves from their racism- and thereby reject it. As long as their racism is very much a part of them, it's not going to go away. I am saying you should work to avoid racism becoming an identity for people.
If a person does not take the opportunity to reject it and instead embraces it, I don't think explicitly calling them a racist would have helped anyone.
Some people just become unmalleable stones regarding certain issues at some point in their lives and think that they're correct and will always argue on the assumption that they're correct.
One of the better lessons I've learnt, was that no matter how much you think you know, the more you realise how much you don't know.
I wish more people thought this way.
I'm finding as time goes on with the prevalence of social media, everyone is an expert, even though many never look further into the subject than click-bait.
People are VERY quick to judge and call people out for what they perceive as racist or sexist behaviour, such to the point that having a conversation about certain subjects is considered taboo, bordering on pointless, even when these issues demand to be resolved.
It's especially bad for politicians, many of whomseem to have given up having adult conversations about anything racial.
I'm not saying people shouldn't be called out in debate I am saying it should be done in the right way. And that is not a way that allows people to distance themselves from the criticism but in a way that allows them to distance themselves from their racism- and thereby reject it. As long as their racism is very much a part of them, it's not going to go away. I am saying you should work to avoid racism becoming an identity for people.
If a person does not take the opportunity to reject it and instead embraces it, I don't think explicitly calling them a racist would have helped anyone.
The effect of refusing to use the word "racism" is that it allows people who are racist to avoid associating their beliefs with that label. That allows racism to become normalized, and entrenches the self-image of being a non-racist. Such a tactic is completely counterproductive.
I'm not saying people shouldn't be called out in debate I am saying it should be done in the right way. And that is not a way that allows people to distance themselves from the criticism but in a way that allows them to distance themselves from their racism- and thereby reject it. As long as their racism is very much a part of them, it's not going to go away. I am saying you should work to avoid racism becoming an identity for people.
If a person does not take the opportunity to reject it and instead embraces it, I don't think explicitly calling them a racist would have helped anyone.
The effect of refusing to use the word "racism" is that it allows people who are racist to avoid associating their beliefs with that label. That allows racism to become normalized, and entrenches the self-image of being a non-racist. Such a tactic is completely counterproductive.
Well good thing this isn't about the use of the word racism.
The later quote is me speaking about another person's argument, not mine. It was perhaps also not worded particularly well in hindsight.
Then explain to me what word it is about. And it the answer is that you think someone would respond negatively to "that's racist" but not negatively to "that's racism", I think I'm about done with this.
The later quote is me speaking about another person's argument, not mine. It was perhaps also not worded particularly well in hindsight.
Then explain to me what word it is about. And it the answer is that you think someone would respond negatively to "that's racist" but not negatively to "that's racism", I think I'm about done with this.
No, that's not what I am arguing. That is the simplest possible reduction of what I am arguing which makes the two sides as close to each other as possible and thereby makes the difference seems insignificant. Of course it does when you are looking at those examples. I am talking about a much broader and more fundamental difference in how you approach a debate than just substituting like words.
No, that's not what I am arguing. That is the simplest possible reduction of what I am arguing which makes the two sides as close to each other as possible and thereby makes the difference seems insignificant. Of course it does when you are looking at those examples. I am talking about a much broader and more fundamental difference in how you approach a debate than just substituting like words.
So you have no particular objection to either the word "racism" or "racist" when applied to the hypothetical person you're arguing with? It's only that you object to some other aspect of one's approach to debate?
No, that's not what I am arguing. That is the simplest possible reduction of what I am arguing which makes the two sides as close to each other as possible and thereby makes the difference seems insignificant. Of course it does when you are looking at those examples. I am talking about a much broader and more fundamental difference in how you approach a debate than just substituting like words.
So you have no particular objection to either the word "racism" or "racist" when applied to the hypothetical person you're arguing with? It's only that you object to some other aspect of one's approach to debate?
I find both of the phrases you contrasted earlier to be non ideal for most of their possible usages in a debate- particularly as a direct response.
My objection is that if you are going so far as to debate someone who you think is a racist you should not be dismissing them, and being very explicit, direct and confronting about calling them a racist is dismissive in effect if not intention.
EDIT: One thing to consider is that just because you think someone is racist doesn't necessarily mean they truly are- even if they seem like it. I think a significant amount of racism is actually self centered resentment directed to race by ignorance, and not deeply felt contempt of others.
I find both of the phrases you contrasted earlier to be non ideal for most of their possible usages in a debate- particularly as a direct response.
My objection is that if you are going so far as to debate someone who you think is a racist you should not be dismissing them, and being very explicit, direct and confronting about calling them a racist is dismissive in effect if not intention.
EDIT: One thing to consider is that just because you think someone is racist doesn't necessarily mean they truly are- even if they seem like it. I think a significant amount of racism is actually self centered resentment directed to race by ignorance, and not deeply felt contempt of others.
No, racism should be dismissed. Treating racism as just another valid alternative to be argued over is dangerous.
I find both of the phrases you contrasted earlier to be non ideal for most of their possible usages in a debate- particularly as a direct response.
My objection is that if you are going so far as to debate someone who you think is a racist you should not be dismissing them, and being very explicit, direct and confronting about calling them a racist is dismissive in effect if not intention.
EDIT: One thing to consider is that just because you think someone is racist doesn't necessarily mean they truly are- even if they seem like it. I think a significant amount of racism is actually self centered resentment directed to race by ignorance, and not deeply felt contempt of others.
No, racism should be dismissed.
Then you have denied any possibility of changing people's minds.
Treating racism as just another valid alternative to be argued over is dangerous.
I'm not talking about treating it as 'just another valid alternative' I'm talking about treating it as something worthy of engaging in debate. I don't believe there is much of anything that should never be debated on principle.
Few people are going to listen to you if you don't listen to them. You don't have to respect them, you don't have to treat them the same, but you do have to give them something. If they refuse to listen to you, then you can stop listening to them. But give them a chance to redeem themselves.
Then you have denied any possibility of changing people's minds.
Unsubstantiated nonsense.
I'm not talking about treating it as 'just another valid alternative' I'm talking about treating it as something worthy of engaging in debate. I don't believe there is much of anything that should never be debated on principle.
Few people are going to listen to you if you don't listen to them. You don't have to respect them, you don't have to treat them the same, but you do have to give them something. If they refuse to listen to you, then you can stop listening to them. But give them a chance to redeem themselves.
The something you have to give them is a clear, honest explanation of why they're wrong, and that includes the fact that their position is racist. You don't have to give them some comforting illusion that they're not as bad as they are.
Then you have denied any possibility of changing people's minds.
Unsubstantiated nonsense.
You can't dismiss people and also talk to them honestly.
I'm not talking about treating it as 'just another valid alternative' I'm talking about treating it as something worthy of engaging in debate. I don't believe there is much of anything that should never be debated on principle.
Few people are going to listen to you if you don't listen to them. You don't have to respect them, you don't have to treat them the same, but you do have to give them something. If they refuse to listen to you, then you can stop listening to them. But give them a chance to redeem themselves.
The something you have to give them is a clear, honest explanation of why they're wrong, and that includes the fact that their position is racist.
I'm perfectly fine with this, because we are looking at views now.
Referencing racism in their position I think is much better than calling the person racist in a debate and not just to help ensure that they will listen to you, but also because it's easier to defend intellectually and often much easier to clearly relate to the conservation at large.
You don't have to give them some comforting illusion that they're not as bad as they are.
That's nothing like what I am talking about.
What I am saying you should give people is
You can't dismiss people and also talk to them honestly.
Of course you can. How are those things mutually exclusive?
I'm perfectly fine with this, because we are looking at views now.
Referencing racism in their position I think is much better than calling the person racist in a debate and not just to help ensure that they will listen to you, but also because it's easier to defend intellectually and often much easier to clearly relate to the conservation at large.
This is just "your views are racist" vs. "you are racist". No one is going to be fooled by that distinction. No one is going to respond differently to those two statements.
That's nothing like what I am talking about.
What I am saying you should give people is
A chance to be heard
The benefit of the doubt
An opportunity to move past their views
What I am saying you should not do is
Reinforce racist views as an identity
Fully assume racism of those who seem racist
Give no thought to redemption
Calling someone racist does not deny them a chance to be heard. Calling someone racist does not deny them an opportunity to move past their views. You should not give "the benefit of the doubt" that racism is not actually racism. That's just a way of letting racism go unchallenged. If something sounds racist, say so. That gives the person a chance to clarify or walk back their statement. Calling someone racist does not deny them a chance of redemption.
I don't even know what "reinforce racist views as an identity" means, or how one would go about doing that.
You can't dismiss people and also talk to them honestly.
Of course you can. How are those things mutually exclusive?
Not being able to talk to someone honestly is not a particularly hard circumstance to bring about. People are quite happy to essentially ignore anyone who disagrees with them about important things. You have to make an effort to ensure people will listen to you.
I'm perfectly fine with this, because we are looking at views now.
Referencing racism in their position I think is much better than calling the person racist in a debate and not just to help ensure that they will listen to you, but also because it's easier to defend intellectually and often much easier to clearly relate to the conservation at large.
This is just "your views are racist" vs. "you are racist". No one is going to be fooled by that distinction. No one is going to respond differently to those two statements.
I think they will. Not much, because this is again a reductionist example of the difference I am talking about, even if less so, but somewhat here.
I'm talking about not calling their views in general but specific statements racist, and with qualification and restraint.
Calling someone racist does not deny them a chance to be heard.
Far more often than not, I believe it either does nothing or goes towards exactly this.
Calling someone racist does not deny them an opportunity to move past their views
You are making it into an identity by making it about the person, and making it an identity means it doesn't go away even remotely easily.
You should not give "the benefit of the doubt" that racism is not actually racism. That's just a way of letting racism go unchallenged. If something sounds racist, say so. That gives the person a chance to clarify or walk back their statement.
Yes you should. You don't assume a murderer is a murderer because you think they are. You prove it. Innocent until proven guilty and the principle of charity apply.
I'm not saying don't say anything to effect of 'that's racist' when someone says something you think is racist, that's never something I've spoken against, I am saying you don't automatically take that as meaning that person must be racist. You could be wrong about what the statement, they could be wrong about what their statement meant, you could be the more racist person not them, it could be an outlier in their beliefs, they could lying, and more.
Calling someone racist does not deny them a chance of redemption.
Not totally. It certainly doesn't help.
I don't even know what "reinforce racist views as an identity" means, or how one would go about doing that.
Making the discussion about them being racist makes it not about the racist things they have said but how they as as a person are a racist. Being racist is a kind of identity- you are making their positions out to be part of their identity. They won't think of it as racism of course, but they will start to see it as an identity. Same reason I'm not a big fan of a lot of political labeling and words like SJW- it becomes about the people not the ideas, the us vs them.
Racism is a human motive, not a description of anything and everything which hurts a certain race.
That's your opinion. I'm not saying that to be dismissive, I'm pointing out that this definition of the term "racism" is the one that you want to use. Plenty of for example leftists are mostly unconcerned with the exact motivations of individuals because the systemic incentives and results are more useful to them.
It's the definition of racism that isn't a recent contrived invention. It's awfully suspicious when people change the meaning of a powerful term with a strong moral component to mean something that's much easier to accuse others of and it's 'more useful' now. More useful for calling things you don't like racist perhaps.
That's your opinion. I'm not saying that to be dismissive, I'm pointing out that this definition of the term "racism" is the one that you want to use. Plenty of for example leftists are mostly unconcerned with the exact motivations of individuals because the systemic incentives and results are more useful to them.
It should come as no surprise to you that I think these leftists are wrong. Setting aside the shadiness of redefining your way to victory, which DJK3654 has already covered, you'll note that I've been arguing from the beginning of this subconversation that these systemic incentives can only exist when motivated individuals enforce them. "The system" is not magic or a deity or a monster or a machine or anything else that stands external to people while acting on them. It's just people. So talking about systemic racism while dismissing individual motivations is like talking about a disease while dismissing germ theory.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
When Ohio State wins against Michigan, they tip over cars.
When Ohio state loses to Michigan, they tip over cars.
When Obama won the election in 2008 there was a rise in hate crimes following, according to the SPLC
So, in other words, it's not the case that "feeling like they're under siege" is what drives them to violence - they just like committing violence.
No. In other words, there will always be people who see events as an opportunity to act out their existing motives. We simply cannot build theories of cause and effect on such behavior, or make generalizations on masses based on the actions of a handful of people.
That is a completely different scenario compared to decades of war and oppression driving people into desperation and thus joining a bad cause and committing acts of terror.
Not being able to talk to someone honestly is not a particularly hard circumstance to bring about. People are quite happy to essentially ignore anyone who disagrees with them about important things. You have to make an effort to ensure people will listen to you.
People listening to you is not a prerequisite to speaking honestly.
I think they will. Not much, because this is again a reductionist example of the difference I am talking about, even if less so, but somewhat here.
I'm talking about not calling their views in general but specific statements racist, and with qualification and restraint.
Do have any actual evidence for this, or is it your just-so intuition?
Calling someone racist does not deny them a chance to be heard.
Far more often than not, I believe it either does nothing or goes towards exactly this.
How, exactly, does saying that someone is racist prevent them from being heard? You had to have heard them out to hear them say the racist thing in the first place!
You are making it into an identity by making it about the person, and making it an identity means it doesn't go away even remotely easily.
If I say you're a racist, is that now your identity? Do you now identify as a racist?
Yes you should. You don't assume a murderer is a murderer because you think they are. You prove it. Innocent until proven guilty and the principle of charity apply.
I'm not saying don't say anything to effect of 'that's racist' when someone says something you think is racist, that's never something I've spoken against, I am saying you don't automatically take that as meaning that person must be racist. You could be wrong about what the statement, they could be wrong about what their statement meant, you could be the more racist person not them, it could be an outlier in their beliefs, they could lying, and more.
If they've misspoken or you've misunderstood, calling out the apparent racism is the way to resolve that. If they're lying to you, then you're not going to get anywhere in that debate anyway.
Calling someone racist does not deny them a chance of redemption.
Not totally. It certainly doesn't help.
Of course it doesn't help, it's completely tangential.
Making the discussion about them being racist makes it not about the racist things they have said but how they as as a person are a racist. Being racist is a kind of identity- you are making their positions out to be part of their identity. They won't think of it as racism of course, but they will start to see it as an identity. Same reason I'm not a big fan of a lot of political labeling and words like SJW- it becomes about the people not the ideas, the us vs them.
That's what being a racist means. It means you think racist things. It's not separate from your positions. Racists don't have some special racist gene or trait.
No. In other words, there will always be people who see events as an opportunity to act out their existing motives. We simply cannot build theories of cause and effect on such behavior, or make generalizations on masses based on the actions of a handful of people.
That is a completely different scenario compared to decades of war and oppression driving people into desperation and thus joining a bad cause and committing acts of terror.
So then it sounds like you agree with me that Blinking Spirit's position is made-up nonsense, and not a fact-based explanation of the causes of violence?
Not being able to talk to someone honestly is not a particularly hard circumstance to bring about. People are quite happy to essentially ignore anyone who disagrees with them about important things. You have to make an effort to ensure people will listen to you.
People listening to you is not a prerequisite to speaking honestly.
Speaking without listening is not a meaningful form of speaking.
I think they will. Not much, because this is again a reductionist example of the difference I am talking about, even if less so, but somewhat here.
I'm talking about not calling their views in general but specific statements racist, and with qualification and restraint.
Do have any actual evidence for this, or is it your just-so intuition?
I think it's relatively obvious from experience, reasoning and intuition that directing the accusation away from the person changes the response. It's a matter of degrees.
Calling someone racist does not deny them a chance to be heard.
Far more often than not, I believe it either does nothing or goes towards exactly this.
How, exactly, does saying that someone is racist prevent them from being heard? You had to have heard them out to hear them say the racist thing in the first place!
Others are less likely to listen to them now. The person making the accusation is making it much easier for them to stop really listening.
You are making it into an identity by making it about the person, and making it an identity means it doesn't go away even remotely easily.
If I say you're a racist, is that now your identity? Do you now identify as a racist?
I covered this already. You are defining them by their beliefs. 'Racism' is just the label you are giving to those beliefs that describes how you perceive them. They will perceive their beliefs differently, but they probably will take on board that those beliefs define them, because that's a very human response that we do a lot anyway. It's about us vs them kind of thinking.
Yes you should. You don't assume a murderer is a murderer because you think they are. You prove it. Innocent until proven guilty and the principle of charity apply.
I'm not saying don't say anything to effect of 'that's racist' when someone says something you think is racist, that's never something I've spoken against, I am saying you don't automatically take that as meaning that person must be racist. You could be wrong about what the statement, they could be wrong about what their statement meant, you could be the more racist person not them, it could be an outlier in their beliefs, they could lying, and more.
If they've misspoken or you've misunderstood, calling out the apparent racism is the way to resolve that. If they're lying to you, then you're not going to get anywhere in that debate anyway.
To repeat:
I'm not saying don't say anything to effect of 'that's racist' when someone says something you think is racist, that's never something I've spoken against, I am saying you don't automatically take that as meaning that person must be racist.
Call them out, absolutely. Don't define them by it.
Calling someone racist does not deny them a chance of redemption.
Not totally. It certainly doesn't help.
Of course it doesn't help, it's completely tangential.
Disagree. You are making the accusation more fundamental to their person. That makes it harder to go past.
Making the discussion about them being racist makes it not about the racist things they have said but how they as as a person are a racist. Being racist is a kind of identity- you are making their positions out to be part of their identity. They won't think of it as racism of course, but they will start to see it as an identity. Same reason I'm not a big fan of a lot of political labeling and words like SJW- it becomes about the people not the ideas, the us vs them.
That's what being a racist means. It means you think racist things. It's not separate from your positions. Racists don't have some special racist gene or trait.
No but there is a difference between thinking something and being defined by how you think that kind of thing. Not every position you have you consider as part of your identity. Because not every position you have you think is as important to who you are as a person.
So then it sounds like you agree with me that Blinking Spirit's position is made-up nonsense, and not a fact-based explanation of the causes of violence?
Give me what you consider to be a fact-based explanation of the causes of violence -- say, jihadist violence, for starters.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Give me what you consider to be a fact-based explanation of the causes of violence -- say, jihadist violence, for starters.
Well, apparently the standard around here is whatever is most convenient for your argument - so I guess my answer should be "people not using the word 'racist' enough". You're the one who's proposed an explanation, back it up with evidence or retract it. Don't try to dodge the issue by asking me for one.
Well, apparently the standard around here is whatever is most convenient for your argument - so I guess my answer should be "people not using the word 'racist' enough". You're the one who's proposed an explanation, back it up with evidence or retract it. Don't try to dodge the issue by asking me for one.
I'm asking because I suspect we have the same explanation for this violence: jihad is a reaction to the perception that the Muslim identity is under attack from Western culture. When at-risk Muslims feel this way, they seek out associates and media which validate those feelings and cut themselves off from the rest, consuming jihadist propaganda until they're ready to die for the Caliphate. When Westerners engage in "clash of civilizations" rhetoric or call Islam an evil religion or threaten to burn a Qur'an, they reinforce this siege mentality and serve as grist for the propaganda mill. Such behavior is to be discouraged. The key to deradicalization and to preventing radicalization is engagement, not demonization.
Gang violence is not all that different. Young men come into socioeconomic circumstances where prosperity through an honest career seems like an impossibility and the pop culture depicts men like them as thugs. If they end up in prison, they're surrounded by other criminals and come out hardened. Again, it's getting cut off from broader engagement and driven into an echo chamber that turns them into dangers to society. And efforts to get them out of gangs focus on things like education and trade skills that can enable them to rejoin that society. Just berating them for being criminals is far less likely to get them to stop.
But white nationalists... what? They're just born bad? I don't think so, and I don't think you think so either. Neo-Nazis get recruited the same way jihadists and gang members get recruited, and they respond the same way to the same sorts of carrots and sticks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I was just restating Yamaha's apparent position, and pointing out that his doesn't seem to jive with your proposed explanation.
Responsibility around a war is not the same thing as being racist. I'm pretty sure what didn't happen was people announcing all Germans to be racist. That would be stupid and kinda racist itself.
Also, the idea that literally all Germans were responsible is foolish. I hardly think, for instance, most of the German Jews who managed to survive, had any real hand in what happened.
I'm not saying people shouldn't be called out in debate I am saying it should be done in the right way. And that is not a way that allows people to distance themselves from the criticism but in a way that allows them to distance themselves from their racism- and thereby reject it. As long as their racism is very much a part of them, it's not going to go away. I am saying you should work to avoid racism becoming an identity for people.
If a person does not take the opportunity to reject it and instead embraces it, I don't think explicitly calling them a racist would have helped anyone.
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
One of the better lessons I've learnt, was that no matter how much you think you know, the more you realise how much you don't know.
I wish more people thought this way.
I'm finding as time goes on with the prevalence of social media, everyone is an expert, even though many never look further into the subject than click-bait.
People are VERY quick to judge and call people out for what they perceive as racist or sexist behaviour, such to the point that having a conversation about certain subjects is considered taboo, bordering on pointless, even when these issues demand to be resolved.
It's especially bad for politicians, many of whomseem to have given up having adult conversations about anything racial.
The effect of refusing to use the word "racism" is that it allows people who are racist to avoid associating their beliefs with that label. That allows racism to become normalized, and entrenches the self-image of being a non-racist. Such a tactic is completely counterproductive.
Well good thing this isn't about the use of the word racism.
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
The later quote is me speaking about another person's argument, not mine. It was perhaps also not worded particularly well in hindsight.
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
Then explain to me what word it is about. And it the answer is that you think someone would respond negatively to "that's racist" but not negatively to "that's racism", I think I'm about done with this.
No, that's not what I am arguing. That is the simplest possible reduction of what I am arguing which makes the two sides as close to each other as possible and thereby makes the difference seems insignificant. Of course it does when you are looking at those examples. I am talking about a much broader and more fundamental difference in how you approach a debate than just substituting like words.
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
So you have no particular objection to either the word "racism" or "racist" when applied to the hypothetical person you're arguing with? It's only that you object to some other aspect of one's approach to debate?
I find both of the phrases you contrasted earlier to be non ideal for most of their possible usages in a debate- particularly as a direct response.
My objection is that if you are going so far as to debate someone who you think is a racist you should not be dismissing them, and being very explicit, direct and confronting about calling them a racist is dismissive in effect if not intention.
EDIT: One thing to consider is that just because you think someone is racist doesn't necessarily mean they truly are- even if they seem like it. I think a significant amount of racism is actually self centered resentment directed to race by ignorance, and not deeply felt contempt of others.
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
No, racism should be dismissed. Treating racism as just another valid alternative to be argued over is dangerous.
Then you have denied any possibility of changing people's minds.
I'm not talking about treating it as 'just another valid alternative' I'm talking about treating it as something worthy of engaging in debate. I don't believe there is much of anything that should never be debated on principle.
Few people are going to listen to you if you don't listen to them. You don't have to respect them, you don't have to treat them the same, but you do have to give them something. If they refuse to listen to you, then you can stop listening to them. But give them a chance to redeem themselves.
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
Unsubstantiated nonsense.
The something you have to give them is a clear, honest explanation of why they're wrong, and that includes the fact that their position is racist. You don't have to give them some comforting illusion that they're not as bad as they are.
You can't dismiss people and also talk to them honestly.
I'm perfectly fine with this, because we are looking at views now.
Referencing racism in their position I think is much better than calling the person racist in a debate and not just to help ensure that they will listen to you, but also because it's easier to defend intellectually and often much easier to clearly relate to the conservation at large.
That's nothing like what I am talking about.
What I am saying you should give people is
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
Of course you can. How are those things mutually exclusive?
This is just "your views are racist" vs. "you are racist". No one is going to be fooled by that distinction. No one is going to respond differently to those two statements.
Calling someone racist does not deny them a chance to be heard. Calling someone racist does not deny them an opportunity to move past their views. You should not give "the benefit of the doubt" that racism is not actually racism. That's just a way of letting racism go unchallenged. If something sounds racist, say so. That gives the person a chance to clarify or walk back their statement. Calling someone racist does not deny them a chance of redemption.
I don't even know what "reinforce racist views as an identity" means, or how one would go about doing that.
Not being able to talk to someone honestly is not a particularly hard circumstance to bring about. People are quite happy to essentially ignore anyone who disagrees with them about important things. You have to make an effort to ensure people will listen to you.
I think they will. Not much, because this is again a reductionist example of the difference I am talking about, even if less so, but somewhat here.
I'm talking about not calling their views in general but specific statements racist, and with qualification and restraint.
Far more often than not, I believe it either does nothing or goes towards exactly this.
You are making it into an identity by making it about the person, and making it an identity means it doesn't go away even remotely easily.
Yes you should. You don't assume a murderer is a murderer because you think they are. You prove it. Innocent until proven guilty and the principle of charity apply.
I'm not saying don't say anything to effect of 'that's racist' when someone says something you think is racist, that's never something I've spoken against, I am saying you don't automatically take that as meaning that person must be racist. You could be wrong about what the statement, they could be wrong about what their statement meant, you could be the more racist person not them, it could be an outlier in their beliefs, they could lying, and more.
Not totally. It certainly doesn't help.
Making the discussion about them being racist makes it not about the racist things they have said but how they as as a person are a racist. Being racist is a kind of identity- you are making their positions out to be part of their identity. They won't think of it as racism of course, but they will start to see it as an identity. Same reason I'm not a big fan of a lot of political labeling and words like SJW- it becomes about the people not the ideas, the us vs them.
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
It's the definition of racism that isn't a recent contrived invention. It's awfully suspicious when people change the meaning of a powerful term with a strong moral component to mean something that's much easier to accuse others of and it's 'more useful' now. More useful for calling things you don't like racist perhaps.
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
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
That is a completely different scenario compared to decades of war and oppression driving people into desperation and thus joining a bad cause and committing acts of terror.
My Buying Thread
People listening to you is not a prerequisite to speaking honestly.
Do have any actual evidence for this, or is it your just-so intuition?
How, exactly, does saying that someone is racist prevent them from being heard? You had to have heard them out to hear them say the racist thing in the first place!
If I say you're a racist, is that now your identity? Do you now identify as a racist?
If they've misspoken or you've misunderstood, calling out the apparent racism is the way to resolve that. If they're lying to you, then you're not going to get anywhere in that debate anyway.
Of course it doesn't help, it's completely tangential.
That's what being a racist means. It means you think racist things. It's not separate from your positions. Racists don't have some special racist gene or trait.
So then it sounds like you agree with me that Blinking Spirit's position is made-up nonsense, and not a fact-based explanation of the causes of violence?
Speaking without listening is not a meaningful form of speaking.
I think it's relatively obvious from experience, reasoning and intuition that directing the accusation away from the person changes the response. It's a matter of degrees.
Others are less likely to listen to them now. The person making the accusation is making it much easier for them to stop really listening.
I covered this already. You are defining them by their beliefs. 'Racism' is just the label you are giving to those beliefs that describes how you perceive them. They will perceive their beliefs differently, but they probably will take on board that those beliefs define them, because that's a very human response that we do a lot anyway. It's about us vs them kind of thinking.
To repeat:
Call them out, absolutely. Don't define them by it.
Disagree. You are making the accusation more fundamental to their person. That makes it harder to go past.
No but there is a difference between thinking something and being defined by how you think that kind of thing. Not every position you have you consider as part of your identity. Because not every position you have you think is as important to who you are as a person.
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
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Well, apparently the standard around here is whatever is most convenient for your argument - so I guess my answer should be "people not using the word 'racist' enough". You're the one who's proposed an explanation, back it up with evidence or retract it. Don't try to dodge the issue by asking me for one.
Gang violence is not all that different. Young men come into socioeconomic circumstances where prosperity through an honest career seems like an impossibility and the pop culture depicts men like them as thugs. If they end up in prison, they're surrounded by other criminals and come out hardened. Again, it's getting cut off from broader engagement and driven into an echo chamber that turns them into dangers to society. And efforts to get them out of gangs focus on things like education and trade skills that can enable them to rejoin that society. Just berating them for being criminals is far less likely to get them to stop.
But white nationalists... what? They're just born bad? I don't think so, and I don't think you think so either. Neo-Nazis get recruited the same way jihadists and gang members get recruited, and they respond the same way to the same sorts of carrots and sticks.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.