The "basket of deplorables" refers to working-class whites that hold politically incorrect views that cosmopolitans mercilessly mock.
"Mercilessly mock"? We're talking about people who are openly prejudiced and support defiance of equal protection under the law, a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. You don't think there's rational basis for giving such people negative regard? Do you think it's a positive thing to trample on other peoples' rights?
No, I didn't. This discussion is not about whether or not it is acceptable.
Of course it is.
You're making posts saying, "Oh no, it's so horrible that these poor racists are having their arguments thrown out. DOES YOUR HEART NOT WEEP FOR THESE HORRIBLE PEOPLE AND THEIR ATROCIOUS BELIEFS BEING IGNORED?"
The answer is no. Not only because they're terrible people but because, as you yourself admit, their arguments have **** all in terms of rational basis. And guess what? When an argument has **** all in terms of rational basis, you can freely discard it. "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
If there's no rational basis for concluding that because one black guy wronged you, every black guy is going to wrong you (and there's not, because that's a logical fallacy), then we can freely toss that argument out.
That's the foundation of rational discourse. Which is why you, whose are completely without rational justification, have resorted to what everyone does who is without rational basis in their arguments but don't want to admit they're wrong, which is to try to claim that their argument does not actually need to be rational.
Where have I argued that this is rational?
Oh, so there's no rational basis behind this? Fantastic. Then we can throw it out, because it has no merit whatsoever.
[quote]That is definitely one of the reasons we have to be wary concerning arguments based on differences between races. But that doesn't mean these arguments can't have merit and it definitely means we have to address them when they come up
Except it does. You just said that the arguments promoting racism are not rational and therefore have no rational basis. Meaning they are without merit, for they have neither rational basis nor evidence. And therefore, the correct way to address them is to discard them, and since they are without rational basis or evidence, we may dismiss them without rational basis or evidence.
It's a completely different line of reasoning.
You're saying it's wrong to correctly call people racists when they are racists, but it's fine to call people criminals when they're not actually criminals. So yeah, that is a completely different line of reasoning, and what it's completely different from is anything sensible.
You're associating color of skin with higher probability of commiting a crime, based on profiling.
No, I'm not. YOU are. I'm saying you are wrong for doing so.
It is true that the factors which result in one committing a crime affect disproportionately affect black people. There's nothing racist about saying that, it's a simple fact. However, the answer to this is not, "Treat black people as criminals by default." THAT is racism, and you are demonstrating it right now.
First of all, let's clarify something: "Black people commit a disproportionate number of crimes" =/= "the majority of crimes are committed by black people." The majority of violent crimes in this country are committed by white people. If a violent crime is committed, it's most likely going to be a white person. Like 42.9% of the time most likely. The percentage is much higher than any other race, and almost double that of black people. Should we regard all white people as criminals as a default assumption?
According to you, yes, we absolutely should.
If blackness of skin is associated with a higher probability of being a criminal, then yes, it is justified to consider a black stranger as more likely to be a criminal than a white stranger.
So yes, according to you, we should fear all white people.
Except this is stupid and ridiculous. Just because white people commit nearly twice as many violent crimes as black people does not mean that any given white person is inherently twice as likely to commit a crime as a black person. Moreover, you'd committing the fallacious assumption that just because the majority of violent criminals are white, then we are justified in also thinking the majority of white people are violent criminals.
Moreover, you'd be making extraordinarily unfair judgments against people because whiteness does not make one a violent criminal. There are other factors at work here, and to claim that there's any causation is an absolute absurdity.
In the latter case, you're calling someone a racist which works under your impression of the word,
Under the definition of the word. Words have definitions.
Which is a counterproductive method of trying to get people to reduce this behavior.
Answer me this: do you believe we should be reducing this kind of behavior? Do you believe that racist behavior should be reduced?
The analogy from the black person's point of view would be to treat any strange white person they meet as a racist.
Yeah, and that would be a *****ty thing to do. Generally we do want to make the world less *****ty for people, yes?
Well, obviously not all of us want this. Some of us only want to make the world less *****ty for the people who look like us and even *****tier for the people who don't look like us. But the point is those people are jerks.
It's the difference between erroneously inferring something about a person based on limited information and inferring something about a person with unspecific meaning but based on directly relevant information.
No, there's no inference in the second situation. There's no guessing involved here. In the first situation, you're presuming something about someone's behavior. In the second situation, there's no guesswork, you're directly observing someone being racist and concluding that they're racist.
The whole problem here is that by calling someone a racist, you'd be inferring that they think whites are superior to blacks, whereas they may just be only prejudiced against blacks. It's not the same thing at all.
Jusstice: I'm going to need another day at least to figure out how to even begin to respond to your post, because I legitimately have no idea what to do about this:
But what’s more likely to be called out as “racist” is if I put forward the question where the person came from, then maybe share stories of when I visited there, what food I ate, so on. Because how could I have concluded that the person is from somewhere else unless, god forbid, I notice that they are a different race. It’s as if acknowledging the existence of Chicken and Waffles is “racist”.
So, if I understand this correctly, your go-to conversation strategy when talking to a black person who is a complete stranger is to open with how you think he doesn’t belong here on account of his skin color, and then work chicken and waffles into the conversation?
My entire argument is not even about me, so, seriously, what the hell are you talking about?
Really, you didn't spend the last post defending whether or not it was acceptable to discriminate based on race?
No, of course you did, so can the feigned incredulousness.
Because, they're not going to feel bad for being called a racist, they're going to feel bad because they think they're being unfairly called racist.
First of all, there's nothing wrong with calling someone a racist if, indeed, they conform to the definition of the term "racist."
Second, do I even need to point out the frankly appalling amount of hypocrisy you're demonstrating? You have been repeatedly saying that treating black people who have done nothing wrong as criminals is fine and acceptable. Meanwhile, calling someone a racist when they're being racist, is something you're going to rail against as unjust and unfair.
So, to review, it's perfectly fine in your book to make completely erroneous judgments about a black person being a criminal based on no knowledge of the person at all except his/her black skin, but if we were to call a person who's being racist and holding racist beliefs - in short, who conforms in every way to the definition of "racist" - a racist, THAT'S unfair and wrong?
Why is that? Is it because the former involves a group of people you're not a part of, and the latter involves a group of people you are a part of, and so you're getting all defensive?
There is no such thing as "the definition of racist". As long as people have different interpretations of the word, there is little sense in using it.
Stop wasting everyone's time and actually address the question.
Here, let's just go with the Google definition of racist: "a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another."
So, in light of that definition, some questions:
1. Does this definition describe you, yes or no?
2. Do you feel that being a racist, according to the Google definition, is an acceptable and fine thing to be, yes or no?
Mad Mat: Your entire argument is completely empty and amounts to nothing more than, “I don’t think I’m wrong, therefore you can’t call me a racist, because that would make me feel bad.”
Because feeling bad at being called a racist is WORSE than being a racist and acting on racist beliefs in your book.
What you have refused to say at any point:
A. “No, that’s not the definition of racist, and therefore I do not fit.”
or
B. “Ok, I DO fit the definition of racist, but I don’t think that’s bad.”
So which is it? Answer that, and we can proceed forward.
Mad Mat, there are so many things I could write in response to your post, but instead of addressing each thing you say that I find problematic, I’m going to instead address the central concern:
Why do you believe that a person should be judged based on the color of his skin and not the content of his character?
I’m struggling very hard to understand this. You are promoting and defending racism. I would like to know your reasons for this.
I don't see any word as having actual meaning. Words have common meaning in how they become understood.
Yes, and those meanings are called definitions. And the word “racist” has a definition, and you haven’t a clue what it is. I’m asking you to learn what it is.
So let’s take this time to get some definitions across. Racism means prejudice based around race.
Prejudice is defined as a preconceived opinion that has no basis in knowledge, thought, or reason.
So to clarify, prejudice is always irrational. It is a prejudgment that we make about something without actual basis. It is bias. To make a conclusion in the absence of any evidence or basis is irrational. Prejudice is irrational.
In that sense, racism is not limited to just what you call unjustified discrimination.
No, it’s never justified or rational. It is always unjustified and irrational.
And that is the heart of all of this. You’re defending this like it’s some sort of rational and correct practice. It isn’t! It is blatantly obvious that this is an erroneous and problematic practice.
But you’re defending it. You are defending that it is perfectly fine to make racially prejudicial judgments about people. I would like to know why.
If you are a woman in Cologne at New Year's Eve and you feel threatened by the presence of a group of young men of North African origin, is that racist?
Obviously, yes.
What if you believe that only members of certain races are banding together and coming to invade and not other races (that are not yours)?
Obviously racist, yes.
People are generally not threatened merely by presence and different racial characteristics. They feel threatened due to past experience (personal or second hand or through media coverage) with people having such characteristics.
Obviously racist.
Or they feel threatened because of cultural characteristics they believe to be common amongst people of such race.
Which is completely irrational and wrong.
So how do you expect a gay person who objects to unjust treatment by the Islamic faith to act on that objection? Should he treat any muslim he meets the same as any non-muslim?
Yes.
Or is he justified in treating muslims as more of a threat?
No.
Take a person who objects to unjust treatment by youths of Berber (to use the BDW terminology) origin. Do you expect him to treat any Berber he meets the same as anyone else?
Yes, that is exactly what I expect.
Or is he not racist if he is more wary of these Berbers and less likely to hire them because he fears they are more likely to rob him (say, supported by statistics)?
Of course he's racist. He's making a prejudgment based purely on race.
Furthermore, and this is one I really want to focus on:
They are not scared of black people because they're black, but because they perceive them much more likely to be criminals. They are not scared of people of North African or Middle Eastern descent because they're tanned, but because they perceive them much more likely to be involved in petty and hate crimes respectively.
So they’re afraid of someone because he’s black.
If you’re afraid of someone because he has black skin, because you associate black skin with something, then you’re afraid of someone because he has black skin.
100% of black people are not criminals, nor is there anything about having black skin specifically that makes someone a criminal. Therefore, there’s nothing about being black that makes you a criminal. AND YET, you are trying to argue that it is justified for a person to presume a black person is a criminal based on him being black. NOT knowledge that the person is a criminal, not knowledge of any prior criminal activity or suspicion of wrongdoing, but purely based on that person being black.
So the correct answer is yes, you are being racist, and yes, that is completely a wrong thing to be. How are you finding room for disagreement on either of those statements?
You can talk about how reasonable this feeling really is concerning race/different cultures,
We can and should, because it’s not reasonable at all.
but do you really fault a female rape survivor for feeling threatened when around men?
And this outlines a major problem.
Do I understand why that person is afraid of men? Yes, I do.
Does the fact that I understand why that person is afraid of men make it ok, right, reasonable, acceptable, or in anyway a "good thing to do"? No, of course not. That person is not at all justified in thinking that all men are rapists.
I understand why a man who was bitten by dog as a child would have a phobia of dogs. That doesn't make a grown man afraid of a Corgi rational. It's still irrational. That's why it's a phobia. Just because I understand why someone does something does not make that action correct.
Or let me give you another example. Say a person gets his/her money stolen by someone who plays Magic: The Gathering. That person immediately concludes that all MTG players are thieves and disreputable and untrustworthy. He/she then denies you a loan that you are applying for on the grounds that you play Magic, and therefore cannot be trusted. You are arguing this is logical, rational, perfectly acceptable, and fair. Are you comfortable with that argument? If not, why are you not ok with that argument, other than, "because it's happening to me, specifically, and not someone else"?
And as a sidenote:
So if you're a poor white kid from 'trailer thrash' background, do these programs influence your likelihood of enrolling?
Yes, you would get priority status via affirmative action.
The question is whether it is racist, if the demographic trait in question is race. It is in effect discrimination on the base of race, no?
Maybe you should read my post. Race is ONE CRITERIA being considered of many.
Again, you're working on a narrative that the immensely qualified white kid is going to be passed over in favor of some unqualified black kid. That's not what’s happening.
Other than that, quotas do also play a role, as does different treatment by welfare agencies. The latter is one of the bigger gripes of the elderly and plays a considerable role in populist electoral campaigns.
Yeah, and that’s based off bull*****. It’s the racist belief that black people are leeching off the welfare system.
Here’s a clue for you: the demographic that most receives funding from the welfare system? Poor, rural white people. But it’s the black people receiving welfare that "the elderly" are complaining about. Why? Because they’re not white.
Now, please explain to me how it's justified that these people are making conclusions based on completely erroneous presumptions.
One of the more common topics in these circles is Western culture under attack
Yes, there are people who have this view. This view is also racist bull*****.
but the fact that they don't push the more extreme positions
THEY ARE EXTREME POSITIONS. There are positions MORE extreme and more terrifying, certainly, but to say they are not themselves extreme positions is doing exactly what Jay13x is accusing you of: moving the Overton Window.
Someone who is worried about the rising power of Islam in Europe negatively affecting his or her life and that of his or her loved ones, or feels threatened by groups of people of different race banding together and coming to live in the neighbourhood is immediately included in the group of religious conservatives and white supremacists.
Yes, and that's because feeling threatened by the presence of people of different races than you is racist. This is not ******* hard. To believe that whiteness is the determining factor in who innately belongs, and that all members of all other races are "banding together" and coming to invade your territory is inherently racist. The argument is that people are correct in feeling threatened by people merely by their presence and the fact that they were born a different race, that a person merely existing and being a person of a different race than you is engaging in a hostile action simply by BEING. That is completely racist.
Let me repeat this again, because it needs to be emphasized: This is a viewpoint that seems to believe that all non-white races have all gathered together and conspired to invade white people territory with the intent of either attacking white people or just generally cause problems. And you're acting like this is not only not racist, but is an even remotely sane viewpoint, when it is clearly neither!
You truly are an animal, aren't you?
You see the problem with generalizations if the word used carries negative connotations to most people?
Do you know why "racist" carries a negative connotation with most people? It's because to unjustly discriminate against other races is considered a negative thing.
Likewise, “murderer” has a negative connotation, because murder is considered a negative thing. “Liar” has a negative connotation, because lying is considered a negative thing.
So no, I don’t see the problem. It would be wrong if someone were accused of being something he wasn’t. But if a person is legitimately being racist, then no, I see no problem with calling him a racist. That’s what he is, and it’s perceived as negative because racism means unjust, unfair treatment of others and that’s a *****ty thing to be. If the shoe fits, wear it!
It's a problematic generalization when you are trying to avoid more of the deportation camp to join the extermination camp.
Are you ******* kidding me?
Let's follow this argument of yours. Jay13x is saying it's ridiculous to compare people who are genuinely interested in promoting fairness and racial equality with White Supremacists. He said that these are people who seek to deport all non-whites as an example of just how warped and ******* horrendous these people are, and he did this to demonstrate how not-analogous these people are to those who seek racial equality. Note that Jay13x never said that this was inclusive of all white supremacist beliefs:
Comparing "SJWs" to White Nationalists is absurd. White nationalists want the US to be a 'white nation', for white people. "SJWs" want their groups to be treated fairly and equitably, and frame their arguments in terms of the dominant power. Sometimes that results in stupid articles like 'White people are a plague to the planet', but there is no concerted movement to remove white people from America or make white people second class citizens like the White Nationalists want to do to others.
He NEVER said those were the only things white nationalists believe. He merely listed the desire to make people other than a certain race second-class citizens or to deport them as examples of white nationalism.
So you come in and argue that Jay13x is misrepresenting these White Supremacists - because there are people out there who are even more abominable and somehow managed to have even more immoral views?! First of all, that doesn't address his argument, and second, WHY?! What would possibly make you think that helps your argument in any way, shape, or form? You're just saying they're even less analogous, and MUCH WORSE PEOPLE.
My point is not that racism had nothing to do with it. It's that racism in all sorts of forms and shapes and for all sorts of reasons had something to do with it (and mostly I think it had to do with culture, not race specifically). And you're describing this group of people using a word which has ultimately devolved into an insult (and possibly an accusation of a crime), due to racist horrors of the past and still occurring today. By doing so, you're implicitly comparing their actions and ideas with those of Apartheid officials, Klan members and Einsatzgruppen.
Because their ideas are comparable! They’re all examples of prejudice and discrimination based on race. Therefore, “racism.” You’re objecting to people using a word according to its definition.
And yes, the word has taken on a negative connotation and is associated with horrors of the past. That’s because racism is wrong, and was responsible for all such atrocities! You’re objecting to perfectly valid things!
It's not. You can think of the laws and policies to be counterproductive, too cost-ineffective, an ineffective approach, not the business of the state to be involved in... If there are laws and policies passed to promote equality, that implies there is no legal equality.
Oh ok, so go ahead point out all of the white nationalists who voted Trump or Brexit specifically along these lines and demonstrate the complete lack of racism among them. I’ll wait.
That depends on the definition.
There is no correct definition of “white nationalist” that does not involve racism.
White can refer to White Culture, which can refer to Western Culture,
HOW THE **** is that not racist?
which can refer to all sorts of things but has some general concepts in common. It is not strictly connected to race.
You just said that white culture and Western culture are synonymous, and now you’re saying that it has nothing to do with race?!
What part of that is not, "Being born white does seem like a great indicator of who belongs and who doesn't”?
Politics does not work by a right and wrong dichotomy.
Jay13x mentioned the white separatists as an example of a group of White Supremacists that was racist and morally wrong. To object to Jay13x's statement on the basis that it doesn't cover every single racist and morally wrong White Supremacist viewpoint is completely missing the point and entirely irrelevant, because 100% of all White Supremacist viewpoints are racist, and 100% of all White Supremacist viewpoints are morally wrong, and moreover, Jay13x was NOT saying they all believe the same thing.
The point is they're all racist, morally wrong, and morally wrong because they are racist. Now, would you like to address the point of Jay13x's argument, or are you going to continue to address something that Jay13x never actually said?
Neo-nazi and nazi can obviously be linked together, one refers to the other's ideology by definition. It's different for white supremacists. There are common elements, obviously, but as political groups they will be distinct and possibly in conflict with each other. Or do you think that the white supremacists of the 19th century ('The White Man's Burden') would agree nicely with the nazi ideology of the Endlösung?
There's nothing wrong with saying any of these groups are White Supremacists or racist. No one is saying these groups have the exact same views. I don't know why you keep attacking that strawman.
Both are prominent critics of Islam.
So? That’s not necessarily wrong. Criticizing something does not inherently make you prejudiced against it.
What even is your argument at this point? You say you object to these people being lumped together, except you’re the one lumping them together and I’m saying they can’t be and you are fighting me on this point.
Why? Both are measures taken to make legal discrimination possible. Their intents are different and the demographics too. But you're saying that legal discrimination is wrong, which affirmative action is by definition.
Except it's not. Supreme Court-sanctioned affirmative action is not legal discrimination.
Is it also a symbol for the person who lost that he may have lost because he was white?
Only if you are arguing that the only reason people voted Barack Obama was because he was black, and that was it. Are you arguing this?
The point here being: attempting to fix perceived discrimination in practice, be it by affirmative action or by emphasizing certain role models, will be discriminatory to the persons displaced. These persons will effectively feel discriminated because they were born with the wrong color of skin.
Except that’s only true if skin color or race were the only factor being considered.
As I said, QUOTA-BASED affirmative action is unambiguously racist and wrong, and was declared unconstitutional. Likewise, if Barack Obama were only elected because he was black and for no other reason besides, it’d be racist.
But Barack Obama was not elected solely because he was black, nor is affirmative action (of the not-unconstitutional variety) solely based upon race.
Barack Obama’s becoming the first black president is considered a milestone because we are still a generation away from a time when black people were not even allowed to vote. The fact that civil rights have come so far in our country that a black man was able to achieve the highest office in a land where black people did not enjoy equal protection under the law is an incredible achievement for our nation. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
As for Affirmative Action, as I said, quota-based affirmative action is a problem, because quota-based affirmative action is absolutely hiring someone because that person is a particular race because you are mandated to. The Supreme Court has ruled any quota-based affirmative action, as well as any usage of affirmative action to categorically deny any particular group or to admit any one particular group unconstitutional. But that’s not what affirmative action is as it is practiced in, say, universities today.
Affirmative action is merely that universities may consider race as a factor in their enrollment decisions for the expressed purposes of ensuring diversity among their campuses, because it is within their mission to ensure diversity and equal access. It is essentially a recognition that merely saying that just because ethnic minorities were able to go to the same schools as white people didn’t mean they were able to do so, because of their history of disenfranchisement.
That might be a worthy trade-off, but it also may prove counterproductive because it dissillusionises the people passed, making them even more susceptible to racist group thinking. This is particularly impactful in the lower classes, where losing of through these mechanisms hurts the most. You might be somewhat succesfully tackling inequality in welfare by stoking the fires of desperate xenophobia.
But the fact that people believe stupid and incorrect things does not make them correct.
The misconception is that schools will see an extremely qualified white student, an academically inept black student, and pick the black student, but that’s not how it works. It means that all things being equal, the school will pick the student who is different demographically from the other students they have admitted. This can apply to race, but this can just as likely apply from someone who lives in a different state. A school who’s only admitted students from the state it's in might give preferential status to students not from that state. Again, the purpose is to ensure diversity, and I will back that because it is absolutely in a school’s interests to promote that.
I might think it's right for homosexuals to discrminate against those who's culture finds it desirable they be treated as second-class citizens or criminals.
Do you even know what the word “prejudice” means?
Rhetorical question, obviously you don’t, so here’s the definition: “preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.”
Which is the heart of the issue here. Having a legitimate grievance against a particular culture is not only not the same thing as being prejudiced or bigoted against that culture, it’s the EXACT opposite thing as being prejudiced or bigoted against that culture, and yet you are here saying that they’re the same.
So, can you lump a white supremacist together with a person who genuinely wishes equality among races, but thinks white people are being discriminated against?
If the reasons for the person thinking that white people are being discriminated against are racist bull*****, then sure!
It would, if only racist weren't such a reducing term.
Again, it's not mere belittlement. It's a world with plenty of meaning, and its negative connotation is because of that meaning. It's a reducing term because most people acknowledge that an argument being prejudiced BY VERY DEFINITION makes that argument illogical.
Arguments nowadays don't go like "that is racist, it's problematic and bad because of x, y and z" but "that is racist, [implied bad]".
Yes, because being racist is a bad thing.
I'm not sure why you disagree with this. Would you care to explain why?
Most of the time, associates of the persons involved are referred to or people who held supposedly similar thought. And that is to speak for itself.
Yes, because they are similar. All white supremacists are similar. To attempt to pass off the fact that they’re not the same as though that were some kind of counterargument, which is what you’re doing, belies a lack of understanding as to what the word “similar” means. And the white supremacist viewpoint is that point of similarity among all of them.
And what is central to white supremacy? [drumroll] Racism!
I think it was last year, the mayor of Antwerp said in an interview that the city had problems with the Berber population. He was accused of being racist and all that. What got smothered in all the political mud-slinging was the problem he was referring to, of people of a certain origin causing disproportionately more problems. That is racist. But I daresay it's also a ******* important issue that needs to be adressed, if accurate. Regardless of whatever the cause of such a problem, be it social standing, different cultural norms, feedback from racist treatment or whatever, it needs to be talked about. Lumping statements like this together with extremist positions is counterproductive to this thought: it just marginalizes those who point at the problem.
He WAS racist. Do you know what he said?
BDW: “No, I am saying there are negative experiences that are also real for certain ethnic groups” Beck: “Who then?” BDW: “Well, then we’re talking about people from north Africa, in particular the Moroccan communities and especially Berbers. And 80% of the Moroccans in Antwerp are from Berber origin. We are having a hard time to organize social mobility in that community. They are also very closed communities who distrust the government. [They have a] weakly organised Islam, are very susceptible to the salafist stream and as such also to radicalisation and that is of course not the best publicity. People who turn on the television and see day after day decapitations and while people here symphatize with that, or even go there to participate…” Beck: “Yes, but that has nothing to with the community in Antwerp” BDW: “Yes, no, but racism or rejection comes from somewhere. Yes, of course it has something to do with it if people from here go there. If after 4 generations people are still allochtoon and still call themselves that or are seen as such, then it has something to do with it. Aboutaleb says real jihad is jihad within yourself, to get a good education and to find work. That attitude also needs to be there. Simply saying there is a problem of racism and if that is not solved then everything is excused, well, that’s incorrect. And that’s what Mr Homans meant and I support that for 200% because I see that day in day out in my own city.
The reason this is seen as racist is NOT because people who live in Antwerp were in denial about Berbers being responsible for crimes than people who aren’t Berbers.
It’s because saying that having problems with Berbers implies that it’s being a Berber that is the defining factor that makes someone a criminal, or in the case of the latter part of that quote, that subscribing to Islam automatically makes one radicalized.
It would be like saying that because black people commit higher crimes as a racial group than other races, that we’re having negative experiences with the black racial group. That amounts to saying that people are committing crimes because they’re black.
However, they are not committing crimes because they are black. And that’s the issue. Saying that the problem is with their racial community is saying that a certain ethnic group is creating a negative experience for the society is saying that a certain ethnic group is the problem. But the fact that they are a certain ethnic group is not the problem. They’re not committing crimes because they are Berbers or because they are black. There is another factor or set of factors that is disproportionately affecting them. And were someone to say, “This group of people commits more crimes, let’s find out what factors are disproportionately in place within this ethnic group,” none of that is racist. But that’s not what’s being said.
And keep that thought in mind, because I’d like to also point out a particular element in your post, and I think this is very important and deserves a great deal of attention, because this demonstrates what is probably the fundamental problem in everything you’re saying:
What got smothered in all the political mud-slinging was the problem he was referring to, of people of a certain origin causing disproportionately more problems. That is racist.
No, it’s not! It’s not racist to say that one group of people performs significantly more crimes than the other. Provided that it’s correct, it’s not racist. It’s just pointing out a fact.
Which, as I said, highlights the biggest problem with your posts, which is that it’s not that the definition of “racism” is getting watered down, it’s that you do not actually know what it is.
I don’t think you actually know what the word “racism” means, Mad Mat. And I’m not saying that as some sort of insult, I’m saying this truthfully. It’s very evident throughout your posts, especially this one. If you think pointing out a factual race-based statistic is racist, if you think pointing out a fact about a particular culture is discriminatory, then you clearly do not understand what the words “racist” and “discriminatory” actually mean.
Like, let me show you what I’m talking about:
No, dude, that's ridiculous. What you're saying is these two sentences:
I disagree with certain tenets of your faith
I hate you
are exactly the same. Of course that's not true.
Now that's a ridiculous strawmen.
No, it’s your exact argument. And that’s the problem.
You are conflating a person who is gay objecting to unjust treatment by a person of Muslim faith with a person who is straight up discriminatory against Muslims, when they aren’t the same thing at all.
Having a legitimate grievance against the tenets of a particular culture is not the same thing as being prejudiced against a culture. It’s the exact opposite. You think it’s the same thing. THAT’S the problem.
By marginalizing the people who hold the first view
I’m not marginalizing the people who hold the first view. There’s nothing inherently wrong with disagreeing with tenets of a person’s faith. The problem is you’re arguing that this is the same as a person discriminating against a person’s faith, but that’s not the same thing at all!
A lot of the people referred to as racists, xenophobics, white nationalists, alt right and so on do not fit this strict definition.
Which is a problem, yes. And I’m not aware of anyone saying mislabeling isn’t a problem. I’m certainly arguing it is.
The problem is YOU are objecting to descriptors that are entirely accurate. And at least part of that is because you do not actually know what those descriptors mean.
You could boil any argument down to this. Do you believe White Nationalists have a fair point?
"Being born white does seem like a great indicator of who belongs and who doesn't."
Agree or Disagree?
Disagree.
No, you don’t disagree. That’s the problem. You’re saying you disagree, but your arguments in this thread demonstrate otherwise.
You are legitimately arguing that white people are completely justified when people of different races come in, on the grounds that these people might be a fundamental threat to their way of life merely by being of a different race.
So, no, the answer is, based on your arguments, you clearly AGREE, not disagree, with what Jay13x is saying.
The parallel to me is between racism/xenophobia and sjw. The meaning of both terms has watered down
Which is ridiculous. You’re talking about how negative the meaning of “racist” is, and now you’re saying the meaning is watered down?
The problem is you do not have a clear understanding of the meaning of the word “racist.” You think it amounts to simple name-calling, like calling someone a “moron.” But it’s not. It’s a word with a clear meaning that is very useful as a descriptor. Yes, it has a negative connotation, but that's not because the word has lost all meaning and merely kept the connotation. It's because the word has a very definite meaning and most people agree that what the word describes is wrong.
If you tolerate more bad behavior of or give less punishment to members of a certain group because of the discrimination they face, people of other groups in the same situation will feel discriminated.
How is this any different from having public welfare programs to assist people below a certain amount of income?
If it's not about racism, why are talking about how some people being grouped in this way are racist and some are not? What does that have to do with anything?
Because the problem is not that they are grouped in this way. The problem is that some will characterize all of them by the most extreme among them, and this is an unfair characterization. I've explained this in my posts. I'm getting the impression you haven't really read them.
As I said earlier, you don't have to be either illogical or racist to fit the notion of 'SJW'.
Which is part of your notion of what SJW means, which is not the same definition as mine. I've already given my definition.
However, since it's become clear to me the term has no clearly-defined meaning, there's really no point in debating one definition's superiority over another.
Let's not call it white nationalism then, whatever.
We shouldn't, because that's absolutely not what it is by the very definition of the term.
You are basically shifting the burden of proof by asking me to prove people aren't racist when the default assumption is clearly that someone isn't racist. Go look and see the people arguing that policies they are opposing don't promote racial equality, they aren't hard to find, so I don't feel compelled to go point them out to you. Then if you are so convinced that every single one of these people are racist, then you prove it. I'm just going to rely on not assuming they are all racists for now.
Actually, let's back up, because I would like to correct my response to what you said, because in my haste to respond I didn't give a good response.
Let me go back to what Mad Mat said:
What's the critical difference you're suggesting here? I think the great similarity is that both groups have defined an evil other that they can righteously fight.
That is, the difference between SJWs and White Nationalists.
I responded with:
Quote from Highroller »
Erm, yes, but you'll notice that one group is - at least supposedly - protesting the evils of racial discrimination, while the other is protesting the "evils" of racial equality.
Do you see the difference now?
To which he responded:
OK, so why do you think the people who voted Trump or Brexit or Le Pen or Wilders and had mostly social issues in mind, did so? Is it because they all think racial equality is evil? Or is it maybe because they do not believe into the policies to adress discrimination pushed for and implemented by the other side?
And this was my response:
Quote from Highroller »
What difference does it make relevant to this discussion? "We don't want racial equality" vs. "We don't believe in the laws and polices passed to promote racial equality" is effectively the same damn thing! Either way you're promoting discrimination due to being against legal equality.
Now, you're saying that there might have been people who oppose racial equality, but who don't consciously know they are opposing racial equality, and do not hold racist views themselves. That's correct, there are. HOWEVER, Mad Mat is talking about those who are among the white nationalist camp. So this isn't the general populace, this is specifically among the white nationalist group.
And so I'm asking what the meaningful difference is between a white nationalist who is racist and a white nationalist who doesn't believe in the laws and policies passed to promote racial equality, since it's pretty clear that there'd be overlap between the two. We cannot, in good faith, argue that there are white nationalists who aren't racist, because racism is inherent in the white nationalist viewpoint (again, that's why they're white nationalists).
I'm talking about the people who listen to the more motivated, probably racist activists for the movement, and are sympathetic to and consent with some of the arguments they make, but don't really understand what they are getting into.
So are they white nationalists or aren't they? Do they identify with the belief that there should be a nation for whites only or not? Because if they don't - this might shock and surprise you - they aren't white nationalists.
So people are being lumped into 'SJW' incorrectly because some of them are racist and some are not, yet, SJW isn't defined by racism?
Why don't the racist and the not racist both fit?
No, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that the SJWs who are not racist are being lumped in with the ones that are, AND that people who discuss identity politics who are not illogical or racist - and thus not SJWs - are also being lumped in with the SJWs who are racist.
Highroller, I think you are running under a definition of 'white nationalist' that is a very specific group, when the term just as easily applies to a significantly broader scope of people- still a minority, mind you, but a more influential minority, and a more comparable group to 'SJWs'.
I think the problem is pretty obviously that you don't actually understand what "white nationalist" means. If you don't think racism is an automatic given, you clearly don't understand the entire point behind the ideology.
Highroller, do all possible policies intended to promote racial equality actually promote racial equality? No? Then there is a difference. Even if it's correct that the policies in question do promote racial equality, if people object to these policies because they think they don't, that doesn't necessarily mean they are racist. They could simply have incorrectly evaluated the effect of the policy.
Ok, so demonstrate this. Go ahead and point out the Trump voters, Brexit voters, etc. who are genuinely interested in racial equality but object to the current policies and then demonstrate their arguments that voting for Trump, voting for Brexit, etc. will better promote racial equality, and then demonstrate how arguments contain absolutely no racism whatsoever. I would *LOVE* to read this.
I'm going to disagree with you on two counts- one of which is that as earlier, that has to be a somewhat narrow definition of white nationalism.
No, it does not have to be a narrow definition, because that's what white nationalism means! Why do you think the word "white" is there?!
And secondly that just because an idea is racist doesn't mean people who consent with it actually truly take on board and understand it, rather than simply consent by bandwagon or emotional appeal.
So they're only accidentally white nationalists? What are you even talking about?
White nationalism is specifically about preserving a white nation that is just for white people. You cannot subscribe to white nationalism and just totally miss the "white" component. This entire argument is absurd.
'SJW' is not a group defined by racism, so this difference doesn't matter anyway.
Erm, no, the difference does matter. The discussion is about how there's a difference between lumping people together into a category when at least some of those people don't belong into that category, and lumping people into a category when all of them belong in that category. That's the difference. Mad Mat is saying they're equivalent. They are not. By definition.
Your argument so far has been that White Nationalism can be grouped by racism,
Obviously.
but there's no reason 'SJW" has to be grouped by this same characteristic,
... Which is what I've been saying. You clearly didn't read my posts. Go back and reread them.
Deciding that America is TOO WHITE and working to create a totalitarian solution that tramples fundamental rights while creating a hierarchy based on race
Clarify this?
White supremacists are not less moral then SJWs!
Given that not all SJWs are racial supremacists, whereas all White supremacists are racial supremacists (hence the name "white supremacists"), this is an impossible claim to take seriously.
First off, "does not want legal equality" does not really cover it, as often the grief originates primarily from the perceived legal favouring of certain groups. So, they may actually want legal equality: they're mad because they don't think it's currently in place.
You've got to be kidding me. You're talking about people who want homosexuals and people of non-white race to be treated like second-class citizens and legally be discriminated against, and you're telling me they're doing this in the interest of fairness?
Well that's obviously ******* incorrect, now isn't it?
Second, while there is nothing intrinsically wrong with describing people as groups, you risk generalizations to be made, which in turn leads to polarization. It's much easier to ignore someone by saying "SJW" or "racist" than it is to adress that person's actual argument, because it allows you to associate that person with radical ideas and rhetoric you associate with the buzzword.
However, the corollary to that is there's nothing wrong with saying someone's an SJW or a racist if the shoe fits.
You have a problem with generalizations, but the thing is there’s nothing wrong with generalizations if the generalizations are correct. It's perfectly fine to lump people who wish to perform atrocities like deporting all non-white races in with people who wish to perform atrocities like committing genocide against non-white races into the category "people who wish to perform atrocities against non-white races." That’s a generalization, but it’s a correct generalization. It’s like saying mammals are warm-blooded. It’s a factually correct generalization. There is nothing wrong with making a generalization when it’s fair and accurate.
It’s not fair or correct to call someone a racist if he’s not one, and it’s not fair or correct to say that all racists believe the exact same thing. But there’s nothing wrong with saying that all people who fit the definition of the descriptive term “racist” are racist. That’s fair and accurate.
OK, so why do you think the people who voted Trump or Brexit or Le Pen or Wilders and had mostly social issues in mind, did so?
You cannot honestly tell me racism had nothing to do with it.
Is it because they all think racial equality is evil? Or is it maybe because they do not believe into the policies to adress discrimination pushed for and implemented by the other side?
What difference does it make relevant to this discussion? "We don't want racial equality" vs. "We don't believe in the laws and polices passed to promote racial equality" is effectively the same damn thing! Either way you're promoting discrimination due to being against legal equality.
Or is it maybe that they are nationalists, who discriminate not on the base of race but of culture (which does often correlate with race, but is also directly linked to social issues unlike skin color).
You cannot be a white nationalist and not be racist.
You only want to see the racist
ALL OF THOSE ARE RACIST! They fit the definition of the term “racist.” That’s how words work!
This is the same ridiculous nonsense as you saying, "Hey now! Not all white nationalists want to deport all the non-white people. Some want to kill them all. You can't lump them together." Why the hell would you argue this? (A) That's actually worse! (B) That's not remotely analogous to lumping a bunch of people into the SJW camp who don’t belong there, or lumping a bunch of SJWs who actually believe in racial equality versus those who want racial supremacy. In both cases, you’re using a term to describe people that they don’t actually fit.
By contrast, you're arguing about lumping in people who wish to oppress people one way with people who wish to oppress people the other way. There's no problem with that because they all fit the definition of “racist!” And also “oppressive!”
A person who wishes to instate Apartheid, a person who wishes to deport all non-white people, and a person who wishes to kill all non-whites are all horrifically racist and willing to commit horrifying atrocities against their fellow man, and in that sense, we can lump them together. That’s how descriptive terms work. The sky and a car can both be described as “blue.”
There were three less extreme classifications after deportation in my list,
Which were still wrong!
as well as an "and son on". I mentioned the extremes precisely because it shows how ridiculous it is to talk about the likes of Richard Dawkins or Ayaan Hirsi Ali or David Duke or Alex Jones or Heinrich ******* Himmler as belonging to the same political group.
Nobody is saying that they belong to the same political group. That is a strawman.
However, are you seriously trying to argue that a Neo-Nazi and a Nazi cannot be grouped together as similar?
Or that a Neo-Nazi and a white supremacist cannot be grouped together? Can you notice no common element there?
And speaking of common elements, why are Dawkins and Ali on that list? I don’t know of them speaking out in favor of racist policies. Can you cite where they did?
So, affirmative action is therefore obviously wrong?
QUOTA-BASED affirmative action is unconstitutional and wrong. Otherwise, I wouldn't say *obviously* wrong, no. We could have a debate as to its merits, but that’s a separate discussion.
Moreover, you're bringing back Jay13x's point. There's no comparison between affirmative action and something like Jim Crow. To compare the two is outright ridiculous.
Focusing on achievements like first black man or first woman or first muslim becoming president is obviously wrong?
Of course not. We lived in an era in which black people were enslaved and then legally discriminated against. To have it be not only possible, but a reality, that a black man was able to ascend to the highest office in our nation should be a point of pride for us. It's a symbol of overcoming Jim Crow and other segregation laws, for Barack Obama, for the civil rights movement, and for us as a nation.
Obviously there’s more to Barack Obama than just him being black, and reducing him to that is wrong, but there’s nothing wrong with taking pride in a black person taking the highest office in the nation within a generation of segregation being legal.
Discrimination based on cultural differences is obviously wrong?
What the… YES!
Jay13x made the claim that white nationalists could be lumped together through their goals, whereas SJW's could not.
Which is valid.
To compare, Jay13x is saying you can't lump a black supremacist together with a person who genuinely wishes equality among races.
You're saying you can't lump a person who wants to oppress racial minorities in an extreme and horrifying way with someone who wants to oppress racial minorities in an EVEN MORE extreme and horrifying way. The answer is yes. Yes you can.
I'm saying that white nationalists, too, cannot be lumped together like that.
They can. They're all white nationalists. You just did it too.
By calling them or their ideas all "morally abhorrent", "evil" and "******* wrong"
THEIR IDEAS ARE ALL MORALLY ABHORRENT, EVIL, AND ******* WRONG!
To genuinely have the desire to oppress people based on their race is morally abhorrent, evil, and ******* wrong! It's morally abhorrent, evil, and ******* wrong however you decide to manifest it!
White nationalists can want anything from extermination, to sterilization, to deportation, to deregulation, to more specific rules of assimilation, to reduced tolerance of other cultural peculiarities and so on.
You're acting like ANYTHING on this list is morally acceptable! OF COURSE IT'S NOT. Deliberately promoting unjust discrimination is wrong, and it is wrong regardless of the level of it. Obviously there are ones on that list that are way more horrific than others, but that doesn't make the others correct or morally acceptable!
If I shoot you in the kneecap, and say, “Hey, there are people who would have shot you in the head,” that does not make what I did ok!
Which would be fine, of course, if you genuinely think that anyone in the US or Europe who has issues with immigration, islam and/or feminism should be simply called all those epithets and put on ignore.
Obviously I’m not saying that, and obviously this is a strawman. I have no problem saying that we should take note of a person’s arguments instead of outright dismissing them.
But that’s not the same thing as saying we cannot dub these arguments as “racist” or “discriminatory.” It’s ridiculous to argue that. Those words are descriptive, and they have definitions, and when something fits the description by that definition, then it’s perfectly fine to say that the word describes them. If someone fits the definition of a racist, it’s perfectly fine to say the word “racist” describes him.
So, what are those issues? Are they based around facts or discrimination? Are they rooted in generalities that are fair and accurate, or unfair and inaccurate?
By lumping him together with white supremacists because of it. It's not a dichotomy, it's a process. If people find their griefs are not heard, they will seek support elsewhere.
No, dude, that's ridiculous. What you're saying is these two sentences:
I disagree with certain tenets of your faith
I hate you
I'm not sure you realize how much you are showing your own bias here. Imagine a devout muslim questioned about homosexuality. To this person, it is a sin that is ugly and inexcusable. That doesn't necessarily mean he or she would also wish to partake in or even support persecution or even actual violence against homosexuals. It will be the same with white nationalists. They can support programs from reduced government support to increased enforced assimilation to deportation to actual ethnic cleansing. You're all lumping them together because they do not want government to enforce this particular sort of equality, which you agree with.
But they can be lumped together in that regard. You just said they both don't want equality. So they can be lumped together in the sense of "does not want legal equality." Similarly, I can lump a Muslim living in America and a bigot living in America under the category "living in America."
There's nothing wrong with lumping people together in a category if they actually can be appropriately and factually lumped together into a category.
What's the critical difference you're suggesting here? I think the great similarity is that both groups have defined an evil other that they can righteously fight.
Erm, yes, but you'll notice that one group is - at least supposedly - protesting the evils of racial discrimination, while the other is protesting the "evils" of racial equality.
Do you see the difference now?
Some of them do fear this, but that is not the point: you're focusing on the most extreme points of view again, which only serves to polarize others to those extremes. White nationalists can want anything from extermination, to sterilization, to deportation, to deregulation, to more specific rules of assimilation, to reduced tolerance of other cultural peculiarities and so on. I'm sure you too can think of a whole bunch of reasons why you would wish to remove a certain type of people from power or society, or wish to make them change (some of) their ways.
Wait, wait, wait. Seriously? Your complaint is that Jay13x is generalizing among White nationalists by portraying them as all wanting to deport other races, when in fact White nationalists can want to do a host of much worse things to other races? Are you kidding me, dude? THAT'S what you're going to quibble on?!
Yes, I can think of a host of people I would want to act or think differently in society. However, I'm not going to do it out of some belief that they were born wrong. You're trying to say Jay13x is in the wrong for criticizing someone about creating a moral equivalency between civil rights activists and racists by doing exactly that. Except it doesn't work because to treat people unfairly purely on the basis of race is obviously ******* wrong. It's obviously ******* wrong regardless of whether that means exterminating them or deporting them or treating them as second class citizens.
You are clearly contradicting yourself here. There is a lot of difference between only whites and only whites in power.
Yes, BUT THEY'RE BOTH MORALLY ABHORRENT.
Do you seriously think that is a fair juxtaposition?
Which is laughable because you're making that very juxtaposition!
And how do you explain that to the gay guy who got bullied out of his appartment by Turkish immigrants that his grief is not even close to the grief of the racism these immigrants suffer?
When did Jay13x say that? You said he didn't say that at the above, now you're saying he's saying exactly that.
You know, without nudging him towards supporting the extremists that more closely ressemble the strawmen you keep bringing up?
Are you kidding me? How do you disagree with tenets of conservative Islam without turning into a person who hates Muslims? You don't see how that's a false dichotomy?
*Sigh* Ok, so we already had a thread on SJWs, but this bears repeating.
SJW, or Social Justice Warrior, is generally used to describe a type of person, usually an internet user found on Twitter or tumblr, who has views on racism, sexism, or identity politics that is completely irrational. This irrationality may be seen in this person seeking discrimination that isn't actually there, having illogical views on said discrimination, having illogical views on what constitutes a sensible response to said discrimination, or a combination of all three. These people absolutely are ridiculous, and at times are outright racist themselves.
However, a problem occurs when you have people who then go ahead and attempt to lump anyone who makes any claim in a discussion about discrimination contrary to their own under the term "SJW," including when said people are being entirely rational. This is the trap we can run into with the use of the term SJW.
Now, to be blunt, of course everyone is racist. It's not okay for a black person to be anti-semetic or homophobic, and it's something rarely talked about. There are plenty of feminists who, frankly, don't know what they're talking about. But acting like that's equivalent to White Nationalism's agenda?
Well, some views can absolutely be compared with White Nationalism's agenda. But the problem is when someone takes these extremes and then proceeds to color every single person who discusses identity politics and then proceeds to lump them in the same category. You have a situation in which someone precludes that all people who are SJWs are the outright racist SJWs, and then in turn that all people who discuss identity politics are SJWs.
Basically, there is a sensible middle ground with regards to identity politics, but the problem is that everyone believes that they're in the sensible middle ground, and too often you get someone who believes he is the sensible middle ground when he emphatically is not.
Of course it is.
You're making posts saying, "Oh no, it's so horrible that these poor racists are having their arguments thrown out. DOES YOUR HEART NOT WEEP FOR THESE HORRIBLE PEOPLE AND THEIR ATROCIOUS BELIEFS BEING IGNORED?"
The answer is no. Not only because they're terrible people but because, as you yourself admit, their arguments have **** all in terms of rational basis. And guess what? When an argument has **** all in terms of rational basis, you can freely discard it. "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
If there's no rational basis for concluding that because one black guy wronged you, every black guy is going to wrong you (and there's not, because that's a logical fallacy), then we can freely toss that argument out.
That's the foundation of rational discourse. Which is why you, whose are completely without rational justification, have resorted to what everyone does who is without rational basis in their arguments but don't want to admit they're wrong, which is to try to claim that their argument does not actually need to be rational.
Oh, so there's no rational basis behind this? Fantastic. Then we can throw it out, because it has no merit whatsoever.
Except it does. You just said that the arguments promoting racism are not rational and therefore have no rational basis. Meaning they are without merit, for they have neither rational basis nor evidence. And therefore, the correct way to address them is to discard them, and since they are without rational basis or evidence, we may dismiss them without rational basis or evidence.
You're saying it's wrong to correctly call people racists when they are racists, but it's fine to call people criminals when they're not actually criminals. So yeah, that is a completely different line of reasoning, and what it's completely different from is anything sensible.
No, I'm not. YOU are. I'm saying you are wrong for doing so.
It is true that the factors which result in one committing a crime affect disproportionately affect black people. There's nothing racist about saying that, it's a simple fact. However, the answer to this is not, "Treat black people as criminals by default." THAT is racism, and you are demonstrating it right now.
First of all, let's clarify something: "Black people commit a disproportionate number of crimes" =/= "the majority of crimes are committed by black people." The majority of violent crimes in this country are committed by white people. If a violent crime is committed, it's most likely going to be a white person. Like 42.9% of the time most likely. The percentage is much higher than any other race, and almost double that of black people. Should we regard all white people as criminals as a default assumption?
According to you, yes, we absolutely should.
So yes, according to you, we should fear all white people.
Except this is stupid and ridiculous. Just because white people commit nearly twice as many violent crimes as black people does not mean that any given white person is inherently twice as likely to commit a crime as a black person. Moreover, you'd committing the fallacious assumption that just because the majority of violent criminals are white, then we are justified in also thinking the majority of white people are violent criminals.
Moreover, you'd be making extraordinarily unfair judgments against people because whiteness does not make one a violent criminal. There are other factors at work here, and to claim that there's any causation is an absolute absurdity.
Under the definition of the word. Words have definitions.
Answer me this: do you believe we should be reducing this kind of behavior? Do you believe that racist behavior should be reduced?
Yeah, and that would be a *****ty thing to do. Generally we do want to make the world less *****ty for people, yes?
Well, obviously not all of us want this. Some of us only want to make the world less *****ty for the people who look like us and even *****tier for the people who don't look like us. But the point is those people are jerks.
No, there's no inference in the second situation. There's no guessing involved here. In the first situation, you're presuming something about someone's behavior. In the second situation, there's no guesswork, you're directly observing someone being racist and concluding that they're racist.
Ok, so which one are you?
So, if I understand this correctly, your go-to conversation strategy when talking to a black person who is a complete stranger is to open with how you think he doesn’t belong here on account of his skin color, and then work chicken and waffles into the conversation?
And somehow he's the one who's being the problem?
Yeah, let me get back to you.
Really, you didn't spend the last post defending whether or not it was acceptable to discriminate based on race?
No, of course you did, so can the feigned incredulousness.
First of all, there's nothing wrong with calling someone a racist if, indeed, they conform to the definition of the term "racist."
Second, do I even need to point out the frankly appalling amount of hypocrisy you're demonstrating? You have been repeatedly saying that treating black people who have done nothing wrong as criminals is fine and acceptable. Meanwhile, calling someone a racist when they're being racist, is something you're going to rail against as unjust and unfair.
So, to review, it's perfectly fine in your book to make completely erroneous judgments about a black person being a criminal based on no knowledge of the person at all except his/her black skin, but if we were to call a person who's being racist and holding racist beliefs - in short, who conforms in every way to the definition of "racist" - a racist, THAT'S unfair and wrong?
Why is that? Is it because the former involves a group of people you're not a part of, and the latter involves a group of people you are a part of, and so you're getting all defensive?
Stop wasting everyone's time and actually address the question.
Here, let's just go with the Google definition of racist: "a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another."
So, in light of that definition, some questions:
1. Does this definition describe you, yes or no?
2. Do you feel that being a racist, according to the Google definition, is an acceptable and fine thing to be, yes or no?
Because feeling bad at being called a racist is WORSE than being a racist and acting on racist beliefs in your book.
What you have refused to say at any point:
A. “No, that’s not the definition of racist, and therefore I do not fit.”
or
B. “Ok, I DO fit the definition of racist, but I don’t think that’s bad.”
So which is it? Answer that, and we can proceed forward.
Why do you believe that a person should be judged based on the color of his skin and not the content of his character?
I’m struggling very hard to understand this. You are promoting and defending racism. I would like to know your reasons for this.
Yes, and those meanings are called definitions. And the word “racist” has a definition, and you haven’t a clue what it is. I’m asking you to learn what it is.
So let’s take this time to get some definitions across. Racism means prejudice based around race.
Prejudice is defined as a preconceived opinion that has no basis in knowledge, thought, or reason.
So to clarify, prejudice is always irrational. It is a prejudgment that we make about something without actual basis. It is bias. To make a conclusion in the absence of any evidence or basis is irrational. Prejudice is irrational.
No, it’s never justified or rational. It is always unjustified and irrational.
And that is the heart of all of this. You’re defending this like it’s some sort of rational and correct practice. It isn’t! It is blatantly obvious that this is an erroneous and problematic practice.
But you’re defending it. You are defending that it is perfectly fine to make racially prejudicial judgments about people. I would like to know why.
In light of this:
Obviously, yes.
Obviously racist, yes.
Obviously racist.
Which is completely irrational and wrong.
Yes.
No.
Yes, that is exactly what I expect.
Of course he's racist. He's making a prejudgment based purely on race.
Furthermore, and this is one I really want to focus on:
So they’re afraid of someone because he’s black.
If you’re afraid of someone because he has black skin, because you associate black skin with something, then you’re afraid of someone because he has black skin.
100% of black people are not criminals, nor is there anything about having black skin specifically that makes someone a criminal. Therefore, there’s nothing about being black that makes you a criminal. AND YET, you are trying to argue that it is justified for a person to presume a black person is a criminal based on him being black. NOT knowledge that the person is a criminal, not knowledge of any prior criminal activity or suspicion of wrongdoing, but purely based on that person being black.
So the correct answer is yes, you are being racist, and yes, that is completely a wrong thing to be. How are you finding room for disagreement on either of those statements?
We can and should, because it’s not reasonable at all.
And this outlines a major problem.
Do I understand why that person is afraid of men? Yes, I do.
Does the fact that I understand why that person is afraid of men make it ok, right, reasonable, acceptable, or in anyway a "good thing to do"? No, of course not. That person is not at all justified in thinking that all men are rapists.
I understand why a man who was bitten by dog as a child would have a phobia of dogs. That doesn't make a grown man afraid of a Corgi rational. It's still irrational. That's why it's a phobia. Just because I understand why someone does something does not make that action correct.
Or let me give you another example. Say a person gets his/her money stolen by someone who plays Magic: The Gathering. That person immediately concludes that all MTG players are thieves and disreputable and untrustworthy. He/she then denies you a loan that you are applying for on the grounds that you play Magic, and therefore cannot be trusted. You are arguing this is logical, rational, perfectly acceptable, and fair. Are you comfortable with that argument? If not, why are you not ok with that argument, other than, "because it's happening to me, specifically, and not someone else"?
And as a sidenote:
Yes, you would get priority status via affirmative action.
Maybe you should read my post. Race is ONE CRITERIA being considered of many.
Again, you're working on a narrative that the immensely qualified white kid is going to be passed over in favor of some unqualified black kid. That's not what’s happening.
Yeah, and that’s based off bull*****. It’s the racist belief that black people are leeching off the welfare system.
Here’s a clue for you: the demographic that most receives funding from the welfare system? Poor, rural white people. But it’s the black people receiving welfare that "the elderly" are complaining about. Why? Because they’re not white.
Now, please explain to me how it's justified that these people are making conclusions based on completely erroneous presumptions.
THEY ARE EXTREME POSITIONS. There are positions MORE extreme and more terrifying, certainly, but to say they are not themselves extreme positions is doing exactly what Jay13x is accusing you of: moving the Overton Window.
Yes, and that's because feeling threatened by the presence of people of different races than you is racist. This is not ******* hard. To believe that whiteness is the determining factor in who innately belongs, and that all members of all other races are "banding together" and coming to invade your territory is inherently racist. The argument is that people are correct in feeling threatened by people merely by their presence and the fact that they were born a different race, that a person merely existing and being a person of a different race than you is engaging in a hostile action simply by BEING. That is completely racist.
Let me repeat this again, because it needs to be emphasized: This is a viewpoint that seems to believe that all non-white races have all gathered together and conspired to invade white people territory with the intent of either attacking white people or just generally cause problems. And you're acting like this is not only not racist, but is an even remotely sane viewpoint, when it is clearly neither!
Do you know why "racist" carries a negative connotation with most people? It's because to unjustly discriminate against other races is considered a negative thing.
Likewise, “murderer” has a negative connotation, because murder is considered a negative thing. “Liar” has a negative connotation, because lying is considered a negative thing.
So no, I don’t see the problem. It would be wrong if someone were accused of being something he wasn’t. But if a person is legitimately being racist, then no, I see no problem with calling him a racist. That’s what he is, and it’s perceived as negative because racism means unjust, unfair treatment of others and that’s a *****ty thing to be. If the shoe fits, wear it!
Are you ******* kidding me?
Let's follow this argument of yours. Jay13x is saying it's ridiculous to compare people who are genuinely interested in promoting fairness and racial equality with White Supremacists. He said that these are people who seek to deport all non-whites as an example of just how warped and ******* horrendous these people are, and he did this to demonstrate how not-analogous these people are to those who seek racial equality. Note that Jay13x never said that this was inclusive of all white supremacist beliefs:
He NEVER said those were the only things white nationalists believe. He merely listed the desire to make people other than a certain race second-class citizens or to deport them as examples of white nationalism.
So you come in and argue that Jay13x is misrepresenting these White Supremacists - because there are people out there who are even more abominable and somehow managed to have even more immoral views?! First of all, that doesn't address his argument, and second, WHY?! What would possibly make you think that helps your argument in any way, shape, or form? You're just saying they're even less analogous, and MUCH WORSE PEOPLE.
Because their ideas are comparable! They’re all examples of prejudice and discrimination based on race. Therefore, “racism.” You’re objecting to people using a word according to its definition.
And yes, the word has taken on a negative connotation and is associated with horrors of the past. That’s because racism is wrong, and was responsible for all such atrocities! You’re objecting to perfectly valid things!
Oh ok, so go ahead point out all of the white nationalists who voted Trump or Brexit specifically along these lines and demonstrate the complete lack of racism among them. I’ll wait.
There is no correct definition of “white nationalist” that does not involve racism.
HOW THE **** is that not racist?
You just said that white culture and Western culture are synonymous, and now you’re saying that it has nothing to do with race?!
What part of that is not, "Being born white does seem like a great indicator of who belongs and who doesn't”?
Jay13x mentioned the white separatists as an example of a group of White Supremacists that was racist and morally wrong. To object to Jay13x's statement on the basis that it doesn't cover every single racist and morally wrong White Supremacist viewpoint is completely missing the point and entirely irrelevant, because 100% of all White Supremacist viewpoints are racist, and 100% of all White Supremacist viewpoints are morally wrong, and moreover, Jay13x was NOT saying they all believe the same thing.
The point is they're all racist, morally wrong, and morally wrong because they are racist. Now, would you like to address the point of Jay13x's argument, or are you going to continue to address something that Jay13x never actually said?
There's nothing wrong with saying any of these groups are White Supremacists or racist. No one is saying these groups have the exact same views. I don't know why you keep attacking that strawman.
So? That’s not necessarily wrong. Criticizing something does not inherently make you prejudiced against it.
What even is your argument at this point? You say you object to these people being lumped together, except you’re the one lumping them together and I’m saying they can’t be and you are fighting me on this point.
Except it's not. Supreme Court-sanctioned affirmative action is not legal discrimination.
Only if you are arguing that the only reason people voted Barack Obama was because he was black, and that was it. Are you arguing this?
Except that’s only true if skin color or race were the only factor being considered.
As I said, QUOTA-BASED affirmative action is unambiguously racist and wrong, and was declared unconstitutional. Likewise, if Barack Obama were only elected because he was black and for no other reason besides, it’d be racist.
But Barack Obama was not elected solely because he was black, nor is affirmative action (of the not-unconstitutional variety) solely based upon race.
Barack Obama’s becoming the first black president is considered a milestone because we are still a generation away from a time when black people were not even allowed to vote. The fact that civil rights have come so far in our country that a black man was able to achieve the highest office in a land where black people did not enjoy equal protection under the law is an incredible achievement for our nation. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
As for Affirmative Action, as I said, quota-based affirmative action is a problem, because quota-based affirmative action is absolutely hiring someone because that person is a particular race because you are mandated to. The Supreme Court has ruled any quota-based affirmative action, as well as any usage of affirmative action to categorically deny any particular group or to admit any one particular group unconstitutional. But that’s not what affirmative action is as it is practiced in, say, universities today.
Affirmative action is merely that universities may consider race as a factor in their enrollment decisions for the expressed purposes of ensuring diversity among their campuses, because it is within their mission to ensure diversity and equal access. It is essentially a recognition that merely saying that just because ethnic minorities were able to go to the same schools as white people didn’t mean they were able to do so, because of their history of disenfranchisement.
But the fact that people believe stupid and incorrect things does not make them correct.
The misconception is that schools will see an extremely qualified white student, an academically inept black student, and pick the black student, but that’s not how it works. It means that all things being equal, the school will pick the student who is different demographically from the other students they have admitted. This can apply to race, but this can just as likely apply from someone who lives in a different state. A school who’s only admitted students from the state it's in might give preferential status to students not from that state. Again, the purpose is to ensure diversity, and I will back that because it is absolutely in a school’s interests to promote that.
Do you even know what the word “prejudice” means?
Rhetorical question, obviously you don’t, so here’s the definition: “preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.”
Which is the heart of the issue here. Having a legitimate grievance against a particular culture is not only not the same thing as being prejudiced or bigoted against that culture, it’s the EXACT opposite thing as being prejudiced or bigoted against that culture, and yet you are here saying that they’re the same.
If the reasons for the person thinking that white people are being discriminated against are racist bull*****, then sure!
Again, it's not mere belittlement. It's a world with plenty of meaning, and its negative connotation is because of that meaning. It's a reducing term because most people acknowledge that an argument being prejudiced BY VERY DEFINITION makes that argument illogical.
Yes, because being racist is a bad thing.
I'm not sure why you disagree with this. Would you care to explain why?
Yes, because they are similar. All white supremacists are similar. To attempt to pass off the fact that they’re not the same as though that were some kind of counterargument, which is what you’re doing, belies a lack of understanding as to what the word “similar” means. And the white supremacist viewpoint is that point of similarity among all of them.
And what is central to white supremacy? [drumroll] Racism!
He WAS racist. Do you know what he said?
The reason this is seen as racist is NOT because people who live in Antwerp were in denial about Berbers being responsible for crimes than people who aren’t Berbers.
It’s because saying that having problems with Berbers implies that it’s being a Berber that is the defining factor that makes someone a criminal, or in the case of the latter part of that quote, that subscribing to Islam automatically makes one radicalized.
It would be like saying that because black people commit higher crimes as a racial group than other races, that we’re having negative experiences with the black racial group. That amounts to saying that people are committing crimes because they’re black.
However, they are not committing crimes because they are black. And that’s the issue. Saying that the problem is with their racial community is saying that a certain ethnic group is creating a negative experience for the society is saying that a certain ethnic group is the problem. But the fact that they are a certain ethnic group is not the problem. They’re not committing crimes because they are Berbers or because they are black. There is another factor or set of factors that is disproportionately affecting them. And were someone to say, “This group of people commits more crimes, let’s find out what factors are disproportionately in place within this ethnic group,” none of that is racist. But that’s not what’s being said.
And keep that thought in mind, because I’d like to also point out a particular element in your post, and I think this is very important and deserves a great deal of attention, because this demonstrates what is probably the fundamental problem in everything you’re saying:
No, it’s not! It’s not racist to say that one group of people performs significantly more crimes than the other. Provided that it’s correct, it’s not racist. It’s just pointing out a fact.
Which, as I said, highlights the biggest problem with your posts, which is that it’s not that the definition of “racism” is getting watered down, it’s that you do not actually know what it is.
I don’t think you actually know what the word “racism” means, Mad Mat. And I’m not saying that as some sort of insult, I’m saying this truthfully. It’s very evident throughout your posts, especially this one. If you think pointing out a factual race-based statistic is racist, if you think pointing out a fact about a particular culture is discriminatory, then you clearly do not understand what the words “racist” and “discriminatory” actually mean.
Like, let me show you what I’m talking about:
No, it’s your exact argument. And that’s the problem.
You are conflating a person who is gay objecting to unjust treatment by a person of Muslim faith with a person who is straight up discriminatory against Muslims, when they aren’t the same thing at all.
Having a legitimate grievance against the tenets of a particular culture is not the same thing as being prejudiced against a culture. It’s the exact opposite. You think it’s the same thing. THAT’S the problem.
I’m not marginalizing the people who hold the first view. There’s nothing inherently wrong with disagreeing with tenets of a person’s faith. The problem is you’re arguing that this is the same as a person discriminating against a person’s faith, but that’s not the same thing at all!
Which is a problem, yes. And I’m not aware of anyone saying mislabeling isn’t a problem. I’m certainly arguing it is.
The problem is YOU are objecting to descriptors that are entirely accurate. And at least part of that is because you do not actually know what those descriptors mean.
No, you don’t disagree. That’s the problem. You’re saying you disagree, but your arguments in this thread demonstrate otherwise.
You are legitimately arguing that white people are completely justified when people of different races come in, on the grounds that these people might be a fundamental threat to their way of life merely by being of a different race.
So, no, the answer is, based on your arguments, you clearly AGREE, not disagree, with what Jay13x is saying.
Which is ridiculous. You’re talking about how negative the meaning of “racist” is, and now you’re saying the meaning is watered down?
The problem is you do not have a clear understanding of the meaning of the word “racist.” You think it amounts to simple name-calling, like calling someone a “moron.” But it’s not. It’s a word with a clear meaning that is very useful as a descriptor. Yes, it has a negative connotation, but that's not because the word has lost all meaning and merely kept the connotation. It's because the word has a very definite meaning and most people agree that what the word describes is wrong.
How is this any different from having public welfare programs to assist people below a certain amount of income?
Which is part of your notion of what SJW means, which is not the same definition as mine. I've already given my definition.
However, since it's become clear to me the term has no clearly-defined meaning, there's really no point in debating one definition's superiority over another.
Actually, let's back up, because I would like to correct my response to what you said, because in my haste to respond I didn't give a good response.
Let me go back to what Mad Mat said:
That is, the difference between SJWs and White Nationalists.
I responded with:
To which he responded:
And this was my response:
Now, you're saying that there might have been people who oppose racial equality, but who don't consciously know they are opposing racial equality, and do not hold racist views themselves. That's correct, there are. HOWEVER, Mad Mat is talking about those who are among the white nationalist camp. So this isn't the general populace, this is specifically among the white nationalist group.
And so I'm asking what the meaningful difference is between a white nationalist who is racist and a white nationalist who doesn't believe in the laws and policies passed to promote racial equality, since it's pretty clear that there'd be overlap between the two. We cannot, in good faith, argue that there are white nationalists who aren't racist, because racism is inherent in the white nationalist viewpoint (again, that's why they're white nationalists).
So are they white nationalists or aren't they? Do they identify with the belief that there should be a nation for whites only or not? Because if they don't - this might shock and surprise you - they aren't white nationalists.
No, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that the SJWs who are not racist are being lumped in with the ones that are, AND that people who discuss identity politics who are not illogical or racist - and thus not SJWs - are also being lumped in with the SJWs who are racist.
Ok, so demonstrate this. Go ahead and point out the Trump voters, Brexit voters, etc. who are genuinely interested in racial equality but object to the current policies and then demonstrate their arguments that voting for Trump, voting for Brexit, etc. will better promote racial equality, and then demonstrate how arguments contain absolutely no racism whatsoever. I would *LOVE* to read this.
No, it does not have to be a narrow definition, because that's what white nationalism means! Why do you think the word "white" is there?!
So they're only accidentally white nationalists? What are you even talking about?
White nationalism is specifically about preserving a white nation that is just for white people. You cannot subscribe to white nationalism and just totally miss the "white" component. This entire argument is absurd.
Erm, no, the difference does matter. The discussion is about how there's a difference between lumping people together into a category when at least some of those people don't belong into that category, and lumping people into a category when all of them belong in that category. That's the difference. Mad Mat is saying they're equivalent. They are not. By definition.
Obviously.
... Which is what I've been saying. You clearly didn't read my posts. Go back and reread them.
Given that not all SJWs are racial supremacists, whereas all White supremacists are racial supremacists (hence the name "white supremacists"), this is an impossible claim to take seriously.
Well that's obviously ******* incorrect, now isn't it?
However, the corollary to that is there's nothing wrong with saying someone's an SJW or a racist if the shoe fits.
You have a problem with generalizations, but the thing is there’s nothing wrong with generalizations if the generalizations are correct. It's perfectly fine to lump people who wish to perform atrocities like deporting all non-white races in with people who wish to perform atrocities like committing genocide against non-white races into the category "people who wish to perform atrocities against non-white races." That’s a generalization, but it’s a correct generalization. It’s like saying mammals are warm-blooded. It’s a factually correct generalization. There is nothing wrong with making a generalization when it’s fair and accurate.
It’s not fair or correct to call someone a racist if he’s not one, and it’s not fair or correct to say that all racists believe the exact same thing. But there’s nothing wrong with saying that all people who fit the definition of the descriptive term “racist” are racist. That’s fair and accurate.
You cannot honestly tell me racism had nothing to do with it.
What difference does it make relevant to this discussion? "We don't want racial equality" vs. "We don't believe in the laws and polices passed to promote racial equality" is effectively the same damn thing! Either way you're promoting discrimination due to being against legal equality.
You cannot be a white nationalist and not be racist.
ALL OF THOSE ARE RACIST! They fit the definition of the term “racist.” That’s how words work!
This is the same ridiculous nonsense as you saying, "Hey now! Not all white nationalists want to deport all the non-white people. Some want to kill them all. You can't lump them together." Why the hell would you argue this? (A) That's actually worse! (B) That's not remotely analogous to lumping a bunch of people into the SJW camp who don’t belong there, or lumping a bunch of SJWs who actually believe in racial equality versus those who want racial supremacy. In both cases, you’re using a term to describe people that they don’t actually fit.
By contrast, you're arguing about lumping in people who wish to oppress people one way with people who wish to oppress people the other way. There's no problem with that because they all fit the definition of “racist!” And also “oppressive!”
A person who wishes to instate Apartheid, a person who wishes to deport all non-white people, and a person who wishes to kill all non-whites are all horrifically racist and willing to commit horrifying atrocities against their fellow man, and in that sense, we can lump them together. That’s how descriptive terms work. The sky and a car can both be described as “blue.”
Which were still wrong!
Nobody is saying that they belong to the same political group. That is a strawman.
However, are you seriously trying to argue that a Neo-Nazi and a Nazi cannot be grouped together as similar?
Or that a Neo-Nazi and a white supremacist cannot be grouped together? Can you notice no common element there?
And speaking of common elements, why are Dawkins and Ali on that list? I don’t know of them speaking out in favor of racist policies. Can you cite where they did?
QUOTA-BASED affirmative action is unconstitutional and wrong. Otherwise, I wouldn't say *obviously* wrong, no. We could have a debate as to its merits, but that’s a separate discussion.
Moreover, you're bringing back Jay13x's point. There's no comparison between affirmative action and something like Jim Crow. To compare the two is outright ridiculous.
Of course not. We lived in an era in which black people were enslaved and then legally discriminated against. To have it be not only possible, but a reality, that a black man was able to ascend to the highest office in our nation should be a point of pride for us. It's a symbol of overcoming Jim Crow and other segregation laws, for Barack Obama, for the civil rights movement, and for us as a nation.
Obviously there’s more to Barack Obama than just him being black, and reducing him to that is wrong, but there’s nothing wrong with taking pride in a black person taking the highest office in the nation within a generation of segregation being legal.
What the… YES!
Which is valid.
To compare, Jay13x is saying you can't lump a black supremacist together with a person who genuinely wishes equality among races.
You're saying you can't lump a person who wants to oppress racial minorities in an extreme and horrifying way with someone who wants to oppress racial minorities in an EVEN MORE extreme and horrifying way. The answer is yes. Yes you can.
They can. They're all white nationalists. You just did it too.
THEIR IDEAS ARE ALL MORALLY ABHORRENT, EVIL, AND ******* WRONG!
To genuinely have the desire to oppress people based on their race is morally abhorrent, evil, and ******* wrong! It's morally abhorrent, evil, and ******* wrong however you decide to manifest it!
You're acting like ANYTHING on this list is morally acceptable! OF COURSE IT'S NOT. Deliberately promoting unjust discrimination is wrong, and it is wrong regardless of the level of it. Obviously there are ones on that list that are way more horrific than others, but that doesn't make the others correct or morally acceptable!
If I shoot you in the kneecap, and say, “Hey, there are people who would have shot you in the head,” that does not make what I did ok!
Obviously I’m not saying that, and obviously this is a strawman. I have no problem saying that we should take note of a person’s arguments instead of outright dismissing them.
But that’s not the same thing as saying we cannot dub these arguments as “racist” or “discriminatory.” It’s ridiculous to argue that. Those words are descriptive, and they have definitions, and when something fits the description by that definition, then it’s perfectly fine to say that the word describes them. If someone fits the definition of a racist, it’s perfectly fine to say the word “racist” describes him.
So, what are those issues? Are they based around facts or discrimination? Are they rooted in generalities that are fair and accurate, or unfair and inaccurate?
No, dude, that's ridiculous. What you're saying is these two sentences:
I disagree with certain tenets of your faith
I hate you
are exactly the same. Of course that's not true.
There's nothing wrong with lumping people together in a category if they actually can be appropriately and factually lumped together into a category.
Erm, yes, but you'll notice that one group is - at least supposedly - protesting the evils of racial discrimination, while the other is protesting the "evils" of racial equality.
Do you see the difference now?
Wait, wait, wait. Seriously? Your complaint is that Jay13x is generalizing among White nationalists by portraying them as all wanting to deport other races, when in fact White nationalists can want to do a host of much worse things to other races? Are you kidding me, dude? THAT'S what you're going to quibble on?!
Yes, I can think of a host of people I would want to act or think differently in society. However, I'm not going to do it out of some belief that they were born wrong. You're trying to say Jay13x is in the wrong for criticizing someone about creating a moral equivalency between civil rights activists and racists by doing exactly that. Except it doesn't work because to treat people unfairly purely on the basis of race is obviously ******* wrong. It's obviously ******* wrong regardless of whether that means exterminating them or deporting them or treating them as second class citizens.
Yes, BUT THEY'RE BOTH MORALLY ABHORRENT.
Which is laughable because you're making that very juxtaposition!
When did Jay13x say that? You said he didn't say that at the above, now you're saying he's saying exactly that.
Are you kidding me? How do you disagree with tenets of conservative Islam without turning into a person who hates Muslims? You don't see how that's a false dichotomy?
SJW, or Social Justice Warrior, is generally used to describe a type of person, usually an internet user found on Twitter or tumblr, who has views on racism, sexism, or identity politics that is completely irrational. This irrationality may be seen in this person seeking discrimination that isn't actually there, having illogical views on said discrimination, having illogical views on what constitutes a sensible response to said discrimination, or a combination of all three. These people absolutely are ridiculous, and at times are outright racist themselves.
However, a problem occurs when you have people who then go ahead and attempt to lump anyone who makes any claim in a discussion about discrimination contrary to their own under the term "SJW," including when said people are being entirely rational. This is the trap we can run into with the use of the term SJW.
Well, some views can absolutely be compared with White Nationalism's agenda. But the problem is when someone takes these extremes and then proceeds to color every single person who discusses identity politics and then proceeds to lump them in the same category. You have a situation in which someone precludes that all people who are SJWs are the outright racist SJWs, and then in turn that all people who discuss identity politics are SJWs.
Basically, there is a sensible middle ground with regards to identity politics, but the problem is that everyone believes that they're in the sensible middle ground, and too often you get someone who believes he is the sensible middle ground when he emphatically is not.