Who in this thread was describing discrimination in either of those two ways?
*Raises hand* I'm right here, man.
You may have implied that it was just based on a difference in skin color, but I'm not sure if I would qualify that as explicit in any of your posts. I also would expect that you would agree that it is at least a bit more complicated than that, though not in a sense to reduce inclusivity of the definition of racism.
I'd certainly not say that you were describing it as "being for no reason." I doubt that you believe that it is "for no reason" any more than I do.
So what's your distinction between justified and acceptable? Are you saying something unacceptable is still justified from the same outside point of reference? Because if it's justified, for most people that inherently implies that it's acceptable.
I was merely pointing out the thought process behind this sort of prejudice. Discrimination based on race is often decried as absurd because it's just a difference in skin color. People who discriminate are depicted as idiots who are afraid of people who look different for no reason at all. But there is reasoning behind prejudice.
Who in this thread was describing discrimination in either of those two ways? It seems like this point is coming out of nowhere. Also, as you implied yourself, there's a distinction between prejudice and discrimination. One is an opinion, the other is an action on such an opinion. Reasoning is not 100% transitive in that case, as one can reason that "Maybe even though I have this opinion, I won't act on it because I'm willing to compromise with society."
Okay, so I have three baskets. One has apples. The other has pineapples. The third has pens. I find that apples are superior to pineapples. By your definition, that implies that I am racist against pineapples in favor of apples. But let's say I just am prejudiced against pineapples, as a pineapple killed my father. I have no opinion one way or the other on pens. Is there really no implication that I consider pineapples to be inferior to pens?
No. The easiest way to find this out is by assuming instead that you prefer apples because you know you won't stand a chance against pineapples in a fight (and you're unsure about pens). So by changing the underlying reason you can actually get a scenario where you discriminate because you consider pineapples to be superior.
So are we going to define positive and negative superiority and positive and negative inferiority? Anyways, your argument appears to assume that I'm going to get in a fight and that person X will make it impossible to hold reasonable conversation, which is generally considered an inferiority on the side of person X.
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.
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 what's your distinction between justified and acceptable? Are you saying something unacceptable is still justified from the same outside point of reference? Because if it's justified, for most people that inherently implies that it's acceptable.
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.
Okay, so I have three baskets. One has apples. The other has pineapples. The third has pens. I find that apples are superior to pineapples. By your definition, that implies that I am racist against pineapples in favor of apples. But let's say I just am prejudiced against pineapples, as a pineapple killed my father. I have no opinion one way or the other on pens. Is there really no implication that I consider pineapples to be inferior to pens?
I think at least some libertarians can be included as being part of the radical right.
I think you can pick out at least key three groups- radical libertarians, white nationalists and the pseudo-theocrats, with some overlap.
I don't think socialism, unless you define it quite rigidly, is enough to place on in the radical left. And communism is contained within socialism, and occupies most of the radical space within it, so I don't know why you are pulling them apart like that.
Anarchical communism (closer to the actual definition of the theory) is not contained within socialism. Authoritarian "communism" like the USSR would be part of socialism, but arguably not really part of communism. Though to be fair, perfect theoretical communism and perfect theoretical capitalism are both utopias that function effectively the same in that regard. Though I agree that socialism doesn't have a solid place on the radical left, even though it is often placed there in the US.
I question this.
I think the radical left is much better as being subtle in what they are really up to. The radical right on the other hand, seems to be, for the most part, loud and proud.
I don't think what the most evil among 'SJWs' want is to directly make white people inferior, not most of them at least. The racism of the right is more exclusionary- the racism of the left is overprotectiveness. I think it's much more to do with the introduction of Orwellian authoritarianism- of oppressive laws of thought crime, hate speech and incredibly restricting quotas. Then forced labour camps perhaps, after all many of these people identify as Marxist, so I reckon there is some amount of desire for a Soviet Union style camp system to crush out the supposed evils of modern society.
If the radical right is actually worse than the radical left, I really don't think it's by much.
Hmm. I think there's also an element of size, in that the percentage of the left that would be considered radical (Keeping in mind that it's a two-or-more-axis spectrum, not just liberal-conservative) is significantly smaller than the percentage of the right that would be considered the same. The radical left is also significantly more varied than the radical right (Unless you count libertarians as the radical right, which is a topic for another debate). I mean, socialism and communism are both ideas one might consider to be radical left, but they are at different spots on a multi-axis spectrum.
A few of the most common two-axis versions of this are:
Authoritarian versus Anarchy + Capitalism versus Communism
Authoritarian versus Anarchy + Conservative versus Liberal
Personal Rights + Business Rights
You may have implied that it was just based on a difference in skin color, but I'm not sure if I would qualify that as explicit in any of your posts. I also would expect that you would agree that it is at least a bit more complicated than that, though not in a sense to reduce inclusivity of the definition of racism.
I'd certainly not say that you were describing it as "being for no reason." I doubt that you believe that it is "for no reason" any more than I do.
Who in this thread was describing discrimination in either of those two ways? It seems like this point is coming out of nowhere. Also, as you implied yourself, there's a distinction between prejudice and discrimination. One is an opinion, the other is an action on such an opinion. Reasoning is not 100% transitive in that case, as one can reason that "Maybe even though I have this opinion, I won't act on it because I'm willing to compromise with society."
So are we going to define positive and negative superiority and positive and negative inferiority? Anyways, your argument appears to assume that I'm going to get in a fight and that person X will make it impossible to hold reasonable conversation, which is generally considered an inferiority on the side of person X.
This is not productive. Stop.
So what's your distinction between justified and acceptable? Are you saying something unacceptable is still justified from the same outside point of reference? Because if it's justified, for most people that inherently implies that it's acceptable.
Okay, so I have three baskets. One has apples. The other has pineapples. The third has pens. I find that apples are superior to pineapples. By your definition, that implies that I am racist against pineapples in favor of apples. But let's say I just am prejudiced against pineapples, as a pineapple killed my father. I have no opinion one way or the other on pens. Is there really no implication that I consider pineapples to be inferior to pens?
Anarchical communism (closer to the actual definition of the theory) is not contained within socialism. Authoritarian "communism" like the USSR would be part of socialism, but arguably not really part of communism. Though to be fair, perfect theoretical communism and perfect theoretical capitalism are both utopias that function effectively the same in that regard. Though I agree that socialism doesn't have a solid place on the radical left, even though it is often placed there in the US.
Hmm. I think there's also an element of size, in that the percentage of the left that would be considered radical (Keeping in mind that it's a two-or-more-axis spectrum, not just liberal-conservative) is significantly smaller than the percentage of the right that would be considered the same. The radical left is also significantly more varied than the radical right (Unless you count libertarians as the radical right, which is a topic for another debate). I mean, socialism and communism are both ideas one might consider to be radical left, but they are at different spots on a multi-axis spectrum.
A few of the most common two-axis versions of this are:
Authoritarian versus Anarchy + Capitalism versus Communism
Authoritarian versus Anarchy + Conservative versus Liberal
Personal Rights + Business Rights