The least you can do is explain what the difference between "there are ethnic cultures" and "If you walk around New York City, for example, you will see many different groups of people, and if they're from New York, they're "New Yawkers," and they are so regardless of what nationality they are" are.
I don't know how ethnic cultures can exist when, if the ethnicity is the gating point for joining into that culture, then that culture seems discriminatory and thus potentially problematic in its beliefs?
If the ethnicity is not the gating point, then you'd have to explain to me just what you meant by your post here.
I need to clarify: I'm not accusing you of being xenophobic, nor do I believe you are, I'm merely saying that in your attempts to respond or explore the opinions of extremists, you may have gotten caught up in a false dichotomy that they espouse without necessarily realizing it.
Understood.
This might have happened because of the way I interpret what it means to be a nation, and my interpretation forms a big part of my questions regarding a multi-cultural society.
So, starting this thread without even defining this is probably my fault.
I would define nation as a functioning government that occupies a landmass and governs a group of people who are connected through certain overarching, and ultimately significant, cultural and social concepts and ideologies.
I think the overarching cultural ideology part is the key- It may be a creation myth like that of the Izanami creating Japan or the one in the Bible/certain significant historical event that people have taken to define them, like Mussolini lionizing the Roman Empire to define Italian nationhood during his rise/many many other forms that I don't recall off the top of my head.
The point is- There is some defining characteristic that the culture gives itself for it to stay united.
Obviously this defining characteristic can change over time or cease to be meaningful. If this happens, then either the people will find another characteristic that defines them or splinter off into different culture groups.
Simply put- I do not believe that ethnicity means anything as far as culture is concerned. I rent a room from a Korean landlady. Her sons were born in the U.S., don't speak a lick of Korean, and as far as I can tell possess not a single cultural trait that would help identify them as a Korean. They're Americans through and through.
I do firmly believe that nations have a lot to do with culture, in that a similar culture shared by a group of people is what ultimately leads to a sense of nationhood.
This is why I don't quite know how to define a multi-cultural society.
Let's go back to my Korean landlady and her sons. From what I understand, her sons would be defined in the U.S. census as ethnic Koreans, since both their parents are ethnic Koreans. Yet drop them off in Korea and they'd most definitely have no idea how to fit in.
This is why I find a definition of a multi-cultural society that goes something like "A society where various ethnic groups reside together" simplistic.
Why does the ethnicity matter? As far as the sons are concerned, they're Americans! Why should anyone care if they look like Koreans?
I do not think being able to eat a range of foods from different ethnicities and see a range of ethnic individuals in your daily life to mean "multi-cultural"; which seems to be how this seemingly defines it.
I like your definition, but I'd remove "usually in the form of more than one ethnic group". As I've mentioned, I don't see how ethnicity really figures into culture. An ethnic Korean born and raised in the U.S. and never really expected to follow Korean culture is an American.
So, a multi-cultural society is just that- a society made up of more than one culture.
What I'm questioning is whether this is even possible to begin with!
Now, cultural beliefs can vary in intensity and what they mean. The religion you practice is a cultural aspect. The food you eat is a cultural aspect.
I've once fought a schoolmate because he made fun of the barley tea my mom gave me for school. He said it looked like piss-water.
But, when push comes to shove, I'm not going to go and die for my right to drink freaking barley tea without seeing an aspect of my culture get insulted.
People might go and die for their right to practice a religion.
I think it's fair to say that the conflict we have today in the U.S. between secular and religious groups (think the LGBT-rights and abortion-rights fight) is functionally a conflict between two different cultural beliefs and vice versa.
I think the U.S. is already a multi-cultural state, with or without a variety of ethnic groups. And, when the cultures are significant enough to a personal identity to matter, there will be conflict with those who don't subscribe to the same culture.
As you wrote, a culture's value and purpose must be met with rational skepticism.
If you do this thoroughly enough, aren't you ultimately left with what amounts to a single range of cultural beliefs?
Or you do only do this to a cultural belief that can possibly create conflict, such as religion?
Well we can't discuss it in the abstract, but here's the important nuance that we have to maintain:
No country has fixed values, and the reason people adhere to values is not, "That's just how they are."
Belief in freedom and liberty is not a white person trait, nor a Western trait. Belief in religious persecution or a theocracy is not a Middle Eastern trait or a Muslim trait. To treat it as such would be to be buying into the mindset of the right extremists.
[quote]I think you're absolutely right. The rationale behind the cultural value/practice matters a lot. If the rationale doesn't some cultural belief held by Saudis don't hold up against scrutiny, then why should it be allowed in Germany?
My question then is- what are you left with?
Whatever's left.
I know what you're asking, but the question behind that question is: what is Germany? What is the German identity? Is it tied to a particular group of people, or can it be something else? Can immigrants to Germany still be German, even if their ethnic heritage isn't indigenous to that particular land?
Again I strongly caution not to inadvertently get caught up in the mindset, and most particularly the false dichotomies, of the right-wing isolationists. Because there seems to be, at least by my reading, an implication in your questions that you might not be aware of: that culture is purely based on ethnicity, and as such, two or more different ethnicities cannot share a culture.
Which is, of course, untrue.
I suppose I expected something like this, what with The Guardian article and the way I started this thread.
I don't define culture purely in terms of ethnicity (heck, I believe that ethnicity/race on its own has absolutely nothing to do with your cultural beliefs), nor do I believe that culture is some fixed thing that doesn't change.
I also believe that cultural beliefs can clash with one another.
Now that these are out of the way, hopefully you can see my questions and the topic I want to get at without the assumption that I may be xenophobic.
For a liberal democratic society to function, the rule of society has to be based on social equality and individual liberty. Social structures of strict hierarchy literally don't work because they infringe on other people's freedom and damage the structures of equality. People keeping their own religions or traditions is cool, as long as they don't infringe on other people. That's why integration is necessary.
WHY are these a culture's values? What is the rational basis behind them?
If you don't take that into account, then yes, it will all seem arbitrary. But it's not. It just seems arbitrary to you because you're ignoring the reasons behind it, not because there aren't reasons. We don't just prize liberal values of freedom, liberty, and equality because of the latitude and longitude of our birthplace, or because of the pigment of our skin. There are rational reasons for it.
That's why I specifically brought up Saudi Arabia and Germany- two countries who social/cultural values seem rather far apart from one another.
I very much doubt that I can find anyone on this board who will defend the rationale behind social/cultural values in Saudi Arabia against those in Germany.
And, If that's the case, does it make sense to have Saudi Arabians who immigrated to Germany continue believing in their social/cultural values as opposed to having them learn and accept German social values?
How far along does this integration go before it ceases to be a multi-cultural society?
Edit-
Let me elaborate a bit more, since your argument really gets to the heart of it I think.
I think you're absolutely right. The rationale behind the cultural value/practice matters a lot. If the rationale doesn't some cultural belief held by Saudis don't hold up against scrutiny, then why should it be allowed in Germany?
It's basically an article on how the right-wing parties of several European countries have rebranded themselves to use languages and ideas supported by left-wing groups.
There were two concepts that interested me-
1- That Liberalism (I think they're talking about Liberalism with the capital L, but I'm not sure) is a distinctly Western/European concept not shared by most foreign cultures. Immigration without assimilation threatens Liberalism.
2- That social minorities such as LGBT groups, social rights such as women's rights, and vice versa are under direct threat of a sufficiently large Islamic population.
Now, I don't know much about these parties and the politics of the various European countries. What I find interesting about the two concepts above, and the article in general, is that I think it gets to the heart of what exactly is immigration and assimilation.
What exactly does it mean to immigrate to a country? What is expected of you? What should you expect from the country you immigrated to?
I think these are all very important questions, and certainly are ones that I've had to grapple with myself as an immigrant to the U.S.
The fundamental issue is that immigration has always been a touchy subject everywhere since practically forever, and I get the sense that in, our bid to call ourselves a multi-cultural and global society, we've blinded ourselves to a lot of the questions behind it.
I don't even mean this in some racist sense. Here's an example-
This is an article from The Atlantic on how we define various cultural cuisines on the basis of their "prestige". I think it's a fascinating read, and I also think it dove-tails nicely into what I'm trying to talk about here.
This part of the article I find particularly funny/insightful-
When immigrant food is brought into the American fold, another big question, aside from whether it will be thought of as high- or low-end, is how long it will be considered exotic; food can be a useful entry point to thinking about how immigrant cultures are absorbed into the American mainstream, and what “mainstream” might look like in just a few decades. Only 80 or so years ago, The New York Times published an article that, to make a point about how radically Americans’ eating habits were changing, imagined a “hodge-podge” of “strange dishes” that a family at the time could plausibly plop on the dinner table next to each other, no matter how objectionable such a spread may have seemed. Those strange dishes? Spaghetti, meatballs, corn on the cob, sauerkraut, fruit salad, and apple pie. Yesterday’s strange hodgepodge is today’s boring dinner.
There's another fascinating article I read a while back that I unfortunately can't seem to find. It was basically on why Chinese cuisine is considered simplistic compared to French cuisine when Chinese cuisine is said to have a history that goes back more than a thousand years and incorporates styles and methods from a land-mass that is many times the size of France.
I suppose what I really want to ask is this, since this is one of the ideas that I've been thinking on and off about for quite some time-
Just what does it really mean to be a global society? How does it work? How does the concept of incorporating a number of different cultures and their constituent ideas into, say, the U.S. actually work?
The ultimate point of The Guardian piece above seems to be that today's right-wing European politicians are saying that the attempt to create a global society is a failure, and that further attempts to do so will cause the end of Liberal, Western civilization as we know it.
I wouldn't go that far, but I would be willing to argue that the creation of a true global society would mean a DEPARTURE from Western civilization (or would it actually be that there's no such thing as a divide between Western civilization and everything else. It's simply an antiquated view of the world and the liberal ideologies and societies in, say, Germany, is the only correct ideal. The ideals of a country like Saudi Arabia is extremely backwards and doesn't have a place in the world anymore?). Anything else would be an assimilation of the minority cultures into the broader scheme of Western civilization, but that doesn't seem to be an actual global society to me.
Does creating a global society simply mean gathering a bunch of people from various nationalities/ethnicity that all follow the same ideals, whatever those ideals may be?
Does creating a global society simply mean gathering a bunch of people from various nationalities/ethnicity that then go and follow whatever ideals they want to believe that they brought along?
Does creating a global society simply mean gathering a bunch of people from various nationalities/ethnicity that then go and have them mix their ideals in a fashion that is somehow acceptable to everyone?
I'm sorry if this is confusing. I think it's an incredibly broad topic and I'm not sure how to structure it. I do think it's worth ruminating upon though, especially now that every Democrat seem to be espousing the virtues of a multi-cultural society.
Again, can we move the "we need to be sensitive to those who are insensitive about other people because the people who dehumanize other people might get their feelings hurt" discussion to a different thread? This has gone on enough pages to merit its own discussion, and the thread is about the post-Donald Trump election situation as a whole.
Based on what I've read in this thread thus far (which to be honest, is what bLatch wrote; I haven't paid much attention to earlier pages so I apologize if I missed others), this seems to be an unfair characterization of what we're arguing. As far as I'm concerned, it has little to do with protecting the fragile heart of racists.
What I'm arguing is that- if you actually want to persuade someone, using charged language will probably not get you very far.
It's the same concept behind dealing with spousal disputes, or disputes in general.
Saying things that cause the other party to become defensive/put up walls is generally considered a poor argumentative technique.
So, if I bring up the example I made earlier-
Person A- "Asian women are terrible drivers."
Person B- "You're racist and sexist. You don't have the information to make a collective judgment on such a broad group. It may be that most of the Asian women you know are terrible drivers, but that doesn't mean that Asian women are bad drivers."
vs.
Person A- "Asian women are terrible drivers."
Person B- "It's not fair to say that. You don't have the information to make a collective judgment on such a broad group. It may be that most of the Asian women you know are terrible drivers, but that doesn't mean that Asian women are bad drivers."
Person B can actually address Person A's argument without ever once mentioning that Person A is being racist and sexist. Those words simply add nothing to actually addressing the rationale behind Person A's racist and sexist beliefs.
Perhaps, but not necessarily to persuade the person you're debating with. In many cases, it's to persuade the people listening to or reading the debate.
You don't think Donald and Hillary were trying to change each others' minds, do you?
If you assume that your opposition is not going to be persuaded by you, why aren't you also assuming that the third-party reader doesn't have some preconceived notions that you cannot change?
The fundamental point I make still stays the same.
-It's counter-productive to use language/phrases that place others on the defensive/cause them to put up walls.
-Given that you're probably arguing against the flawed logic/understanding behind the racist/sexist/what have you belief, it's frankly unnecessary to actually ever state that they're racist/sexist/what have you anyways. Just deal with the flawed logic/understanding.
Of course you'll run into people who refuse to argue in a proper manner and refuse to give ground on anything, but that happens in pretty much all avenues of life and should generally be attributed to that person just being incredibly bull-headed more than that person being some unrepentant racist.
Heck, it's happening at my work-place right now concerning matters that have absolutely nothing to do with ethics and morality.
Some people just become unmalleable stones regarding certain issues at some point in their lives and think that they're correct and will always argue on the assumption that they're correct.
The point I wanted to make is that it's not necessary to actually flat-out state that they're racist/sexist/etc to argue with their argument.
I'm simply saying that one should apply very simple and commonly used argumentative technique-namely, don't put the other fellow on the defensive or otherwise give them an opportunity to put up walls if you have any intent whatsoever in actually persuading them.
The point you WERE making was, "If you have any intent whatsoever to eventually persuade that person that he/she indeed is a racist", but apparently you've already given up on that.
That was actually a mistake on my part; I should have written "if you have any intent whatsoever in actually persuading them that they're racist".
What part of the second one is going to persuade someone they're racist?
The point I wanted to make is that it's not necessary to actually flat-out state that they're racist/sexist/etc to argue with their argument.
I'm simply saying that one should apply very simple and commonly used argumentative technique-namely, don't put the other fellow on the defensive or otherwise give them an opportunity to put up walls if you have any intent whatsoever in actually persuading them.
We'll persuade them that they're a racist by never saying that they're a racist? Good luck with that.
Person A- "Asian women are terrible drivers."
Person B- "You're racist and sexist. You don't have the information to make a collective judgment on such a broad group. It may be that most of the Asian women you know are terrible drivers, but that doesn't mean that Asian women are bad drivers."
vs.
Person A- "Asian women are terrible drivers."
Person B- "It's not fair to say that. You don't have the information to make a collective judgment on such a broad group. It may be that most of the Asian women you know are terrible drivers, but that doesn't mean that Asian women are bad drivers."
1) Nobody likes being called a racist, whether they are a huge racist, or only harbor a few benign prejudices.
2) the argument over whether an idea is "racist" or not is not persuasive. The purpose of a debate is to persuade.
3) Calling an idea racist may be apt, and may actually be appropriate in some circumstances, but it is rarely going to be the argument that persuades the other person that they are wrong.
Within the context of an election post mortem, this should be more evident than ever. Calling everyone who voted for Trump "Racist" serves only to dig them in and make them defensive. It didn't work in the run up to the election, I have no idea why some people think doubling down on it now would work any better.
Better that racism go unchallenged - we wouldn't want to make anyone feel bad.
That's not the point behind the general argument that goes "nobody likes being called a racist".
What point are you trying to make when you call someone a racist?
If you have any intent whatsoever to eventually persuade that person that he/she indeed is a racist and should reconsider their thinking, then calling them a racist simply does not work. You'd likely have a far better time engaging and simply talking with them.
I just noticed that most of the arguments against Trump in the past few pages are mostly just Republican platforms that people don't like and very few, if any, Trump being Trump.
I actually find that more troubling than people scared that Trump is Trump.
I mean... push-back against abortion/gay rights/environmental issues/immigration/Obamacare/etc are all things to be expected under a Republican Presidency.
This makes me wonder if the liberal response to, say, Cruz winning would be roughly the same as the response to a Trump victory.
I thought Trump was pro(or at least not against; more like as Blinking_Spririt stated- just plain uninterested)-gay marriage prior to running in this election?
In 2000, he said, "I think the institution of marriage should be between a man and a woman".
In 2011, he said, "I just don't feel good about it, I don't feel right about it. I'm against it, and I take a lot of heat because I come from New York. You know, for New York it's like, how can you be against gay marriage? But I'm opposed to gay marriage.""
Trump has said repeatedly over the years that he's against same sex marriage, and has presented a list of potential justices who are to the right of even Scalia and Thomas. You'll excuse me if I'm not exactly convinced he's now "fine with it".
I thought Trump was pro(or at least not against; more like as Blinking_Spririt stated- just plain uninterested)-gay marriage prior to running in this election?
The least you can do is explain what the difference between "there are ethnic cultures" and "If you walk around New York City, for example, you will see many different groups of people, and if they're from New York, they're "New Yawkers," and they are so regardless of what nationality they are" are.
I don't know how ethnic cultures can exist when, if the ethnicity is the gating point for joining into that culture, then that culture seems discriminatory and thus potentially problematic in its beliefs?
If the ethnicity is not the gating point, then you'd have to explain to me just what you meant by your post here.
Understood.
This might have happened because of the way I interpret what it means to be a nation, and my interpretation forms a big part of my questions regarding a multi-cultural society.
So, starting this thread without even defining this is probably my fault.
I would define nation as a functioning government that occupies a landmass and governs a group of people who are connected through certain overarching, and ultimately significant, cultural and social concepts and ideologies.
I think the overarching cultural ideology part is the key- It may be a creation myth like that of the Izanami creating Japan or the one in the Bible/certain significant historical event that people have taken to define them, like Mussolini lionizing the Roman Empire to define Italian nationhood during his rise/many many other forms that I don't recall off the top of my head.
The point is- There is some defining characteristic that the culture gives itself for it to stay united.
Obviously this defining characteristic can change over time or cease to be meaningful. If this happens, then either the people will find another characteristic that defines them or splinter off into different culture groups.
Simply put- I do not believe that ethnicity means anything as far as culture is concerned. I rent a room from a Korean landlady. Her sons were born in the U.S., don't speak a lick of Korean, and as far as I can tell possess not a single cultural trait that would help identify them as a Korean. They're Americans through and through.
I do firmly believe that nations have a lot to do with culture, in that a similar culture shared by a group of people is what ultimately leads to a sense of nationhood.
This is why I don't quite know how to define a multi-cultural society.
Let's go back to my Korean landlady and her sons. From what I understand, her sons would be defined in the U.S. census as ethnic Koreans, since both their parents are ethnic Koreans. Yet drop them off in Korea and they'd most definitely have no idea how to fit in.
This is why I find a definition of a multi-cultural society that goes something like "A society where various ethnic groups reside together" simplistic.
Why does the ethnicity matter? As far as the sons are concerned, they're Americans! Why should anyone care if they look like Koreans?
I do not think being able to eat a range of foods from different ethnicities and see a range of ethnic individuals in your daily life to mean "multi-cultural"; which seems to be how this seemingly defines it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I like your definition, but I'd remove "usually in the form of more than one ethnic group". As I've mentioned, I don't see how ethnicity really figures into culture. An ethnic Korean born and raised in the U.S. and never really expected to follow Korean culture is an American.
So, a multi-cultural society is just that- a society made up of more than one culture.
What I'm questioning is whether this is even possible to begin with!
Now, cultural beliefs can vary in intensity and what they mean. The religion you practice is a cultural aspect. The food you eat is a cultural aspect.
I've once fought a schoolmate because he made fun of the barley tea my mom gave me for school. He said it looked like piss-water.
But, when push comes to shove, I'm not going to go and die for my right to drink freaking barley tea without seeing an aspect of my culture get insulted.
People might go and die for their right to practice a religion.
I think it's fair to say that the conflict we have today in the U.S. between secular and religious groups (think the LGBT-rights and abortion-rights fight) is functionally a conflict between two different cultural beliefs and vice versa.
I think the U.S. is already a multi-cultural state, with or without a variety of ethnic groups. And, when the cultures are significant enough to a personal identity to matter, there will be conflict with those who don't subscribe to the same culture.
As you wrote, a culture's value and purpose must be met with rational skepticism.
If you do this thoroughly enough, aren't you ultimately left with what amounts to a single range of cultural beliefs?
Or you do only do this to a cultural belief that can possibly create conflict, such as religion?
What does it mean to be a multi-cultural society?
I suppose I expected something like this, what with The Guardian article and the way I started this thread.
I don't define culture purely in terms of ethnicity (heck, I believe that ethnicity/race on its own has absolutely nothing to do with your cultural beliefs), nor do I believe that culture is some fixed thing that doesn't change.
I also believe that cultural beliefs can clash with one another.
Now that these are out of the way, hopefully you can see my questions and the topic I want to get at without the assumption that I may be xenophobic.
=D
What's a multi-cultural society in your opinion?
That's why I specifically brought up Saudi Arabia and Germany- two countries who social/cultural values seem rather far apart from one another.
I very much doubt that I can find anyone on this board who will defend the rationale behind social/cultural values in Saudi Arabia against those in Germany.
And, If that's the case, does it make sense to have Saudi Arabians who immigrated to Germany continue believing in their social/cultural values as opposed to having them learn and accept German social values?
How far along does this integration go before it ceases to be a multi-cultural society?
Edit-
Let me elaborate a bit more, since your argument really gets to the heart of it I think.
I think you're absolutely right. The rationale behind the cultural value/practice matters a lot. If the rationale doesn't some cultural belief held by Saudis don't hold up against scrutiny, then why should it be allowed in Germany?
My question then is- what are you left with?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/01/the-ruthlessly-effective-rebranding-of-europes-new-far-right
It's basically an article on how the right-wing parties of several European countries have rebranded themselves to use languages and ideas supported by left-wing groups.
There were two concepts that interested me-
1- That Liberalism (I think they're talking about Liberalism with the capital L, but I'm not sure) is a distinctly Western/European concept not shared by most foreign cultures. Immigration without assimilation threatens Liberalism.
2- That social minorities such as LGBT groups, social rights such as women's rights, and vice versa are under direct threat of a sufficiently large Islamic population.
Now, I don't know much about these parties and the politics of the various European countries. What I find interesting about the two concepts above, and the article in general, is that I think it gets to the heart of what exactly is immigration and assimilation.
What exactly does it mean to immigrate to a country? What is expected of you? What should you expect from the country you immigrated to?
I think these are all very important questions, and certainly are ones that I've had to grapple with myself as an immigrant to the U.S.
The fundamental issue is that immigration has always been a touchy subject everywhere since practically forever, and I get the sense that in, our bid to call ourselves a multi-cultural and global society, we've blinded ourselves to a lot of the questions behind it.
I don't even mean this in some racist sense. Here's an example-
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/07/the-future-is-expensive-chinese-food/491015/
This is an article from The Atlantic on how we define various cultural cuisines on the basis of their "prestige". I think it's a fascinating read, and I also think it dove-tails nicely into what I'm trying to talk about here.
This part of the article I find particularly funny/insightful-
There's another fascinating article I read a while back that I unfortunately can't seem to find. It was basically on why Chinese cuisine is considered simplistic compared to French cuisine when Chinese cuisine is said to have a history that goes back more than a thousand years and incorporates styles and methods from a land-mass that is many times the size of France.
I suppose what I really want to ask is this, since this is one of the ideas that I've been thinking on and off about for quite some time-
Just what does it really mean to be a global society? How does it work? How does the concept of incorporating a number of different cultures and their constituent ideas into, say, the U.S. actually work?
The ultimate point of The Guardian piece above seems to be that today's right-wing European politicians are saying that the attempt to create a global society is a failure, and that further attempts to do so will cause the end of Liberal, Western civilization as we know it.
I wouldn't go that far, but I would be willing to argue that the creation of a true global society would mean a DEPARTURE from Western civilization (or would it actually be that there's no such thing as a divide between Western civilization and everything else. It's simply an antiquated view of the world and the liberal ideologies and societies in, say, Germany, is the only correct ideal. The ideals of a country like Saudi Arabia is extremely backwards and doesn't have a place in the world anymore?). Anything else would be an assimilation of the minority cultures into the broader scheme of Western civilization, but that doesn't seem to be an actual global society to me.
Does creating a global society simply mean gathering a bunch of people from various nationalities/ethnicity that all follow the same ideals, whatever those ideals may be?
Does creating a global society simply mean gathering a bunch of people from various nationalities/ethnicity that then go and follow whatever ideals they want to believe that they brought along?
Does creating a global society simply mean gathering a bunch of people from various nationalities/ethnicity that then go and have them mix their ideals in a fashion that is somehow acceptable to everyone?
I'm sorry if this is confusing. I think it's an incredibly broad topic and I'm not sure how to structure it. I do think it's worth ruminating upon though, especially now that every Democrat seem to be espousing the virtues of a multi-cultural society.
As Highroller wrote, this topic is deep enough to merit a thread onto itself.
Based on what I've read in this thread thus far (which to be honest, is what bLatch wrote; I haven't paid much attention to earlier pages so I apologize if I missed others), this seems to be an unfair characterization of what we're arguing. As far as I'm concerned, it has little to do with protecting the fragile heart of racists.
What I'm arguing is that- if you actually want to persuade someone, using charged language will probably not get you very far.
It's the same concept behind dealing with spousal disputes, or disputes in general.
Saying things that cause the other party to become defensive/put up walls is generally considered a poor argumentative technique.
So, if I bring up the example I made earlier-
Person A- "Asian women are terrible drivers."
Person B- "You're racist and sexist. You don't have the information to make a collective judgment on such a broad group. It may be that most of the Asian women you know are terrible drivers, but that doesn't mean that Asian women are bad drivers."
vs.
Person A- "Asian women are terrible drivers."
Person B- "It's not fair to say that. You don't have the information to make a collective judgment on such a broad group. It may be that most of the Asian women you know are terrible drivers, but that doesn't mean that Asian women are bad drivers."
Person B can actually address Person A's argument without ever once mentioning that Person A is being racist and sexist. Those words simply add nothing to actually addressing the rationale behind Person A's racist and sexist beliefs.
If you assume that your opposition is not going to be persuaded by you, why aren't you also assuming that the third-party reader doesn't have some preconceived notions that you cannot change?
The fundamental point I make still stays the same.
-It's counter-productive to use language/phrases that place others on the defensive/cause them to put up walls.
-Given that you're probably arguing against the flawed logic/understanding behind the racist/sexist/what have you belief, it's frankly unnecessary to actually ever state that they're racist/sexist/what have you anyways. Just deal with the flawed logic/understanding.
Of course you'll run into people who refuse to argue in a proper manner and refuse to give ground on anything, but that happens in pretty much all avenues of life and should generally be attributed to that person just being incredibly bull-headed more than that person being some unrepentant racist.
Heck, it's happening at my work-place right now concerning matters that have absolutely nothing to do with ethics and morality.
Some people just become unmalleable stones regarding certain issues at some point in their lives and think that they're correct and will always argue on the assumption that they're correct.
That was actually a mistake on my part; I should have written "if you have any intent whatsoever in actually persuading them that they're racist".
Done nitpicking?
The point I wanted to make is that it's not necessary to actually flat-out state that they're racist/sexist/etc to argue with their argument.
I'm simply saying that one should apply very simple and commonly used argumentative technique-namely, don't put the other fellow on the defensive or otherwise give them an opportunity to put up walls if you have any intent whatsoever in actually persuading them.
Person A- "Asian women are terrible drivers."
Person B- "You're racist and sexist. You don't have the information to make a collective judgment on such a broad group. It may be that most of the Asian women you know are terrible drivers, but that doesn't mean that Asian women are bad drivers."
vs.
Person A- "Asian women are terrible drivers."
Person B- "It's not fair to say that. You don't have the information to make a collective judgment on such a broad group. It may be that most of the Asian women you know are terrible drivers, but that doesn't mean that Asian women are bad drivers."
That's not the point behind the general argument that goes "nobody likes being called a racist".
What point are you trying to make when you call someone a racist?
If you have any intent whatsoever to eventually persuade that person that he/she indeed is a racist and should reconsider their thinking, then calling them a racist simply does not work. You'd likely have a far better time engaging and simply talking with them.
I actually find that more troubling than people scared that Trump is Trump.
I mean... push-back against abortion/gay rights/environmental issues/immigration/Obamacare/etc are all things to be expected under a Republican Presidency.
This makes me wonder if the liberal response to, say, Cruz winning would be roughly the same as the response to a Trump victory.
Thanks for these. Wasn't aware of them.
I thought Trump was pro(or at least not against; more like as Blinking_Spririt stated- just plain uninterested)-gay marriage prior to running in this election?