[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.2538[Last 50 Posts]

File: 1569693114530.jpg (61.88 KB, 670x377, 670:377, gummy.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Should we consider a person being romantically involved with a racist to be a tacit endorsement of racism?

Would you ever be romantically involved with a racist, if you yourself are not one?

 No.2540

File: 1569693656425.png (186.6 KB, 485x601, 485:601, 1558476492853.png) ImgOps Google

No. Love isn't really a choice, in the traditional sense.
You love who you love.

 No.2542

>>2540
You love who you love, but you choose who you date.

 No.2543

>Should we consider a person being romantically involved with a racist to be a tacit endorsement of racism?

Yes.

Racism isn't something you should compromise on.

>Would you ever be romantically involved with a racist, if you yourself are not one?

Nope. Nope. Nope.

 No.2544

>>2543
>Racism isn't something you should compromise on.

I agree wholeheartedly

 No.2545

File: 1569694086077.gif (16.5 KB, 200x204, 50:51, 3572C8E9-D1CB-4940-AC36-2D….gif) ImgOps Google

I don’t see how someone can be held responsible for the views of their loved one.

For example I’m what many would consider to be a pretty militant vegan, and yet I’d be willing to pressure a relationship with a meat eater either IRL or online. I don’t think that would mean I’m tacitly supporting a non-vegan message.

Although I do think the way you view and act towards your partner matters in this regard. For example if I was to date a non-vegan and the subject came up I would argue with them, and I’d try to turn them vegan in general. Under these circumstances I’d actually see myself as not only not “tacitly supporting non-vegan message,” but actually encouraging my partner to do better.

My girlfriend is trying to help me not talk about my racism and overall be a better person, and in this regard I see her as being more effective at actually fighting racism than someone who refuses to even engage with a racist.

 No.2546

>>2545
> trying to help me not talk about my racism

That's not the same as not being a racist. It just means you are hiding your racism because you know it upsets people, not actually trying to change your views.

And that also implies that the person you are dating doesn't care that you hold those beliefs, just that you keep them to yourself. I'd call that a tacit endorsement.

 No.2547

File: 1569694437686.png (92.59 KB, 313x284, 313:284, 80FF9BD9-A45E-4BC8-B6BF-68….png) ImgOps Google

>>2546
>that also implies that the person you are dating doesn't care that you hold those beliefs, just that you keep them to yourself. I'd call that a tacit endorsement.
She’s been giving me a kind of therapy that she believes might cure my racism.

She doesn’t just want me to hide my views, she wants me to be non-racist. I personally don’t think that’s going to be effective, but she is trying and has helped me remain civil and calm.

 No.2548

File: 1569694769833.jpg (284.38 KB, 740x951, 740:951, homura-cake-1336365083854.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2538
>Should we consider a person being romantically involved with a racist to be a tacit endorsement of racism?
No. People don't have conscious control over whom they find romantically or sexually desirable.  It is certainly possible to date someone in spite of their alleged racism and try to help that person shed their racist beliefs.

>Would you ever be romantically involved with a racist, if you yourself are not one?
It is certainly a possibility.  I think I would not find most racists romantically desirable, and a person's racism would be a negative factor, but if I feel strongly romantically attracted to a person, I won't refuse to date them solely on account of their claimed racism.

 No.2549

>>2547
> I personally don’t think that’s going to be effective

I don't either. That's part of why I ended my friendship with them.

But I'm going to respond to some of your posts from the other thread.

>>2531

>I honestly think that most people are more comfortable with racists than you are.

I think a lot of people just aren't as familiar with how racist you are because the rules keep you from discussing your views on the site at length. If they knew they things you said to me in private, they wouldn't be so accepting of your views.

>>Yeah, but you shouldn’t even insinuate something like that unless you know for sure

All I know for sure is that she told me she was not a racist.

>>if someone told me that you were dating someone who is a pedo would you be ok with me saying that said person “claims not to be a pedo”?

I would not date a pedophile because I do not support pedophillia and I would see dating them as a tacit endorsement of pedophillia. And a pedophile would not date me because I'm not a child.

>>But maybe you should read back through those logs. I was very empathetic with you.
No, you weren't. You insulted my people and my ancestors, you parrotted talking points used by racists to dehumanize me and my family and you refused to listen to any arguments against your views.

>>and my girlfriend has told me exactly what you said about me to her, so don’t pull the sympathy card.
Anything I said to her I would not hesitate to say directly to you. Although much of it would not be allowed on the site.

>>was asking about you at the time when you were homophobic.
People DID get pissed at me and refuse to talk to me over that. Many people still do. I have to deal with that because my views WERE hurtful to them and no one should have to deal with having someone in their life who could potentially hurt them that badly. Which is part of why I ended my friendship with the person we are discussing.

>>If my parents were racist you’d still be saying the exact same thing about me and my girlfriend.
I think the situation would be different. If it was instilled in you by you parents and you knew no other way, then there would be a small (not not non-existant) chance to convince you otherwise. Just like with me a homophobic things. But because you sought out racism as a teenager because you agreed with it, you aren't going to change because you chose it. You see nothing wrong with it. You can't fix something in someone else unless they see it as a fault, and you've even said yourself that you don't think she can convince you not to be a racist. This shows you have no remorse over being one. I did have remorse, because I didn't choose it.

 No.2550

>>2548
> alleged racism
> claimed racism

Well, I feel like the use of phrases like this belie what is being asked. What if, you knew for certain the person was a racist, as they were open about it.

 No.2551

File: 1569696170623.jpeg (26.57 KB, 210x240, 7:8, CEC78427-A42D-4D28-9CFF-0….jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>2549
>I would not date a pedophile because I do not support pedophillia and I would see dating them as a tacit endorsement of pedophillia. And a pedophile would not date me because I'm not a child.
It’s a hypothetical, it doesn’t have to be 100% applicable to real life, that’s the point of hypocritical’s.

>No, you weren't.
I didn’t say I said nice things to you, I said I was empathetic. I told you the truth because I believed that lying to you would be disrespecting you, but I tried to do so with as much empathy as possible.

>Anything I said to her I would not hesitate to say directly to you.
Too bad you blocked me then, because what you said to her was far more extreme than anything I’ve ever said about anyone on this sit or off it.

>Which is part of why I ended my friendship with the person we are discussing.
And as I’ve said before I’m fine that, just so long as you aren’t insinuating anything about her.

Sorry, I’m pretty busy IRL.

 No.2552

>>2550
>What if, you knew for certain the person was a racist, as they were open about it.
See >>2506:
>I can't know their inner thoughts, only what they told me.
All I know for sure is that the person told me he/she was a racist.

 No.2553

>>2551
> I said I was empathetic. I told you the truth

Being honest isn't the same thing as being "empathetic". If what you actually believe is insulting and
terrible.
>>Too bad you blocked me then, because what you said to her was far more extreme than anything I’ve ever said

And I was holding back. But I don't believe that when you say that. You're a racist. The things you say apply to millions of people. The things I said about you apply to one person.

 No.2554

>>2552
Fair enough. But you could compare the things they say and do to your own and other's metrics for what is and isn't racist and see if they align with any of them. Then make a decision based on how often that happens.

I don't know if you know this, but sometimes people lie about being racist. They will say they are not while still holding racist views and outwardly dismissing other racists. With this in mind a person's word is not the final say on whether or not they are racist.

 No.2555

File: 1569696731729.png (491.43 KB, 805x1024, 805:1024, 6322B65C-27A6-48E4-A7B3-BB….png) ImgOps Google

>>2553
>And I was holding back.
Yeah, I think it’s best to just leave it here before someone says something they regret.

 No.2557

>>2555
I don't regret any of it. But I think you mean before we say something rule-breaking. Which I can agree with. Let's leave it there.

 No.2558

>>2553
>The things you say apply to millions of people.
According to https://scotland.shinyapps.io/sg-equality-evidence-finder/ , the number of non-whites living in Scotland is under 1 million.

 No.2559

>>2558
His views are on those races as a whole, not just in his country of origin...

 No.2560

>>2554
Everybody is a little racist.

 No.2562

>>2560
I can't tell if this is a joke or not, as it's being made by puppets. But taking it as a serious statement, it depends on how much "a little" is and who "everybody" is. And also what "racism" is! I've heard it suggested by some that anything short of committing a hate crime isn't "racism". That's something I don't agree with, obviously. But it's important we establish definitions (what "racist" is) and thresholds  (what "a little" is) if we are going to apply this a large group of people (who "everbody" is).

 No.2563

>>2559
>>2553
>The things you say apply to millions of people.
Oh, well if you're talking about Mint's discussion of population-level racial statistics, they don't apply to any individual people.  I'm sure that Mint realizes that statistical distributions are, you know, distributions and that there are people from everything in the distribution.  I don't think Mint is prejudiced against individual black people ("prejudiced" in the sense of assuming that racial stereotypes hold true of a randomly encountered person of a given race).  Mint is racist because of his race-based views on immigration and national ethnic homogeneity.

>>2562
>I've heard it suggested by some that anything short of committing a hate crime isn't "racism". That's something I don't agree with, obviously.
I don't either, and neither do any mainstream dictionaries.

>But it's important we establish definitions
Merriam-Webster gives three definitions.  I think definition 2 is irrelevant here, so here are definitions 1 and 3:

>1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

>3 : racial prejudice or discrimination

I'd say that everybody has a little subconscious racial prejudice and subconscious racial discrimination, so that would meet definition 3 but not definition 1.

 No.2564

File: 1569698274427.png (83.8 KB, 350x350, 1:1, adagio_dazzle_pony_shrug_b….png) ImgOps Google

If you have sympathies for a person who holds an offensive opinion, does that make you a terrible person who should re evaluate who to hang out with?

 No.2565

>>2563
Mint believes in the IQ myth as well. That whites have high IQs than most other races for exclusively genetic reasons. Which is a hotly disputed topic and not something I support.

>>I'd say that everybody has a little subconscious racial prejudice and subconscious racial discrimination

Not sure I agree unless we define what "a little" is.

 No.2566

>>2564
It should make you re-evaluate which of your morals you are willing to compromise on by hanging out with this person.

 No.2568

>>2565
>Mint believes in the IQ myth as well. That whites have high IQs than other races for exclusively genetic reasons.
I'm pretty sure that Mint is aware that there is significant overlap in the IQ distributions of racial subpopulations living in the same developed country.

 No.2569

>>2568
You should just ask him before making assumptions. But that's not the point. He still believes that white people are more intelligent than black people and others because of exclusively genetic reasons. He also believes that culture and art from these non-whites groups is less significant because of this. This is what he told me. He tried to compare a piece of Renaissance art to a random Native American cave painting to show how much "better" white culture was because (according to him) they had the intelligence to make art Native Americans did not. Even going so far as to say the genocide of Native Americans was justified because white people "actually did something" with the land they took.

 No.2570

>Should we consider a person being romantically involved with a racist to be a tacit endorsement of racism?

Racism is one of those things that you can't really be neutral on, so sorta.  I'm sure the people in question don't consider it that way and when asked would say they do not support racism, but they also clearly aren't doing much to combat it.

>Would you ever be romantically involved with a racist, if you yourself are not one?

I don't think I could manage to hang around someone like that, no.

 No.2572

>>2570
Not doing much to combat it? The idea that someone may love a person and still disagreee with -and regularly argue about- their beliefs is surely not foreign to you? Saying someone isn't combatting it simply because of their association is a broad assumption.

 No.2576

>>2572
>The idea that someone may love a person and still disagreee with -and regularly argue about- their beliefs is surely not foreign to you?

Well it certainly isn't domestic.  That sounds really weird.  I can't name a couple I know that's like that.  Or a couple I've ever known, for that matter.

 No.2577

>>2572
Constantly arguing doesn't sound like a healthy relationship.

 No.2578

>>2577
>Constantly arguing doesn't sound like a healthy relationship.
I'd say is true for one sense of the word "argue" and not for another sense.

 No.2580

>>2578
Could you elaborate?

 No.2581

>>2580
Here are two senses of the word "argue":
1. give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one's view.
2. exchange or express diverging or opposite views, typically in a heated or angry way.

I'd say that (1) calmly trying to persuade based on reason and evidence is a good thing and (2) exchanging opposite views in a heated or angry way is a bad thing.

 No.2582

>>2538
Yes.

No, I only date good people.

 No.2583

>>2582
How racist can a person be before they become a bad person?  What if someone has just a very small subconscious prejudice against a certain race?

 No.2585

>>2583
All racism is bad, any makes someone bad.  I know that.

>small subconscious prejudice
No.  I think racism is a choice, you have to decide to hate people and be bad.

 No.2586

>>2585
So if I reject a job candidate because of subconscious racial prejudice, that isn't racism?

If I train a machine-learning network, and it ends up discriminating based on race, would it be racist to use that network instead of a marginally less effective network that doesn't discriminate based on race?

 No.2588

>>2582
>>2585
I agree completely.

 No.2590

>>2586
Well, here's the thing. Unless they actually did consciously reject a person for the job based on race, that person will undeniably deny it was because of racial prejudice. I see this kind of thing on this board a lot. Those people justify it and try to think of excuses.

 No.2591

>>2586
Well, I'm not a misanthrope, which means I don't condemn general human qualities.  If a test for implicit bias would put most people a few percentage points one way or another, it'd be hard to say all those people are bad.  I find it politically appropriate to condemn a few individuals acting on what are seen as bad choices, which I gather is what is meant when someone is called a racist.

>subconscious racial prejudice, that isn't racism?

Hmm...maybe it is.  Is all racism committed by racists?

>it ends up discriminating based on race, would it be racist to use that network instead of a marginally less effective network that doesn't discriminate based on race?

If you're aware of it, you should use the racially fair one.

 No.2594

File: 1569713095968.png (8.14 KB, 226x208, 113:104, 386.png) ImgOps Google

>Should we consider a person being romantically involved with a racist to be a tacit endorsement of racism?
Depends.

>Would you ever be romantically involved with a racist, if you yourself are not one?
Depends if she likes white people.

 No.2595

>>2591
> Is all racism committed by racists?

If you're committing racism, aren't you a racist by definition?

 No.2596

>>2595
That would be simplest, and obviously  if I thought that, I'd not have asked the question.  I think there are several definitions of racism.  There are some that would link racism and racists and some that would not.

 No.2597

>>2596

I think there's varying levels of racism, from preferring dealing with people of your same race because you have trouble understanding accents, all the way up to wanting to purge the "inferior" from the planet.  Anywhere on that scale would make you a racist, but even if we were to say all racists were bad, they wouldn't be equally bad.

 No.2598

>>2597
>Anywhere on that scale would make you a racist

Well, my observation is no one is called a racist to help with some minor adjustment.  It is a strong claim and an indication of a need to be removed, shunned, and/or punished.  It appears to me to have a pretty black and white character in practice.

 No.2600

>>2598
There in lies the problem. The thin line between "believing racist things" and "being a racist". Which I think begins when it's an active choice.

Someone who believes a racist thing MIGHT be able to stop doing so, once it is pointed out that it IS racist. Because they have a genuine desire to not be a racist. A racist would not do this.

 No.2602

>>2600
Yeah, that sounds right.

 No.2603

>>2600

Ah, I could see that, yeah.  So a racist would be defined by not wanting to correct themselves, and that's what makes them a bad person.

 No.2604

>>2603
I believe so, yeah.

 No.2605

>>2603
I wouldn't be so quick to condemn someone as a "bad person".  You can claim that a person's racist thoughts and actions are bad without claiming that the person as a whole is bad.  I think Mint is a good person, even though his racism is bad.

 No.2606

>>2605
I dont agree that he is a "good person". Someone who actively choses to be racist cannot be.

 No.2607

File: 1569716022826.png (24.87 KB, 259x189, 37:27, 389.png) ImgOps Google

>>2605
Love the sinner hate the sin?

 No.2608

File: 1569716614419.png (325.88 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, loli-platelet.png) ImgOps Google

>>2606
Mint doesn't "actively choose" to be racist.  In his daily life, he doesn't discriminate against people based on their race.  And he can't consciously choose what he believes.

>>2607
I'd agree with that.  We are all sinners, and the world could use more love (of people).  Hatred is usually better reserved for actions than for people.

 No.2609

>>2608
> In his daily life, he doesn't discriminate against people based on their race.

But he still chooses to hold racist views, even when confronted on them.

>And he can't consciously choose what he believes.

What? Yes you can. Especially when people are telling you your views are racist and wrong. Continuing to hold on to them is a deliberate choice.

 No.2610

File: 1569718271037.png (24.87 KB, 259x189, 37:27, 389.png) ImgOps Google

>>2608
I'd argue that the world needs more neutral emotions. Less of love and of hatred.

 No.2611

>Should we consider a person being romantically involved with a racist to be a tacit endorsement of racism?

Hmm. I'd give that a soft no, but i also don't feel like i can entirely find that person blameless. You're encouraging that behavior in a way, and if your attracted to shitty behavior, and don't control yourself, i think you're something of a bad person.

Largely depends on what you define as racism tho. That word seems to have different definitions these days.

>Would you ever be romantically involved with a racist, if you yourself are not one?

Define racism. Probably not tho.

 No.2613

>>2611
>Define racism
Well, how familiar are you with mint horse? We've discussed some of his behaviors and beliefs in this thread

 No.2614

File: 1569721103272.png (2.06 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, 1456670771105.png) ImgOps Google

>>2609
>Continuing to hold on to them is a deliberate choice.
No, it's not.  You can't consciously control what you believe.  To change a belief about something factual, you'd need to be convinced that old your belief is false.  To change an ethical belief... well, I'm not sure how people change their ethical beliefs, but it is not by conscious decision.  I can't just snap my fingers and decide to believe that it is morally acceptable to randomly stab people on the street.

>>2611
>You're encouraging that behavior in a way,
What if you try to make the other person less racist?

 No.2615

>>2614
You're already sending mixed messages if you get with someone to make them un-racist, but that doesn't seem like it can end well long-term either.

 No.2618

>>2614
> To change a belief about something factual, you'd need to be convinced that old your belief is false.

People often believe things they think are factual, but are actually inaccurate, biased or in other ways flawed. The way you change those beliefs is self-rerflection when someone calls you out on those beliefs. This is the difference between a good person and a bad person. Mint does not do this. He's been confronted with evidence against his racist views before, and he always rejects it. He chooses to keep believing what he does. He's a bad person as a result.

 No.2620

File: 1569724478222.jpg (89.06 KB, 800x606, 400:303, EnglishAngoraRabbit.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2618
>People often believe things they think are factual, but are actually inaccurate, biased or in other ways flawed.
By "factual", I meant "
'is'
vs
'ought'
", not "true vs false".

>>2618
> He's been confronted with evidence against his racist views before, and he always rejects it.
Maybe he just doesn't find it convincing?  I think Mint is putting some effort into challenging his beliefs.  I would like to see him put more effort into it, but I can't say that (he is a bad person just because he has difficulty overcoming his false beliefs).

 No.2622

>>2613
I usually figure these threads are for ideas in general, or at least I'm to behave that way.  If it's about a specific ponyville poster, I guess I should say I don't know this poster well enough, so my past posts have been of a general sort.  I guess I'll leave it to those with better knowledge of Mint Horse from the pony board of ponyville.

 No.2623

>>2622
The thread is not explicitly about him, but he is the one who prompted the question and is a good example as a result.

But if you don't know him, I'll try to come up with a more general example when my movie is over.

 No.2625

>>2611
>Define racism.

Someone who believes that white people are genetically superior to most other races. Who believes white culture has more value than other cultures, who believes in the desire for a government enforced white ethnostate, and who actively rejects any attempts to explain why these beliefs might be incorrect or flawed.

>>2620
> I think Mint is putting some effort into challenging his beliefs.

I have no reason to believe this. Especially when he repeatedly said in this thread that he is only actively trying to avoid "talking about" his beliefs, not trying to change them. And the fact that in his very thread he said himself that trying to help him change his beliefs is not something he feels will be successful. Like I explained in >>2600 The thin line between "believing racist things" and "being a racist" begins when it's an active choice.

Someone who believes a racist thing MIGHT be able to stop doing so, once it is pointed out that it IS racist. Because they have a genuine desire to not be a racist. A racist would not do this. Mint has repeatedly shown he is unwilling to do this. Therefore he is actively choosing to be a racist.

 No.2627

File: 1569730279350.png (184.17 KB, 477x464, 477:464, 1408833582949.png) ImgOps Google

>>2625
>Especially when he repeatedly said in this thread that he is only actively trying to avoid "talking about" his beliefs, not trying to change them.
He said that he is working with Braze's effort to root out his racism.

>>2625
>And the fact that in his very thread he said himself that trying to help him change his beliefs is not something he feels will be successful.
There is a difference between predicting failure and actively sabotaging success.

 No.2640

File: 1569758103127.png (36.43 KB, 161x228, 161:228, sdfgsdg.png) ImgOps Google

>>2625
Wait, only believing that white people are superior is racist?

 No.2641

>>2625
>>2611
Personally I preferred the 'prejudice based on race' angle. I think 'superiority' is too loose, especially since you can absolutely be racist towards your own race.

 No.2642

>>2625
That's a very bizarre definition of racism to me, but i would not date someone like that, and i do believe dating someone like that shows a certail level of moral and ethical failing.

On a side note, if someone was not white, but believed their race was genetically superior, thought their culture had more value, wanted government enforcement of an ethnostate for them, and actively rejected attempts to change those beliefs, would those people not be racist? The fact that you single out white makes me think that you do not believe these people would be racist, and that's very odd to me, and i'd like to know why you think there's a distinction.

>>2641
I like this definition more, but then, based on this definition, i don't see dating someone like that as an inherent moral failure. I think some level of prejudice is largely inevitable, though, i think cultural prejudice is a lot more common than racial prejudice, and people conflate the two. I'd feel much more threatened, for instance, by a group of white guys who looked like "gangsters", who were being loud and abrasive, than i would by a group of black guys in lab coats quietly talking to each other. Personally, i see prejudice based on culture as perfectly reasonable. A culture is a belief set, it's essentially how you think the world should be. Prejudice based on beliefs and philosophy is necessary, otherwise you wouldn't be able to criticism people for being racist!

 No.2643

>>2640
>>2642
Well, I was speaking from my experiences as an American. But to clarify; Obviously people belonging to one non-white group can be racist against another non-white. It would be racist for an Asian person to call a black person the N word, for example. And vice-versa for an appropriate Asian slur. And I suppose, hypothetically speaking, someone of a non-white race could be racist against whites as well. Although this doesn't come up much in the US because white people are the majority and the ones in power.

Racism against you own group is also possible, I think. But then we run into the problem of defining what your "group" is. Because "race" is such a nebulous concept to begin with. But I've heard places like India have a harsh class system to divide people up, as do some places in Africa.

 No.2644

>>2643
Black people can also be racist against white people.  Like that example of black supremacists from the other thread.

 No.2645

>>2644
I addressed that.

 No.2646

>>2643
Fair enough. I was just making sure you weren't of the school of thought that white people are unique in being able to be racist, and racism against them is impossible. I've met people who sincerely believe this, and i think that  ideology is completely absurd. Your explanation seems reasonable to me.

 No.2647

>>2646
I think the people who say racism against whites is impossible are under a different definition of what "racism" is. Because white people are the majority in America and hold all the power, some people believe that you can't be "racist" against them because they define "racism" as having the power to oppress other races systemically.

 No.2648

>>2647
Personally, i think that definition is shit. Just call systemic racism systemic racism. Why muddy the waters unless you're trying to dishonestly manipulate the public discourse through unstated definition changes?

 No.2649

>>2648
Well, I can't speak for everyone who does this, but I think it's the emphasize the difference between systemic racism and person-to-person racism. Because there are people who like to conflate the two, or deny systemic racism exists.

 No.2651

>>2649
Isn't having one term for 2 things the worst way possible to emphasize the difference between those two things? That's the worst idea ever.

 No.2652

>>2651
Well yes, but they are attempting to change the definition of "racism" to only apply to the one thing through using it that way. Words can change meaning over time by using them a certain way.

 No.2653

>>2652
That sounds like they're trying to make racism against white people OK. Like, they'll go around beating white people screaming "fuck you honkey" and then turn and say "no, see, it's okay because it's not racism". It just seems very convenient to me that the way their defining it would make racism against white people okay.

 No.2654

>>2653
But see that's conflating systemic racism with personal racism. Both are bad, but systemic racism is far more damaging to far more people. A black guy who says "honky" has no power to prevent white people from getting certain opportunities or keep a disproportionate amount of white people in jail.

 No.2655

>>2654
So then, by that definition, poor southern whites who wave the confederate flag and use the n word at black people aren't racist either because they have no power?

 No.2656

>>2655
Those guys dont, but white senators and police officers and CEOs do. And there are far more of them.

 No.2657

>>2656
Are the poor white people racist then?

 No.2658

>>2657
They are personally racist but they also benefit from systemic racism. So yes? I don't think we ever disagreed on that.

 No.2659

>>2658
But they wouldn't be systemically racist due to lacking power? Isn't personal racism not racism anymore? Isn't systemic racism the only "real" racism now, thereby making the poor southern whites not racist?

 No.2660

>>2659
Well I never said I agreed with their motivation. Just what I thought it was. Personally I'd still considered both to be "racism", even if one has more far-reaching effects.

The opposite also happens. There are people who say personal racism is the only racism and deny that systemic racism exists.

So the problem here is that we have two connected but distinct concepts using the same word to describe both. What solution would you propose for this dilemma?

 No.2661

>>2660
Simple. Racism includes both the subset systemic racism and the subset personal racism. If something can apply to one, it's racist overall, as it applies to one of the subsets, though it might not necessarily apply to an individual subset.

 No.2666

File: 1569808150553.png (520.67 KB, 900x1000, 9:10, karen-1475330076503.png) ImgOps Google

Should we consider a person being romantically involved with a modern artist to be a tacit endorsement of modern art?

Should we consider a person being romantically involved with a fisherman to be a tacit endorsement of fishing?

Should we consider a person being romantically involved with an employee of a gummy-bear manufacturer to be a tacit endorsement of gummy bears?

 No.2667

>>2666
>modern artist
YES
>fisherman
YES
>employee
Not endorsement of gummy bears, but slavery.  No one would make gummy bears unless they were compelled.

 No.2668

>>2666
I mean... Yes?

 No.2669

File: 1569810819466.jpeg (109.08 KB, 776x1029, 776:1029, hoods_on___by_devil_vox-d….jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>2667
If a slave dates another slave, it means that they tacitly endorse slavery?

>>2668
So, if you were dating someone, and you found out that they work at a gummy-bear manufacturing plant, and you disapprove of gummy bears, you'd break up with them solely based on that?

 No.2670

>>2608
>Mint doesn't "actively choose" to be racist.  In his daily life, he doesn't discriminate against people based on their race.  And he can't consciously choose what he believes.

He does choose to be racist, he has never met anyone not his own race except as servants for him, and yes you can choose what you believe.  Many have done it; Mint has admitted many times he does not WISH to change his views.

>>2614
>You can't consciously control what you believe

YES, you can.  Many have.  But they must either wish to change belief or have a major epiphany.

Mint also claims to have an IQ of 120 but to be of insufficient intelligence to learn anything in school.  

This is a direct correlation between choice and result, not passive inability to affect outcome.

Stop validating self-disablement.

 No.2671

>>2669
If someone dates me, do they endorse asininity?

 No.2672

>>2670
>YES, you can.
I don't see any way of changing beliefs (about facts) other than (1) being convinced that your old beliefs were false or (2) literally brainwashing yourself.

 No.2673

>>2666
Please don't joke around in this thread.

>>2669
Endorsing Racism and not liking gummy bears are two different things. But if someone had a strong enough dislike of gummy bears, that wouldn't be unwarranted.

 No.2674

>>2672
that seems obvious.  I have cited many facts that turned out to be provably incorrect, and I update my belief in them as soon as I am convinced of the accuracy of the corrected information.

Yet, this is sophistry because we are talking about belief in non factual things like whether the scary black boogeyman is coming for your race.  Which is not a factual belief.  It is speculation, and cannot be factually true or untrue.

I have also updated by nonfactual beliefs, over a period of decades of experience combined with some influence by others.  Many, many people have changed their "beliefs" and if you imagine they haven't or that same is rare, you are simply not paying attention to the world around you.


2.  Why is this thread going on and on about the definition of racism etc?  In CA it's handled differently than the federal rights statutes:  ANY treatment of anyone that is discriminatory based on association with ANY group, whether that association is real or imagined violates the statute.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&sectionNum=51

This resolves the issue of squabbling about what is and isn't racism by people who know full well what we're talking about, as you ALL do itt.  I do not understand why argument in bad faith is so accepted on this site.  Stop making false arguments, people.

 No.2675

>>2673
>Please don't joke around in this thread.
It's not a joke.  Just because you have a different opinion than me doesn't mean that I'm not serious.

 No.2676

>>2675
Well then yes, those are all tacit endorsements of those things. Someone against the fishing industry should not date a fisherman. Likewise, someone against racism should not date a racist.

 No.2677

>>2674
>Why is this thread going on and on about the definition of racism etc?
Because racism is a main part of the OP, and having a clear definition helps to avoid people talking past each other.

>>2673
>But if someone had a strong enough dislike of gummy bears, that wouldn't be unwarranted.
>>2676
>Someone against the fishing industry should not date a fisherman.
Well, we disagree on that too.  So perhaps our disagreement isn't anything to do with racism but instead about tolerance.

>>2674
>I do not understand why argument in bad faith is so accepted on this site.
I don't think anyone here is arguing in bad faith.  That is a rather nasty accusation to make about people.

 No.2678

>>2674
>belief in non factual things like whether the scary black boogeyman is coming for your race.  Which is not a factual belief.  It is speculation, and cannot be factually true or untrue.
That seems like a prediction about the future.  I guess I wasn't clear, but by "factual", I meant "is" statements vs "ought" statements.  So I would count Mint's beliefs about what will happen in the future as a 'factual' statement.

 No.2679

>>2677
Racism shouldn't be tolerated.

 No.2680

>>2679
The government is compelled to tolerate racism (in sense 1 >>2563) by the First Amendment.  You can't jail people for thoughtcrime or for speaking about their beliefs.

Now, what about close associations?  I think it is perfectly acceptable to tolerate people who have racist beliefs as long as you make clear that you disapprove of their racism.

 No.2685

>>2680
The first amendment "tolerates" racism in that it cannot prevent people from believing it or voicing that they believe it. But the government is not required to endorse or promote racism. Nor is it required to give racists a platform.

And, as I stated in >>2600 The thin line between "believing racist things" and "being a racist" is drawn by active choice.

Someone who believes a racist thing MIGHT be able to stop doing so, once it is pointed out that their belief IS racist. Because they may have a genuine desire to not be a racist. A racist would not do this.

A racist continues to believe racist things even after being confronted on their beliefs. This active choice is what makes racists bad people. Mint horse is a bad person. And I don't think the actions or thoughts of bad people should be tolerated. You can't stop him from thinking it, or from saying it. But you should not associate yourself with bad people or support and/or endorse their bad actions through that association. It calls into question whether or not you actually strongly oppose racism.

 No.2687

File: 1569837671042.jpeg (75.78 KB, 910x879, 910:879, D333E40D-4FDD-4CF8-A290-7….jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>2609
>What? Yes you can. Especially when people are telling you your views are racist and wrong. Continuing to hold on to them is a deliberate choice.
What, how can you just choose to believe something entirely contrary to the views you currently hold?

In my opinion if someone can just choose to be or not be something based on something as simple as social pressure then that person must have never believed in that thing to any great extent in the first place.

>>2618
I really don’t know if it’s appropriate to bring this up, but posts like this really annoy me. The assuredness of them really gets to me.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.scmp.com/news/china/article/2054126/why-do-asians-have-bigger-brains-europeans-or-africans

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/29400417/

Here’s some evidence that shows the races aren’t equal. Now I want you to choose to radically change everything you believe based on these to articles, and if you don’t you’ a bad person.

Please stop assuming that your position that the races are equal is 100% true and 100% good, you’re acting the way you caricature me. I’m not a bad person for disagreeing with (you).

This is a vegan video, but it applies to this situation as well. Someone can believe or even do bad things while still being a good person.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Xz6AUs_a52U

(I’m not trying to argue about racial differences, I’m just trying to make a point.)

>>2676
What if that person is trying their best to convince their lover not to do any of those things?

My girlfriend has been trying really hard to help me not be racist. She’s even gave me a few focused therapy lessons ti help me. She’s isn’t being complicit in my racism, she’s trying to help me.

But regardless, I’d rather you just stopped implying that she endorses my racism by going out with me. The only reason that I’m staying so civil with you right now is because I know it’s what she wants and that I’d hurt her by going off on you. But you insulting her in this way pisses me off to say the least. People like you are the reason that she’s lost so many friends and that some people are beginning to think she may hold racist views.

I’m [strike]asking,[/strike] telling you to stop talking about this. Feel free to say whatever you want about me, but you have absolutely no reason to believe that she holds any racist views or endorses mine. I’ve already told you that she’s trying to help me, I don’t know what more you could want.

 No.2688

>>2670
>Mint also claims to have an IQ of 120 but to be of insufficient intelligence to learn anything in school.
I claim to have a 110 IQ, and I’ve only even said that I won’t be able to take a course that will actually help me. There are courses in college nowadays that could probably be passed by someone with a 80 IQ, doesn’t mean their worth that persons time just because they can pass it.

 No.2689

File: 1569843382370.png (321.43 KB, 673x1085, 673:1085, oops____by_devil_vox-d9f4s….png) ImgOps Google

>>2685
>Nor is it required to give racists a platform.
That is not true is all cases.  The government cannot deny people access to a traditional public forum based on the content of their speech.  And the government cannot deny access to either a designated public forum or a nonpublic forum based on the viewpoint of their speech.

>>2687
^this
And I'd like to highlight one part since that was a long post:
>My girlfriend has been trying really hard to help me not be racist. She’s even gave me a few focused therapy lessons ti help me. She’s isn’t being complicit in my racism, she’s trying to help me.
In general, dating a racist might be probative of endorsing racism, but it is not definitive proof.  If the person is actively trying to eliminate their partner's racism, well, then that decisively rebuts the presumption that they are endorsing racism.

>>2685
By your own logic, Mint can say that you are a bad person for not becoming a vegan, that you are tacitly endorsing animal cruelty by consuming factory-farmed animal products.

 No.2690

Should we consider a person X being romantically involved with a racist R to be a tacit endorsement of racism when X makes it very clear that they strongly disapprove of racism and gives therapy lessons to R to try to eliminate R's racism?
I don't see how that could possibly be answered in the affirmative by anyone who knows the definition of the word "endorse".

 No.2691

File: 1569844425701.png (43.26 KB, 248x363, 248:363, 382.png) ImgOps Google

>>2690
Seems the person willing to work with the other to make them a better person is better than ignoring them.

 No.2695

>>2689
>>2689
>Mint can say that you are a bad person for not becoming a vegan, that you are tacitly endorsing animal cruelty by consuming factory-farmed animal products.

He does say that, and so would most other vegans.

 No.2696

>>2695
Watch video related.

To summarise, eating meat is evil, but non-vegans aren’t evil because they aren’t fully aware of what they’re doing.

 No.2697

File: 1569851482980.png (496.16 KB, 857x929, 857:929, gleam.png) ImgOps Google

>>2696
That gets into the topic of proving that eating meat is evil.

And that would go against the OP topic, which is concerning race.

 No.2698

File: 1569852218703.png (115.52 KB, 450x450, 1:1, DB6F7549-71FC-43C2-AF9F-2E….png) ImgOps Google

>>2697
I was responding to, >>2695

 No.2699

giving someone affection and actively trying to cure their racism is not an endorsement of racism

it's far more productive and aggressive activism than any possible alternative i can think of, actually

 No.2700

File: 1569852522562.png (496.16 KB, 857x929, 857:929, gleam.png) ImgOps Google

>>2698
I saw, still would need to prove that eating meat is an evil act in order for the theory to work. And if anyone disagrees with it it'll fall apart.

 No.2701

>>2687
Your post about the difficulty in changing beliefs is not in itself an argument in favor of racism. That being said, please use more harmless, hypothetical examples instead of such extreme ideologies in the future, to create less risk of a derail or misunderstanding.

You are not in trouble yet. Thank you.

 No.2703

>>2687

>What, how can you just choose to believe something entirely contrary to the views you currently hold?

You know I've done it. It just takes listening to those confronting you on your beliefs. And a genuine desire to not hurt other people if your beliefs could be wrong or biased.  

>I really don’t know if it’s appropriate to bring this up
It's not.

The first link you provided says directly:
Su said the study in no way suggested that Asians were smarter than other humans. "Scientific research has found no evidence, none at all, to support the existence of intellectual difference among races” So it doesn't even prove what you think it proves. The second link your provided doesn't mention a difference in intelligence at all. Only in behavior. So again, it doesn't prove what you think it does.

Most of you "evidence" is like this. It's you trying to prove what you already think through faulty conjecture and biased information. And when you are confronted on this, you just deny it.


>What if that person is trying their best to convince their lover not to do any of those things?
If Person A is trying to "change" Person B's beliefs, and Person B is openly refusing to listen to arguments against them and insisting that they are right, then Person A is a fool. You can only help someone change if they are willing to change. And Person B has time and time again showed that they are unwilling. So you can't force it on them because Person B is a bad person. Person A is only going to end up either wasting their time and emotionally damaging themselves, or being swayed to Person B's beliefs.

>My girlfriend has been trying really hard to help me not be racist.
But you haven't been trying to NOT be a racist. As evidenced by your posts in this thread.

>She’s isn’t being complicit in my racism, she’s trying to help me.
You can't be helped. Not unless you think that being a racist is a problem or wrong. Which you clearly do not. So your girlfriend is foolishly wasting her time and pushing away the good people in her life by associating with you.

>But regardless, I’d rather you just stopped implying that she endorses my racism by going out with me.
That's the difference between a tacit endorsement and a open endorsement. Her actions of associating with you endorse racism. Because you actively choose to be racist and see nothing wrong with being racist. It would be a different story if she were dating a former racist who wanted to leave the life style. You are not that.

>I’m [strike]asking,[/strike] telling you to stop talking about this
Don't you dare threaten me. I'm not afraid of you. I can talk about my opinion on this matter if I want. Just because my opinion on dating racists happens to apply to your girlfriend, it doesn't give you the right to stop me from expressing it.


>>2696
But mint IS aware of what he's doing, and he chooses to keep doing it.

 No.2704

>>2689
>By your own logic, Mint can say that you are a bad person for not becoming a vegan

I think exactly what >>2695 says.
>He does say that, and so would most other vegans.

 No.2705

>>2704
>I think exactly what >>2695 says.
>>He does say that, and so would most other vegans.
Mint already denied that:
>>2696
>non-vegans aren’t evil because they aren’t fully aware of what they’re doing.

 No.2706

>>2705
That doesn't really apply because mint horse is fully aware of what he is doing.

Being a racist is an active choice.

 No.2707

>>2706
>Being a racist is an active choice.
Not in the sense of having racist thoughts.  And Mint doesn't actively choose to racially discriminate against people in his daily life.

 No.2708

>>2703
>It just takes listening to those confronting you on your beliefs. And a genuine desire to not hurt other people if your beliefs could be wrong or biased.  
No, it requires being convinced that your old beliefs were wrong.  How can someone be said to have changed their beliefs if they are not convinced that their old beliefs are wrong?

 No.2709

>>2707
I've already explained, a few times now, the difference between "believing a racist thing" and "being a racist". I did so here >>2685 and >>2600

>The thin line between "believing racist things" and "being a racist" is drawn by active choice. Someone who believes a racist thing MIGHT be able to stop doing so, once it is pointed out that their belief IS racist. Because they may have a genuine desire to not be a racist. A racist would not do this. A racist continues to believe racist things even after being confronted on their beliefs. This active choice is what makes racists bad people. Mint horse is a bad person. And I don't think the actions or thoughts of bad people should be tolerated. You can't stop him from thinking it, or from saying it. But you should not associate yourself with bad people or support and/or endorse their bad actions through that association. It calls into question whether or not you actually strongly oppose racism.

>>2708
Ok, granted. But someone can only be convinced if they are willing to listen and they have to genuinely care about not being a certain way. So what I said still applies.

 No.2710

>>2703
>So your girlfriend is foolishly wasting her time
Perhaps that is true.  But that is a different charge than a claim of endorsing racism.  It is ridiculous to claim that someone  endorses racism if she actually is trying to eliminate racism.

 No.2711

>>2710
Her actions of associating with him endorse racism. Because he actively choose to be racist and see nothing wrong with being racist. It would be a different story if she were dating a former racist who wanted to leave the lifestyle. He is not that.

By associating with a racist, who feels no remorse for being a racist and no desire to leave racism, it is a tacit endorsement of racism. She is ok enough with racism to date someone who actively participates in it and has no desire to stop.

 No.2712

>>2709
I think Mint *is* willing to listen, but it is a difficult and slow process to fundamentally change his beliefs.

>>2711
>She is ok enough with racism to date someone who actively participates in it and has no desire to stop.
But she is trying to change that about Mint!  What if she succeeds and Mint stops being racist?  Would you still say that she endorsed racism by associating with Mint and curing him of his racism?

 No.2713

>>2712
>I think Mint *is* willing to listen, but it is a difficult and slow process to fundamentally change his beliefs.

He's clearly not, as evidenced by his posts in this thread, where he tried to justify his racism with articles that didn't even support what he was claiming. He is still trying to justify being the way he is because he has no desire to change. He is a bad person.

> Would you still say that she endorsed racism by associating with Mint and curing him of his racism?

Like I said before, It would be a different story if she were dating a former racist who wanted to leave the life style. That would be a different argument. Mint is not that.

So I'm skeptical he will ever be "cured" of racism. You have to want to change, and you have to have a desire to not be racist. He does not.

 No.2715

>>2713
>So I'm skeptical he will ever be "cured" of racism.
So am I.  But it is a possibility.  Overestimating the probability of curing Mint of his racism is not the same thing as endorsing racism.  

And you didn't answer my question.  If she succeeds and Mint stops being racist, would you still say that she endorsed racism by associating with Mint and curing him of his racism?

 No.2716

>>2715
>>2715
This is getting to be too much of a direct critque of Mint horse himself, and while I personally think the guy is a terrible human being, we are getting too close to skirting the rules by talking about him directly. I propose we should use a hypothetical person with the same views and mentality as Mint to discuss this further. We will call this hypothetical person "Cletus McRacistButtface."

The way he is now? Yes, I think so. Cletus doesn't show any remorse for being racist and shows no desire to not be racist. So the attempt to "cure" him over is coming 100% from the other person. It's delusional and ultimately pointless. If Cletus' girlfriend somehow "cured" him of racist, well... she still dated a racist who chose to be a racist for a long time, with no real evidence they would ever STOP being a racist. Only their own delusional desire for that.

 No.2717

Transitioning from criticizing another user into renaming the user into a direct insult -specifically to create a loophole in the rules- is not acceptable behavior on this board. Not only that, but creating a new character specifically to criticize them is the definition of a strawman. If there aren't any further posts made about the original point, the thread will have to be locked.

Keep the posts relevant to whether dating a racist is an endorsement of racism. You are skirting dangerously close to a direct insult on another poster.

 No.2718

>>2716
>It's delusional and ultimately pointless.
>... with no real evidence they would ever STOP being a racist. Only their own delusional desire for that.
Well perhaps Cletus's gf overestimated her abilities to cure Cletus of his racism.  That doesn't mean that she endorsed racism.  It just means that she overestimated her own abilities.

 No.2719

>>2717
Um... the whole point was to AVOID directly insulting another poster, while still discussing the behaviors and mentalities that are problematic.

 No.2720

>>2719
How the heck are we supposed to discuss those behaviors and mentalities in relation to dating a person with them without ascribing them to a hypothetical person AND without being able to use a real example?

I need a real answer to this question to continue this thread.

 No.2721

>>2717
>Not only that, but creating a new character specifically to criticize them is the definition of a strawman.
Hmm, I didn't really see it like that.  I think Manley just legitimately wants to consider a hypothetical person rather than talking about Mint personally.  Other than calling Mint a "terrible human being" and giving a derogatory surname to the hypothetical character, I don't see anything Manley did wrong in that post.

 No.2722

>>2719
>>2720

You don't need to name an entire hypothetical person to make a hypothetical. Speaking about the generalized concept of a racist is enough unless you're drawing parallels to a real person: one of our users. Which you are intentionally drawing those parallels.

This is becoming about poster drama and not about intellectual discourse.

Just refer to the hypothetical person as "the racist" and avoid drawing direct parallels to the intimate life of any posters, and you're fine. This applies to everyone from here.

The argument Gleaming Orca is making is not inherently flawed, and neither is yours, it's the way you're going about it that is causing issues.

 No.2723

>>2722
Fine.

>>2718
I still feel like The Racist's girlfriend is tacitly endorsing racism by associating with a racist. Especially being romantically involved with one. A romantic relationship is more of an endorsement of a person than other types of association. It is stating that you believe this person is a good person, in my view. No one would or should actively choose to date a bad person. But as I've discussed, the difference between a person who believes a racist thing and a racist is active choice.

Someone could date "a person with racist views" and not endorse racism, as I explained with the example of a former racist trying to leave the life. In that example, the one we will call "Former Racist" for the sake of brevity, may still hold some racist views, but he is actively trying to shed them because he does not wish to be a racist anymore. Anyone dating Former Racist is not endorsing racism, even though their romantic partner holds racist views at this time.

Do you see the difference?

 No.2724

>>2723

Thank you. This is a good, well-written and tactful post. Consider me gone and keep going.

 No.2726

>>2723
>A romantic relationship ... is stating that you believe this person is a good person, in my view.
I disagree with this entire notion of condemning someone as a "bad person" just because he does some bad things or has some bad beliefs.  Real people don't fit into simple categories of "good" and "bad" like some fictional characters do.  Someone can see the good in the racist and date him without approving of his racism, especially if she thinks that she can help the racist to root out his racist beliefs.

 No.2727

>>2726
Racists are bad people, because they choose to be the way they are. Just as someone who kicks a puppy is a bad person because they choose to abuse animals. We can disagree on this notion, but that's how I feel. There is a difference between simply doing a bad thing and actively choosing to do a bad thing.

 No.2728

I don't think most racists have a choice in their beliefs. And I don't believe you do either, honestly.

 No.2729

>>2728
How do they not? Especially when they are someone who gets confronted on their beliefs all the time.

Also, that's wrong. I've changed my views on a few things in my life.

 No.2730

>>2729
I'm also pretty sure you didn't choose to change them. One can harbor the delusion that they have that choice, but the fact is that they would have gone their whole lives believing what they did without some manner of consistent and patient, kind intervention.

Change is a product of your environment, not a product of you as a person.

 No.2731

>>2730
>I'm also pretty sure you didn't choose to change them

I chose to listen. I chose to care that my views were hurting people. A racist doesn't do this.

 No.2732

>>2677
>I don't think anyone here is arguing in bad faith.  That is a rather nasty accusation to make about people.

Taking offense at accurate statements is a good example of bad faith derails.

 No.2733

>>2732
Huh?  Someone can be genuinely offended even by an accurate statement.  And I'm not sure what distinction you're making between "good-faith" derails and "bad-faith" derails.  

 No.2734

>>2731
>I chose to listen. I chose to care that my views were hurting people. A racist doesn't do this.
Not necessarily.  A racist might listen to arguments against racism and care that their views are hurting other people without becoming convinced that their views are false.

 No.2737

>>2734
Hypothetically, maybe. But not in practice.

 No.2738

>>2737
I'd need evidence of that claim.
I'm uninclined to assume people are beyond that possibility without some kind of statistic.

 No.2740

>>2738
Then consider it my opinion. Because I don't know if it's possible to prove that objectively. All I can speak from is my own experiences.

And if people told me my views were homophobic, and I care that my views were hurting other people, I examined my own views and the people contesting them's word on it. To stubbornly hold on to those beliefs in the face of evidence against them would either mean that I 1) Was not willing to listen and/or 2) Did not care if my views were harmful. And you can apply this same logic to a racist who is choosing to be racist in the face of opposition to their viewpoint.

 No.2742

>>2740
>To stubbornly hold on to those beliefs in the face of evidence against them would either mean that I 1) Was not willing to listen and/or 2) Did not care if my views were harmful.
Or (3) you listened and carefully considered the evidence but came to the conclusion that your existing views are correct.

 No.2743

>>2742
That is only possible if, in these specific scenarios, if you believe it is possible holding racist views can BE correct.

I personally reject this notion. Science has debated this topic longer than any of us have been alive, and they have found no evidence to support the existence of intellectual differences among races that are due exclusively to genetic factors. Any "proof" to this notion is often either biased, intentionally misinformative, or not considering other factors besides race which could have given the results it has. In my view, it is not possible for someone to take a honest look into this topic and decide that racism is correct because it is not. They either did not give an honest look into the topic, or they clung to biased and incorrect information to reaffirm what they already though. Neither of those things is an honest response to being called out on racism.

 No.2744

File: 1569874604573.jpeg (191.99 KB, 1706x1280, 853:640, FBE05970-CF23-4713-8011-3….jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>2700
Killing and torturing animals is immoral, by buying meat you are contributing to the death and and harm of animals. Are you trying to claim that killing animals isn’t immoral, or that by eating meat you aren’t contributing to this, at least by proxy?

>>2701
>That being said, please use more harmless, hypothetical examples instead of such extreme ideologies in the future,
Thanks, I’ll keep that in mind. I just couldn’t think of any better analogies at the moment.

>>2703
>You know I've done it. It just takes listening to those confronting you on your beliefs. And a genuine desire to not hurt other people
I have listened to other people, I just happen to disagree with them. Also I haven’t intentionally hurt anyone nor do I intend to, so I don’t understand why you’d bring that up. I don’t take my beliefs into the real world, I’m very kind towards non-White people when I meet them, if anything I may be overcompensating for my racism.

>Scientific research has found no evidence, none at all, to support the existence of intellectual difference among races
The mark for what can and can’t be considered evidence is pretty high in the scientific community, and you also have to understand that there are politically correct forces at play which both consciously and unconsciously manipulate the types or theories that the scientific community can come up with.

I think brain size is pretty conclusive evidence that there are at least some cognitive differences between the races, on average. I don’t see how someone could just dismiss something so significant, unless you think that brain size doesn’t correlate with intelligence.

Anyway, as said that this isn’t the place for this kind of debate. Make a comment on this if you wish, but I can’t reply.

>If Person A is trying to "change" Person B's beliefs, and Person B is openly refusing to listen to arguments against them and insisting that they are right, then Person A is a fool.
She isn’t arguing with me, she’s giving me a kind of focused therapy that’s supposed to help with my racism. So far it’s helped significantly in me staying civil, and she’s only made a handful of recordings. I don’t think it’s going to cure my racism, but I love her enough to sincerely try it, and as I said, it has been very successful in keeping me well behaved.

Also don’t call me girlfriend an idiot, even if you’re going to do so through the proxy of “Person A.” I’m trying to be nice to you and you keep on attacking my girlfriend.

>Her actions of associating with you endorse racism.
Not if she’s trying to cure me off it.

>Don't you dare threaten me. I'm not afraid of you.
Funny considering what you said to her about me...

I wasn’t threatening you, but if you’re going to insinuate something that hurts my girlfriend I’m going to argue with you. I think that’s more than fair. You can talk about this if you want, but I’m going to be right up your ass correcting everything you say about her.

I don’t want to bother you, I actually like you regardless of what you’ve said about me or her, but I’m not just going to allow you to insult her and insinuate lies about her without calling you out. Stop it, and I’ll stop bothering you about it. You have absolutely no business in talking about her.

>>2716
>Cletus McRacistButtface
>

 No.2745

File: 1569875361793.png (496.16 KB, 857x929, 857:929, gleam.png) ImgOps Google

>>2744
It's immoral to you perhaps, but not to me and my standard of morality.

 No.2746

>>2744
>Also I haven’t intentionally hurt anyone nor do I intend to

I assume you mean physically. Because you've hurt me emotionally and psychologically in numerous ways, and I doubt I am the only person you have.

>>I think brain size is pretty conclusive evidence...

Except the very article you linked to in >>2687 expressly says that it isn't evidence of what you claim it is. It doesn't matter what your opinion is, that is what the people doing the study have directly stated. "Scientific research has found no evidence, none at all, to support the existence of intellectual difference among races".

>> I don’t think it’s going to cure my racism

Nor do I, as I've stated. It only could if you were willing to change and you aren't.

>>Also don’t call me girlfriend an idiot, even if you’re going to do so through the proxy of “Person A.

I said Person A would be a fool, not an idiot. But I will amend that and say that Person A is "acting foolishly" rather than "being a fool"
Also, they aren't attacks.

>Not if she’s trying to cure me off it.

They still endorse it. Especially when, as you and I agree, they are futile and foolish efforts.

>>Funny considering what you said to her about me...

I said a lot of things to her about you, none of them positive. But if I implied that I personally am afraid of you, then I will reiterate I am not. I'm afraid of your ideology, I'm afraid of how it hurts people. But you as a single entity? No.

>>if you're going to insinuate something that hurts my girlfriend I’m going to argue with you

You have the right to disagree with me, that's what this thread is for. But honestly, you being a racist is hurting her more than anything I've said. She's already lost friends because of your choice to be one, but you don't seem concerned about that.

> I’m not just going to allow you to insult her and insinuate lies about her

I've done no such thing. I've stated my opinions on whether or not someone who claims to not be a racist should date a racist, and my opinions about racists and racism in general. If any of that applies to your girlfriend, then it is not a direct attack on her. I hope that one day it does not apply to her anymore.

But this thread is moving away from discussing you specifically, and more in terms of a hypothetical racist. So unless you have something to add on that front I don't think we have anything else to discuss.

 No.2747

>>2744
Hey Mint, would you be open to discussing your beliefs about race with me on Discord at some point?  I don't think I can convince you that your beliefs about race & IQ are wrong.  But I don't think that simply believing that some mental traits differ between races makes a racist, at least not by the Merriam-Webster definition quoted earlier in this thread.  And I do think I might be able to help you shed some of your actually racist beliefs.  Would you be open to that?

 No.2748

>>2746
>They still endorse it.
If a person repudiates a belief, that means that she doesn't endorse it.  I think you are confused on what the word "endorse" means.

 No.2749

>>2748
Well, that's getting into a semantic argument. My point is that, I still feel like The Racist's girlfriend is tacitly endorsing racism by associating with a racist. Especially being romantically involved with one. A romantic relationship is more of an endorsement of a person than other types of association. It is stating that you believe this person is a good person, in my view. No one would or should actively choose to date a bad person.

 No.2750

File: 1569877214786.png (92.59 KB, 313x284, 313:284, 3D50DCF8-2E15-4DDC-AD64-33….png) ImgOps Google

>>2745
Are you saying that killing and torturing animals for personal gain isn’t immoral?

>>2746
>But you as a single entity? No.
I was referring to what you said to her about me, in the sense that maybe I should be afraid of you, if we were ever to meet IRL.

>She's already lost friends because of your choice to be one, but you don't seem concerned about that.
>you don’t seem concerned about that.
Why do you think I’m arguing with you? I am concerned about what other people think of her, especially if it’s going to lose her friends. And as I’ve said before, me being racist isn’t a choice.

>I've done no such thing.
You called her a “fool,” and said that “she claims not to be racist,” alongside outright calling her an endorser of racism, despite the fact that I have proven otherwise.

>I hope that one day it does not apply to her anymore.
Wow, I wonder what you could possibly mean by that? I’m done. You said you were going to stop talking about her, I expect you to.

>>2747
Yes, although not right now. I’m pretty understandably pissed at someone in this thread and I’m trying to calm down.

Although you can feel free to add me right now.
Mint horse#9976

 No.2751

File: 1569877320046.png (496.16 KB, 857x929, 857:929, gleam.png) ImgOps Google

>>2750
It's not immoral to kill and eat an animal, no.

 No.2752

File: 1569877391701.jpeg (53.27 KB, 1024x564, 256:141, 2F57BD09-64FB-4F44-99A2-2….jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>2751
So it would be perfectly fine for me to buy a dog, slit it’s throat open and let it slowly bleed to death, and then eat it?

 No.2753

>>2746
>Especially when, as you and I agree, they are futile and foolish efforts.
No, whether at the efforts are futile and foolish in fact is irrelevant.  What matters is what the person subjectively believes.

>>2746
>She's already lost friends because of your choice to be one
Why do you still say that it is a choice?  You cannot *choose* to become convinced that your old beliefs were false.

>>2749
>Well, that's getting into a semantic argument.
Words have meaning.  If you accidentally misused the word, you should not be afraid to check whether you need to correct yourself.  That is, unless you are not open to challenging your existing beliefs.

>>2749
>No one would ... actively choose to date a bad person.
On the contrary, many girls choose to date "bad" boys.

 No.2754

File: 1569877482673.png (496.16 KB, 857x929, 857:929, gleam.png) ImgOps Google

>>2752
Your ideas of butchering are laughably incorrect. But sure, if you need it to eat go for it.

 No.2755

>>2750
>I was referring to what you said to her about me, in the sense that maybe I should be afraid of you, if we were ever to meet IRL.

I don't know what she relayed to you or how accurate it is, but I will say that I would only try to harm you physically in self-defense.

>me being racist isn’t a choice.
It is. You could stop at literally any time. We could help you stop. But you have to want to. You don't.

>You called her a “fool,” and said that “she claims not to be racist,” alongside outright calling her an endorser of racism, despite the fact that I have

I said that hypothetical person dating a racist was a fool (which I later amended to merely being "acting foolishly") and that their dating of a racist is a tacit endorsement of racism. This does not have to apply directly to your girlfriend. and as for "she claims not to be racist", that is what she told me directly.

>Wow, I wonder what you could possibly mean by that?

It could mean a few things.

>You said you were going to stop talking about her, I expect you to.

Alright. I'm still going to talking about a hypothetical person dating a racist though, but know that it isn't about you or your girlfriend directly.

 No.2756

>>2753
>What matters is what the person subjectively believes.

Which person?

> You cannot *choose* to become convinced that your old beliefs were false.

I did...

>>On the contrary, many girls choose to date "bad" boys.

This reflects badly on them, and it means they endorse their bad behavior.

 No.2758

File: 1569877810562.png (347.44 KB, 1076x820, 269:205, 3645635.png) ImgOps Google

>>2755
>It is. You could stop at literally any time.
A bit of an exaggeration. I don't know the Racists story fully to know the full context of how they became racist, but I know at least two different women who got "Assaulted" by a group of Irish kids and a group of black kids, and both aren't fond of either group now. I'm not saying that they could never forgive that group and learn to not be afraid of them, but it's a long journey that isn't a snap of the fingers type of thing. Again, not saying it's the same as The Racist but it's possible it's not a "Stop at anytime" sort of deal.

 No.2759

>>2756
>I did...
No, you managed to get convinced.  It was not an act of will.  Here is a test: Try to choose to believe that the core beliefs of white supremacy are true.  Can you succeed?  I don't think so.

>>2756
>Which person?
The person allegedly doing the endorsing.

 No.2760

>>2755
>hypothetical person dating a racist
Does this hypothetical person condemn racism and try to convince her partner that racism is wrong?

 No.2761

File: 1569878238978.png (163.04 KB, 894x894, 1:1, DAD15752-38BF-492F-82F8-AC….png) ImgOps Google

>>2754
So I can kill as many dogs or innocent little puppies as I want, even though other food is available to me?

Shit like this makes it hard for me take claims that I’m “a bad person” seriously. I’ll always refer to, >>2696 to defend non-vegans, but it’s still really hard for me to take their moral judgements seriously after statements like this. I’m evil for believing that not everyone is equal, (despite the fact that I believe all sentient life has value, and should be protected to whatever extent possible, assuming that said sentient life isn’t a threat to you or your group) but other people can talk about murdering innocent sentient begins casually and no one ever questions their morality. People can just go out and slaughter innocent sentient begins and no one bats an eye, but I’m the worst person to ever exist because I hold controversial political opinions.

Again I don’t think that most meat eaters are bad people, but I can’t take your moral judgements seriously.

>>2755
>Alright. I'm still going to talking about a hypothetical person dating a racist though, but know that it isn't about you or your girlfriend directly.
I’m willing to drop it if you are.

 No.2762

>>2758
Ok, maybe it's not a snap decision. It would be more accurate to say he could "start the process of working to not be a racist at any time". Which he hasn't.

>>2759
Why would I do that with no proof?

>>2760
Does that matter? But yes, that still means this hypothetical person is "acting foolishly" and I still see their romantic association with The Racist as an endorsement of racism.

I do not associate with racists, nor would I date a racist (if that were possible) because I see doing so as a tacit endorsement of racism.

 No.2763

>>2762
>Does that matter?
Yes.  Please go look up the word "endorse" in a dictionary.  You keep using that word, and it doesn't mean what you think it means.

>>2762
>Why would I do that with no proof?
To demonstrate that you can choose your beliefs, as you claim.  You won't, because it's actually impossible.  You need to be convinced by facts and argument that you subjectively believe in order to change your beliefs.

 No.2764

File: 1569878739164.png (496.16 KB, 857x929, 857:929, gleam.png) ImgOps Google

>>2761
>So I can kill as many dogs or innocent little puppies as I want, even though other food is available to me?
Sure, the laws in the UK allow it. You just can't sell it.

>Shit like this it hard for me take claims that I’m “a bad person” seriously.
You sure you want to make comments like this in a thread you're being judged in? Killing animals isn't the same as killing humans. A dog doesn't have the chance to be a doctor. A cow won't build an energy efficient car. A chicken won't become a senator. First step in racism is not seeing animals as better than humans.

>assuming that said sentient life isn’t a threat to you or your group
The issue is that you believe that anyone brown or darker is a threat to you and your group by effect that they are brown and darker.

>but other people can talk about murdering innocent sentient begins casually and no one ever questions their morality.
I don't condone killing dogs, or baby anything, I was just calling your bluff about you saying it would be alright. And legally speaking it is, as long as it was done humanely. And you don't sell the meat.

>but I can’t take your moral judgements seriously.
And I don't agree with yours, so that's why the whole moral argument can't work, because it's assuming that everyone agrees that it's morally wrong to ever kill an animal.

Which it isn't.

 No.2765

>>2763
Then what is the correct word for the tacit support of something, then?

 No.2766

Also I would like to point out that Mint is open to challenging his beliefs and in fact accepted my invitation to do so right here >>2750.

 No.2767

>>2765
I don't know of any word that refers to someone taking an action that might be misinterpreted as supporting X even when they make clear that they actually disavow and condemn X.

 No.2768

>>2767
>>even when they make clear that they actually disavow and condemn X.

If that were true, they would not be romantically involved with someone who is X. Like, that's obvious. You don't condemn it if someone in your life does it and you are Ok without with that to be romantically involved with them. If you weren't ok with it, you wouldn't date them!

 No.2770

File: 1569879341752.jpeg (71.56 KB, 900x541, 900:541, 1B0BF897-2E68-4B4B-A25F-2….jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>2764
>A dog doesn't have the chance to be a doctor. A cow won't build an energy efficient car. A chicken won't become a senator.
How many people in general do you think have any chance of becoming any of these things?

How about a genuinely mentally retarded person, someone with an IQ below 70, is it ok to kill that person? They have no chance of becoming anything, never mind a doctor or a senator. Why is it ok to kill a dog based on the logic that they’re retarded and can’t provide anything to society, but killing a human in a similar position isn’t?

Also as a fun fact, many chickens in Ancient Rome were made into senators.

https://www.rootsimple.com/2012/06/the-sacred-chickens-of-ancient-rome/

>First step in racism is not seeing animals as better than humans.
Humans are animals, White people are animals, you and I are animals.

>I don't condone killing dogs, or baby anything,
You said you would have no moral problem with me killing dogs.

 No.2771

>>2768
Love is a strange thing.  It is often not rational.

 No.2772

>>2770
I hate to stop a discussion, but if you guys wanna discuss the ethics of eating meat, you should make a new thread for that to keep this one on topic.

 No.2773

File: 1569879499513.jpeg (64.86 KB, 484x807, 484:807, FC3BBE36-9CDA-4032-A502-6….jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>2772
Fair enough. I’ll stop arguing. I don’t feel like debating this topic in another thread.

 No.2774

>>2771
Look, without getting too personal here. I've had bad experiences with people who thought they could "fix" others, who only ended up harming that person and themselves. I don't care if a racist comes to harm, but I can't endorse the idea of someone who is against their beliefs entering a relationship with them to try and "fix" them. Especially when the racist shows no interest in changing their views or of the harm that comes to their romantic partner as a result of their beliefs. "Harm" here referring not just to physical harm, but emotional and mental harm as well.

As for "love", I'm not sure that's a valid excuse. You shouldn't love bad people, if you yourself aren't a bad person. Only two things could possibly come of that. Either the good person will be hurt by the bad, or the bad will taint the good person into being bad themselves. Neither of which are good outcomes.

So I feel like, you should not date people who choose to be bad people. You could potentially date a formally bad person who wishes to be good, but not a bad person who is still bad and has no desire to not be bad.

 No.2775

File: 1569879794807.png (496.16 KB, 857x929, 857:929, gleam.png) ImgOps Google

>>2773
A shame, I would've shown your your own hypocrisy. Oh well, I'll wait until the next time you claim it's immoral to eat meat.

 No.2776

File: 1569880066469.png (174.26 KB, 716x1115, 716:1115, 29BB1470-905A-4CFE-A2F7-51….png) ImgOps Google

>>2775
>A shame, I would've shown your your own hypocrisy.

 No.2777

>>2775
I wouldn't bother arguing with him.

 No.2778

File: 1569880310320.png (496.16 KB, 857x929, 857:929, gleam.png) ImgOps Google

>>2777
I'm aware that any conversation with him will just boil down to "It's my opinion wah" but I really do enjoy seeing him shoot himself in the foot.

I don't have anything more to discuss about the topic of Racism though, so I'm ducking out.

 No.2779

>>2774
>I can't endorse the idea of someone who is against their beliefs entering a relationship with them to try and "fix" them.
That is a very valid opinion to have, and it is probably right in most cases.

>>2774
>So I feel like, you should not date people who choose to be bad people.
That is probably good advice.

I suggest that you stick to arguments like these, and avoid claims that people 'endorse' beliefs that they specifically condemn.

 No.2780

>>2776
BTW, I just checked, and I never actually blocked you. I just removed you from my friends list because I had no desire to speak to you

 No.2781

>>2779
I see the choice to date a bad person as a tacit endorsement of that bad behavior, regardless of what they claim.  

Can someone not endorse something without directly stating that they endorse it? For example, if a person says they support the rainforests, but then donate large amounts of money to the logging industry?

 No.2782

File: 1569881611474.png (166.41 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot_20190930-180828.png) ImgOps Google

>>2781
>Can someone not endorse something without directly stating that they endorse it?
No, they cannot.

>>2781
>For example, if a person says they support the rainforests, but then donate large amounts of money to the logging industry?
That person cannot be said to endorse logging.  They must approve openly for it to be an endorsement.

 No.2783

>>2770
Most "retarded" people have a better moral compass than most politicians and some doctors. And quite honestly the only thing stopping them from doing these types of things is societal stigma.

 No.2784

>>2782
This seems like splitting hairs, but ok. What is the word for what this person does toward logging?

 No.2785

>>2772
Sorry I didn't see this post.

 No.2786

>>2784
"donate large amounts of money to"

 No.2787

>>2785
I'd like it if you guys made a thread on the topic. I might even weigh in on it. I have a friend who is vegan and we've discussed this topic before.

 No.2788

>>2786
You're missing the point of what I'm asking here. Their donating is a type of support. Likewise, the dating of a racist is a type of support. Since "endorse" is not the right word to use for that type of support, what is?

 No.2789

>>2787
Perhaps I might at a later time.

 No.2790

>>2788
>Likewise, the dating of a racist is a type of support.
I disagree that it is, when the person is trying to convince the racist to stop being racist.  That sounds like the opposite of supporting racism.

 No.2791

>>2790
it's not direct support. That's what the word "tacit" mans. Understood or implied without being stated.

I see it as being the same as donating to logging, in that you are choosing to associate with that person. It gives that person, and thus their beliefs, more legitimacy in the eyes of other people. It works to "normalize" their beliefs. These are not as tangible as the money donation, but I believe they have social clout that has some value.

 No.2792

>>2791
Do you only draw the line at dating? What if it was just friendship?, or even a step down and just being friendly with the person?

I would hate to think that someone might find me repulsive in some way for whom I chose to keep as friends, but I suppose I couldn't really blame them if they found my friend detestable.

 No.2793

>>2792
I think friendship is similar, although not quite as severe. I would not be friends with a racist, if that were possible.

"Friendliness" is harder to define. Depends on how friendly. Society requires us to show a minimum amount of respect to things like co-workers and people we interact with often.

 No.2794

>>2791
>It gives ... their beliefs, more legitimacy in the eyes of other people. It works to "normalize" their beliefs.
That is true only if the person doesn't announce that she condemns the racist beliefs and is working to remove those racist beliefs from the racist.

 No.2795

>>2794
I doubt someone is going to every person they interact with and saying that directly to them. Anyone who knows the Racist and knows that they are dating the Racist will see it as supporting that racism unless they tell them directly they don't support it. And even then, there is good reason to doubt the claim.

 No.2796

>>2793
So then, what happens to the relationship if someone does manage to help someone else get over being a rascist either through friendship or dating?

Do the friends who denounced them try to mend the friendship again? Does the person, who got denounced, want that old friendship back?

I suppose it would depend on how strong the bond was to begin with, and the situation, but I'm not sure if I myself would want a friend back who stopped being a friend to me because they did not like the person I was with.

And I am speaking with some experience in losing a friend in this manner, though not anything as severe or hotly debated as rascism. I was unnable to keep that friendship because that person was unnable to trust my judgement in the situation.

 No.2797

>>2796
To further this, I could have been wrong in the judgement I made, and eventually I would have seen this and ended the relationship. But the fact that I begged that friend to trust me and listen to me, and he refused and instead verbally gave me a slap to the face, is what was the final nail in the coffin.

 No.2798

>>2796
>Do the friends who denounced them try to mend the friendship again?
That's up to the friend to decide. Maybe they try to pursue a friendship with that person again. Personally, I'd be skeptical their romantic partner had actually changed, but it's not impossible they did. As such, renewing the friendship also isn't impossible. But I personally would want an apology from the former racist for holding their racist views for so long. A truly repentant person could do that.

>Does the person, who got denounced, want that old friendship back?

That's also up to them to decide. Since I would never be in that situation, I can't comment on what I would do.

>but I'm not sure if I myself would want a friend back who stopped being a friend to me because they did not like the person I was with.

And that's your call to make.

>>2797
> But the fact that I begged that friend to trust me and listen to me, and he refused

Well, it's my belief that if you see a friend doing something wrong, something you don't agree with, and you've done everything in your power to try and stop them from going down that destructive path, it is well within your rights to break off the friendship with that person. It's too painful to watch someone either hurt themselves or become a bad person, which is ultimately what I think is the only logical outcome.

 No.2799

>>2798
>Well, it's my belief that if you see a friend doing something wrong, something you don't agree with, and you've done everything in your power to try and stop them from going down that destructive path, it is well within your rights to break off the friendship with that person. It's too painful to watch someone either hurt themselves or become a bad person, which is ultimately what I think is the only logical outcome.

This is very understandle. What do you think, in this situation, might happen that would harm this person, or might turn them into a bad person?

 No.2800

>>2795
Well now we have arrived at a claim that has some merit: that third-party observers might misinterpret the relationship as indicating support for the racist beliefs.  

 No.2801

>>2799
Well the way they would become a bad person is that they might start to agree with some of the racist beliefs their significant other holds, or they might just start ignoring them rather than confronting them on it. As for how I think they could get hurt, I mean emotionally and psychologically hurt. Wasting their time trying to "change" or "fix" an unrepentant person who sees nothing wrong with being the way they are. Realizing that their significant other does not care about the suffering their ideology and beliefs create in the world. One day suddenly realizing that maybe they have been over-looking or ignoring the terrible person their significant other is because they are were blinded by love and convinced they could change this person when they could not. These kinds of things are sadly not so uncommon.

>>2800
Yes, this. And also people who know them and also know they claim not to be support racism might still have doubts of their claims against being a racist or supporting racism when they had no reason to doubt those claims before.

 No.2829

>>2538
>Should we consider a person being romantically involved with a racist to be a tacit endorsement of racism?
No.  You can disagree with someone you are romantically involved with.

>Would you ever be romantically involved with a racist, if you yourself are not one?
This depends on what you mean by 'racist'.

Given the expanded definition of the word, yes I would, as this expanded definition and the word itself are meaningless.

Given the technical definition of the word, (excluding unconscious bias, power + privilege, and other related nonsense), it depends on the nature of the supposed racism.  If, for example, I met a girl who thought people of her own race were more attractive, I wouldn't choose to not date her because of it.  On the other hand, if she spent all her time railing against other races for whatever reason, I'd probably find someone else.

 No.2830

>>2829
We've had several discussions where we have gone over the definition of "racism" most notably here >>2569 and here. >>2563 I'm not sure what you mean by "expanded definition", but I disagree the word "racist" has no meaning.

I would say that not dating someone of other races is kind of a racist thought, but does not necessary make one a racist. A distinction we're been discussing. A person can't simply choose to be attracted to something, but it is something someone should do some self-reflecting on to find the root of WHY they feel the way they do. Because it might be rooted in stereotypes or personal biases that might not be accurate.

 No.2834

File: 1569965556806.jpg (150.2 KB, 2560x1138, 1280:569, AA2.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2830
The expanded definition is that literally everything is racist if you extrapolate far enough.  e.g. Disagreeing with a black person makes you racist.  Not liking a certain type of food makes you racist.  Disliking a certain style of clothing makes you racist.  But paradoxically, wearing that same style of clothing from the previous example also makes you racist.  Having no friends of a certain race makes you racist.  But having friends of that race also makes you racist.  If everything is racist, then the category of "racist" is so broad as to lack all meaning.

In the case of an allegedly racist thought coming from someone who you yourself say is not necessarily racist, I guarantee there are people who would happily take to a twitter mob to call that person a racist, so clearly there isn't one universal category of "racist" that everyone agrees on.  Which again, is why I might date someone who is a "racist" because no two definitions of the word are the same.

I don't see an issue with having personal biases in personal situations, and there is nothing inherently wrong with having an in-group bias.  This is also a good thing for "non-whites", because otherwise they'd be massive racists by comparison.

 No.2836

>>2834
This doesn't follow through. "Racist" still has a definition, even if people supposedly over-use it. If someone goes around misusing the word, it doesn't negate that word. For example, someone claims an innocuous thing like wearing shoes is racist. Does his use of the word this way mean that now calling black person a "nigger" is now NOT racist? That would be a ridiculous thing to argue.

Also, I've never heard anyone refer to having friends of a certain race as "racist". I think you are being hyperbolic.

Who cares what a "twitter mob" thinks? That's a non-argument. Yeah, there's going to be people who think that thinking racist things makes someone a racist. That's a fair thing to think. But We've been discussing that this might not be accurate because a person who holds racist thoughts might have a geninue desire to not be racist, and can therefore shed those racist thoughts. One is only a "racist" if they choose to hold onto those thoughts, atleast in my view. It's about active choice.

Honestly I think racism is such a hot-button issue with white people because there are a lot of people who fear being called a racist (by your so-called twitter mob) than they fear holding on to racist thoughts that are harmful. They have no desire to shed those thoughts, just a desire to not be stigmatized.

 No.2837

>>2836
>This doesn't follow through. "Racist" still has a definition, even if people supposedly over-use it.
In the dictionary definition cited earlier, "racist" has at least three distinctly different definitions.  This doesn't even include the expanded definitions and overuse.

>If someone goes around misusing the word, it doesn't negate that word.
Yes it does, because it means that "racist" and "racist" don't mean the same thing when two different people say it.

>For example, someone claims an innocuous thing like wearing shoes is racist. Does his use of the word this way mean that now calling black person a "nigger" is now NOT racist? That would be a ridiculous thing to argue.
Then it's a good thing that that isn't what I'm arguing.  However, it is true that you can't use two different definitions and then imply they mean the same thing.


>Also, I've never heard anyone refer to having friends of a certain race as "racist". I think you are being hyperbolic.
"I have a black friend" is a common caricature of someone who is actually racist.

>Who cares what a "twitter mob" thinks? That's a non-argument.
Yeah it is.  It demonstrates that your definition of "racist" is not universal.

>Yeah, there's going to be people who think that thinking racist things makes someone a racist. That's a fair thing to think. But We've been discussing that this might not be accurate because a person who holds racist thoughts might have a geninue desire to not be racist, and can therefore shed those racist thoughts. One is only a "racist" if they choose to hold onto those thoughts, atleast in my view. It's about active choice.
>atleast in my view
There's the problem with your argument.

>Honestly I think racism is such a hot-button issue with white people because there are a lot of people who fear being called a racist (by your so-called twitter mob) than they fear holding on to racist thoughts that are harmful.
"Harmful" is highly subjective even under the most generous circumstances.

>They have no desire to shed those thoughts, just a desire to not be stigmatized.
Ironically, someone could just as easily call this characterization racist, as you apply it exclusively to white people.
Also, which thoughts "need" to be shed is also highly subjective.

 No.2838

File: 1569980252332.jpg (1.06 MB, 1447x2046, 1447:2046, holo-1422394394086.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2836
>>2837
In regards to how people in society use the word "racism" and some interesting thoughts about how society deals with these concepts, the following essay/blogpost might be worthwhile reading:
https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/21/against-murderism/

 No.2842

>>2838
I saw this a while back.  It's pretty good!

Arnold Kling likes to talk about how political groups are divided by different “languages”, different schemata for understanding the world that make it difficult to talk across political divides.

Jonathan Haidt accepts the premise but challenges the symmetry; his experiments ask liberals and conservatives to fill out questionnaires about their values, then to predict how someone from the opposite tribe would fill out the questionnaire. He finds that conservatives are able to predict liberals’ answers just fine and seem to have a pretty good understanding of their worldviews, but that liberals have no idea how conservatives think or what they value.

Yep.

 No.2843

>>2837
>Ironically, someone could just as easily call this characterization racist, as you apply it exclusively to white people.
I'd throw my hand in that regard.
As I've understood racism, it is prejudice based on race. It would certainly seem the presumption of a particular matter only applying to white people would be an example of prejudice.

 No.2844

>>2837
>"I have a black friend" is a common caricature of someone who is actually racist.

Yeah, because it's mocking the idea that someone having non-white friends means they are except from holding racist ideas.  It's not literally saying people who have non-white friends are racists... Mint horse is clearly a racist, but he has said he is willing to have black friend. That doesn't make him not a racist. That's what it's mocking.

>There's the problem with your argument.

Well I can't very well argue from someone else's point of view...

>"Harmful" is highly subjective even under the most generous circumstances.

I think seeing non-white people as inferior to whites is harmful in most senses of the word except physically. It's emotionally harmful to people and it's socially harmful.

>Also, which thoughts "need" to be shed is also highly subjective.

I think most people think seeing whites as superior to other races is something someone should shed. People who don't are called "racists".

 No.2846

>>2844
>I think most people think seeing whites as superior to other races is something someone should shed. People who don't are called "racists".
I would presume you're thinking far more people than those who say 'white people are superior' are racist, though, surely
After all, you were just a moment ago talking about "racist thoughts" and a desire not to be "stigmatized".

Unless you're thinking a massive chunk of the population are secretly of the belief that some races are superior to others, anyway. My experience is that those guys tend to be quite proud of their assumed factual superiority, and so tend to be outspoken about it.

 No.2848

>>2846
I didn't say that that was exclusively who are racists. But yes, I think someone can be a racist without having to be as outspoken about it as a member of the KKK.

 No.2849

>>2848
Well, then, I don't think your statements there really do much to address his point that what should need to be shed is highly subjective.

If you want to say some is obvious to everyone, by all means. But, I really don't think that's the source of the disagreement here.

 No.2851

>>2849
Well, he seems to be under the impression that things that aren't racist are called racist, and since I cannot know what he considers "not racist", I cannot know which things he feels that way about. He could be under the impression that a landlord refusing to rent to black people on the basis of their race "isn't racist", and I would disagree with him on that. In my view, things called racist are racist and racist ideals should be shed.

 No.2853

File: 1569992789793.jpg (289.97 KB, 720x900, 4:5, holo.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2842
>his experiments ask liberals and conservatives
The link is 404'ing for me, but Wayback Machine comes to the rescue:
https://web.archive.org/web/20151116064125/http://www.aei.org/publication/liberals-or-conservatives-whos-really-close-minded/

 No.2854

>>2851
>Well, he seems to be under the impression that things that aren't racist are called racist
Why not ask him specifically what he means, then?

I mean, I'd agree with the remark. Certainly, people'll whine about a lot of 'racism' where I don't think it's actually there.
Especially when you get in to culture. Culture is not race, after all.

 No.2856

>>2854
>Especially when you get in to culture. Culture is not race, after all.

I can certainly get behind this. I think discrimination based on culture is extremely valid. In fact, i'd go so far as to say it's not sensible to NOT discriminate based on culture, and even that there's an argument that different cultures produce objectively better results than others (E.G. lower mortality rates, lower working hour, better working conditions, higher overall wealth so long as it's distributed evenly enough to be relevant, ect).

>>2853
This guy writes some good shit, so thanks for inevitably fucking up my sleeping schedule reading all these interesting articles, you jerk!

 No.2857

>>2854
I already did, and he gave some examples >>2834 One of which I already explained I don't agree with in >>2844

As for your "culture" argument, I think there's enough overlap between some cultures and a specific race that making fun of a culture can be seen as also making fun of that race.

Having a caricature who is dressed in a serape and a sombrero who eats tacos is a cultural caricature, but it's a culture so closely associated with Mexican people that it's not unreasonable to see those things used in an overwhelmingly negative light to be a racial statement.

 No.2859

>>2857
>Having a caricature who is dressed in a serape and a sombrero who eats tacos is a cultural caricature, but it's a culture so closely associated with Mexican people that it's not unreasonable to see those things used in an overwhelmingly negative light to be a racial statement.

That's kindof odd to me though. I mean, there's nothing negative about any of those things, so why do people make fun of it? Sombreros are good at shading people in sunny weather, Serape's are good at keeping you cool, tacos are delicious. Why are 3 good, practical, reasonable attributes something to be made fun of? I don't get that at all, myself.

 No.2861

>>2859
Well, it's not always just making fun of those things. If you give a character all of those things, and then also make him a rapist and a burglar, then you're making a statement not just about those cultural artifacts, but about the race of people closely associated with that culture.

 No.2862

>>2856
I think it's important to note that value, depends heavily on culture. But, yes. I'd be inclined to agree, largely due to my own cultural values.
>>2857
>can be seen as also making fun of that race.
I'm afraid I do not care about perceptions of people who don't understand the difference.
That perception is completely irrelevant to me.

> but it's a culture so closely associated with Mexican people that it's not unreasonable to see those things used in an overwhelmingly negative light to be a racial statement.
I'd disagree. It's quite unreasonable, to me. Unless it's specifically equated to a racial identity, by the person doing the mocking [ie "Look at me, I'm el stupido hispanic guy"], I don't think it's racist at all.

 No.2863

>>2861
>then you're making a statement not just about those cultural artifacts, but about the race of people closely associated with that culture.
Only if you incorrectly and rather racistly frankly conflate culture and race.

I don't tend to assume every single hispanic person I meet is going to be eating tacos every day with a sumbraero celebrating the day of the dead, or whatever.
It's entirely possible they're just a regular old American, after all. Shouldn't judge them as something they've not demonstrated to be just because of their race.

 No.2864

>>2862
Well you can't just willfully ignore the connections the majority of people are going to make just because you don't agree with them. That's not how it works. The vast majority of people are going to associate those cultural artifacts with the race most closely related to those artifacts.

>>2863
>Only if you incorrectly and rather racistly frankly conflate culture and race.

People do. All the time. You can't just ignore that they do. And yeah, logically most (non-racist) people know that it's a stereotype. But it's still an association, even if know that it does not apply to all memebers of that group.

 No.2868

>>2864
>Well you can't just willfully ignore the connections the majority of people are going to make just because you don't agree with them.
I do not believe it is the 'majority' of people. Probably because I believe conflating culture with race is racist, and I do not believe that the majority of people are racist.

Nonetheless, if they were, it still wouldn't matter. I do not care how many people are wrong, they're still wrong.

>People do. All the time. You can't just ignore that they do.
Saying that what they are doing is wrong isn't ignoring it.
Saying that people who call the comedian who mocks Mexican culture a racist are wrong, and rather racist themselves, isn't ignoring it either.

You do not have to merely accept whatever the masses do, if what they're doing is wrong. That would be insane. It'd lead to mob justice. Which, I might add, doesn't tend to favor minorities of any type.

 No.2872

>>2868
I simply don't agree that mocking Mexican culture is not also mocking Mexican people if there is a sizable number of Mexican people practicing that culture. Just because it does not apply to ALL Mexicans does not mean it doesn't apply to some Mexicans or even most Mexicans. It is not acceptable for someone to disingenuously claim they are not a racist because you were only mocking a culture.

 No.2875

>>2872
>I simply don't agree that mocking Mexican culture is not also mocking Mexican people if there is a sizable number of Mexican people practicing that culture.
And I simply don't care how many people are part of a culture, you can mock that culture without being a racist.
The people practicing that culture are 100% irrelevant to me.
Hell, it's not like culture is exclusive to one race, anyway. Would it be racist towards white people, then, to mock Mexican culture? After all, some white people engage in Mexican culture.

> Just because it does not apply to ALL Mexicans does not mean it doesn't apply to some Mexicans or even most Mexicans.
No, but the fact that it doesn't apply to all Hispanics means that it isn't something that is applied to the race.
Race is the entirety of a given race.

This is why I have to agree by large to Bee's point. You quite clearly have a radically different standard for racism than myself.

> It is not acceptable for someone to disingenuously claim they are not a racist because you were only mocking a culture.
It is 100% acceptable to claim you're mocking a culture, not a race, and it is racist to equate culture to race as you seem to desire to do here by my standards when it comes to race.
Again, you and I radically differ evidently on the standard of racism, as it is defined and applied. Which is why I agree with what Bee had said. Your standards for racism, as is evidenced by this conversation right here, are not universal.

 No.2876

>>2875
>Race is the entirety of a given race.

So are you saying it isn't racist to say black people eat fried chicken because some don't?

 No.2877

>>2876
>So are you saying it isn't racist to say black people eat fried chicken because some don't?
It's racist BECAUSE some don't.

The definition and standard I use to determine if something is racist or not is simply whether or not it is prejudiced based on race.
Making a blanket assumption that all black people eat fried chicken is an example of that behavior.

 No.2878

>>2877
If I put on a cone hat and start talking in Asian-sounding gibberish, I don't see how that is not mocking Asian people. The same goes for the sombrero.

 No.2879

>>2878
It's racist if you equate it to the race instead of the culture.

Did you know plenty of Asians in America do not speak a lick of any languages in Asia, or have ever worn a ricehat?

 No.2880

>>2879
But some do. And you are making fun of those Asian people. Which is racist.

 No.2881

>>2880
"Some" is irrelevant.
It could be 95% or .1%, it would make absolutely no difference to me.
It's not racist by my standards to mock a culture, because culture is not race, and it's racist to equate culture with race.

Again; I have to agree with Bee. You quite clearly have a radically different standard for what is "racist" than I do. Your standard, therefor, is quite obviously not universal.

 No.2883

>>2881
I can't tell if you are arguing this in good faith or not, or if you're being hyperbolic to make a point. Because it seems pretty obvious that some cultures are closely linked to some races. So much so that it seems disingenuous to claim there is no connection between mocking one and not the other.

 No.2885

File: 1569996091766.gif (10.12 KB, 168x225, 56:75, 5b05edea873b365f41766f131d….gif) ImgOps Google

>>2883
Alright. In that case, I can't tell if you're arguing this in good faith or not, if you're going to be like that.
After all, my entire position here is that your standard for what defines 'racism' is not universal. And the fact that you seem dead set on absolutely refusing to allow me the benefit of the doubt, claiming I'm "hyperbolic" and "disingenuous" , makes it look rather like what you really want to say is that I'm just a secret racist, so you can dismiss me out of hand.

If you can't accept that other people have different standards to what constitutes 'racist' and what does not, to the point you're going to assume they're dishonest, what exactly do you expect to get out of talking to people here?

 No.2886

>>2885
Oh... so you're back. That explains quite a bit. I don't think this conversation is going to go anywhere.

 No.2888

File: 1569997102107.png (239.23 KB, 862x651, 862:651, 224.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>2886
Had assumed you knew that, given the accusations. Would've hoped you wouldn't do that sort of thing with random people, after all.
But, I had promised Drowy to avoid fights, if possible, so if you want to end it here, fine.

I just wish you could take people at face value, and not always assume they're being dishonest when they tell you how they feel. It sucks, man. Being told you're faking honest beliefs doesn't feel good.

 No.2890

>>2888
I didn't know it was you, I would have said what I said to anyone in this conversation.

 No.2891

>>2883
I agree with Enthusiastic Cougar.  You can mock a culture without mocking a race closely associated with the culture.  I guess in some cases it might be important to clarify that you are mocking the culture and not the race, lest people get the wrong impression if it would otherwise be ambiguous which one you are mocking.

 No.2892

File: 1569997512274.jpg (113.6 KB, 1280x853, 1280:853, da6c2ebce26b38585b36e98c05….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2890
That's genuinely sad to hear, man.
Could've at least chocked it up to bad conflict, if it wasn't.

Jumping to assumptions of dishonesty when people try to explain their positions isn't healthy.

 No.2893

>>2892
To be fair, I said I couldn't be sure you were being honest. I didn't directly accuse you of being dishonest.

 No.2894

File: 1569998060549.png (87.14 KB, 352x298, 176:149, 4.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>2893
Didn't exactly give anywhere for the conversation to move. You just decided to assume I was "disingenuous", "hyperbolic", and not arguing in "good faith".
I mean, what did you expect me to respond with?
What would you expect your reaction would be if someone decided to say that to you?

It's a pretty shitty thing to do, is all. I would've felt like it was a dick move if you knew it was me, but, especially if we're talking strangers trying to share a perspective to you. I mean, at least you and I have some kind of history to where I could see why you might assume the worst of me.

 No.2895

>>2894
>You just decided to assume I was "disingenuous", "hyperbolic", and not arguing in "good faith".

But I didn't. I asked you if you were being that way, expecting an honest response.

 No.2897

File: 1569998793043.png (84.79 KB, 546x852, 91:142, 1376881451_scootaloo_by_sp….png) ImgOps Google

>>2893
>To be fair, I said I couldn't be sure you were being honest.
Why would you say that?  (I'm talking about pragmatics, not semantics.)  There is no good reason to say something like that.  The only effect it has is making the other person upset.

 No.2898

File: 1569999096697.png (134.39 KB, 387x276, 129:92, 4.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>2895
> I asked you if you were being that way, expecting an honest response.
>
>>2883
>I can't tell if you are arguing this in good faith or not, or if you're being hyperbolic to make a point. Because it seems pretty obvious that some cultures are closely linked to some races. So much so that it seems disingenuous to claim there is no connection between mocking one and not the other.
You most certainly did not ask.
There isn't a single question mark in that entire post.

 No.2901

>>2897
Because I couldn't tell? It's better to ask than to accuse, isn't it?

>>2898
But there is a "I can't tell" and a "it seems". Which aren't accusations.  "it seems" is literally just my opinion.

 No.2902

>>2901
Neither of those are questions. And I'd certainly call them accusatory remarks.

I can say "I can't tell if Manley's a bigot, or just a devoted sociopath", and I think you'd still agree it's quite insulting and hurtful.

 No.2904

>>2902
Because being a bigot or a sociopath are both terrible things.

 No.2905

>>2904
So is being dishonest about your beliefs or arguing in bad faith.

 No.2906

Mexican isn't a race.  It's a nationality.
(in summary, since I don't feel like responding separately to all the posts above)

 No.2907

>>2906
But "Hispanic" is a race. I feel like that's splitting hairs.

 No.2908

>>2907
Are Colombians known for sombreros, serapes, and tacos?  How about Chileans?

 No.2909

File: 1570003310055.jpg (18.66 KB, 207x184, 9:8, 21.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2906
Yeah, I was trying to use Hispanic, but it never seemed to catch on.

Maybe it's because it applies to more than just Mexicans.

 No.2910

>>2909
Someone could be "xenophobic against Mexicans" but not necessarily be racist.  Someone could also dislike what they perceive as Mexican culture, again, without being racist.

In these example cases, I think the distinguishing factor between whether a person is racist or not, could be their treatment of Americanized Mexicans/Hispanics.  But as the blog post linked above shows, even that isn't a foolproof metric.

 No.2912

>>2838

This is a pretty solid article, but I do have some qualms.

In part IV when it brings up the "racist" daycare owner and how to solve the issue there, it suggests that allowing people to see someone's criminal history would ensure that things were no longer racist, because it would be based on the fact of whether someone has spent time in prison or not.  But the reality is that the actual racism occurred back when all those black people were thrown in prison, either for incredibly minor crimes, or despite having committed no crimes.  The racism can't be solved by doing anything with the daycare, its employees, or its customers.

 No.2913

File: 1570024728898.jpg (58.82 KB, 450x1007, 450:1007, pregnant-or-fat.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2901 >>2883
>Because I couldn't tell? It's better to ask than to accuse, isn't it?
It's best just to keep your mouth shut.  Like, if you see a woman, and if you can't tell whether she is pregnant or just fat, you wouldn't say, "I can't tell whether you are pregnant or just fat", would you?

 No.2914

>>2893

Always assume people are being honest, especially on a board like this.  No one gains anything by doubting each other.

 No.2915

>>2893

Better to assume people are being dishonest, especially on a board like this.  No one gains anything by telling the truth.

 No.2916

>>2915

Well no, no one's on trial here.  Assuming people are just lying prevents an actual conversation from occurring.  There may as well not be a board at that point.

It's like the end of that murderism article.  If you assume everyone is racist and they just want to hurt people, voting for the Extermination Party or what have you, then there's actually no point to talking at all.  They're a dangerous element that must be purged.

Which I suppose is the current status of the US.  Do we have to resort to civil war rather than our classic values of liberty in order to prevent a catastrophe?  Or is the catastrophe made up and we can continue trying to debate our differences.

On this board, though, there won't be a catastrophe, so just assume people are telling the truth.  Even if you "ousted" someone as racist, they're anonymous.

 No.2920

>>2916
>There may as well not be a board

Seems a good point.

 No.2922

>>2913
But if you're having a conversation with that person, you can't just "keep your mouth shut". Your options are ask the other person if they are being genuine, or just leave the conversation entirely. And I wanted to continue the conversation if they were being genuine.

>>2914
Some stances seems so hyperbolic it's hard to not assume they are jokes, or intentional exaggerations. How does one determine if something is that or not?

 No.2924

>>2909
Look, you seem to be being far more civil than usual, so I'm gonna level with you. I have absolutely no interest in arguing over the definition of what is and isn't "racist" with you. Absolutely none. Because the way I see it, the word "racist" has power, because it's seen as a universally bad thing to be a racist. So it is in racist's interest to try and make the word seem faulty. Like it can't be trusted. Because it diminishes that power. And it makes them easier to endorse ideas I'm still staunchly against because it is no longer "that bad thing". It's easier to argue that it's OK to be "xenophobic" or whatever than it is to argue that it's ok to be racist. And I think that, by arguing this, we are not only getting far off topic, but that you are, willingly or unwillingly (and I will not speculate on which or accuse you of either) helping them towards that goal.

This thread was created because a (former) friend of mine started dating Mint Horse, a known racist. The only reason we aren't using him specifically as an example is because it would be against to rules to gang up on him as a person. Instead we are examining whether or not dating someone with the same beliefs and ideologies as mint horse is a tacit endorsement of those beliefs. He openly admits he sees whites as superior to most other races. He believes white culture has more value than other cultures. He endorses the America's history of genocide against Native Americans. And he believes in the desire for a government enforced white ethnostate, where people of color are removed from their homes by force. That's just some of the terrible stuff he believes. He also actively rejects any attempts to explain why these beliefs might be incorrect or flawed. He is undeniably a racist, and so an argument over the semantics of the word is not necessary. If you are familiar with mint horse and what he believes, then it is not possible to claim he isn't a racist. If someone does, I am going to assume they are just ignorant to the extent of his beliefs, because to defend him and not be would make a person evil.  I refuse to assume that you are evil, even after all our arguments.

So, if you wish to debate the OP's original question, whether dating someone who is racist is a tacit endorsement of racist now that we have established what "racist" means in this context, then I will do so. But I'm not interested in continuing the semantic debate on the word itself.

 No.2925

>>2922
>How does one determine if something is that or not?

You don't determine, you assume.  That's the point.  If you think something might be a joke or an intentional exageration (something people might do to prove a point) then you could ask, I suppose.  But by the time they've answered that we're back to assuming they're not lying.

In this case, what was brought up is if culture is tied so directly to race that it's inseparable.  They've said they're just being honest and direct when stating as much, so you should accept that, at least on this board.  There was no exageration or obfuscation of their claims, so you can discuss them directly.

 No.2926

>>2924
Side effect of, like I said, someone asking me to be a bit more patient if possible. It's still something that really bothered me, but, for their sake I'll temper my unhappiness.
My intent was merely to explain that Bee is correct in saying it is not a universal item.
That's all.

Personally, I think it's important to recognize this, because there is principled opposition to the standards others hold in what they regard as racist, that is not. Equating nonracists to racists, in my opinion, does a lot more to harm the term than does accepting that people have different standards when it comes to the use of the word.

As for the topic, I would just repeat what I believe I said earlier; We do not choose who we love cleanly. Love is something that has little reason or rationale.
You love who you love, and besides that are of course not responsible for the person you love's crimes or transgressions.

 No.2927

>>2922
If you really feel that way, you could actually ask, preferably politely, instead of pull this nonsense.

Or, you could just give people the benefit of the doubt.
It's generally a good habbit to have, anyway.

 No.2928

>>2924
>because to defend him and not be would make a person evil.
Explain.

 No.2929

>>2926
A few people mentioned "love" as a justification, but I'm not so sure. I mean, you shouldn't love bad people. That's generally understood. In this scenario, the hypothetical racist is unequivocally a racist, and therefor unequivocally bad.

So if you love someone it means you either don't believe they are bad, or you willfully ignoring their badness.  And I feel like, either of those things is supporting racism in a way you should not. Pretending racism isn't bad, or ignoring racism, is kind of how racism spreads.

Also of note, while we don't choose who we love, we DO choose who we associate with. You can love someone and still choose not to associate with them because you don't like an aspect of their life or their behavior. For example, breaking up with someone who is addicted to drugs. It does not mean you stop loving that person. So "loving" someone I don't see as a valid reason to keep supporting their behavior by being in their life while they make no efforts to stop.

 No.2930

>>2928
To defend (the hypothetical racist)  while knowing the full extent of his racist beliefs and thoughts (as we've discussed it in >>2924, >>2569 and >>2625) would be evil.

 No.2931

>>2929
There is usually a lot more to a person than their beliefs when it comes to race.
I think you overestimate how much of a factor that is in somebody's personality.
That aside, it isn't like people don't love bad people anyway. Plenty of terrible folk had wives and lovers.

I do not believe you have to ignore problems with somebody you love in order to love them.
I think you can recognize these problems, and even work towards fixing them.
I do not think that loving somebody in spite of their flaws means that you support their flaws.

Breakingup with somebody you love because of a fault like that is very difficult. I would not expect it from most people, I wouldn't even encourage it necessarily. Near as I can tell, the examples you bring up there are more about the pain caused to the person who loved the person they have to break up with, rather than because they are bad, or because society thinks they are bad for loving them.
This reminds me of dealing with some Hardline Christians, who are firmly of the position that you cannot love somebody who is atheistic, or of a different faith, without being guilty of some kind of sin.
I'm certainly not a fan of that system either.

 No.2932

>>2930
That would depend heavily on why you are defending them, I would say, along with against what.
I don't think I would count it as evil, regardless, personally. But I suspect I have different standards for good and evil than you

 No.2933

>>2930
If someone committed a premeditated, first-degree murder, is it evil for someone to serve as a defense attorney for them?

 No.2934

>>2933

Is the attorney aware that the accused is guilty?

 No.2935

>>2934
Yes.

 No.2936

>>2935

Then yeah, probably.

 No.2937

>>2936
So if we want to avoid forcing people to become evil through no fault of their own, does that mean people who are guilty of crimes should not have a right to a defense attorney?

 No.2938

>>2937
>So if we want to avoid forcing people to become evil through no fault of their own,

Do we want to avoid that?  I mean, as it is, there's no real downside to being evil other than some people not liking you.

 No.2940

>>2938
Do you think that not being liked is the hallmark of evil?  If other things can also result in a person not being liked, then isn't evil irrelevant?  If you cut someone off in traffic, are you thus evil?  And if being racist makes one evil, and being evil is only a question of whether people like you or not, then why should anyone care about evil or by extension racism (you know, that thing that is the topic of this thread)?

 No.2941

>>2940
>Do you think that not being liked is the hallmark of evil?  If other things can also result in a person not being liked, then isn't evil irrelevant?

I mean, yeah, mostly.  "Evil" is just kind of a judgement call you're making on other people, a personal opinion of their actions.

>And if being racist makes one evil, and being evil is only a question of whether people like you or not, then why should anyone care about evil or by extension racism (you know, that thing that is the topic of this thread)?

Well a lot of people don't, right?  All the people that don't like racists because they consider racists evil...don't matter to the racists.  Racists might not care about being evil, or might think that they're not doing anything evil, but in any case they're able to find people that accept them and give them a sense of belonging.

I think the only time you'd have to care if you were "evil" is if you were also a public figure that depended upon the masses at large for income.  If a whole lot of people didn't want to support you for being evil, then it could be bad news.

 No.2943

>>2934
>Is the attorney aware that the accused is guilty?
The whole point of the trial is to determine if the accused is guilty.  Before the final verdict, the accused enjoys the presumption of innocence.

 No.2944

>>2943

Sure, legally.  My question was whether the accused had told his attorney that he was guilty.  If the accused just doesn't say that then it's natural for the defense attorney to believe that the defendant is innocent.  Defending someone you think is innocent wouldn't be evil.

 No.2947

>>2944
What if the attorney knows that his client is guilty in fact but wants to defend him against the death penalty and instead argue that he should only get life imprisonment?

 No.2948

>>2947

Okay, well, these are a lot of details we're adding on now.  If an attorney knows that the defendant is guilty but tries to get them declared innocent then it's probably a bad thing they're doing for reasons I would disagree with.

 No.2949

>>2941
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you live in a society where people argue that it's ok to "punch a nazi an evil person", and then someone calls you evil because you cut them off in traffic.  Is being perceived as "evil" such a harmless non-issue now?  What differentiates someone who is "evil" vs "someone you don't like"?

>>2943
I specifically said guilty because the question is in regards to whether an attorney defending a factually guilty person (or someone who they think is guilty) is themselves evil.

For anyone who hasn't considered the ramifications of this, there were ancient societies that operated on this very principle.  Defending someone in a court of law put you at risk of the same punishment as the accused.  For example, if a person were convicted of a capital crime, both that person and their legal counsel executed - because why would someone defend an evil person unless they themselves were evil?  This meant that attorneys refused to defend anyone unless they knew they were innocent.  Guilty until proven innocent, so to speak, and if there was any doubt, no one was going to speak for you.

What does this allow?  It allows dishonest individuals to accuse someone of being "racist", and then if anyone defends them, to declare these people "racist" by proxy.  It's a terrible system, and unfortunately also the direction where society is heading.

>>2948
Do you support the implementation of cruel and unusual punishment?  Do you believe torture is a viable means of extracting confessions?  What is to stop the implementation of cruel and unusual punishment, if people are not afforded legal counsel, and no checks are placed on the prosecution?  Better, who is going to place those checks on the prosecution, if not a defense attorney?

 No.2950

>>2933
If they are aware that person is guilty, yes I think so.

>>2937
Don't lawyers get to choose which cases they take? A lawyer who is not evil (ha ha) could refuse that case.

 No.2951

>>2950
So if you were charged with a crime, and no one defended you because they believed you were guilty, you'd be ok with that?

 No.2952

>>2949
In this scenario, we are talking about a  (hypothetical) racist who is unequivocally a racist. So his evil isn't up for dispute.

 No.2953

>>2951
Am I guilty?

 No.2955

>>2952
1) You haven't demonstrated that being "racist" makes you evil.
2) The question was in regards to someone "defending" the racist.

>>2953
The attorneys all think you are guilty, and thus would be evil if they defended you, according to your own logic.

 No.2958

>>2955
>You haven't demonstrated that being "racist" makes you evil.

I have, because we have established exactly what beliefs and ideas make one "racist" in this context.

>The attorneys all think you are guilty, and thus would be evil if they defended you, according to your own logic.

That's not what I asked. I asked if I am actually guilty. Did I do it?

 No.2960

>>2958
Earlier you just claimed this relationship axiomatically.  You haven't even made a strong case for what "racist" means, much less its relationship to "evil", which you also haven't defined.

 No.2961

>>2950
>Don't lawyers get to choose which cases they take?
Public defenders don't.  They get assigned cases.

 No.2962

>>2949
> Is being perceived as "evil" such a harmless non-issue now?  What differentiates someone who is "evil" vs "someone you don't like"?

People outright murder each other for positively silly things all the time, including cutting them off in traffic.  I think that even happened not far from where I live recently.  Nothing differentiates someone who is "evil" from "someone you don't like" when it comes to consequences.  In a lot of cases, people will declare you evil because they don't like you.  You could try to make sure no one perceives you as unlikable, but ultimately your best efforts might not be enough and you'll be shot in the street.

>Do you support the implementation of cruel and unusual punishment?  Do you believe torture is a viable means of extracting confessions?  What is to stop the implementation of cruel and unusual punishment, if people are not afforded legal counsel, and checks are placed on the prosecution?  Better, who is going to place those checks on the prosecution, if not a defense attorney?

I don't support cruel or unusual punishment and certainly not torture.  But I never said anything about guilty people not getting legal counsel or someone being there to keep the prosecution in check, only that lying about the innocence of your client isn't something a good person would do (barring extraordinary circumstances).

 No.2963

>>2960
We discussed the beliefs and views of this hypothetical racist in  >>2924, >>2569 and >>2625, as well as numerous other places in this thread.

 No.2964

>>2961
Well, I think they enter that field knowing that is a possibility, right? that they might be put in a position where they have to defend an evil person, and they have to be OK with that going in. That seems like a kind of complacency with it.

 No.2968

>>2948
>If an attorney knows that the defendant is guilty but tries to get them declared innocent then it's probably a bad thing
Well, what if the police violated his rights in getting evidence proving his guilt?  E.g., what if the police pulled him over for "driving while black", without any actual probable cause, and discovered marijuana in his possession?

 No.2969

>>2949
>What does this allow?  It allows dishonest individuals to accuse someone of being "racist", and then if anyone defends them, to declare these people "racist" by proxy.  It's a terrible system, and unfortunately also the direction where society is heading.
This a massive ton.
It's also actively hurting the wider view of why "racism" is bad, and what that actually means in the first place.
It's a net disaster near as I can tell

>>2953
Maybe not, but nobody wants to take the risk and be branded as evil for defending you.

 No.2970

>>2962
I don't see how this holds in the real world.  "I won't like you unless you give me $10,000."  "I'm not giving you $10,000."  "You're evil!"

It isn't necessary to lie about the innocence of your client as a defense attorney.

>>2963
>>2924
>because it's seen as a universally bad thing to be a racist
You haven't demonstrated this, at all.
>>2625
>Someone who believes that white people are genetically superior to most other races. Who believes white culture has more value than other cultures, who believes in the desire for a government enforced white ethnostate, and who actively rejects any attempts to explain why these beliefs might be incorrect or flawed.
So non-whites cannot be racist by definition.  Why should anyone care about your polarized and self-serving definition of racism?

>>2969
This is why I argue so vehemently against it.

 No.2971

>>2958
I wouldn't personally agree that being racist makes you evil. My stance is that evil is a rather specific thing dependant on directly harming others, violating their rights, that type of deal.

Not all racists do that.
Still not good to be a racist, of course, and you can certainly condemn the ideas as unjust. But they aren't necessarily evil people, I'd say.

 No.2972

>>2964
Um, are you aware that defendants have a constitutional right to an attorney?  Do you think Gideon v. Wainwright was wrongly decided?  If you think police discrimination against minorities is bad now, do you have any idea what things would be like if indigent defendants had to defend themselves pro se without public defenders?

 No.2973

>>2968

I specified "probably" for a reason, that reason being that there's going to be exceptions.  If defining good and evil were easy we wouldn't need the justice system in question to begin with.

>>2970
>I don't see how this holds in the real world.  "I won't like you unless you give me $10,000."  "I'm not giving you $10,000."  "You're evil!"

Which part of that doesn't hold?  Are you claiming no one says that?  People say that all the time.  Calling the rich evil for not handing out cash is an international commonality.

>It isn't necessary to lie about the innocence of your client as a defense attorney.

Then it wouldn't necessarily be evil to defend a guilty client.

 No.2974

>>2969
Whether that is justified depends on whether or not I am actually guilty. If I am guilty, and therefore actually evil, then they are justified in not wanting to defend me.

>>2970
>>You haven't demonstrated this, at all.

I shouldn't have to explain why being a racist is bad. Most people understand that.

>So non-whites cannot be racist by definition.

Actually, I addressed that earlier. >>2643
>But to clarify; Obviously people belonging to one non-white group can be racist against another non-white. It would be racist for an Asian person to call a black person the N word, for example. And vice-versa for an appropriate Asian slur. And I suppose, hypothetically speaking, someone of a non-white race could be racist against whites as well. Although this doesn't come up much in the US because white people are the majority and the ones in power.

 No.2975

>>2971
I don't agree because I include emotional and pyschological harm in "harming others". You're free to disagree.

>>2972
I'm not calling for an end of public defenders. I'm saying that public defenders know that it's possible they will have to defend an evil person when they enter the field.

 No.2976

>>2974
And you aren't worried this would set some dangerous precidents where mob rule is the determining factor for whether or not someone is defended in a court?
Hell, this exact thing had been used against minorities for ages. Turns out if the mob says "look, a black man, he MUST be the rapist, it makes perfect sense", and you establish defending anyone presumed guilty is "evil", that mob is what determines if that guy gets a fair trial

 No.2977

>>2973
>Which part of that doesn't hold?  Are you claiming no one says that?  People say that all the time.  Calling the rich evil for not handing out cash is an international commonality.
An unfortunately good point.

>Then it wouldn't necessarily be evil to defend a guilty client.
That's my point.  The same goes for defending an alleged "racist".

>>2974
>I shouldn't have to explain why being a racist is bad. Most people understand that.
argumentum ad populum

>But to clarify; Obviously people belonging to one non-white group can be racist against another non-white. It would be racist for an Asian person to call a black person the N word, for example. And vice-versa for an appropriate Asian slur. And I suppose, hypothetically speaking, someone of a non-white race could be racist against whites as well.
So then, what is your universal definition of racism, without special cases and caveats to benefit yourself?

>Although this doesn't come up much in the US because white people are the majority and the ones in power.
I don't recall...  What race was Barack Obama?  such a racist nation...

 No.2978

>>2975
Doesn't that make you evil?
I will absolutely say you've caused me plenty of emotional harm.

 No.2979

>>2978
You've caused me more.

But I've never done something with the direct intent of causing you duress. I take no pleasure in your emotional harm.

>>2977
>> What race was Barack Obama?
Having a black president several years ago does not change the balance of power in the country overall. Are you actually implying that Obama being president completely eradicated systemic racism?

 No.2980

>>2962
>only that lying about the innocence of your client isn't something a good person would do (barring extraordinary circumstances).
A defense attorney doesn't need to claim that the defendant is innocent.  All the attorney needs to do is cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case.

 No.2982

>>2979
>Having a black president several years ago does not change the balance of power in the country overall.
You ignored my other questions.  Can you not answer them?

>Are you actually implying that Obama being president completely eradicated systemic racism?
It's a very obvious counterexample to your claim.

 No.2983

>>2979
Maybe by your perspective, but I would certainly not say that in regards to my own. But that's hardly justification.

>But I've never done something with the direct intent of causing you duress. I take no pleasure in your emotional harm
So you've presumed intention, then.
What makes you judge, jury, and arbiter for why someone believes something?
Why are you so certain you know every racist perfectly enough to automatically know they fully intend to hurt others emotionally?
How are you able to somehow read their minds so clearly?

 No.2984

>>2982
>You ignored my other questions.
Your first response isn't a question.

>So then, what is your universal definition of racism
Someone posted the dictionary definition in >>2563


>It's a very obvious counterexample to your claim.

Which claim?

 No.2985

>>2977
>That's my point.  The same goes for defending an alleged "racist".

Maybe, but the thread was about dating racists, not defending them in court.

>>2980

"Casting reasonable doubt" in order to get a guilty person to go free, wherein they might continue to commit crimes, is not a good thing to do.  It is abetting that criminal.

And yes, there are caveats where maybe you don't think what they did should be a crime or something, I can't cover every single situation that involves a defense attorney in a forum post.  I am only speaking generally.

 No.2986

>>2983
Because they believe they are superior to others. They feel no remorse for causing pain to those they see as inferior. Many racists do not even see those "inferior" people as people.

 No.2988

>>2984
That dictionary definition is not the definition that you use, as you have demonstrated repeatedly.

>Which claim?
>Although this doesn't come up much in the US because white people are the majority and the ones in power.
Somehow, the most powerful man in the world, elected to two terms as president in this racist nation, wasn't "in power".

 No.2989

>>2984
How exactly is that definition used to claim that mocking Mexican culture is somehow racist towards Hispanics?

 No.2990

>>2985
It's in regards to defending them in the "court" of public opinion, as mentioned in the discussion, specifically.

>"Casting reasonable doubt" in order to get a guilty person to go free, wherein they might continue to commit crimes, is not a good thing to do.  It is abetting that criminal.
Is it better for one innocent man to suffer or for 10 guilty men to go free?

 No.2991

>>2986
You assume that. It certainly doesn't seem to be the standard for most people I've talked to.
And besides that, even if you think they're animals, that doesn't mean you intentionally hurt them.
Dogs are animals, too. I sure as fuck don't kick them for fun. Do you?

Again; what makes you the absolute moral arbiter of what people both believe, think, feel, and to do?

What makes it so you can somehow immediately and automatically say with absolute certainty anyone who is racist is intentionally hurting others?

 No.2992

>>2991
Far-left liberals have no theory of mind.

 No.2993

>>2992
What do you mean?

 No.2994

>>2988
Well "white people are the majority" isn't debatable. They are, just because of how numbers work.

Also for the other thing, Obama was only president for a limited time, only had control over some aspects of American life and culture, and did not even have absolute power. He still had to operate under a mostly white senate and house. Also, who's talking about a "racist" nation? I never said it was racist. I said it was mostly white. You assumed racism.

>>2991
You may not kick dogs, but you do not treat dogs as you equal. You do not give them the same rights or considerations as you. And this causes emotional harm to human beings.

 No.2995

>>2993
So-called "conservatives" can understand "liberal" positions, but "liberals" can't even begin to understand "conservative" positions.  [insert citation I'm too lazy to find again here]

 No.2996

>>2994
Irrelevant. This standards runs contrary to your early point.
You must do it intentionally for it to be evil.
Otherwise, due to the harm you've caused me, you'd have to be evil yourself.

 No.2997

>>2996
Racists DO intentionally deny people of color the same rights and considerations.

 No.2998

>>2995
Ah, right. That study cited earlier.

It's always odd to me. I'd never claim to know anyone with such certainty to assume their thoughts like that, to begin with. But it always seems like the people most certain, be they religious types or leftist sorts, are always the furthest from the actual thoughts and reasons people do what they do.

 No.2999

>>2986
>They feel no remorse for causing pain to those they see as inferior.
Counterexample: Mint (1) is a racist and (2) views farm animals as inferior to himself and (3) would feel remorse for causing pain to farm animals.

 No.3000

>>2997
But not to intentionally cause harm.

You've intentionally said and posted plenty of hurtful and insulting things. Does the fact that you knowingly pushed the post button mean that you're evil? Or does the intention determine it?

 No.3001

>>2999
But doesn't feel remorse for the emotional pain he causes non-white people. I know this because he has told me he does not.

>>3000
>But not to intentionally cause harm.
Of course it's to intentionally cause harm.

 No.3002

>>2999
Precisely this. Seeing others as lesser doesn't mean you're going to be punting them for fun.
Most folk would consider dogs as lesser, but most folk also look incredibly poorly on animal abusers regardless

 No.3005

>>2994
>Well "white people are the majority" isn't debatable. They are, just because of how numbers work.
Using this notion, of numbers being of critical importance, in a nation like South Africa, are the black people the evil racists who need to be kept in check?

>Also for the other thing, Obama was only president for a limited time, only had control over some aspects of American life and culture, and did not even have absolute power. He still had to operate under a mostly white senate and house.
Do you think that the race of senators and representatives matters more than their policy positions?  Were the Democrat-controlled House and Senate opposed to Obama, despite being in the same party and ostensibly on the same team, on the basis of race alone?

>Also, who's talking about a "racist" nation? I never said it was racist. I said it was mostly white. You assumed racism.
Did you not cite institutional racism earlier?  What is the institution, if not the nation itself?

>>2998
Progressivism is a cult, after all.

 No.3007

>>3001
>But doesn't feel remorse for the emotional pain he causes non-white people. I know this because he has told me he does not.
I think you must have misinterpreted him.  He does care about non-white people, but he cares less about them than about his own """people""".

 No.3008

>>3001
You believe it. You are not a god. You do not magically get to say you know what's in people's skulls.
Your zealotry doesn't change this fact.
Unless they directly say it, I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt. In the same way I don't assume you're out to intentionally make me miserable.

 No.3010

File: 1570069642988.png (98.17 KB, 292x216, 73:54, cereal.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>3005
Hey, you said it. I can neither confirm nor deny my belief on the subject

 No.3011

>>3005
> are the black people the evil racists who need to be kept in check?

I never said all white people were evil or racists. That's a complete strawman. But no, majority doesn't always ensure power. But in the US, it is tied to white people's position of power.

>>3005
>were the Democrat-controlled House and Senate opposed to Obama

It's not unreasonable to assume that the opposition Obama faced, especially from the Republican party, was at least in part racially motivated.

>>Did you not cite institutional racism earlier?  

I said systemic racism. That means aspects of the system are racist, not the "nation" itself.

>>3007
>He does care about non-white people, but he cares less about them than about his own """people""".

I really don't see that as caring. He will always put whites above other people, regardless of who they are, because of their race.

 No.3012

>>3001
>Of course it's to intentionally cause harm.
[citation needed]
Personally I find it much more likely that they are simply indifferent to the harm or assign it little weight.

 No.3014

>>2990
>It's in regards to defending them in the "court" of public opinion, as mentioned in the discussion, specifically.

I might've missed that part, the thread's over 200 posts long now, I don't think I read the whole thing.

People are very afraid of racism because there's a very real chance they or someone they know could be seriously hurt, as has been historically the case in the US.  If someone's assumption is that a racist is willing or able to cause them harm, up to and including death or prolonged suffering, then there can be no defense of a racist.  In fact, depending on precisely how severe a problem someone thinks racists are, not only should they not be defended, they should be condemned, possibly to death, because allowing them to live only invites death upon themselves and their families.

Some people might step in to say that we shouldn't kill anyone, and I might agree with that, but just realize that not murdering racists on sight is the compromise that some people are willing to accept.  In the court of public opinion, if your crime is racism, then the best a defense attorney could do is beg that their client isn't given the cement shoes.

>Is it better for one innocent man to suffer or for 10 guilty men to go free?

Well that's pretty deep.  Probably depends on the extent to which the innocent man would suffer and what the guilty men are guilty of.  In a sense it's just a different take on the trolley problem, too.  An easy argument would be that the 10 guilty men going free would cause much more than just one innocent man to suffer, so via utilitarianism the one man has to be sacrificed in order to save the five on the other track.

 No.3015

>>3011
No, you just kept referencing "white people" in an incredibly vague end generalized manner repeatedly.
Funnily enough, that's something that would fall in to my own standards for what constitutes racism.

 No.3017

>>3011
>I really don't see that as caring.
Huh?  If he cares a little, then he cares a non-zero amount.  He talked about a hierarchy of his own people, then people of other races, then various non-human animals ordered by intelligence.  

 No.3018

>>3005
>Using this notion, of numbers being of critical importance, in a nation like South Africa, are the black people the evil racists who need to be kept in check?

Wasn't that a thing for a while?

 No.3021

>>3011
>I never said all white people were evil or racists. That's a complete strawman.
let me just point you back to
>>2974
>But to clarify; Obviously people belonging to one non-white group can be racist against another non-white. It would be racist for an Asian person to call a black person the N word, for example. And vice-versa for an appropriate Asian slur. And I suppose, hypothetically speaking, someone of a non-white race could be racist against whites as well. Although this doesn't come up much in the US because white people are the majority and the ones in power.
implying that whites effectively can't be racist in South Africa, because they aren't the majority or the ones in power, and that given this power dynamic, it's black racism that is the only problem.

>But no, majority doesn't always ensure power. But in the US, it is tied to white people's position of power.
an empty assertion, when you get right down to it.

>It's not unreasonable to assume that the opposition Obama faced, especially from the Republican party, was at least in part racially motivated.
Can you prove this?

>I said systemic racism. That means aspects of the system are racist, not the "nation" itself.
What is the system, then?  not the nation?

>>3014

>People are very afraid of racism because there's a very real chance they or someone they know could be seriously hurt, as has been historically the case in the US.
I disagree, but ok.
>If someone's assumption is that a racist is willing or able to cause them harm, up to and including death or prolonged suffering, then there can be no defense of a racist.
Sure there is.  If the assumption is flawed, which it invariably is, then it should be defended against.  There's a reason we don't assign group guilt in the West.
>In fact, depending on precisely how severe a problem someone thinks racists are, not only should they not be defended, they should be condemned, possibly to death, because allowing them to live only invites death upon themselves and their families.
This is fucking absurd.  Given this scenario, why shouldn't someone accused of racism kill you preemptively?  They'd be perfectly justified in doing so, since you seek to kill them, for having done nothing.

What if I accuse you of racism, and then you're put to death, on that assumption alone?

Do you understand why thought-crime isn't illegal?  seriously.

>Some people might step in to say that we shouldn't kill anyone, and I might agree with that, but just realize that not murdering racists on sight is the compromise that some people are willing to accept.  In the court of public opinion, if your crime is racism, then the best a defense attorney could do is beg that their client isn't given the cement shoes.
I accuse you of racism.  Bam, you're done.  There is no defense.  No one should defend you, and if they do, they are evil.  Please go off yourself, now.  (said as an example according to your logic)

>Well that's pretty deep.
This is known as Blackstone's formulation.

>Probably depends on the extent to which the innocent man would suffer and what the guilty men are guilty of.  In a sense it's just a different take on the trolley problem, too.  An easy argument would be that the 10 guilty men going free would cause much more than just one innocent man to suffer, so via utilitarianism the one man has to be sacrificed in order to save the five on the other track.
Horrifying.  This is actually evil as far as I'm concerned.

>>3018
Yes, actually.  But I am curious if Hedgehog will admit it.

 No.3022

>>3011
>I said systemic racism. That means aspects of the system are racist, not the "nation" itself.

To add an example to this, take the fact that several drugs are illegal.  It's pretty well known at this point, through testimony and messages passed at the time, that more than one of our laws were put in place to discriminate against minorities.  This has had long lasting effects and continues to impact people to this day, and not for anyone's betterment.

As another example, look at wealth.  Having wealth tends to lead to more wealth, that's how our capitalist system tends to work.  This includes generational wealth, inheritance.  Rich slaveowners from the 1700s may have passed their wealth down through several generations by now, with it growing larger all the while.  Even if the current holder of that wealth has absolutely no racist thoughts or ideas, and the source of their income has even changed from exploiting slaves to something much more equal and fair, the fact that they have wealth at all is still the result of slavery from 300 years ago.  Contrarily, black people had no wealth at all 300 years ago, and even as laws started to change to allow them equal rights, they were only just starting out thanks to the hundreds of years prior where they hadn't yet received those considerations.

 No.3023

>>3014
>An easy argument would be that the 10 guilty men going free would cause much more than just one innocent man to suffer, so via utilitarianism the one man has to be sacrificed in order to save the five on the other track.
That's a very narrow, short-term view.  The long-term consequences would be disastrous.  It would place terrible power in the hands of prosecutors and the government in general.  Our justice system, with its insistence on proof beyond a reasonable doubt, is a great bulwark against tyranny.

 No.3026

>>3021
>Given this scenario, why shouldn't someone accused of racism kill you preemptively?

I'm not sure why we jumped from "is a racist" to "is accused of racism".  Those definitely seem to be very different things.

>Horrifying.  This is actually evil as far as I'm concerned.

Well, the trolley problem isn't really a solved experiment, so it would make sense that people would disagree on the answers.

>>3023

Well that's trying to ground a thought experiment in reality.  I'm not sure at what point in the real world we could sacrifice an innocent man in order to catch ten criminals.  I don't actually see a reason we could just cause no suffering to the innocent but catch all of the criminals.  Obviously we don't actually achieve that ideal, but that's what we should be aiming for.  It just wasn't an option in the thought experiment.

 No.3028

>>3026
>I'm not sure why we jumped from "is a racist" to "is accused of racism".  Those definitely seem to be very different things
Because standards created effect everyone.

>Well, the trolley problem isn't really a solved experiment, so it would make sense that people would disagree on the answers
If you ask me, the reason for that is that most people don't think about their principles.

 No.3029

>>3026
>I'm not sure why we jumped from "is a racist" to "is accused of racism".  Those definitely seem to be very different things.
Because, as demonstrated in this very thread, there is no one definition of racism.  So my definition is just as good as yours.

>Well, the trolley problem isn't really a solved experiment, so it would make sense that people would disagree on the answers.
I'm not talking about the trolley problem, I'm talking about your willingness to put innocent people in jail based on the crimes of others.  Note that condemning the wrong person for a crime, also means that the actual perpetrator goes free regardless.

 No.3031

>>3029
>Note that condemning the wrong person for a crime, also means that the actual perpetrator goes free regardless
Assuming the crime actually took place, anyway. Hoaxes are a thing, after all.
Still a terrible thing to do. Any system that treats at citizens unjustly in that way is bound to get revolutionaries. after all, those innocent people charged and convicted for crimes they didn't commit have a perfectly valid and moral justification to resist the system that desires to punish them for something they didn't do

 No.3032

>>3028

What standards are we creating?

>>3029
>Because, as demonstrated in this very thread, there is no one definition of racism.  So my definition is just as good as yours.

I think the "defendant" in this "case" has already admitted guilt.  How we define it isn't even relevant, because the defendant has ascribed to the label.

The thread is about what we do with their "attorney", which depends I think on the extent of their defense.  Like I just said, I think saying we shouldn't murder the person (socially) is fair, but I don't think the prosecution is going to budge past that point, because they're definitely asking for the murder (socially).

>>3029
>I'm talking about your willingness to put innocent people in jail based on the crimes of others.  Note that condemning the wrong person for a crime, also means that the actual perpetrator goes free regardless.

That wasn't really a part of the original question.  You only asked if an innocent man should suffer in order to keep 10 guilty men from continuing on their way.  For all I know, the "suffering" could just be keeping watch over their jail cells.

 No.3034

>>3032
The treatment of people who have been labelled racist. Or, for that matter, are associated with racists, or defend racist.

 No.3037

>>3032
>I think the "defendant" in this "case" has already admitted guilt.  How we define it isn't even relevant, because the defendant has ascribed to the label.
You are advocating for the death of that person, based on their opinions.  I want that to be clear.

Personally, I think anyone who openly advocates for murder is infinitely more dangerous than any random racist, even by my stringent definition.

>The thread is about what we do with their "attorney", which depends I think on the extent of their defense.  Like I just said, I think saying we shouldn't murder the person (socially) is fair, but I don't think the prosecution is going to budge past that point, because they're definitely asking for the murder (socially).
This is irrelevant.  The Twitter Hate Mob doesn't define morality, or what actions others can or should take.

>>3032
>That wasn't really a part of the original question.  You only asked if an innocent man should suffer in order to keep 10 guilty men from continuing on their way.  For all I know, the "suffering" could just be keeping watch over their jail cells.
That is the classic formulation, specifically with regard to imprisonment/punishment.  Does that change your answer?

 No.3038

>>3034

Okay, but I haven't suggested a standard for people who other people have claimed are racist, that wasn't part of any of this.  If you wanted to prove someone was a racist when they deny it, you're not going to have much luck, because it's almost entirely based on internal motivations.  The best you could hope for is them slipping up and admitting they were racist by accident, and also as mentioned earlier I wouldn't support any kind of interrogation on the matter.

 No.3039

>>3037
>Personally, I think anyone who openly advocates for murder is infinitely more dangerous than any random racist, even by my stringent definition.

So at what point would you defend yourself?  Or are you a pacifist that's just okay with dying?

>>3037
>This is irrelevant.

My opinion is irrelevant?  I thought that was the point of the thread.

>>3037
>That is the classic formulation, specifically with regard to imprisonment/punishment.  Does that change your answer?

Understanding that the question is about Blackstone's ratio, yeah, that adds a lot of framing to a question that was otherwise in a void an open to interpretation.

 No.3041

>>3039
>So at what point would you defend yourself?  Or are you a pacifist that's just okay with dying?
in my particular case, it's direct action.
Unless you are attacking me, I'm not going to shoot you because I think it could one day be a possibility.

 No.3042

>>3039
>So at what point would you defend yourself?  Or are you a pacifist that's just okay with dying?
imminent threat.  pretty simple, really.

>My opinion is irrelevant?  I thought that was the point of the thread.
No, that's fine.  I misread your statement at the end.

 No.3043

>>3041
>>3042

So let's jump to the extreme and just take actual 1940s Nazis as an example.  You're both Jewish (for this example).  Do you aggress the Nazis as they state their plan is to wipe your race off the Earth?  Take any kind of preemptive strategy at all?  Or do you wait until they've started shooting?

 No.3045

>>3043
Thinking realistically, you are proposing to fight against an entire political party, and eventually, the nation itself.  This is not merely a handful of powerless racists.  Given the circumstances, outreach might have been most useful in the early days, but it likely wouldn't have been very effective.  After things really took a turn for the worst, fleeing the country would have been the best choice.  Fighting back was never really an option, as this sort of terrorism would only serve to justify Nazi propaganda.

 No.3046

>>3043
>Do you aggress the Nazis as they state their plan is to wipe your race off the Earth?
Just as a historical note, I don't think the Nazis ever stated that (in public).  The German public found out about the death camps only after the war was over.  IIRC, at some point the Nazis were considering relocating the German Jewish population to some remote-ish place, and only when that plan fell through did they turn to just outright killing the Jews.

 No.3052

By the actual definition of racism and endorsement: no, it's plainly obvious that dating someone who's racist is not an endorsement of racist beliefs. If that was actually what this were about, I suspect the thread would've ended a long time ago. It more seems to me that people would like to feel good about judging people for who they associate with. If that is where you personally set your moral standard, then no argument is going to sway you, and back and forth circular arguments will accomplish nothing. You are putting more stock into arguing about this than I believe anyone dating a racist would ever put into worrying about being judged so arbitrarily.

 No.3057

>>3045
>Thinking realistically, you are proposing to fight against an entire political party, and eventually, the nation itself.  This is not merely a handful of powerless racists.

This is true, though you wouldn't necessarily be alone and powerless yourself.

>Given the circumstances, outreach might have been most useful in the early days, but it likely wouldn't have been very effective.  After things really took a turn for the worst, fleeing the country would have been the best choice.  Fighting back was never really an option, as this sort of terrorism would only serve to justify Nazi propaganda.

Okay, interesting.

>>3046

I suppose that would make more sense, most people wouldn't line up for it if they said they were going to murder all the jews up front.

>>3052
>By the actual definition of racism and endorsement: no, it's plainly obvious that dating someone who's racist is not an endorsement of racist beliefs. If that was actually what this were about, I suspect the thread would've ended a long time ago.

I don't think it's as plainly obvious as you claim, there's been a fair amount of disagreement regarding whether you could tolerate a racist enough to date them and whether the ability to tolerate something so awful is incriminating.

You're right that an excessive amount of arguing has been put into this despite most of it being the same few people going around in circles.  It really isn't very productive and no one's changing their minds.

 No.3062

>>3057
>a fair amount of disagreement regarding whether you could tolerate a racist enough to date them
Provided that the racist doesn't make a habit of blabbering about their racist beliefs to you and doesn't act racist, I don't see how it would be hard to tolerate, at least if you're a generally tolerant person.  Out of sight, out of mind.

>... and whether the ability to tolerate something so awful is incriminating.
That doesn't really seem relevant to the question of whether dating the person is an *endorsement*.

 No.3064

>>3062

What if the people were higher profile?  If Hillary Clinton, during her campaign, announced that she was divorcing Bill and marrying the president of the KKK, would that be an "endorsement"?

 No.3065

>>3064
>would that be an "endorsement" [of racism]?
Nope, especially if she publicly condemned her new partner's racism and announced that she is going to try to cure him of his racism.  People might question her mental faculties in such a case, though.

 No.3069

>>3065
Do people really get with other people romantically because they want to change attributes of that person? Doesn't that,  over time on a macro scale, encourage that behavior, since romantically, it means a bad person will win over a good person, since there's less to fix with a good person, so the romancee has less to gloat about?

 No.3072

>>3069
>Do people really get with other people romantically because they want to change attributes of that person?
I doubt it.  More likely that they love the person for other reasons and get with him/her *despite* the bad aspects.

 No.3073

>>3072
But isn't *fixing* a bad boy the most popular of romantic fantasies for women? It's not "get with a respectable good dude", you see a lot more "take a hot douche and convert him into a loyal husband". I mean, i suppose "2 cool people fall in love and work through their problems like reasonable adults" isn't the most gripping of romantic plots, and as such wouldn't end up in a lot of movies, but then, why do we see so much couple vs each other and not as much couple vs the world stories? Just seems to me like based on our media, immorality is attractive. I mean hell, serial killers get married post-serial-killing while in prison with people who only knew them after they did their crimes. So clearly being a bad person isn't a deal-breaker, and even seems to be a bit of an advantage romantically. The same might apply with racism, maybe being a racist makes you a sexy bad boy, and someone who wasn't racist is just a creepy square.

 No.3081

File: 1570179249780.png (121.68 KB, 892x682, 446:341, 34EE6A27-8781-4101-9EE6-70….png) ImgOps Google

>>3073
>sexy bad boy,
I can’t deny it.

 No.3082

>>3081
Are you interjecting to add that because you're racist that you're now a "sexy bad boy" or are you interjecting to put yourself as the main focus for the topic of the thread, of which we've been told not to do.

 No.3083

File: 1570189764214.png (304.39 KB, 1024x1002, 512:501, 55AFF91A-4DCE-4B2D-9043-2B….png) ImgOps Google

>>3082
No, I’m just basking in the clear admiration and appreciate of me and my sexiness that exists in this thread.

I’m just making a joke.

 No.3084

>>3083
If you don't have anything constructive to add, please leave.

 No.3085

>>3021
>implying that whites effectively can't be racist in South Africa, because they aren't the majority or the ones in power,

But I clearly said " And I suppose, hypothetically speaking, someone of a non-white race could be racist against whites as well." So I've already addressed that. I also noted "In the US", which doesn't include South Africa. South Africa specifically created racist laws to stay in power BECAUSE they weren't the majority. Because, under normal circumstances, the majority has the most power.

>an empty assertion, when you get right down to it.

How so? Voting power and who sits in congressional seats is an important factor of who gets to decide things in the US. If the majority of people doing both those things are white, then white people hold more power.

>Can you prove this?
Can you prove it wasn't? I said it wasn't unreasonable to assume, not that it definitely was in all cases.

>What is the system, then?  not the nation?

Well >>3022 gave a pretty good example.

 No.3086

>>3052
>it's plainly obvious that dating someone who's racist is not an endorsement of racist beliefs.

But it is acceptance of racism at the very least. Tolerance of it.

>It more seems to me that people would like to feel good about judging people for who they associate with.

We are responsible for who we associate with. We should not associate with people who do things we find morally reprehensible. Otherwise this calls into question whether we actually do. And a romantic relationship is a much more severe type of association, a much more clear support of that person and their views.

>>3062
> Out of sight, out of mind.

Just because someone hides their racism does not mean they stop being a racist and that what they think isn't disgusting. If you shove all the garbage in your room under your bed so you can't see it, is your room clean?

>>3065
>announced that she is going to try to cure him of his racism.

I have my doubts most people would not see it as an endorsement. but about this whole "curing" thing. What if, hypothetically speaking, the way this person planned to "cure" them of racism wasn't to change their mind about their racist views, but to just make sure they never share them with anyone. More along the lines of your "out of sight, out of mind" comment.

>But isn't *fixing* a bad boy the most popular of romantic fantasies for women?

It's terribly unhealthy and almost always leads to the woman getting hurt. You cannot "fix" someone who does not want to change and see's nothing wrong with being how they are. (if they are even trying to "fix" them, as the hypothetical I just explained might be the case)

I don't think it's behavior that should be endorsed either, but that's another thread. As I've already stated, I don't buy "love" as an excuse to associate with terrible human beings. Especially if your attempts to "fix" this person might just enable them to hide their disgusting behaviors better.

 No.3091

File: 1570216423523.jpg (185.55 KB, 850x1200, 17:24, 1569495123913.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3086
>We are responsible for who we associate with. We should not associate with people who do things we find morally reprehensible.
I strongly disagree, and in fact I'd say that attitudes like that are part of the cause of the rise of intolerance and divisiveness in today's society.  According to your logic, if you're vegan and you think consuming meat is morally reprehensible, and you have a co-worker who eats meat, you would need to refrain from associating with that co-worker.  If you think abortion is murder, you would not be able to associate with a neighbor who advocates for abortion rights.  In a multicultural liberal democracy, we all need to be tolerant and respectful of differences of opinion.

 No.3092

>>3085
It's more in relation to the idea that the 'oppressed' can't be racist, I believe. Not that someone who isn't white can't be racist. Though, you do always seem incredibly reluctant on that particular angle.

>If the majority of people doing both those things are white, then white people hold more power.
Only if you collectivize people based on race.
If you do not assume 'white', or for that matter any other race of people, are some collective block who votes to further their own racial interests, then they don't hold more 'power' than anyone else, as any black person or Asian person or otherwise can vote for the party of their choice.

>I said it wasn't unreasonable to assume, not that it definitely was in all cases.
I think it's very unreasonable to assume.
As a general rule, you should never assume the worst.

 No.3093

>>3084
That's not very constructive either, though, is it?
Just seems rather hostile.
>>3086
>But it is acceptance of racism at the very least. Tolerance of it.
Only if you're of the position that it counts as tolerance or acceptance to allow racists to exist in society in that particular capacity.
I certainly wouldn't call it tolerance or acceptance.
But, I seem to have rather different standards than you on that particular matter.

>We are responsible for who we associate with. We should not associate with people who do things we find morally reprehensible.
I fundamentally disagree. Perhaps it's due to having long ago taken a step back from religion, but, provided you know your beliefs and morals there is absolutely no harm in dealing with those you find immoral.
Dealing with them, as it happens, can even help you convince them their ways are wrong.
Ignoring them does nothing to help that. If anything, they start to radicalize, because the only people who deal with them are those who already agree.
> And a romantic relationship is a much more severe type of association, a much more clear support of that person and their views.
I do not believe love is a choice.
Or are the Christians right to condemn gays for their 'unnatural' and 'immoral' lovelifes?
Could we not say the same, after all, about 'choosing' to love another man?

>I have my doubts most people would not see it as an endorsement.
And I very much doubt many would see it as an endorsement. Side effect of different worldviews, I suppose. I do not live in a place where people are ostracized from society for their beliefs after all. We get folk of all stripes around here.
>What if, hypothetically speaking, the way this person planned to "cure" them of racism wasn't to change their mind about their racist views, but to just make sure they never share them with anyone.
Wouldn't be curing the ideas, but, it'd at least effectively get rid of them.
I'm not really in favor of people hiding their views, though.

 No.3094

File: 1570226690719.png (52.55 KB, 500x334, 250:167, FF4EFDDE-0BFB-4A36-A2F7-0D….png) ImgOps Google

>>3093
It’s fine, he just doesn’t want to admit that he agrees with Loving Manatee when he says that I’m a “sexy bad boy.”

>>3086
>We are responsible for who we associate with. We should not associate with people who do things we find morally reprehensible.
This, >>3091

By this logic should I just isolate myself from everyone because I’m vegan?

 No.3095

>>3094
>By this logic should I just isolate myself from everyone because I’m vegan?

I mean, I wouldn't complain if you disappeared...

 No.3096

>>3095
Geez, man. Seriously?

 No.3097

File: 1570229967071.png (491.43 KB, 805x1024, 805:1024, AB93D5D7-57DC-4898-A4AC-2E….png) ImgOps Google

>>3095
You’d miss me, don’t lie.

But seriously I don’t see why you have such a big problem with me. Other than occasionally teasing you I’ve been nothing but nice to you.

 No.3098

>>3091
We can decide what we tolerate. If a vegan decides they don't want to tolerate eating meat, they have ever right not to associate with people who do.

It's my opinion that we should not tolerate racism, especially from those who do not feel being racist is wrong. To associate with them is to tolerate their racism.

>>3092
> I think it's very unreasonable to assume. As a general rule, you should never assume the worst.

It's not assuming the worst. It's assuming the likelyhood of something based on what we know. And we know that Obama faced racial prejudice from people.

>I do not believe love is a choice.
Who you associate with is. You can love someone, but choose not to associate with them for your own emotional health.

>Wouldn't be curing the ideas, but, it'd at least effectively get rid of them.

It's not "getting rid" of them at all. It's allowing them to hide their beliefs from people who would be against them and should have the choice not to associate with them if they don't want to be friends with a racist.

 No.3099

>>3096
What? It's my honest opinion.

>>3097
I honestly find you to be a disgusting human being. And that is being generous. Please stop injecting yourself into our hypothetical conversations, because we have been asked not to discuss you directly.

>But seriously I don’t see why you have such a big problem with me

Because you're a racist... That should be REALLY obvious to you by now.

 No.3101

File: 1570232086002.png (212.03 KB, 594x400, 297:200, 69.png) ImgOps Google

>>3094
>By this logic should I just isolate myself from everyone because I’m vegan?
Yes.

 No.3102

>>3099
It's also incredibly rude. I don't share my honest opinion about you at random, now, do I?
It shouldn't kill you to be a little more polite and considerate for the feelings of others.

Besides that, it's quite clearly against the rules.
And as far as the "inject yourself" angle goes, I feel I must point out you specifically brought him up several times yourself.

 No.3103

File: 1570232665791.jpeg (182.79 KB, 800x700, 8:7, AAE6A99A-09C0-4305-961B-6….jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>3099
>hypothetical conversations,
To say that anything that has been discussed thus far, with or without my presence has been “hypocritical” is tenuous at beat.

I have a question to propose to you.

Two days ago I was in McDonald’s, siting next a group of Black guys and one of them asked if he could use my charger. I was extremely busy and had to go, but waited behind a good 20 minutes just so he could borrow my charger because his phone had nothing in it. This was right after two White people were extremely rude to the guy borrowing my charger for absolutely no reason, which lead him call them racist. I can’t specifically remember what the last women did to him, but he said that the first (this happened before I arrived) refused to clean his table because it was dirty and told him that he should just move, to which he responded that there was no where else for him and his friends to sit and that she should clean the table because it was literally her job, and after that she just started arguing with and insulting him before she stormed off.

The guys seemed really nice and they had come down from London to visit family here. We talked for a little bit while we waited for the guys phone to charge, and he was particularly nice to me, continuously thanking me and making sure that I was ok with him holding me back to charge his phone.

I find this situation particularly funny because the two White women that were extremely rude to him no doubt regard themselves as “anti-racists,” while I let the guy borrow my charger and had a nice chat with him and his friends, and yet I actually am a racist. Yeah I want him out of the country, but I don’t see any reason why I can’t be as kind to him as possible in the meantime. Because I don’t want to see him or anyone else get hurt because of their race, regardless of what you believe of my opinions. I genuinely care for people of other races and in most situations would treat them as I would any White person, possibly even overcompensating for my racism. But, I don’t deny the fact that on average people of his group are inferior to my group, and I still feel no differently about my peoples right to establish our homeland.

I hold very extreme views and they can give me extreme anxiety and fear at times, but I keep them in check because I genuinely believe that all sentient life has meaning and should be cared for to the greatest extent possible, (as long as they aren’t an immediate threat to me or my people) and I try to uphold this the best I can. The two women I talked about however, they’re likely apolitical, non-racist, and even if they are they’re views will no doubt be nothing compared to mine, and yet they extremely spiteful and treat those around them as if they were shit they scrapped off their shoe, even when it’s their job, that they get paid for, to take care of them, or at least show them some basic human decency.

Who’s the bad guy in this situation, the two non-racist White women who treat these Black guys like shit despite the fact that it’s their job to care for them and their needs, or me, who despite his racist views went out of his way to help these guys and have a polite conversation with them, when I had absolutely no obligation to do so?

I know that what I did was just basic decency, and I don’t expect to get a pat on the back for it. I’m just trying to point out that things are more nuanced than you think.

 No.3104

>>3098
As long as you recognize that doesn't apply to everyone, and people are not morally wrong for not aligning with your particular worldview.
if you weren't an advocate of it, I imagine nobody here would have a problem with you not wanting to associate with racists.
the problem here lies in that you are condemning people who do not align with your particular moral standard. the problem is you've declared it unacceptable for someone yo be in a romantic relationship with somebody you find morally reprehensible.

>It's not assuming the worst. It's assuming the likelyhood of something based on what we know. And we know that Obama faced racial prejudice from people.
so you have taken the sins of other people, and applied them to people that have nothing to do with those people?

I would absolutely call this assuming the worst. hell, I would say that probably doesn't go far enough in regards to what it is. After all, you are saying it's justified to accuse people of something because others did it somewhere else.
I chose a fair bit further than assuming the worst. Hell, it's the same justification racists used to condemn all black people.

>It's not "getting rid" of them at all. It's allowing them to hide their beliefs from people who would be against them and should have the choice not to associate with them if they don't want to be friends with a racist.
So what is the point? Just to make you feel good?
it doesn't sound like what you are describing here has any practical benefit. So why should we encourage people to be silent about their beliefs by condemning anyone who has any kind of relationship with those we believe hold morally reprehensible beliefs?

It doesn't do anything to combat racism, and as far as I can tell frankly I think it would help it spread

 No.3105

>>3102
>at random
It wasn't random, it was a response to something he said.

> polite and considerate for the feelings of others.
He's a white supremacist. I'll show him the minimum amount of respect the site requires of me. No more.

 No.3106

>>3103
I honestly don't care if you can find it within yourself to occasionally not be rude to individual people of color. Your views are still wrong and disgusting and you are a bad person for continuing to hold on to them even when people confront you on them. You feel no remorse for believing the things you do, and you don't feel like being a racist is bad. You honest to God disgust and terrify me, as all people like you do. And I would not associate with anyone like you, let alone date date them. It would make my skin crawl.

 No.3107

File: 1570233266715.png (629.22 KB, 783x441, 87:49, 1427513325142.png) ImgOps Google

>>3098
>If a vegan decides they don't want to tolerate eating meat, they have ever right not to associate with people who do.
Earlier, in >>3093, you claimed "We should not associate with people who do things we find morally reprehensible", from which it follows that a vegan (who finds meat eating to be morally reprehensible) has duty to refrain from associating with meat-eaters.

>>3098
>It's my opinion that we should not tolerate racism
"Racism" in which sense?  I'd say that shouldn't tolerate certain acts of racial discrimination (largely those that are already illegal).  But I think it is bad to be intolerant of others' sincerely-held beliefs.  In the past, such intolerance has lead to many atrocities.

 No.3108

>>3103
>>hypothetical conversations,
>To say that anything that has been discussed thus far, with or without my presence has been “hypocritical” is tenuous at beat.
He said hypothetical, not hypocritical.

 No.3110

>>3104
>so you have taken the sins of other people, and applied them to people that have nothing to do with those people?

I haven't "applied" it to anyone, though. I said it was possible. Are you saying it ISN'T possible Obama faced racial prejudice?

> So why should we encourage people to be silent about their beliefs

I said we shouldn't do that. I am against try to "cure" the racist by helping him hide his racism. That's not fixing anything.

>>3107
>"Racism" in which sense?

We've spent much of this thread already establishing what "racism" is in this context.

 No.3111

>>3081
>>3083
>>3094
>>3097

I realize the thread is essentially about you, but none of these posts are constructive in the slightest.  By the board's rules, they're all shitposting.  Posts on /townhall/ need to be on topic and contribute to the discussion at hand.

 No.3112

File: 1570233469981.png (249.03 KB, 703x448, 703:448, 82.png) ImgOps Google

>>3110
How would you fix Racism?

 No.3114

>>3105
It was a response to a counter argument which does not follow with the argument. It was absolutely unprovoked and had no practical context on the discussion. It's just a dickish move, plain and simple.

>He's a white supremacist. I'll show him the minimum amount of respect the site requires of me. No more
You've clearly gone a lot further than the sites requirements. But all right. I think that says more about your moral character, then any argument I could have put together against you, so at least there's that.

As a general rule, I try to treat all humans with dignity and respect regardless of their opinions or beliefs.

 No.3115

>>3112
I really can't answer that on this board.

 No.3116

File: 1570233607137.png (137.9 KB, 374x433, 374:433, 71.png) ImgOps Google

>>3115
May I ask what rule specifically is preventing you from deliberating on how you personally would fix racism in the United States?

 No.3117

>>3106
He is bad only to you. Personally, as long as he doesn't act on those beliefs, in a way that would directly harm anyone, I think he's perfectly all right. The absolute worst I could say is he is behaving in an unjust manner, but that is not evil.

Your morality is not universal. what you believe is evil is not necessarily viewed as evil by everyone. Your zealous devotion to those particular believes does not mean everybody else is obligated to follow along.

 No.3118

>>3111
Is anything going to be done about manleys direct insults, or is this another case of you never touch him?

Oh, and by the way, manly repeatedly directly referenced him anyway.
Are you going to say the same thing to him? After all, he repeatedly brought specifically mint several times in this thread. Or is it okay when he does it?

 No.3119

>>3118

If saying "I don't like you" counts as an insult then we would've done something when the thread was posted.  Besides, it was clearly provoked by Mint coming in here just to taunt him, which breaks several rules on its own.  I try to provide lenience to people being provoked, especially with so tame a response.

If you want to discuss that further, take it to /canterlot/, this isn't the thread for it.

 No.3120

>>3117
So you think being a racist is acceptable, so long as they don't physically harm anyone? What about emotional and psychological harm? What about any influence or power they may have over other people's lives? What about other people they might indoctrinate in their beliefs, or help normalize racism to? We already see this happening.

>>3116
Actually, if you're asking about already existing racist, I can't answer. But I can answer how to keep future generations from become racists.

I think education, lessening of poverty, and exposure to other cultures at a young age would go a long way to making sure less young people get indoctrinated into racism. But it would have to be done from childhood. Racism is learned, but once learned, it cannot be unlearned. As such, I would see it as a disease that you can be inoculated against, but not treated for.

 No.3121

>>3120
>Racism is learned, but once learned, it cannot be unlearned.

I'm not entirely sure that's true.  Maybe it's harder, but I think people can still just stop being racist.  Making positive connections to people of other races can happen at any age.  The problem is that by the time you're an adult you tend to associate with a pretty select group, regardless of your stance on race.  It's not like being in school where we just toss everyone in together and you get exposed automatically.

 No.3122

>>3110
It's entirely possible that guy faced some, yes. I would never say specifics for where that came from, or make any particular argument of the possibility being a refutation.
I would not say this claim is somehow justification for the existence of systemic oppression, or refutation of the argument that because Obama managed to secure the highest office in the country, the most powerful position arguably in the entire world, systemic oppression is probably not that bad.

>I said we shouldn't do that. I am against try to "cure" the racist by helping him hide his racism. That's not fixing anything.
It is, however, a side effect of what you propose. unless you expect to somehow get rid of racists and society in its entirety, kicking them out of any potential for survival, and hoping they just die off.
I don't think that would happen. I don't think it would be a good thing if it did happen anyway.

 No.3124

File: 1570234191129.png (135.44 KB, 509x513, 509:513, 51.png) ImgOps Google

>>3120
You cannot as you don't have a solution? It's a problem that cannot be fixed at all?

>education, lessening of poverty, and exposure to other cultures at a young age would go a long way to making sure less young people get indoctrinated into racism
Interesting hypothesis, no way to prove it unless you find yourself in charge of the U.S. And even then getting literally everyone to agree from the get-go.

I fear that people are generally distrustful of other people. And social groups will still tend to go to others that are like them. So I don't think it would work.

 No.3125

File: 1570234282731.jpeg (664.52 KB, 1250x1565, 250:313, C9CA9E6A-3834-421F-BE9E-7….jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>3106
>occasionally not be rude to individual people of color.
I’ve never been rude to a non-White person.

>Your views are still wrong and disgusting and you are a bad person
You’ve never actually explained why, you just keep asserting it. I think in this regard you’re no better than the little kid who used to hate gay people because his parents told him gay people are evil.

You have a irrational hatred of people who hold racist views for the exact same reason that you used to have an irrational hatred of gay people, it’s what everyone around you believes. You haven’t actually tackled any of my ideas or explained what you find morally repulsive about my views, in the same way that when I asked you why you used to be homophobic you had no clear answer. You’re just blindly following whatever those around you believe, although for whatever reason you feel the need to take things to their logical extreme.

There clearly isn’t anything I could do or say that would change your opinion because I’m “racist” and racists are “bad people.” I beg that you actually examine me as a person, and not as a racist.

If you want to prove me wrong you could start by telling me why my views make me a bad person, not simply that my views do make me a bad person.

You make too many assumptions. No one should just assume anything without questioning, everything should be up to at least some degree of scrutiny. I again I suggest you start by thinking about why my views make me evil in spite of everything else not to just assume that I am.

>>3108
Sorry, I read that properly, I just made a mistake when typing.

>>3111
Sorry, I was meant in good humour, but I’ll cut it out.

 No.3126

>>3124
>You cannot as you don't have a solution? It's a problem that cannot be fixed at all?

My guess is that his solution is violent and thus it would be against the rules to suggest it on the board.

>I fear that people are generally distrustful of other people. And social groups will still tend to go to others that are like them. So I don't think it would work.

There's some truth to that, but I think at the very least we could manage to keep those social groups from being based on race.  Perhaps you wouldn't see that as a strong step forward, but I think it would be better.

Also, by lessening poverty, people wouldn't feel like they're at risk for anything.  To hit the extremes, if most people had infinite resources, they'd just give them to everyone else so they also had infinite resources.  They wouldn't want foreigners to leave the country if they knew there was nothing they'd lose by them being there.

>>3125
>If you want to prove me wrong you could start by telling me why my views make me a bad person, not simply that my views do make me a bad person.

What exactly are your views?  I know you tend to stay quiet about them on the site, but if there's a thread asking about whether or not it's okay to date people with terrible views, perhaps we should have a benchmark for what those views might be.

 No.3127

>>3119
I understand. I will be insulting Manly in the same manner, then. I hope you understand, and don't bend me, because that would obviously make you a hypocrite.
>>3120
The problem is that you can never properly predict, or prove, where emotional harm was directly caused.
Moreover, as we discussed earlier, merely causing harm is not your standard, or else you would be evil by your own metric.

you later claimed that it wasn't intended. So intention was the metric that you use. However, you are not God. You do not get to determine magically what other people believe.

I believe that you are an asshole I believe that you have no understanding of empathy, you have no dignity, you have no sense of respect for your fellow man. I also believe that you are a racist. I believe you are a bigoted individual. I believe that you are incredibly cruel, dishonest, and generally speaking a jerk do does not care about the feelings of others, so long as he can dismiss them out of hand.
I believe that the main reason you want to be able to declare people who associate with racists as evil is so that you can justify your cruelty to them.

I cannot magically see into your skull, however, and use these beliefs as justification to declare you as evil. I certainly can't use it as justification to say others should never associate with you. To say other should never be a friend of yours, or ever have any romantic relations with you.

 No.3128

>>3124
We already incarerate people for hate crimes, but the problem with that is that someone has to be hurt before we can act. Perhaps stronger penalties for hate crimes could help, but racism is not treatable in people who are already racist. So there's nothing really we can do to deal with existing racists.

>So I don't think it would work.
You're free to think that, but racists use biased (or outright bogus) science to convince people of their superiority. Education can lessen this. People in poverty look for other groups to blame, dealing with poverty can lessen this. And people who are ignornant of other cultures are more fearful of them. Exposure can lessen this. So I feel like, even if it did not completely eliminate racism, it would help the problem significantly.

>>3126
>My guess is that his solution is violent and thus it would be against the rules to suggest it on the board.

Don't always assume the worst.

 No.3129

>>3119
By the way, I can't help but notice that you never applied that leniency to me.
Or did you suddenly forget when you banned me?

seems as far as I can tell that you have no actual consistency in this regard, do you.

 No.3130

>>3127
I suspected you believed all that, it would explain why you treat me the way you do and go out of your way to make my experiences on this site as miserable as possible.

But if you believe all those things about me, you are free to not associate with me.

 No.3131

>>3130
you completely missed the point here. But I expected that, as well, as I believe you always intentionally misread, misrepresent, or just flat-out ignore anything that would ever prove you wrong.

 No.3132

File: 1570235075169.png (164.9 KB, 411x419, 411:419, 75.png) ImgOps Google

>>3126
>My guess is that his solution is violent and thus it would be against the rules to suggest it on the board.
Hoh, even if it's an answer to a theoretical question. Hard times in here.

>we could manage to keep those social groups from being based on race
Difficult. Forcing people to mix makes both parties hate each other more. At least that's how it was in my middleschool prom with the boys and girls.

> if most people had infinite resources, they'd just give them to everyone else so they also had infinite resources
That sounds like trickle down economics.

>>3128
Incarcerate.

>Perhaps stronger penalties for hate crimes could help
Pretty sure White skinhead nazi's and thug ghetto Black guys go to the same prison system and continue to not like each other there. So making them stay together longer might not work out for the best either.

>but racism is not treatable in people who are already racist
Citation needed.

> it would help the problem significantly.
I think after a few hundred years the rate at which people are ignorant of other cultures will decrease significantly.

I think to end racism an alien invasion needs to take place so every human can kill the threat. Enemy of my enemy type thing.

 No.3133

>>3125
>You have a irrational hatred of people who hold racist views for the exact same reason that you used to have an irrational hatred of gay people, it’s what everyone around you believes.

Yeah, that's bullshit. I hate racists because racists cause real issues and problems in this world. Not because I was told to. Because holding the view that certain people are less intelligent that others on a genetic level is something that has no basis in science is it always contested. Because believing that your culture has more value than other cultures because you are smarter is not only incorrect, but evil. Because advocating for an ethnostate and the potential removal of anyone non-white from a country would cause untold pain and strife on thousands, if not millions of people and would not benefit anyone except people who hate based on skin color.

 No.3134

>>3127
>You do not get to determine magically what other people believe.

But they can also just tell you what they believe.  You don't have to be some kind of magic mind reader in that case.  Kind of like what you did in the next paragraph.

>>3129
>Or did you suddenly forget when you banned me?

I've forgotten literally every time I've banned you.  I don't even have a real count anymore.  4-6ish somewhere.

>>3128
>Don't always assume the worst.

I didn't think it was even all that bad, honestly.  Now I'm really curious about what the solution is, though.

>>3132
>That sounds like trickle down economics.

I'm confident that if we had unlimited resources, trickle down economics would actually work.

 No.3135

File: 1570235323968.png (191.05 KB, 463x481, 463:481, 153.png) ImgOps Google

>>3134
And they said I was insane for wanting the Dyson swarm completed.

 No.3136

>>3134
The point is that he's declaring people evil because of their supposed intention. Even though he does not know that intention.
it goes beyond emotional harm, as I had discussed with him earlier in the thread, because of course he does not find himself to me evil. Even though he has certainly caused me plenty of emotional harm.

But if you are saying that people can tell you what they believe, then I completely agree. I always tend to take people at face value. For example, when mint horse tells people that doesn't intend to hurt people with his beliefs, I believe him. I have no reason not to. One should always try to assume people are being honest with them, after all. At least when it comes to their beliefs.

>I've forgotten literally every time I've banned you.  I don't even have a real count anymore.  4-6ish somewhere.
it wasn't even that many, but that explains a lot about the low quality standard you seem to apply.
in any case, the last band, the one that I made a massive threat over, rather unequivocally demonstrates what you claim here to be false.

I won't call you a liar, but, certainly, you seem to be misinformed about your own standard.

 No.3137

File: 1570235506125.jpeg (19.66 KB, 236x253, 236:253, 3A713B53-4084-47C0-B178-7….jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>3126
I believe that a British ethnostate should be established in Britain in which at least 95% (preferably >99%) of the population would be British, and all non-British people (specifically non-White people) would be regarded as second class citizens, which would exclude them from the political process and other areas which are considered to be of great concern to the British people. I’d preferably pay all the non-British people to go back to their country of ancestral origin, in hopes that they’ll use that money to improve both their own lives and lives of their people in their countries, but I believe at this point civil war is unfortunately inevitable.

I also believe that there are inherent differences between the races and that White people are generally superior to most non-White people, although I’d regard East Asians, Jews, and Brahmin as being equal, and in many ways even superior to White people as a group.

Despite the what some may see as hypocrisy, I not only believe that these views don’t contradict my vegan beliefs, but actually perfectly coincide with them. I believe that all sentient life has worth and that it should be protected and cared for to the greatest extent possible, but I also wouldn’t want an animal infestation in my house, in the same way that I don’t want non-British people in my country. And I would try to get these unwanted animals to leave my house in the most peaceful manner possible.

>inb4 comparing non-British people to animals
There’s a big difference between a comparison and an analogy, look it up. I wasn’t comparing non-British people to animals, I was making an analogy:

>>3133
>Because holding the view that certain people are less intelligent that others on a genetic level is something that has no basis in science is it always contested.
It’s well known that literally every other trait is based on genetics, at least to some extent. Why would intelligence be the only outlier?

 No.3138

>>3131
I knew you feigning of civility would not last. You can think I'm an evil person all you want, it says more about you than about me.

>>3132
I meant more removing the racists from larger society to help society, more than help the racists themselves.

>Citation needed.
It's not really something you can prove or disprove. Just my observations. Mint horse feels no remorse for being a racist and thinks that being a racist is not only good, but justified. No attempts to unracist him have been successful.

>I think to end racism an alien invasion needs to take place so every human can kill the threat. Enemy of my enemy type thing.

You seem to have a more nihilistic view on humanity than I do. I think we can achieve peace. We just have to give a shit.

>>3134
I gave it in >>3120 and >>3128

 No.3139

>>3138
You literally just misunderstood my position. Case and fucking point.

I straight-up tell you that I do not see you as an evil person, and you somehow interpret this as me seeing you as an evil person.
You are blind to reality. You only see whatever you want to see.

And for the record, my civility only ended to help demonstrate a point. I do believe all those things, but that's besides the point. I would not use those things to justify calling you evil.
And frankly, I wouldn't normally even voice them in the first place, given that it's incredibly rude to do so.
Given that you accept that it's uncivil, you should then see why I didn't much care for you doing the same thing to mint. due to the standards that apparently apply to you, I figure I might as well respond in kind. After all if it's going to be okay by the site's standards, it should certainly be okay by mine

 No.3140

>>3137
>It’s well known that literally every other trait is based on genetics, at least to some extent. Why would intelligence be the only outlier?

It's not tied to race. You're conflating "genetics" with race, which is only a tiny portion of one's genetic make up. In fact, two "black" people can be more genetically dissimilar to each other than a white and black person are to each other.  I've explained this to you, and you've ignored it. Because you're a bad person.

 No.3141

>>3110
>We've spent much of this thread already establishing what "racism" is in this context.
Did you finish reading my post?  I'd like to re-emphasize (>>3107):
>I think it is bad to be intolerant of others' sincerely-held beliefs.  In the past, such intolerance has lead to many atrocities.

 No.3142

>>3141
Racism has lead to more atrocities than not accepting racism.

 No.3144

>>3142
I think you will find that most atrocities in the world weren't done in the name of race, but rather, either religion, ideology, or simple economics.

racism, I would say, rarely seems to play into it. Certainly it didn't in the case of the Soviet Union, near as I can tell.

 No.3145

File: 1570235852419.png (131.96 KB, 394x455, 394:455, 17.png) ImgOps Google

>>3138
>I meant more removing the racists from larger society to help society
What if the larger society is racist secretly? I'm using the definition of discriminating someone purely based on their ethnicity for this one. Be it positive or negative.

>It's not really something you can prove or disprove
Please don't state it as fact then.

>Mint horse feels no remorse for being a racist and thinks that being a racist is not only good
More observations, or do you have a method of feeling what others are thinking and feeling?

> I think we can achieve peace. We just have to give a shit.
Oof, tough break there bud.

 No.3146

>>3139
I see no other way to take all the things you claimed to think about me in >>3127 as anything else than you seeing me as an evil, bad person. In fact, I'm confused how you're taking umbrage with that reading. Why tell me all those horrible things you think about me if not to communicate you think I'm bad? Other than to hurt me emotionally, that is.

 No.3147

>>3136
>The point is that he's declaring people evil because of their supposed intention. Even though he does not know that intention.

I might be misunderstanding, but I feel like knowing the intention is a prerequisite to the calling them evil part.  If their intentions were dangerously racist then they would be evil.  He believes this of the person in question because he's heard his intentions.

>>3137

That seems like a whole lot of effort and money in order to pull it off.  What exactly is the goal there?  What are you hoping happens if non-British people weren't in Britain?

>>3138
>I knew you feigning of civility would not last.

He's mostly still being civil.  It's not like we didn't already know how much he hated you.

>>3138
>I gave it in >>3120 and >>3128

Ah, well, I agree with those points, for sure.  I was more curious about what you'd do about "existing racists".

 No.3148

>>3146
To specifically demonstrate that I do not believe you are intentionally causing me harm.
Or perhaps I should put it as, I do not think that is certain.
Evil is something I believe matters. The standards by which we declare something to be evil should be held to high scrutiny. It is not something we should throw around based solely on our feelings, opinion, or subjective interpretation.
if I were to call you evil, I would have to have been directly told by you that you are intentionally causing harm to others. I cannot see in your skull, after all. Despite how I feel, to declare you as evil without getting that from you would be, in my opinion, unjust.

 No.3149

>>3144
I didn't say racism caused the most atrocities overall. Just that it's caused more atrocities than not accepting racism.

>>3145
I don't believe that it is, but if it is, we should work toward having less and less racist people each generation. More than likely, most people today are less racist than their grandparents were. We can continue on this path.

>or do you have a method of feeling what others are thinking and feeling?

He's directly stated it. A few times in this thread, in fact.

 No.3151

>>3146
>>3148

That just sounds like you disagreeing on what would make someone evil.  I don't think that's really a misinterpretation, as such.

 No.3152

File: 1570236172459.png (137.9 KB, 374x433, 374:433, 71.png) ImgOps Google

>>3149
>More than likely, most people today are less racist than their grandparents were
Probably. I miss that old racist bastard.

I just read. You should do something about proving his beliefs wrong then.

 No.3153

>>3147
> I was more curious about what you'd do about "existing racists".

Not much can be done. They cannot be unracist'd, and we cannot incarcerate them unless they commit a hate crime. It's a sad situation, which is why we should work to inoculate future generations from it to keep it from spreading.

 No.3154

>>3147
It was a part of the discussion why racism is evil. I had stated that I am not certain they are.
In the discussion of what constitutes evil, intentionally causing harm to others was brought up.
That is what makes racist evil, at least according to what he had said prior

 No.3155

File: 1570236263272.png (223.72 KB, 572x482, 286:241, 76.png) ImgOps Google

>>3153
>They cannot be unracist'd
Citation needed.

 No.3156

>>3152
I did respond to him.

>>3148
And it's my belief that anyone who chooses to continue to be racist, even when confronted on those beliefs, is choose to do harm (emotional and psychological, and potentially physical harm) to others. This is an intentional choice.

 No.3157

>>3155
If you've got an idea on how to do it, I'd like to hear it.

 No.3158

>>3151
The example was provided to suggest why it isn't okay to declare somebody evil because of your assumptions about them.

Manly have suggested prior at racists intentionally cause harm to those of other races.
I did not agree with this. I have known plenty of races did not want to cause anyone harm.

 No.3159

>>3156
So, as I had asked earlier and you ignored, is it the intention, or the action?

Because you had certainly insulted me plenty of times and very hurtful ways well after I had explained to you in great detail why they were hurtful. Or if you prefer, you intentionally chose to continue that behavior.

So, which is it?
Are You evil by your own standards, or are you just assuming the intention of racists?

 No.3161

>>3156
>>3158

I think there's another gap in here that needs to be answered.

Does it matter if your actions are intentional and they cause harm?  Or do you have to intend to cause harm?

Mint, for example, seemingly does not believe it would cause harm to people if they were all booted out of Britain.  This seems incorrect, even if you're sending them away with money and stuff to help out their home countries (which they might have never been to at this point).  But I'm willing to believe that he's just incorrect and not actually lying about how much he wants to hurt people.

 No.3162

>>3157
The guy who had befriended and deradicalized KKK members, for one. As had already been posted

 No.3163

File: 1570236584537.png (118.46 KB, 437x328, 437:328, 13.png) ImgOps Google

>>3156
I saw, wasn't very convincing.

>>3157
Have a person that hates a certain type of race get their life saved by a person of that race. Worked for my grandma.

 No.3164

File: 1570236635234.jpeg (75.78 KB, 910x879, 910:879, D4EE20A9-381E-4549-B336-4….jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>3140
I’m fully aware of that fact, but those are just extreme examples, I’m generalising. Besides if anything that just proves that some Black people are more dissimilar to Whites than others, not that any group is similar, just that some are more dissimilar.

>Because you're a bad person.
You don’t need to keep reminding me.

>>3147
You don’t get it, Britain being British is the goal in of itself. The goal is to preserve the British people and their culture to the greatest extent possible, which of course involves removing all threats to said goals.

Anyway, I think I’m going to bail before this goes to far. I think I’ve made my point and I promised that I wouldn’t cause anymore drama. Sorry if anyone had anymore questions for me.

 No.3165

>>3128
>racism is not treatable in people who are already racist. So there's nothing really we can do to deal with existing racists.
That's false and it's been disproven to you more than once with a counterexample.

 No.3166

>>3161
You see that gap because you didn't see the prior conversation on the particular subject. That's further up in the thread.

Intention is important, because after all, if it wasn't, by manly standards, manly would be evil.



Personally, it is my stance that any action which directly harms unjustly other individuals is evil. You could theoretically boot out people without causing direct harm, however, the problem there would still be that it's unjust. Justice and harm are of course two different things, and I don't think that necessarily having an unjust system, society, or action, makes you evil.

 No.3167

>>3164
>You don’t need to keep reminding me.

Why not? You could choose to stop being bad at any moment.

>>3165
Then why is a racist posting in this thread? Why does he resist any attempts to unracist him?

 No.3168

>>3142
>Racism has lead to more atrocities than not accepting racism.
Intolerance has lead to more atrocities than tolerance of other ideologies.  

 No.3169

>>3166
I think you're grasping at straws to make me out to be the bad guy because you don't like me. I don't like you, but I've never once called you evil.

>>3168
Some ideologies should not be defended. Ones that dehumanize and harm other groups.

 No.3170

File: 1570236868453.png (183.15 KB, 403x495, 403:495, 209.png) ImgOps Google

>>3167
>Why does he resist any attempts to unracist'd him?
We're saying racism is treatable, and have proven it with multiple examples.

You're saying it's not treatable, because of one person on a pony based imageboard.

 No.3171

>>3167
Because sometimes things take time? because sometimes you have to actually make arguments, instead of insulting and belittling them? Because maybe it's a better way to go to try to be friendly and polite to a racist, if you want to encourage them to get away from racism, then claiming that they are evil and that anyone associated with them including their girlfriend is also evil?

 No.3172

>>3169
I never said you called me evil. Again, you misrepresent me

I had only claimed that you called racists evil.

 No.3173

File: 1570236975790.png (165.32 KB, 571x462, 571:462, 154.png) ImgOps Google

>>3171
This too, never got anyone on my side by constantly telling them they're an evil human being because they believe in something I don't. That would be so intolerant of me.

 No.3174

>>3167
>Then why is a racist posting in this thread? Why does he resist any attempts to unracist him?
Do you really not see how the form of your argument is invalid?  Let me give another example with the same form, to make it easier for you to see this:
PREMISE: Someone dies of cancer.
CONCLUSION: Cancer is not treatable.

 No.3176

File: 1570237101943.png (3.01 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, cgadine.png) ImgOps Google

>>3173
Maybe you have to be a preacher for that type of thing to work.

 No.3177

>>3169
>Some ideologies should not be defended. Ones that dehumanize and harm other groups.
Racism doesn't necessarily dehumanize.

 No.3178

File: 1570237145048.png (222.62 KB, 600x462, 100:77, 23.png) ImgOps Google

>>3174
>Cancer is not  treatable
>Actually there have been several cases where if caught early enough or depending on the type you can cur
>Actually someone died from Cancer, so it's not treatable.

 No.3179

>>3172
I'm not claiming you said I called you evil... Gah...

I'm stating that I have never called you evil, even though I don't like you at all. So you trying to call me evil is uncalled for.

>>3171
I've spoken with him in private and made those arguments to him. He refused to listen. He has no interest in not being a racist, and so cannot be changed.

If his attitude was different, if he were raised in a racist household but openly wished to leave racism behind, then I would probably be friends with him. At the very least, I would try to help him work toward that goal. That's not him. He has to show a desire to change first. He does not and will not.

>>3177
How do you figure that?

 No.3180

>>3178
Ha ha. Very funny. I don't think this is comparable.

 No.3181

File: 1570237307804.png (250.42 KB, 711x513, 79:57, 44.png) ImgOps Google

>>3176
Nah, preachers have evolved to not talk down on people as much. Evidently talking about a fiery inferno for an hour is a buzzkill.

>>3180
I think it's very accurate, given the responses.

 No.3183

>>3177

Not necessarily, but I think the trend is fairly strong.  Even in something like Mint's ideas where he wants them to do well, he literally does also think that of animals.  The immediate effects might not be dehumanizing, but separating groups from each other can 'cause one to seem less important because they're not part of "the tribe".

>>3172
>>3179

Well let's drop how evil you think each other might be unless its proven to be on topic.  In fact, it might be better to drop "evil" entirely, since it's clearly a very charged word for one person and slightly less so for the other.  Doesn't seem like the best word to use while communicating.

 No.3184

>>3183
Do you have a suggestion for another one? I'm about to end my conversation with him. It's impossible to communicate with someone who so openly hates you.

 No.3185

>>3181
Mint is not the only reason I think racism is "untreatable". His attitude is just emblematic of the wider problem. The WHY of how he is, not just that he is the way he is.

 No.3186

>>3179
Right. But I wouldn't call you evil as we established.

My contention is that you call racists evil despite not knowing their intentions.

>I've spoken with him in private and made those arguments to him. He refused to listen. He has no interest in not being a racist, and so cannot be changed
So because you couldn't do it, nobody can?
That seems a tad silly to me.
especially since, I have to say, your augmentation hasn't ever been impressive to me at least.

>If his attitude was different, if he were raised in a racist household but openly wished to leave racism behind, then I would probably be friends with him. At the very least, I would try to help him work toward that goal. That's not him. He has to show a desire to change first. He does not and will not.
as a general rule, in order to convince people to change their ways, you must first convince them it's a problem. I'm not sure why you are telling me that, if he wanted to change, if he thought racism was bad and he wanted to get rid of it, you'd work with him. That's the opposite of what we are talking about here.

In order to convince anyone to change, you have to convince them that change is necessary.

 No.3187

>>3183
I wasn't talking about how evil anyone might be. Please pay attention.

This is specifically about the standard that had already been established, by manly.
this is the justification used to not only condemn racists themselves as evil, but anyone who does not assist in cutting them off from society as a heathen in the flock of the holy faithful.

 No.3188

File: 1570237951355.png (265.27 KB, 1024x1883, 1024:1883, D9BCEA7A-F5BD-480E-9F80-3C….png) ImgOps Google

>>3184
>It's impossible to communicate with someone who so openly hates you.
I agree, although I’d like to see the post where I called you evil or lied about someone you love to spite you.

 No.3189

This thread devolved into direct insults and accusations, it's no longer about genuine or thoughtful discussion. The thread is over now. Do not make another. Calling other posters "disgusting" is not acceptable, the shitposting was not acceptable, and this was a disaster.

There may be further to say after the mods talk about this.

[Chroma]


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]