We are all Slave now.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

2. The more reasoned of Holocaust survivors I have met were quick to point out: "Sure Hitler hated our religion, but say what you will, the man was not a racist."

But I may have been the only one to actually listen to the interview with the Columbia student, so let me just drop a reminder here- Harris starts with "liberals want to act like no blacks commit crime." Okay, get that, I think the "all blacks good, all whites bad" posts here are the dumbest.

Then Harris starts summarizing crime stats and gets to "young black men are way more likely to commit crimes." I don't know, to me stats are sort of silly- if someone in my fam is the victim of a violent crime I don't think where we fit in on the "likelihood/stat" spectrum will make me feel much.

But then he takes the stats and says they justify mistreating/suspecting the next young black man that walks into your store. The Columbia student seems supportive of the thought, so maybe it's just me. BUT implying ALL black men are likely criminals, and in particular, the one you are now encountering, feeds the fear that leads to men with their hands in the air being shot, doesn't it?

And just as bad, treating a random black kid default as a criminal leads to the kid maybe deciding "might as well be," doesn't it?

Maybe this Harris guy was just adrift that day, maybe he walked it back the next interview, but I do think that sort thought is dangerously racist. IMHO.

Point is, so not sure of the need for arguing out this distinction?

I won't defend everything Harris says, but I am comfortable stating that his work taken in aggregate does not demonstrate a racist bent. And certainly his comment on Maher regarding Islam does not (even if one allows for the inaccurate characterization of Islam as a race).

The distinction is huge and important. If I say I hate Asians, I'm a racist. If I say I hate Catholics, I'm a religious bigot. And I'd say the former is far worse than the latter as the Asian has no choice but to be what he is. The Catholic has taken some step which can be undone. Both are odious forms of hatred, but one is more cruel and arbitrary than the other.

And in the US, with our legacy of slavery, and jailing of Japanese in internment camps, racism is a word with very unique meaning. I don't think it should be casually expanded to grant unwarranted heft to arguments of the more reckless advocates on the Left.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If I say I hate Asians, I'm a racist. If I say I hate Catholics, I'm a religious bigot. And I'd say the former is far worse than the latter as the Asian has no choice but to be what he is. The Catholic has taken some step which can be undone. Both are odious forms of hatred, but one is more cruel and arbitrary than the other.

Again, this is bizarre. "All you have to do to make me stop hating you is change your fundamental belief system so that's not as bad as racism" is a meaningless distinction to most normal people.

And in the US, with our legacy of slavery, and jailing of Japanese in internment camps, racism is a word with very unique meaning.

So unique you can get it from dictionary.com. ETA: Oops! Webster's. It was elsewhere someone was citing dictionary.com.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I won't defend everything Harris says, but I am comfortable stating that his work taken in aggregate does not demonstrate a racist bent. And certainly his comment on Maher regarding Islam does not (even if one allows for the inaccurate characterization of Islam as a race).

The distinction is huge and important. If I say I hate Asians, I'm a racist. If I say I hate Catholics, I'm a religious bigot. And I'd say the former is far worse than the latter as the Asian has no choice but to be what he is. The Catholic has taken some step which can be undone. Both are odious forms of hatred, but one is more cruel and arbitrary than the other.

And in the US, with our legacy of slavery, and jailing of Japanese in internment camps, racism is a word with very unique meaning. I don't think it should be casually expanded to grant unwarranted heft to arguments of the more reckless advocates on the Left.

There are two issues in here, one a philosophical one: if we begin by saying race is a social construct, what variety of social construct is it? Is racism bigotry based on skin tone? Based on hair color (Blond! Aryan!) Based on other features (big noses, height, eye shape, head shape)? How is the choice of features related to cultural or historical differences? Thus, the debate on the US census about whether to list people from MENA or Hispanics as separate races or "adjuncts" of other races.

The other is a broader one: how do various bigotries reinforce each other. You don't often find someone who is just a racist without being full of all kinds of other form of bigotry. The KKK's list of people they hated and why was impressive, and by no means limited to race. These bigotries tend to reinforce each other.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

There are two issues in here, one a philosophical one: if we begin by saying race is a social construct, what variety of social construct is it? Is racism bigotry based on skin tone? Based on hair color (Blond! Aryan!) Based on other features (big noses, height, eye shape, head shape)? How is the choice of features related to cultural or historical differences? Thus, the debate on the US census about whether to list people from MENA or Hispanics as separate races or "adjuncts" of other races.

The other is a broader one: how do various bigotries reinforce each other. You don't often find someone who is just a racist without being full of all kinds of other form of bigotry. The KKK's list of people they hated and why was impressive, and by no means limited to race. These bigotries tend to reinforce each other.

Those are worthwhile questions to consider. But still, we must always come back to the consideration, If I say I hate Episcopalians, have I engaged in racism? And if I say I hate Asians, would that be religious bigotry?

I think we’re talking past each other because your criticism seems to be how issues regarding race and religion are raised. You seem to be saying a discussion of Islam’s current violence problems should only be raised in context including exculpatory facts. I’m not sure that’s needed because the criticism raised isn’t of Islam, but of those hijacking it. I see nothing controversial in saying a peaceful religion has been bastardized by lunatics for bad ends. That’s not the religion’s fault. That’s the fault of the lunatics.

I don’t know why saying this is always met with, “You’re an Islamaphobe saying all Muslims are violent!” That’s not what’s being said at all. It’s not even close.