We are all Slave now.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

We've had this conversation before, but it still remains that just because you are completely ignorant of what happens outside the U.S. does not make the scope of your personal knowledge a fact.

You have any relatives who've met with the state depts of middle eastern nations recently? You're the one in short pants here.

Nor does generalizing about a billion people based on conduct of a small few.

I agree. I think that's bigoted and said as much. Reread.

Trump sells the same Islamophobic crap they do. How is that unrelated?

GGG shoehorned in a comment about Trump's tariffs, stating I'd be arguing they're a good idea because I'm a right wing crank. Much as you did here. That's relevant to a discussion of Islamaphobia how...?

I do not read alt right shit, and everyone sees what you're doing there. Stop it.

[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.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I do not read alt right shit...

Dude you cited Cernovich right here on this very forum. You clearly do, although you may be in such a bubble that you don't realize it when you do it.

I also suspect that Harris can fairly be characterized as alt right, but I refuse to educate myself about him enough to be able to confirm.

[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.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

Dude you cited Cernovich right here on this very forum. You clearly do, although you may be in such a bubble that you don't realize it when you do it.

I also suspect that Harris can fairly be characterized as alt right, but I refuse to educate myself about him enough to be able to confirm.

Harris is one of the group of people who describe themselves as liberal while pushing racism (ugh, sorry, bigotry). Put him in with Dawkins and Maher.

I mostly know him from some early really old ignorant articles he wrote on the middle east and his appearances on Fox when I'm at various family members houses where they watch that shit. He tends to be on as a liberal who agrees with Bill O'Reilly or Tucker Carlson and explains to Bill or Tucker why all other liberals suck but Bill and Tucker are bros.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

GGG shoehorned in a comment about Trump's tariffs, stating I'd be arguing they're a good idea because I'm a right wing crank. Much as you did here. That's relevant to a discussion of Islamaphobia how...?

I do not read alt right shit, and everyone sees what you're doing there. Stop it.

If Donald Trump said to you, Sheriff Sebby, I want to offer you an amazing blowjob, would you say yes?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Dude you cited Cernovich right here on this very forum. You clearly do, although you may be in such a bubble that you don't realize it when you do it.

I also suspect that Harris can fairly be characterized as alt right, but I refuse to educate myself about him enough to be able to confirm.

You telling anyone else they’re in a bubble is somewhere between the Onion and Monty Python level satire.

I didn’t even know who Cernovich was. The other 99.999% of what I’ve written contains no reference to anything even close to alt right.

You’re fighting dirty, and you’ve no business opining on what the rest of the world thinks.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

If Donald Trump said to you, Sheriff Sebby, I want to offer you an amazing blowjob, would you say yes?

Depends. Would a priest be offering me a better one?*

I like to shop for the best head.

———
* This is not a suggestion any one religion is more deviant than another. We must never engage in such conversations, per the Handicapper General’s Rules of Conversation.

[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.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You telling anyone else they’re in a bubble is somewhere between the Onion and Monty Python level satire.

I didn’t even know who Cernovich was.

You're doing parody now, right?

You’re fighting dirty...

No, I'm telling you that if you read and cite Cernovich without knowing who Cernovich is, you might have alt right stuff making it into your reading pile without realizing it, because, well, that first bit of this sentence. Also because you sometimes repeat weird conspiracy theory stuff (mostly if it's about Hillary).

[ThurgreedMarshall]

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."

I think I'm missing your point here. Are you being completely facetious? Seems pretty clear you are.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

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.

I intentionally ignored Sebby's link (and based on the last few days of posts, boy am I glad I did), so give me a little space to be incorrect here. But what the fuck is this? What liberals want to act like no blacks commit crime? Is this a slick way of effectively ignoring people asking that blacks be given the same type of treatment as whites (namely, when white people commit crime, it's always an individual failing as opposed to when black people commit a crime when white people so often attribute it to the fact that they are black)?

And I think I missed all those "all blacks good, all whites bad" posts here. Link please.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

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.

Also, the stats are juked. If you stop black people at higher rates, indict them at higher rates, convict them at higher rates, you don't get to point to those stats while ignoring the stats that say that black people who are stopped are less or equally likely to possess drugs or have committed crimes. It's a silly game that racists use to justify their theories that black people are inherently criminal.

They also don't even take into account class when they start spewing stats. If you want to compare black crime to white crime (even without taking into account the racism involved with arrests, prosecutions, and convictions), you would have to compare a segment of the white population that matches up economically with where the black population sits. That'll never happen.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

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?

Okay, I see where you're going now and think we're saying the same thing.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Mic drop: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...can-dream.html

ETA: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...al-crisis.html

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You seem to be quite a stickler for adherence to black letter definition when it comes to “censorship” (or any other word, really, when it suits your position), and yet this misapplication of a word gets a pass? You’ll pardon my snickering.

And yes — it’s quite important here to observe the strict definition. Stealing that word and overusing it: (a) insults the concept of actual racism and those who suffer it; (b) cheapens its value as a criticism/charge; and, (c) desensitizes people to its use.

(And you know he was using it to hyperbolize, which is bad faith.)

OK, fair. Thanks.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You have to look at these things issue by issue.

That National Review article saying we must never view Trump in an issue-by-issue fashion is perhaps one of the dumbest things I have ever read. It is intellectually indefensible.

For eight years, conservatives took the position that everything Obama did was bad. It was total war -- even when he pushed their own policies, they fought him. It was a national embarrassment, a degradation of our democracy.

I totally understand progressives (and apparently Buckley conservatives) detesting Trump and wanting to take the same approach. But that doesn't make it wise.

Policy is a buffet. You get behind what you like, fight against what you don't (or find a way to circumvent it). You also have to apply skepticism to every policy, as this is the only way to try to avoid the law of unintended consequences. No sane person says, "I am progressive, and therefore any policy that trends progressive is fine with me." This is, again, generalizing.

Being a relativist is a good thing. Religious freaks hijacked the term and made "moral relativism" a pejorative. I think we should embrace it and defend it. It's the first step toward true enlightenment, and the end of our sclerotic political parties.

O.K., this is hard because I am not as apt as you at preventing my rampant emotions from completely disrupting my ability to think critically. But I think I am getting your point. If politics were a meal you were having in a restaurant, it would not be a traditional meal where you, for example, pick an appetizer or salad from a list of several such offerings, and then pick one entree out of the five or six they have available. That's more like old school GOP. Nor is it a tapas or small plate situation where you get a number of different dishes, none of which is really an entree, but together they fulfill the role of the traditional appetizer-entree-dessert format. That's more like identity politics. It's more like a meal where you have multiple appetizers and entrees all available to you at the same time, and you serve yourself so you can have a little bit of each, if you wish, or just a few of the offerings, or you could just fill your plate with meat from the carving station and call it a meal. You know what, I'm sorry, this makes no sense. I don't know where I got the idea for this stupid fucking metaphor in the first place. It's moronic. Like sharpshooting with a shotgun. No, that metaphor was stupid too. Never mind.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

O.K., this is hard because I am not as apt as you at preventing my rampant emotions from completely disrupting my ability to think critically. But I think I am getting your point. If politics were a meal you were having in a restaurant, it would not be a traditional meal where you, for example, pick an appetizer or salad from a list of several such offerings, and then pick one entree out of the five or six they have available. That's more like old school GOP. Nor is it a tapas or small plate situation where you get a number of different dishes, none of which is really an entree, but together they fulfill the role of the traditional appetizer-entree-dessert format. That's more like identity politics. It's more like a meal where you have multiple appetizers and entrees all available to you at the same time, and you serve yourself so you can have a little bit of each, if you wish, or just a few of the offerings, or you could just fill your plate with meat from the carving station and call it a meal. You know what, I'm sorry, this makes no sense. I don't know where I got the idea for this stupid fucking metaphor in the first place. It's moronic. Like sharpshooting with a shotgun. No, that metaphor was stupid too. Never mind.

Here's the metaphor you want. It's like a shit sandwich. Yeah, there may be shit on the inside, but you've got to focus on the bread, the bread is good.

Yum.