Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521496)

I don’t think you have many compelling examples.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521504)

I could not possibly call you a racist for this incident, or anything like it. The proper description that fits is "Person who had a racist thought."

This gets to the meat of semantic and logical problems with loose and lazy use of the term, "racist." It cheaply trades in absolutes where an argument of degree is appropriate. Having a single racist thought, or a racist thought every four or five days, or when you're in a certain part of town, does not make you a racist. It makes you a person who's had some racist thoughts.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521504)

Odd example, but fitting... I was watching a Bond flick the other night. Gert Frobe, who most know as Goldfinger, was a Nazi for a few years in the 30s. He left the movement before the war and became a staunch liberal, living an admirable life. However, for a period of time far longer than any moment of racist fear you've had, Gert Frobe was a National Socialist. Does this mean that forever he is a Nazi?

Of course it does not. That's an absurd position to take. As absurd as the position that because one is born into a system, he is automatically guilty of the sins of that system. This is akin to original sin, and original sin is a silly religious fiction.

It's logically and semantically lazy and counterproductive to assert "everyone is racist." The accurate statement is, "everybody in the US lives in a racist system." This is fair. Because unlike you, Hank, who may have a passing racist thought every once in a blue moon, many of the systems in this country are discriminatory all the time.

Torturing language is never an effective way to make a point. This board, which leans left, may accept expansions of definitions, but the general public does not. When you define a word so broadly that a person such as Adder can argue that everyone fits into that category, you trifle with rendering the term utterly meaningless. That result would be a huge shame. Because few words are as important as this one.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521508)

The heart of it is that this is a difficult argument of degree which should not be avoided by applying a term in an absolute manner. To do that is simply stupid. We have brains. We can assess degrees and develop boundaries where a term ought to fit and where it shouldn't.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521508)

Using the logic that everyone in the US is racist, all of the kids born during this thread are and will be racists. Try that argument in a forum where logic and adherence to proper use of language are demanded.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521517)

You're effectively saying that to allow a person's race to impact your bias toward the person renders one racist. This would make it impossible to not be a racist in regard to anyone of any race (unless you were blind). One would necessarily be racist toward all races.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 521541)

Are yo suggesting he's some kind of rrascist?

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 521548)

Yes, jackass. This is exactly what everyone is saying. You don't get it because when you read your own words above, all you see is:

"You're effectively saying that to allow a person's race to impact your bias toward the person renders one an evil, intentional racist. This would make it impossible to not be a very mean, horrible racist in regard to anyone of any race (unless you were blind). One would necessarily be a terrible, evil racist toward all races."

TM

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 521549)

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

If Sebby had been around for the early days of the church, I am pretty sure he would have objected to shaming everyone with the doctrine of original sin. Too negative. Sure there's a lot of evil in the world, but it's not productive to suggest that people aren't as innocent as the driven snow.

Come to think of it, it's odd that there are so many Christians who are doctrinally OK with the suggestion that man is fallen in so many other ways, but who can't handle that thought specifically about race. Snowflakes indeed.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521550)

If everyone everywhere is racist toward every race, which is the definition you’re offering, then the word has no real meaning. I honestly, truly, do not care what anyone thinks, and I do not have concern for people feeling bad about being called racists. The problem isn’t that your definition is an insult or accusation. I long ago grasped that argument.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521550)

It’s that you’ve now create a word indistinguishable from “biased.” The word doesn’t mean anything anymore. You’re just saying everyone is biased. Seems kind of dumb, given people are all biased toward others based on appearance and background.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521550)

Italians, Irish, Spanish, Korean... Everybody has some bias toward everyone based on background. I understand your point. You’re missing mine. When everyone’s racist, no one’s racist.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521550)

ETA: I also will never accept the logic that the society and the invididual are indistinguishable.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521550)

ETA2: A definition that would also allow a white person to call a black person in this country a racist also strikes me too broad.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 521545)

Jesus fucking Christ. You are only looking for examples of intentional, evil racism. He could list a thousand other things that do not fall into this category and you would either shoo them away or deny them.

I can tell you for a fucking fact that you have felt uncomfortable because a dark-skinned black man was walking toward you.

I am sure you have assumed someone of color was an employee when they were not.

I would bet a ton of money that you've been in a situation in which there has been a white person and a person of color and you assumed the white person was in charge.

Since none of us watch your every move we can't give you specific examples of what you do regularly that's racist. But going on the shit you post here (i.e., you think colorblindness is achievable and desirable), I think it's safe to say you, like everyone else, do racist shit. The point you need to get through your thick fucking skull is that unintentional racist shit constitutes racism too. It's just a different level. Jesus fucking Christ, man.

TM

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521553)

But a definition of racism that includes every biased thought that enters anyone’s head based on perception of another’s race is so broad it becomes meaningless.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521553)

Of course I’ve been in a couple of those situations and had thoughts like that. And those are racist thoughts.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521553)

But a definition of racism that includes every biased thought that enters anyone’s head based on perception of another’s race is so broad it becomes meaningless.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521553)

I’ve bristled at perceptions people have of me based on looks and my name. Can I call them racist?

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521553)

I fear lots of batshit crazy white people we see in this backwash state. (There are tons of angry white dudes.). Am I racist to avoid them?

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521553)

Can I be racist toward what’s technically my own race? This stuff gets elliptical pretty quickly.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 521554)

You simultaneously say that the broad definition of racism is meaningless and that it is too strong an accusation to make about most people. It can't be both. You're like the guy who complains that food is inedible and the portions are too small. Pick one.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521556)

They’re complimentary. Not at all mutually exclusive. But your analogy is funny and I’m stealing for use where it’s apt.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 521550)

It’s that you’ve now create a word indistinguishable from “biased.”

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 521558)

No, it is indistinguishable from “biased based on race,” which, bingo, is what the word “racist” means.