U.S. Politics: Having a Good Time

[Mother Cocanuts]

37 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I don’t really have a problem with the term “racism” meaning “prejuidice + power”. It seems like a sound enough concept to me because it seems likely that a dominant group would be able to enact it’s prejudice more severely than a group that is not dominant. 

What I do have a bit of a problem with is that sometimes I see some people on the left simply saying “well, that can’t be racism...”  and then not explaining very well why they are using that term in a particular way or why there is a need to have a very specific term which captures the essence of the prejudice + power concept.

I’m not a sociologist by training, so somebody, correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s my general understanding that the “prejudice + power” definition of the term racism started around the 1990s and has been generally accepted within the field of sociology since then.

But, it would seem, that the dictionary definition of that term seems to be mainly the one of just prejudice. And it would seem to me that many people, particularly those who may not have attended college, may often think of the term “racism” by its dictionary meaning. And that seems to me what causes the confusion and angst about that term.

It also seems to me that if you know lots of people think of the term “racism” by it’s usual dictionary meaning, then it might behoove you to slow down a bit and explain why the term should have a meaning beyond the way it’s usually defined in the dictionary and why it should have the “prejuidice + power” connotation, rather than just saying, “well, there can’t be racism against white people….”. 

And keep in mind, that some of the folks, who only know the dictionary meaning of racism and not its sociological meaning have not gone to college or maybe don’t have the best educations. So simply telling them that white people can’t be affected by racism, without explaining why we need a particular term that captures the prejuidice + power combination, comes off perhaps just slightly cl assist.

So, in sum, I’m fine with racism being defined as “prejuidice + power”, but realize there are some folks who have never heard that definition, and are thinking in terms of the dictionary definition, when you go to explain it.

Racism's meaning "prejudice + power" is a stipulative definition which attempts to create something conceptually different while simultaneously attaching itself to the concept as it is commonly understood. Regardless of what you or your "college-educated" sociologists say, "prejudice + power" is a redefinition. (Probably too lazy to come up with their own word.) Now while I can't say the definition is wrong, as words and their meanings change all the time, I can say that it's stupid and reflects circular logic. (Only white people can be racist--> Let's redefine racism in a manner in which only white can be racist-->Therefore, only white people are racist.)

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

So... I don't endorse slavery, and I object to it, but I fully support the Confederate States' right to impose their own set of laws regarding slaves. 

 

That sounds about right?

Not even in the same ball park, no. Speech is not action. You can talk about wanting to create a slave state. You can go out on the street and hand out pamphlets. You can slap the Stars and Bars on the back of your big ol' monster truck. Me not kicking your ass or destroying your property on the back of any of this is not support or sympathy. Me being alarmed at the fact that many liberals are celebrating these types of acts is not support or sympathy. 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

No, of course not. On a personal level, I would understand you physically attacking a Nazi who threatened you or your family. I might be compelled to do the same thing under similar circumstance. I'm not cool with anyone being threatened in that manner.

Their existence publicly threatens my family. 

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

To the second bit, I lost a bet in the NFL thread, which come to think of it might be the one way for you to see this suggestion reach fruition. I think I've lost more title bets than anyone else on that thread, and I'm not a welcher. So there's your in. Not sure when the old bet expires though.

Well, that'll be easy enough. I've not watched the NFL for two years now, but I'm sure things are the same. Peyton Manning is still awesome, right?

Also, what's your stance on gun banning?

[Kalbear]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Not even in the same ball park, no. Speech is not action. You can talk about wanting to create a slave state. You can go out on the street and hand out pamphlets. You can slap the Stars and Bars on the back of your big ol' monster truck. Me not kicking your ass or destroying your property on the back of any of this is not support or sympathy. Me being alarmed at the fact that many liberals are celebrating these types of acts is not support or sympathy. 

The notion that you equate public marches that chant death to Jews with putting stars and bars on a truck worries me a bit. It doesn't surprise me, but it does worry me.

Do you support their right to say these things without violence being done to them? If you do, that is absolutely support. 

[Swordfish]

3 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, I'm going to have to schedule a spa day on the back of this. You know, while I'm waiting around for that apology I never asked for. 

I could use a mani pedi myself.....

4 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

You whine on behalf of them being able to spew their propaganda. You may not support it, but you certainly have no issue arguing in favor of them being able to spew it and cry about regular citizens shutting them down. 

I'm just gonna ignore your racism in the last bit of this post. 

You keep using that word 'ignore'.  I do not think it means what you think it means.

Which brings up a point, perhaps the thread should be renamed to indicate that it's mostly about re-imagining the definitions of words, and less about US politics these days...  

 

Just a thought.

 

[polishgenius]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

How does sympathizer mean something other than 'give sympathy for'? I wasn't aware that nazi sympathizer meant someone who agrees with Nazi positions; I thought it meant 'someone who helps Nazis do what they want or supports Nazis'. I'm using it in the same kind of way that this WaPo article does, where some sympathizers were those who thought Nazis were cool, and others were those who didn't like them but simply thought they were going to win, and weren't going to oppose their viewpoints or their ability to say them.

I see absolutely nothing in that article that suggests the phrase 'Nazi sympathiser' means this. I mean, the phrase is used precisely once: in the title. Like, by the definition you are working by to apply it to ME, pacifists opposing America's intervention in WWII could also be called Nazi sympathisers. I just don't see it.

 

 

15 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I would prefer Free Speech Advocate, cause that's what it is. I do not help Nazis. I am not complicit in any Nazi propaganda. I do not support their ideology in any way shape or form.

Yeah, but where do you stand on the idea that past a certain point there is no way to avoid having someone's rights impinged? I'm with Kalbear on this: Nazi ideology is inherently violent and airing it in any manner is an implicit threat to anyone who doesn't fit the Nazi ideal. And I don't think freedom of speech covers threats.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, Kalbear said:

The notion that you equate public marches that chant death to Jews with putting stars and bars on a truck worries me a bit. It doesn't surprise me, but it does worry me.

Do you support their right to say these things without violence being done to them? If you do, that is absolutely support. 

TerraPrime's example used the CSA, so I went down that road, and provided instances of CSA based racism to fit his analogy. Is that really so hard to understand, or are you just being something?

Yes, we have the right to express our beliefs in this country and we are protected by Rule of Law when we do so. You don't have the right to stomp someone's ass because you don't care for their beliefs. That's called civilization.

[Kalbear]

Just now, polishgenius said:

I see absolutely nothing in that article that suggests the phrase 'Nazi sympathiser' means this. I mean, the phrase is used precisely once: in the title. Like, by the definition you are working by to apply it to ME, pacifists opposing America's intervention in WWII could also be called Nazi sympathisers. I just don't see it.

Same could be said for Chamberlain, and I kind of agree with that too, and that's sort of the point. I appreciate that it's frustrating to say "I don't support violence under ANY circumstances and oppose this" but that, too, is opposition to the goal of stopping Naziism. 

I guess here's the litmus test: do you oppose doing violence to Nazis personally, or do you oppose it at all? If it's the former and it is for general pacifistic reasons (opposing all violence, everywhere) then sure, cool beans. If it's that you oppose the US going into the war (like Lindbergh did) then yeah, you're certainly complicit in enabling them. Just like Chamberlain was. 

[Darth Richard II]

You know part of becoming a citizen in the US involves explicitly denouncing the Nazis, right? I mean, you can't be an American and a nazi, we had a war about it.

[Swordfish]

Just now, Darth Richard II said:

You know part of becoming a citizen in the US involves explicitly denouncing the Nazis, right? I mean, you can't be an American and a nazi, we had a war about it.

Not always.  Sometimes becoming a US citizen just requires being born, for example.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Yeah, but where do you stand on the idea that past a certain point there is no way to avoid having someone's rights impinged? I'm with Kalbear on this: Nazi ideology is inherently violent and airing it in any manner is an implicit threat to anyone who doesn't fit the Nazi ideal. And I don't think freedom of speech covers threats.

I'd say Charlottesville was a good example of justified pushback. When they (Nazis, Facists, White Supremacists) get violent, engage in violence, seek to initiate violence, then all bets are off. 

And I agree with you that threats are not Free Speech. If you are directly threatening another human being, again all bets are off.  

[Kalbear]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

TerraPrime's example used the CSA, so I went down that road, and provided instances of CSA based racism to fit his analogy. Is that really so hard to understand, or are you just being something?

I guess I don't associate the stars and bars with explicitly wanting to be pro-slavery the same way the Nazi flag is used, and that's my bad.

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yes, we have the right to express our beliefs in this country and we are protected by Rule of Law when we do so. You don't have the right to stomp someone's ass because you don't care for their beliefs. That's called civilization.

It really isn't; most of Europe certainly doesn't agree with you, and they seem to be a lot better off in that civilization thing than the US is right now. Again, not caring for someone's beliefs works out perfectly fine as long as their beliefs are not 'end Democracy and kill everyone that isn't like us'. 

Still didn't answer that gun rights question, btw.

[OldGimletEye]

On 10/4/2017 at 7:28 PM, Mother Cocanuts said:

Racism's meaning "prejudice + power" is a stipulative definition which attempts to create something conceptually different while simultaneously attaching itself to the concept as it is commonly understood. Regardless of what you or your "college-educated" sociologists say, "prejudice + power" is a redefinition. (Probably too lazy to come up with their own word.) Now while I can't say the definition is wrong, as words and their meanings change all the time, I can say that it's stupid and reflects circular logic. (Only white people can be racist--> Let's redefine racism in a manner in which only white can be racist-->Therefore, only white people are racist.)

Except, you do realize, that it's not exactly rocket science to ponder the idea that a dominant group's prejudice is likely to be more harmful than a non dominant group's prejudice. This concept doesn't seem particular hard to me. And of course once you think about this issue, and think it's true or even might be true, it would seem to me, rather convenient to have a term for it.

And so what if it's a redefinition? It seems to me, that the bigger issue is that we are all on the same page, when we talk about terms that have a precise meaning. And we all understand the rationale behind the redefinition.

As far as your chain of events here, I'm not really sure that's how it really went down. It seems to me that more likely we needed a term to convey, in a parsimonious way, the power + prejudice concept.

[Darth Richard II]

2 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Not always.  Sometimes becoming a US citizen just requires being born, for example.

*rolls eyes* If this is going to be one of those things were everyone takes everything ltteraly and can;t infer and use basic logic then we're already fucked as species.

[TerraPrime]

5 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 

And I agree with you that threats are not Free Speech. If you are directly threatening another human being, again all bets are off.  

Why isn't Nazism a threat, then?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

23 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Well, that'll be easy enough. I've not watched the NFL for two years now, but I'm sure things are the same. Peyton Manning is still awesome, right?

Also, what's your stance on gun banning?

I know your stance on the NFL and I think you know I admire your resolve in that regard. That said, you still seem to have some working knowledge of the league. I know you don't watch games anymore, but have you banned yourself from reading news stories regarding it? Is this a complete blackout ban for you? 

I wish we could ban guns, but that's all it is. Find me a lamp and I'll rub it.

[Mother Cocanuts]

16 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Except, you do realize, that it's not exactly rocket science to ponder the idea that a dominant group's prejudice is likely to be more harmful than a non dominant group's prejudice.

Why is it an issue of which one is more "harmful" and not the fact that it exists? Others before you have argued that because racism is defined as "prejudice + power," whites can't experience racism. Now, you're saying that it's not that the prejudice isn't there, but the dominant group's racism is more "harmful"? Okay, let's put that to the test: which is more harmful? A white man calling a black stranger a nigger as they pass by each other or a black man shooting a police officer because he's white?

16 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

And so what if it's a redefinition? It seems to me, that the bigger issue is that we are all on the same page, when we talk about terms that have a precise meaning. And we all understand the rationale behind the redefinition.

The rationale is to attribute racism to whites alone by redefining a word with an already commonly understood definition.

Quote

As far as your chain of events here, I'm not really sure that's how it really went down. It seems to me that more likely we needed a term to convey, in a parsimonious way, the power + prejudice concept.

Then why not use a different term, so that racism as it commonly understood doesn't conflict with your "prejudice + power" concept?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

17 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I guess I don't associate the stars and bars with explicitly wanting to be pro-slavery the same way the Nazi flag is used, and that's my bad.

It really isn't; most of Europe certainly doesn't agree with you, and they seem to be a lot better off in that civilization thing than the US is right now. Again, not caring for someone's beliefs works out perfectly fine as long as their beliefs are not 'end Democracy and kill everyone that isn't like us'. 

Still didn't answer that gun rights question, btw.

Well I suppose displaying the Stars and Bars doesn't necessarily equate to a pro-slavery stance, but it's closely related methinks.

So in most of Europe you can beat the shit out of someone for engaging in Nazi speech with no fear of reprisals? I saw that story of some American dipshit doing the Nazi salute outside of some bar in Germany which resulted in him getting physically injured. I guess in that particular case the cops basically laughed at him and called him an ambulance. Not sure if this was an isolated incident or is standard operating procedure.

I would ban guns, given the opportunity. But as I said upthread, this would require a magic lamp at this point. 

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I know your stance on the NFL and I think you know I admire your resolve in that regard. That said, you still seem to have some working knowledge of the league. I know you don't watch games anymore, but have you banned yourself from reading news stories regarding it? Is this a complete blackout ban for you? 

Nah, I was kidding. I'll kick your ass in whatever NFL bet you'd like, even without watching anything. I'm sure that Colin Kaepernick's performance will save me.

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I wish we could ban guns, but that's all it is. Find me a lamp and I'll rub it.

So...you want to ban guns despite that being a right of people in the US, but you're fine with being almost 100% for speech of any kind because it's a right of people?

You do realize that the countries which ban guns and restrict speech based on Nazi thoughts are, well, kind of awesome?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

19 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

Why isn't Nazism a threat, then?

It is under the proper context. Some dipshit standing on a milk crate in a subway yelling "death to all Jews" is not a direct threat. It's some dipshit on a milk crate yelling vile shit.