Where does this stuff come from?

[Ana the Ist]

I'll discuss points that are interesting. But given your posting history, you do not seem particularly openminded or original on this. So I will respond as I see fit. Do not tell me to leave again.

You can address my points....or not.

When you decide to personally insult me by calling me boring, or unoriginal, or suggest that somehow if I were more educated I would magically agree with you....that's just you getting defensive because of your inability to explain some rather hypocritical beliefs.

I'm willing to engage in dialogue about your political views....but I don't care about what you think of me personally. I won't tolerate insults...but that's really the extent of it.

Not quite the point that was being made.



It matters for minorities certainly, as it improves the chances of issues affecting that demographic from being represented.

Look...you said that we should question why white people are consistently in power.

You also believe people should seek representation from people who look like them.

It's completely contradictory. If you expect people to vote for people of their own race....then you already have a coherent explanation for why mostly white people have power in mostly white nations.

There's no need for "white supremacy" in explaining the phenomenon.

 

[Triumvirate]

You can address my points....or not.

And as I have said, I will do so, when I deem it interesting or worthwhile - like I do with any repetitive, unoriginal or dull Christian apologist.

When you decide to personally insult me by calling me boring, or unoriginal, or suggest that somehow if I were more educated I would magically agree with you....that's just you getting defensive because of your inability to explain some rather hypocritical beliefs.

When you can show that I'm being hypocritical, get back to me - and don't complain about being insulting if you're going to accuse me of that without proving it. I did correct a few of the points that I still called boring and unoriginal (because they sure as heck are that!), which you still haven't replied to me on.

Look...you said that we should question why white people are consistently in power.

You also believe people should seek representation from people who look like them.

It's completely contradictory. If you expect people to vote for people of their own race....then you already have a coherent explanation for why mostly white people here power in mostly white nations.

But that's not a justifiable reason or excuse to keep disproportionately overrepresenting white people today. There are no 'white issues', and the overrepresentation of white people reduces the likelihood the issues of non-white groups will be addressed and resolved.

White people simply do not need to lobby for explicit representation as a demographic because they are already the majority, and already overrepresented anyway - and the idea that it's still ok for white people to vote for their own because the minorities get to is just the same tired, sad 'but what about white history month, hm?!' routine.

There's no need for "white supremacy" in explaining the phenomenon.

The issue today is them remaining disproportionately in power when they are not the only demographic in play. And the idea that the white majority in the US didn't historically rely on supremacism to get where it is - given the number of non-white tribes it steamrolled and extinguished to get where it is, and the people it enslaved along the way - is laughable.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If enough people are using a term with malign intent, it doesn't matter if you're one of a handful using it with motives that are pure as the driven snow.

That's because the other people are racist though....you're literally admitting that.

If I came up to you said 'I'm going to ******** kill you', you wouldn't worry about whether my intent might not be the same as the intent that phrase usually carries.

That isn't the same thing though...different words have different meanings and many change over time.

If I use a word that, for example, a black person considers racist....but another black person doesn't....is it racist or not?

We would have to figure out my intentions, wouldn't we? Otherwise language is determined by the most sensitive and easily offended person in society.

 

[Triumvirate]

That's because the other people are racist though....you're literally admitting that.

The point is that people can't magically tell purely from the use of a term whether you're one of the vast majority of people using that term with malign intent, or someone who for whatever reason is using it accidentally and relatively innocently.

They might typically treat a low-level instance of this in good faith, but they'll likely tell you to stop saying the term. If you instead get huffy and start talking about how 'oh well language changes all the time anyway, stop being so offended' - a reaction which implicitly disregards the history behind that term that they and their families will have experienced - they're not going to keep you in the 'well-intentioned' category. You're going to start flipping to 'probably hostile' in their eyes.

That isn't the same thing though...different words have different meanings and many change over time.

It's not a literal statement of intent in the same way, no, but if certain slurs have preceded beatings, abusive behaviour, lynchings, shootings, targeted attacks - correlations can be pretty easily drawn. This is pretty standard behaviour with how language works - use of language in context creates expectations. But interestingly you think we should again ignore something basic like this when it comes to matters of race.

If I use a word that, for example, a black person considers racist....but another black person doesn't....is it racist or not?

How are you weighing this up? Is this like how some sections of the US political spectrum are fine with black opinions as long as they're from Candace Owens? With these issues there is usually a minority within the minority going 'there is no problem here, everything is fine', which does not chime with the bulk of what that demographic is going through. It'd be a tad disingenuous to only focus on what that minority within the minority have to say.

We would have to figure out my intentions, wouldn't we? Otherwise language is determined by the most sensitive and easily offended person in society.

Curious reaction. Why do you frame this as offence? You say intent matters. We both (presumably) agree that words can be said with malign intent, though not always. Why can't people be reacting to malign intent? Why is it 'offence'?

(I'm going to reiterate that it just seems to be that the people with the least to lose from this and the ones displaying the greatest ignorance - wilful or otherwise - on this topic are those who seem to object most to it - and it's rather sad, really.)

 

[Ana the Ist]

And as I have said, I will do so, when I deem it interesting or worthwhile - like I do with any repetitive, unoriginal or dull Christian apologist.

You realize I'm an atheist, right?

If you have some issue with a Christian apologist....I'd suggest you simply don't engage with them. Calling them dull or unoriginal doesn't make you right. In fact, something interesting or original doesn't have any bearing at all on whether or not it's true.

When you can show that I'm being hypocritical, get back to me - and don't complain about being insulting if you're going to accuse me of that without proving it.

I proved the hypocrisy in the exact same post I stated it. I can quote you if you like though.

But that's not a justifiable reason or excuse to keep disproportionately overrepresenting white people today.

What overrepresentation? How many districts where whites are the minority does a white representative get elected? For at least the next 50 years....whites will be the largest demographic in the US....should I just expect an endless string of white presidents?

White people simply do not need to lobby for explicit representation as a demographic

Why are you changing what you already said?

Is it normal for people to select representatives of their own race or not?

If you're holding one standard for white people and another for everyone else....that's fine, just say so and we can move the conversation along to why you hold these double standards. I think it's pretty obvious at this point that you are.

Maybe you have a good reason...maybe you don't.

 

[Triumvirate]

You realize I'm an atheist, right?

Yes, which is why you'd surely be aware that just because someone spends years of their life yammering on about the same subjects - as you apparently have with race, by the looks of it, because goodness forbid you acknowledge the problem - that doesn't make them correct. It might just make them wrong and obtuse.

I proved the hypocrisy in the exact same post I stated it. I can quote you if you like though.

You haven't, but we'll get to that.

What overrepresentation? How many districts where whites are the minority does a white representative get elected? For at least the next 50 years....whites will be the largest demographic in the US....should I just expect an endless string of white presidents?

Why, if whites aren't 100% of the population, would you expect an 'endless' string of white presidents

Why are you changing what you already said?

I haven't. Please point out where I did.

Is it normal for people to select representatives of their own race or not?

If you're holding one standard for white people and another for everyone else....that's fine, just say so and we can move the conversation along to why you hold these double standards. I think it's pretty obvious at this point that you are.

The mistake you've made here is assuming, incorrectly, that I'm treating two identical things differently.

Whites are a demographic majority in the US. This is a quantitative and qualitative difference to nonwhite demographics, and certainly in terms of how they are represented.

Whites are overrepresented and they have no issues facing them as white people, because they are the majority, and in no small part because they have operated a supremacist system. There is no need for whites today to agitate for white representatives. They are already represented. They are overrepresented, often at the cost of the interests of other demographics of citizens.

Non-whites, as minorities, are underrepresented. As their issues are less likely to be taken up - because experience of these issues helps a lot in terms of these issues being taken up (it doesn't make them impossible to resolve, but it does make them a lot harder to resolve in practice), it is perfectly expectable that non-whites need and want to vote in representatives from their own demographics. To agitate that whites need to keep appointing their own representatives in this systems as non-whites do - yes, this is precisely comparable to complaining about there being no white history month.

There cannot be a double standard here, because the two situations are not the same. This is quite straightforward, but sadly to be expected when dealing with such unoriginal argumentation.

 

[Ana the Ist]

But that doesn't change the fact that you stole something.

It literally does. If someone sets a jar of candy on the counter with a sign that says free candy....and I take one....only to find out later that someone had stolen that jar from it's rightful owner.

I'm not the one who stole the candy....the guy who took the jar is.

 

[Triumvirate]

It literally does. If someone sets a jar of candy on the counter with a sign that says free candy....and I take one....only to find out later that someone had stolen that jar from it's rightful owner.

I'm not the one who stole the candy....the guy who took the jar is.

Well, that's not quite what I'd take as being tricked into stealing something, not least when something is already stolen to begin with.

But nonetheless, if you were told it wasn't yours and to give it back, and then you kept refusing to do so, your wrong would compound.

 

[renniks]

Also, I'm not a young man. I'm 44 years old, a college graduate and well-read with alot of different life experiences. Far more than my father.

Yeah, I used to think I might be pretty smart too. As I get older Dad gets smarter. Being a college graduate has nothing to do with common sense. I find that some of the wisest folks learned in the school of hard knocks.

 

[Triumvirate]

Yeah, I used to think I might be pretty smart too. As I get older Dad gets smarter. Being a college graduate has nothing to do with common sense. I find that some of the wisest folks learned in the school of hard knocks.

School of hard knocks doesn't beat medical experts usually, in terms of things like masks being a good idea

 

[Pommer]

Well, that's not quite what I'd take as being tricked into stealing something, not least when something is already stolen to begin with.

But nonetheless, if you were told it wasn't yours and to give it back, and then you kept refusing to do so, your wrong would compound.

Is anyone else seeing the irony that this “are masks any good?” thread getting taken over by @Ana the Ist to whine about his pet peeve of “white people can’t catch a break!”?

 

[Triumvirate]

Is anyone else seeing the irony that this “are masks any good?” thread getting taken over by @Ana the Ist to whine about his pet peeve of “white people can’t catch a break!”?

Getting the impression this is a regular occurrence?

 

[Ana the Ist]

The point is that people can't magically tell purely from the use of a term whether you're one of the vast majority of people using that term with malign intent, or someone who for whatever reason is using it accidentally and relatively innocently.

This is exactly why intent matters....we can just ask "what did you mean by that?"

The other option is assuming and frankly....it looks like you want to assume racism.

Now, obviously if we assume....we'll catch more racists....but we'll also be condemning innocent people .

What's worse, I think, is the effect this would have on someone's perspective over time. Assuming racism would lead someone to have an overly negative view of the world, and people, and the way they are treated....even though it's not reality.

It's not a literal statement of intent in the same way, no, but if certain slurs have preceded beatings, abusive behaviour, lynchings, shootings, targeted attacks - correlations can be pretty easily drawn. This is pretty standard behaviour with how language works - use of language in context creates expectations. But interestingly you think we should again ignore something basic like this when it comes to matters of race.

Sure, context matters....an angry mob calling you racial slurs and chasing you with a noose has a pretty clear meaning.

How are you weighing this up? Is this like how some sections of the US political spectrum are fine with black opinions as long as they're from Candace Owens? With these issues there is usually a minority within the minority going 'there is no problem here, everything is fine', which does not chime with the bulk of what that demographic is going through. It'd be a tad disingenuous to only focus on what that minority within the minority have to say.

That's a good question and I'm curious how you weigh it too...

I guess for me it depends on the issue. Something like a racial slur is about 1 group of people....and if those people overwhelmingly find it offensive ,I can't really argue otherwise.

Something like a statue is very different....a lot of people see it a lot of ways. Is there a group whose opinion matters more? And how clear of a majority should we have before deciding it's offensive and tearing the statue down?

That's a harder question. I guess, ultimately, it comes down to what harm I can imagine the offense doing. For example, a lot of Christians and heterosexuals were offended by the term marriage being used to describe a union between a homosexual couple. It's not a small group...a lot of people were offended. I don't see that offense really causing any harm though....especially not the harm they thought it would.

By the same token....I don't see a girl dressed up as a sexy Pocahontas on Halloween causing any real harm to native Americans. Are some offended? Sure. Does it matter or really cause any harm? No....not really.

Curious reaction. Why do you frame this as offence? You say intent matters. We both (presumably) agree that words can be said with malign intent, though not always. Why can't people be reacting to malign intent? Why is it 'offence'?

Well we're talking about racism as a problem in society. I'm assuming that for it to be a problem....some harm or wrong must be done.

Offense is the least harm I can imagine from a racial slur....but if you had something else in mind, feel free to explain.

It's probably my fault for asking for any example and not one that makes more sense. I get how you think someone can say something racist and not realize it. I don't see how this translates to prison sentences, crime rates, policing, wealth inequality, or any real "problems".

Like....how can someone be racist without knowing it and that causes a black person to do 5 years in prison when they should have only done 4?

(I'm going to reiterate that it just seems to be that the people with the least to lose from this and the ones displaying the greatest ignorance - wilful or otherwise - on this topic are those who seem to object most to it - and it's rather sad, really.)

I don't know what's odd about this to you. You're accusing people of something awful....you're calling them racist, or supporting a racist society, or otherwise at fault for the problems of a lot of people.

Imagine if I called you a thief...would it be weird for you to disagree, or get defensive, especially if you knew you weren't a thief?

The only weird reaction would be for you to agree with me even though you know you haven't stolen anything. Basically every other reaction would be normal....particularly disagreeing.

 

[FireDragon76]

Yeah, I used to think I might be pretty smart too. As I get older Dad gets smarter. Being a college graduate has nothing to do with common sense. I find that some of the wisest folks learned in the school of hard knocks.

I don't buy into folksy American egalitarian populism in that way. As Isaac Asimov once wrote, a troubling aspect of America is the widespread anti-intellectual attitude that "my ignorance is as good as another person's knowledge".

 

[Ana the Ist]

Is anyone else seeing the irony that this “are masks any good?” thread getting taken over by @Ana the Ist to whine about his pet peeve of “white people can’t catch a break!”?

Go back and check the posts....I answered the OP....and stevil took issue with one of several statements I made.

I didn't spend half of thread pretending that liberals don't believe what they clearly do. That was someone else....blame them.

 

[Triumvirate]

Go back and check the posts....I answered the OP....and stevil took issue with one of several statements I made.

I didn't spend half of thread pretending that liberals don't believe what they clearly do. That was someone else....blame them.

It's also not 'both sides' comparable with antimaskers. The worst that is going to come from people talking about white supremacy is white people feeling momentarily uncomfortable, vs. spreading a pandemic around.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well, that's not quite what I'd take as being tricked into stealing something, not least when something is already stolen to begin with..

What did you have in mind?

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's also not 'both sides' comparable with antimaskers.

The point I made....which I thought was clear....was people don't really care about facts or truth anymore. It's all opinions.

The worst that is going to come from people talking about white supremacy is white people feeling momentarily uncomfortable, vs. spreading a pandemic around.

If talking is all that happens....sure. If it becomes "blame everything on whites"...people might decide that it's ok to mistreat white people. They might think, for example, that they shouldn't give someone a job because they're white.

I get that you probably think that's ridiculous....but you were also saying that minorities shouldn't vote for white people, and neither should white people.

 

[Triumvirate]

If talking is all that happens....sure. If it becomes "blame everything on whites"...people might decide that it's ok to mistreat white people. They might think, for example, that they shouldn't give someone a job because they're white.

Which isn't what is being said, and there is no way in heck we are anywhere close to that. You really do seem incredibly scared of this sort of discussion, and it's sad.

Also wanted to say - it really is quite amazing how you can a line from hypothetical words and generalisations about white people being a potential problem, but you don't seem to be as willing to consider nonwhite people's history of being abused by particular slurs and chalk it up to offence. Very objective, no bias here, no sir.

I get that you probably think that's ridiculous....but you were also saying that minorities shouldn't vote for white people, and neither should white people.

I said that there is no need for white people to explicitly seek to put their own demographic in power when they are already patently overrepresented, and this is a quantitatively different thing than a underrepresented minority wanting better representation (which in turn is not the same as they 'should' vote for their own demographic, just that it is perfectly legitimate for them to want to vote in a representative of their own demographic when they are underrepresented!).

You're really not good at this reading thing, are you?

 

[Neogaia777]

Masks are always somewhat and partially effective against any airborne viruses or germs, and the more particulates it filters out, or the less it lets in, and the smaller particles it filters out or lets in, and the more effective seal over the nose and mouth it has, the more effective they are or it is, etc...

But nothing short a full-out complete nuclear fallout suit (or complete bio-hazard suit) and a full completely sealed full face mask to go along with that suit, that is designed to filter and protect on that level, is 100% absolutely 100% effective against everything, etc...

But they (the former) are way, way much better and way far better than nothing, or not anything at all, etc, whichever way you choose, etc...

Even minimal protection is way, way and much more far more effective than nothing, etc...

And if it's a airborne virus, even face shields are still partially effective, etc, though I think even simple basic masks, or face/nose coverings, are even way much better, or are much more effective, etc...

But nothing is 100% sure-proof except for a full on nuclear fallout suit though (or complete bio-hazard suit) (and the masks that go with it/them, etc)... (forget what they are all called right now, etc)...

I might be messing up the terms a little bit right now, because I can't recall what these things are all actually called, etc, "bio-hazard/nuclear fallout suit", "masks that go with them", etc, but you get what I'm saying right...?

God Bless!