|
VitalSigns posted:Εdit: Also, I'm not an expert on Europe or anything, but haven't the welfare programs in places like Denmark and Sweden began to see a conservative backlash because immigrants are perceived to be benefitting from them? What if people really are racist, and it turns out it's impossible to get public support for welfare programs in a multicultural society without addressing the racism first? Do you consider this a possibility? The main reason of the backslash is that these programs are constantly gutted and immigrants serve both as a convenient scapegoat and a reason to shrink welfare even further. It doesn't help that they also tend to drive the costs of labor down. When Poles started to come to the UK and Ireland en masse, English tabloids were full of horror stories (the weirdest one claimed that they hunt and eat swans from public parks) despite them being unrecognizable from an average Caucasian.
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 17:44 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:No, you seemed quite happy to say I would literally commit a single-handed genocide against a race that has a particular lack of melanin. So why are you suddenly so afraid to commit, I wonder? FTFY. This is actually the substance responsible for pigmentation. Melatonin is an antioxidant, regulates plant growth and affects seasonal clock in animals.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Just smearing by finding the most ridiculous people in the world and somehow tying them to people with substantive complaints. It's nothing new. He presents racism as the insidious enemy that's everywhere - and if you don't see it, it's only because it makes you blind to its presence. This makes dismissing anyone who criticizes the article in any way incredibly easy. If you disagree with any of his claims, you automatically are proven wrong - because it only means you're too racist to perceive how bad your society is. This is exactly the thing that's prominent in tumblr SJW stuff - their world view doesn't account for possibility they can ever be proven wrong. You can't disagree with them about the level of their oppression, because this either marks you as one of the oppressors or their brainwashed lackeys. You can't criticize their methods or even tone, because of course you are just saying this because you're defending your privilege. They are blogging versions of Monty Python's Black Knight, trying to achieve victory by never admitting defeat. Otherkins, transblacks and "white-women-can't-be-raped" weirdos are thought as exemplars of SJW because they use the same tactics to defend incredibly stupid and ridiculous causes. The end result is that they spend most of their time in little fap circles, driving away anyone who isn't willing to support them unconditionally. tldr: Tone argument.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
Zelder posted:So your argument, then, isn't that racism everywhere? Because that's an interesting position. How would you argue that? No. My argument is that the stance "racism is everywhere and the fact that you don't see it proves its prevalence" is not falsifiable and unlikely to convince anyone who doesn't already hold this point of view themselves. Gantolandon fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Jun 27, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
Zelder posted:So your argument is that the truth (and the truth is that racism is everywhere, it's an institutional problem) is unnappealing and unlikely to convince people, so we shouldn't talk about it? No. My argument is that this statement is not falsifiable and implies that everyone disagreeing with it is automatically wrong. Which is considered a lovely way to discuss anything. SedanChair posted:It really always comes down to "shut the gently caress up" doesn't it? Shut the gently caress up, you're in league with the abolitionists. Shut the gently caress up, you're in league with the Communists. Shut the gently caress up, you're in league with Islam. Shut the gently caress up, you're in the league with the transwolf neckbeards. Don't you see anything wrong in assuming that everyone who disagrees with civil rights movement in any issue does this only to prevent minorities from speaking? And lumping tumblr otherkins with the people who laugh at them as an unified front is completely 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2014 10:55
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:He's right, though. This part is literally one hundred percent correct. It's not just a tactic for dismissing arguments, it's verifiably accurate, and you deserve to be dismissed when you come at them with "well, as a white person I've never noticed any of this stuff, therefore you're wrong about racism". I didn't say anything like that and still got accused of trying to silence the minorities. rudatron disagreed with the notion that exposing racism at individual level is really a good tactics and got the same treatment. It's pretty much a standard in social justice threads - accusations of unconscious or even overt racism are thrown at flimsiest pretexts imaginable. Main Paineframe posted:We do have evidence that it exists. People who disagree are being dismissed because they're intentionally ignoring or dismissing that evidence in favor of their own personal, anecdotal observations or convictions. It's no different from climate change deniers - they're ignoring or dismissing the overwhelming evidence that climate change exists because they don't want to believe that it exists, they don't want to believe they're complicit in it, or they believe in an ideology which requires it to be false. And when they're inevitably shrugged off as cranks unwilling to engage in good science, they similarly claim that the scientific community is just promoting dogma and dismissing disagreement. In either case, it's not just "dismissing disagreement", it's dismissing people who go against overwhelming evidence solely because that evidence contradicts their raw ideology or gut feelings, because it's impossible to meaningfully engage with those people. Show me this "overwhelming evidence" Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's article supposedly contained. He presented statistics how many whites believe in racism and claimed they actually are wrong and can't spot racism anyway. The problem with the people who ultimately get the badge of SJWs is that they usually don't bother to back up their claims, instead of just telling the adversary to shut up. Compare this thread to the climate change ones - it's apples and oranges. The latter has people actually posting climate-related data, debating deniers (even those annoyingly persistent) and discussing possible methods of remedying the problem without having a fistfight every time there is a disagreement (nuclear power vs renewable energy, for example). This thread and other racism-related ones consist mostly of the same group of people telling everyone how they don't know poo poo and should shut the gently caress up.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
nutranurse posted:Well, to be fair, the climate change thread has people in it who want to engage in actual conversation and not derail the thread or spout the same bad-faith opinions that get shouted everytime race comes up in conversation. This thread has been on topic since its first page and you actually were one of the people that started the SJW "derail". Even before there were people who claimed that "SJW" today means the same as "friend of the family-lover" several decades ago, so the whole topic doesn't seem to be completely irrelevant. I would really like to see an example of a successful race thread, where people actually could disagree without being immediately dismissed.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
Research papers are not written with an assumption that everyone disagreeing with them is a denier that should be ignored.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2014 00:27
|
|
Ah, but just like racism, isn't your climate change theory unfalsifiable because you've defined everyone who doesn't agree as a crank who can't or won't look at the evidence because for ideological reasons?
|
SedanChair posted:Here's the willful blindness, "show me the evidence." KAJ was writing for an audience who has not chosen to pluck out their own eyes and step on them rather than notice the constant onslaught of statistics showing persistent racial bias in hiring, housing and the administration of justice. There is an overwhelming body of unassailable evidence that racism exists and is universal. So it takes a real dumbass to argue with the proposition that "people who won't admit racism exists are blind to it." It's proven. Actually, the author suggested a bit more: quote:To their family, closest friends and adoring pets, they’re just plain-speaking Americans who have probably said the phrase, “I don’t care if you’re white, black, yellow or purple.” (FYI: You might be a racist if you’ve used that phrase.) quote:One symptom of the malady is the many apologists using the election of President Obama as proof that racism doesn’t exist in the U.S. Denying racism in any way, either on your part or your society, is racist in itself. Disagreed with his example of a racist behavior - avoiding a group of (black) teenagers standing in the dark alley in the middle of the night? Congratulations, that makes you even more racist. You can't ever disagree without becoming a part of the problem, which - of course - makes your argument invalid. VitalSigns posted:Deniers ignore those research papers though, that's why they're deniers. Can I dismiss them as cranks then, or does that suddenly become an unfalsifiable circular argument? "Falsifiability" means a possibility to be proven false. There are many ways you can prove a research paper wrong - for example by presenting conflicting evidence or pointing out errors. Ignoring it doesn't prove anything. A set of beliefs stating that everyone disagreeing with it is outright wrong and probably evil is not falsifiable.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:There are many ways you could falsify the claim that racism is ubiquitous in America as well. You can't falsify the notion that claiming something is not racist is actually racist in itself - a belief that shows up in KAJ's article and is frequently expressed in racism threads in this forums. This is the bit I found hard to stomach, not the one stating that racism is prevalent in America.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I think I see the problem, you can't even keep what you said straight. You keep shifting around, gently caress. I think I found the problem - you can't read. This is the quote from my first post in this thread: quote:He presents racism as the insidious enemy that's everywhere - and if you don't see it, it's only because it makes you blind to its presence. This makes dismissing anyone who criticizes the article in any way incredibly easy. If you disagree with any of his claims, you automatically are proven wrong - because it only means you're too racist to perceive how bad your society is.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Oh is my "behavior" too unruly for you? Maybe if you haven't taken a half of the sentence from an entire batch of sentences, you would have realized this is exactly the thing I meant in this quote: quote:You can't falsify the notion that claiming something is not racist is actually racist in itself - a belief that shows up in KAJ's article and is frequently expressed in racism threads in this forums. This is the bit I found hard to stomach, not the one stating that racism is prevalent in America. Hell, I already explained I don't claim that racism is not everywhere, mostly because another poster explicitly asked for this. It's almost like you tried to be an obstructive moron whenever the conversation doesn't go your way, which seems to happen somewhat frequently in this thread. By the way, it's nice you decided to comment rudatron's effortpost with a lovely one-liner, it's going to raise awareness like it never has risen before.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Of course you can. The notion that "starting fires with matches instead of flint" is not racist can't reasonably be portrayed as racist. However, claiming that it's not racist to cross the street when you see a black teen heading your way is assuredly racist - it's defending blatantly racist behavior under the cloak of "well, I don't see why that's racist". Except that the example from the article wasn't about crossing the street when you see a black teen. KAJ posted:The clichéd example: You’re walking down a dark, deserted street and a bunch of black teens adorned with dagger tattoos and carrying bongs made from human skulls are walking toward you. If you cross the street, are you being a racist or a realist? The skin color of the group is the least important concern here. I consider this example stupid because I would have probably done the same in my overwhelmingly white country seeing a group of white teens (18-20) adorned with insingnia of their favorite soccer team. Hell, I did in the past, being a scrawny teenager and having to cross less savory parts of town. I would love to hear why the above example, according to the author, should be considered as racist. quote:Plenty of the overwhelming evidence has been posted in this thread. Was all of it included in that one specific article? Probably not, but if you insist on ignoring every article that says racism exists without repeating the widely-available and easily findable evidence that racism exists, I daresay you're exactly the kind of person Kareem was calling out. People debate people who are willing to debate, but you're clearly arguing in bad faith so why bother putting forth any real effort in telling off a guy who's concerned about how we just aren't open enough to the opinions of racists? Show me a part of my post where I demanded a proof that racism exists. I wanted a proof of the statement the author made - that everyone who doesn't see racism in himself or his society does this because of their inherent racism. Gantolandon fucked around with this message at 09:22 on Jun 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2014 09:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 17:44 |
|
|
shrike82 posted:I'd ignore Gantolandon. He's a European racist - just ask him about his thoughts on Roma being prone to criminality. He's certainly not arguing in good faith here. But I never said anything about Roma being prone to criminality?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2014 10:01
|
|