Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The Nationalist Delusion

The Nationalist Delusion (Page 2)
Thread Tools
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 29, 2017, 11:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
It would be a huge push forward, but it would not instantaneously erase years of using the wrong term.
The term isn't wrong though. You think people disagree racism exists because the term racism is used?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2017, 12:07 AM
 
I think the majority of people who think racism doesn’t exist or is overblown think that because it’s not on their radar.

I already brought up the extreme example of Montana. There are 5,000 black people in the entire state.

I said why I think the term is wrong.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2017, 04:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
You did not answer the question intentionally or you unintentionally did not answer the question?


You're saying the things Al Franken are accused of do not qualify as sexual assault?
I've long thought that there is a problem with the scope of the term 'sexual assault'. Being pushy, hands or even just inappropriate can be classified as sexual assault, but so can being a violent serial rapist. Franken is clearly not in the same league as Weinstein as far as the allegations we've seen to date, but both are indeed guilty of sexual assault.
The issue becomes more clear when you consider the numerous different charges under the law in various localities that we all read about in the press. Given our shared language, its not uncommon for more extreme or unusual cases from the US, UK Australia, Canada and other places to be read by people from all those places online, but sexual harassment here is sexual assault there, inappropriate contact with a minor here is statutory rape there, there i literally hundreds of different terms and charges used depending on country and state laws and every last one of them comes under the increasingly vague banner of sexual assault.

One of the first questions that springs to mind is: Are women choosing not to report some more minor incidents because they don't want people they know or work with to be lumped in with infamous child rapists just for slapping them on the ass at the office christmas party?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2017, 05:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I've long thought that there is a problem with the scope of the term 'sexual assault'. Being pushy, hands or even just inappropriate can be classified as sexual assault, but so can being a violent serial rapist. Franken is clearly not in the same league as Weinstein as far as the allegations we've seen to date, but both are indeed guilty of sexual assault.
We clearly need to talk about shades of gray here to delineate between different behaviors. But usually that is a very tricky discussion for us guys, and for good reason, because arguing that one is a lesser charge than the other easily comes across as minimizing and perhaps dismissing Franken's actions. I know that this wasn't your intention, but I am just saying that this is a discussion that is best made with cold cases. Besides, I don't think many people put Franken on the same level as Weinstein or Moore. Plus, it is very easy for the discussion to get a partisan tinge. In the more nutty rightwing media, Bill Clinton is suddenly drudged out. George Bush Sr not so much. (See what I did there?)

For me the easiest has been to view the individual cases in isolation. Al Franken acted inappropriately at his work place, and if we owned another company, I would not accept any employee to act like him. Congress works for the American people, and they should demand that this behavior is not tolerated. Forget about political agendas. And even if you don't, even though you should, it'll even out over time. Neither party has a monopoly on sexual harassers.
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
One of the first questions that springs to mind is: Are women choosing not to report some more minor incidents because they don't want people they know or work with to be lumped in with infamous child rapists just for slapping them on the ass at the office christmas party?
None of the victims of sexual assault that confided in me ever brought that forth. One was worried about the social standing of her attacker, weirdly enough, that he would be defined by him raping her. (Don't ask me why that is supposed to make sense, I am not her therapist but her friend.) In most cases, they were afraid of having to relive the attack and of splitting their shared circle of friends.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2017, 07:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
We clearly need to talk about shades of gray here to delineate between different behaviors. But usually that is a very tricky discussion for us guys, and for good reason, because arguing that one is a lesser charge than the other easily comes across as minimizing and perhaps dismissing Franken's actions. I know that this wasn't your intention, but I am just saying that this is a discussion that is best made with cold cases.
In a sense that was exactly my intention. Or part of it. Kidnap is less bad than murder, but we don't forgive kidnappers just because there is a murderer to be got. (OK, maybe sometimes deals are struck that would see this happen but not over here) Both need to go to jail for their crimes.
The lack of adequate and consistent terminology can absolutely lead to these unreasonable comparisons and intended or otherwise, a partial or total excusing of a lesser offender or offence. They are still both sex offenders and should be prosecuted or punished appropriately, but clearly groping someone in their sleep is less bad than leveraging your influence to commit non-violent rape which in turn is less bad than pinning someone down and holding a knife to their throat while you force yourself on them.
You hear 'rape' in a news item and you assume someone jumped out and dragged a woman behind a bush (I often tend to anyway) but some overwhelming percentage of rapes are perpetrated by people known to the victim and are nothing like that, be they better or worse, subjective as those terms may be. Consequently, the use of an umbrella term is incredibly misleading. The real danger is that by labelling a groper the same as a violent, brutal rapist, people might draw insufficiently harsh conclusions about the latter having been somewhat forgiving of the former.


Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Besides, I don't think many people put Franken on the same level as Weinstein or Moore. Plus, it is very easy for the discussion to get a partisan tinge. In the more nutty rightwing media, Bill Clinton is suddenly drudged out. George Bush Sr not so much. (See what I did there?)
I didn't actually mention Moore and since both Franken and Weinstein are Dems, I figured I'd succeeded in avoiding any thought of Partisanship.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
For me the easiest has been to view the individual cases in isolation. Al Franken acted inappropriately at his work place, and if we owned another company, I would not accept any employee to act like him. Congress works for the American people, and they should demand that this behavior is not tolerated. Forget about political agendas. And even if you don't, even though you should, it'll even out over time. Neither party has a monopoly on sexual harassers.
I feel like the only partisan aspect is more about how forgiving the voting base is rather than how abundant the abusers might be on either side. See Alabama as my justification for this.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
None of the victims of sexual assault that confided in me ever brought that forth. One was worried about the social standing of her attacker, weirdly enough, that he would be defined by him raping her.
If a woman is worried that her attacker will be defined by committing rape its no stretch to think she might worry about him being labelled a rapist for groping or harassing her is it?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2017, 11:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
In a sense that was exactly my intention. Or part of it. Kidnap is less bad than murder, but we don't forgive kidnappers just because there is a murderer to be got. [...] The lack of adequate and consistent terminology can absolutely lead to these unreasonable comparisons and intended or otherwise, a partial or total excusing of a lesser offender or offence.
Yes, I think this is an important and nuanced discussion, but one we should not necessarily have when we discuss a particular case. Oh, and I think men should put their listening ears on when women are in the room and speak less.

I also think that politicians should err on the side of justice and protecting the office they (temporarily) hold. If Al Franken had resigned his seat (or tendered his resignation and kept his senatorship until a replacement had been found), he would have been commended for doing the right thing in a bad situation. Now he is an old creepy dude who will hold on his seat for too long, and cause damage to the institution and his party. Ditto for Roy Moore, because now people can sadly say that many Republicans would rather vote for a pedophile than a Democrat.
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I didn't actually mention Moore and since both Franken and Weinstein are Dems, I figured I'd succeeded in avoiding any thought of Partisanship.
Sorry, I didn't want to imply that this is what you did, but rather what is happening in the media. But I wanted to point out how easy it is for sympathies for individuals or parties or ideologies to tinge the whole discussion.
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
If a woman is worried that her attacker will be defined by committing rape its no stretch to think she might worry about him being labelled a rapist for groping or harassing her is it?
No, I think women who wish to protect the reputation of the attacker or harasser are outliers, an indication that they need therapy and support from society. We should not contribute to normalizing this behavior.

At least amongst my friends who have been raped (or have experience physical violence at home or in relationships), most were motivated by other things. First and foremost, they didn't want everyone to know what had happened to them, this is an intensely private injury.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2017, 05:59 PM
 
I can fully understand not wanting to tell people you've been raped, but if you are groped or touched inappropriately by someone and you say that you were sexually assaulted, they are going to think you were raped. So you aren't going to tell them. Not telling something personal is fine as long as its because you don't want to tell. If you do but feel to embarrassed or ashamed or whatever then doing something to help alleviate that is a good idea surely?
What if all this behaviour we are seeing come out of the woodwork having gone unreported for so long is partly due to victims not wanting to call it sexual assault?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2017, 06:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Not telling something personal is fine as long as its because you don't want to tell. If you do but feel to embarrassed or ashamed or whatever then doing something to help alleviate that is a good idea surely?
No, it is not a good idea, because they have been suffering for a long time. It took the one friend I referenced to earlier about 10 years to get psychological help. Even though we are very close, it took her several years to tell me. Not talking to friends or family means they have to carry this burden by themselves, they don't receive love and compassion that may help them heal. Plus, it means the perp can continue with his behavior and harm other women.
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
What if all this behaviour we are seeing come out of the woodwork having gone unreported for so long is partly due to victims not wanting to call it sexual assault?
I really don't think this plays a big role in why women don't come forward. First of all, very often nothing happens. One of my colleagues at the very least sexually harassed a female postdoc. Do you want to take a guess who stayed and who got a new job? And this is under probably better circumstances where the head of the institute is a woman. It wasn't a secret what many of these men were doing. O'Reilly's tendency to sexually assault women (I'm going out on a limb and say you don't pay $32 million for mere sexual harassment) had language to this effect in his contract, that's how well people knew. Ditto for Weinstein. Men have gotten away with it, and this is only changing now, but veeeeery slowly. Women, on the other hand, usually would suffer a fatal blow to their career.

The other thing is the public not believing them. Just have a look at the way the Roy Moore story was reported: for some strange reason many stories included a bit that emphasized what political affiliation some of the victims had. As if a victim voting for, say, Donald Trump in the 2016 election makes her story more believable than that of a victim who voted for Clinton.
Look at what happened here: Roy Moore's victims
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2017, 06:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I think the majority of people who think racism doesn’t exist or is overblown think that because it’s not on their radar.
Got any evidence to support this theory?

How does it jibe with the South? Lots of black people there but I don't see any evidence they are more likely to believe racism exists.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2017, 07:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
No, it is not a good idea, because they have been suffering for a long time. It took the one friend I referenced to earlier about 10 years to get psychological help. Even though we are very close, it took her several years to tell me. Not talking to friends or family means they have to carry this burden by themselves, they don't receive love and compassion that may help them heal. Plus, it means the perp can continue with his behavior and harm other women.
I think we're getting our wires crossed on this bit. I'm saying that by adding some diversity to the nomenclature it might help some minority of women to feel more comfortable telling their stories where currently they might not. Which if only for a few, would have the effect of those few speaking out and getting what they need much sooner by removing one easily solved obstacle.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I really don't think this plays a big role in why women don't come forward. First of all, very often nothing happens. One of my colleagues at the very least sexually harassed a female postdoc. Do you want to take a guess who stayed and who got a new job? And this is under probably better circumstances where the head of the institute is a woman. It wasn't a secret what many of these men were doing. O'Reilly's tendency to sexually assault women (I'm going out on a limb and say you don't pay $32 million for mere sexual harassment) had language to this effect in his contract, that's how well people knew. Ditto for Weinstein. Men have gotten away with it, and this is only changing now, but veeeeery slowly. Women, on the other hand, usually would suffer a fatal blow to their career.
Whether it plays a big role in this or not, its an easy fix with other benefits so its probably worth considering no?

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
The other thing is the public not believing them.
Given what the public have been believing or not believing lately, maybe thats the explanation for things beginning to change. The opinion of a public that votes for Trump and Brexit and still doesn't work out how dumb they were 12 months later isn't worth shit.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2017, 10:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I think we're getting our wires crossed on this bit. I'm saying that by adding some diversity to the nomenclature it might help some minority of women to feel more comfortable telling their stories where currently they might not. Which if only for a few, would have the effect of those few speaking out and getting what they need much sooner by removing one easily solved obstacle.
I don't know whether we do. I feel it is the other way around: women have to help us men find the right words here, and they do that by learning* how to speak out and about these abuses. The necessary differentiation between different degrees will come naturally then. But I think us men should do more shutting up and more listening to women here rather than trying to find language for women.

Probably I am deviating from what you wanted to say already, but in the chicken-egg analogy, I have the impression we stand on different sides on what should come first. Make sense?


* I don't mean this in any condescending way, but my vocabulary fails me here.
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Whether it plays a big role in this or not, its an easy fix with other benefits so its probably worth considering no?
I don't think this will be easy, nor will it be, by itself, a fix. Coming up with better language and a better overall approach as to how we discuss the wide area that spans the gamut from inadequate comments to rape is a very delicate, messy and complicated discussion that will take years.
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Given what the public have been believing or not believing lately, maybe thats the explanation for things beginning to change. The opinion of a public that votes for Trump and Brexit and still doesn't work out how dumb they were 12 months later isn't worth shit.
We are still very early in the process of allowing these things to bubble up and come to light. That helps all the women who don't have the advantage of either the attacker or the victim being high-profile.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 1, 2017, 06:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I don't know whether we do. I feel it is the other way around: women have to help us men find the right words here, and they do that by learning* how to speak out and about these abuses. The necessary differentiation between different degrees will come naturally then. But I think us men should do more shutting up and more listening to women here rather than trying to find language for women.
I only ever said we need more and more accurate terminology. I never said that men had to be the ones to create or decide on it. It just needs to happen.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Probably I am deviating from what you wanted to say already, but in the chicken-egg analogy, I have the impression we stand on different sides on what should come first. Make sense?
Maybe, but these acts and they're appropriateness are not new. They've been around and unacceptable for decades now. Language adapts quickly. I would rather have the wrong terms in place and let them self correct than have the current lack of sufficient terms. I'm not even sure its an outright lack so much as an organised system of classifications and specificities. An 'official' version of what acts come under harassment, what comes under assault and if we need more categories in between or after those then what falls under those too.


Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I don't think this will be easy, nor will it be, by itself, a fix. Coming up with better language and a better overall approach as to how we discuss the wide area that spans the gamut from inadequate comments to rape is a very delicate, messy and complicated discussion that will take years.
The legal part is the slow bit, language moves fast. "Upskirting" is a newer form of sexual assault/harassment (or somewhere in between). We have had a word for it for some time but most countries don't have specific laws against it because they don't have the broad classifications that could describe it adequately enshrined in law yet. This is a great example. If there was a category between 'verbal sexual harassment' and 'physical sexual assault' that broadly covered 'non-consensual audio or video documentation of a sexual nature' this covers peeping toms, upskirt shots, hidden cameras in changing rooms or bathrooms and when we invent x-ray vision that too. Its a framework that allows for new offences and it probably isn't any more complicated than the laws we have for regular assault, battery, GBH, ABH, attempted murder, aggravated assault etc. If you prefer to have women lawyers write the language for it then so be it. Its nothing a few boffins couldn't prototype in a couple of weeks.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 1, 2017, 09:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I can fully understand not wanting to tell people you've been raped, but if you are groped or touched inappropriately by someone and you say that you were sexually assaulted, they are going to think you were raped. So you aren't going to tell them. Not telling something personal is fine as long as its because you don't want to tell. If you do but feel to embarrassed or ashamed or whatever then doing something to help alleviate that is a good idea surely?
What if all this behaviour we are seeing come out of the woodwork having gone unreported for so long is partly due to victims not wanting to call it sexual assault?
I don't think it's a good idea to throw out a bunch of conjecture and value statements about what goes on in the mind of an abused person. It's not logical or rational, it doesn't (nor does it have to) make sense. You can't logic an abused person into feeling one way or another, and you can't tell them that their feelings or responses are wrong or bad.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Got any evidence to support this theory?

How does it jibe with the South? Lots of black people there but I don't see any evidence they are more likely to believe racism exists.
Because their confirmation bias sees evidence of it all around them.

“Besides that, I’ve got to tell you something else. I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not something they can control. … Don’t you agree?”
You've grown up being told that black people are lazy or dumb or they have a toxic culture that's their fault and their position in life and society rests solely on their shoulders. Then you see rap videos or news stories or dudes hanging on the corner and it's confirmation of what you've been told.

It's not racist to believe that black people are worse people if it's true, and they see that everywhere. This also explains their disgust of "PC culture," where they're not allowed to "say it like it is," aka saying what they want to be true, but not necessarily what is objectively true.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 1, 2017, 10:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
I don't think it's a good idea to throw out a bunch of conjecture and value statements about what goes on in the mind of an abused person. It's not logical or rational, it doesn't (nor does it have to) make sense. You can't logic an abused person into feeling one way or another, and you can't tell them that their feelings or responses are wrong or bad.
Well I certainly didn't say their feelings were bad at any point. I'm not trying to suggest that a change in nomenclature can logic an assault victim to feel one way or another. It was stated that logically or otherwise, rape victims don't like yelling it from the roof tops. I believe this to be true and I suspect you won't disagree, at least in the vast, vast majority of cases. (Would you want to tell people you were raped? Don't think I would)

I'm certainly not trying to dismiss or diminish the offence, the violation, the embarrassment or any other feelings that might be caused by being the victim of what might be very reasonably termed a 'less serious' form of sexual assault, but we are talking about objectionable male behaviour that has been pretty rife for millennia and it is highly logical in my opinion to think that victims of this very widespread behaviour are orders of magnitude less likely to speak out about it if the only language they have available to them suggests a much more grave offence. One where victims are so badly affected they do not wish to speak out at all.
The point being that behaviour from objectionably pushy flirting to 'casual groping' and beyond has been normalised in modern society. Rape has been unacceptable in modern developed nations for many generations now. There are all sorts of other factors as to why there are extra feelings of shame, and why sexual assault is more intensely private than regular assault but these apply significantly less to the normalised offences to the point where I would suggest women would collectively be quite happy to speak out if they thought it would affect permanent widespread change as is hopefully happening now anyway.
I think (and hopefully a woman will weigh on on whether or not I'm correct on this) that women discuss men being pushy, touching them, groping etc being something that women have been putting up with for some time. I suspect its something mothers often warn their daughters about or explain to them after a first instance. I suspect that has been the case for some time now. Why should a woman have to have people wonder if she has been raped just because some sleaze bag rubs up against her on the subway or invades her personal space at work? Something as simple as changing the language we use can change that. It might only make a small difference, but it costs nothing and its easy to try. I really don't see why you guys are arguing against this.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 1, 2017, 10:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Maybe, but these acts and they're appropriateness are not new. They've been around and unacceptable for decades now. Language adapts quickly. I would rather have the wrong terms in place and let them self correct than have the current lack of sufficient terms.
The problem isn't language, it is culture. If we don't yet know as a society how we want to classify a certain behavior, I don't think we will easily find words for it either.
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
The legal part is the slow bit, language moves fast.
I think it is quite the opposite: legally, what most of these men did already is illegal under existing law. But laws are not enforced, and apparently the best the victim can hope for is a generous settlement in a civil suit. (Can somebody explain to me how someone like Bill O'Reilly who has settled for $32 million isn't even indicted?)
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
If you prefer to have women lawyers write the language for it then so be it. Its nothing a few boffins couldn't prototype in a couple of weeks.
A lawyer is just about the last person I would invite to the discussion. This is a societal problem that is based on centuries, probably even millennia of cultural sediment.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 1, 2017, 12:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Got any evidence to support this theory?

How does it jibe with the South? Lots of black people there but I don't see any evidence they are more likely to believe racism exists.
Last time I checked the South was kinda sorta segregated.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 1, 2017, 08:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
The problem isn't language, it is culture. If we don't yet know as a society how we want to classify a certain behavior, I don't think we will easily find words for it either.
Language is part of the culture and therefore a small part of the solution. Not a magic bullet, just an easy start. We need to change the way the law deals with these crimes, and by extension of sorts the way that people especially the media and victims speak about these crimes.


Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I think it is quite the opposite: legally, what most of these men did already is illegal under existing law. But laws are not enforced, and apparently the best the victim can hope for is a generous settlement in a civil suit. (Can somebody explain to me how someone like Bill O'Reilly who has settled for $32 million isn't even indicted?)
These offences are illegal yes, but if the best or easiest way to get "justice" is to look after yourself and get a sealed settlement instead of protecting others from repeat offences, then the law still needs fixing somewhere.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
A lawyer is just about the last person I would invite to the discussion. This is a societal problem that is based on centuries, probably even millennia of cultural sediment.
Non-lawyers cannot write laws. They wouldn't work properly because the lawyers would shred them in court.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2017, 09:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Language is part of the culture and therefore a small part of the solution. Not a magic bullet, just an easy start. We need to change the way the law deals with these crimes, and by extension of sorts the way that people especially the media and victims speak about these crimes.
Perhaps we are talking in circles, but choosing different language is neither easy nor the start. That is at the end of a long and difficult discussion within society at large that will take years.
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
These offences are illegal yes, but if the best or easiest way to get "justice" is to look after yourself and get a sealed settlement instead of protecting others from repeat offences, then the law still needs fixing somewhere.
I have to say, I come from a country with a vastly different legal tradition, and I would like to have someone with actual legal knowledge chime in here, and explain why this is possible. I honestly don't get it, but it seems to be a broader problem. I don't understand how O. J. Simpson could be “convicted” in civil court after being let go in criminal court (I understand the difference in evidentiary standards, but not how the lawsuit was allowed to proceed in the first place, murder and rape should not by something you fight over in civil court).
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Non-lawyers cannot write laws. They wouldn't work properly because the lawyers would shred them in court.
The problem isn't a legal one, there is no lack of laws of far as I can tell, there is only a lack of enforcing existing laws. Of course, laws could be improved, but I have not seen evidence that there is widespread lack of laws.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2017, 11:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Perhaps we are talking in circles, but choosing different language is neither easy nor the start. That is at the end of a long and difficult discussion within society at large that will take years.
I disagree Language changed by discussion tends to be in some way official. Scientific or legal being two examples. If you sit down and have the discussion, the decisions can be made quickly. The other way language changes is that someone coins a new term or re-purposes an old one. Its up to everyone else whether it ever catches on or not and at what speed. Thats the one that can take the time.


Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
The problem isn't a legal one, there is no lack of laws of far as I can tell, there is only a lack of enforcing existing laws. Of course, laws could be improved, but I have not seen evidence that there is widespread lack of laws.
I'm saying a part of the problem is a linguistic one, and the legal language is the unofficial formal version. Its what the media tries to use. When a newscaster says "Man was convicted under the sexual assault act" or "Fired for sexually assaulting a colleague" this can mean anything from accidentally grabbing some side boob to violent armed rape. The listener will rarely bother to delve any further and will instead make up their own mind as to what end of that spectrum the specific offence is likely to be either based on their own experiences or their impressions of the perpetrator or perhaps even the victim. If he scores 20 goals a season for your favourite soccer team, you're likelier to back him, if all you have to go on is a mugshot of a meth addict, you'll assume the absolute worst.
This is how I think vague and confusing language can and does contribute very heavily to the damage done to people's reputations long before they are convicted in many cases. It also has potentially discouraging effects on people coming forward as discussed.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 4, 2017, 02:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Last time I checked the South was kinda sorta segregated.
Unless you're arguing people of south see blacks as little as people n Montana, I call bullshit.

Also, if it is segregated, that, erm, kind of reinforced the point of the thread.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 4, 2017, 02:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
It's not racist to believe that black people are worse people if it's true,
Yeah, that's the thing – it is racist.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 4, 2017, 11:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Unless you're arguing people of south see blacks as little as people n Montana, I call bullshit.

Also, if it is segregated, that, erm, kind of reinforced the point of the thread.
Is whether the South is segregated up for debate?

Here’s where I live:



Racism gets pushed off my radar because of it. It’s something I need to constantly correct for. The mechanism is similar to what’s going on in Montana.


Edit: for the curious, the small empty splotch within the circle is Wrigley Field. The big empty bit right above it is a cemetery.
( Last edited by subego; Dec 5, 2017 at 06:09 AM. )
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 10, 2017, 10:29 PM
 
subego, they were segregated back when racism was legal. They hated them then, too.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2017, 05:25 PM
 
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2017, 02:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
subego, they were segregated back when racism was legal. They hated them then, too.
Sorry I missed this!

I’m a little lost.

The accusation was made the Montana example doesn’t apply to Alabama, because white people in Alabama encounter black people several orders of magnitude more often than in Montana.

I’m saying here in Chicago I also encounter black people several orders of magnitude more often than I would were I in Montana, but am still very far removed from seeing obvious racism. If I didn’t know where to look, I could very easily be convinced it’s not as big a deal as it gets made out to be.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2017, 07:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
subego, they were segregated back when racism was legal. They hated them then, too.
And to add to that: even after segregation became illegal, it didn't stop. Just ask President Trump what he was found to be guilty of in this department. I found the sharpness of the borders to be unique to America here: there is usually a single street that divides the map into part A and part B, and I have seen it all over the country. In most other places, you'd have a smooth transition.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2017, 07:38 PM
 
To be clear, I’m not disputing there’s segregation. I posted a map of it.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2017, 08:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Sorry I missed this!

I’m a little lost.

The accusation was made the Montana example doesn’t apply to Alabama, because white people in Alabama encounter black people several orders of magnitude more often than in Montana.

I’m saying here in Chicago I also encounter black people several orders of magnitude more often than I would were I in Montana, but am still very far removed from seeing obvious racism. If I didn’t know where to look, I could very easily be convinced it’s not as big a deal as it gets made out to be.
Yeah, I'm gonna take a belated step back and say this is a tangent that is not productive towards the discussion I envisioned when I started this thread. I'm not accusing you of this, but what this line comes across as is defending racism based on ignorance, without copping to the racist part.

Can you honestly look at the past two years and not come to the conclusion that America is a lot more racist than we thought it was?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2017, 09:27 PM
 
As it has been insisted the term “racism” be defined. The answer is yes. This definition covers such a vast continuum, I find the assertion to carry little meaning.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
this line comes across as is defending racism based on ignorance, without copping to the racist part.
This wasn’t constructive in the slightest.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2017, 10:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I think you missed the point of the article. Trump didn't fool anyone. His racist, xenophobic and nationalist rhetoric appealed to them.
On those points, you're correct; he didn't fool anyone. As far as him being a successful businessman, and getting people to believe that a man who lives in a gaudy, gold-plated everything $90 million apartment (among other homes he owns), and draining the swamp, only to refill it with bigger alligators than before, he got tens of millions to believe he actually cares about them. Thinking about that, at first, i was admittedly astonished, but thinking back recently about the country I came from as a young child, Germany, I realized that it isn't that hard to do. Confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, and the Dunning-Kruger effect are all powerful motivators, and they can affect both sides, although I'd obviously argue they affected the right more, even going back three or four decades, as the Republican Party kept leaning further right.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2017, 10:24 PM
 
I want to admit to being incorrect in my assumption that post was going to be more rage fueled.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2017, 10:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What makes institutional *isms such a tough nut to crack is their institutional status makes it difficult for many to recognize.

It’s awfully convenient to use the same term for someone not noticing that which is defined as difficult to notice... and a white supremacist.
Let me revisit your response that started this off with a fresh perspective. To quote the article:
The defenses of Trump voters against Clinton’s charge share an aversion to acknowledging an unpleasant truth. They are not so much arguments against a proposition as arguments that the proposition is offensive—or, if you prefer, politically incorrect. The same is true of the rejoinder that Democrats cannot hope to win the votes of people they have condemned as racist. This is not a refutation of the point, but an argument against stating it so plainly.
This is not too different from what's happening here.

You acknowledge there are problems with racism, but you object to how broadly it's used. We then spent score of posts going back and forth about it. It's a perfect demonstration of the problem. When confronted with racist actions* (of varying severity!) somehow the debate becomes about the label rather than the problem.

I posit the problem isn't nomenclature. You could sub-in the term 'discriminatory' and nothing changes. That's because no one sees their actions as 'racist' or 'discriminatory'. Doing so would make one knowingly evil, and very few people are comfortable with that; Instead they couch their actions with mental gymnastics so they can sleep at night.

That's why there's such anger about the term. Not because of it's application; Because it forces the person into place where they have to face the reality of their actions and the foundations of their motivations. No one likes to have their bad motivations disclosed any more than they enjoy admitting to being stupid or making a large mistake.

I suppose the situation might be akin to to the alcoholism: No one wants to admit they have a problem with alcohol but step 1 to recovery is admitting you have a problem. How can America make any progress if we coddle Lesser and Greater Racists for the sole sake of soothing their ego? Why do we care more about how white people feel about their discriminatory tendencies than the actual affects of those tendencies?

(It's because they're the ones that have most of the power, that's why)
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2017, 01:23 AM
 
I’m torn between assuming I’m meant to reply to this or take the accusation I’m literally why this promblem won’t be solved to mean I should go **** myself.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2017, 03:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I’m torn between assuming I’m meant to reply to this or take the accusation I’m literally why this promblem won’t be solved to mean I should go **** myself.
I don't read Dakar's post as an accusation towards you. We all say and do inappropriate stuff. Just think back to your parents or great parents, and think about the things they used to say and do. While driving with my mom my great grandfather once saw a black man behind the wheel in another car and he said “N*ggers can drive cars now?” (Much to the horror of my mom, she still remembers this incident vividly decades later.) Or have a look at the misogyny in old TV series (even those that were very progressive at the time such as Star Trek TOS).

There was recently a great article about this (that I haven't been able to find again), which detailed that one difficulty talking about racism is that some people think of racism or discrimination as terms of intent and others tend to think of it in terms of outcomes. Your discussion with Dakar seems to fit this paradigm quite well, I don't think anyone is questioning your intentions but you seem to perceive it as such. The way I read Dakar's post, his meta argument is that it isn't just about your intentions, you also have to look at the outcomes of policies and decisions derived from your (non-racist) intentions.

Not looking at intentions prevents one side from empathizing with the other. But intentions aren't good enough, you have to look at outcomes to effect change in society.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2017, 03:47 AM
 
I’m expressly trying to have a debate about the label because it’s directly relevant to the issue.

It is being asserted this is a “perfect demonstration of the problem”.

Don’t know what I’m supposed to do with that.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2017, 06:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I’m expressly trying to have a debate about the label because it’s directly relevant to the issue.

It is being asserted this is a “perfect demonstration of the problem”.

Don’t know what I’m supposed to do with that.
Think in terms of the intent vs. consequences paradigm: from the perspective of someone who things consequences are more important than intentions, it is indeed a perfect demonstration of the problem, from Dakar's perspective you are focussing on semantics over substance. To Dakar the label you assign to the phenomenon isn't important. On the other hand, you would like to have a discussion about the label.
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar
When confronted with racist actions* (of varying severity!) somehow the debate becomes about the label rather than the problem.
I think it is an apt characterization if viewed from that vantage point.

If you would like to understand the consequentialists's point of view better, I encourage you to let go for the label discussion for now and really do focus on consequences. Not because one point of view is right and the other one is wrong, but because you need both to get a handle on this issue. Try to start with the assumption that Dakar's assertion in his last paragraph is correct and see where it leads you.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2017, 11:19 AM
 
¿Por que no los dos?

I’m not arguing consequences are meaningless. I’m arguing against intent being meaningless.


Full disclosure edit: I’m in the minimum 80/20 camp when it comes to intent/consequences. I can even go 90/10.
( Last edited by subego; Dec 28, 2017 at 03:16 PM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2017, 02:43 PM
 
If “alcoholic” is the proper degree of unsavory label for the lesser alcoholic, is this not ultimately coddling the greater alcoholic with a far less unsavory label then they deserve?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2017, 03:10 PM
 
To be clear, if people are sick of me, annoyed, don’t like the direction I’m taking it in, whatever... that’s legit and I’ll back off. I’m getting really mixed signals though.

“Yes, please do back off, but read this bait first.”
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2017, 11:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I’m not arguing consequences are meaningless. I’m arguing against intent being meaningless.
That's not the argument here. Dakar invited you to focus on the consequences — not to ignore intent, but to broaden your point of view. After all, good intent is only good intent as long as you take into account the consequences your actions have.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Full disclosure edit: I’m in the minimum 80/20 camp when it comes to intent/consequences. I can even go 90/10.
Which is why you are having a hard time, I understand. Try to view it from the other point of view — think of it as a way to give your good intent a better way to manifest itself.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
To be clear, if people are sick of me, annoyed, don’t like the direction I’m taking it in, whatever... that’s legit and I’ll back off. I’m getting really mixed signals though.

“Yes, please do back off, but read this bait first.”
Why do you see this as bait rather than an invitation to a discussion? I sense no ill will to trick you.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2017, 02:52 PM
 
Discussion of what I consider relevant has been accused of being part of the problem. This is (naturally) an accusation I wish to challenge, but now cannot do so without being “part of the problem”.

It’s the difference between “I’d rather discuss something else” and “you’re completely wrong, I’d rather discuss something else”.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2017, 08:02 PM
 
Do you want to argue to win or to argue to understand?

PS I don't mean to be snarky or pithy, I'm just trying to make the point that both of you seem to be trying hard to communicate to one another.
( Last edited by OreoCookie; Dec 29, 2017 at 09:17 PM. )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2017, 08:28 PM
 
I have to give a half-hearted apology upfront. This post is raw. It is unkind to you. It is not out of anger but frustration. I understand if you take this personally. I understand if you're angry with me. I have been left in a place where I can only communicate by laying out my perspective in a blunt manner. I am not sorry for what I have said. I am sorry I had to say it.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
I’m expressly trying to have a debate about the label because it’s directly relevant to the issue.
It is not. Unless you posit the the term 'racist' or 'racism' got Trump elected, it's merely an academic argument.


Originally Posted by subego View Post
Discussion of what I consider relevant has been accused of being part of the problem. This is (naturally) an accusation I wish to challenge, but now cannot do so without being “part of the problem”.
The solution here seems pretty obvious: Start a new thread for your tangent. However, where I usually would comment that I'll participate, I give no guarantees here. At this time I find the argument semantic; It's resolution will not help 'fix' things.


Originally Posted by subego View Post
Don’t know what I’m supposed to do with that.
Reevaluate your priorities would be my honest critique.


Originally Posted by subego View Post
“Yes, please do back off, but read this bait first.”
The intent was to demonstrate why I'm so exasperated with this line of argument and why it's unhelpful. I understand the frustration when I'm trying to wield control over what goes on in my thread. This thread is founded upon the thesis of the article: That the simplest explanation for the political actions of white americans has always included racism, conscious or not. Defining the level is unimportant; all levels are included.


Originally Posted by subego View Post
I’m not arguing consequences are meaningless. I’m arguing against intent being meaningless.
If a voter looked at Trump's campaign and didn't see the race baiting and white nationalism, their intent is meaningless. If they did see it and voted for him for political reasons, their intent is still meaningless.

Further, see how much intent matters to them:
Do they care about the intent of NFL players kneeling for the anthem?
Do they care about the intent of african-americans who die at the hands of police aggression?
Do they care about the intent of the average Muslim?
Do they care about the intent of the average illegal?



To return to the article:
Trumpism emerged from a haze of delusion, denial, pride, and cruelty—not as a historical anomaly, but as a profoundly American phenomenon. This explains both how tens of millions of white Americans could pull the lever for a candidate running on a racist platform and justify doing so, and why a predominantly white political class would search so desperately for an alternative explanation for what it had just seen. To acknowledge the centrality of racial inequality to American democracy is to question its legitimacy—so it must be denied.

To dig myself a further hole, some of this is what I've seen from you regarding Trump's policy decisions. Every action he took, you explored alternative reasons other than racism (Neglecting that many of those reasons were created to mask racism). If there was room to be harsher, more punitive, then that was enough to cast doubt on if Trump's motivations were racist.

Looking at the totality of his campaign rhetoric and actions in office, I don't see how its hard to conclude, yes Trump is racist. It's like a man surrounded by multiple dead bodies getting the benefit of the doubt; "Sure he talked a lot about murder, but how do we know he didn't do it for the right reasons?" Hell, I'm so cynical at this point I wonder if its easier for people to conclude Trump worked with the Russians than is a racist.


What also has raised my ire is, as I quote parts of the article back you, I still can't tell if you've read it. I can not tell what criticisms you may have of it. You didn't even answer a simple question I asked:
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Can you honestly look at the past two years and not come to the conclusion that America is a lot more racist than we thought it was?
What I'm getting instead is a full-court press in defense of the white voter: Casting doubt on whether their actions qualify as racist, then casting doubt on their intent.

Here's their god damned intent:





So start your thread, if you want. I'll certainly look.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2017, 08:29 PM
 
@Oreo

I appreciate your participation, both trying to bridge the divide between me and subego and trying to translate what I'm trying to say since I often don't say it well.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2017, 09:17 PM
 
You're welcome
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 30, 2017, 03:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I have to give a half-hearted apology upfront. This post is raw. It is unkind to you. It is not out of anger but frustration. I understand if you take this personally. I understand if you're angry with me. I have been left in a place where I can only communicate by laying out my perspective in a blunt manner. I am not sorry for what I have said. I am sorry I had to say it.

It is not. Unless you posit the the term 'racist' or 'racism' got Trump elected, it's merely an academic argument.



The solution here seems pretty obvious: Start a new thread for your tangent. However, where I usually would comment that I'll participate, I give no guarantees here. At this time I find the argument semantic; It's resolution will not help 'fix' things.



Reevaluate your priorities would be my honest critique.


The intent was to demonstrate why I'm so exasperated with this line of argument and why it's unhelpful. I understand the frustration when I'm trying to wield control over what goes on in my thread. This thread is founded upon the thesis of the article: That the simplest explanation for the political actions of white americans has always included racism, conscious or not. Defining the level is unimportant; all levels are included.


If a voter looked at Trump's campaign and didn't see the race baiting and white nationalism, their intent is meaningless. If they did see it and voted for him for political reasons, their intent is still meaningless.

Further, see how much intent matters to them:
Do they care about the intent of NFL players kneeling for the anthem?
Do they care about the intent of african-americans who die at the hands of police aggression?
Do they care about the intent of the average Muslim?
Do they care about the intent of the average illegal?



To return to the article:



To dig myself a further hole, some of this is what I've seen from you regarding Trump's policy decisions. Every action he took, you explored alternative reasons other than racism (Neglecting that many of those reasons were created to mask racism). If there was room to be harsher, more punitive, then that was enough to cast doubt on if Trump's motivations were racist.

Looking at the totality of his campaign rhetoric and actions in office, I don't see how its hard to conclude, yes Trump is racist. It's like a man surrounded by multiple dead bodies getting the benefit of the doubt; "Sure he talked a lot about murder, but how do we know he didn't do it for the right reasons?" Hell, I'm so cynical at this point I wonder if its easier for people to conclude Trump worked with the Russians than is a racist.


What also has raised my ire is, as I quote parts of the article back you, I still can't tell if you've read it. I can not tell what criticisms you may have of it. You didn't even answer a simple question I asked:


What I'm getting instead is a full-court press in defense of the white voter: Casting doubt on whether their actions qualify as racist, then casting doubt on their intent.

Here's their god damned intent:





So start your thread, if you want. I'll certainly look.

I genuinely apologize for any antagonism I have caused.

I am not, and this has not, made me angry at you, however I’m not convinced you aren’t angry at me.

I will admit to a certain level of frustration, however it has nothing to do with controlling the thread. Do so as you wish with my unnecessary yet nevertheless offered blessings.

Would you like me to address the points from the article in this post, or go back and reread your OPs and make a more general response?


As a side note, is it possible my response to your simple question was missed? It’s the post directly following it.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 31, 2017, 05:32 AM
 
On motives/intentions

"Historians have a word for Germans who joined the Nazi party, not because they hated Jews, but because out of a hope for restored patriotism, or a sense of economic anxiety, or a hope to preserve their religious values, or dislike of their opponents, or raw political opportunism, or convenience, or ignorance, or greed.

That word is "Nazi." Nobody cares about their motives anymore."

-Julius Goat

Provocative, but thought provoking.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 31, 2017, 04:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I genuinely apologize for any antagonism I have caused.

I am not, and this has not, made me angry at you, however I’m not convinced you aren’t angry at me.
I am quite clearly frustrated beyond good judgement.


Originally Posted by subego View Post
Would you like me to address the points from the article in this post, or go back and reread your OPs and make a more general response?
Might as well address the post while we're here, unless you think going general would defuse the situation.


Originally Posted by subego View Post
As a side note, is it possible my response to your simple question was missed? It’s the post directly following it.
I think I caught it and forgot about it; Your answer minimized any impact the question had by making clear you thought my definition of racism was too broad. I would say 2016 showed me racism is greater at all levels. From White Supremacists on down.

---

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Here's their god damned intent:
It wasn't intentional, but I think I was channeling this when I wrote the above
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 31, 2017, 05:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
On motives/intentions

"Historians have a word for Germans who joined the Nazi party, not because they hated Jews, but because out of a hope for restored patriotism, or a sense of economic anxiety, or a hope to preserve their religious values, or dislike of their opponents, or raw political opportunism, or convenience, or ignorance, or greed.

That word is "Nazi." Nobody cares about their motives anymore."

-Julius Goat

Provocative, but thought provoking.
This is what a lot of people were trying to communicate to partisans in 2016. It doesn't matter if you wanted a tax cut, a conservative judge, or a wall. He told you what unsavory things he'd do. He showed you who he'd associate with to get it done. You own all of it.

I mean, look at how fast GOP congress has turned into boot-lickers for a guy many of them called crazy, unqualified, or a con-artist just 18 months before.

At some point intent is superseded by reality. The best you can hope for is for history to judge you as a fool instead. It's similar to the Civil War, too.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2018, 12:44 PM
 
Just posting to say I’m not ducking out, been very hectic IRL.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:50 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,