Australian Politics Forum - What is racism?

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38839
Gender: male

Re: What is racism?
Reply #405 - Jan 12^th, 2017 at 10:16pm

freediver wrote on Jan 12^th, 2017 at 10:11pm:

Quote:

Sure. Do it....without a gazillion dollars of financial and military support from the West and duke it out with the neighbours as they have in the Land of (even Jewish) Arabs for centuries.

Is this the only 'actual' change you are proposing?

Quote:

Meanwhile, the State of Israel, and those citizens who are happy not to be a square peg (the artificially created State of Israel where it is) in a round hole can live happily ever after in Tasmania (not the Land of Arabs.)

Just the European ones? Or all the Jews?

All. Those who choose to stay in the bosom of Arabia are welcome to do that, and accept the consequences of no more propping up from the West which will be made available to all who choose Tasmania.

Simple, 'innit?'

Back to top

IP Logged

Gordon

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20719
Gordon
Gender: male

Re: What is racism?
Reply #406 - Jan 12^th, 2017 at 10:38pm

Aussie wrote on Jan 12^th, 2017 at 10:16pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 12^th, 2017 at 10:11pm:

Quote:

Sure. Do it....without a gazillion dollars of financial and military support from the West and duke it out with the neighbours as they have in the Land of (even Jewish) Arabs for centuries.

Is this the only 'actual' change you are proposing?

Quote:

Meanwhile, the State of Israel, and those citizens who are happy not to be a square peg (the artificially created State of Israel where it is) in a round hole can live happily ever after in Tasmania (not the Land of Arabs.)

Just the European ones? Or all the Jews?

All. Those who choose to stay in the bosom of Arabia are welcome to do that, and accept the consequences of no more propping up from the West which will be made available to all who choose Tasmania.

Simple, 'innit?'

Hmm. Doesn't the religion you want to exterminate predate the other? When can I kick all the curry stinkers out of Harris Park?

Back to top

IBI

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96384

Re: What is racism?
Reply #407 - Jan 12^th, 2017 at 11:32pm

Gordon wrote on Jan 12^th, 2017 at 10:38pm:

Aussie wrote on Jan 12^th, 2017 at 10:16pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 12^th, 2017 at 10:11pm:

Quote:

Sure. Do it....without a gazillion dollars of financial and military support from the West and duke it out with the neighbours as they have in the Land of (even Jewish) Arabs for centuries.

Is this the only 'actual' change you are proposing?

Quote:

Meanwhile, the State of Israel, and those citizens who are happy not to be a square peg (the artificially created State of Israel where it is) in a round hole can live happily ever after in Tasmania (not the Land of Arabs.)

Just the European ones? Or all the Jews?

All. Those who choose to stay in the bosom of Arabia are welcome to do that, and accept the consequences of no more propping up from the West which will be made available to all who choose Tasmania.

Simple, 'innit?'

Hmm. Doesn't the religion you want to exterminate predate the other? When can I kick all the curry stinkers out of Harris Park?

When you offer them a curry house on Prince Edward Island, of course.

Back to top

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: What is racism?
Reply #408 - Jan 13^th, 2017 at 10:19am

freediver wrote on Jan 12^th, 2017 at 6:49pm:

You did actually say that. Do I need to quote you again?

Yes please. The quote where I said its racist to say people who are born stupid are more likely to adopt Islam.

Quote:

Quote:

No one in England is suffering because of 'white ownership'. It is not a third-world backwater that has suffered decades of colonialism from foreign hegemons, nor is it a cesspool of political instability as a direct result of this colonialism - that continues to this day.

How is this relevant to whether it is racist?

My point is very relevant to your claim that this is another good example of racism in line with your 'arabia for arabs' "racism". It is not. Why? Because the experience of whites in England vis-a-vis suffering as a result of foreign meddling and contemporary colonialism (ie, it is non-existent) is not even remotely comparable to the experience of the arabs. Not even you with your blinkered and chauvinistic views could possible contend this. It doesn't mean that any statement against the 'race' of a foreign aggressor/meddler can never be racist -but when the statement literally amounts to "foreign aggressor, ferk off and stop meddling" - of course its not racist. And I even go so far as to say your white-English non-comparison is borderline racist itself. For when there is no economic, political or social-cohesion justification (English per capita are more prosperous and socially and politically stable than ever - despite, or perhaps in large part because of the introduction of non-whites into the country) - what other justification could there be to kick out all non-whites other than a racial-superiority one? None that I can think of.

Quote:

Quote:
Lebensraum arguments may conceivably be non-racist.

Can you give an example of one you would consider non-racist?

I'm struggling, and to be honest I'm not sure it would pass the laugh test.

Something like "ok you non-aryans, we're just too different culturally to co-exist, and you would be far happier living in your land, and we'd be happier having this land to ourselves. We won't force you off, but we'd like you to consider moving out, and we'll even offer you economic incentives to move"

Quote:

Quote:
Just to clarify, are you still contending that advocating mass genocide along racial grounds could possibly exclude superiority as a justification?

Sure. I gave an example earlier. Not everyone feels the need to dress collective self interest up as something else.

Now that definitely doesn't pass the laugh test.

Sorry FD, but you are seriously saying, you could literally advocate the murder of every man woman and child of a particular "race", and you can do that without feeling in any way superior to that race? Can you explain how one thinks its ok to kill someone purely because of their race, and at the same time think their life is not worth less than theirs?

Quote:

Let me explain. It is not racist because you agree that Muslim is not a race, and if Moses intended to include you then it is not a "marker" for a race either, which is the only basis you gave earlier for including religious groups in racism.

That could only conceivably make sense if you ignore the part where he said all (male) muslims were 'inbred, low intellect...murdering people', and if it was my argument that its racist because its 'muslim' he is using as a racial marker. It is not. Its the attributes of being "inbred, low intellect etc", not "muslim" that are "markers for a race". And like I said, whatever his "intentions" - if he consciously included me - then he's lumping me in as a mindless inbred low intellect psychopath with the rest of his mindless borg (racist), or if he isn't thinking of me, then he is simply disregarding the possibility that there are individuals that don't fit his mindless borg stereotype (racist). Either way its racist.

Quote:

you insist on defining criticism of Islam as racism

umm no. Try again.

Quote:

He did not say intellectually disabled. Your fantasy Gandalf.

Sorry, "inbred, low intellect". Big difference I know.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96384

Re: What is racism?
Reply #409 - Jan 13^th, 2017 at 11:04am

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 13^th, 2017 at 10:19am:

My point is very relevant to your claim that this is another good example of racism in line with your 'arabia for arabs' "racism". It is not. Why? Because the experience of whites in England vis-a-vis suffering as a result of foreign meddling and contemporary colonialism (ie, it is non-existent) is not even remotely comparable to the experience of the arabs. Not even you with your blinkered and chauvinistic views could possible contend this.

Are you kidding? FD contends that the experience of colonialism in the Middle East is a victim mentality. FD contends that Muslims are the colonizers, out to take away the freedoms of decent white people everywhere.

But I'm curious, G. Do you think FD's blinkered and chauvinistic views are wacist?

Back to top

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: What is racism?
Reply #410 - Jan 13^th, 2017 at 11:36am

Karnal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2017 at 11:04am:

But I'm curious, G. Do you think FD's blinkered and chauvinistic views are wacist?

Thats actually an interesting question.

I think its borderline racism, and I was particularly interested in this statement of his:

freediver wrote on Jan 12^th, 2017 at 6:49pm:

It is discrimination on the basis of race. Aborigines get better treatment under Australian law Could that only be motivated by notions of aboriginal superiority?

When he first said it I assumed by "better" he mean 'better treatment now than before' - but from this it seems clear he means 'better than whites'. It harks back to good-ol Pauline's old mantra "reverse racism".

What an extraordinary thing to say - and can only be considered if you totally ignore over 200 years of actual institutionalised, racist-based discrimination. Like, you know, not even getting the vote until the 1960s, and pretty much being officially recognised as actual fauna.

Its like, there is no sense that any sort of government-led recompense is needed to address the long term damage such institutionalised racism had on these people.

Its almost like he thinks the institutionalised racism towards the Aborigines wasn't a big deal.

Is that racist? Its getting close if you ask me.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96384

Re: What is racism?
Reply #411 - Jan 13^th, 2017 at 12:27pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 13^th, 2017 at 11:36am:

Karnal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2017 at 11:04am:

But I'm curious, G. Do you think FD's blinkered and chauvinistic views are wacist?

Thats actually an interesting question.

I think its borderline racism, and I was particularly interested in this statement of his:

freediver wrote on Jan 12^th, 2017 at 6:49pm:

It is discrimination on the basis of race. Aborigines get better treatment under Australian law Could that only be motivated by notions of aboriginal superiority?

When he first said it I assumed by "better" he mean 'better treatment now than before' - but from this it seems clear he means 'better than whites'. It harks back to good-ol Pauline's old mantra "reverse racism".

What an extraordinary thing to say - and can only be considered if you totally ignore over 200 years of actual institutionalised, racist-based discrimination. Like, you know, not even getting the vote until the 1960s, and pretty much being officially recognised as actual fauna.

Its like, there is no sense that any sort of government-led recompense is needed to address the long term damage such institutionalised racism had on these people.

Its almost like he thinks the institutionalised racism towards the Aborigines wasn't a big deal.

Is that racist? Its getting close if you ask me.

And not just wacist, a complete porkie. Aborigines are three times as likely to be incarcerated, are more likely to be charged by police, and have a higher number of deaths in custody - after numerous reports, royal commissions and parliamentary committees.

How could anyone possibly suggest Aborigines get better treatment under the law? Even Pauline's come around on that one.

Back to top

IP Logged

Gordon Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20719 Gordon Gender:	Re: What is racism? Reply #412 - Jan 13^th, 2017 at 12:43pm Aboriginals and Arabs are holding onto a culture ill suited to modernity. Their hardware is the same, they just need a software update Hope this helps
Back to top	IBI IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49368
At my desk.

Re: What is racism?
Reply #413 - Jan 13^th, 2017 at 12:51pm

Quote:

Yes please. The quote where I said its racist to say people who are born stupid are more likely to adopt Islam.

Here you go Gandalf:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 7^th, 2017 at 8:08am:

freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2017 at 8:29pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 4^th, 2017 at 7:17am:

No, you're not paying attention. I didn't say the stereotype "all muslims are stupid" - on its own is not racist. I said the logic that "all muslims are stupid - because Islamic text is nonsensical (and only an idiot would believe it)" - is not racist. Crude yes, ignorant yes - but not racist. Of course if you extend that logic to say that the only people who are naturally drawn to that nonsensical text are those that are inbred and therefore born retarded (ie "all muslims are retarded")- then it would become racist.

Gandalf, what is the distinction you are making here?

Do you still think "Arabia is for the Arabs" is not racist?

It is the distinction between making a judgment about the thought processes of someone who believes in "nonsensical text", and making a judgement about a group's innate, genetic disposition (they are all born retarded). The former is not inherently racist because it may be referring to someone who is wilfully stupid - like what soren/frank accuses me of being all the time. It makes no specific claims about the causes of that stupidity, and it is above all else a judgement about a person's choice to believe in a 'stupid' religion. Whereas the latter is 'racial' in the sense that it makes a blanket broad-stroke claim about the genetic inferiority that that they were born with, and can do nothing about to redeem themselves.

Have you abandoned this argument? Is it racist to say that people who are born stupid are more likely to choose to adopt Islam?

Quote:

My point is very relevant to your claim that this is another good example of racism in line with your 'arabia for arabs' "racism". It is not. Why? Because the experience of whites in England vis-a-vis suffering as a result of foreign meddling and contemporary colonialism (ie, it is non-existent) is not even remotely comparable to the experience of the arabs. Not even you with your blinkered and chauvinistic views could possible contend this. It doesn't mean that any statement against the 'race' of a foreign aggressor/meddler can never be racist -but when the statement literally amounts to "foreign aggressor, ferk off and stop meddling" - of course its not racist. And I even go so far as to say your white-English non-comparison is borderline racist itself. For when there is no economic, political or social-cohesion justification (English per capita are more prosperous and socially and politically stable than ever - despite, or perhaps in large part because of the introduction of non-whites into the country) - what other justification could there be to kick out all non-whites other than a racial-superiority one? None that I can think of.

That's a very convoluted way of avoiding a simple question Gandalf. Is it racist? Is any of this waffle relevant to your answer or to your definition of racism?

Here it is again, given your tendency to forget:

If someone suggested all non-whites should be kicked out of England, not out of a sense of superiority, but merely 'white ownership' of the Island and discontent with past policy, would that be racist?

In case you are having trouble thinking of a justification, people might consider the long history of white ownership of the Island and a sense of comfort in the familair culture as justification for continued white ownership. In any case, your continued inability to comprehend the mentality behind the example does not make the question disappear.

Quote:

Something like "ok you non-aryans, we're just too different culturally to co-exist, and you would be far happier living in your land, and we'd be happier having this land to ourselves. We won't force you off, but we'd like you to consider moving out, and we'll even offer you economic incentives to move"

Sounds like Aussie. Are you throwing a heap of irrelevant dribble in here to make it plausible, or is that actually necessary to avoid your definition of racism? What about an Aryan who wants to force the non-Aryans out of the way purely out of self interest without any views regarding superiority. Would you argue that is not racist?

Quote:

Sorry FD, but you are seriously saying, you could literally advocate the murder of every man woman and child of a particular "race", and you can do that without feeling in any way superior to that race?

I am not talking about myself here Gandalf. It is a hypothetical question. Not sure why it is so difficult to give a straight answer. You appear to be arguing that superiority is both a cause of and a consequence of racism. I give you an example that is obviously racist, and you insist that because it is racist it must involve superiority. Thus, superiority is not actually necessary for something to be regarded as racism. You are deciding it is racist for some other reason and then concluding that the lack of superiority specified in the hypothetical cannot be true.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49368
At my desk.

Re: What is racism?
Reply #414 - Jan 13^th, 2017 at 12:56pm

Quote:

That could only conceivably make sense if you ignore the part where he said all (male) muslims were 'inbred, low intellect...murdering people', and if it was my argument that its racist because its 'muslim' he is using as a racial marker. It is not. Its the attributes of being "inbred, low intellect etc", not "muslim" that are "markers for a race".

Gandalf, what is the race, and what is the marker for the race? Is a "marker for a race" simply a group that is not actually a race - eg a religion, a profession, stupid people, inbred people etc? Or is it a reference to an actual race - eg using Muslim when you really mean Arab?

Quote:

like I said, whatever his "intentions" - if he consciously included me - then he's lumping me in as a mindless inbred low intellect psychopath with the rest of his mindless borg (racist),

If he is deliberately including white people, how is it a marker for a race? Are you saying that stupid people are a race? Wht exactly is a marker for a race? You said before that my doctor example could be racist if docor was used as a marker for race. Can you give an example?

Quote:

Sorry, "inbred, low intellect". Big difference I know.

Neither are a race, and if you include all races in the definition, then it is not a "marker" for a race either.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 96384	Re: What is racism? Reply #415 - Jan 13^th, 2017 at 2:35pm FD, are you suggesting it's possible that whites could refuse to rent or sell their real estate to blacks without a sense of superiority? I'm curious. I'm keen to know what you think.
Back to top	IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96384

Re: What is racism?
Reply #416 - Jan 13^th, 2017 at 2:37pm

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2017 at 12:56pm:

Quote:

That could only conceivably make sense if you ignore the part where he said all (male) muslims were 'inbred, low intellect...murdering people', and if it was my argument that its racist because its 'muslim' he is using as a racial marker. It is not. Its the attributes of being "inbred, low intellect etc", not "muslim" that are "markers for a race".

Gandalf, what is the race, and what is the marker for the race? Is a "marker for a race" simply a group that is not actually a race - eg a religion, a profession, stupid people, inbred people etc? Or is it a reference to an actual race - eg using Muslim when you really mean Arab?

Quote:

like I said, whatever his "intentions" - if he consciously included me - then he's lumping me in as a mindless inbred low intellect psychopath with the rest of his mindless borg (racist),

If he is deliberately including white people, how is it a marker for a race? Are you saying that stupid people are a race? Wht exactly is a marker for a race? You said before that my doctor example could be racist if docor was used as a marker for race. Can you give an example?

Quote:

Sorry, "inbred, low intellect". Big difference I know.

Neither are a race, and if you include all races in the definition, then it is not a "marker" for a race either.

FD's not racist. Races are not a race.

Back to top

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: What is racism?
Reply #417 - Jan 13^th, 2017 at 3:01pm

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2017 at 12:51pm:

Quote:
Yes please. The quote where I said its racist to say people who are born stupid are more likely to adopt Islam.

Here you go Gandalf:

Nope.

Nowhere in that quote did I claim the statement 'people born stupid are more likely to adopt Islam' is racist. And I certainly didn't say that any claims about "choosing" Islam is racist. What I was talking about was ascribing innate genetic attributes to a particular group specifically as a 'culturalised' attribute of that group - like practicing inbreeding to produce stupid people. Claiming that someone born in Russia or Mexico who happens to be stupid, "is more likely to choose to adopt Islam" - is not racist, and wasn't what I was referring to. Racists would ascribe 'being stupid' as a specifically muslim attribute, that comes about because they're born muslim - not the other way round. Its as if there is a 'muslim gene' that makes muslims stupid.

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2017 at 12:51pm:

That's a very convoluted way of avoiding a simple question Gandalf. Is it racist?

I didn't avoid it, I gave a direct answer - that its "borderline racist". How did you miss that? And its probably racist because there is no other conceivable justification other than one related to racial supremacy. All there in the waffle. But more importantly, its a terrible analogy for your 'arabia for arabs = racist' argument.

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2017 at 12:51pm:

Sounds like Aussie. Are you throwing a heap of irrelevant dribble in here to make it plausible, or is that actually necessary to avoid your definition of racism?

Hey fair go, I did say it probably wouldn't pass the laugh test. Last time I attempt to play devils advocate with you.

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2017 at 12:51pm:

I am not talking about myself here Gandalf.

The proverbial 'you' - not literally "you".

And I'll ask again - are you seriously saying that someone could advocate genocide along racial grounds and do so without a sense of racial superiority over the people he wants to murder? How does such a person consider the lives of the people he wants dead to be worth the same as theirs?

I'm genuinely interested to hear your argument here FD.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: What is racism?
Reply #418 - Jan 13^th, 2017 at 3:30pm

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2017 at 12:56pm:

Gandalf, what is the race, and what is the marker for the race? Is a "marker for a race" simply a group that is not actually a race - eg a religion, a profession, stupid people, inbred people etc? Or is it a reference to an actual race - eg using Muslim when you really mean Arab?

1. there are no "actual races" - I've only pointed this out about 100 times now.

2. definitions of "race" in the context of being "racist", therefore are entirely fabricated constructs, true only in the mind of the racist. Though it doesn't make the phenomenon of 'racism' any less real. 'Racial markers' for the purposes of racism, could be just about anything that allow the racist to homogenise the target group, and use that 'outgroup homogeneity' to denigrate the group. Examples include hindus with BO, arabs who are lazy and lack initiative and yes, muslims who are inbred and (therefore) stupid.

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2017 at 12:56pm:

If he is deliberately including white people, how is it a marker for a race?

How on earth can he say "all muslim (males) are inbred" while simultaneously referring to people he knows are not inbred?

Is your argument that its nonsensical and contradictory - and therefore not racist?

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 47525
Gender: male

Re: What is racism?
Reply #419 - Jan 13^th, 2017 at 6:12pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 13^th, 2017 at 3:30pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2017 at 12:56pm:

Gandalf, what is the race, and what is the marker for the race? Is a "marker for a race" simply a group that is not actually a race - eg a religion, a profession, stupid people, inbred people etc? Or is it a reference to an actual race - eg using Muslim when you really mean Arab?

1. there are no "actual races" - I've only pointed this out about 100 times now.

2. definitions of "race" in the context of being "racist", therefore are entirely fabricated constructs, true only in the mind of the racist. Though it doesn't make the phenomenon of 'racism' any less real. 'Racial markers' for the purposes of racism, could be just about anything that allow the racist to homogenise the target group, and use that 'outgroup homogeneity' to denigrate the group. Examples include hindus with BO, arabs who are lazy and lack initiative and yes, muslims who are inbred and (therefore) stupid.

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2017 at 12:56pm:

If he is deliberately including white people, how is it a marker for a race?

How on earth can he say "all muslim (males) are inbred" while simultaneously referring to people he knows are not inbred?

Is your argument that its nonsensical and contradictory - and therefore not racist?

Why are these professors hated off the Yale University campus by 'coloured' students?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3350471/Yale-teacher-resigns-offensive-H...

WHat do these students protest about if there is no such thing as race? Why are they so sensitive about their own race?
Ditto with the Africans at Oxford going apesh!te over Rhodes- while they are there on a ... er.... Rhodes Scholarship?

The "there is no such thing as race" is not something that is embraced by non-white people. It's only whites like you who push this particular wheel-less barrow.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Poll
Question: Is the statement is my signature racist?
yes 5 (55.6%) no 3 (33.3%) depends 1 (11.1%) don't know 0 (0.0%) Total votes: 9 « Created by: polite_gandalf on: Jan 29^th, 2017 at 9:05am »