Australian Politics Forum - What is racism?

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96383

Re: What is racism?
Reply #525 - Jan 20^th, 2017 at 10:05am

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 20^th, 2017 at 9:51am:

Quote:

If someone suggested that all people of African ancestry from the last few centuries should be kicked out of England for the same reason (because that is their history, not because they are inferior), would you also insist that is not racist?

That is a much better comparison to my "anyone who entered after 1850" example. And yes, it absolutely could be non-racist.

How?

Back to top

IP Logged

Lord Herbert Gold Member Offline Posts: 34441 Gender:	Re: What is racism? Reply #526 - Jan 20^th, 2017 at 10:22am polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 20^th, 2017 at 9:51am: You are talking complete nonsense. Sand negro is not a 'race' - its a made up word. Like 'Islamophobic' and 'homophobic' - and criticising another's religion or culture is 'racism'.
Back to top	IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: What is racism?
Reply #527 - Jan 20^th, 2017 at 10:28am

Karnal wrote on Jan 20^th, 2017 at 10:05am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 20^th, 2017 at 9:51am:

Quote:

If someone suggested that all people of African ancestry from the last few centuries should be kicked out of England for the same reason (because that is their history, not because they are inferior), would you also insist that is not racist?

That is a much better comparison to my "anyone who entered after 1850" example. And yes, it absolutely could be non-racist.

How?

Because its at least attempting to identify a particular cultural/ancestral group (albeit crudely) that "belongs" to a particular part of the world - as opposed to simply identifying a group using skin colour as the sole criteria. The people referred to may be all black, but at least they are not specifically identifying them because of their skin colour.

Of course its crude, chauvinistic and bigoted. It can also be racist - but it can also be non-racist IMO.

Also, for the record, I reject FD's contention that a racist is necessarily thinking of motives not related to inferiority - just because he says so. The moment someone specifically references "non-whites" in specific relation to denying them human rights in any way - its racist, period. Regardless of what BS justification comes after that.

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: 96383

Re: What is racism?
Reply #528 - Jan 20^th, 2017 at 11:02am

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 20^th, 2017 at 10:28am:

Karnal wrote on Jan 20^th, 2017 at 10:05am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 20^th, 2017 at 9:51am:

Quote:

If someone suggested that all people of African ancestry from the last few centuries should be kicked out of England for the same reason (because that is their history, not because they are inferior), would you also insist that is not racist?

That is a much better comparison to my "anyone who entered after 1850" example. And yes, it absolutely could be non-racist.

How?

Because its at least attempting to identify a particular cultural/ancestral group (albeit crudely) that "belongs" to a particular part of the world - as opposed to simply identifying a group using skin colour as the sole criteria. The people referred to may be all black, but at least they are not specifically identifying them because of their skin colour.

Of course its crude, chauvinistic and bigoted. It can also be racist - but it can also be non-racist IMO.

Also, for the record, I reject FD's contention that a racist is necessarily thinking of motives not related to inferiority - just because he says so. The moment someone specifically references "non-whites" in specific relation to denying them human rights in any way - its racist, period. Regardless of what BS justification comes after that.

Sure. Which is why seeking to ban a particular cultural/ancestral group is the very essence of racism. You know this, I know this, FD knows this.

He's just trying - ever so hard - to avoid fessing up to his devout wacism.

Back to top

IP Logged

Mr Hammer

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 25212
Gender: male

Re: What is racism?
Reply #529 - Jan 20^th, 2017 at 11:05am

Karnal wrote on Jan 20^th, 2017 at 11:02am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 20^th, 2017 at 10:28am:

Karnal wrote on Jan 20^th, 2017 at 10:05am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 20^th, 2017 at 9:51am:

Quote:

If someone suggested that all people of African ancestry from the last few centuries should be kicked out of England for the same reason (because that is their history, not because they are inferior), would you also insist that is not racist?

That is a much better comparison to my "anyone who entered after 1850" example. And yes, it absolutely could be non-racist.

How?

Because its at least attempting to identify a particular cultural/ancestral group (albeit crudely) that "belongs" to a particular part of the world - as opposed to simply identifying a group using skin colour as the sole criteria. The people referred to may be all black, but at least they are not specifically identifying them because of their skin colour.

Of course its crude, chauvinistic and bigoted. It can also be racist - but it can also be non-racist IMO.

Also, for the record, I reject FD's contention that a racist is necessarily thinking of motives not related to inferiority - just because he says so. The moment someone specifically references "non-whites" in specific relation to denying them human rights in any way - its racist, period. Regardless of what BS justification comes after that.

Sure. Which is why seeking to ban a particular cultural/ancestral group is the very essence of racism. You know this, I know this, FD knows this.

He's just trying - ever so hard - to avoid fessing up to his devout wacism.

why ban?? how many newly migrated Scots are trying to blow people up in Australia?

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 139089 Gender:	Re: What is racism? Reply #530 - Jan 20^th, 2017 at 11:26am "What is racism?"
Back to top	IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96383

Re: What is racism?
Reply #531 - Jan 20^th, 2017 at 11:48am

Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 20^th, 2017 at 11:05am:

Karnal wrote on Jan 20^th, 2017 at 11:02am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 20^th, 2017 at 10:28am:

Karnal wrote on Jan 20^th, 2017 at 10:05am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 20^th, 2017 at 9:51am:

Quote:

If someone suggested that all people of African ancestry from the last few centuries should be kicked out of England for the same reason (because that is their history, not because they are inferior), would you also insist that is not racist?

That is a much better comparison to my "anyone who entered after 1850" example. And yes, it absolutely could be non-racist.

How?

Because its at least attempting to identify a particular cultural/ancestral group (albeit crudely) that "belongs" to a particular part of the world - as opposed to simply identifying a group using skin colour as the sole criteria. The people referred to may be all black, but at least they are not specifically identifying them because of their skin colour.

Of course its crude, chauvinistic and bigoted. It can also be racist - but it can also be non-racist IMO.

Also, for the record, I reject FD's contention that a racist is necessarily thinking of motives not related to inferiority - just because he says so. The moment someone specifically references "non-whites" in specific relation to denying them human rights in any way - its racist, period. Regardless of what BS justification comes after that.

Sure. Which is why seeking to ban a particular cultural/ancestral group is the very essence of racism. You know this, I know this, FD knows this.

He's just trying - ever so hard - to avoid fessing up to his devout wacism.

why ban?? how many newly migrated Scots are trying to blow people up in Australia?

How many people has the Muslim cultural/ancestral group blown up in Australia, Homo?

I'm curious.

Back to top

IP Logged

Mr Hammer

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 25212
Gender: male

Re: What is racism?
Reply #532 - Jan 20^th, 2017 at 11:54am

Karnal wrote on Jan 20^th, 2017 at 11:48am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 20^th, 2017 at 11:05am:

Karnal wrote on Jan 20^th, 2017 at 11:02am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 20^th, 2017 at 10:28am:

Karnal wrote on Jan 20^th, 2017 at 10:05am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 20^th, 2017 at 9:51am:

Quote:

If someone suggested that all people of African ancestry from the last few centuries should be kicked out of England for the same reason (because that is their history, not because they are inferior), would you also insist that is not racist?

That is a much better comparison to my "anyone who entered after 1850" example. And yes, it absolutely could be non-racist.

How?

Because its at least attempting to identify a particular cultural/ancestral group (albeit crudely) that "belongs" to a particular part of the world - as opposed to simply identifying a group using skin colour as the sole criteria. The people referred to may be all black, but at least they are not specifically identifying them because of their skin colour.

Of course its crude, chauvinistic and bigoted. It can also be racist - but it can also be non-racist IMO.

Also, for the record, I reject FD's contention that a racist is necessarily thinking of motives not related to inferiority - just because he says so. The moment someone specifically references "non-whites" in specific relation to denying them human rights in any way - its racist, period. Regardless of what BS justification comes after that.

Sure. Which is why seeking to ban a particular cultural/ancestral group is the very essence of racism. You know this, I know this, FD knows this.

He's just trying - ever so hard - to avoid fessing up to his devout wacism.

why ban?? how many newly migrated Scots are trying to blow people up in Australia?

How many people has the Muslim cultural/ancestral group blown up in Australia, Homo?

I'm curious.

Luckily they keep getting busted.

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 139089
Gender: male

Re: What is racism?
Reply #533 - Jan 20^th, 2017 at 11:55am

Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 20^th, 2017 at 11:54am:

Karnal wrote on Jan 20^th, 2017 at 11:48am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 20^th, 2017 at 11:05am:

Karnal wrote on Jan 20^th, 2017 at 11:02am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 20^th, 2017 at 10:28am:

Karnal wrote on Jan 20^th, 2017 at 10:05am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 20^th, 2017 at 9:51am:

Quote:

If someone suggested that all people of African ancestry from the last few centuries should be kicked out of England for the same reason (because that is their history, not because they are inferior), would you also insist that is not racist?

That is a much better comparison to my "anyone who entered after 1850" example. And yes, it absolutely could be non-racist.

How?

Because its at least attempting to identify a particular cultural/ancestral group (albeit crudely) that "belongs" to a particular part of the world - as opposed to simply identifying a group using skin colour as the sole criteria. The people referred to may be all black, but at least they are not specifically identifying them because of their skin colour.

Of course its crude, chauvinistic and bigoted. It can also be racist - but it can also be non-racist IMO.

Also, for the record, I reject FD's contention that a racist is necessarily thinking of motives not related to inferiority - just because he says so. The moment someone specifically references "non-whites" in specific relation to denying them human rights in any way - its racist, period. Regardless of what BS justification comes after that.

Sure. Which is why seeking to ban a particular cultural/ancestral group is the very essence of racism. You know this, I know this, FD knows this.

He's just trying - ever so hard - to avoid fessing up to his devout wacism.

why ban?? how many newly migrated Scots are trying to blow people up in Australia?

How many people has the Muslim cultural/ancestral group blown up in Australia, Homo?

I'm curious.

Luckily they keep getting busted.

I didn't hear you, sorry.

How many?

Oh, and any sign of the alleged "bomb making materials" from just before Christmas?

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 96383	Re: What is racism? Reply #534 - Jan 20^th, 2017 at 4:28pm Looks like we can't ban the Muslim cultural/ancestral group for blowing us up then. Are there any other reasons we can use, FD? They're tinted?
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49368
At my desk.

Re: What is racism?
Reply #535 - Jan 20^th, 2017 at 7:40pm

Gandalf what is the fundamental difference, in terms of whether something is racist, between defining people by geographic ancestry vs defining them by skin colour?

Quote:

You are talking complete nonsense. Sand negro is not a 'race' - its a made up word.

False dichotomy Gandalf. We have been over this remember?

Quote:

It can be, and has been, referred to any 'muslim looking' person from Afghanistan to Iraq to the Berbers of North Africa. All completely different "races" in your book.

Which book is that Gandalf?

Quote:

Presumably you can't therefore claim the statement '100% of muslims are sand negroes' is racist. Correct?

Incorrect. We have been over this also.

Quote:

And yet previously you asserted exactly that - that 'all muslims are sand negroes' is racist.

So why the confusion Gandalf?

Quote:

Can you explain this gaping contradiction in your own argument?

What contradiction?

Quote:

So just to clarify here FD - if a normal law-abiding, peace-loving muslim, who integrates into western society and has never killed anyone is referred to as a low intellect due to inbreeding who goes around killing people - thats somehow not as bad as calling the same person a "sand negro"?

It is not racist.

Quote:

Is it sinking in yet that my beef with moses' statement does not have anything to do with the choice of being a muslim, but rather his broad-stroking regarding what is inherent in being born muslim?

Who is born a Muslim Gandalf?

Quote:

Think about how stupid this question is FD. I assert its racism, you disagree, so I follow up with "ok, then what would you describe it as (besides "not racist")" - and that can somehow be twisted into "hmmm - gandalf must be lying about something just to get me to comment on this" Only you could turn such blatant evasion on your part as somehow me lying, or your previous gem - 'negotiating down' or 'backpeddling' on moses' racism.

I was just checking. It would make more sense than what you have been saying. You could have just said no.

Quote:

Ah that would be your hilarious BS that "non whites" is "pretty much the same" as "anyone who migrated post 1850" - right? Comedy gold. How many lilly white eastern Europeans, French, Germans - not to mention Irish and Scots have took up residence in England since 1850?

All irrelevant to whether it is racism.

Quote:

Sure, if there is no need for 'racial superiority' as a motive, there is no need to use "non-whites" and "kick out" in the same sentence.

There is no need to say anything at all. Yet it is said. The people saying it would most likely see no need to phrase it as you have either.

Quote:

It would also be infinitely more logical

We are not taling about what is logical, but what is racist. Are you now attempting to introduce both logic and truth to your definition of racism?

Quote:

Such 'non-subtleties' as thinking that "non-white" and "everyone who entered England after 1850" is "pretty much the same". Thats exactly what a racist would say - because its an outrageous broad-stroke of a very large and diverse group. Just sayin....

People with British Heritage is also a very large group Gandalf.

Quote:

That is a much better comparison to my "anyone who entered after 1850" example. And yes, it absolutely could be non-racist. And I hope you can understand the difference between this sort of statement and the hopeless broad-stroke statement "all non-whites".

Clear as mud Gandalf. So 'kick out all non-whites' is definitely racist, regardless of your "deciding factor" of superiority, but "kick out the Africans" absolutely could go either way. What is the fundamental difference here?

Quote:

Because its at least attempting to identify a particular cultural/ancestral group (albeit crudely) that "belongs" to a particular part of the world - as opposed to simply identifying a group using skin colour as the sole criteria. The people referred to may be all black, but at least they are not specifically identifying them because of their skin colour.

You said earlier that superiority was the deciding factor. Then you waffled on about truth and logic. Are you now insisting clarity of your definition of the broad-brush group is a deciding factor for whether something is racist?

Quote:

Also, for the record, I reject FD's contention that a racist is necessarily thinking of motives not related to inferiority - just because he says so.

It is my contention that if he is not (not what he says, but what his actual motives are) then it fails your definition of racism, and that you are forced by the inadequacy of your definition of racism to reject the question rather than giving a straight answer. You know it is racist. You know it fails your definition of racism. So you bend reality until it meets your definition.

Quote:

The moment someone specifically references "non-whites" in specific relation to denying them human rights in any way - its racist, period. Regardless of what BS justification comes after that.

So superiority is not the deciding factor any more?

Gandalf would it be fair to say that according to your definition, kicking out all Africans could be a non-racist policy, but ascribing intelligence to doctors could be racist?

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: 96383	Re: What is racism? Reply #536 - Jan 20^th, 2017 at 9:24pm FD, why do you only talk to Gandalf? Is it something we've said?
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49368 At my desk.	Re: What is racism? Reply #537 - Jan 20^th, 2017 at 10:42pm You said you agree with me Karnal. Can't argue with that.
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: 96383

Re: What is racism?
Reply #538 - Jan 21^st, 2017 at 12:02am

freediver wrote on Jan 20^th, 2017 at 10:42pm:

You said you agree with me Karnal. Can't argue with that.

There's no need to argue, FD. Instead, you could try to answer the question.

What other reasons can you think of to ban the tinted races?

Has this been your objective all along?

What sort of time-frame do you have in mind?

Do you have any exceptions, such as tinted labourers or domestics?

Back to top

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: What is racism?
Reply #539 - Jan 21^st, 2017 at 7:15am

freediver wrote on Jan 20^th, 2017 at 7:40pm: