Definition of a Racist

Author: Barney ,

Posts

Total: 71
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,350
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
--> @zedvictor4
A thought is a thought, relative to an individual.

"Half baked" is a thought relative to you. 
As long as you acknowledge people can and do have half-baked thoughts. 
Learn what theory of mind is. For example, If your friend wanted to do something stupid because he was in an emotionally heightened state of mind, you might want to talk him out of it for a multitude of reasons. He’s not thinking straight. 

It's a tad arrogant, if we expect everyone to think as we do.
To be honest I unintentionally do sometimes. I think we all do. I don’t think it’s arrogance, it’s more ignorance than anything. 

Thoughts are derived from past experiences and will therefore vary relative to conditioning.
A truism. 

Tolerance has to evolve..........Tolerance cannot be forced upon people, otherwise outcomes are more likely to be negative.
Is that what you would have told a Jewish person in the holocaust?

To say “tolerance has to evolve” is a meaningless statement. Evolution prioritises what’s convenient, that’s it.

Though I'm reasonably confident that more and more people do think things through.
Alright

I'm a moderate and do not pander to media, I make my own observations and come to my own conclusions.
Like you said, we’re all conditioned in one way or another.

And Jaimaica seeking $10 billion in so called reparations is a race baiting political show.   And let's be frank, where would most of that money end up if they got it.
I don’t know, we would have to do further research to find out. It would have to be conditional I would say.

Nope...The perpetuation of the old colonial race game is very good for business.
If the money went into infrastructure and business startups to have a positive lasting impact, I think it would be good. Also i think Jamaica has a large environmental problem with foreign owned mining companies if I’m correct. 

And "sociological thing" for sure....That was my point......Don't expect to click your fingers and change humanity in an instant.....How many millions of years has it taken to get to this point?
Modern humans have been around for 300,000 years. Though It would be understandable if someone argued humans as shown by just the last century are the most barbaric creatures on Earth. 

Perhaps you indulge in race baiting political shows more than I do.
Probably. You got to understand your opponents arguments. 
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 6,910
3
3
4
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
4
--> @Reece101
Tolerance has to evolve....Means exactly what it says.

As I suggested, tolerance has certainly evolved in the UK within my lifetime.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 11,061
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @Barney
I'm curious what are everyone's favorite ways to determine if someone is (or is not) a racist?

This keeps coming up in so many discussions; and while I doubt we'll ever have true consensus, I am interested in seeing the variety of answers.
only people who self-identify as "racists" can be called "racists"

in the same exact way that only people who self-identify as "methodists" can be called "methodists"

is it somehow "more evil" to hate someone for the color of their skin ?

or is it somehow "more evil" to hate someone for their religious (or lack of religious) beliefs ?

or is it somehow "more evil" to hate someone for their political (or lack of political) beliefs ?

or is it somehow "more evil" to hate someone because of the clothes they wear ?

or is it somehow "more evil" to hate someone because of the food they eat ?

perhaps we can narrow this down a bit

can we agree on what qualifies as a "good reason" to hate (dehumanize) someone ?

aren't these all examples of ad hominem attacks ?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 11,061
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @Double_R
And the civil war was about states rights (to allow slavery for example)

the two are not mutually exclusive
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 3,321
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
--> @3RU7AL
Here in the US hating someone for their religious or political beliefs is completely okay.
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 2,152
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
--> @3RU7AL
only people who self-identify as "racists" can be called "racists"
...
is it somehow "more evil" to hate someone for the color of their skin ?
I disagree, as being racist can be identified from a set of actions, regardless of the frequently low intelligence quotient among racists (see my previous debates on if well known racists are racist).

And yes, it is worse to hate someone for the innate characteristics of their birth, rather than choices they make. As an example, we send people to prison for robbing banks and killing people; whereas we view Mr. Hitler as a bad person for doing similar to Jewish people just for being born.


aren't these all examples of ad hominem attacks ?
Calling someone a racist for various racist actions, is not an ad hominem attack, but rather a basic descriptor. We can't function as a society without ways to identify people; such as me calling you Brual, or you calling me Barney.
Calling someone a racist for acting racist, isn't very different  from calling someone a Methodist for devote attendance at a Methodist church.

Granted, either could be leveraged as a pathetic insult. Repeatedly calling a devote Jewish person a Methodist, in spite them telling you they're Jewish not Methodist (and have never done anything to imply they're Methodist). Or calling anyone people Literally Hitler when they haven't killed anyone nor called for the death of anyone (I would consider this an Ad Hominem attack even against most racists, as most racists have done nothing to make it a valid comparison).
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 11,061
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @Barney
Calling someone a racist for various racist actions, is not an ad hominem attack, but rather a basic descriptor.
it's not exactly a "basic descriptor" if the entire definition is not QUANTIFIABLE

what we're dealing with here (namely "motive")

is beyond our epistemological limits

for example

i have personally had conflicts with my neighbor

luckily, we are both "of the same skin-tone"

but if my neighbor happened to have a different skin-tone than myself, we could each be accused of "racism"

not all conflicts between people of different skin-tones constitutes "racism"
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 11,061
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @Barney
We can't function as a society without ways to identify people; such as me calling you Brual, or you calling me Barney.
we refer to each other by our respective self-identifications
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 11,061
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @Barney
Calling someone a racist for acting racist, isn't very different  from calling someone a Methodist for devote attendance at a Methodist church.
which you are generally going to know by ASKING THE INDIVIDUAL

it seems extremely unlikely that you would hire a private investigator to observe my physical whereabouts
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 2,152
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
--> @3RU7AL
not all conflicts between people of different skin-tones constitutes "racism"
Misusing a word like racism under such circumstances, can be more telling of the person using it, than the one it is directed at.

Still, Hitler no doubt denied he was racist, and yet through killing many people based on race there is no reason to doubt he was by definition racist.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 11,061
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @Barney
and yet through killing many people based on race there is no reason to doubt he was by definition racist.
perhaps that wasn't the only reason they had for killing people
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 11,061
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @Barney
Misusing a word like racism under such circumstances, can be more telling of the person using it, than the one it is directed at.
in my experience

the accuser receives the overwhelming benefit-of-the-doubt
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,695
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
--> @3RU7AL
And the civil war was about states rights (to allow slavery for example)

the two are not mutually exclusive
The civil war was about states rights in the same way that Playboy Magazine is about art.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 11,061
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @Double_R
And the civil war was about states rights (to allow slavery for example)

the two are not mutually exclusive
The civil war was about states rights in the same way that Playboy Magazine is about art.
federal law was ONLY ever supposed to regulate INTER-state commerce

attacking states for breaking away from the union would be like russia attacking former soviet-union states for breaking away

or the european union attacking member-states who wish to withdraw from their union
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 2,152
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
--> @3RU7AL
and yet through killing many people based on race there is no reason to doubt he was by definition racist.
perhaps that wasn't the only reason they had for killing people
Doesn't matter.

Mr. Hitler could inwardly have a heart of gold, having only meant to send countless people to a happy camps which just had a slight misunderstanding of how those people like to be treated... It would not change the end result, and us calling him a racist genocider for his actions.

To use a less deadly example: Bill Clinton defines himself as a loyal husband who would never ever cheat on his wife, and yet he was impeached for sexual immorality.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 11,061
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @Barney
and yet he was impeached for
perjury and obstruction of justice

Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (first article, 228–206) and obstruction of justice (third article, 221–212).
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 11,061
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @Barney
It would not change the end result
wait,

now you want to remove "motive" completely ?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 11,061
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @Barney
can we agree on what qualifies as a "good reason" to hate (dehumanize) someone ?
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 2,152
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
--> @3RU7AL
and yet he was impeached for
perjury and obstruction of justice
Yes, for doing things he denied doing. The tower of babel you're trying to build, would insist he said he didn't so he cannot be called someone who committed perjury and obstruction of justice.


now you want to remove "motive" completely ?
Motive (when available) can help us understand actions. It can sometimes mitigate offenses, but it does not absolve everything when harm is involved.
Bill Clinton might have never meant to cheat on his wife, nor commit perjury and obstruction of justice, and yet those are the things he did.


can we agree on what qualifies as a "good reason" to hate (dehumanize) someone ?
Certainly not the mere fact of them being born looking different (which is what racists do). Granted, I don't think calling someone a racist dehumanizes them, it is unfortunately a very common human trait.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 11,061
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @Barney
so he cannot be called someone who committed perjury and obstruction of justice.
you can certainly make note of the fact that they were "impeached on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice"

but strangely,

infidelity is NOT a federal crime

and this is fundamentally distinct from the question of self-identification
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 11,061
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @Barney
Granted, I don't think calling someone a racist dehumanizes them
then, pray tell

what exactly is the point of such a designation (in your personal opinion) ?
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 2,152
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
--> @3RU7AL
and this is fundamentally distinct from the question of self-identification
Obviously, I disagree with your standard that someone is only what they say they are regardless of their actions. A racist can define everyone they dislike as not human and go on a killing spree, we in turn refer to them as a racist mass murderer; not however they choose to self-identify to include them having never harmed a human being.


what exactly is the point of such a designation (in your personal opinion) ?
Nouns are useful in the construction of shared language.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,695
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
--> @3RU7AL
attacking states for breaking away from the union would be like russia attacking former soviet-union states for breaking away

or the european union attacking member-states who wish to withdraw from their union
What would you accept as a justified response of New York City decided to succeed from New York State?

Now imagine if the reason they succeeded was because they wanted to imprison the Asian population and rape all the women, and the state said no.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,695
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
--> @3RU7AL
and this is fundamentally distinct from the question of self-identification
Hitler was the good guy in his own book.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 11,061
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @Double_R
Now imagine if the reason they succeeded was because
you seem to have no concept of jurisdiction