Racism definition & use - Page 44 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Verv
#15157805
Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, my whole line of questioning is about why people refuse to deal with state racism or their own racism.

Do you think people bring up other episodes of what seem to be racism and focus on those so that they do not have to deal with racism that makes them uncomfortable?


We were talking about genocide for a moment there, weren't we? What I brought up is entirely relevant, and has a lot to do with racism because genocide is often framed exclusively as racist in nature, but it is suddenly not genocide when people do it to people of the same race. It's just a general democide.

Your question here is actually a distraction from what we were talking about, likely because what was said is quite agreeable and hard to argue against.

I think this is why the left prefers small picture view. Their viewpoints benefit from a narrow aperture.

Yes, they learnt racism, then convinced themselves that being racist was a social faux pas, then they decided they were being free thinkers for being racist.

And yes, this thing where they believe themselves to be free thinkers is, as you say, not actually true but instead a way to make their own racism acceptable to themselves.


Do you actually think that racism isn't a social faux pas in Canada?

If transphobia is a social faux pas that can get people like Jordan Peterson investigated and have efforts to cancel his books and speeches, something he never even did in some 'crude' manner, do you really think people have to convince themselves that racism is a social faux pas?

And you do not even acknowledge that people themselves become racist from their own view of reality.

And this is another way people deal with racism: they pretend it is not racism and classify it as institutional failure or blind spots.


Institutions regularly fail white people.

Why would they not also fail people of other races?

And why would bureaucrats intentionally fail specific groups -- especially in an era when doing so attracts far more attention than failing whites?

I can imagine bureaucrats feeling somewhat relieved when they find out that their error resulted in a homeless white man being denied some essential service -- this would have far more traction than a story about a Black or Indigenous person suffering due to bureaucratic failure.

Such is the environment in 2021.
#15157806
Verv wrote:If transphobia is a social faux pas that can get people like Jordan Peterson investigated and have efforts to cancel his books and speeches, something he never even did in some 'crude' manner, do you really think people have to convince themselves that racism is a social faux pas?
Bringing up Jordan Peterson shows exactly how ignorant you are about him.

JP deliberately provoked transgender rulings in a university setting to get attention and FAME, where he was dealt with by the staff of said university. He has prospered from his momentary fame and his mediocre books. He was never canceled, blocked, or censored.

He then went on to misrepresent and mischaracterize a Bill(C-16) that was about making it a hate crime to call for the deaths of transgender people. A law that would have the same caveats as hate speech, in Canada. He made this out to be about him going to jail for calling someone by the wrong gender pronoun, which was an abject falsehood.
https://torontoist.com/2016/12/are-jord ... 6-correct/

JP is what an intellectual looks like to dumb people.

Verv wrote:And you do not even acknowledge that people themselves become racist from their own view of reality.
Racism is created by ignorance, and bigotry. Their view of reality isn't relevant, as it's skewed.
#15157808
Verv wrote:We were talking about genocide for a moment there, weren't we? What I brought up is entirely relevant, and has a lot to do with racism because genocide is often framed exclusively as racist in nature, but it is suddenly not genocide when people do it to people of the same race. It's just a general democide.

Your question here is actually a distraction from what we were talking about, likely because what was said is quite agreeable and hard to argue against.

I think this is why the left prefers small picture view. Their viewpoints benefit from a narrow aperture.


Since leftists have been targeted for mass killings by the state in places like Latin America, we already understand that genocide can include more than race.

So your erroneous beliefs about what leftists believe do not seem to contradict anything I have said.

Do you actually think that racism isn't a social faux pas in Canada?

If transphobia is a social faux pas that can get people like Jordan Peterson investigated and have efforts to cancel his books and speeches, something he never even did in some 'crude' manner, do you really think people have to convince themselves that racism is a social faux pas?


No, racism is not really a faux pas in many situations.

If you are rich enough or powerful enough, you can openly admit to genocide and
get away with it. This is not hyperbole.

JP is a great example. He can say whatever he wants about trans people, including wrong things, and be celebrated.

And you do not even acknowledge that people themselves become racist from their own view of reality.


I have no idea what this means.

Institutions regularly fail white people.

Why would they not also fail people of other races?

And why would bureaucrats intentionally fail specific groups -- especially in an era when doing so attracts far more attention than failing whites?

I can imagine bureaucrats feeling somewhat relieved when they find out that their error resulted in a homeless white man being denied some essential service -- this would have far more traction than a story about a Black or Indigenous person suffering due to bureaucratic failure.

Such is the environment in 2021.


This seems like you are basing some speculations on other things that you imagined, and then imagine that this whole edifice of assumptions is reality.
#15157809
Godstud wrote:Bringing up Jordan Peterson shows exactly how ignorant you are about him.

JP deliberately provoked transgender rulings in a university setting to get attention and FAME, where he was dealt with by the staff of said university. He has prospered from his momentary fame and his mediocre books. He was never canceled, blocked, or censored.

He can't be fired because he has tenure. If he wasn't tenured i'd have no doubt he'd be let go. We all know that if you were his boss and could fire him you would do so. Also, he was denied a research grant for the first time in his career after he spoke out.

He then went on to misrepresent and mischaracterize a Bill(C-16) that was about making it a hate crime to call for the deaths of transgender people. A law that would have the same caveats as hate speech, in Canada. He made this out to be about him going to jail for calling someone by the wrong gender pronoun, which was an abject falsehood.
https://torontoist.com/2016/12/are-jord ... 6-correct/

You don't even know what you're talking about. Read the bill.
User avatar
By Verv
#15157821
Godstud wrote:Bringing up Jordan Peterson shows exactly how ignorant you are about him.

JP deliberately provoked transgender rulings in a university setting to get attention and FAME, where he was dealt with by the staff of said university. He has prospered from his momentary fame and his mediocre books. He was never canceled, blocked, or censored.

He then went on to misrepresent and mischaracterize a Bill(C-16) that was about making it a hate crime to call for the deaths of transgender people. A law that would have the same caveats as hate speech, in Canada. He made this out to be about him going to jail for calling someone by the wrong gender pronoun, which was an abject falsehood.
https://torontoist.com/2016/12/are-jord ... 6-correct/


JBP has actually faced a lot of issues.

Documentaries about him have been canceled due to threats of violence from left wing activists.

Peterson faced letters of warning from the academic administrators of his University for milquetoast classical liberal comments against C-16.

The staff of his publishing house threatened to quit in order to try to cancel JBP. People were lit-uh-rilly crying.

He gets canceled occasionally during his speaking tours.

All for what?

He's like... a Deist guy, or something, who is Christosympathetic (lol idk what he's doing) that supports free speech, and occasionally attacks the crazier aspects of third wave feminism & transgender activism.

JP is what an intellectual looks like to dumb people.


JLP is Sam Harris for the right. He's a pop intellectual. Sure.

But... I would be slow to refer to the fans of pop intellectuals as dumb.

Racism is created by ignorance, and bigotry. Their view of reality isn't relevant, as it's skewed.


I disagree. I think racism is just people putting a lot of weight in genetics & biodeterminism. I do not believe in this, and racism is wrong and violates the dignity of people when it goes into the point of hatred, but it has to be treated as a serious position.

I mean, aren't we here to discuss controversial things?

You act like fans of pop intellectuals are all dumb, but you embrace the position of the masses when it comes to a controversial idea.

Why do? :?:
User avatar
By Verv
#15157822
Pants-of-dog wrote:Since leftists have been targeted for mass killings by the state in places like Latin America, we already understand that genocide can include more than race.

So your erroneous beliefs about what leftists believe do not seem to contradict anything I have said.


Alright, so what did you think abouts point (I) and (II)?

No, racism is not really a faux pas in many situations.

If you are rich enough or powerful enough, you can openly admit to genocide and
get away with it. This is not hyperbole.

JP is a great example. He can say whatever he wants about trans people, including wrong things, and be celebrated.


Take a walk down memory lane:

Donald Sterling banned for life by the NBA for "deeply disturbing" comments

"Commissioner Adam Silver said he would call on the owners to vote to force Sterling to sell the team, which would require approval of three-quarters of the current owners. Sterling has also been fined $2.5 million, and Silver made no effort to hide his outrage over the comments, calling them "deeply disturbing and harmful.""

And what did Donald Sterling do?

He said to his young girlfriend...

"You can sleep with (black people). You can bring them in, you can do whatever you want," the man says on the tape. "The little I ask you is ... not to bring them to my games."

I think Bill Maher even joked that he's a pretty open minded guy, donthca know, what kind of racist tells his GF she can bang black people?

For the record:

Let's remember Donald Sterling was about to turn 80 years old and dating a 32-year-old Latina, V. Stiviano. That's a 48-year age gap in that relationship -- greater than the avearge user here's age.

Kind of amazing. Kind of insane.

I bet some of the people here are wishing for that type of virility at age 79.

I'd just be happy to be alive at that age.

I have no idea what this means.


At some point you will have to start showing us you can read at a Jr. high school level.

This seems like you are basing some speculations on other things that you imagined, and then imagine that this whole edifice of assumptions is reality.


I have no idea what this means.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15157854
But... I would be slow to refer to the fans of pop intellectuals as dumb.


It is more than possible that a so-called "pop intellectual" is a real intellectual who is just good at monetizing what he does.
#15157862
Verv wrote:Alright, so what did you think abouts point (I) and (II)?


I think you should explain what argument you are trying to make by mentioning them

Take a walk down memory lane:

Donald Sterling banned for life by the NBA for "deeply disturbing" comments

"Commissioner Adam Silver said he would call on the owners to vote to force Sterling to sell the team, which would require approval of three-quarters of the current owners. Sterling has also been fined $2.5 million, and Silver made no effort to hide his outrage over the comments, calling them "deeply disturbing and harmful.""

And what did Donald Sterling do?

He said to his young girlfriend...

"You can sleep with (black people). You can bring them in, you can do whatever you want," the man says on the tape. "The little I ask you is ... not to bring them to my games."

I think Bill Maher even joked that he's a pretty open minded guy, donthca know, what kind of racist tells his GF she can bang black people?


So this man was racist for decades, and he only had to pay a small (for him) fine once. Or was supposed to. I am not clear if he actually paid it or not.

Yes, the fact that this man was allowed to be racially abusive for decades and was only censured once the sponsors started backing out is a good example of how racism is tolerated and is not really as much of a faux pas as people imagine.

For the record:

Let's remember Donald Sterling was about to turn 80 years old and dating a 32-year-old Latina, V. Stiviano. That's a 48-year age gap in that relationship -- greater than the avearge user here's age.

Kind of amazing. Kind of insane.

I bet some of the people here are wishing for that type of virility at age 79.

I'd just be happy to be alive at that age.


I am ignoring this.

I have no idea what this means.


I am saying that your argument is not based on reality whatsoever. You are basing your ideas on things that are not true. You just imagine them.
  • 1
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
Atheism is Evil

Funny thing is, I actually took up bible (sic) st[…]

There are Commandments which order our lives. Th[…]

Undocumented Aliens and Crime

Breaking: Undocumented + excluded workers have shu[…]

The EU ordered European vaccines which turned out[…]