Glossing over the faulty logic, is your entire motive for posting here is to distress the top-level commenter? You say you're not here to sway opinions. So you're just here to troll for the sake of trolling? I'll admit this is refreshingly candid, but could you just refrain from posting in the first place?
Quite frankly the idea that we should treat all ideas with civility and respect doesn't really cut it in reality.
Top level commenter didn't call 1914 a "golden age"; they were merely lamenting some of the freedoms we lost a century ago.
Ironically, that last part is probably a good part of why you are being down voted.
There are assuredly people who will say "it's 2016, I should be able to have my own opinions, whatever they are, and be treated as equal to others" I disagree.
"I wish there was less passport control and easier migration."
"RACIST!"
We haven't given up shit since 1910, progress has been unimaginable and it's actually EASIER to travel internationally now than it was then. So yeah, if you're going to pretend like 1910 was better for this shit in some way, it's only going to be for a very select group of people.
Unfortunately, that doesn't leave me a good term for the people like the ones that murdered most of my grandmother's family because of their race.
If you think most humans would return to that, regardless of political affiliation, you're crazy.
This is what you said.
Nukes are just a convenient way to eliminate an entire race these days. If you don't think right wingers calling for the middle east to be nuked is in any way related we're probably done here.
There is no context where that can be taken seriously.
I'm saying, call them racists just like the people today that would gladly return to a time where people get killed just because of their race, as evident by their espoused politics.
This is called "gaslighting". You have encountered a use of the term "racist" that you think is poor usage. Instead of confining your criticism to the specific usage of the term, you declare any and all uses of the term "meaningless".
It's intellectually lazy. Perhaps your definition of racist is "openly and aggressively advocating against one of three or four theorized racial groups". Perhaps you don't like my definition, "any and all behaviors which reinforce the systematic oppression of people based on race or other markers connected to race".
But rather than stand up for what you believe is a sensible use of the word, you wipe your hands the entire discussion. It's a childish tactic.
Personally, I think "racism" is a vital word, and it's vital that it retain a broad definition applicable to behaviors currently committed by well intentioned people (as it was 100 years ago). I believe the notion that "racism" traditionally refers to socially deplorable behavior is a false understanding of history and etymology. You seem to disagree, I would encourage you to argue your perspective.
Incorrect.
"Gaslighting or gas-lighting is a form of psychological abuse in which a victim is manipulated into doubting his or her own memory, perception, and sanity."
> But rather than stand up for what you believe is a sensible use of the word, you wipe your hands the entire discussion. It's a childish tactic.
I stand by what I said -- If the usage above is valid, then I can infer nothing useful based on the term 'racism'.
To spell it out in full, recall the start of this thread, where someone was accused for racism because they named a policy that was in effect in 1914. _Note that the policy was not called racist. The only objection was the date.
So, based on that usage above, one meaning of racist seems to be the following conjunction:
'Expressed approval for a policy' AND 'That policy was in place at a time when racism was a problem'
If this is a valid meaning for racism, then someone being called racist gives me no information about the person. I don't believe this is a useful meaning.
Take for example, during early conflicts (around 0AD), people of all social standings were known to move from city to city. The Mongols (although much later, 1200s) used this mass migration as a technique to weaken economies. So, travel is not anything like what you described.
The world's history is full of far more diversity than we give credit for.
It doesn't surprise me that most of the people attacking the way I'm speaking also have a backdoor opinion about the content as well.