If that doesn't make you stop and think, I'm really not sure what else will.
Actually it seems to me Nigger is a lot softer than Hitler. It basically means "black person I don't like because they are black". Hitler means "psychopathic mass murderer".
Besides, this is again the "there is an asshole in Kansas" line of thinking. Just because you can find somebody, somewhere in the universe who is an asshole, it doesn't prove that everybody is an asshole.
Second, there's a huge difference between insulting someone because of their perceived character ("asshole") with little cultural baggage, and insulting someone for being literally in their own skin with a word that has huge cultural baggage. On this point I would hope we would agree. Also, I find comparisons of Trump to Hitler silly and overreactionary (and I have a book recommendation for those that want to learn how Hitler actually rose to power).
Finally, I do agree that the lashing out against Trump supporters is bad. Just as it was bad that Obama supporters also had to put up with burning crosses in their frontyards when he was elected. Both sides can't see this sucks for everyone at different times for some reason and it's a stupid cycle.
The ultimate lack of empathy from both sides is what really bothers me, the culmination of which is the continued ignorance of believing we are in some post-race society. I may as well proclaim we are a species that lives on multiple planets because we sent humans to the Moon once.
The whole point of an insult is to get the other side angry, not necessarily for it to have roots in reality. I do agree that it's not a good way to have an argument. If I want to insult you I'll look at what hurts you the most.
Here is something that's not being called out as racist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5ulvcqaiM8
> I would say sexism wouldn't exist if people could disagree on merits of discussion instead of any insults (which, by nature of personal attack, immediately invokes all *isms of the victim).
Sexism exists because:
- there are a few actually sexist males and females out there see: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=marissa+mayer+gender+bias&...
- biology is sexist and there is little we can do about that
- sexism can be used as a great excuse for failing and it can be weaponized, you can threaten your boss that you'll call him sexist if you, the female don't get the promotion instead of the more qualified male
What I don't believe exists is: systematic sexism, that I believe is made up to be the ultimate excuse for everything.
> there's a huge difference between insulting someone because of their perceived character ("asshole") with little cultural baggage, and insulting someone for being literally in their own skin with a word that has huge cultural baggage
There is no difference if your objective is to hurt the other person's feelings, you pick whichever is most effective.
> Finally, I do agree that the lashing out against Trump supporters is bad. Just as it was bad that Obama supporters also had to put up with burning crosses in their frontyards when he was elected. Both sides can't see this sucks for everyone at different times for some reason and it's a stupid cycle.
I mostly noticed this from Hilary supporters, it's not an eye for an eye thing: http://blog.samaltman.com/what-i-heard-from-trump-supporters
> continued ignorance of believing we are in some post-race society
Do we have slavery? No
Is it acceptable to be openly racist? No
What is your criteria for a 'post-race society'? What other checkboxes do we need to hit to get there?
Is it acceptable to be openly racist? Yes, in certain parts of America. My grandparents' county courthouse had a KKK rally to celebrate census results showing no minorities lived there. This was early 2000s.
Also, I'm not going to keep discussing this with you mich further as all your responses are not conveying a genuine desire to discuss and consider arguments you disagree with, which is frankly a waste of both our time.
systematic
Done or acting according to a fixed plan or system; methodical.
Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/systematic
If this is systematic, then I guess you can tell me who is in charge of this plan or system? What is the goal of this plan or system and who does it benefit and how?
> thousands of men telling women to "smile more" at work to look prettier
Is this the biggest issue in women's lives today? If these are the biggest problems we have, I would say we are in a really great place.
Also, what about women telling women the same thing?
> Is it acceptable to be openly racist? Yes, in certain parts of America. My grandparents' county courthouse had a KKK rally to celebrate census results showing no minorities lived there. This was early 2000s.
Do reports on it. Call them out and protest there instead of places where there is hardly any racism. Call out specific regions and people, don't just say that, well everybody's racist, because this will not get people on your side.
> Also, I'm not going to keep discussing this with you mich further
So these were your best arguments?
> as all your responses are not conveying a genuine desire to discuss and consider arguments you disagree with, which is frankly a waste of both our time.
I have no idea where you got that idea from, I was just raising genuine questions and counter points that most people with the same opinion as you are having trouble answering.
You can't expect me to accept the existence of things like "Systematic sexism" if you can't define what it is, and prove it.
If your views are on solid ground, you should have no trouble defending them.
"relating to a system, especially as opposed to a particular part."
Systemic doesn't imply directed, it can also be used to mean it is deeply embedded in the system.
> Is this the biggest issue in women's lives today?
It is one common example of a pervasive mindset that informs all kinds of actions, including seeing and treating women as decoration.
> Also, what about women telling women the same thing?
What about them? Women can be sexist and perpetuate sexism too.
> Do reports on it. Call them out and protest there instead of places where there is hardly any racism. Call out specific regions and people, don't just say that, well everybody's racist, because this will not get people on your side.
People do. This isn't zero sum though - people can protest that and other issues that are ongoing simultaneously.
The original comment used the wrong word. So what does this mean? are all white males part of this system that is designed to keep women down?
> It is one common example of a pervasive mindset that informs all kinds of actions
Can you name those all kinds of actions? If I go today and tell a female to smile more, can you tell me what dark path will that lead to? I would be also keen on seeing solid proof that connects telling women to smile more to the tragedies that women have to endure on a daily basis. Also, is telling women to smile less the way to fix all these problems?
> including seeing and treating women as decoration.
Treating them as decoration where and how? Also, are you familiar with this thing called biology and evolution? Members of species of the opposite sex judge potential mates based on a appearance (among other things).
Did you also stop to think that women might be equally or more judgemental about looks.
See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ylmg9zrEDo
> Women can be sexist and perpetuate sexism too.
Or maybe it's just not really sexist.
> People do. This isn't zero sum though - people can protest that and other issues that are ongoing simultaneously.
What I meant is: protest against racism in areas where there is actual racism and don't just point the finger at anyone, you won't win people that way.
I'm not going to response here with my views in a well-articulated response. Instead, here is a meta discussion of what we have discussed so far, from my perspective.
Forgive me if I am seeking to have a discussion at a level higher than pedantry. All your arguments thus far against what I have set out to say are based on technical definitions of words, what a particular word actually means and entails at a nuanced level, all in an attempt to disprove, disregard or avoid dealing with my original core point: we are not in a post-race society. For instance, your middle response (whether you are aware of it or not) excuses insults as exempt from being racist simply because the objective is to maximize harm, which is itself a pretty inflammatory proposition.
Furthermore, you are keen on tearing my viewpoint apart without providing evidence of your own to show that yes, America is living in a post-race society. Notably, you actually did do this with the original anecdote about having a black president. And, to disprove your point, the burden is on me to find a proof by contradiction, which I supplied also in the form of an anecdote. Which is actually a valid argument when needing to supply a proof by contradiction (by definition of the proof, N=1 contradiction is all that is needed). Rather than acknowledge this, you instead replied that I was a hypocrite, a response I figured was not one worth responding to. If your defense is an ad homenim, I see no reason to engage further.
I understand that the arguments worth having are with people that genuinely seem to want to explore ideas together in a debate instead of convince "the wrong side they are wrong". I even opened up to the former by sharing a very vivid, personal anecdote to hopefully invite reflection. Instead, I was called a hypocrite, so please consider yourself informed (re: "I have no idea where you got that idea from").
So please forgive me not continuing to answer the following questions:
- "I guess you can tell me who is in charge of this plan or system?" (Rooted in strawman)
- "What is the goal of this plan or system and who does it benefit and how?" (Rooted in strawman)
- "Is this the biggest issue in women's lives today?" (Who are you to dismiss their concerns when they give a clear signal this is a problem?)
- "What about women telling women the same thing?" (What is the implication behind this question? That you think I believe only men can be sexist? Another strawman setup?)
- "So these were your best arguments?" (A question that is a huge signal to your underlying intentions: to signal you disapprove of my viewpoint and never a chance to exchange ideas, and that you have won)
Finally, the kicker, to really embody and summarize this whole meta discussion:
- "I was just raising genuine questions and counter points that most people with the same opinion as you are having trouble answering."
Casting this as a me-versus-you is disengagement and disinterest on your part. I want to share, you want to win.
Language matters. The questions you pose to "people with the same opinion as me" that we have trouble answering are, to be frank, bad questions and heavily loaded. The real kicker though, is whether your response to this post is "Yep, he had trouble defending his view, so he is attacking me and avoiding to answer the question", because that is the strongest signal to me that there was never going to be a chance of having a good-faith exploration of ideas, and to me justifies why I will keep disengaging from people who try to have arguments the way you do.
At best, I hope we can have a different discussion in the future. At worst, you think I'm an unreasonable person (to put it lightly). I accept these ranges of outcomes, hence me writing this response. But please do not expect any more from me on this thread.
I thought you intentionally used 'systematic', the word 'systemic' actually makes your argument weaker.
> Though I am not surprised
Why are you not surprised, are all people just bad who don't blindly agree with you?
> For instance, your middle response (whether you are aware of it or not) excuses insults as exempt from being racist simply because the objective is to maximize harm, which is itself a pretty inflammatory proposition.
No, it does not excuse insults, insults of all form are bad. What I said is: when picking insults, you pick the one that hurts the most, because at that point, your objective is to do the most damage.
Just because someone utters the word 'nigger' does not make them racist. Otherwise Kanye and everyone who sings along would be racist, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG_dA32oH44 .
> Furthermore, you are keen on tearing my viewpoint apart without providing evidence of your own to show that yes, America is living in a post-race society.
The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
If I tell you the Earth is diamond shaped, I can't really expect you to believe it without some hard evidence.
If you say that society is still racist, you are the one who needs to point out why, I'm not the one who needs to point out why not.
> Notably, you actually did do this with the original anecdote about having a black president. Notably, you actually did do this with the original anecdote about having a black president. And, to disprove your point, the burden is on me to find a proof by contradiction, which I supplied also in the form of an anecdote.
The original claim: white men are privileged My reply to that: some of the most privileged people are black and/or women therefore that statement cannot be true
> Rather than acknowledge this, you instead replied that I was a hypocrite, a response I figured was not one worth responding to. If your defense is an ad homenim, I see no reason to engage further.
I used a few examples to disprove a generalised statement, you tried to use an example to reinforce a generalised statement. If you look at all my comments, I never imply that there is absolute 0 racism and sexism in the world, my issue is when people generalise and start pointing at mystical hidden 'systems'.
> (Rooted in strawman)
More like rooted in you choosing the wrong word.
> Who are you to dismiss their concerns when they give a clear signal this is a problem?
How does my character have anything to do with the ridiculousness of this claim? Who are they? Where is the study that proves out this is an actual issue?
I can find women who get offended if I complement them on their looks, does that make this sexist even if majority of the women would actually enjoy that?
> (A question that is a huge signal to your underlying intentions: to signal you disapprove of my viewpoint and never a chance to exchange ideas, and that you have won)
The intention was not to stop the conversation, I was pointing out that your arguments so far are incredibly weak, if you have better ones, I'm happy to debate them.
> Casting this as a me-versus-you is disengagement and disinterest on your part. I want to share, you want to win
It's not me-versus-you, it's me pointing out that people with similar opinions have trouble when they receive basic questions.
Examples: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpfOW3vhZbPMsPHa8TGjL1Q/vid...
> Language matters.
It doesn't invalidate points though, just because I use harsh(for people worried about PC) constructs doesn't mean what I'm saying is wrong.
Trump won the election, despite his incredibly hostile and offensive style of discourse.
I worry more about the points I'm making than the style or tone.