Racism. Bigotry.
With racism and bigotry, you got it.
Racism. Bigotry.
Okay. I will assume that "people of color" is defined as anyone who is not white skinned, correct? Therefore, blacks, latinos, native americans, asians, etc. are all included in that term. Then, I will assume that the term "whites" covers anyone who is white skinned and typically of European descent (this excludes albinos and other abnormalities). Correct?Hello gfm7175,
I recognize the traditional version of racism where whites put down people of color.
Well, like I said earlier, simply noticing racism and calling it out is not being racist. However, if that action of "calling it out" requires the person who is "calling it out" to THEMSELVES construct a racist model and then project that racist model onto others, then it is that person who constructed the racist model who is being the racist, not the person who they are "calling out".I do not recognize this new wave conservative version where those who call out the racism are somehow the racists. That seems completely backwards. It's like, whatever one party calls another party, then the second party just calls the first party the same thing without basis. Then the basis is 'created,' but it is false. Now, I am calling out that falsehood. That's where we are.
No, it hinges on logic. My offered definition of racism shows the reasoning behind racism and why it is fallacious reasoning. Your offered definition ("original racism" as you are referring to it here) needs more clarification before I can directly comment on it, although you seem to be committing the racism fallacy within that very definition of racism, but I will allow for further clarification...Yeah, that's the leap I am not making. It hinges on denying that original racism.
The form has stayed the same. Nothing has changed about the Compositional Error Fallacy. Logic is a closed functional system.The form has changed, it has become a bit indirect, but we are not fooled.
Hatred is not racism. Rejection of others is not racism, either. Both things might be contributing factors behind the intent to be racist, but they have nothing to do with racism in and of themselves.We know hatred and rejection of others when we see it.
There is no "stretching". I am putting the 'racist' label onto whoever happens to be creating the racist model. It might be somebody who said something racist and is getting called out for it. It might also be somebody attempting to project their own racism onto others.That is such a stretch it reminds me of Rosemary Woods.
It did. The whole thing was chocked full of racism, as I explained.Except the article never said that.
That wasn't a mistake. He is aware that they are American citizens. He is making reference to the governments/economies of the countries which they (and/or their heritage) are from, and that if America is so horrible, that they should go back to those countries and "show us how it is done" instead of fundamentally trying to change America into those countries.This ignores the mistake of telling an American to go back where they came from. Hello. They are Americans. They come from America now. They are where they belong. Telling them to go back to a place they originated before becoming Americans ignores the fact that they are Americans.
Ignorance is not racism. Also, your definition from above made no mention of ignorance. It only made reference to "whites put[ting] down people of color".That ignorance is the racism.
That's not what the statement was about. Trump is fully aware that they are American citizens, and recognizes them as such.It is as if the statement refuses to recognize selected American citizens,
Nope. That is your racist model that you are projecting onto Trump; that is not Trump's model.pretending they are something else, something less, something unwanted.
Again, that is YOUR model, not Trump's. You are the one being the racist here.It's hate-driven and it is race-driven. It's racism. It wouldn't be done to a white boy from Kansas.
Again, these are YOUR racist models that you have constructed. You are simply projecting them onto the President. YOU are being the racist here. The President made absolutely NO mention of separating his whiteness from her blackness, nor did he call for national boundaries to separate them. He was instead speaking of government types and economies.The President is the one calling for the separation between his whiteness and her blackness, calling for there to be national boundaries separating them. It's hurtful, and it is racism.
Your position is rejecting logic. It is committing various logical fallacies (compositional errors, projections, redefinitions, ... ...)My position is completely logical. We simply base our logic on the different perceptions.
There are no "the facts" or "alternative facts", just facts. And facts are not universal truths, nor are they proofs. Facts are simply 'shorthand predicate'. They are meant to speed up conversations so that arguments don't have to be formed for every little thing that is said. If a predicate is agreed upon, then it is a fact, whether or not the predicate is actually true.I feel like I am simply recognizing the facts, but you have a predetermined conclusion that you are molding 'alternative facts' to lead you to.
Again, no "alternative facts"... just logic. The Compositional Error Fallacy hasn't changed at all. Logic is a closed functional system. If the fallacy involves people as the class and a genetic trait as the property, then one is being racist.I think that without the predetermined conclusion nobody would naturally arrive at the alternative facts required for your explanation.
Why would I act on bullshit from you lol?
As if some compulsive Christiananality pedophilia mentality game of Klues Klucks duh Klans not so master race white supremacy to maintain this Christian Nation tradition of thieving US Constitution - old glory - old testament - absentee voting ballot arsonists master plan would even be accepted by those not so cross conditioned way beyond therapy still enduring every form of tyranny over the mind of man lynching enforcement.
Okay. I will assume that "people of color" is defined as anyone who is not white skinned, correct? Therefore, blacks, latinos, native americans, asians, etc. are all included in that term. Then, I will assume that the term "whites" covers anyone who is white skinned and typically of European descent (this excludes albinos and other abnormalities). Correct?
If given the above, then I must ask if you are merely providing an example here, or if you are asserting that racism only goes in the direction of "whites towards people of color". Can it also go in the opposite direction of "people of color towards whites"?
There is no "stretching". I am putting the 'racist' label onto whoever happens to be creating the racist model. It might be somebody who said something racist and is getting called out for it. It might also be somebody attempting to project their own racism onto others.
It wasn't a mistake. He is aware that they are American citizens. He is making reference to the governments/economies of the countries which they (and/or their heritage) are from, and that if America is so horrible, that they should go back to those countries and "show us how it is done" instead of fundamentally trying to change America into those countries.
Ignorance is not racism. [But it can be] Also, your definition from above made no mention of ignorance. It only made reference to "whites put[ting] down people of color".
You are the one being the racist here.
Again, these are YOUR racist models that you have constructed.
I'm not interested in your racism nor your bigotry.
Why are you so racist and bigoted?
The article linked in the OP was full of examples of "racism going the other way". Any race of person can be a racist... White, Black, Pacific Islander, you name it... Is your definition of racism "white people putting down people of color", or is it something else? Can you provide the precise definition you are using? I'm just trying to understand the reasoning behind your labeling of someone as a 'racist'...Hello gfm7175,
Making no such assertions, but don't really see much racism going the other way.
Discrimination is not due to racism (in most cases). Any sort of 'age limit/requirement' or 'height limit/requirement' that is placed on something is a form of discrimination. Is that a bad thing? I'd say not. Sure, people who don't meet those requirements don't feel good at the time, but it is ultimately for their own good (safety). Plus, people need to feel bad sometimes because it helps them to distinguish good from bad. It helps them to gain knowledge of good and evil. Have I enjoyed my worst experiences?? Heck no... I'm still trying to break bad habits and mental blocks/effects which all stem from those bad experiences. But I am ultimately thankful for them, because they have given me insight into some true evils and have helped me to gain knowledge of good and evil.Here's why. People who have felt discriminated against know how ugly that feels so they tend to want to try to create a world where nobody has to feel that.
Is 'equal' always a good thing? Would a 2yr old being able to ride in a a roller coaster at Six Flags just like a typical 20 year old be a good thing? Would allowing six 400+ pound fat asses to be able to ride inside of a small boat just like anybody half their weight (or more) be a good thing? Equality, as in "we are all humans, no matter our differing genetic traits", is a good thing. Equality, as I have described above, is not a good thing.Fair and equal treatment is the goal.
Some victims wish to not inflict what they've experienced onto others... Other victims do.They don't want to be as ugly as the perpetrators of the racism which has been directed at them. They desire to be free of the ugliness, not immersed in it from either side.
No, that's what you have done by your redefinition of the term. My definition of the term is very specific and consistent, due to its grounding in logic.I see what is going on. It is an attempt to muddy up the waters of 'what is racism.'
You can't call out what you can't consistently and specifically define.It won't work. Caring and compassionate people are going to call it out when it appears.
Nothing of the sort. It is simply making use of the same logically grounded definition. It is calling a racist whoever commits the compositional error fallacy (using people as the class and a genetic trait as the property). If the "caller" forms a racist model and then projects that model onto the person they are "calling out", then the "caller" is the racist, since the racist model belongs to and was constructed by the "caller". The "caller" is committing the racism fallacy.The attempt to call the callers racist is the same as the younger sibling simply repeating everything the older one says. That never worked because it is thoughtless and ineffective. A desperation argument in the glaring lack of a good one.
Wishing to enact laws/policies that those places have (such as socialism) is trying to turn America into those places...That was a dumb argument. It incorrectly assumes they are trying to turn America into those places, when no such desire has been expressed.
I'm just trying to pinpoint down your definition of 'racism', since here you added in an ignorance factor which wasn't present in your original definition of "whites put[ting] down people of color".The ignorance is the act of ignoring the fact that the referenced individuals are Americans. Perhaps that was an incorrect usage of the word. There is no word for the act of purposefully ignoring something, which is different from simply not knowing.
It wasn't without cause. It is right in line with my post specifically explaining what racism is and why it is racism. Racism is a specific form of the compositional error fallacy. If the person screaming "you're a fucking racist!" is the person who is constructing the racist model (committing that specific form of the compositional error fallacy), then it is the screamer who is the racist, not the one who he is attempting to project his own racist model onto. The other person simply wasn't being racist to begin with.And that is the point where you go full circle and simply call me what I am calling Trump, (without cause) because you really have no defense for Trump. I should be offended, but this wildly desperate fantasy is so off-base that I understand considerate people would never agree. It only weakens your argument to persist. It really is pathetic. And it is not appreciated.
Appeal to Popularity Fallacy. False Authority Fallacy.No, I am just going along with national sentiment. A recent poll indicates a majority now consider the president to be a racist.
Maybe it's only exercised by that right hand lynching enforcement division of the church to complement the left hand Mafia tactics since Christiananality pedophilia business national religion comes as a holy trinity evidenced by the 21st century second coming of Christiananality Islamophobia pedophilia long life survival of the fittest fascists.....
then don't answer the threads asshole
do you have any idea just how stupid it is to rush to a thread to answer it only to claim you are NOT interested?
jeeeeze these russo bot holes quality is falling fast
Goniff animated blonde, titillating & bouncy as if also Christiananality organized business that's only to be looked at & revered; or get learned the "serve the Pope or die" version of one nation under God.
That's about all I got out of his English-esque ramblings...
are your posts generated by a computer gibberish writer....
Seems could reasonably expect computer generated denials reminiscent of those WW II Nazi war criminals these Catholics selective memories are. Leave it to their super egos of a not so master race lynching enforcement for a stolen vote from Federal Lynching KKK churchstate of hate cops where the accused doesn't even vote & hasn't since first 2 absentee voting ballots were stolen at university; but that doesn't stop their Christiananality pedophilia business from lynching the accused for 9/11 & then for the assassination of JFK in the same breath; being those Islamophobia pedophiles regardless of the accused not even aware of the Catholic Church "serve the Pope or die" cross is higher than the US flag national religion propaganda in being at the National Archives & SCOTUS the time of their megalomaniacal killing white nationalism wallowing.
The article linked in the OP was full of examples of "racism going the other way". Any race of person can be a racist... White, Black, Pacific Islander, you name it... Is your definition of racism "white people putting down people of color", or is it something else? Can you provide the precise definition you are using? I'm just trying to understand the reasoning behind your labeling of someone as a 'racist'...
Some victims wish to not inflict what they've experienced onto others... Other victims do.
No, that's what you have done by your redefinition of the term. My definition of the term is very specific and consistent, due to its grounding in logic.
Nothing of the sort. It is simply making use of the same logically grounded definition. It is calling a racist whoever commits the compositional error fallacy (using people as the class and a genetic trait as the property). If the "caller" forms a racist model and then projects that model onto the person they are "calling out", then the "caller" is the racist, since the racist model belongs to and was constructed by the "caller". The "caller" is committing the racism fallacy.
Wishing to enact laws/policies that those places have (such as socialism) is trying to turn America into those places...
I'm just trying to pinpoint down your definition of 'racism', since here you added in an ignorance factor which wasn't present in your original definition of "whites put[ting] down people of color".
seems like a clear "yes"....
Race slavery is like cancer - it spreads to the whole body given time. That's why American religion is so sick and why so may are still playing their grotesque gun games, whatever the cost in blood.