7 Habits of Highly Affected Racialists

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Davka, you keep saying "if you want to learn" but you have nothing to teach.

All you can teach is begging the question and ad hominem.

Your specialized definition with no relationship to the real world isn't something that I should learn, but something you should unlearn.


Loren, it's an unusual race card. Davka wants to speak for and on behalf of minorities, and by pointing out that I'm a minority and that I also disagree with his absurd definitions, and that I find his speaking for and on behalf of me to be demeaning and racist, I leave him at a severe disadvantage. He really doesn't know what to do about it. He is ready to say that anyone who dares to disagree with his absurd definitions is a racist, yet at the same time insists that minorities aren't racist. Now he's faced with a minority that disagrees with his absurd definitions. Yet he can't call me racist for disagreeing without calling himself a racist through the tu quoque point he made in which he said if you call a minority a racist that means you are a racist.

So now he wants to call me a racist but can't, because I'm a minority disagreeing with him. I didn't deal the race card from the bottom of the deck, I dealt it as a trump card.

 

[Bronzeage]

Loren,

As much as you need it to be so, it isn't. White folk aren't the victims of racism.

Well, perhaps not often, but "never" is clearly wrong.

What if it could be shown that Walgreen's sells SPF50 sunblock for substantially higher prices in predominantly white neighborhoods?

 

[Nexus]

He is ready to say that anyone who dares to disagree with his absurd definitions is a racist, yet at the same time insists that minorities aren't racist. Now he's faced with a minority that disagrees with his absurd definitions. Yet he can't call me racist for disagreeing without calling himself a racist through the tu quoque point he made in which he said if you call a minority a racist that means you are a racist.

You have a good grasp of the spaghetti code of fallacy in the OP.

 

[bigfield]

'Race-bigotry without power does not result in harmful discrimination or oppression.'
Bigotry is merely a set of beliefs. If a bigot acts on those beliefs, they are engaging in discrimination. All discrimination based on racial bigotry is harmful;

Certainly, but not all discrimination based on racial bigotry harms an entire subset/minority of individuals. If Joe the Barkeep refuses to hire Italians, the Italian community is not harmed. If every employer in town refuses to hire Italians, the Italian community (minority) is harmed.

You are still making an arbitrary distinction of degree: If the hotel refuses to hire a minority, then everyone in that minority is harmed. In fact, the entire community is made poorer. You only reject this because the harm is great enough.

Once again, you need to provide justification for that distinction.

Even by the definition of racism as prejudice plus power, you are incorrect: Joe the Barkeep has exercised his power to deny someone employment because of their race/nationality.

 

[WAB]

Even more interesting is that anyone who points out minorities being racist is accused of "tu quoque" which means you are saying "if you accuse that person of racism it means you are a racist." So the only way to not be a racist is to assert that minorities are never racist. Yet a racist statement is one that makes sweeping generalizations about racial groups - and that means the person saying "minorities are never racist" is making a racist statement. Of course anyone who points that out is a "racialist."

Indeed. Good observation. By the logic in the OP it is impossible not to be racist. So long as you are white that is. Non-white can't be racist because you need to have power to be racist, and non-white people can't have power. Otherwise we would have to admit that non-white people can be "racist" and that is an ugly term we don't want applied to us. And anybody who disagrees with our wide sweeping statements about racism is a racialist. It is easier to call somebody a "racialist" than to actually address logic and reason. Now sprinkle in some more random put downs, call people ignorant and not able to engage in adult conversation, and generally try to bully people into abandoning reason. That is what we do on this freethought board.

Indeed, this occurs a lot.

- - - Updated - - -

Specially when there's big bad ass pipe-smokin cracker honkies around.

[tongue firmly in cheek...I think. I'm confused.]

 

[Duke Leto]

MAYBE. Certainly the hardcore racialists and the people whose power is threatened by changing institutions will continue fighting a rearguard action.

I'm concerned with the swayable middle that is hearing "cops are racist!" as opposed to "changing procedures and policies in these ways will make the Black community respect police more, improve policing, and make police safer".

Police are the safest they've been since the 19th century. It's not about making the police safer it's about putting policies and procedures in place to keep civilians safer from the police.

It's called salesmanship, ksen.

 

[dismal]

6. The “Not All X” Defense. This is another tactic for deflecting the conversation away from the very real problem of racism in America. Any time that widespread racism is brought up, the Highly Affected Racialist can be heard to say “that’s not fair, not all white people are racist,” or “not all police are racist,” or some similar sentiment. This is a strawman argument, since nobody is actually arguing that all of any group are racist. This technique can be found in other arguments by bigots, in forms such as “not all men are rapists.” “not all rich business owners are greedy assholes,” “not all conservatives are misogynists,” and so on.

You mean like when you said you didn't count as a white person in that thread about whiteness?

 

[Davka]

6. The “Not All X” Defense. This is another tactic for deflecting the conversation away from the very real problem of racism in America. Any time that widespread racism is brought up, the Highly Affected Racialist can be heard to say “that’s not fair, not all white people are racist,” or “not all police are racist,” or some similar sentiment. This is a strawman argument, since nobody is actually arguing that all of any group are racist. This technique can be found in other arguments by bigots, in forms such as “not all men are rapists.” “not all rich business owners are greedy assholes,” “not all conservatives are misogynists,” and so on.

You mean like when you said you didn't count as a white person in that thread about whiteness?

Nope. That never happened, it's a figment of your imagination, fueled by your inability to read what is actually written. My correct reading of the OP was affirmed by the author, so you score no snark points.

It's more like when someone starts a thread about police brutality towards black people, and the chorus of racialists rushes in to holler "not all cops are racist!" It's a ready-made strawman.

 

[dismal]

You mean like when you said you didn't count as a white person in that thread about whiteness?

Nope. That never happened, it's a figment of your imagination, fueled by your inability to read what is actually written. My correct reading of the OP was affirmed by the author, so you score no snark points.

It's more like when someone starts a thread about police brutality towards black people, and the chorus of racialists rushes in to holler "not all cops are racist!" It's a ready-made strawman.

But that's exactly what you were doing wasn't it?

Saying "not all white people" have this whiteness.

And you weren't the only one.

 

[Davka]

Nope. That never happened, it's a figment of your imagination, fueled by your inability to read what is actually written. My correct reading of the OP was affirmed by the author, so you score no snark points.

It's more like when someone starts a thread about police brutality towards black people, and the chorus of racialists rushes in to holler "not all cops are racist!" It's a ready-made strawman.

But that's exactly what you were doing wasn't it?

Saying "not all white people" have this whiteness.

And you weren't the only one.

Nope.

This has been explained and re-explained, but you folks don't want to let go of your delusions. Have fun with that.

 

[dismal]

But that's exactly what you were doing wasn't it?

Saying "not all white people" have this whiteness.

And you weren't the only one.

Nope.

This has been explained and re-explained, but you folks don't want to let go of your delusions. Have fun with that.

So, what of the following didn't happen in that thread about whiteness:

1) Athena said something about white people
2) You said it did not apply to you

 

[Rhea]

Nope.

This has been explained and re-explained, but you folks don't want to let go of your delusions. Have fun with that.

So, what of the following didn't happen in that thread about whiteness:

1) Athena said something about white people
2) You said it did not apply to you

Athena said something about a specifically defined group of white people (people who are all of: poor, white, republican voters) whose set is smaller than the set of all white people. Davka affirmed that he was not in that subset.


So the thing that didn't happen was Athena's thread being about ALL white people. I thought that was obvious to the most casual observer.

 

[dismal]

So, what of the following didn't happen in that thread about whiteness:

1) Athena said something about white people
2) You said it did not apply to you

Athena said something about a specifically defined group of white people (people who are all of: poor, white, republican voters) whose set is smaller than the set of all white people. Davka affirmed that he was not in that subset.


So the thing that didn't happen was Athena's thread being about ALL white people. I thought that was obvious to the most casual observer.

You sure sound like a Highly Affected Racialist (tm) with your "Not All White People" rhetoric.

 

[Rhea]

Athena said something about a specifically defined group of white people (people who are all of: poor, white, republican voters) whose set is smaller than the set of all white people. Davka affirmed that he was not in that subset.


So the thing that didn't happen was Athena's thread being about ALL white people. I thought that was obvious to the most casual observer.

You sure sound like a Highly Affected Racialist (tm) with your "Not All White People" rhetoric.

What?
You asked for help understanding Athena's post. So I pointed out the nuance of the written word for you. I'm not making any claims of my own.
You thought Athena's post was about all white people. It never was. Now you know.

 

[dismal]

You sure sound like a Highly Affected Racialist (tm) with your "Not All White People" rhetoric.

What?
You asked for help understanding Athena's post. So I pointed out the nuance of the written word for you. I'm not making any claims of my own.
You thought Athena's post was about all white people. It never was. Now you know.

I understand Athena's post fine. She said something about white people and whiteness.

After which, you and Davka went the full "Not All White People".

 

[Derec]

What?
You asked for help understanding Athena's post. So I pointed out the nuance of the written word for you. I'm not making any claims of my own.
You thought Athena's post was about all white people. It never was. Now you know.

I understand Athena's post fine. She said something about white people and whiteness.

After which, you and Davka went the full "Not All White People".

Silly dismal. Only their side is allowed nuance. The rest of us are always "mansplaining" or "whitesplaining".

 

[Rhea]

What?
You asked for help understanding Athena's post. So I pointed out the nuance of the written word for you. I'm not making any claims of my own.
You thought Athena's post was about all white people. It never was. Now you know.

I understand Athena's post fine. She said something about white people and whiteness.

After which, you and Davka went the full "Not All White People".

Can a moderator split this back over to the proper thread so we can direct dismal and derec to look at the OP and read it more carefully?

 

[dismal]

I understand Athena's post fine. She said something about white people and whiteness.

After which, you and Davka went the full "Not All White People".

Can a moderator split this back over to the proper thread so we can direct dismal and derec to look at the OP and read it more carefully?

My comments belong here as they are about you and Davka displaying Highly Affected Racialist behavior #6.

If the denials continue to mount we may also have to throw the flag on #3.

 

[Rhea]

~shrug~ okay, whatever. That OP says something different from what you're claiming it says. Some people can see that, some will not. Irrespective of whether I think I fit in it or not, that just isn't what _it_ says.

If this is the strongest argument you have against this OP, then, well, allrighty then.

You're saying that Davka or anyone claiming to not be voting for republicans is a "not all white people" claim that results in

6. The “Not All X” Defense. This is another tactic for deflecting the conversation away from the very real problem of racism in America. Any time that widespread racism is brought up, the Highly Affected Racialist can be heard to say “that’s not fair, not all white people are racist,” or “not all police are racist,” or some similar sentiment. This is a strawman argument, since nobody is actually arguing that all of any group are racist. This technique can be found in other arguments by bigots, in forms such as “not all men are rapists.” “not all rich business owners are greedy assholes,” “not all conservatives are misogynists,” and so on.

which makes it hilarious because you _are_ saying that someone said "all white people vote republican" when they (obviously) didn't.

 

[dismal]

~shrug~ okay, whatever. That OP says something different from what you're claiming it says. Some people can see that, some will not. Irrespective of whether I think I fit in it or not, that just isn't what _it_ says.

I'm claiming it says something about white people. Are you saying it doesn't?