Race Realism: Critical understandings

Author: Mesmer

Posts

Total: 320
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
Pointing out Ad Hominem isn't dodging; it's not letting you get away with your usual routine of slander and logical fallacies. If you stopped loading your arguments with Ad Hominem, I wouldn't have to point it out so much.

As for demonized, you're pretty damn anti-white and Ramshutu is too (perhaps not as much as you). Nobody should see your anti-white racial hatred as positive or even neutral. Anti-whitism is wholly negative and something that can be demonized.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mesmer
Have you attempted to charitably paraphrase your understanding of their position ?
He knows what my position is.
I'm not sure your apparent confidence is warranted.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mesmer
Like most people on this site, you just don't understand Ad Hominem.
Any (negative) commentary directed AT THE SPEAKER is quite technically an AD HOMINEM ATTACK.

RATIONAL CONVERSATION aims to address the logic of the claims presented.
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Mesmer
Show that systemic racism exists or leave.
False, argument from repetition (58):Saying it again doesn’t make it any less dishonest.

I’m trying to present an argument - you are refusing to listen.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mesmer
Why have the Germans and the Russians been killing each other for hundreds of years ?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
As for demonized, you're pretty damn anti-white
Can you show me a post I have made that is anti-white? I actually am confused.
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
As for demonized, you're pretty damn anti-white
Can you show me a post I have made that is anti-white? I actually am confused.
Afaik, you didn't directly say that you were anti-white.

What you typically do is call me "racist" or "fascist" when I make pro-white arguments. You're implying that any pro-white or even neutral-white argument is somehow inherently evil, and thus you are anti-white.

For example, in the systemic racism thread I made, I showed that the US wasn't systemically racist against Blacks, and thus we should stop blaming White people for systemic racism when it doesn't exist. Your responses involved calling these arguments that defended White people "far-right fascism" and "racism": Systemic Racism in U.S. criminal justice is a myth (debateart.com) .

You later decided the toys didn't belong in your pram, and thus asserted my arguments were moral equivalents to "Stalin", "Hitler", a "racist", "far-right propaganda", "bullcrap", "sophistry", making a "racist shithole", "tyranny", "BS", a "full blown racist nutjob", an "oppressor" and a "bully". In fact, you thought I was so terrible a person for attempting to defend White people that should "just stay the fuck off a debate website" and that I needed to be "stamped out" Systemic Racism in U.S. criminal justice is a myth (debateart.com) . 

So, when I try to defend White people from the false narrative of systemic racism, when I show that White people aren't to blame for the shortcomings of African Americans, you unload a whole bunch of Ad Hominem vitriol onto me.

And that's only one instance of you being anti-white.

I hope that makes you less confused.
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Ramshutu
I’m trying to present an argument
"Do, or do not. There is no try." -- Yoda.
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not sure your apparent confidence is warranted.
Ramshutu is clearly smart enough to understand what I'm generally arguing. In fact, sophists have to be quite smart to run their word and deflection games. 

He might have even seen the airtight arguments I've made smashing shitlib anti-white narratives, and knows that if he argues straight, he's a goner.

This guy is smart and understands.

Any (negative) commentary directed AT THE SPEAKER is quite technically an AD HOMINEM ATTACK.

RATIONAL CONVERSATION aims to address the logic of the claims presented.
Not if the speaker is the topic or if the negative commentary isn't used to dismiss the speaker's arguments.

You're closer to understanding Ad Hominem than the last time we spoke on this, though, so that's promising :)

Why have the Germans and the Russians been killing each other for hundreds of years ?
I don't know lol

What's your point?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mesmer
He might have even seen the airtight arguments I've made smashing shitlib anti-white narratives, and knows that if he argues straight, he's a goner.
Are you suggesting that (in your own mind) it is impossible to sincerely misunderstand and or disagree with your claims ?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mesmer
Not if the speaker is the topic or if the negative commentary isn't used to dismiss the speaker's arguments.
Why else would you engage in negative commentary directed at your interlocutor ?

Are you fond of engaging in rampant NON-SEQUITUR statements of pure OPINION ?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mesmer
Why have the Germans and the Russians been killing each other for hundreds of years ?
I don't know lol

What's your point?
Have you considered that perhaps it's because of SYSTEMIC RACISM ?
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Mesmer
False, argument from repetition (59):Saying it again doesn’t make it any less dishonest.

I’m presenting an argument - you are refusing to engage with it. Arguments are bi-directional. Meaning that the person who is unable to engage in any meaningful argument is yourself. 

Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you suggesting that (in your own mind) it is impossible to sincerely misunderstand and or disagree with your claims ?
Nope.

Why else would you engage in negative commentary directed at your interlocutor ?
To make fun of them.

Are you fond of engaging in rampant NON-SEQUITUR statements of pure OPINION ?
Nope.

Why have the Germans and the Russians been killing each other for hundreds of years ?
I don't know lol

What's your point?
Have you considered that perhaps it's because of SYSTEMIC RACISM ?
I have considered it.

I see no reason to believe it.
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Ramshutu
Arguments are bi-directional.
I'm not going to hold your hand whilst you construct your own arguments. You're a big enough boy to do that yourself. If you can't, you're not worth my time.

Up to you.
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Mesmer
I'm not going to hold your hand whilst you construct your own arguments. You're a big enough boy to do that yourself. If you can't, you're not worth my time.

Up to you.

False, argument from repetition (60):Saying it again doesn’t make it any less dishonest.

As I said - My argument is asking you to weigh in on a hypothesis; to offer objections, questions or point to aspects where you don’t feel things logically follow, and why.

If you accept my hypothesis as logically valid - then we can move forward. Given that you have gone 100 posts without being able to offer argumentation; doing this Is necessary.

I am happy to assume that you fully accept the logical validity of my hypothesis without reservation based on your comprehensive inability to critique it, if you want; but I suspect that’s not the case.


Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Ramshutu
My argument is asking you to weigh in on a hypothesis
And I'm telling you: no, make your own damn argument lol.

You're the one who claims that systemic racism exists.

You're the one who needs to show that it does.

If you accept my hypothesis as logically valid
You have the burden of proof to show that it is logically valid. 

You haven't come close to fulfilling that BoP.
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Mesmer
And I'm telling you: no, make your own damn argument lol.
False, argument from repetition (61):Saying it again doesn’t make it any less dishonest.

I am. If I provided a complete argument demonstrating systemic racism,  you’d be weighing in on my hypothesis too... just this way; you can weigh in on one thing at a time, rather than all at once.

This is his arguments on complex issues work.



You're the one who claims that systemic racism exists.

You're the one who needs to show that it does.
False, argument from repetition (62): Yes; absolutely; bingo. Let’s start by asking if you have any issues with my broad hypothesis.
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Ramshutu
And I'm telling you: no, make your own damn argument lol.
False, argument from repetition (61):Saying it again doesn’t make it any less dishonest.

I am. If I provided a complete argument demonstrating systemic racism,  you’d be weighing in on my hypothesis too... just this way; you can weigh in on one thing at a time, rather than all at once.
You're not.

You've whined for 30 odd posts that I'm not helping you build your own argument LOL

What you need to do is make the argument that forces you to believe systemic racism exists. Starting with "imagine", "hypothetically" and "I believe you're a white supremacist" are insufficient to fulfill your BoP of systemic racism existing. If those are the reasons you believe it exists, then you haven't fulfilled your BoP and the conversation is over.

This is his arguments on complex issues work.
You meant to say 'how' instead of 'his'.

All you need to do is generate any proof of systemic racism existing. You could use the lead argument, redlining, criminal justice disparities, schooling etc. But you haven't.

You're the one who claims that systemic racism exists.

You're the one who needs to show that it does.
False, argument from repetition (62): Yes; absolutely; bingo. Let’s start by asking if you have any issues with my broad hypothesis.
I don't care about your broad hypothesis because you have no argument demonstrating that it's true.

Again, make the argument to show that any systemic racism exists.
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Mesmer
You're not.

You've whined for 30 odd posts that I'm not helping you build your own argument LOL

What you need to do is make the argument that forces you to believe systemic racism exists. Starting with "imagine", "hypothetically" and "I believe you're a white supremacist" are insufficient to fulfill your BoP of systemic racism existing. If those are the reasons you believe it exists, then you haven't fulfilled your BoP and the conversation is over.
False, argument from repetition (62): you keep saying this, it’s no less true now than it was before. 

Repeat after me: this is not my whole argument. This the starting hypothesis from which the argument will build. 

When I build the argument, I don’t have to produce evidence for the parts that you agree are true: so I’m going to determine what those are.

Your disingenuous behaviour and unwillingness to dismiss things for no reason - then refuse to discuss it, makes this necessary.

Because if you’re this dishonest talking about the underpinning hypothesis for any argument - imagine what you would do if I provided the whole thing!

I don't care about your broad hypothesis because you have no argument demonstrating that it's true.

Again, make the argument to show that any systemic racism exists.
False, argument from repetition (63): Repeat after me: this is not my whole argument. This the starting hypothesis from which the argument will build. 

Building an argument one step at a time is the only way it’s possible to discuss any matter with someone who will go 100 posts repeating the same thing over and over again, and is unwilling to address anything being said.



3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mesmer
Why else would you engage in negative commentary directed at your interlocutor ?
To make fun of them.
In order to discredit them.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mesmer
Have you considered that perhaps it's because of SYSTEMIC RACISM ?
I have considered it.

I see no reason to believe it.
Do you think that perhaps Germans grow up exposed to stories in which Russians are commonly portrayed as venal souls ?
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Ramshutu
If you don't post your entire argument, then you've failed to prove systemic racism exists in the US.

I will address it if you decide to do that.

It's as simple as that.
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
In order to discredit them.
In your opinion.

Do you think that perhaps Germans grow up exposed to stories in which Russians are commonly portrayed as venal souls ?
I don't know a whole lot about German-Russian conflict and I don't see a reason to care about it.

It doesn't come close to systemic racism, either. Even if it did, it's in the past. Even if it was in the present, Ramshutu and I was talking about the US.

This is a quintessential 'who cares?' moment.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
Since the election of Donald Trump, hate crimes have been on the rise. White supremeists have been emboldened. Anti-immigrant rhetoric has intensified. We condemn these awful examples of prejudice and bias and hate, but systemic racism is something different. It’s less about violence or burning crosses than it is about everyday decisions made by people who may not even think of themselves as racist. As sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva has said, "The main problem nowadays is not the folks with the hoods, but the folks dressed in suits."
Systemic racism persists in our schools, offices, court system, police departments, and elsewhere. Why? Think about it: when white people occupy most positions of decision-making power, people of color have a difficult time getting a fair shake, let alone getting ahead.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mesmer
In order to discredit them.
In your opinion.
There is only one logical reason to make fun of someone.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mesmer
It doesn't come close to systemic racism, either. Even if it did, it's in the past. Even if it was in the present, Ramshutu and I was talking about the US.
I thought you were interested in discussing human behavior in general terms.
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,551
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@FLRW
Would you be willing and able to:

1. Define racism
2. Explain where that definition is widely accepted
3. Posit examples of persons in power and systems worldwide who/which do not fit that definition (are NOT racist)?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@cristo71
There are two definitions of racism to understand (one of the two contains three sub-definitions, the other contains 2)
If you want 'easy definition', there isn't one. The 'easy definition' that it's discimination based on race doesn't define what 'discrimination' is or how to go about objectively verifying it.

I have intentionally tried to write it in a way that I don't think has been written before, my wording is intentionally verbose so as to avoid accidental copyright or plagiarism type stuff.

Definition 1 - micro-racism, personal

When an individual (or small group of ordinary-ranked citizens) hold a hateful, mocking and offensive outlook on certain people who have their race and/or ethnicity in common. The three elements of this racism are thus:

  • There should/could be an expressed dislike approaching (or surpassing) what qualifies for hatred, the most blatant form being direct violence and encouragement of local business to fire employees and reject employees based on their race and/or ethinicity. The less blatant forms being consistently preaching to members of their group to never mingle with, marry and interact with people of that race (not ethnicity, this part has to be race).
  • There should/could be a mocking element to the racism. This has a huge variety and sometimes is even socially acceptable when done towards the majority-race (such as black people going 'you dance like a white dude', 'cracker', 'white-boy wasted', or shaking their head at a cringey scene and going 'white people'). This form of racism is considered most severe when aimed at a race that has been particularly victimised in the past and/or present. The context of this form of racism matters a lot, it is almost entirely context-based in how the general society will view how severe and wrong it was to do. As I mentioned, when it's aimed at the majority-race in a somewhat playful manner, it is generally considered okay. I did not say I consider that okay myself, I am pointing out when it's considered okay. Another significant way it's considered okay is when someone does it to their own ethnicity, not just race. When someone mocks their own ethnicity, that is considered okay.
  • There should/could be intentional offense attached to the racism, this is the most difficult part to prove. Let's say that you avoid directly expressing hatred and directly mocking but you know that a certain ethnicity find you dressing or acting a certain way very offensive, this could be considered racism (though its aimed at an ethnicity as opposed to race). Another example of offense is black-face and things along those lines. The difference between direct offense and mockery is that with mockery there is an element of bringing laughter at the sake of the race/ethnicity, whereas with offense the intent is entirely based around hurting the feelings of the race/ethnicity. This is often part of the first category during hate crimes, they don't tend to just violently beat up a person of a certain race or just make their life hell, they tend to want that person to feel entirely degraded and sad, angry even. This is also context-based but tends to be less about context because usually the acts and words in and of themselves are irrefutably sadistic and harmful with this side of racism. The distinction here, between mockery and offense, is also to do with where and how it's done. Mockery tends to be done among members who aren't in the race, giggling nastily about another while they aren't present. Offense is done always, 100% of the time, with the other person within ear-shot or very likely to see the scene and understand what it means. Another example would be making monkey sounds in a football stadium when a black player is playing. The intention is to demoralise and emotionally hurt the victim, not to necessarily entertain and laugh, that is how this differs to mockery. They can indeed overlap but this latter category is often of a more intentional 'hurt them' nature than the mockery is. This also would be along the lines of graffiti on a person's house, vandalising their property and making it very hard for them to go about their daily life. 
A much more significant way to spot the difference between mockery and offense styled racism is that mockery tends to attack a group and is rarely about isolating and severely emotionally degrading the victim. Offense tends to combine generic racism with personalised comments and mocking personal things, so if someone of a race happened to have an accent and tone of voice, you'd imitate that on top of the generic mockery. Offense is about really hurting the person and making them feel negative, mockery is about blindly seeking laughter at the sake of the victimised ethnicity/race, not caring if it does or doesn't hurt them. 

I will now go into macro-racism and the two fundamental ways it's done.

RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@cristo71
Definition 2 - Macro-racism, structural

  1. Systemic opportunity-hindering
  2. Systemic punishment-targeting
The two most notable ways that structural racism occurs is often combined with personal racism on a micro-level but the ways this happens is much more to do with how a society is structured and how you can pass off what is happening as something the race brought on themselves.

Let's say in you particular society, that a certain race is poor due to slavery in the past leading to 0 inheritance for them. Then, what you do, is intentionally design the systems of selecting students, employees etc as brutally harsh on the opportunities that race has the least, which is even justifiable at first due to concerns of competency, except what you do is leave them no option. You don't let them able to gain apprenticeships, you don't offer scholarships, you don't have anything where the relatively motivated and high-achieving among them can escape the lack of opportunities they have. On top of that, often there really will be racism amongst the hirers and selectors not just out of malice but ignorance as they hold a ridiculous opinion that laziness and low achievement is 'inherited' as opposed to environmental.

Affirmative action alone doesn't fix this, however it's often a necessary start. What you really need to do is structure the society to be more caring to those struggling within it, which has nothing to do with race of course, then all who are poor or particularly held back can begin to at least cope. Finally, you need scholarships and programs like apprenticeships to offer those who really want to prove themselves to 'climb out' of what would otherwise be inescapable lack of opportunity in life. There of course is a fourth element, which is more difficult for any authority itself to achieve; you need attitudes and prejudice within selectors/employers to dissipate. That takes society itself and many campaigns against racism and for equality to achieve. 

The punishment targeting has many layers to it. Firstly, it's how often and harshly cops will preemptively stop-and-search, act on suspicion, harshly interrogate etc. If you notice in your system that on top of there being a lot of poverty and ghetto-isolation issues leading to a group being more consistently driven to crime, that the law enforcement itself keeps targetting them harsher for crimes, you then at least need to look into sentencing and jury bias. What you may find is that the issue is not entirely law-enforcement based actively (though it often is) as it is passively. What I mean is that you will often find a level of mercy and decency given when arresting, interrogating and sentencing a person of the majority-race that simply is withheld/absent when dealing with people of any minority races that have for whatever reason been seen as problematic by the racists within the system. The passive format of racism often extends even to in-prison life and the way society treats them when they've come out. There is often a deep bias and hatred towards offenders of the minority-race with an idea 'they're bound to do it again, what else is there to expect' whereas with offenders of the majority-race there is much more of a 'hmm, maybe they're worth a chance' mentality. If you notice these passive-racist formats, what has to happen is again much more along the lines of a campaigns and society-shifting, however there are indeed ways to measure with sentences and frequency of stop-and-search if there is inherent bias and severity. A good start would be for high ranks within law enforcement to reguarly be viewing interrogations and advising any cops they notice are unjustifiably taking a more 'bad cop' approach with a certain race than another. 

Judges who can be noticed on their records to consistently give longer sentences, less bail time etc to a certain race need to be dealt with the harshest, they are a serious problem for the system as often the very way they handle 'objections' and speaking times etc within the trial favours the prosecution (if the defendant is of that race) or hinders the prosecution (if the alleged victim is of that race). These people are huge issues because they then enable the statistics that justify further racism against that race in frequency of incarceration, longer sentences etc.