Definition of a Racist

Author: Barney
race
Racism
social injustice

Posts

Total: 84
Topic's author
#31
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@3RU7AL
only people who self-identify as "racists" can be called "racists"
...
is it somehow "more evil" to hate someone for the color of their skin ?
I disagree, as being racist can be identified from a set of actions, regardless of the frequently low intelligence quotient among racists (see my previous debates on if well known racists are racist).

And yes, it is worse to hate someone for the innate characteristics of their birth, rather than choices they make. As an example, we send people to prison for robbing banks and killing people; whereas we view Mr. Hitler as a bad person for doing similar to Jewish people just for being born.


aren't these all examples of ad hominem attacks ?
Calling someone a racist for various racist actions, is not an ad hominem attack, but rather a basic descriptor. We can't function as a society without ways to identify people; such as me calling you Brual, or you calling me Barney.
Calling someone a racist for acting racist, isn't very different  from calling someone a Methodist for devote attendance at a Methodist church.

Granted, either could be leveraged as a pathetic insult. Repeatedly calling a devote Jewish person a Methodist, in spite them telling you they're Jewish not Methodist (and have never done anything to imply they're Methodist). Or calling anyone people Literally Hitler when they haven't killed anyone nor called for the death of anyone (I would consider this an Ad Hominem attack even against most racists, as most racists have done nothing to make it a valid comparison).
#32
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Barney
Calling someone a racist for various racist actions, is not an ad hominem attack, but rather a basic descriptor.
it's not exactly a "basic descriptor" if the entire definition is not QUANTIFIABLE

what we're dealing with here (namely "motive")

is beyond our epistemological limits

for example

i have personally had conflicts with my neighbor

luckily, we are both "of the same skin-tone"

but if my neighbor happened to have a different skin-tone than myself, we could each be accused of "racism"

not all conflicts between people of different skin-tones constitutes "racism"
#33
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Barney
We can't function as a society without ways to identify people; such as me calling you Brual, or you calling me Barney.
we refer to each other by our respective self-identifications
#34
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Barney
Calling someone a racist for acting racist, isn't very different  from calling someone a Methodist for devote attendance at a Methodist church.
which you are generally going to know by ASKING THE INDIVIDUAL

it seems extremely unlikely that you would hire a private investigator to observe my physical whereabouts
Topic's author
#35
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@3RU7AL
not all conflicts between people of different skin-tones constitutes "racism"
Misusing a word like racism under such circumstances, can be more telling of the person using it, than the one it is directed at.

Still, Hitler no doubt denied he was racist, and yet through killing many people based on race there is no reason to doubt he was by definition racist.
#36
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Barney
and yet through killing many people based on race there is no reason to doubt he was by definition racist.
perhaps that wasn't the only reason they had for killing people
#37
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Barney
Misusing a word like racism under such circumstances, can be more telling of the person using it, than the one it is directed at.
in my experience

the accuser receives the overwhelming benefit-of-the-doubt
#38
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
And the civil war was about states rights (to allow slavery for example)

the two are not mutually exclusive
The civil war was about states rights in the same way that Playboy Magazine is about art.
#39
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
And the civil war was about states rights (to allow slavery for example)

the two are not mutually exclusive
The civil war was about states rights in the same way that Playboy Magazine is about art.
federal law was ONLY ever supposed to regulate INTER-state commerce

attacking states for breaking away from the union would be like russia attacking former soviet-union states for breaking away

or the european union attacking member-states who wish to withdraw from their union
Topic's author
#40
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@3RU7AL
and yet through killing many people based on race there is no reason to doubt he was by definition racist.
perhaps that wasn't the only reason they had for killing people
Doesn't matter.

Mr. Hitler could inwardly have a heart of gold, having only meant to send countless people to a happy camps which just had a slight misunderstanding of how those people like to be treated... It would not change the end result, and us calling him a racist genocider for his actions.

To use a less deadly example: Bill Clinton defines himself as a loyal husband who would never ever cheat on his wife, and yet he was impeached for sexual immorality.
#41
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Barney
and yet he was impeached for
perjury and obstruction of justice

Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (first article, 228–206) and obstruction of justice (third article, 221–212).
#42
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Barney
It would not change the end result
wait,

now you want to remove "motive" completely ?
#43
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Barney
can we agree on what qualifies as a "good reason" to hate (dehumanize) someone ?
Topic's author
#44
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@3RU7AL
and yet he was impeached for
perjury and obstruction of justice
Yes, for doing things he denied doing. The tower of babel you're trying to build, would insist he said he didn't so he cannot be called someone who committed perjury and obstruction of justice.


now you want to remove "motive" completely ?
Motive (when available) can help us understand actions. It can sometimes mitigate offenses, but it does not absolve everything when harm is involved.
Bill Clinton might have never meant to cheat on his wife, nor commit perjury and obstruction of justice, and yet those are the things he did.


can we agree on what qualifies as a "good reason" to hate (dehumanize) someone ?
Certainly not the mere fact of them being born looking different (which is what racists do). Granted, I don't think calling someone a racist dehumanizes them, it is unfortunately a very common human trait.
#45
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Barney
so he cannot be called someone who committed perjury and obstruction of justice.
you can certainly make note of the fact that they were "impeached on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice"

but strangely,

infidelity is NOT a federal crime

and this is fundamentally distinct from the question of self-identification
#46
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Barney
Granted, I don't think calling someone a racist dehumanizes them
then, pray tell

what exactly is the point of such a designation (in your personal opinion) ?
Topic's author
#47
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@3RU7AL
and this is fundamentally distinct from the question of self-identification
Obviously, I disagree with your standard that someone is only what they say they are regardless of their actions. A racist can define everyone they dislike as not human and go on a killing spree, we in turn refer to them as a racist mass murderer; not however they choose to self-identify to include them having never harmed a human being.


what exactly is the point of such a designation (in your personal opinion) ?
Nouns are useful in the construction of shared language.
#48
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
attacking states for breaking away from the union would be like russia attacking former soviet-union states for breaking away

or the european union attacking member-states who wish to withdraw from their union
What would you accept as a justified response of New York City decided to succeed from New York State?

Now imagine if the reason they succeeded was because they wanted to imprison the Asian population and rape all the women, and the state said no.
#49
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
and this is fundamentally distinct from the question of self-identification
Hitler was the good guy in his own book.
#50
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
Now imagine if the reason they succeeded was because
you seem to have no concept of jurisdiction
#51
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Barney
what exactly is the point of such a designation (in your personal opinion) ?
Nouns are useful in the construction of shared language.
name-calling = ad hominem attack
#52
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,347
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Capitalist or Communist, might be meant as an insult, if one uses the word, that one is not.
Perhaps so with some racists and some people 'against racism.
#53
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Lemming
Capitalist or Communist, might be meant as an insult, if one uses the word, that one is not.
great example

and even if someone does actually self-identify as a "communist", good luck trying to get their detractors to acknowledge there is more than one type of "communism"
Topic's author
#54
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Poor Mr. Hitler, being called a racist instead of savior of the human race as he defines himself...

That's not actually how Ad Hominems work. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem#Not_ad_hom

If either of us called each other a dumb dumb poppy head and therefore wrong during this discussion, that would be an Ad Hominem; an attack to the claim maker, instead of to the claim. However, the claim that someone is a racist as the central claim, isn't refuted by the absurdity of them saying something like: 'No they're not, they say they're a magical princess sparkle pants, so no one can say otherwise' (or however else they choose to define themselves).

If either of us are debating with Mr. Hitler on gun control policies (or almost anything else), and we start shorting "racist" instead of arguing to the topic, sure that's an ad hominem attack. However, if Mr. Hitler being racist is the topic of discussion, identifying the racist trends he committed is perfectly topical and non-fallacious.
#55
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Barney
an ad hominem attack CAN be the subject of a discussion

but that doesn't make it any less of an ad hominem attack

and

contrary to your ridiculous insinuations

i'm not "defending" anyone in particular here

i'm outlining a general principle

this also applies to LGBTQ+ and people of other non-obvious clubs, religions, and assorted groups

each person gets to define themselves

self-identification does NOT prevent you from making any specific claim (with supporting evidence) about their actions

but you are reaching beyond your epistemological limits if you claim to know the "motives" (or group memberships) of anyone other than yourself
Topic's author
#56
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@3RU7AL
That's not actually how Ad Hominems work. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem#Not_ad_hom

#57
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Barney
That's not actually how Ad Hominems work. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem#Not_ad_hom
Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem (Latin for 'argument to the person')

any (negative) characterization of the speaker themselves and or their motives and or their general quality of character and or state-of-mind and or smell and or physical appearance

such characterizations can neither enhance nor discredit any individual's argument(s)

many like to argue that speculation about an individual that is not EXPLICITLY stated as "therefore your argument is discredited" does not count

but fail to offer an alternative explanation for these otherwise OBVIOUSLY OFF-TOPIC comments

negative characterizations are very clearly designed to sway any reader AGAINST the argument, ipso facto, discredit their argument(s)
#58
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
you seem to have no concept of jurisdiction
A state within your country, who’s state constitution begins by declaring its constitution is subservient to the country’s constitution, would fall within that country’s jurisdiction.

This conversation has gone completely off track. It began with you defending the notion that the civil war was about states rights before it was about slavery, but you also point out how limited the federal government’s authority was supposed to be at its conception which is clearly not where it stayed. That alone proves the point; If states rights were such an issue the civil war would have been fought a hundred times over by now but it hasn’t. It never mattered until and since the north said you can’t own black people anymore.
#59
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
declaring its constitution is subservient to the country’s constitution
the federal constitution limits federal authority to regulation of INTER-state commerce
#60
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
defending the notion that the civil war was about states rights before it was about slavery
not even close

i simply pointed out that the two are not mutually exclusive

i certainly didn't say one was "before" the other

and i wasn't "defending" anything