Yet more problematic stuff

Post Reply
User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Yet more problematic stuff

Post by Forty Two » Fri Feb 01, 2019 11:47 am

Nationalism is the advocacy of the interests of a nation over that of other nations. There isn't anything inherently wrong with it. Irish nationalism, for example. Scottish nationalism. The fight of any nation for independence is nationalism.

It gets dicey when combined with other things, like race. So "white nationalism" and "black nationalism" is not nice, because they are racist terms, suggesting that a nation should be comprised of members of a certain race, to the exclusion or detriment of other races.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 24146
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Even more problematic stuff

Post by Brian Peacock » Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:17 pm

Cunt wrote:
Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:03 am
Brian Peacock wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:29 am
I must've missed the memo. When did calling out white supremacists and ardent nationalists become being racists against whites?
You misread. He said 'white nationalists'.

As I understand, nationalist is just a different political position from globalist.

And ardent means loving, right? So a loving nationalist is a problem for you why?
Meh, it's pretty clear what I meant from the context.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 11303
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
About me: philobarbaros
Contact:

Re: Even more problematic stuff

Post by Sean Hayden » Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:33 pm

Nope, nope, nope 42. There's just no way that such a definition is workable in the real world. At some point you're going to have to define what it means to be "nation x" or "nation y". And it's here that we immediately leave the comfy world of navel gazing where "nationalism" is just advocacy for one nation over another, and enter the real world of advocacy of one nation comprised of...under, for...
Last edited by Sean Hayden on Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
shut up

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 24146
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Even more problematic stuff

Post by Brian Peacock » Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:35 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Fri Feb 01, 2019 11:47 am
Nationalism is the advocacy of the interests of a nation over that of other nations. There isn't anything inherently wrong with it. Irish nationalism, for example. Scottish nationalism. The fight of any nation for independence is nationalism.

It gets dicey when combined with other things, like race. So "white nationalism" and "black nationalism" is not nice, because they are racist terms, suggesting that a nation should be comprised of members of a certain race, to the exclusion or detriment of other races.
Meh, Nationalism is an impoverished political viewpoint that presumes that the declared 'nationals' of a nation either accrue, or are bestowed with, default virtue not present in outsiders, and/or that so-called 'true' nationals do, should, or must express, reflect, or otherwise conform to a particular racial group or political ideal. It's intent is fundamentally exclusionary, that is; it is an ideal which seeks to exclude those who don't conform to the declared qualifying criteria. We see it in the UK with slogans like "England for the English" etc, but we're never really told what the qualifying criteria for proper Englishness actually are beyond, of course, some vague appeals to antecedence or race-group membership.

Note: that this is different to the use of the term 'nationalism' when applied to movements who seek independence from the political or economic domination of another country - and the two uses of the term should not be conflated. nor equivocated upon for convenience.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 24146
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Even more problematic stuff

Post by Brian Peacock » Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:52 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:09 pm
I'd really ask you to identify the race obsessed bigots you're referring to. If it's Tucker Carlson, I'd certainly not support "calling him out" on his supposed race-obsessed bigotry. If it was a grand poobah of the KKK, I'd be inclined to sympathize with calling him out.
I referred to "white nationalist and ardent nationalists" in both my comments, so perhaps you could address your response to what I said rather than putting words in my mouth?
Forty Two wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:09 pm
I find the streak of moralizing that has entered the group of folks who used to call themselves "liberal" to be rather distasteful. It's never been my practice to consider it my obligation to rebuke people who hold distasteful opinions. I don't find that to be a moral obligation, or even a moral action. Generally, it's an exercise in self-righteous narcissism done by people who in a previous era would likely have been carrying crosses, and who have now grasped for some other means of making themselves feel superior.
When did expressing disapproval of, objecting to, or 'calling out' white supremacists and ardent nationalist on the paucity of the political perspective become self-righteous, narcissistic moralising, and how is expressing the opinion that it is anything but the same?

All political arguments are moral arguments, concerned as they are with how things ought and ought not be. To downgrade a political disagreement with race-obsessed bigots like white supremacists etc on the basis that it represents self-righteous, narcissistic moralising appears to be little more than pulling up the drawbridge in an attempt to protect those who hold and express such perspectives from criticism, censure, or ridicule.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Even more problematic stuff

Post by Forty Two » Fri Feb 01, 2019 3:48 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:52 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:09 pm
I'd really ask you to identify the race obsessed bigots you're referring to. If it's Tucker Carlson, I'd certainly not support "calling him out" on his supposed race-obsessed bigotry. If it was a grand poobah of the KKK, I'd be inclined to sympathize with calling him out.
I referred to "white nationalist and ardent nationalists" in both my comments, so perhaps you could address your response to what I said rather than putting words in my mouth?
It's not putting words in your mouth. It's asking for more explanation. Saying "white nationalist and ardent nationalists" doesn't tell me anything, because so many times those terms are used to describe people who are not fairly within those categories. WHO are you referring to, by way of example?

Brian Peacock wrote:
Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:52 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:09 pm
I find the streak of moralizing that has entered the group of folks who used to call themselves "liberal" to be rather distasteful. It's never been my practice to consider it my obligation to rebuke people who hold distasteful opinions. I don't find that to be a moral obligation, or even a moral action. Generally, it's an exercise in self-righteous narcissism done by people who in a previous era would likely have been carrying crosses, and who have now grasped for some other means of making themselves feel superior.
When did expressing disapproval of, objecting to, or 'calling out' white supremacists and ardent nationalist on the paucity of the political perspective become self-righteous, narcissistic moralising, and how is expressing the opinion that it is anything but the same?
When you see examples of "calling out" on the news - like cursing at Senators, or White House spokespeople, etc. That is NOT calling out "white supremacists and ardent nationalists" -- those terms are used in an overly expansive fashion. Like the whole "deplatform Nazis and fascists" idea being used to hound Chrisina Hoff Sommers off a college campus.

Expressing an opinion, and debating a viewpoint are not the same thing as "calling out." The "calling out" referred to above was, like, someone saying "Fuck you!" to Tucker Carlson in a restaurant. That's just douchey behavior, not expressing a different opinion.

Expressing viewpoints is not generally self-righteous or narcisstic moralizing - screaming and yelling at someone wearing a MAGA hat and saying that wearing that hat symbolizes slavery and oppression and racism etc. - that's self-righteous, narcissistic moralizing, and it's over the top. And, it is routinely done under the rubric of "calling out white nationalists....fascists, Nazis..."

Brian Peacock wrote:
Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:52 pm

All political arguments are moral arguments, concerned as they are with how things ought and ought not be. To downgrade a political disagreement with race-obsessed bigots like white supremacists etc on the basis that it represents self-righteous, narcissistic moralising appears to be little more than pulling up the drawbridge in an attempt to protect those who hold and express such perspectives from criticism, censure, or ridicule.
Not all political arguments are moral ones. There might be a political battle over whether a crime is a felony or a misdemeanor or whether the speed limit should be 55 or 75 - that doesn't require an argument over morality. And, many political arguments - most, in fact - deal with expedient, practical, rule or policy making. Whether to impose a tariff is not necessarily a matter of morality, but it is a matter of politics.

I'm not downgrading "political disagreement with race obsessed bigots like white supremacists." I asked you to tell me who you thought the race obsessed bigots and white supremacists were, because so many times in the news we see people who are not that being lambasted as that. Jordan Peterson. Tucker Carlson. Christina Hoff Sommers. Sarah Sanders.

What I said was - if you are talking about some grand poobah of the KKK, I wouldn't be very likely to argue with you about it. But, when people just use the general term, it really doesn't mean anything, since people on the Left often call even moderate or center right conservatives "racists" and "Nazis" these days. MItch McConnell was called out in a restaurant as essentially a "Nazi." But he's not a white supremacist, he's not a Nazi and he's not even an "ardent nationalist." And, calling him out in a restaurant like that demonstrates extreme narcissism and self-righteous moralizing, along with a sense of entitlement that I could never imagine having - a sense of privilege that is unfathomable to me - that someone could sit there and scream at Mitch McConnell or Tucker Carlson in a public restaurant yelling "nazi!" or "Fuck you!" - and not be embarrassed at themselves for that behavior? Unimaginable, to me.

Sure, if you see an ACTUAL "white nationalist" or "black nationalist" out there spewing hate filled rhetoric - stand up and be counted. But when the Left uses that rubric to start howling at mainstream commentators and politicians, it's weapons grade bullshit.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 24146
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Yet more problematic stuff

Post by Brian Peacock » Fri Feb 01, 2019 3:55 pm

I'm sorry, I just can't believe you really need an explanation of white supremacy or nationalism to understand what I'm saying. And feigning ignorance doesn't provide the wiggle room you're obviously angeling for here.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 24146
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Even more problematic stuff

Post by Brian Peacock » Fri Feb 01, 2019 4:02 pm


Forty Two wrote:...

Not all political arguments are moral ones. There might be a political battle over whether a crime is a felony or a misdemeanor or whether the speed limit should be 55 or 75 - that doesn't require an argument over morality. And, many political arguments - most, in fact - deal with expedient, practical, rule or policy making. Whether to impose a tariff is not necessarily a matter of morality, but it is a matter of politics...
This argument is brought to you by the Tautology Department of Tautology.

And your 'shoulds' refute your own point. I mean, what should the speed limit be, and why is one better than the other; what tariffs should or should not be imposed, and why is one option better than the other?
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Even more problematic stuff

Post by Forty Two » Fri Feb 01, 2019 4:10 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
Fri Feb 01, 2019 4:02 pm
Forty Two wrote:...

Not all political arguments are moral ones. There might be a political battle over whether a crime is a felony or a misdemeanor or whether the speed limit should be 55 or 75 - that doesn't require an argument over morality. And, many political arguments - most, in fact - deal with expedient, practical, rule or policy making. Whether to impose a tariff is not necessarily a matter of morality, but it is a matter of politics...
This argument is brought to you by the Tautology Department of Tautology.

And your 'shoulds' refute your own point. I mean, what should the speed limit be, and why is one better than the other; what tariffs should or should not be imposed, and why is one option better than the other?
A speed limit doesn't even have to exist - the basis offered for most speed limits is a practical one -- what speed is generally advisable in terms of automobile functionality on the roadway. Morality is about what is "good" and what is "bad." I've never heard of one speed limit being described as good, evil, bad, immoral, whereas another one is righteous, right, or moral. Have you? What moral code or what morality informs proper speed limits?

Same with tariffs. A tariff is imposed to raise money, or for expedient purposes of leveling trade imbalances, etc. But, there isn't really a moral argument under any moral code I'm aware of that says that a tariff must be 25% rather than 0% or 10%. Do you know of one?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Yet more problematic stuff

Post by Forty Two » Fri Feb 01, 2019 4:14 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
Fri Feb 01, 2019 3:55 pm
I'm sorry, I just can't believe you really need an explanation of white supremacy or nationalism to understand what I'm saying. And feigning ignorance doesn't provide the wiggle room you're obviously angeling for here.
I need you to identify who you're talking about, because I don't presume that you and I are operating under the same definition of who fits the defition of white supremacy or white nationalism.

I haven't angled for wiggle room. You have. You won't be specific. Where are your limits? What's the perimeter around your definition of white supremacy? Is Tucker Carlson inside the set, or outside? Sarah Sanders? Trump? Is he a "white supremacist?" Who are the people, specifically ,within the set of white nationalists and white supremacists or your even more vague term of "ardent nationalist" -- who deserve to be harassed in restaurants with namecalling and vulgar epithets to "call them out?"
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Yet more problematic stuff

Post by Forty Two » Fri Feb 01, 2019 4:16 pm

i.e., Brian, you know full well that people get called racist, white supremacist, etc., when they are not that. So, using those terms doesn't allow us to understand whether we are defining them the same, unless we both clarify what we mean (who we include in those terms). That's what I'm saying. That ought to be clear enough. If you're not willing to specify, fine.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 24146
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Even more problematic stuff

Post by Brian Peacock » Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:32 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:
Fri Feb 01, 2019 4:02 pm
Forty Two wrote:...

Not all political arguments are moral ones. There might be a political battle over whether a crime is a felony or a misdemeanor or whether the speed limit should be 55 or 75 - that doesn't require an argument over morality. And, many political arguments - most, in fact - deal with expedient, practical, rule or policy making. Whether to impose a tariff is not necessarily a matter of morality, but it is a matter of politics...
This argument is brought to you by the Tautology Department of Tautology.

And your 'shoulds' refute your own point. I mean, what should the speed limit be, and why is one better than the other; what tariffs should or should not be imposed, and why is one option better than the other?
A speed limit doesn't even have to exist - the basis offered for most speed limits is a practical one -- what speed is generally advisable in terms of automobile functionality on the roadway. Morality is about what is "good" and what is "bad." I've never heard of one speed limit being described as good, evil, bad, immoral, whereas another one is righteous, right, or moral. Have you? What moral code or what morality informs proper speed limits?

Same with tariffs. A tariff is imposed to raise money, or for expedient purposes of leveling trade imbalances, etc. But, there isn't really a moral argument under any moral code I'm aware of that says that a tariff must be 25% rather than 0% or 10%. Do you know of one?
Hmm. Red herrings abound in your goalpost-shifting closing remarks. When was the virtue or utility of tariffs dependant on the percentage? :roll: Nonetheless...
...A speed limit doesn't even have to exist - the basis offered for most speed limits is a practical one...
So, at some point, practically speaking of course, someone considers whether a decision is to be made about having a speed limit or not, and if so whether one speed is better than the rest? Let's image two opposing parties arguing for and against the imposition of a speed limit. Practically speaking, who's arguing for a less good outcome to that decision (regardless what position they're taking on the matter)? In other words, are both parties not arguing that their declared outcome is the right thing to do; the best, most good, outcome in the circumstances? Now let's imagine that the decision was subsequently made to impose a speeding limit and now we have two parties arguing for different speeds? You raised this example, but if we accept that these kinds of decisions are political matters, then the arguments for and against are political arguments. Now you must demonstrate how these arguments are not concerned with what is (or isn't) the better, good, right thing to do - with 'what ought and ought not be the case'.

Likewise with tariffs: if as you say the object of a tariffs is to generate revenue then surely the matter rests on whether the tariff is a good and right thing to do in the circumstances, or not?

Now, tell me again how this is not a moral matter, a moral judgement - besides simply declaring it by fiat?

In short, your remarks have rebuffed your own point again, even if you've never heard of it (or more likely never considered it) being a moral matter before.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Cunt
Lumpy Vagina Bloodfart
Posts: 8270
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:10 am
Contact:

Re: Even more problematic stuff

Post by Cunt » Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:55 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:17 pm
Cunt wrote:
Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:03 am
Brian Peacock wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:29 am
I must've missed the memo. When did calling out white supremacists and ardent nationalists become being racists against whites?
You misread. He said 'white nationalists'.

As I understand, nationalist is just a different political position from globalist.

And ardent means loving, right? So a loving nationalist is a problem for you why?
Meh, it's pretty clear what I meant from the context.
White nationalists are vilified regularly, in media anyway. Why do you suppose the same isn't done to black nationalists? Or brown nationalists? Or yellow?

Is there something better about being racist against whites?
Forty Two wrote:
Fri Feb 01, 2019 4:16 pm
i.e., Brian, you know full well that people get called racist, white supremacist, etc., when they are not that. So, using those terms doesn't allow us to understand whether we are defining them the same, unless we both clarify what we mean (who we include in those terms). That's what I'm saying. That ought to be clear enough. If you're not willing to specify, fine.
Evasion and obfuscation in 3, 2, 1....
Shit, Piss, Cock, Cunt, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.
-various artists


Hermit aka Seraph wrote:
Wed Jul 24, 2019 7:25 pm
placed himself within a swinging arm's distance from said antifas

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 24146
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Yet more problematic stuff

Post by Brian Peacock » Fri Feb 01, 2019 6:09 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Fri Feb 01, 2019 4:14 pm
Brian Peacock wrote:
Fri Feb 01, 2019 3:55 pm
I'm sorry, I just can't believe you really need an explanation of white supremacy or nationalism to understand what I'm saying. And feigning ignorance doesn't provide the wiggle room you're obviously angeling for here.
I need you to identify who you're talking about, because I don't presume that you and I are operating under the same definition of who fits the defition of white supremacy or white nationalism.

I haven't angled for wiggle room. You have. You won't be specific. Where are your limits? What's the perimeter around your definition of white supremacy? Is Tucker Carlson inside the set, or outside? Sarah Sanders? Trump? Is he a "white supremacist?" Who are the people, specifically ,within the set of white nationalists and white supremacists or your even more vague term of "ardent nationalist" -- who deserve to be harassed in restaurants with namecalling and vulgar epithets to "call them out?"
Let's have another look at the comment you chose to dispute. This followed an exchange in which it was implied that we should 'call out' those who 'call out' white supremacists and ardent nationalist in public, and that supporting the 'calling out' of white supremacists etc in public was an example racism against whites. Now you're shifting the goalposts by imposing a discursive requirement, to wit, a condition of specificity, one which was not there to begin with. You and President Trump might have a problem 'calling out' nazis and bigoted race-hate mongers but fortunately I'm not obliged to labour under that burden. If you'd like to dicuss what white supremacy, Nationalism, fascism, or hate-mongering bigotry etc does and doesn't entail then start a thread and tell us what you think - but that has little to no bearing on whether 'calling out bigoted race-hate mongers' is something you agree with or condone, or not.
Forty Two wrote:
Fri Feb 01, 2019 4:16 pm
i.e., Brian, you know full well that people get called racist, white supremacist, etc., when they are not that. So, using those terms doesn't allow us to understand whether we are defining them the same, unless we both clarify what we mean (who we include in those terms). That's what I'm saying. That ought to be clear enough. If you're not willing to specify, fine.
Indeed, the views of some people might be misunderstood or misscharacterised, sometime by accident or ignorance, and sometime maliciously or for opportunistic reasons, but does that really have an impact on what white supremacy etc is? Is there really any doubt about what it actually is? i.e. Are you actually in any doubt about what white supremacy entails, or only about whether it's morally justifiable to 'call it out' so to speak?

All you're saying here is that white supremacists are white supremacists, and then you're hopping up onto the fence.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 24146
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Even more problematic stuff

Post by Brian Peacock » Fri Feb 01, 2019 6:12 pm

Cunt wrote:
Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:55 pm
Brian Peacock wrote:
Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:17 pm
Cunt wrote:
Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:03 am
Brian Peacock wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:29 am
I must've missed the memo. When did calling out white supremacists and ardent nationalists become being racists against whites?
You misread. He said 'white nationalists'.

As I understand, nationalist is just a different political position from globalist.

And ardent means loving, right? So a loving nationalist is a problem for you why?
Meh, it's pretty clear what I meant from the context.
White nationalists are vilified regularly, in media anyway. Why do you suppose the same isn't done to black nationalists? Or brown nationalists? Or yellow?
Is the vilification of white nationalists conditional on a balanced amount of black and yellow nationalist vilification? Do you think there's an equal amount of each, but that it's under-reported or something, or just that each should be given an equal amount of the sum total of the vilification going around?

In other words, what's your point? :tea:
Is there something better about being racist against whites?
You tell me, and while you're at it you can explain the relevance of the question.
Forty Two wrote:
Fri Feb 01, 2019 4:16 pm
i.e., Brian, you know full well that people get called racist, white supremacist, etc., when they are not that. So, using those terms doesn't allow us to understand whether we are defining them the same, unless we both clarify what we mean (who we include in those terms). That's what I'm saying. That ought to be clear enough. If you're not willing to specify, fine.
Evasion and obfuscation in 3, 2, 1....
Spurious condition setting in 3.. 2.. oh wait, too late. :tea:
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest