saidit can be sexist, racist,bigoted,anti-semetic homo/trans/islamo/xenophobic....but damn if it's not honest.

submitted by [deleted] - announcement from self.censorship

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Tiwaking 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun - 11 hours ago It is NOT possible to talk about race realism and NOT be called a racist.

Oh true. I forgot people could call people who are not racists racist

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

You also forgot that it is an opinion no matter how you slice it. So when you say that you can do x and not be racist that isn't necessarily true. That can only be true if there is an agreed upon definition of racist, and agreement on the limitation of that definition.

However, it is YOUR opinion that some people are racist when they talk about race realism. Why is your opinion more valid than anyone else's? Why is the line of where racism starts set by you?

Being racist is so subjective as to be a meaningless thing. I find that everyone who objects to other's racism is really racist themselves but against a different group. It is thier membership in an opposing ideology that determines thier objection, not really a trait of the other person.

For example those who believe that most people who talk about race realism are racist won't admit that affirmative action and CRT are racist. While those who get pissed off about affirmative action generally deny that blacks have to deal with many consequences of the poor reputation of thier race.

[–]Node 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

That can only be true if there is an agreed upon definition of racist

Basing thoughts, opinions, or actions on race. It's difficult to do otherwise if one accepts the concept of race, as the definition of racism explains.

racism: the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities

If you believe joggers have dark skin and kinky black hair, you're a racist exhibiting racism. If you think you can identify an east Asian by their straight black hair and squinty eyes, same deal.

And so, anyone who acknowledges actual reality is 'a racist', by definition.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

And so, anyone who acknowledges actual reality is 'a racist', by definition.

That is YOUR definition of racism, and at least you recognize that it is so broad as to literally include everyone who isn't absolutely retarded. But even denying reality does not exempt you from being racist under that umbrella. One can have opinions about group characteristics entirely removed from reality.

It is an entirely useless definition, and it is used by those who disingenuously use claims of racism as weapons because they can simply use it against anyone at any time and use that definition as justification.

There are other, better definitions. For example using group chricteristics to judge individuals when evidence exists that those characteristics don't apply to that individual.

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

That is my definition of 'racist', and it's based on the meaning of words. I'm not sure why I'd want to be exempt from accurately perceiving reality, so of course I'm racist...

using group chricteristics to judge individuals

The characteristics just help 'identify' the individuals most likely to possess the abilities and qualities you either want or don't want. FBI statistics offer some insights into those details.

A lucky win in a casino doesn't mean you should sell your house and put it all on black, just as finding a magic negro doesn't mean you'll ever be that lucky again. People who ignore statistics and probabilities generally end up losing.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

based on the meaning of words.

The claim that one side has ownership of the definition of words is a lie, and is a common tactic used by leftists to claim credibility when they have none.

It is like antifa claiming they are anti fascist because that is the meaning of thier name when all their actions contradict that claim.

Or trans activists changing the definition of words like gender to then argue that thier claims, and only thier claims, are in line with the definitions of the words.

The reality is if you want to have any real, valuable conversations on these topics you can't start with stupid definitions of key words that make them meaningless. Your definition is stupid and prevents any resolution to these conflicts.

[–]Node 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Your definition is stupid and prevents any resolution to these conflicts.

So you're wanting to change the definitions to be more convenient?

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

To be more reasonable, usefull, and meaningful.

[–]Node 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I'm going to stick with reality over 'reasonable and useful'. You described yourself in your above comment.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

This response indicates that you don't understand the concept of words. Words exist in order to be useful. There is nothing "real" about your useless definition.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    By YOUR definition. Which likely is so broad as to be meaningless. People who use that kind of definition are usually hypocrites who are inconsistent on what the definition is or when it is applied.

    I don't see what is racist about acknowledging the scientifically proven fact that there is an intelligence difference between racial groups. As long as one does not claim that this proves any one individual is smarter than another based solely on membership in a group.