CDZ POLL: The "Is It Racist" Quiz

[usmbguest5318]

IP

???

 

[Coyote]

IP

???

Israel/Palestine forum

 

[usmbguest5318]

Yep. It's such an important word, and such an important thing, that it's a shame it has been weaponized, trivialized and diluted in this way.

Another poster, earlier in this thread, flat-out denied that arguments like Joe's exist. And yet, right on cue, there they are, clear as day for all to see.
.

The word has been weaponized to such a degree that it has created a group phobia. Some in this thread have pointed out that it's overuse has made it meaningless, but that is only for some. For the large portion of the left, it's use has resulted in a very rigid and self-reinforcing system where people will do just about anything to avoid being called racist. We see it in this forum on a daily basis, where very authoritarian people do not question the double standards they proffer, but merely take them as gospel.

... all the while giving significant cover to the REAL racism that does still exist...
.

I think we have to be careful here. Because racism DOES exist....and it's convenient for some to pretend it doesn't....

There are, as far as I can tell, a couple of key things toward which each of must be careful, as it were:

• A big part of the problem is that many people think what is and is not racism/racist, along with who has and hasn't the capacity to exhibit it, is variable or debatable. It isn't.
• Racism, discrimination and prejudice are not the same things, yet people conflate them. Prejudice and discrimination are effects of racism; racism doesn't derive from them. Prejudice and discrimination are perfectly acceptable provided the basis for the prejudice/discrimination is sound, and I mean sound in the strict logic sense of the word. Quite simply, race is an unsound basis for discriminating against or prejudicing oneself against anything and anyone.
  
  I discriminated against all car makers except one when I purchased my last car. When I extended offers of employment to certain individuals, I discriminated against those to whom I didn't extent offers; however, the race of none of those individuals had nothing to do with why I extended or didn't extend to them an offer. When a lady expresses a romantic interest toward me, if I think she's interesting, smart, hot, etc., I'll return her interest if I'm not otherwise encumbered and thus cannot, and whether I'll do so doesn't have anything to do with her race.

I don't think that the actual definition or usage of the word matters to those who spray it around like water.

It's merely a mechanism used to put a target on the defensive and avoid an honest conversation. It's a weapon, an epithet, not an honest observation.

I've now seen a few (real) liberals bring up an important point: We have created a generation (or more) of people who literally don't know how to have an honest conversation on race, because they have never had to. They just scream RACIST, and as they hoped, the conversation is over. No further conversation needed, no constructive communication required.

That surely doesn't bode well.
.

I think that happens a lot: racist, antisemite, etc. gets thrown out, and totally stops a discussion because where can you go from there? It's not necessarily that it isn't true but it's up to the claiment to attack the ARGUMENTS being made rather than the person - and show those arguments to be faulty - or racist - or antisemitic. In fact if you've ever debated with Shusha in IP, she does just that and she does it very well without ever resorting to name calling. The other thing is - if you attack the arguments, you provide space for the other person to think and reassess his/her position whereas yelling racist puts one automatically on the defensive and ends the discussion. It becomes about the person and not the argument.

I can understand why people do that...especially when confronted by some really hateful attitudes...it's difficult to keep one's temper.

It's not necessarily that it isn't true but it's up to the claimant to attack the ARGUMENTS being made rather than the person

Yep. Amen, sister!

if you attack the arguments, you provide space for the other person to think and reassess his/her position...[because the argument] becomes about the person and not the [points for which they argue].

Yep. Amen, sister!

I can understand why people do that...

You understand why people do what? Attempt to divert the point of argument to the person arguing for a given position rather than about the position itself?

If so, I don't at all understand why people do that because doing so, argumentatively speaking, is intrinsically so weak that it is an automatic fail. It may be emotionally gratifying, entertaining, or something else to so shift the nature of one's line of argument, but on substance and intellectually, it is tantamount to an argumentative loss by default. If that's the best one has to offer, one, one's reputation, is better served by one's simply not engaging in the argument, and to the extent one argues on behalf of others, well, those others are better served by having someone else be their champion, as it were.

 

[usmbguest5318]

IP

???

Israel/Palestine forum

TY

 

[usmbguest5318]

It's merely a mechanism used to put a target on the defensive and avoid an honest conversation.

Yeah, about that....FWIW, I've noticed that much public discourse focuses on traits of the people who introduce or advocate for a given policy than is placed on the substance of the policy for/against which they advocate. I think it is that way because most people don't know much about the matter(s) to which the policy pertains and they aren't willing to perform the research needed to become well informed on the matter(s) to which the policy pertains. It's furthermore been my observation that many people are thus unwilling with regard to matters great and small.

 

[Coyote]

The word has been weaponized to such a degree that it has created a group phobia. Some in this thread have pointed out that it's overuse has made it meaningless, but that is only for some. For the large portion of the left, it's use has resulted in a very rigid and self-reinforcing system where people will do just about anything to avoid being called racist. We see it in this forum on a daily basis, where very authoritarian people do not question the double standards they proffer, but merely take them as gospel.

... all the while giving significant cover to the REAL racism that does still exist...
.

I think we have to be careful here. Because racism DOES exist....and it's convenient for some to pretend it doesn't....

There are, as far as I can tell, a couple of key things toward which each of must be careful, as it were:

• A big part of the problem is that many people think what is and is not racism/racist, along with who has and hasn't the capacity to exhibit it, is variable or debatable. It isn't.
• Racism, discrimination and prejudice are not the same things, yet people conflate them. Prejudice and discrimination are effects of racism; racism doesn't derive from them. Prejudice and discrimination are perfectly acceptable provided the basis for the prejudice/discrimination is sound, and I mean sound in the strict logic sense of the word. Quite simply, race is an unsound basis for discriminating against or prejudicing oneself against anything and anyone.
  
  I discriminated against all car makers except one when I purchased my last car. When I extended offers of employment to certain individuals, I discriminated against those to whom I didn't extent offers; however, the race of none of those individuals had nothing to do with why I extended or didn't extend to them an offer. When a lady expresses a romantic interest toward me, if I think she's interesting, smart, hot, etc., I'll return her interest if I'm not otherwise encumbered and thus cannot, and whether I'll do so doesn't have anything to do with her race.

I don't think that the actual definition or usage of the word matters to those who spray it around like water.

It's merely a mechanism used to put a target on the defensive and avoid an honest conversation. It's a weapon, an epithet, not an honest observation.

I've now seen a few (real) liberals bring up an important point: We have created a generation (or more) of people who literally don't know how to have an honest conversation on race, because they have never had to. They just scream RACIST, and as they hoped, the conversation is over. No further conversation needed, no constructive communication required.

That surely doesn't bode well.
.

I think that happens a lot: racist, antisemite, etc. gets thrown out, and totally stops a discussion because where can you go from there? It's not necessarily that it isn't true but it's up to the claiment to attack the ARGUMENTS being made rather than the person - and show those arguments to be faulty - or racist - or antisemitic. In fact if you've ever debated with Shusha in IP, she does just that and she does it very well without ever resorting to name calling. The other thing is - if you attack the arguments, you provide space for the other person to think and reassess his/her position whereas yelling racist puts one automatically on the defensive and ends the discussion. It becomes about the person and not the argument.

I can understand why people do that...especially when confronted by some really hateful attitudes...it's difficult to keep one's temper.

It's not necessarily that it isn't true but it's up to the claimant to attack the ARGUMENTS being made rather than the person

Yep. Amen, sister!

if you attack the arguments, you provide space for the other person to think and reassess his/her position...[because the argument] becomes about the person and not the [points for which they argue].

Yep. Amen, sister!

I can understand why people do that...

You understand why people do what? Attempt to divert the point of argument to the person arguing for a given position rather than about the position itself?

If so, I don't at all understand why people do that because doing so, argumentatively speaking, is intrinsically so weak that it is an automatic fail. It may be emotionally gratifying, entertaining, or something else to so shift the nature of one's line of argument, but on substance and intellectually, it is tantamount to an argumentative loss by default. If that's the best one has to offer, one, one's reputation, is better served by one's simply not engaging in the argument, and to the extent one argues on behalf of others, well, those others are better served by having someone else be their champion, as it were.

Yes...I do...because many of us get very passionate about the things which matter to us. I deeply dislike some of the naked hatred against certain groups that I see expressed at times. It's difficult not to just go off on the person.

 

[usmbguest5318]

... all the while giving significant cover to the REAL racism that does still exist...
.

I think we have to be careful here. Because racism DOES exist....and it's convenient for some to pretend it doesn't....

There are, as far as I can tell, a couple of key things toward which each of must be careful, as it were:

• A big part of the problem is that many people think what is and is not racism/racist, along with who has and hasn't the capacity to exhibit it, is variable or debatable. It isn't.
• Racism, discrimination and prejudice are not the same things, yet people conflate them. Prejudice and discrimination are effects of racism; racism doesn't derive from them. Prejudice and discrimination are perfectly acceptable provided the basis for the prejudice/discrimination is sound, and I mean sound in the strict logic sense of the word. Quite simply, race is an unsound basis for discriminating against or prejudicing oneself against anything and anyone.
  
  I discriminated against all car makers except one when I purchased my last car. When I extended offers of employment to certain individuals, I discriminated against those to whom I didn't extent offers; however, the race of none of those individuals had nothing to do with why I extended or didn't extend to them an offer. When a lady expresses a romantic interest toward me, if I think she's interesting, smart, hot, etc., I'll return her interest if I'm not otherwise encumbered and thus cannot, and whether I'll do so doesn't have anything to do with her race.

I don't think that the actual definition or usage of the word matters to those who spray it around like water.

It's merely a mechanism used to put a target on the defensive and avoid an honest conversation. It's a weapon, an epithet, not an honest observation.

I've now seen a few (real) liberals bring up an important point: We have created a generation (or more) of people who literally don't know how to have an honest conversation on race, because they have never had to. They just scream RACIST, and as they hoped, the conversation is over. No further conversation needed, no constructive communication required.

That surely doesn't bode well.
.

I think that happens a lot: racist, antisemite, etc. gets thrown out, and totally stops a discussion because where can you go from there? It's not necessarily that it isn't true but it's up to the claiment to attack the ARGUMENTS being made rather than the person - and show those arguments to be faulty - or racist - or antisemitic. In fact if you've ever debated with Shusha in IP, she does just that and she does it very well without ever resorting to name calling. The other thing is - if you attack the arguments, you provide space for the other person to think and reassess his/her position whereas yelling racist puts one automatically on the defensive and ends the discussion. It becomes about the person and not the argument.

I can understand why people do that...especially when confronted by some really hateful attitudes...it's difficult to keep one's temper.

It's not necessarily that it isn't true but it's up to the claimant to attack the ARGUMENTS being made rather than the person

Yep. Amen, sister!

if you attack the arguments, you provide space for the other person to think and reassess his/her position...[because the argument] becomes about the person and not the [points for which they argue].

Yep. Amen, sister!

I can understand why people do that...

You understand why people do what? Attempt to divert the point of argument to the person arguing for a given position rather than about the position itself?

If so, I don't at all understand why people do that because doing so, argumentatively speaking, is intrinsically so weak that it is an automatic fail. It may be emotionally gratifying, entertaining, or something else to so shift the nature of one's line of argument, but on substance and intellectually, it is tantamount to an argumentative loss by default. If that's the best one has to offer, one, one's reputation, is better served by one's simply not engaging in the argument, and to the extent one argues on behalf of others, well, those others are better served by having someone else be their champion, as it were.

Yes...I do...because many of us get very passionate about the things which matter to us. I deeply dislike some of the naked hatred against certain groups that I see expressed at times. It's difficult not to just go off on the person.

Yes...I do...because many of us get very passionate about the things which matter to us.

I understand that people are passionate/emotional about certain things. I'm also passionate/emotional about certain things. That said, one aspect of maturity, one element of learning that is supposed to happen in one's formative years, is having developed the prudence and ability to subordinate passion to reason and civility when arguing for or against something. Obviously, none of us does so without exception; however, mature people at least do so preponderantly.

 

[JoeB131]

Perhaps this would be a good opportunity for you to repeat some of the attitudes you have expressed towards Jewish people.

You mean that Zionism is an evil apartheid policy? Hey, guy, I'll always criticize religious stupidity in any form.

 

[JoeB131]

I don't think that the actual definition or usage of the word matters to those who spray it around like water.

It's merely a mechanism used to put a target on the defensive and avoid an honest conversation. It's a weapon, an epithet, not an honest observation.

I've now seen a few (real) liberals bring up an important point: We have created a generation (or more) of people who literally don't know how to have an honest conversation on race, because they have never had to. They just scream RACIST, and as they hoped, the conversation is over. No further conversation needed, no constructive communication required.

That surely doesn't bode well.

Oh, whine, whine, whine.

When you defend a president who throws around causal racism, then you really do have a problem.

When you defend Bubba the Redneck for not understanding his plight, you excuse his racism. Period.

and if anyone avoids "honest conversations", it's you buddy. SO please put up another Emoji because you think that's an honest conversation.

 

[Mac1958]

... all the while giving significant cover to the REAL racism that does still exist...
.

I think we have to be careful here. Because racism DOES exist....and it's convenient for some to pretend it doesn't....

There are, as far as I can tell, a couple of key things toward which each of must be careful, as it were:

• A big part of the problem is that many people think what is and is not racism/racist, along with who has and hasn't the capacity to exhibit it, is variable or debatable. It isn't.
• Racism, discrimination and prejudice are not the same things, yet people conflate them. Prejudice and discrimination are effects of racism; racism doesn't derive from them. Prejudice and discrimination are perfectly acceptable provided the basis for the prejudice/discrimination is sound, and I mean sound in the strict logic sense of the word. Quite simply, race is an unsound basis for discriminating against or prejudicing oneself against anything and anyone.
  
  I discriminated against all car makers except one when I purchased my last car. When I extended offers of employment to certain individuals, I discriminated against those to whom I didn't extent offers; however, the race of none of those individuals had nothing to do with why I extended or didn't extend to them an offer. When a lady expresses a romantic interest toward me, if I think she's interesting, smart, hot, etc., I'll return her interest if I'm not otherwise encumbered and thus cannot, and whether I'll do so doesn't have anything to do with her race.

I don't think that the actual definition or usage of the word matters to those who spray it around like water.

It's merely a mechanism used to put a target on the defensive and avoid an honest conversation. It's a weapon, an epithet, not an honest observation.

I've now seen a few (real) liberals bring up an important point: We have created a generation (or more) of people who literally don't know how to have an honest conversation on race, because they have never had to. They just scream RACIST, and as they hoped, the conversation is over. No further conversation needed, no constructive communication required.

That surely doesn't bode well.
.

I think that happens a lot: racist, antisemite, etc. gets thrown out, and totally stops a discussion because where can you go from there? It's not necessarily that it isn't true but it's up to the claiment to attack the ARGUMENTS being made rather than the person - and show those arguments to be faulty - or racist - or antisemitic. In fact if you've ever debated with Shusha in IP, she does just that and she does it very well without ever resorting to name calling. The other thing is - if you attack the arguments, you provide space for the other person to think and reassess his/her position whereas yelling racist puts one automatically on the defensive and ends the discussion. It becomes about the person and not the argument.

I can understand why people do that...especially when confronted by some really hateful attitudes...it's difficult to keep one's temper.

It's not necessarily that it isn't true but it's up to the claimant to attack the ARGUMENTS being made rather than the person

Yep. Amen, sister!

if you attack the arguments, you provide space for the other person to think and reassess his/her position...[because the argument] becomes about the person and not the [points for which they argue].

Yep. Amen, sister!

I can understand why people do that...

You understand why people do what? Attempt to divert the point of argument to the person arguing for a given position rather than about the position itself?

If so, I don't at all understand why people do that because doing so, argumentatively speaking, is intrinsically so weak that it is an automatic fail. It may be emotionally gratifying, entertaining, or something else to so shift the nature of one's line of argument, but on substance and intellectually, it is tantamount to an argumentative loss by default. If that's the best one has to offer, one, one's reputation, is better served by one's simply not engaging in the argument, and to the extent one argues on behalf of others, well, those others are better served by having someone else be their champion, as it were.

Yes...I do...because many of us get very passionate about the things which matter to us. I deeply dislike some of the naked hatred against certain groups that I see expressed at times. It's difficult not to just go off on the person.

The way my little brain works, and I have no idea why, is that when I see someone who is hateful or dishonest or insulting or childish or any of the other behaviors we see in contemporary political "discourse" (ha), what they actually said is irrelevant. I take no offense, I don't get defensive, I don't get angry, I don't get hurt.

I become fascinated. I wonder about the motivation behind the words. I wonder about the tactics behind the words. What are they trying to accomplish? What need are they filling by behaving this way?

To me, the reason, the motivation, that people scream RACIST at the drop of a hat is that they don't want to have an honest discussion. They know that putting their target on the defensive will help them avoid sincere communication. They have zero (0) interest in healing racial wounds or improving race relations. What normal person, seriously, would think that screaming RACIST at everything that moves is going to improve anything? At some level, they know this.
.

 

[JoeB131]

The way my little brain works, and I have no idea why, is that when I see someone who is hateful or dishonest or insulting or childish or any of the other behaviors we see in contemporary political "discourse" (ha), what they actually said is irrelevant. I take no offense, I don't get defensive, I don't get angry, I don't get hurt.

I become fascinated. I wonder about the motivation behind the words. I wonder about the tactics behind the words. What are they trying to accomplish? What need are they filling by behaving this way?

Really, because on this side of the screen, its seems that you get all defensive and angry when people don't agree with your reams about "what is wrong with the liberal movement (they don't agree with me)"

To me, the reason, the motivation, that people scream RACIST at the drop of a hat is that they don't want to have an honest discussion. They know that putting their target on the defensive will help them avoid sincere communication. They have zero (0) interest in healing racial wounds or improving race relations. What normal person, seriously, would think that screaming RACIST at everything that moves is going to improve anything? At some level, they know this.

Except you don't give any examples of that. You think that calling a hard working intelligence analyst a "pretty Korean lady" isn't offensive to the hard working intelligence analyst.

And here in lies the problem, I suspect that when white folks used to refer to black folks they worked with as "one of the good ones', they probably didn't think they were being racist, but when you think about it, that's racist as all get out.

Yes, we all think the guy in the Klan Robes is nasty, (except you, you just think he needs a hug!), but it's the more subtle racism that's the problem.

 

[Mac1958]

The way my little brain works, and I have no idea why, is that when I see someone who is hateful or dishonest or insulting or childish or any of the other behaviors we see in contemporary political "discourse" (ha), what they actually said is irrelevant. I take no offense, I don't get defensive, I don't get angry, I don't get hurt.

I become fascinated. I wonder about the motivation behind the words. I wonder about the tactics behind the words. What are they trying to accomplish? What need are they filling by behaving this way?

Really, because on this side of the screen, its seems that you get all defensive and angry when people don't agree with your reams about "what is wrong with the liberal movement (they don't agree with me)"

To me, the reason, the motivation, that people scream RACIST at the drop of a hat is that they don't want to have an honest discussion. They know that putting their target on the defensive will help them avoid sincere communication. They have zero (0) interest in healing racial wounds or improving race relations. What normal person, seriously, would think that screaming RACIST at everything that moves is going to improve anything? At some level, they know this.

Except you don't give any examples of that. You think that calling a hard working intelligence analyst a "pretty Korean lady" isn't offensive to the hard working intelligence analyst.

And here in lies the problem, I suspect that when white folks used to refer to black folks they worked with as "one of the good ones', they probably didn't think they were being racist, but when you think about it, that's racist as all get out.

Yes, we all think the guy in the Klan Robes is nasty, (except you, you just think he needs a hug!), but it's the more subtle racism that's the problem.

Coyote , Joe here is USMB's best example of my point. He has one speed: Attack. "Win". Make everything personal. Lie if that helps.

We've essentially lost the ability to have normal and constructive conversations, and both ends of the spectrum have contributed to this environment.

So not only do we have significant socio/cultural/economic problems to address, but over time we've lost the ability, the tools, with which to address them.
.

 

[JoeB131]

Coyote , Joe here is USMB's best example of my point. He has one speed: Attack. "Win". Make everything personal. Lie if that helps.

We've essentially lost the ability to have normal and constructive conversations, and both ends of the spectrum have contributed to this environment.

So not only do we have significant socio/cultural problems to address, but over time we've lost the ability, the tools, to address them.

When Mac complains that I'm the "best example", he means, "the guy least likely to get away with his sanctimonious nonsense."

If you've gotten into my sights as someone I want to attack, you've probably done something to deserve to get there.

 

[Bonzi]

Started in the CDZ in an effort to keep name-calling to a minimum. I'm sure we can all do that.

Quick background: I'm of mixed race (half Hispanic half European), my wife is also of mixed race, as are (obviously) our beautiful children. Our Christmastime family photos put any Celebrate Diversity! poster to shame, from Spanish & Mexican to Japanese to Nigerian. Not a full-bloody whitey amongst us.

Perhaps as a result, I take the terms "racist" and "racism" very seriously, and it saddens me to see the way the terms have been diluted and trivialized by people who feel they gain advantage by spraying them around like water.

So let's see where we stand. Please identify all terms you would normally feel are racist, and please comment, thanks.

For the record, I picked #6 and #7. I think #5 is borderline, and would depend on the situation.
.

I agree, 6 and 7 were no brainers, but, 5, well, sometimes it's just a matter of being around people you are more comfortable with. That number is very few for me, but that makes me more antisocial than racist!

 

[Coyote]

I don't think that the actual definition or usage of the word matters to those who spray it around like water.

It's merely a mechanism used to put a target on the defensive and avoid an honest conversation. It's a weapon, an epithet, not an honest observation.

I've now seen a few (real) liberals bring up an important point: We have created a generation (or more) of people who literally don't know how to have an honest conversation on race, because they have never had to. They just scream RACIST, and as they hoped, the conversation is over. No further conversation needed, no constructive communication required.

That surely doesn't bode well.

Oh, whine, whine, whine.

When you defend a president who throws around causal racism, then you really do have a problem.

When you defend Bubba the Redneck for not understanding his plight, you excuse his racism. Period.

and if anyone avoids "honest conversations", it's you buddy. SO please put up another Emoji because you think that's an honest conversation.

The problem with that approach is nothing changes....you can’t create effective policy if you don’t understand where the Bubba’s (and the black equivalents) are coming from. There was a series once called I’ll Fly Away, about race and class tensions in a small southern town. One character asked another, who was poor white, why he hated blacks when they were just as poor as he was and his response was you have some who is lower than you...if it weren’t blacks there would be no one, he (white trash) would be at the bottom.

Understanding isn’t excusing or agreeing or condoning. It is understanding. And listening.


How One Man Convinced 200 Ku Klux Klan Members To Give Up Their Robes

 

[Mac1958]

....you can’t create effective policy if you don’t understand where the Bubba’s (and the black equivalents) are coming from.

 

[usmbguest5318]

behaviors we see in contemporary political "discourse" (ha)

LOL (Discourse placed between quotation marks.)

 

[usmbguest5318]

There are, as far as I can tell, a couple of key things toward which each of must be careful, as it were:

• A big part of the problem is that many people think what is and is not racism/racist, along with who has and hasn't the capacity to exhibit it, is variable or debatable. It isn't.
• Racism, discrimination and prejudice are not the same things, yet people conflate them. Prejudice and discrimination are effects of racism; racism doesn't derive from them. Prejudice and discrimination are perfectly acceptable provided the basis for the prejudice/discrimination is sound, and I mean sound in the strict logic sense of the word. Quite simply, race is an unsound basis for discriminating against or prejudicing oneself against anything and anyone.
  
  I discriminated against all car makers except one when I purchased my last car. When I extended offers of employment to certain individuals, I discriminated against those to whom I didn't extent offers; however, the race of none of those individuals had nothing to do with why I extended or didn't extend to them an offer. When a lady expresses a romantic interest toward me, if I think she's interesting, smart, hot, etc., I'll return her interest if I'm not otherwise encumbered and thus cannot, and whether I'll do so doesn't have anything to do with her race.

I don't think that the actual definition or usage of the word matters to those who spray it around like water.

It's merely a mechanism used to put a target on the defensive and avoid an honest conversation. It's a weapon, an epithet, not an honest observation.

I've now seen a few (real) liberals bring up an important point: We have created a generation (or more) of people who literally don't know how to have an honest conversation on race, because they have never had to. They just scream RACIST, and as they hoped, the conversation is over. No further conversation needed, no constructive communication required.

That surely doesn't bode well.
.

I think that happens a lot: racist, antisemite, etc. gets thrown out, and totally stops a discussion because where can you go from there? It's not necessarily that it isn't true but it's up to the claiment to attack the ARGUMENTS being made rather than the person - and show those arguments to be faulty - or racist - or antisemitic. In fact if you've ever debated with Shusha in IP, she does just that and she does it very well without ever resorting to name calling. The other thing is - if you attack the arguments, you provide space for the other person to think and reassess his/her position whereas yelling racist puts one automatically on the defensive and ends the discussion. It becomes about the person and not the argument.

I can understand why people do that...especially when confronted by some really hateful attitudes...it's difficult to keep one's temper.

It's not necessarily that it isn't true but it's up to the claimant to attack the ARGUMENTS being made rather than the person

Yep. Amen, sister!

if you attack the arguments, you provide space for the other person to think and reassess his/her position...[because the argument] becomes about the person and not the [points for which they argue].

Yep. Amen, sister!

I can understand why people do that...

You understand why people do what? Attempt to divert the point of argument to the person arguing for a given position rather than about the position itself?

If so, I don't at all understand why people do that because doing so, argumentatively speaking, is intrinsically so weak that it is an automatic fail. It may be emotionally gratifying, entertaining, or something else to so shift the nature of one's line of argument, but on substance and intellectually, it is tantamount to an argumentative loss by default. If that's the best one has to offer, one, one's reputation, is better served by one's simply not engaging in the argument, and to the extent one argues on behalf of others, well, those others are better served by having someone else be their champion, as it were.

Yes...I do...because many of us get very passionate about the things which matter to us. I deeply dislike some of the naked hatred against certain groups that I see expressed at times. It's difficult not to just go off on the person.

The way my little brain works, and I have no idea why, is that when I see someone who is hateful or dishonest or insulting or childish or any of the other behaviors we see in contemporary political "discourse" (ha), what they actually said is irrelevant. I take no offense, I don't get defensive, I don't get angry, I don't get hurt.

I become fascinated. I wonder about the motivation behind the words. I wonder about the tactics behind the words. What are they trying to accomplish? What need are they filling by behaving this way?

To me, the reason, the motivation, that people scream RACIST at the drop of a hat is that they don't want to have an honest discussion. They know that putting their target on the defensive will help them avoid sincere communication. They have zero (0) interest in healing racial wounds or improving race relations. What normal person, seriously, would think that screaming RACIST at everything that moves is going to improve anything? At some level, they know this.
.

I become fascinated. I wonder about the motivation behind the words. I wonder about the tactics behind the words. What are they trying to accomplish? What need are they filling by behaving this way?

Yes! I cannot agree more nor can I have said it more effectively.

To me, the reason, the motivation, that people scream RACIST at the drop of a hat is that they don't want to have an honest discussion.

I think that's a reason and often enough so, but I'm not convinced it's the reason.

 

[Mac1958]

I don't think that the actual definition or usage of the word matters to those who spray it around like water.

It's merely a mechanism used to put a target on the defensive and avoid an honest conversation. It's a weapon, an epithet, not an honest observation.

I've now seen a few (real) liberals bring up an important point: We have created a generation (or more) of people who literally don't know how to have an honest conversation on race, because they have never had to. They just scream RACIST, and as they hoped, the conversation is over. No further conversation needed, no constructive communication required.

That surely doesn't bode well.
.

I think that happens a lot: racist, antisemite, etc. gets thrown out, and totally stops a discussion because where can you go from there? It's not necessarily that it isn't true but it's up to the claiment to attack the ARGUMENTS being made rather than the person - and show those arguments to be faulty - or racist - or antisemitic. In fact if you've ever debated with Shusha in IP, she does just that and she does it very well without ever resorting to name calling. The other thing is - if you attack the arguments, you provide space for the other person to think and reassess his/her position whereas yelling racist puts one automatically on the defensive and ends the discussion. It becomes about the person and not the argument.

I can understand why people do that...especially when confronted by some really hateful attitudes...it's difficult to keep one's temper.

It's not necessarily that it isn't true but it's up to the claimant to attack the ARGUMENTS being made rather than the person

Yep. Amen, sister!

if you attack the arguments, you provide space for the other person to think and reassess his/her position...[because the argument] becomes about the person and not the [points for which they argue].

Yep. Amen, sister!

I can understand why people do that...

You understand why people do what? Attempt to divert the point of argument to the person arguing for a given position rather than about the position itself?

If so, I don't at all understand why people do that because doing so, argumentatively speaking, is intrinsically so weak that it is an automatic fail. It may be emotionally gratifying, entertaining, or something else to so shift the nature of one's line of argument, but on substance and intellectually, it is tantamount to an argumentative loss by default. If that's the best one has to offer, one, one's reputation, is better served by one's simply not engaging in the argument, and to the extent one argues on behalf of others, well, those others are better served by having someone else be their champion, as it were.

Yes...I do...because many of us get very passionate about the things which matter to us. I deeply dislike some of the naked hatred against certain groups that I see expressed at times. It's difficult not to just go off on the person.

The way my little brain works, and I have no idea why, is that when I see someone who is hateful or dishonest or insulting or childish or any of the other behaviors we see in contemporary political "discourse" (ha), what they actually said is irrelevant. I take no offense, I don't get defensive, I don't get angry, I don't get hurt.

I become fascinated. I wonder about the motivation behind the words. I wonder about the tactics behind the words. What are they trying to accomplish? What need are they filling by behaving this way?

To me, the reason, the motivation, that people scream RACIST at the drop of a hat is that they don't want to have an honest discussion. They know that putting their target on the defensive will help them avoid sincere communication. They have zero (0) interest in healing racial wounds or improving race relations. What normal person, seriously, would think that screaming RACIST at everything that moves is going to improve anything? At some level, they know this.
.

I become fascinated. I wonder about the motivation behind the words. I wonder about the tactics behind the words. What are they trying to accomplish? What need are they filling by behaving this way?

Yes! I cannot agree more nor can I have said it more effectively.

To me, the reason, the motivation, that people scream RACIST at the drop of a hat is that they don't want to have an honest discussion.

I think that's a reason and often enough so, but I'm not convinced it's the reason.

Yeah, fair enough. There could certainly be more to it. And I would definitely guess that a part of it has to do with the other point I made, that we have literally allowed our communication skills to decay, that we may simply lack the same capacity for reasoned, reasonable, civil conversation.
.

 

[usmbguest5318]

....you can’t create effective policy if you don’t understand where the Bubba’s (and the black equivalents) are coming from.

Wow!

"I don't know," is what the man said, yet he tacitly acknowledges that he doesn't like the guy.

I'm reminded of my and my kids' youth when in response to many a "why" question, the answer was "I don't know." Is it not incumbent upon adults to know why they do, say, and/or think whatever it be they think, say or do?

It's one thing to have weak foundations for one's behavior. It's wholly another to not know why one behaves as one does. The latter is the very definition of wasted effort and aimless action.