You need to judge people by their actions, while considering both intentions and results.
Rather than going through your whole post and responding to things I might take some issue with, I'll just say that I think this is generally right. Obviously how we judge them - according to what standards, what moral principles, what goals - is a debate that has occupied philosophy departments at major universities for years. But there is a reason why the prosecutor must prove intent to convict someone of most serious crimes. There's a reasonable debate to be had about how heavily we weight results when ascribing moral guilt that is the subject of yet further debate in philosophy departments (this is one of my favourite papers and I've posted it here in the past), but there's really little argument to be had about the obvious importance of motivations when describing conduct as immoral. And when you call someone a racist, you're calling them immoral in very strong terms, as is clear by the way we treat people who we think of as racists.
Quote:
People should not be judged by intentions OR results, but their actions (where "action" includes anything that has an affect on other people, including words or even inaction).
This I don't agree with precisely... I think peoples' actions should be judged by both their intentions and their results, but that actions are not the only important way to make a moral judgment about someone. A person can hold horrible views - wish to murder everyone they come across - and never act on them, for any number of reasons (fear of consequences, for example). Most people would say that that person is still a worse human being than someone who not only doesn't murder anyone, but also doesn't wish they could.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Rather than going through your whole post and responding to things I might take some issue with, I'll just say that I think this is generally right. Obviously how we judge them - according to what standards, what moral principles, what goals - is a debate that has occupied philosophy departments at major universities for years. But there is a reason why the prosecutor must prove intent to convict someone of most serious crimes. There's a reasonable debate to be had about how heavily we weight results when ascribing moral guilt that is the subject of yet further debate in philosophy departments (this is one of my favourite papers and I've posted it here in the past), but there's really little argument to be had about the obvious importance of motivations when describing conduct as immoral. And when you call someone a racist, you're calling them immoral in very strong terms, as is clear by the way we treat people who we think of as racists.
This I don't agree with precisely... I think peoples' actions should be judged by both their intentions and their results, but that actions are not the only important way to make a moral judgment about someone. A person can hold horrible views - wish to murder everyone they come across - and never act on them, for any number of reasons (fear of consequences, for example). Most people would say that that person is still a worse human being than someone who not only doesn't murder anyone, but also doesn't wish they could.
Personally I happen to think that legal systems should strive to do away with questioning intent as much as possible. Obviously sometimes you have to take it into consideration, but I think striving for a fairly mechanistic legal system is a good thing. (I am aware that it would lead to situations which most would consider extremely unfair.)
(That said, based on what I've understood from the US legal system, intent plays a much larger role their than it does in, for example Finland.)
Personally I would not think a person who constantly wishes to murder anyone but never does anything bad is a bad person... but I'm also fundamentally against the idea of there being "good people" and "bad people". Or racist people.
Actions, intents, thoughts, results, these can all be good or bad. People are just people.
So for example, the police aren't the good guys, and criminals aren't the bad guys. They're all just people.
EDIT: I actually think categorizing or essentializing people into good and bad is kind of a major issue when it comes to both racism and policing. I think if more people could just take people as people, it would open up their minds to decisively judging the police when they are doing things that are wrong. I also think if the police themselves knew better than consider themselves "the good guys", they would be more prone to see it when they are doing bad things.
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
This seems to be the all-encompassing racism thread so posting this here.
Jeezuz christ people suck.
Quote:
NASCAR said it is investigating after a noose was found in the garage of driver Bubba Wallace, who is black, on Sunday at Talladega Superspeedway in Lincoln, Alabama.
"Late this afternoon, NASCAR was made aware that a noose was found in the garage stall of the 43 team. We are angry and outraged, and cannot state strongly enough how seriously we take this heinous act," NASCAR said in a statement. "We have launched an immediate investigation, and will do everything we can to identify the person(s) responsible and eliminate them from the sport.
"As we have stated unequivocally, there is no place for racism in NASCAR, and this act only strengthens our resolve to make the sport open and welcoming to all."
So this was actually published in an Australian newspaper in 2020
do you have the source? I'm not saying I don't believe you but that's pretty egregious and tone def and there has to be some context we are missing unless it was published in a far right non mainstream paper.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to corporatejay For This Useful Post:
do you have the source? I'm not saying I don't believe you but that's pretty egregious and tone def and there has to be some context we are missing unless it was published in a far right non mainstream paper.
The context you're missing is its Australian, that's the context.
Some Canadian context: The Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a UK-based think-tank which specializes in analyzing polarization globally has released a report on right-wing extremism in Canada.
The following quotes are from the Vice article discussing the report.
Quote:
“It’s clear that Canada has a well established system of right-wing extremists very much comparable to that of the U.S. and U.K., and it’s part of a global pattern.”
Davey said the current anti-Black racism movements have likely led to more activity by these voices as they try to discredit the idea that racism is a problem in Canada.
...
It found that Canadians are particularly active “representing the third largest nationality using 4chan’s politically incorrect board,” and were the third largest community on Iron March behind the U.S. and U.K.
The researchers also found that anti-Muslim and anti-Trudeau chatter is more prevalent among the far-right actors. For instance, on Twitter, extremist voices were more likely to be engaged in anti-Muslim conversation and boards tended to light up when anti-Muslim topics were being discussed.
Not sure Canadians should be throwing stones here given the PM we elected.
If he was on live tv at the time it would have been a news story. I don’t see the relation at all, or that it means we all accepted Trudeaus behaviour.
Edit: isn’t FireGilbert in Australia?
Last edited by Scroopy Noopers; 06-22-2020 at 06:56 AM.
If he was on live tv at the time it would have been a news story. I don’t see the relation at all, or that it means we all accepted Trudeaus behaviour.
Edit: isn’t FireGilbert in Australia?
I certainly didn't accept his behaviour as my vote didn't go to his party. We are seeing entertainers pay a steep price for transgressions from a decade ago or longer. I see no reason why our country leader should be held to a lower standard. At the end of the day you are either against racism or you aren't. I can say with confidence our PM was a racist. Is he today? Honestly I don't know because he still continues to conduct himself in a hypocritical manner where rules don't apply to him.
Last edited by Erick Estrada; 06-22-2020 at 07:10 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Erick Estrada For This Useful Post:
I certainly didn't accept his behaviour as my vote didn't go to his party. We are seeing entertainers pay a steep price for transgressions from a decade ago or longer. I see no reason why our country leader should be held to a lower standard. At the end of the day you are either against racism or you aren't. I can say with confidence our PM was a racist. Is he today? Honestly I don't know because he still continues to conduct himself in a hypocritical manner where rules don't apply to him.
The conversation can be had, and is an important one, all I’m saying is it has nothing to do with what you quoted.
Was the point not that this opinion piece was just printed? Was Trudeau caught in blackface over the weekend? It doesn’t change what he did (which he somehow did more than once), but it also isn’t relevant. I guess niether was the clip from the show, but I understood that as an Aussie posting it.
Last edited by Scroopy Noopers; 06-22-2020 at 07:18 AM.
Some Canadian context: The Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a UK-based think-tank which specializes in analyzing polarization globally has released a report on right-wing extremism in Canada.
Quote:
It found that Canadians are particularly active “representing the third largest nationality using 4chan’s politically incorrect board,” and were the third largest community on Iron March behind the U.S. and U.K.
So the country with the third largest English-speaking population in the world has the third largest representation on racist English-language forums? What a shocking indictment.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Canada is ranked 10th in the world among countries with the most English-speakers. If we reduce that list to just those nations with a majority white population (who would therefore be attracted to racist/white supremacist message boards), Canada ranks 4th in the number of people fluent in English, after the US, the UK, and Germany.
Why there are fewer racists (at least per this metric, for whatever value that may have) from Germany than there are from Canada, both absolute and per capita, I will leave as an exercise to the reader.
