Alright I'll bite. Neither "Mexican" or "Muslim" is a race, and what he's said isn't racist. So none of this is either:
"We can't let Jews in our country, Irish people are rapists, and we can't trust this judge because he's Nigerian".
"Catholics are rapists, we can't let Pakistanis in our country, and we can't trust this judge because he's Italian".
I think your average person would consider someone with these views a racist, but I'm sure you have a great rationale as to why it wouldn't count.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan
Not a meaningful one, no. A silly, pedantic distinction, yes. But honestly someone who hates a person because he is Muslim is not different from someone who hates the same person for being black. It's a distinction without a difference.
Notably, by Buster's logic, David Duke is not a racist.
Lots of words and mental gymnastics here. Not sure if you have a point.
But honestly someone who hates a person because he is Muslim is not different from someone who hates the same person for being black.
Hate is hate, to be sure, and hating someone for being Muslim is bigotry, but of course there is a difference between race and religion. One is a belief system. It's not inherent to who you are. I can't criticize someone's skin colour. I can, and happily will, criticize their religious views.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster
But are you still claiming that Mexico is a race?
See, I'm not with you on this. If I hear someone say, "Mexicans are rapists", I assume the person is basically conflating Mexicans with hispanics, who make up, what, 95+% of the Mexican population? That's a different thing from Muslims, of whom there are 1.6 billion, not just Arabs but South Asians, East Asians, Africans of various races, black people and a whole bunch of white people, too.
Aaaaanyway... there's someone who keeps whistling during the speeches. Like, an "I'm hitting on you" whistle. It's really distracting. They need to kick that person out ASAP.
Also, why are the last ten minutes of the 9pm hour being wasted on Lenny Kravitz? ####ing get someone on there for the crossover, you morons.
__________________ "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
Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 07-27-2016 at 07:55 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Hate is hate, to be sure, and hating someone for being Muslim is bigotry, but of course there is a difference between race and religion. One is a belief system. It's not inherent to who you are. I can't criticize someone's skin colour. I can, and happily will, criticize their religious views.
While it might seem on the surface that religious affiliation is up for criticism since it's a system of thinking which is changeable and malleable (much more so than skin color obiviously), there is reason to believe that religious affiliation is so deeply entrenched in our family relations, social networks, national identity, and paradigm for viewing the world, that it isn't really fair to attack someone for the belief system they were raised in and still adhere to. It is incredibly difficult to break away from religion, especially if your family is devoutly religious rather than secular, which is why you don't see it happen on a large scale.
I'm as atheistic as it gets, but I try to allow for those who are religious to maintain their ideology as long as it doesn't contradict facts. It isn't really fair to do otherwise.
__________________
"You know, that's kinda why I came here, to show that I don't suck that much" ~ Devin Cooley, Professional Goaltender
The Following User Says Thank You to Cali Panthers Fan For This Useful Post:
^I completely and utterly disagree in the strongest possible terms. I don't give a good God damn what "type" of beliefs you hold, they are beliefs and they're not only susceptible to any criticism, criticism is absolutely necessary and called for. That is the only way we progress as a species. Incidentally, your perspective on this is an affront to my deepest held beliefs on how we ought to act as a society and as human beings, but I'm willing to hear you out. However, I have to say, I cannot imagine what you could say to move me off of that.
Christ, are we really at a point where people think religions get some form of protected or elevated status as ideologies?
####. That. Noise.
__________________ "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
Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 07-27-2016 at 08:01 PM.
I assume the person is basically conflating Mexicans with hispanics,
I would think that you are allergic to such assumptions.
Trump regularly refers to how much support he has among the latino and hispanic communities in the US. He obviously knows the difference between a nationality, and a race. For you to ASSUME that he can't tell the difference, and then to lay a charge as serious as "Racist" based on your assumption is simply irresponsible.
It's also offensively stereotyping the diversity of Mexico.
Unless you want to get into the messy business of defining "race" with respect to percentages, origins, etc. All to prove some less-than-obvious point about Donald Trump's comments.
Or maybe you can tell Louis CK, that he isn't a "real" Mexican or something?
Buster, I could be wrong about the demographics, but when I said earlier that the vast, vast majority of Mexicans are hispanic, was I mistaken? Once you get into that level of overlap, lazy people will simply equate the nationality with the race. I don't know if Trump is himself racist against latinos, but he's clearly playing race politics with a statement like that. It's not even a dog whistle, it's too overt for that term to even apply.
I'm not allergic to intuitive assumptions at all, they're just defeasible if someone gives me a good explanation.
__________________ "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:
^I completely and utterly disagree in the strongest possible terms. I don't give a good God damn what "type" of beliefs you hold, they are beliefs and they're not only susceptible to any criticism, criticism is absolutely necessary and called for. That is the only way we progress as a species. Incidentally, your perspective on this is an affront to my deepest held beliefs on how we ought to act as a society and as human beings, but I'm willing to hear you out. However, I have to say, I cannot imagine what you could say to move me off of that.
Christ, are we really at a point where people think religions get some form of protected or elevated status as ideologies?
####. That. Noise.
It's unfortunate that you feel that way. It seems that you view them as adversaries rather than fellow human beings with a different perspective.
Listen, you have to understand that we all need something to make order out of the chaos of the universe. Very few people are comfortable just knowing that it's pure chaos and that most of what we do doesn't matter. But that existentialism is a rather new concept for the developed world, never mind the developing world, so patience is necessary in this regard, and change will come slowly. We are given a paradigm by our parents and community, and that's what helps us make sense of the world. Without that, we have to rely on an unknown reality, where we have to constantly shape our perspective as events and ideas challenge us. This is ideal, but most people are just trying to get through the day, and don't have the time, nor wherewithal, to go through that process. It's a shame, but it's reality, so they often revert to what they know to get them through life. Sometimes they change their mind, but it's usually on individual issues, not major overarching ideologies.
I think all I'm trying to say is that none of us have the monopoly on absolute truth, so being tolerant and having a discourse is valuable to maybe come to a new idea. You have thesis, and then you have the counter to it, the antithesis. Somewhere in between you have synthesis, and therein probably lies the truth.
But this philosophical discussion deserves another thread.
/end derail.
__________________
"You know, that's kinda why I came here, to show that I don't suck that much" ~ Devin Cooley, Professional Goaltender
Buster, I could be wrong about the demographics, but when I said earlier that the vast, vast majority of Mexicans are hispanic, was I mistaken? Once you get into that level of overlap, lazy people will simply equate the nationality with the race. I don't know if Trump is himself racist against latinos, but he's clearly playing race politics with a statement like that. It's not even a dog whistle, it's too overt for that term to even apply.
I'm not allergic to intuitive assumptions at all, they're just defeasible if someone gives me a good explanation.
I have no idea how you would choose to subdivide Mexico's various ethnic groups. Then again, I'm not the one making a serious claim that requires defending. I'm just saying that there is no reasonable evidence to assume that Trump SAID "Mexico", but MEANT "hispanic". To suggest otherwise is simply regurgitating a narrative.
It is entirely unclear that Trump made those comments about black accountants. Would I be surprised if he had? Not particularly. But O'Donnell's memoir isn't exactly a smoking gun.
