Knife intifada in Germany

[Bomb#20]

Do you have evidence for that wholesale accusation, or are you prejudging everyone in the world who ever pointed out that Islam isn't a race? By all means, enlighten us as to whether (a) you have no moral compunctions about making up a scurrilous motivation and imputing it to vast numbers of people you don't know, people whose words you never heard in context, people whose reasons for pointing it out you never inquired into, or (b) you have ESP.

It's just a general observation that turned out to be correct in pretty much every situation I encounter it. The purpose of language and speech is to impart meaning, and society largely dictates our meaning of things and it can't be controlled, so as a result definitions and conventions drift and change overtime. Personally, I lament this because there are so many other better words that more precisely convey what people really mean and really want to say. Even so I do know what their meaning is, and there are people like Derec who refuse to acknowledge this and give any substantive retort, because its much easier to operate on your own obtuse strict definition to just try and circumvent the accusation entirely. I do think that's craven, and I see it happen a lot.

So that would be (a), then. Your justification is exactly the same as the justification of every Gentile who ever had bad experiences with some Jews and decided that made it okay to make wholesale accusations against the entire Jewish population.

Moreover, the circumstance that you think it's cowardly for someone to refuse to have the same useless discussion of trumped-up charges against him with the latest idiot to accuse him of bigotry that he already had with the last nine idiots to make the same trumped-up charges is not evidence that he's a coward. He's probably just exasperated with how uneducable his accusers typically turn out to be. So I do not believe for a second that it "turned out to be correct in pretty much every situation you encounter it." You are not an unbiased witness to the state of mind of unbelievers in your faith.

As you say, the purpose of language and speech is to impart meaning, and society largely dictates our meaning of things and it can't be controlled, so as a result definitions and conventions drift and change over time. But that does not justify treating 'Racism' as acceptable common shorthand for general xenophobic bigotry; and in point of fact it is not acceptable common shorthand for general xenophobic bigotry. That usage is only acceptable to the faithful. Reasonable people regard it as unacceptable. To say "discriminating against ones because of a social attribute is racism" is not a "technical blunder". It is a moral failing. People don't do it because they heard others use it that way and didn't know it was incorrect usage. "Racism" has the word "race" in it right there in plain sight. People do it because they feel, as you do, that "it all stems from people failing to realize that Prejudice need not be racially motivated, but is still every bit as ugly and lazy a mindset". Our culture currently treats objecting to someone's ethnicity as uglier and lazier than objecting to his religion or to his cultural practices; they feel our culture is wrong to make that distinction and the person they're accusing deserves a charge as serious as racism; so they deliberately up the stakes. They are trying to control what you say can't be controlled -- they are trying to change the language so it conforms to their ideology rather than to our society's prevailing cultural practices. That makes them personally responsible for the prevalence of the misleading usage you are offering in their defense. They are attempting to perpetrate a pious fraud on the wider culture. The wider culture has every right to push back on that. It is entirely appropriate to point out that calling someone "racist" for being against Muslims is incorrect, and not merely incorrect but also intellectually dishonest. That is a perfectly sensible and not in the least bit craven reason to say "Muslim is not a race". The purpose of calling non-racially motivated bigotry "racism" is to talk third parties into imagining without evidence that the target of one's invective is lying when she says she objects to somebody's beliefs, and supposing instead that what she really objects to is his ethnicity. It's unethical. It's libelous.

There used to be a widespread word in English, one that thankfully has almost disappeared from general use: "pederast". It was once the common-usage word for a homosexual, and it had the word "ped" right there in plain sight -- something that mattered more back when educated people could be expected to have studied Latin. The implication was that homosexuals are pedophiles. Do you think uncontrollable convention drift makes that usage morally acceptable?

 

[whichphilosophy]

So, now being against Islamism is "prejudiced"? Seriously? Where does this farce end? Will it ever be considered prejudiced to objet to Christian dominionism? Or why not being against white supremacist thought?

If someone always jumps to the conclusion that the motivation for a violent act by a Muslim is Islam and always refers to immigrants and refugees from mainly Muslim countries in denigrating and insulting terms, it is a reasonable conclusion that person is prejudiced against them. In fact, it would be rather odd not to notice such persistence.

A small minority of Muslims, many of whom have never read the Koran, will use Islam as a justification for violence. Any foreign citizen who is applying for asylum or is not yet a citizen should be given the boot if they get involved in terrorist activities. This is after serving a sentence if convicted.

Out of control immigration into the UK is a security risk as well has exacerbating the acute housing shortages that have existed for the past few decades.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Dude: Derec is an immigrant and a foreigner.

There's no zealotry like that of a new convert.

Our culture currently treats objecting to someone's ethnicity as uglier and lazier than objecting to his religion or to his cultural practices; they feel our culture is wrong to make that distinction and the person they're accusing deserves a charge as serious as racism; so they deliberately up the stakes. They are trying to control what you say can't be controlled -- they are trying to change the language so it conforms to their ideology rather than to our society's prevailing cultural practices. That makes them personally responsible for the prevalence of the misleading usage you are offering in their defense. They are attempting to perpetrate a pious fraud on the wider culture. The wider culture has every right to push back on that. It is entirely appropriate to point out that calling someone "racist" for being against Muslims is incorrect, and not merely incorrect but also intellectually dishonest. That is a perfectly sensible and not in the least bit craven reason to say "Muslim is not a race". The purpose of calling non-racially motivated bigotry "racism" is to talk third parties into imagining without evidence that the target of one's invective is lying when she says she objects to somebody's beliefs, and supposing instead that what she really objects to is his ethnicity. It's unethical. It's libelous.

Solid point, mate. Being prejudiced against Muslims is a more specific and focused form of bigotry than racism and stems from different things. At least on SOME level, it's based on the rejection of what one perceives to be Islamic traditions, culture, beliefs and practices.

I suppose the problem is that ignorance cannot be banished by education, because ignorance is more often a choice than an accident of circumstance. People cling to what is comfortable and familiar and other people who don't know how to change their mind sometimes resort to using what is comfortable and familiar to make an argument. The same people who might have accepted that racism is a bad thing might not feel the same way about bigotry against Muslims, for example, despite the basic problem being exactly the same.

 

[LordKiran]

So that would be (a), then. Your justification is exactly the same as the justification of every Gentile who ever had bad experiences with some Jews and decided that made it okay to make wholesale accusations against the entire Jewish population.

Moreover, the circumstance that you think it's cowardly for someone to refuse to have the same useless discussion of trumped-up charges against him with the latest idiot to accuse him of bigotry that he already had with the last nine idiots to make the same trumped-up charges is not evidence that he's a coward. He's probably just exasperated with how uneducable his accusers typically turn out to be. So I do not believe for a second that it "turned out to be correct in pretty much every situation you encounter it." You are not an unbiased witness to the state of mind of unbelievers in your faith.

As you say, the purpose of language and speech is to impart meaning, and society largely dictates our meaning of things and it can't be controlled, so as a result definitions and conventions drift and change over time. But that does not justify treating 'Racism' as acceptable common shorthand for general xenophobic bigotry; and in point of fact it is not acceptable common shorthand for general xenophobic bigotry. That usage is only acceptable to the faithful. Reasonable people regard it as unacceptable. To say "discriminating against ones because of a social attribute is racism" is not a "technical blunder". It is a moral failing. People don't do it because they heard others use it that way and didn't know it was incorrect usage. "Racism" has the word "race" in it right there in plain sight. People do it because they feel, as you do, that "it all stems from people failing to realize that Prejudice need not be racially motivated, but is still every bit as ugly and lazy a mindset". Our culture currently treats objecting to someone's ethnicity as uglier and lazier than objecting to his religion or to his cultural practices; they feel our culture is wrong to make that distinction and the person they're accusing deserves a charge as serious as racism; so they deliberately up the stakes. They are trying to control what you say can't be controlled -- they are trying to change the language so it conforms to their ideology rather than to our society's prevailing cultural practices. That makes them personally responsible for the prevalence of the misleading usage you are offering in their defense. They are attempting to perpetrate a pious fraud on the wider culture. The wider culture has every right to push back on that. It is entirely appropriate to point out that calling someone "racist" for being against Muslims is incorrect, and not merely incorrect but also intellectually dishonest. That is a perfectly sensible and not in the least bit craven reason to say "Muslim is not a race". The purpose of calling non-racially motivated bigotry "racism" is to talk third parties into imagining without evidence that the target of one's invective is lying when she says she objects to somebody's beliefs, and supposing instead that what she really objects to is his ethnicity. It's unethical. It's libelous.

There used to be a widespread word in English, one that thankfully has almost disappeared from general use: "pederast". It was once the common-usage word for a homosexual, and it had the word "ped" right there in plain sight -- something that mattered more back when educated people could be expected to have studied Latin. The implication was that homosexuals are pedophiles. Do you think uncontrollable convention drift makes that usage morally acceptable?

'Kay, fair enough. However, I had already further clarified my position a few pages back by stating this:

And hey, this isn't even to say that other people aren't prejudiced, most people are to some extent, but rarely are they so completely and openly prejudiced that it comes across as a general hatred for a person or the 'group' they belong to.

Allow me to further refine the above point.

My problem isn't with people who show prejudice in one off comment but with Derec's persistent hard on for Muslims(Among others) that precludes a basic sense of fairness. It's one thing for someone to slip up or make an error in reasoning. That just happens because heuristics are a part of how our brains function and nobody is perfect. It's another thing entirely for someone to not only make those errors in reasoning, but to do so consistently to the point where it becomes part and parcel to their views. It isn't as if I am passing judgement on Derec over one odd occasion where he allowed his prejudice to override good sense. Derec will regularly condemn entire political movements because of one or two people he thinks are involved that he takes issue with. So when I say Derec is prejudiced, I don't just mean that he has it out against certain people or groups of people, but that prejudice is seemingly endemic to his entire thought process.

Now my comments regarding people being cowardly, fine that's a bridge too far and I retract those remarks, but I stand by the above.

With regards to how people use the word racist...My point on people failing to realize that prejudice need not be racially motivated wasn't offered up as any kind of defense for how people speak, more an explaination of where the blunder comes from. It's possible that how people use the word racist could be the result of a top-down influence but then it is also possible that people are easily lead, follow along with what other people tell them without really thinking too much about it, and don't have an entirely strong command of the English language to boot. It could also be a mix of both! In either case though what people mean is far more important to me than what they say. English is a language rife with hidden meanings, innuendo, and purposeful vagueness by any other name. English is also a language that makes it very easy to insinuate something without actually saying it, consequently I no longer put too much emphasis on the precise wording people choose, only when I want someone to clarify their meaning.

 

[Bomb#20]

'Kay, fair enough. However, I had already further clarified my position a few pages back by stating this:

And hey, this isn't even to say that other people aren't prejudiced, most people are to some extent, but rarely are they so completely and openly prejudiced that it comes across as a general hatred for a person or the 'group' they belong to.

Allow me to further refine the above point.

My problem isn't with people who show prejudice in one off comment but with Derec's persistent hard on for Muslims(Among others) that precludes a basic sense of fairness. It's one thing for someone to slip up or make an error in reasoning. That just happens because heuristics are a part of how our brains function and nobody is perfect. It's another thing entirely for someone to not only make those errors in reasoning, but to do so consistently to the point where it becomes part and parcel to their views. It isn't as if I am passing judgement on Derec over one odd occasion where he allowed his prejudice to override good sense. Derec will regularly condemn entire political movements because of one or two people he thinks are involved that he takes issue with. So when I say Derec is prejudiced, I don't just mean that he has it out against certain people or groups of people, but that prejudice is seemingly endemic to his entire thought process.

Hey man, I didn't get on your case because of what you said about Derec. Sure, about 80% of what people say about him here is bigoted religious dogma from posters who are transparently guilty of worse ethical and intellectual lapses than he is. But the other 20% he brings on himself, and that's quite enough; so say what you please about him -- he's a big boy and perfectly capable of defending himself. I got on your case because of what you said about me -- when you condemned an entire political movement because of one guy you take issue with.

Now my comments regarding people being cowardly, fine that's a bridge too far and I retract those remarks, but I stand by the above.

"Kay, fair enough."

With regards to how people use the word racist...My point on people failing to realize that prejudice need not be racially motivated wasn't offered up as any kind of defense for how people speak, more an explaination of where the blunder comes from. It's possible that how people use the word racist could be the result of a top-down influence but then it is also possible that people are easily lead, follow along with what other people tell them without really thinking too much about it, and don't have an entirely strong command of the English language to boot. It could also be a mix of both! In either case though what people mean is far more important to me than what they say. English is a language rife with hidden meanings, innuendo, and purposeful vagueness by any other name. English is also a language that makes it very easy to insinuate something without actually saying it, consequently I no longer put too much emphasis on the precise wording people choose, only when I want someone to clarify their meaning.

When I say it's not a blunder I'm not saying it's the result of top-down influence. It's a grass-roots meme. It's acquired currency among people who reinvent it or hear it from peers and like it. It's caused by the unlucky confluence of two brain malfunctions each of which is highly prevalent among the left -- the intellectualized article of faith that "Prejudice need not be racially motivated, but is still every bit as ugly and lazy a mindset", and the gut-level conviction that telling the truth about the left's outgroups is not a moral obligation. The combination makes all too many of them willingly engage in pious fraud. What people mean is far more important than what they say, yes. The problem is that when Joe makes an anti-Muslim remark and Bill calls him a racist for it, what Bill means is usually "You're a liar. You're pretending you have a problem with his beliefs, but you actually just have a problem with brown people." Bill does that half because he half believes it himself, because his religion has taught him to hate people who make anti-Muslim remarks and think the worst of them and racism is the worst; and he does it half because he knows damn well that society judges racism more harshly than religious prejudice, and he feels Joe deserves to have society think that harshly of him because he believes it's every bit as ugly and lazy a mindset, and the little detail that Joe hasn't actually said anything racist is a trivial technicality to Bill, because Joe is in his outgroup so he doesn't deserve truthfulness.

And if that all sounds a little inconsistent, it's because it is. The leftists who engage in this pious fraud manage to convince themselves that religious prejudice is every bit as ugly and lazy a mindset as racism, because that's what they've learned good people are supposed to believe, at the same time they subconsciously know perfectly well that it isn't as bad. It works by compartmentalization, something religious people tend to be good at.

The thing is, we don't blame people for characteristics they can't help. It's why it's considered shameful to discriminate against short people but okay to discriminate against smokers. It's why homophobes typically insist homosexuality is a choice and gays' defenders insist it isn't. The point is, people are not responsible for what ethnic group they're born into, but they are responsible for what they think. When someone is a Christian, that tells you he's almost certainly willing to suspend critical thought to protect his memes.

So that's why you're wrong to say it's every bit as ugly and lazy a mindset. Why do I say most leftists subconsciously know this? Exhibit A: this forum. Bigoted remarks about conservatives outnumber bigoted remarks about Muslims here by a wide margin. So where are the leftists calling their own to task when one of them displays a pattern of anti-conservative bigotry? They don't denounce one another for it, because they know prejudice against conservatives isn't in the same league with racism, because they hold conservatives responsible for thinking conservative thoughts.