Joe Rogan apologises for using N-word and racist Planet of the Apes story

[Dill]

(02-10-2022, 07:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: it actually does, as explained below.

Quote:If it has to depend on whether denial is "believable," then other, unstated and untestable criteria are in play, making the actual determination.

Yes, much like anything to do with knowing what is in someone's head and heart it is open to interpretation.  However, that wasn't your original position.  Moving the goal posts now, are we?

My "position"? We are talking about your definition. If I flag weaknesses in it, like limited application, fuzzy boundaries, and logical inconsistency, that is not "moving the goal posts." Those goalposts are always there for every definition. 

Also, you have a "body of work" in this forum now. This week you plant your definitional flag on the ground of "intention," but that was not the case in past discussions when you "called out" others for "soft" racism or "casual" racism or Dino's "blatant" racism or the "real" racism of civil rights advocates. By your earlier definitions, I was a racist whether I deployed racist categories/rhetoric or not, and whether I "apologized" or not. Just was.

Tucker Carlson style, you have adjusted your definitions to the moment, targeting people/arguments you don't like. This moment is different only in that your current definition absolves people you like, who "accidently" make racist remarks, if they say they are not, and YOU decide to believe them, making your feelings, not your definition, the ultimate determiner. 

Social/political science definitions don't work like that. The point is to set up criteria that free application from "knowing what is in someone's heart."  One cannot actually be a Klan member without consciously deciding to be one, but one can certainly be a "racist" without knowing it, or without believing one is, just as one can be a right wing populist or an authoritarian or a fascist or a malignant narcissist without at all "knowing" those definitions or consciously deciding to be. 

Social scientists/philosophers/historians don't defend their definitions by telling others to do the research themselves or claiming intelligent people don't need explanations. They set up definitions to be tested, and then use the feedback to validate, fine tune, or discard their definitions. They don't defend them with personal insults, telling people to "keep up" while they refuse to address, let alone refute, criticism. They appreciate and work with criticism of definitions because that is what solidifies and validates them.