02-14-2022, 02:07 AM
(02-13-2022, 04:00 PM)Dill Wrote: 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.
(02-13-2022, 04:06 PM)Dill Wrote: Your "refutation" of my point does depend on your actually refuting it though, not just saying "I disagree."
And I am "arguing your actual point" when I note that you granted that people could have "unconscious biases" and I ask why such could not be racist and influence behavior "unknowingly." To "refute" the notion people can be "unknowing" racists, you need to explain why there cannot be unconcious racist biases, and/or why these don't really influence behavior. You have not.
I also argued your "actual point" when I posited examples of people who called Michelle Obama a gorilla, at which time you threw your own definition out the window to claim it all depends on how we feel about their apologies.
Racist "tropes" like the supposed similarity of blacks to apes don't just circulate neutrally, harmlessly, in the common culture where people may just understandably deploy them for jokes with a sly wink and a nod to "all races do it"; good fun. Such tropes are available precisely because a dominant cultural group defined a dominated one through such devices, making them ok and "natural."
Were your definition generally adopted, its effect would be to give wider permission to "align" Blacks with apes, commonsensically, for humor and political commentary. Victims who resist or complain just want to make everything about race. So in their face.
(02-13-2022, 04:10 PM)Dill Wrote: That's why Dill doesn't fashion sociological definitions that leave final determination in "the eye of the beholder," then defend them with petty personal insults.
The following illustrates the usual pattern of our discussions about racism; I've changed the subject matter to "ducks" so that it is the pattern which stands out.
SSF: All ducks are mallards.
Dill: What about Lesser Scaups or Goldeneye ducks? Are they Mallards then, or just not ducks?
SSF: You're obviously confused so I'll repeat this one more time: All ducks are Mallards. If its not a Mallard it is not a duck. If it is a duck then it is a Mallard.
Dill: so a Goldeneye is not a duck, or IS a Mallard? You are just repeating your claim without explaining why a Goldeneye doesn't qualify as a duck. Why do biologists think Goldeneyes are a different species?
SSF: I've already refuted your points. You are just twisting what I say into something I didn't. Looks like another case of Dill "doesn't see it." I can't help that you're being deliberately ignorant because you know that you are wrong.
I appreciate your eight attempts to make three posts, but, sadly, this is not a case of practice makes perfect. You do not engage in good faith or actually attempt to answer actual points made. Stick to circle jerking with GM, it's honestly all your good for at this point. I know you'll view this as a a victory or a retreat by me, but Trump still views the 2020 election as "stolen." You have far more in common with this level of delusion then you'll ever actually admit.
Don't bother making ten posts, then deleting nine of them, to respond. Just stop, because, quite frankly, you bore the ever loving shit out of me.
