MAGA

[*bfine32*]

(07-16-2019, 03:01 PM)GMDino Wrote: I never said "such activity does not exist". 

I guess not feeling like a victim but being willing to stand for those who are is frowned upon is some parts.

Not feeling attacked by being willing to stand up for those who are is frowned upon also.

(07-17-2019, 01:48 PM)Dill Wrote: More "just is."  And if the point of your Muslim family example were to denigrate Muslims in general then yes, that would be bad. But not if it were framed as a parody of right wing stereotypes. No.  

I have had to repeat requests for evidence of Dino's racism yes. And I managed to get at least a preliminary definition out of you as well.  But your definition doesn't apply to my image or Dino's, since neither was "denigrating a race."  To make your definition consistent with your critique, you would have to argue that any depiction of white people is in itself racist, regardless of intent or context. That is the definition you are using, not the one you stated.  Bad news for Normal Rockwell.

This appears akin to the logic of many religious fundamentalism which ban images regardless of context or intent. No "parody" in their book.


Perhaps one is indeed "against racism or not," but people evidently don't just "see" it or not, however much they may think they do. They disagree about what counts as an example, about what it is.  They define it very differently. In that case, people who research the grounds of these differences are not why "racism will continue to be a problem." 

And now your preliminary definition raises some questions, because the one you gave--belief that other races are inferior--is not really the one you are applying to me and Dino. The extension of "racism" has been expanded now to include people who "believe others deserve ill treatment due to historical wrongs."   Doesn't sound like that has anything to do with race, unless the historical wrongs were based on racism-as-belief-other-races-are-inferior. In that case your extension describes a critique of racism than racism.

So is the claim that Dino and I think others "deserve" ill treatment? And the claim would be based upon images of whites we have posted which were critical of racist-inspired "historical wrongs"?  We are directing racism at whites? But "reverse racism" doesn't exist--so our critique of racism can't itself be racist, even on your terms, can it?   


Because they are "inferior"? Speechless. almost.  Making ethical arguments, one usually proceeds from individual to group. Bad to mistreat individuals, and so bad to mistreat a whole class of them.  Hard to get to the latter from "targeting individuals for personal attack is fine."

People who personally attack others don't really "feel bad" about the people they target.

Still haven't seen Dino's racist statement about white men, but I suspect it doesn't meet the test of your preliminary definition.

LOL you can "repudiate" my argument, but you cannot refute it. You cannot identify any "fatal flaw."   

Dino and I have decided to critique racist behavior, not ignore it. And you have decided to critique us as "reverse racists"--while claiming there is no such thing as reverse racism.

Looks like progress. We see you are deploying two definitions here, alternating them to suit the moment and the target--one for defense, the other for attack. You cannot refute my argument that Dino's image neither addresses nor denigrates "the white race," but you nevertheless "repudiate" it without giving reasons. 

The question now is, are you going to continue repeating that criticism of racism is itself "racism" without addressing/refuting any of the objections I have raised?  If I reference these new questions of definition/refutation in a future post, will you claim that you have "already addressed them" and you are not going to repeat yourself?

Read your hero's commentary in the OP of the The Carlson thread and tell me that is not degrading a race