|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: And there's another gay bakery case
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
[to orfeo] Oh, I stopped listening to Russ some time ago - but if the hosts want to close the thread, that's fine by me.
[ 04. May 2017, 13:32: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
No matter what we say, Russ is going to continue believing
This assumes his engagement is genuine, which evidence suggests otherwise.
quote:
It is a fool's errand to believe this conversation is going to generate a meaningful result. Rarely has a deceased equine been so thoroughly flogged as it has been here.
In regards to Russ, yes. In regards to lurkers who might share one or more* of Russ' purported arguments, I must give sincere praise to those of you who have slogged through the dross. Hopefully any reasonable people reading may have food for thought.
*Hopefully not all of it in its massively contradictory meander.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
How about disadvantaging people of another race (qua people of another race) as a common feature of all forms of racism?
Does that require that race has objective existence ?
Does it have to be another race, or can one be racist to someone of one's own race ?
quote:
You want a racist to be one who acts with conscious animus against people of another race.
Not necessarily. I just want a clear agreed meaning of the term "racist" (or set of terms that distinguish the various senses) which doesn't label anyone as worse than they are.
Just as you'd distinguish a hitman from someone subject to murderous rages from someone who was once involved in an accident in which someone was killed.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Does it have to be another race, or can one be racist to someone of one's own race?
The Clark doll studies seem to indicate that the answer to that latter question is 'yes'. Do you have any questions about race and racism that aren't segregationist apologia at least fifty years out of date?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Oh, oh, Sir; I know the answer to that one
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
How about disadvantaging people of another race (qua people of another race) as a common feature of all forms of racism?
Does that require that race has objective existence ?
Does it have to be another race, or can one be racist to someone of one's own race ?
It doesn't I think require that race be anything other than a social construct.
As for whether one can be racist towards people of one's own race I think that would be handled on a case by case basis. (See below about concepts having fuzzy boundaries.)
quote:
quote:
You want a racist to be one who acts with conscious animus against people of another race.
Not necessarily. I just want a clear agreed meaning of the term "racist" (or set of terms that distinguish the various senses) which doesn't label anyone as worse than they are.
I think this labelling anyone as worse than they are is a straw man that you're tilting against. As I've pointed out most moral terms in the English language (and I think in most other language) that cover a range of moral culpability.
You're the one who imported the word 'hate' into a definition that only mentioned 'injustice'. (You say you didn't do that intentionally. How did you not do it intentionally? Were you not reading carefully? You just assumed you knew what other people were thinking?)
I think your tendency to equate 'morally wrong' with 'punishable' and 'forbiddable' is also having a distorting effect.
In any case, I think neither of the cases that you're advocating for - the shopkeeper who refuses to hire someone of another race because customers will not attend, nor the customers themselves - are ethically defensible.
As for a clear agreed meaning of any term, I think you're barking up the wrong dead horse here. Most terms have clear central cases and then fuzzier boundary cases. The number of distinctions one might wish to draw in the world being considerably greater than the number of words an average speaker of a language might be expected to learn. And so language have linguistic tools to flag up and mark the boundary cases: for example, 'technically speaking' and 'effectively' (which are roughly opposites).
So the adjectives 'effective' and 'functional' don't mark off types of racism: they mean 'perhaps not technically speaking but might as well be'.
quote:
Just as you'd distinguish a hitman from someone subject to murderous rages from someone who was once involved in an accident in which someone was killed.
For some purposes. One would still want to prevent all three from killing people. And one would want to object to any attempt to distinguish between them in a way that suggested that any of them ought to be free to kill people.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It doesn't I think require that race be anything other than a social construct.
OK, I see the sense in thinking of race as intersubjective.
But I'm not sure why you think our current society's social construction of race is such an important and valuable idea that it needs to be perpetuated. Guess it's part of the myth of social progress.
quote:
As for whether one can be racist towards people of one's own race I think that would be handled on a case by case basis.
Beats me how you can think you're adequately prepared to consider any case if your principles are based on your vocabulary and your vocabulary is so vague that you don't know what the word "racism" refers to.
If you see a traffic accident and say "that's wrong because it's murder and I know murder is wrong but it's OK if I have only a fuzzy idea what it is" then how much confidence do you think other people will have in your moral judgments ?
quote:
In any case, I think neither of the cases that you're advocating for - the shopkeeper who refuses to hire someone of another race because customers will not attend, nor the customers themselves - are ethically defensible.
Are you able to explain why with reference to general moral principles that don't involve the concept of race ?
quote:
As for a clear agreed meaning of any term, I think you're barking up the wrong dead horse here.
You mean that tree has already bolted ?
Communication requires a shared language. And perhaps the more that two people approach a subject from different directions, the more it is the case that successful communication on that topic requires shared understanding of the meaning of words.
quote:
One would still want to prevent all three from killing people. And one would want to object to any attempt to distinguish between them in a way that suggested that any of them ought to be free to kill people.
How do you propose that a car driver who has been involved in a fatal accident that was not his/her fault be prevented from killing ? Jail ? Disqualification from driving ?
Does the principle of not punishing the innocent mean nothing to you ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But I'm not sure why you think our current society's social construction of race is such an important and valuable idea that it needs to be perpetuated. Guess it's part of the myth of social progress.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) You've been arguing for the perpetuation of racism for months.
Pretty please.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Russ--
Something I've asked you before, in various ways, on this thread or others, and I don't think you've ever responded:
You're in Ireland. If you're ethnically Irish, you're most probably familiar with the horrible way your people have been treated, including in the Irish diaspora (e.g. Irish folk in America). You may well have been treated badly yourself.
So how can you believe that racism doesn't matter? Or is even ok???
Or is it only ok when it's pointed at non-Irish?
Please answer this. Thx.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It doesn't I think require that race be anything other than a social construct.
OK, I see the sense in thinking of race as intersubjective.
But I'm not sure why you think our current society's social construction of race is such an important and valuable idea that it needs to be perpetuated. Guess it's part of the myth of social progress.
Oh it's the traditional 'calling out racism is racist' sophistical fallacy.
Rather like saying that Amnesty International is perpetuating the concept of abusing human rights.
You think people who falsely believe that other people have dirty hands on the basis of their race are doing nothing wrong in perpetuating the social construction of race. But saying that's what they're doing is problematic.
Yes. Once there is no more racism the concept of race will be a historical curiosity. Unfortunately at the moment there are people who act in a way to disadvantage other people because they make a first-order assignation of race.
quote:
quote:
As for whether one can be racist towards people of one's own race I think that would be handled on a case by case basis.
Beats me how you can think you're adequately prepared to consider any case if your principles are based on your vocabulary and your vocabulary is so vague that you don't know what the word "racism" refers to.
Fortunately none of your conditionals are the case.
I assume you think you know what a bird is. Perhaps you could explain why archaeopteryx was a bird, and velociraptor wasn't. It's an entirely arbitrary line across a fuzzy boundary. So according to your logic you don't know what a bird is.
Let's consider the word 'vocabulary', which you've just used twice. OED defines it as 'the range of language of a particular person, class, etc.'
Is a word that someone never uses but vaguely understands part of their range of language or not? Any answer you give will be arbitrary. The boundary is fuzzy. By your logic you don't know what vocabulary means.
Or person. I've asked you a couple of times to define treating a person as a person.
quote:
quote:
In any case, I think neither of the cases that you're advocating for - the shopkeeper who refuses to hire someone of another race because customers will not attend, nor the customers themselves - are ethically defensible.
Are you able to explain why with reference to general moral principles that don't involve the concept of race ?
If someone avoids using a business because of a false and derogatory belief about someone who works at that business, which they could easily correct if they thought about it, they do that person and the business that hires them wrong, firstly by holding the derogatory belief and secondly by acting on that derogatory belief in a way that injures the person about whom it is held.
If someone indulges the holders of the false derogatory belief by refusing to hire a person about whom such a belief is held then they are guilty of abetting the wrongdoing.
quote:
quote:
One would still want to prevent all three from killing people. And one would want to object to any attempt to distinguish between them in a way that suggested that any of them ought to be free to kill people.
How do you propose that a car driver who has been involved in a fatal accident that was not his/her fault be prevented from killing ?
You could try disqualifying the person whose fault it was from driving. I'm not sure how that is punishing the innocent. Maybe you could explain that to me?
My worry here is that you're doing the equivalent of arguing that someone who drinks excessively and then drives and causes an accident is innocent. Because drinking is innocent, and people aren't at fault for decisions they make when their judgement is impaired. That making it illegal to drink and drive is punishing the innocent.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
hosting
Racism is not a Dead Horse. If people want to discuss racism with Russ they must do so in Purgatory or Hell. I've warned already about people getting personal with Russ outside of Hell, if you've lost your patience with another poster or believe they are posting in bad faith, that discussion must be had in Hell not here. Also if you want to argue for some sort of general moral principle that applies to all forms of discrimination - that too belongs in Purgatory.
I think this thread has gone too far from the original OP to be salvaged, so I'm closing it.
Louise
Dead Horses Host
hosting off
[ 04. May 2017, 22:29: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
