Somewhere Karl Popper is lamenting that he never wrote a sequel to the Paradox of Tolerance.
It is like if what the right has been doing with the loaded terms used before does not matter.
Nah, the efforts here are to keep everyone asleep.
That’s the opposite of the “one drop rule”. The ODR was an example of hypodescent, a system in which children of “mixed descent” are assigned to the lower status group; you’re either “pure”, or contaminated.
The scenario you are postulating is hyperdescent, in which people of mixed ancestry are assigned to the higher status group.
My inference from a ‘mexican american is unlikely to be a white supremacist’ would be the hypodescent.
My ‘Mestizos using European ancestry to defend their White Supremacy’ would be the hyperdescent.
Your post got the point I was attempting to make with cites and everything!
Moderating:
Knock it off. You’re in GD, not the Pit. If you can’t discuss matters with civility, leave the thread.
So it became a slur occidentally?
No; we want them here so we can exploit and abuse them, and as an excuse to demonize brown people in general. So we created a system where they are here but lack access to government services and protection.
And Trump won because a large portion of the American populace is evil, stupid, or both. He’s stupid, ignorant and evil, and people wanted stupidity, ignorance and evil.
Don’t you think it’s more accurate to say, they wanted someone ‘they could relate to’?
I mean, same difference but you won’t get someone to admit to the first one, it just somehow sounds bad.
Sometimes bad just sounds…bad. Sugarcoating the absolute crap too many people are going through gets you nothing in the long run but Sugar Frosted Crap.
Yes; decades of pretending that the Right were better people than they are is a major reason we have ended up in the present disastrous situation.
One reason so many people are surprised the leopards are eating their faces is that they spent their lives listening to the leopard’s opponents insisting they were just harmless housecats. The Right can’t be that bad if even their enemies refuse to call them bad people, after all.
I find the term “homeless people” problematic because in American English, we typically encounter the the construction “{x} people”, where x is something like race or religion; “Muslim people”, “White people”, “gay people”, even “reasonable people”.
The implication is that their homelessness is somehow part of their identity, not a problem that could be solved. We don’t need to be concerned about them, because living under bridges is simply “the way of their people”.
No offense, but I don’t actually think your capacity for rational thought is as far superior to the average person’s as you think.
This is exactly how it’s supposed to work; someone explained to you why the term you were using was inappropriate, you considered their argument and concluded they were right, so you changed your usage.
And no small group of people can “push” a change on “everybody else”; just ask a Latinx wymyn how xe feels about it. When some proposed language change is adopted by society at large, it’s because a general consensus is reached that it’s desirable. People who choose to continue using terms that are either outdated or have clearly failed to catch on are going to be viewed as oddballs.
A lot of white people are hyper-sensitive about this stuff, because they think that someone correcting their usage is accusing them of being a Racist Person (see what I did there?). And possibly the people doing the correcting are not always as tactful as they should be, but it is by having these sorts of difficult conversations that we progress as a society.
Gosh, I had no idea Biden reduced border enforcement from such nefarious motives! You must have been happy to learn Trump supporters genuinely don’t want them in America, and voted for the guy who promised to end this terrible system by deporting everyone who’s in America illegally and preventing any more entering.
Sadly you’ll have to come up with your own excuse for why it’s good not to empathise with average people.
No, I’ve come up with a perfectly reasonable “excuse” to not have understanding and empathy for people who do not have understanding and empathy for folks that are not like themselves.
Biden was a moderate right wing corporatist, not some left wing activist. And people voted for Trump because they wanted to go beyond exploitation to fascism and genocide. Including many of the targets, who were sure that it’d be the other brown people who’d be rounded up for disposal.
But the leopards will eat them too.
Speaking very seriously, your reasoning would make it okay to lack empathy and understanding for just about everyone in the world today, and make it impossible to ever improve on that situation. So I sincerely hope you and others do not actually hold this pernicious belief.
You’re do realize that that reads as you asserting that everyone in the world today lacks empathy and understanding . . . and my beliefs are pernicious?
The Right is about greed, hatred, cruelty, malice, and the denial of reality - empathy and understanding other people go against everything that make it what it is. It’s always been about hurting and oppressing people and denying reality in order to justify it for as long as the concept of “right wing” has existed; longer than the US itself has.
“Bothsides” doesn’t work; the Left and center can be good or bad, right or wrong; the Right is always in the wrong morally and factually. There’s never been a practical difference between “the Right” and “evil”; people just pretend otherwise because it’s the ideology of the powerful and privileged.
No, they wanted someone who validated their worst impulses, and boy did they get him.
Since Biden didn’t reduce border enforcement at all, your snark is moot.
Why would anyone be happy with a change that actually makes things worse for all parties involved?
Oh, I don’t think having understanding of why sociopaths do what they do and are what they are is difficult, even if empathy with them would be paradoxical.
Your comment reads to me as asserting it’s good to only have empathy and understanding for literal saints; almost no one completely lacks empathy and understanding for people who are different from them, but almost no one understands and empathises perfectly with everyone at all times.
We’re not talking about Nazis here: you are saying that it’s fine and good to have no empathy for eg older people who find remembering and using a bunch of new terms a lot more difficult than you do. Is that really what you believe?
Personally, I think it is good and useful to have empathy and understanding for people who are not so smart and well informed as you, and find keeping up with all this new language hard, and being corrected by someone with more social capital unpleasant or even threatening. It’s good to understand that people may find the reasoning for changing a particular term weak and unconvincing (master bedroom, anyone?), and that this is not automatically an indication of racism or some phobia - falsely accusing people of things like that is bad! It’s good to understand that some may see these changes as a power play, a way to raise your status at the expense of theirs, and object to being corrected for that reason.
It doesn’t stop you having empathy and understanding for anyone else, including those who might be hurt by the older language.You don’t even have to act on your understanding and empathy if you don’t want to. So consciously avoiding it is pretty damn unjustifiable.