Is the influx of White Nationalists bad? We have been getting a lot of them here recently and they are posting links to our message board on their boards (I do not want to put a link here and start a “board war”).
I was thinking that it would be good to have some of them here as we may be able to show them the light (we are about fighting ignorance after all). However, after perusing through several threads on these issues it seems there is no chance of getting through to them. When I look at their proselitizing boards there is no end of mentioning how many other message boards they have been banned from. They just change their name and try again or move on to a new board. Often when one gets banned another volunteers to take up the slack and keep pushing their agenda.
I am all for learning about both sides of the argument, and it has been rather informative to see exactly what White Nationalists are pushing, but is enough enough? It just seems like we are sucking up bandwidth beating to death the same issue with absolutely no hope of either side giving way at all.
If you think its worth keeping these discussions going, why? If not, is there any way to do anything about it short of draconian censorship? Would a general policy of ignoring these types of threads be better? It just seems like people are banging their heads agaisnt the wall for no reason.
I think that they are educational and entertaining. There is certainly nothing wrong with seeing their faulty logic first hand, and I’ve literally laughed so loud that my flatmate came to check on me more than once.
That said, I’m sure it will get old fairly soon. Their logic is circular and cites are bad, so there isn’t much substance to it.
As for banning… shrugs It would just empower them, on one level. I think they largely get tired of being wrong, as Science Girl and that other guy it called in as backup did.
I don’t know that it is worth it, but the basic hope is that there are many people reading the threads that are not participating. The WN crowd hopes that their “logic” will persuade the audience to join them and we hope to persuade the audience that their “logic” (to say nothing of their generally distorted views of facts) is simply delusional.
Since we do not take polls of people who read and do not post, there is no way of knowing which side is “winning,” but I will note that after a number of battles over the reality of “race” a few years ago, several lurkers commented in later threads that they had been disabused of their ignorance and persuaded of a more informed view of the topic by reading the threads. So the hope burns that our current battles will provide a balanced base of knowledge for a current crop of lurkers.
I’m no White Nationalist but I did see sin on both sides in the debate. In the “I dare White Supremacists” thread (the spawn) it appeared to me that most Dopers where making their case by changing the general definitions of the language we all understand and use. Instead of using the ordinary definition of a word like, for example “race,” as it is found in most dictionaries, there was a deconstruction of the word – something that can be done with any word – anywhere. So no – I didn’t see honesty on either side.
That, in fact, is the point of the “deconstruction.” There are WNs who firmly believe in some mythological “white race,” Yet, when we look at the “ordinary definition,” (which was, from the late 1700s through the mid-to late 1900s, considered the equivalent of “Caucasian”), we find that the WNs are all over the place in their definitions. For example, they pretty much universally attempt to exclude Jews from their definition of “white,” yet Jews (aside from the Ethiopian and Chinese enclaves) are clearly Caucasian. Other WNs will exclude Egyptians and Iraqis and Iranians (except when they are trying to claim that “white” people invented civilization, then the Egyptians and Persians are clearly white although their Iranian and Egyptian descendants have, somehow, stopped being white. Other WNs have excluded Greeks, Italians, and Spaniards from the rolls of white people (except, of course, when they need to claim that all civilization came from “white” folks).
Definitions of “race” include:
the four major groups of Linnaeus, the five major groups of Blumenbach, or the three major groups or 60 major groups of later ethnologists, depending on who is splitting which hairs to arbitrarily define the groups;
the descendants of a common legendary ancestor–Romans, the race of Romulus (or the race of Aeneas); Irish, the race of Miled; Jews, the race of Abraham, etc.
any national group–the British race, the German race (and do not dismiss this sort of division: there were long and serious monographs defending these divisions during the 19th century and there are people in the 20th/21st century who still believe that such groupings have an objective reality);
various arbitrary groups of people assembled according to the wishful thinking of various anti-scientific proponents of supposed genetic xenophobia. These people include (or exclude) all sorts of Irish, French, Germanic, British, pan-European, “Nordic,” “Aryan,” “Northern European” or other arbitrarily and imaginatively assembled groups that have no historic or genetic connection, but who make the organizer feel good about himself by pretending that they are some sort of elite manifestation of human breeding.
Since the WNs will use one (or more) of these definitions (all of which can be shown to be historical fictions) to build up their claims of racial divisions, it is important to pin down just which fiction they are embracing in order to provide the historical evidence that demonstrates that their claims are fiction.
… And the definition of the word “chair” – does that include all designs intended for human sitting? If only some designs than where is that line drawn? Are “chairs” only objects used for animal sitting? Are other – non-animal objects used for sitting called “tables” or are they “chairs” also? And more philosophical - can “chairs” have no utility at all – for example as objects of art? This can go on and on without end and I suspect it’s all hiding.
The “idea” of what a “chair” is or isn’t – or any other word for that matter is something that is there. Otherwise, we couldn’t talk to each other. I know and you know what an Asian person looks like. I know when I see a Black guy and so do you. I’ve seen thousands of White people and so have you. Put a guy from India next to a guy from Sweden and we’d both guess which was which. That’s the agreement we all have and the agreement that is in our common understanding of the world.
The common definition of “white person” includes all Jews who are not Falasha or Chinese, yet the WNs arbitrarily declare the Jews are not white. I am not the one who is making arbitrary decsisons to include or exclude different greups. I have debated WNs who would exclude Italians. I can find lots of Italians and germans who could pass for the
other."
Your claim that “we all know who we’re talking about” is specious because the WNs change the definition of whom to include or exclude depending on the individual WN and occasion. It is possible that putting a Swede next to an Indian would allow most people to identify which was which. Now put an Indian next to a Greek and a Greek next to a Bulgarian, and a Bulgarian next to a Swede and try to get 100% accurate distinctions. You will not.
And these are not imaginary scenarios. In neighborhoods of suburban Detroit there are “white” people who have been discriminating against the “Arabs.” I had several classmates who were ethnic Lebanese and Jordanian who have found themselves addressed by these good “white” folks looking for support for their anti-“Arab” prejudices. The “whites” had no clue that the person they were addressing was not “white” by their odd standards.
The distinctions are arbitrary and meaningless. You chose Swede and Indian. Why? Swedes and Indians are both Caucasian according to all the 19th century literature, so why do you arbitrarily separate them? My “understanding of the world” is that every group shades into every other group and that the lines are so fuzzy as to be meaningless–and the WNs prove that every time two of them come up with separate definitions that include different groups based on arbitrary prejudices.
You’ve never seen anyone of ambigious ethnicity? You may generally know a black person or a white person when you see one, but can you come up with a meaningful definition for either? A chair is a man-made piece of furniture that has a seat and a back support suitable for one person. No back support? Not a chair; that’s a stool. Made for multiple people? That’s a sofa. Those are clear lines, I don’t know why you pretended that you were ignorant of them in your openning.
Wisdom is as light and its source shineth of its own accord.
If they want to speak here, in front of our audience (and theirs), in this environment where for the most part most holds are not barred, I tend to think they’ve bitten into more tiger tail than they are prepared to hold onto. We’re a rough crowd, we don’t tolerate sloppy assertions or coddle people who make fools of themselves.
Of course the dynamic changes if we suddenly get an influx of 11 dozen of them and they essentially spam the board, and in that kind of situation I trust our moderators to put on their Underoos and make the world safe for the continued fighting of ignorance, but if they come in as individuals to air their views, they’ll either sink or swim; we’ll ban a few, drive a few off with ridicule they deserve, and perhaps a couple will stay on and listen as well as expound – as Alan Parsons Project put it, “those who came at first to scoff remained behind to pray”.
This here’s the church of ignorance-fighting. We ain’t got many sacred cows and very little to hide behind, and the audience is well-accustomed to entertaining meltdowns and implosions. You act like an asshole you’re gonna get called an asshole. Think you’ve got something to say, give voice to it, and we’ll give you uncensored feedback on short order. We can separate the partyline parrots from the passionately ideological who speak from their own. If that sounds like turf you could homestead on, bring it on. And prepare to be assimilated.
So tell me, what DOES an Asian person look like? Keep in mind that the term Asia (or Asian) is more of a geographical descriptor rather than one clearly identifying ethnic/racial background.
And are you so sure that everyone will all agree on what “Black” is? Does this refer solely to people with dark skin? If so, does this mean that people of African descent, Andaman Islanders, Aborigines, and Melanesians constitute a single racial category? Can you make the distinction between the three? Can the average person?
If we limit the term black to refer to just Africans, then can one make a clear distinction between someone who is ethnically Ibo (from Southeastern Nigeria) versus someone who is ethnically !Kung Sun (from Botswana)? Sure both are from Africa and both have dark skin. But genetically, they are as different as the difference between someone from Africa and someone from Europe (in fact, the genetic difference between Ibo and !Kung San is probably greater).
And as placing a guy from India next to someone from Sweden - the most noticeable distinction immediately would be likely be hair/skin tone. Unless each has “Indian” and “Swedish” pin to there lapels, most people would be hard pressed to identify the country of origin for each. Most people would say that “that guy has dark skin and the other guy has light skin”. This overlooks the fact that, from a historcial perspective, both Swedes and Indians were thought to belong to the same biological racial category - Caucasian - by most scientists (thankfully, the biological basis for the scientific categorization of people into distinct racial categories has been found to be invalid).
Well, I disagree. Unless, of course, you basing your argument from sound logical and scientific principles. Then you will come to the realization (as most scientistis have) that “race” (as a way of categorizing people into distinct and seperate biological groups) has no basis in reality.
I find their presence here to be worthless. Their views have no scientific substance whatsoever. This alone is not enough reason to exclude them, as the creationists are the same on this point. However, the nastiness and unpleasantness of their views is what merits their exclusion.
Still, I don’t mind if overall serious members of the board are WNs, but people coming here just to troll should be flushed posthaste.
Yes many times but mostly not. I’ve also seen people who are clearly white, black, or asian. The vast majority of people I see are this way. No, I haven’t asked them but when I see a person describe themselves as White, Black, or Asian I never seem surprised. I’ve seen people who are distinctive in that way. But no doubt there are people whose race is ‘ambigious’ – this, however, doesn’t mean the ‘idea’ constituting the word ‘race’ disappears.
… And so do you - which is what I’m talking about – the point being made. We can go out on the fringes and look for the anomalies in any general class - and we’ll find them. This doesn’t say anything about the core general class that gives the word ‘race’ (or any other word) its meaning — as I see this.
Are you asking me to provide words that carry their meaning only from consensus? Than yes. But because they’re meanings come from consensus than every defination, every word by its very nature is subject to exceptions. Words are ruled by consensus not some absolute meaning. Meanings can change. This also makes words — all words — subject to the sort of deconstruction seen with the word ‘race.’ The word ‘race’ is used in language and, generally, the vast majority of people know what they mean when they say someone’s race is Black or White.
Don’t mean to cavil at this but that is what I see being done with the word ‘race.’ So I really don’t want to come off this way - BUT by that defination can any piece of ‘furniture’ that is suitable for ‘seating one person with back support’ constitute a chair? — Or does the intent of the manufacture control ---- or does the intent of the person utilizting the object used for sitting control ---- or does the concensus of opinions control? If ‘intent’ controls than chairs can come in varities outside the defination you just gave. If ‘intent’ doesn’t control than “chairs” may exist that were never intended to be sat in by anyone at anytime. And further - if an object is considered ‘art’ rather than ‘furniture’ does that change the artifact ‘suitable for sitting one person and providing back support’ into something other than a ‘chair.’ It’s no longer furniture. And if the ‘idea’ of “chair” one that chairs can be “chairs” without also be “furniture” than why doesn’t my car have two chairs and one sofa — no stools?
People using language in their daily lives don’t torture the meanings of words in that way. If a person has black skin and features than people call that person ‘Black.’ They don’t call him ‘White.’ Genetics, history, locations, and personal preferences aside.
I was not referring to national origin and you know that. I was referring to physical appearances - differences.
So? The common definition of ‘race’ used in ordinary day-to-day language isn’t one dealing with historical perspectives but physical appearances. As in – ‘officer, the perp was a male, White, 6’2” eyes of blue …. The officer isn’t going to respond with a confused look and say –“White? What on earth are you talking about? How White? Did his genetic make-up suggest he was Indian Caucasian but not White?” The officer isn’t going to go arrest a short Black female because he will know what you mean and — so will most everyone else.
You’re right, but only in the narrowest sense and that sense is based on error…because people often self indentify differently than you may think they should.
Using your example of the cops description; it may eliminate the Black female, but not the latin male, or the many other variations of color and cultural mixtures that can create a 6’2’ blue eyed male, who’s not considered “white”, even though the description is of a white perp.
How much time would be wasted searching for a white guy, i.e not Latin, because it our ordinary day-to-day language/knowlegde is based on the common denominator and that denominator is wrong?
Now i don’t claim to know what the solution is and we may be stuck with this, but it’s a very poor way to define people.
Well it appears this thread has turned into somewhat nitpick battle. Allow me to try and persuade you that the influx of WNs is in fact a good thing.
We need Devil’s Advocates on every issue to remind us why what we think is right is in fact right, so that our knowledge of the issue does not become dead dogma which we recite like automatons. Also occasional questioning of every belief helps keep an open mind and is much more progress oriented then deciding everything for yourself only once.
It might seem redundant argue with WNs or to argue that the earth is not flat but if it gets us nothing else it constantly improves our ability to argue our side so we might not persuade the hardcore WNs we argue with but we will have an easier time persuading someone who is moderately racist.
So all in all they might be obnoxious and their threads might seem like a waste of bandwidth but we need them to keep a perspective on things and to better our debate skills.
P.S. Credit where it is due: the original idea of constantly arguing even the things you’ve already figured out for yourself belongs to John Stuart Mill
No, I don’t “substitute” the word “race” for the words “skin color.” I, alone, don’t give the word “race” or the word “chair” or any other words their meanings. And I suspect that no one I know would ever consider an overly tanned White person to be “Black” by that fact. Now, on the other hand, he or she might say that the person’s skin color has become ‘black’ but they would never say that this fact has also changed that person’s “race.” Never. Why? Because that’s simply not the sole criterion for determining meaning of the word “race” as we use it day-to-day. So — I use the word “race” as I think the vast majority of people use the word – and very likely think the idea ----
Without taking a poll I suspect the word “race” isn’t limited to natural skin color but covers a range of physical characteristics. And I don’t do this to be difficult, quite the opposite, using common definitions allows me to get on in the world. It allows me to express ideas and otherwise communicate. It keeps me from believing someone when they say ‘Bob had ‘sexual relations’ with them’ - but not the other way around. When someone talks in this fashion I suspect they’re not attempting communication –
Well if they self-identify “often” than the definition AND the meaning of the word breaks down and we no longer can use the word and say anything. That doesn’t seem to be the case as I see this. I hear the word “race” being used all of the time and without confusion. I hear it on TV, among classmates and friends, and in school and other organizations.
I also wonder, absent PC motivations, how many “non-ambigious” Black or White folks self-identify as a race other than the one most everyone else considers them to be. For example I am a White male. No one to my knowledge has any doubt that I am a White male. Now – if I identified myself as a Black male I would probably be considered a tad touched – Why? Because of my physical appearance. But by the standard of self-identification alone, I can simply call myself Black and qualify for certain affirmative action programs.
I don’t “define” individuals based on their physical appearance. I do speak the language however and I’ve used the word “race” with the meaning I given it above without problems (except here). So, I suspect I’m using the word “race” in with its common meaning.
Look - here’s the point ---- there are many ways to attack someone who does “define” individuals based on skin tone, color, or any other physical characteristic absent giving non-ordinary definitions to a word. That is the point of all of this.
And here’s the other point ---- the word “race” exists and therefore the idea “race” exists ---- it follows than that “race” exists – If the goal here is to talk it out of existance by changing the minds of people than more power to you. That clearly hasn’t happened yet.
OK, so it is a classification based on appearance?
What about the differences between someone from England and Greece? Russia and France? Kenya and Chad? Egypt and Afghanistan? Mongolia and Vietnam?
They all have a number of physical characteristics that are different, and to someone from the same ethnicity the differences are obvious at first glance. An American might get a Mongolian and a Vietnamese mixed up, but someone from China would not. They facial differences between them are more easily recognized when you are more familiar with the “race”.
See, here’s the problem. Scientifically, the word “race” means something different from what the word “race” means when used by racists. All too often, that definition of “race” can shift around, as mentioned above. Often, Iranians/Persians/Mesopotamians are grouped into the mythical White race when it suits definition, but excluded on account of appearance.
Just because the public definition means one thing, doesn’t make it so. Most of the time, the public is simply ignorant to the true meaning and misuses words. That doesn’t make them right.