I know you’re crazy, but are you so much of a racist-lover that you think only Black people should be offended by racism? All decent human beings should be offended by racism and speak out whenever they encounter it.
I’m aware you’re not included under “decent human beings”, so don’t really have a feel for what it’s like not to be a lying racist-loving teddy-raping asshole, but c’mon - even someone as stupid as you should know “Only Blacks should be offended” is outright dumb.
What am I saying? You think “Blacks are subhuman” has no moral component. *Of course *you’re that dumb.
Like I said in that thread " I claim the moral high ground because the side of the oppressed, discriminated-against, conquered and sidelined is always the moral high ground."
Because she was saying “treating someone like a loyal dog is bad”. She was saying that analogizing an animal, even a nice animal like a loyal dog, to a person in one’s mind, is racist. If she was analogizing people to animals, it was to demonstrate that such analogizing is racist. She was demonstrating a racist thing on purpose in order to single out such behavior as racist.
If CP had demonstrated an analogy between cockroaches and black people and then followed this up with “and this is an extremely racist thing to say/do/believe”, then I would not have criticized it. But he just analogized – he really thought it was reasonable to believe that black people are inherently less intelligent for the same reasoning and logic that one determines that cockroaches are less intelligent. Ann Hedonia specifically stated and believes that treating and thinking of a person like a loyal dog is absolutely racist.
Well, he apologized. He’s still following it up with a bunch of waffling BS. And he’s pretty much back to saying she did what she, in fact, did not do.
Your “moral high ground” was to tell the Japanese that Japanese are not an ethnic group. That’s as nonsensical as, well, a lot of your other rantings and ravings.
Of course. But, should you choose to use that phrase to describe me knowing that it’s false, then you’ve acted poorly. Were the statement true, then there would be actions of mine - actions with an actual moral weight - that you could point to.
Most of the time, when people say “x is racist” they are doing so either as an insult, or in an attempt to shut down discussion. Some of the time it’s true, and saying so may actually be useful. As the same phrase can be either good or bad when uttered, depending mostly on its truth value and partly on the intention of the speaker, the phrase itself has no inherent moral value.
“Steophan is racist” and “blacks are subhuman” are both statements that are NOT either true or false, because both use loaded and ill-defined terms. That’s distinct from a statement like “black high school seniors score on average 200 points lower on their SATs than white high school students”, a statement about facts which is either true or false (well, it’s a teensy bit more complicated, because the data might be incomplete, or the actual number might be 197 which some people are comfortable rounding up to 200 and others are not, but basically it’s a testable and objective statement about the world). The latter statement SOUNDS racist particularly with no context, and has racist implications, and could certainly be used by racists in an attempt to make their point, but is not, in and of itself, racist.
That’s partly because it’s clear that if this disparity exists (and I’ve definitely read that there is a disparity in SAT scores although I made up 200 points at random), there are plenty of societal and environmental reasons that might explain it, but it’s also partly because it’s a measurable fact with as little moral or value judgment tacked on as possible.
I do think there is a tricky middle ground between statements which are clearly racist value judgments and statements which are just statements about the world, even if they have racist overtones, but “blacks are subhuman” is clearly in the first category. An example of a middle ground statement is “blacks are genetically better at basketball than whites”. Is that measurably true or false? Well, not easily, but it’s at least in the category of things that we could measure if we had huge amounts of money and unlimited Skinner boxes… raise thousands of white babies and thousands of black babies in identical isolation, teach them to play basketball, then have a bunch of games between white teams and black teams. At the same time, is it, if true, a moral value judgment or just an irrelevance? Well, that’s also debatable. “Playing baskteball” is a skill which combines a bunch of physical and mental traits together, but also sounds like something pretty unrelated from one’s “worth” as a human being. So, like I said, hard to say.
(There’s another stupid way to argue this which is in an entirely literal “well, the statement itself is not racist” fashion, ie, if you wrote “blacks are subhuman” on a piece of paper, then the piece of paper, ie, those precise bits of wood pulp, would not be racist, it would be the information gathered from a pattern of ink on the wood pulp, and the piece of paper is not identical to the information… but that’s a silly bit of irrelevant sophistry.)
I’m just so used to my postings in this type of thread getting lost in the back and forth of whatever tangential turn the thread has taken that it kind of took me back - it’s nice to know that people actually read what I post because sometimes I don’t see much evidence of it.
I wouldn’t really call either of those an ethnicity so much as a convenient census category (or the currently fashionable but IMO obfuscatory term “panethnicity”.) Ethnicity implies shared language, history and culture - Navajo is an ethnicity, Haida is an ethnicity,but “Native American” isn’t. And “Asian-Pacific Islander” is a grab-bag of Melanesian, Micronesian, Polynesian, and other ethnicities (as well as everything Asian, which is dumb).
But they don’t shit all over other groups like “Japanese” does, because Native Americans aren’t just called “Americans”, excluding all other American ethnicities. The “Native” is synonymous with “Aboriginal” and isn’t exclusionary. And I don’t even know how Asian-Pacific Islander could be construed to be exclusionary, the way “Native American” could if you had an agenda.
