Soldato
Stormzy Cambridge Scholorship
- Thread starter Marmot
- Start date
Man of Honour
You think irrational prejudice and discrimination is a good thing.
I think irrational prejudice and discrimination is a bad thing.
Unless you can learn to at least understand my position you're not going to be able to argue against it. It can't be explained in any simpler terms, so the idea that irrational prejudice and discrimination is a bad thing must be a concept you have made yourself unable to understand.
There's no strawman involved. I think irrational prejudice and discrimination is a bad thing. Simple as that. I don't care what excuse anyone uses for it. The logic is very simple and has no flaws - I disagree with irrational prejudice and discrimination, therefore I disagree with irrational prejudice and discrimination. It's not even really logic - the idea is so simple that it doesn't require a chain of reasoning.
Since you approve of irrational prejudice and discrimination, you regard disapproving of it as fallacious. That's obvious - if you thought that it was true that irrational prejudice and discrimination is a bad thing, you wouldn't think that irrational prejudice and discrimination is a good thing.
And the later becomes the former with the addition of what (magical?) ingredient?
This little gem always gets thrown out there and is all to often accepted unchallenged.....
Sure a lot of the 'blacks' in the USA are descended from slaves but then considerably more 'white' Europeans were taken to Africa as slaves then 'black' Africans taken to what is now the USA since Western colonialism kicked of with the discovery of the new world by Europeans.
The main difference is that the African slavers did not allow the white slaves to breed and maintain a resentful slave/ slave descendant population in their host countries.
If a white slave was not well connected enough to have a ransom paid for their return they could look forward to a short wretched life chained under deck wallowing in their own and others filth (for the men) or if they were female they might be lucky enough to be sold of as a sex slave in some harem.
The 'people of colour' in the UK however don't, in the main, even have an ancestral history of slavery at the hands of the British.
Now of course racism does exist and lots of people of colour invited to this country from the early 1950's onwards (and some later ones who were perhaps not quite so invited) found a lot of discrimination in the country.
But one of the most striking things is how different the general attainment of these different groups of people has been...
For example
So tell me why it's accepted that 'blacks' as a group of people in the UK are where they are mostly/solely as a result of racism when other groups facing similar discrimination have thrived?
The average 'white' Brit would struggle to tell a Pakistani from an Indian without self adopted cultural clothing or jewellery. So the differences in outcomes for the two groups, in the UK, is more likely to be down to differences of culture within the respective groups rather then external racism.
What bizzare form of racism leads to an apparently oppressed minority group (Indians) sometimes seeming to out perform the majority oppressors?
We can observe the same phenomenon in the USA where the 'white systemic privellege' apparently embedded into their society has lead to Koreans being one of the most successful groups in a lot of metrics. It's especially bizzare when you consider that a lot of the ancestors of thoose Koreans arrived in the USA dirt poor when Korea itself was a relatively poor country.
I suggest therefore that there should actually be more study to find out whether there is actual considerable systemic racism in the West or if disparities in the outcomes of different ethnic groups are actually more driven by the actions of thoose different groups members rather then any 'systemic racism'
I won't hold my breathe that this will actually happened any time soon however because of the few occasions it has been tried the results were rather embarrassing for the race baiters....
Like when the New Jersey highway patrol were accused of being racists for stopping more blacks in traffic stops.... So they divisied a clever study by measuring the speed of cars on a stretch of freeway (covertly) whilst also photographing the drivers of the cars concerned (again covertly).
A panel of people where then asked to try and establish the ethnicity of the drivers photographed but crucially they didn't know what the recorded speed of the corresponding cars was and didn't know if the vehicle was exceeding the speed limit or not.
The results of the study showed that the drivers identified as black were apparently speeding disproportianally when compared to the actual stop ratios for the police suggesting the police should be stopping more black drivers if they were acting on the basis of offending activity alone whilst ignoring ethnicity!
https://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/27/nyregion/racial-study-of-speeders-is-released-in-new-jersey.html
Of course I could also point out that historically that one of the most oppressed groups in Europe have been the Jewish people who have been the subject of repeated pogroms and discrimination but yet they are quite a sucessful group, where they still exist. It appears that having a history of discrimination isn't quite the same hindrance for some groups as compared to others?
Last edited:
This is the flawed basis on which the rest of your argument is based. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly.
So you feel the need to keep insisting.
Your repeated insistence on this (which I think the sort of people who harp on about SJWs and the MSM would call "virtue-signalling) isn't needed. You're again missing the point in dispute.
The word you're fishing for is "axiomatic".
As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, you've failed to show where the irrational prejudice appears in this matter.
And there's the strawman. As I say, it's not really a strawman, because it's just a case that you don't understand where the flaw in your argument lies. The fact it's taking you so long to grasp this is a bit of a worry though![/QUOTE]
Man of Honour
It is not at all flawed.
You have stated, explicitly and publically and in this very thread, that you think that irrational prejudice and discrimination is a good thing. Specifically, you called irrational prejudice and discrimination "positive", but I think it's very clear from context that you were not referring to electromagnetic charge. You did that in post number 134, but your entire position rests on your belief that irrational prejudice and discrimination is a good thing. The person I initially replied to said the same thing.
Oh sure, you think that irrational prejudice and discrimination is a good thing when used against some group identities and a bad thing when used against other group identities, but that's irrelevant. Everyone who thinks that irrational prejudice and discrimination is a good thing thinks that. A white supremacist, for example, will undoubtably think that anti-"white" racism is a bad thing.
Ok, I give up, you clearly don't engage in discussion honestly.
a) I didn't claim 'irrational prejudice and discrimination is a positive thing'
b) you are asserting that affirmative action = irrational prejudice and discrimination, when in fact this is by definition incorrect - affirmative action by its very definition while it is discriminatory, is not irrational prejudice, since it has been decided upon as a counterbalance to irrational prejudice
muppet
Man of Honour
EDIT: Changed this post to clarifiy attributions.
Both you and garnett have explicitly and repeatedly referred to irrational prejudice and discrimination as being a good thing.
As "evidence" of your claim that I'm lying when I say that the first person I replied to did that, you quoted garnett doing exactly that. That's an interesting position for you to take.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
You're saying that irrational prejudice and discrimination isn't irrational prejudice and discrimination if you agree with it and you're saying that I'm not being honest. That's an...interesting...position.
Everyone who favours discriminating against people solely because of whatever irrelevant biological characteristic they have decided defines a person thinks that is a positive thing. Pro-white racists think that pro-white racism is a positive thing. Pro-female sexists think that pro-female sexism is a positive thing. Etc, etc. Same thing, different target. They also think it's rational, of course, so they have to devise a way of pretending that the irrational is rational. A common way is doing what you're doing - blaming the victims. If it's their fault that you're discriminating against them, your discrimination is rational - they deserve it by having the "wrong" sex, "race" or whatever. They're all the same. They're all bad. So discriminating against them is the right thing to do. Completely rational and positive.
I reject the idea that it is rational and positive to discriminate against people solely because of their sex, "race", sexual orientation, shoe size, natural hair colour or any other irrelevant biological characteristic. It is never rational, no matter what excuse you use. It is never positive, no matter what excuse you use.
You might be too devout a supporter of irrational prejudice and discrimination to understand my position, but you should be able to understand that it's an honest position. I think it's wrong regardless of what excuse is used to pretend it's right. That's an honest position and I can't think of a way to phrase it any more simply for you.
Claiming revenge as a counterbalance might be a justifiable position when applied to individuals, but applying it to group identities is a different thing entirely. Although I suppose someone who's irrationally prejudiced enough to believe that a person's sex, "race" or whatever is their identity wouldn't understand the difference. If they're all the same, it doesn't matter which one is targetted.
You can try and ramble on to gloss over it, but you've repeatedly now failed to show where in all of this is your "irrational prejudice and discrimination" - a phrase repeated so often in your posts that they look mildly psychopathic.
Read together, the unusual fixations and blinkered focus of your posts present a fairly dysfunctional approach to all of this.
I don't want to have a go at the ideas of someone if there's a reason why those posts are the way they are, so I'm gonna to back out. If you're happy to confirm that's all's well where you are, I'll happily come back and carry on the discussion.
Man of Honour
Nicely done!
You can't argue in support of your position that racism (and sexism, etc) are good things, so you claim I'm mentally ill because I think they're bad things and portray yourself as sympathetic.
Excellent politics - irrational and amoral, but possibly effective and your only course of action because your position is insupportable.
But please, feel free to try to support your position that racism (and whatever other irrational prejudice and discrimination you favour) is a good thing.
Also, feel free to try to support your fallback position that racism (and whatever other irrational prejudice and discrimination you favour) is rational. Explain how it's rational to discriminate against people for having the "wrong" amount of suntan or the "wrong" sex or whatever.
Far from rambling and glossing over my position, I've stated it as simply as possible. Several times. I think that it is wrong to discriminate against people because of their sex, "race", shoe size, natural hair colour or any other trivial irrelevancy. Which part of that do you not understand?
You, on the other hand, have glossed over your advocacy of racism, etc, to such an extent that you're reduced to claiming that I'm insane because I think that discriminating against people because of their sex, "race", shoe size, natural hair colour or any other trivial irrelevancy is a bad thing.
I told you, your continued strawmanning means I'm not bothering to continue this. Literally your first sentence is just a repeat of the same (wilful or not) misrepresentation of what I'm saying...fortunately others can clearly see this also...
everyone can see the posts and see you were lying. this is laughable
You've avoided giving the reassurance I asked for, and until you do, as I've said, I'm not going to risk contributing to a difficult situation.
Who's kwerk? As soon as I read Kwerk I thought of the frengi guy from star trek deep space nine. The guy with massive ears. Like a mouse.
The deleted poster on this thread.
Iirc massive CT.
I can't remember if it was him who refused to believe that you didn't need constant thrust to move in space or if that was kedge.
But I think kedge was the supppppper Christian creationist who singlehandedly got relgion banned from sc