Is the world becoming more racist?

[NZTailender]

Lol PEWS exactly what I was saying, but the likes of NZT like it when it comes from you

Need to pull your opinions up by the bootstraps and articulate better if you want to earn those likes. Or do you want likes just for participating?

 

[Zinzan]

Need to pull your opinions up by the bootstraps and articulate better if you want to earn those likes. Or do you want likes just for participating?

No, I want some 'yes you were right all along zinzan as you always are' points

 

[straw man]

I think this is where the discussion between us ends because IMO you're lacking the perspective that would show you that he's not all that different and that other people (a **** ton of them) will disagree with your characterisation of that. But of course, they're crazy...

I'm more than happy to leave the discussion here, though I'm going to correct some of the mischaracterisations you made of my points first. I won't say anything further about your position apart from that you're disallowing opinions that disagree with your own as 'only a perspective', while implicitly elevating your own perspective. I'm happy to accept 'just your perspective' all day every day for entirely personal choices like what music you like, but when your opinion is not passive and instead is all about having an impact on me or my people (whoever they might be), then no. The liberal idea of 'tolerance' has never extended to excusing intolerance or malign interference from others, and it never will; that would be wrong and self-defeating.

I'm not going to pretend to know the answer nor would I entertain anyone who thinks they do have an answer. My point is just a suggestion: if we are going to pretend that people don't have legitimate gripes then we have to balance the utility of ignoring them. You call them crazy and they call you crazy, so where does that actually get you apart from the nice feeling you have when you **** on someone else for not 'getting it'?

This comes under 'understanding' as per my previous post. Also, I did not use the bolded terminology.

I'm just being practical. If there are racists voting for him does that devalue the movement altogether? As much as it is convenient to pretend Trump is a KKK member, this isn't even close to being true. That's where I'd suggest that having a large populous of people being crazy as the actual point where you stop differentiating and do call them out. But again, it goes both ways: there are plenty of fascists on the left voting in their policies...does that totally devalue that movement? I suggest not, but that's just my opinion. If you want to say there is no reason at all to vote for Trump, that's on you. But they'll say you're just as despicable for wanting to vote for Hillary. If there was an actual candidate that was decent, you might have had a point.

That's lucky because again I never said that. And funnily enough, you've now used that term 'crazy' as an absolute that we would all share understanding of, whereas before when you were putting that term in my mouth it was just relative, just my perspective.
And to answer the underlined, obviously not, though that's not the scenario we have here so it's irrelevant. It's the candidate that has the negative qualities.

You're generalising against them, so why do you expect an answer that specifies just you? That's pretty convenient because it allows you to say what you want about a mass of people and then defend yourself when the hypocritical stances are aimed back at you.

This is an invention of yours. Not once in this discussion did I generalise against 'the right' or 'Republicans' for that matter. I made statements saying IF people took a certain action i.e. voted for Trump, THEN my opinion is x. It's conditional, not a generalisation. I also made judgements of Donald Trump; again, not a generalisation.

-As opposed to cold, callous murderers that send in drones to kill people but are politically savvy enough to appeal to young people?
-This goes for every President in memory and the mistake is thinking rhetoric is more important than policies.
-Again, since the Patriot Act came we've had had other Presidents, why is this a talking point now?
-I don't even like Trump, but this is clearly nonsense. And again, a lot of this can be pinned at any other President in memory.

Disagree, however I'm not going to bother, will leave it at that.

 

[straw man]

White Supremacy Euphemism Generator for journalists / Boing Boing

My favorite generator headline: “Heartland Rights Champions Taunt Global Glitterati.”

heh

 

[straw man]

Trump didn't win due to any one thing but I do think a lot of people have become a bit desensitised to the R word and the B word. When even Mitt Romney was painted as some sort of bigoted, misogynistic racist, I think some of the sting was taken out that criticism to a point where some people in the US stopped thinking of it automatically as such a horrible thing. A Republican candidate being painted as such by his opposition wasn't a new development, so I think to some extent we had a bit of a 'boy who cried' wolf type situation with some people. I don't think that was the biggest factor at play and I'm not going to sensationalise by saying "THIS IS WHY TRUMP WON" as I've seen people do with various other (and sometimes similar) points, but I do think it played a part.

Spark is spot on but I think it's important to actually articulate his point properly as he did rather than just calling people racists.

I think this is right and shows the importance of being accurate in how we communicate our own positions, and not just using concepts and labels as weapons to try to win arguments. I want to point out for anyone too bored to read my post above that I very much believe in trying to see where the other person is coming from, empathise, and not nitpick based on the imprecision of their language (or equally, mine). Initial misunderstandings are very easy when the building blocks of our language that we use to try to arrange our concepts are less block-like and more like indistinct eddies of colour in a stream. Hard to grasp, all subtly different, interwoven. No snap judgements, though there's nothing stopping you making a judgement once you've established where someone stands - that's human and it's not wrong.

I don't really know what's to be done about some fraction of people using concepts like the above wrongly some fraction of the time, thus provoking a reaction. I do it, like everyone. It doesn't seem like something that's ever going to not happen.

 

[Ikki]

I'm more than happy to leave the discussion here, though I'm going to correct some of the mischaracterisations you made of my points first. I won't say anything further about your position apart from that you're disallowing opinions that disagree with your own as 'only a perspective', while implicitly elevating your own perspective. I'm happy to accept 'just your perspective' all day every day for entirely personal choices like what music you like, but when your opinion is not passive and instead is all about having an impact on me or my people (whoever they might be), then no. The liberal idea of 'tolerance' has never extended to excusing intolerance or malign interference from others, and it never will; that would be wrong and self-defeating.

That's fine, I didn't want to end the discussion because I wanted to get away with mischaracterising you, I just didn't think you're really appreciating the arguments.

I'm not elevating my perspective because it isn't my perspective. I am trying to be fair in a theoretical and practical way. I'm also not rejecting your argument, I am just saying it doesn't make it any more legitimate than the opposition's argument if we think about it a bit more and apply the same standards. Personal motivations, preferences and opinions extend to more than music regardless of seriousness of subject and, ironically, it's actually more harmless for you to have a militant stance about music than it is politics. The problem is that every time someone like yourself makes a post in this thread the argument resorts to 'givens' that aren't in fact given and that continuously and obliviously illustrate that they're missing the wood for the trees. Look at the bolded for instance (or the end of the last post you made), do you really believe liberals aren't intolerant in practice or ideologically? That these liberal concepts fold in on themselves through their double standards is precisely why they're self-defeating and why in this current political era someone like Trump wins. It's the very essence of the point of the opposition.

This comes under 'understanding' as per my previous post. Also, I did not use the bolded terminology.

Sorry, maybe it's a poor phrase to use but my point is that this is how your arguments are characterising these people. As if they don't have any legitimate reasons for voting the way they did and hence they're whittled down to some 'ist' with a negative connotation. The takeaway seems to be you're either crazy or evil to reason out this way which is dangerous because it galvanises what is a small proportion of people and ignores the voices of a ton more.

That's lucky because again I never said that. And funnily enough, you've now used that term 'crazy' as an absolute that we would all share understanding of, whereas before when you were putting that term in my mouth it was just relative, just my perspective.
And to answer the underlined, obviously not, though that's not the scenario we have here so it's irrelevant. It's the candidate that has the negative qualities.

This is an invention of yours. Not once in this discussion did I generalise against 'the right' or 'Republicans' for that matter. I made statements saying IF people took a certain action i.e. voted for Trump, THEN my opinion is x. It's conditional, not a generalisation. I also made judgements of Donald Trump; again, not a generalisation.

I am not sure this is an invention of mine or just a reasonable summing up of your vague points. You initially started off saying that you understand that there is nuance; that other Presidents have done bad things and then sum up by saying you can still simplify these decisions into wrong and right. Well, the objection is that you can't, at least not for Trump right now. The context before you commented was comparing Trump and the other Presidents. The suggestion is repeated that Trump is special in some way as if he was a KKK member or something (which is why I used that example).

So what really makes him so much worse than Hillary or several other previous Presidents (knowing that they did worse than hav poor rhetoric) that didn't have this kind of backlash? Worse, sure, but this kind of outrage worse? I don't get it.

I think this is right and shows the importance of being accurate in how we communicate our own positions, and not just using concepts and labels as weapons to try to win arguments. I want to point out for anyone too bored to read my post above that I very much believe in trying to see where the other person is coming from, empathise, and not nitpick based on the imprecision of their language (or equally, mine). Initial misunderstandings are very easy when the building blocks of our language that we use to try to arrange our concepts are less block-like and more like indistinct eddies of colour in a stream. Hard to grasp, all subtly different, interwoven. No snap judgements, though there's nothing stopping you making a judgement once you've established where someone stands - that's human and it's not wrong.

I don't really know what's to be done about some fraction of people using concepts like the above wrongly some fraction of the time, thus provoking a reaction. I do it, like everyone. It doesn't seem like something that's ever going to not happen.

I agree with this. I think what's dangerous is when we talk so certainly and do not realise that we have taken things as given and do not question our foundations when we communicate these positions.

 

[Ikki]

PEWS' post made a really good point that got me thinking. A lot of the Left regularly defend (IMO rightly) people who become terrorists/suicide bombers when the Right take a simplistic stance that they're evil and hate the West's freedoms, etc. While they don't condone or encourage killing other people, they understand that against these armies these people who have been uprooted and subjugated have only simple means to fight back and are doing so in their way. This is particularly the case when it comes to Isreal/Palestine.

Yet I hear a lot of those same voices wanting to forgo the nuanced argument in favour of simple character judgements. I would say that I always identified in a way more with the left (in terms of political parties) because they at least seemed to care, even when they were really wrong, but it's these kinds of double standards that have really put me off them. I get the backlash against them and I'd just say that people who do have these political persuasions should maybe take a breather and think about it instead of doubling down. It seems the world is on edge and I think we need to come together and not divide each other with these kinds of arguments.

 

[smalishah84]

It's not easy to win a long post war with ikki. His lawyer training shines through

 

[Ikki]

Pretty sure this site is full of lawyers and in general smart people which is why we never get anywhere and post the same **** 50,000 times

 

[sledger]

Pretty sure this site is full of lawyers and in general smart people which is why we never get anywhere and post the same **** 50,000 times

Yeah and there are posters like Agent Nationaux as well.

 

[watson]

PEWS' post made a really good point that got me thinking. A lot of the Left regularly defend (IMO rightly) people who become terrorists/suicide bombers when the Right take a simplistic stance that they're evil and hate the West's freedoms, etc. While they don't condone or encourage killing other people, they understand that against these armies these people who have been uprooted and subjugated have only simple means to fight back and are doing so in their way. This is particularly the case when it comes to Isreal/Palestine.

Yet I hear a lot of those same voices wanting to forgo the nuanced argument in favour of simple character judgements. I would say that I always identified in a way more with the left (in terms of political parties) because they at least seemed to care, even when they were really wrong, but it's these kinds of double standards that have really put me off them. I get the backlash against them and I'd just say that people who do have these political persuasions should maybe take a breather and think about it instead of doubling down. It seems the world is on edge and I think we need to come together and not divide each other with these kinds of arguments.

When you say the 'Right' you mean the Neo-Con Right. Real Conservatives realise that it is better to leave everyone alone as much as possible, because if you meddle in their internal politics then you just makes things worse in the long run. That is, if you see a hornet's nest then don't bash it with a stick.

Traditional Conservative doctrine promotes the idea that a society should only engage the military if it is under direct threat, not a presupposed threat. A traiditional Conservative would look at ISIS and say to the Neo-Con's, "there, I told you so".

 

[straw man]

That's fine, I didn't want to end the discussion because I wanted to get away with mischaracterising you, I just didn't think you're really appreciating the arguments.

I'm not elevating my perspective because it isn't my perspective. I am trying to be fair in a theoretical and practical way. I'm also not rejecting your argument, I am just saying it doesn't make it any more legitimate than the opposition's argument if we think about it a bit more and apply the same standards. Personal motivations, preferences and opinions extend to more than music regardless of seriousness of subject and, ironically, it's actually more harmless for you to have a militant stance about music than it is politics. The problem is that every time someone like yourself makes a post in this thread the argument resorts to 'givens' that aren't in fact given and that continuously and obliviously illustrate that they're missing the wood for the trees. Look at the bolded for instance (or the end of the last post you made), do you really believe liberals aren't intolerant in practice or ideologically? That these liberal concepts fold in on themselves through their double standards is precisely why they're self-defeating and why in this current political era someone like Trump wins. It's the very essence of the point of the opposition.



Sorry, maybe it's a poor phrase to use but my point is that this is how your arguments are characterising these people. As if they don't have any legitimate reasons for voting the way they did and hence they're whittled down to some 'ist' with a negative connotation. The takeaway seems to be you're either crazy or evil to reason out this way which is dangerous because it galvanises what is a small proportion of people and ignores the voices of a ton more.



I am not sure this is an invention of mine or just a reasonable summing up of your vague points. You initially started off saying that you understand that there is nuance; that other Presidents have done bad things and then sum up by saying you can still simplify these decisions into wrong and right. Well, the objection is that you can't, at least not for Trump right now. The context before you commented was comparing Trump and the other Presidents. The suggestion is repeated that Trump is special in some way as if he was a KKK member or something (which is why I used that example).

So what really makes him so much worse than Hillary or several other previous Presidents (knowing that they did worse than hav poor rhetoric) that didn't have this kind of backlash? Worse, sure, but this kind of outrage worse? I don't get it.



I agree with this. I think what's dangerous is when we talk so certainly and do not realise that we have taken things as given and do not question our foundations when we communicate these positions.

Good post, think we've come to some understanding, if not entirely agreement.

Absolutely last thing I'll say on the subject of 'givens' is that I'm less thinking of those as absolutes and more in a beyond-reasonable-doubt kind of way. So I'm not claiming I have universal facts but instead that, from what I know of other peoples' positions, and what I understand of history and how the world works, that x. That might sound woolly but whether it be the law with 'beyond reasonable doubt', or science with probability and significance levels, or forecasting the future from only the information available today (especially relevant re: Trump) it's not possible to be 100% absolute, only to take the best position you can at the time. I didn't know you were a lawyer, but if so then I'm sure you know that 'Reasonable' is a useful and entirely inescapable concept.

 

[watson]

The next French President (?) interviewed by the BBC.

 

[Niall]

Don't see a path for Marine to get to power, she should win the first round, but all polls (I know) have her getting trashed in the second round.I know its easy to say "Brexit, Trump" etc, but those polls for a long time were at least close. I'd be more concerned about her niece in 2021, unlike her rather dull Aunt, she does have a serious amount of charisma and the hype machine has begun already.

Marine's only hope is she runs against Sarko and most of the left and centre stay at home, she will struggle against Juppe or Fillon.

 

[watson]

Don't see a path for Marine to get to power, she should win the first round, but all polls (I know) have her getting trashed in the second round.I know its easy to say "Brexit, Trump" etc, but those polls for a long time were at least close. I'd be more concerned about her niece in 2021, unlike her rather dull Aunt, she does have a serious amount of charisma and the hype machine has begun already.

Marine's only hope is she runs against Sarko and most of the left and centre stay at home, she will struggle against Juppe or Fillon.

Sportsbet today.

Jupp - $2.20
Le Penn - $2.50
Fillon - $4.00
Sarkozy - $5.50
Holland - $26.00


Seems to be a two horse race with Jupp in front by a head at the minute.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Don't see a path for Marine to get to power, she should win the first round, but all polls (I know) have her getting trashed in the second round.I know its easy to say "Brexit, Trump" etc, but those polls for a long time were at least close. I'd be more concerned about her niece in 2021, unlike her rather dull Aunt, she does have a serious amount of charisma and the hype machine has begun already.

Marine's only hope is she runs against Sarko and most of the left and centre stay at home, she will struggle against Juppe or Fillon.

I reckon the anti-Anglo strand of France will hold up against a movement that can be fairly easily tarred with the Trump-Brexity brush. Not sure Trump winning was really the thing to get momentum in France.

Netherlands is a different kettle of herrings (but there the worst case scenario is PVV gets 20 %, which means they still have to cooperate with mainstream parties to get anywhere)

 

[watson]

The usual and predictable 'majority on minority' stuff.

(Which is why being a sizable majority in your own country is always a good idea)

Myanmar wants ethnic cleansing of Rohingya - UN official

Myanmar is seeking the ethnic cleansing of the Muslim Rohingya minority from its territory, a senior UN official has told the BBC.....

Myanmar wants ethnic cleansing of Rohingya - UN official - BBC News

Nigeria security forces 'killed 150 peaceful pro-Biafra protesters'

Nigeria's security forces have killed more than 150 peaceful protesters since August 2015, a human rights group has claimed.

Amnesty International said the military used live ammunition and deadly force against pro-Biafra protesters who were campaigning for an independent state in the south-east.

Nigeria security forces 'killed 150 peaceful pro-Biafra protesters' - BBC News

 

[watson]

Himanta Biswa Sarma seems to think that the minority Hindu culture in Assam is worth saving.

Trump calls for mass deportations. This Indian state is already weeding out undocumented Muslims.


As Donald Trump has pledged to throw out up to 3 million undocumented immigrants from the United States, this remote Indian state of 31 million is in the midst of an effort of its own to identify and “weed out” some of the more than 20 million illegal immigrants from Bangladesh living in India.

Officials launched a laborious effort to certify the Bangladeshi population in India two years ago, but the drive that has been infused with new vigor and cash since the governing Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party won state elections in April.

“The Hindu rate of population growth is declining. But the Muslim rate is rising. Most of the Muslims here are from Bangladesh. If this continues, the Assamese Hindus will become a minority soon; we will lose our language, our culture, our identity,” said Himanta Biswa Sarma, finance minister in the Assam government.

Fears that terrorist groups with global backing from neighboring Bangladesh would cross over the border to radicalize local youths have also galvanized the effort, officials say.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...-table-main_indiadeport-1251pm:homepage/story

 

[watson]

Not since WW2 has the state used 'biological profiling' to weed out a separate people.

But the Chinese government is resurrectng that Nazi practice right now in the Xinjiang province.

Anyone care to comment or are we more fixated on Trump?

China confiscates passports of Xinjiang people

Chinese authorities have begun confiscating passports from people in the western region of Xinjiang, which has seen regular unrest.

The move, which the government says is aimed at combating "terrorism", has been criticised by human rights groups.

Many Muslims in Xinjiang say they face widespread discrimination.
The Chinese government is eager to eradicate sporadic violence in the province, which it blames on Islamist militants.

Uighurs, which makes up about 45% of Xinjiang's population, have often complained about being refused documents allowing them to travel.

In June police in Xinjiang ordered residents to provide DNA samples and other biological data when applying for travel documents.

Under the new regulations all people in Xinjiang are required to hand in their travel documents to police for "safekeeping".

The BBC's Stephen McDonell in Beijing says that all residents must now apply for permission to leave the country before they can retrieve their passports.


China confiscates passports of Xinjiang people - BBC News

China orders Xinjiang residents to turn in passports in bid to block overseas travel

Beijing: Chinese authorities have ordered residents in far western Xinjiang*region to turn in their passports to police in the latest draconian measure targeting the ethnically divided region where 11 million Muslim Uighurs live.

The new regulations require all residents to hand over their travel documents and then apply to get them back if they wish to travel overseas. The state-run Global Timesnewspaper said the policy was designed to "maintain social order" amid the rising spectre of terrorism in the region.

China orders Xinjiang residents to turn in passports in bid to block overseas travel

 

[YorksLanka]

the world (or idiots in it to be fair) has always been racist but the recent events of Brexit and Trump are giving these idiots the thought that being racist is now acceptable..its not.