Sarah Palin is a walking nightmare. Can Cthulhu shape-shift?

i'm a too often user of the r-word. i also just started a class on disablities and society. one of the articles i had to read today was about the r-word as hate speech. I have a nephew with profound developmental delays and my entire families over use of the word "retarded" enrages my sister. we dismiss this with thoughts like "jesus christ jules, we're not talking about ryan chill the fuck out". i might feel like an asshole now. i kind of feel like all the times i've called my brother with no developmental delays a "retard", its kind of as if i had just called him a "nigger". since i would never call him one, i shouldn't be calling him the other.

i cant link the article because it only exists inside my little classroom portal thing, but here is are some excerpts.

WHAT IS HATE SPEECH?
Hate speech occurs when a majority group freely makes jokes about a minority group including
negative stereotypes and negative images, not just language. It is commonly seen as harmless by the
majority, but it sets the stage for more severe outlets for prejudice, harm and abuse.

PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL AND INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES ARE AT GREATER RISK OF
VIOLENCE.
- 1 in 3 children with disabilities are victims of some form of abuse, sexual abuse, or neglect.
(Sullivan & Knutson, 2000).
- Individuals with developmental disabilities are 4 to 10 more times more likely to be victims of a
crime than people without disabilities (Sobsey, et al., 1995).
- Children with developmental disabilities are at twice the risk of physical and sexual abuse
compared to children without disabilities (Crosse et. al., 1993).

PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL AND INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES ARE DISENFRANCHISED
FROM JUSTICE.
- Many people with intellectual disabilities are not able to articulate the abuse they’ve sustained.
- Many victims with intellectual disabilities are not perceived as credible witnesses.
- Abuse often occurs as part of name calling, bullying, hazing, or other targeted attacks based on
disability status.

THIS IS A HATE CRIME.
ENDING THE USE OF THE R-WORD IS MORE THAN A “POLITICALLY CORRECT” NOTION.
- “Retard” and “retarded” are derogatory and dehumanizing terms– on par with the N-word when
used to describe African Americans, and various hateful terms used to describe members of the
Jewish, gay and lesbian and other minority communities.
- Self-advocates with intellectual disability have clearly stated that negative language leads to
harmful action, discrimination, abuse, negative stereotypes, disenfranchisement, and violence.

SHOULDN’T PEOPLE WITH INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES JUST LIGHTEN UP? IT’S A JOKE!
- NO! People with intellectual disabilities have a history of institutionalization, genocide, forced
sterilization, segregation, and being regarded as ‘less than human.’
- More than any other group, they experience record unemployment, significant physical, mental
and sexual abuse, and limited rights.
- This discrimination and victimization continues, in large part, due to antiquated, discriminatory
portrayals in the media and pervasive prejudice.

>> ^peggedbea:
quotes article written by nine year oldOf course that's all quite wrong since retards are not human beings and cannot be victimized. It's ridiculous we're still living in a society that hasn't even an elemetary understanding of ethics.

i fail to see what all your piss is about. unless you literally hate "retards". i find this topic kind of fascinating today because its challenging commonly used language, that calling things - not actual people with disabilities - "retarded" is just fine. the same arguments can be made for calling things "gay" i suppose. i'm unsure if i agree, since the meaning and intent of language changes over time. but i'm definitely feeling challenged. and it's interesting.
and the argument in the video - even if it's satire - is still a discussion worth having. you don't hear the word "nigger" 10 times a day walking down the street, but you do hear "retarded".


>> ^gorillaman:

>> ^peggedbea:
quotes excerpts and summations taken from a 10 page article up for discussion in a master's level course probably sarcasm but comes off as incoherent, irrelevant dickbaggery.

I just don't think it's logical to call a halfwit a whole person. This is kind of a silly question, like, "Is it okay to call a potato a 'spud'? They might not like it." But here I go typing regardless.

If you're going to worry about offensive language, consider that someone who's progressed beyond racism has no reason to avoid words like nigger. They can reappropriate that shit however they like. Faggots might fuss and cry, but they're best ignored. Now, a word like retard is even less of a problem because there was nobody to offend in the first place. A retard isn't alive enough to bother with; there's just its owners to think about and considering the burden their selfishness is placing on society, I'd suggest they deserve to be offended.

This is me trying to help you. It depresses me to think of adults sitting in 'master's level courses' and getting so confused. I really think you're smart enough to look at the article you quoted and see how pathetic it is.

Are you doing something wrong when you call your brother a retard? No, and for the following two reasons, the first of which you don't like for some reason.

1. You don't have to worry about pissing off retards because retards don't count.
2. There's no such thing as hate speech, just hate. Are you a bigot? Then don't worry.>> ^peggedbea:
she's trying to learn

>> ^gorillaman:

If you're going to worry about offensive language, consider that someone who's progressed beyond racism has no reason to avoid words like nigger.

I think this comment goes to show that you don't understand the nature of what racism is, what growing beyond it would mean, nor why people should try to outgrow it.

A person who knows the meaning and history of the word nigger, and who is "beyond racism", understands that they need to tread carefully in using that word, lest they hurt feelings.

If someone uses it to intentionally hurt people's feelings, even if it's just from a self-interested desire to draw attention rather than to denigrate others, then in no sense are they "beyond racism", they're racist assholes.

I suppose if society forgets what these terms mean entirely, it might be kosher to just use them without regard for other people's feelings, but I think ignorance of the past is dangerous, so people should remember what they mean and universally disapprove of using them.

I think that instead of having a better understanding of the nature of racism you've just puffed it up into a kind of grand, pervasive architecture. Racism isn't this danger lurking behind every corner; it's something that happens inside some idiots, and there are fewer and fewer of these idiots around.

History is irrelevant. We need to live in the real world instead of some strange blurry construct of past and present.

People don't have feelings they have foibles. We can't all spend our lives pandering to everyone else, nothing would get done.

>> ^NetRunner:
I think this comment goes to show that you don't understand the nature of what racism is, what growing beyond it would mean, nor why people should try to outgrow it.

>> ^gorillaman:
We can't all spend our lives pandering to everyone else, nothing would get done.


Right, because society will grind to a halt if you're told it's offensive to call someone a nigger, and you should stop doing so?

>> ^gorillaman:
I think that instead of having a better understanding of the nature of racism you've just puffed it up into a kind of grand, pervasive architecture. Racism isn't this danger lurking behind every corner; it's something that happens inside some idiots, and there are fewer and fewer of these idiots around.

So I'm wrong in my reasoning because you don't like the implications of the conclusion?

I'm talking about one narrow, but obvious, aspect of what racism is -- if what that implies about the size of the problem bothers you, you shouldn't react by trying to redefine racism so it looks smaller, you should appreciate the size of the problem as it really is and set your sights on trying to deal with it appropriately.

The real core of what I usually associate with "racism" is racial discrimination, meaning:

Treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: e.g. racial and religious intolerance and discrimination

You don't think restricting how people communicate inhibits the development of our culture? It may not grind to a halt, but it certainly puts the brakes on. You can probably easily understand that if everyone had to stop using words with an 'e' in them it would have a real negative impact. So, it's like that.

There is no Arch Demon Racism. Just the idiots.

Look here, say someone we know doesn't have a problem with black people calls a black guy a nigger. This black guy doesn't have any unresolved issues with his race or identity. What's left to complain about?

Calling a black person a nigger shows that you do indeed have a problem with black people.

Why else would you purposefully use a word intended to harm?

You might have a problem with that person in particular, you might be on 4chan, you might be making a point; any number of reasons.>> ^KnivesOut:

Calling a black person a nigger shows that you do indeed have a problem with black people.
Why else would you purposefully use a word intended to harm?

Schlessinger obviously didn't have her 1st Amendment right trampled by people nor her radio station. The 1st Amendment only pertains to government not employers. The Amendment starts "Congress shall pass no laws..."

Government can't and shouldn't do shit about racist epithets. So suck on that, you cracker-ass honkeys.

But 95% of society in the black community thinks the "n" word is just peachy keen. All these racist African Americans need to go back to Africa where they can be sold into slavery by their black African Americans can sell their own again (with thier racist ways!)

Of course I am being sarcastic, however, racism is just the mindset of 95% of the human race's natural tendancy. We divide by religion, race, territory, etc., so that the world's finate resources can be adequately divided by our own "groups" needs. Is nature correct or moral? Who knows, but it does dictate nearly everything we are.... just try not to ever have sex...

Natural tendancies.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^gorillaman:
We can't all spend our lives pandering to everyone else, nothing would get done.

Right, because society will grind to a halt if you're told it's offensive to call someone a nigger, and you should stop doing so?
>> ^gorillaman:
I think that instead of having a better understanding of the nature of racism you've just puffed it up into a kind of grand, pervasive architecture. Racism isn't this danger lurking behind every corner; it's something that happens inside some idiots, and there are fewer and fewer of these idiots around.
So I'm wrong in my reasoning because you don't like the implications of the conclusion?
I'm talking about one narrow, but obvious, aspect of what racism is -- if what that implies about the size of the problem bothers you, you shouldn't react by trying to redefine racism so it looks smaller, you should appreciate the size of the problem as it really is and set your sights on trying to deal with it appropriately.
The real core of what I usually associate with "racism" is racial discrimination, meaning:

Treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: e.g. racial and religious intolerance and discrimination

>> ^gorillaman:

You don't think restricting how people communicate inhibits the development of our culture?

Depends on what you mean by "restrict". If you mean send people to jail for saying things people don't like, yeah, I think that's bad.

Instead, if you mean that no one should ever be allowed to say "what you said is hurtful, and I don't think you should say things like that", I think that you really have to apply the freedom of speech equally. You're free to say whatever you want, but you're going to have to accept the things other people say in response because they have freedom of speech too.

If you're a radio show host, and you say a bunch of racist shit, you shouldn't be thrown in jail. However, if your employer wants to fire you for that, you shouldn't get some legal immunity from that either. You definitely don't have the right to restrict the speech of others who express their disapproval of what you said, nor those who express the view that saying racist things like that just isn't proper.

>> ^gorillaman:

Look here, say someone we know doesn't have a problem with black people calls a black guy a nigger. This black guy doesn't have any unresolved issues with his race or identity. What's left to complain about?


This is pretty wrong-headed. Unresolved issues? You make it sound like black people all need to go to a therapist or something, because there can't possibly be legitimate reasons for them to be offended by being called a nigger.

Let me pretend for a moment you meant that we're talking about a couple of old friends, one is white, one is black, and they call each other nigger all the time as a term of endearment. As long as they're okay with it, I'm okay with it.

But what if they're walking down the street, and a passing black woman overhears the white guy call the black guy nigger, and gets upset?

IMO, she's got every right to voice her discontent, and the friends have every right to tell her to go fuck herself...or explain, or just walk away.

I'd rather the friends be a bit more sensitive about the feelings of people who might overhear them, and I've got every right to say so to all three of them, and they've got every right to tell me where I can shove it in response.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Racism is just the mindset of 95% of the human race's natural tendancy. We divide by religion, race, territory, etc., so that the world's finate resources can be adequately divided by our own "groups" needs. Is nature correct or moral? Who knows, but it does dictate nearly everything we are.... just try not to ever have sex...
Natural tendancies.

Depressing point of view, but I agree that tribalism seems to be an innate tendency in humans.

I still want to strive for a future where it's more like sports rivalries rather than ethno-sectarian war.

We seem to be moving that direction in fits and starts, but right now we're definitely between starts...

I'm suggesting even social pressure to self-censor is harmful.

I phrased my last example the way I did to allow more scope than just friends bullshitting with each other. Whitey could be using it as an insult, with real malice, and Blacko doesn't like it. Now what's our take on this as onlookers? You want to condemn Whitey, despite knowing he isn't motivated by racist sentiment and I don't see that there's cause to do that. Let them have their conversation, and if Passing Black Lady gets offended, that's her problem.

>> ^blankfist:

Schlessinger obviously didn't have her 1st Amendment right trampled by people nor her radio station. The 1st Amendment only pertains to government not employers. The Amendment starts "Congress shall pass no laws..."
Government can't and shouldn't do shit about racist epithets. So suck on that, you cracker-ass honkeys.


This is a really good point, and one that the "media" is consistently failing to notice or mention.

OOOooooooh. Naaagger. Nagger, right...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'jon stewart, the daily show, john oliver, sarah palin' to 'jon stewart, the daily show, john oliver, sarah palin, also the black guy' - edited by gwiz665

If you're offended, you should really get a T-shirt man!

*quality *doublepromote

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by gwiz665.

Double-Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, August 25th, 2010 1:40pm PDT - doublepromote requested by gwiz665.

>> ^gorillaman:

I'm suggesting even social pressure to self-censor is harmful.

And I am saying that's horseshit. You have a legal right to be a racist asshole, and say bigoted things and hurl epithets, but a society where that behavior doesn't raise any eyebrows is vastly less civilized than ours.

>> ^gorillaman:
I phrased my last example the way I did to allow more scope than just friends bullshitting with each other.

And my response was that there essentially cannot be any other context where such a thing is socially acceptable.

To you, society should be such that white people can walk up to black people they don't know, call them a nigger, and have both people know and understand the meaning and history of the term, and yet not get upset about it?

You're seriously bent.

In here, Canada: http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart/full-episodes/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart---august-24-2010/#clip340135

Sure, it's called enlightenment, it's called progress, it's called ... universal fucking brotherhood. These are bad things? OMG if you don't treat black people differently you're a racist.

Law is for homos and history's for homos. There's just people and as we've covered, some of them are a problem. You're really trivialising the real criminals when you start accusing anybody who uses words you don't like of racism.

This is probably the most offensive thing anybody's said in this thread so far, but sorry here it comes: you're just like Wanda Sykes.

>> ^NetRunner:
To you, society should be such that white people can walk up to black people they don't know, call them a nigger, and have both people know and understand the meaning and history of the term, and yet not get upset about it?
You're seriously bent.

For clarity : Dr. Laura Schlessinger call

<a rel="nofollow" href="<object width="480" height="385">">Your text to link...


It would be nice if Blacks stop using the n word also to and let it fade into history like slavery. Looks like it will be a few more generations before America can put this behind us.

Found out my Mustang's timing was too far advanced, so I developmentally delayed it.

Interesting discussion on the use of the N word. Lots of good points all around.

One thing seems clear, though there may be disagreements on the use of the N word, I think we can all agree that racism in general is pretty retarded.

>> ^gorillaman:

Sure, it's called enlightenment, it's called progress, it's called ... universal fucking brotherhood. These are bad things? OMG if you don't treat black people differently you're a racist.
Law is for homos and history's for homos. There's just people and as we've covered, some of them are a problem. You're really trivialising the real criminals when you start accusing anybody who uses words you don't like of racism.

Well, now who's telling who what words we can and can't use? Nigger (and apparently homo) don't phase you, but racist does?

Hurts when someone uses epithets to describe your own group, don't it?

Imagine how people with actual grievances must feel.

You know you're being disingenuous.

This is a conversation about conversation and its most productive paths. There exists a pretty obvious distinction between arbitrarily enforcing taboos, which is what you're doing, and asserting that communication requires common meaning, which is what I'm doing. We don't seem to working from the same definition of the word 'racist'. Seriously, it doesn't mean anyone who says things you don't like. We are literally not speaking the same language here.

The point I tried to make to pb, what I want you both to understand, is that language and belief are distinct bodies. Do you imagine the real bigots are going to be redeemed if you can just stop them saying nigger in public? Do you think decent people turn into racists because of the things they say? Then WTF do you think you're accomplishing playing the invective police?

>> ^NetRunner:
Well, now who's telling who what words we can and can't use? Nigger (and apparently homo) don't phase you, but racist does?
Hurts when someone uses epithets to describe your own group, don't it?
Imagine how people with actual grievances must feel.

@gorillaman I think you're not even hearing what I'm saying, much less trying to understand me.

I will remind you that way back in my second response, I said "I'm talking about one narrow, but obvious, aspect of what racism is" not that racism begins and ends with epithets. It's disingenuous of you to think this is the point I'm making.
>> ^gorillaman:

There exists a pretty obvious distinction between arbitrarily enforcing taboos, which is what you're doing, and asserting that communication requires common meaning, which is what I'm doing.

Wrong on both counts. I'm saying that people who are upset by racial epithets aren't the source of racism, and you're saying if those people would just shut up and stop complaining, we would be so much better off. You're wanting to introduce your own arbitrary taboo -- one on people being offended by being called hateful names.

I'm saying we should strive to be more polite, learn to empathize a bit more with people who're different from us, and treat everyone with at least a modicum of respect.

>> ^gorillaman:

We don't seem to working from the same definition of the word 'racist'. Seriously, it doesn't mean anyone who says things you don't like. We are literally not speaking the same language here.

I agree, and I think you probably should provide a dictionary definition of your version.

It seems like you feel it's impossible for racism to exist anywhere other than in the minds of people who're offended by racial epithets, and maybe outright racial supremacist groups.

>> ^gorillaman:
Do you imagine the real bigots are going to be redeemed if you can just stop them saying nigger in public?

Nope, that's never been my point. My point is that nigger is a hurtful, and racially charged term. It's very easy to offend people by using it. If you do inadvertently offend people, the appropriate behavior is to apologize for it. Dismissing the concerns of the racial group you just described with an epithet is essentially a racist act itself, because it doesn't treat them with the type of respect that equal human beings are due.

Get it yet?

Now, you say the fix for this is for the target of racial epithets to just "get over it", and just not get upset. Well, you know, maybe they get upset for a good reason.

Let's pretend for a moment someone raped my sister, but she didn't press charges on the guy. I have some friends over, and they make a joke about her rape, and she gets upset. I kick them out of my house, and call them a bunch of assholes.

By your logic, I'm doing something wrong. What I should have done is tell my sister to just get over it, because after all, we wouldn't want to chill my friends' ability to engage in free speech by making them aware of our disapproval.

PS: I don't actually have a sister.

@NetRunner

Racism requires belief; it's necessarily an intellectual artifact. If it isn't in the brain it isn't on the tongue. Ever. At all. Fact.

So what's left of you? It's nice to be nice. Don't be a meanie. Rape isn't funny. Whatever. Do you get laid much with this sissy attitude?

>> ^gorillaman:
Racism requires belief; it's necessarily an intellectual artifact. If it isn't in the brain it isn't on the tongue. Ever. At all. Fact.

False.

>> ^gorillaman:
So what's left of you? It's nice to be nice. Don't be a meanie. Rape isn't funny. Whatever. Do you get laid much with this sissy attitude?


I think once again, you're totally fucked in the head if you think women generally would find your attitudes on race to be attractive.

I suppose this means you only go looking for dates at KKK mixers?

Oh man those KKK bitches fuck like demons. Hate sex is the best.

That article you linked is irrelevant. Unconscious = nonexistent. It doesn't matter what you feel, it doesn't matter what you do, it matters how you think.

>> ^NetRunner:
False.

Unconscious = nonexistent? What does that even mean?

Seriously, are you reading what you write before you hit submit?

If a person is so fucked up that they don't consider other people as equals, then that's fine, because they're not consciously being racist?

No darling, if you don't consider other races the equal of your own that's a conscious position you've adopted. If you unknowingly prefer the company of people who look like you or perform better sorting positive concepts with your own race and negative concepts with others, that's unconscious and immaterial to your intellectuality and therefore your morality.

>> ^gorillaman:

No darling, if you don't consider other races the equal of your own that's a conscious position you've adopted. If you unknowingly prefer the company of people who look like you or perform better sorting positive concepts with your own race and negative concepts with others, that's unconscious and immaterial to your intellectuality and therefore your morality.


It's still racist.

How racist are you, about 3%? When I choose lemonade over cola, is that racist? I'm feeling about 12% racist right now, but I'm in a bad mood; I'll probably only be like 1% racist for the rest of the day.

The suggestion that racism has to be consciously held to be real is curious. So you're saying that all those people who start sentences with "I'm not a racist, but..." are not racist by self-definition?

>> ^kymbos:

The suggestion that racism has to be consciously held to be real is curious. So you're saying that all those people who start sentences with "I'm not a racist, but..." are not racist by self-definition?


It depends on the rest of the sentence doesn't it? If it alleges, say, that one race has a moral right to dominate another, then they are racist. Racist ideals have to be consciously held, their owner doesn't have to admit their implication, for racism to be real.

Evolution naturally gives us an emotional preference for our own kind. If the standard is inherent prejudice and unbeckoned feeling then every human being on earth is irredeemably racist.

That isn't the standard because we have an intellect, and what is intellectually maintained signifies where what is instinctually felt does not. We feel the earth is flat, but know it isn't.

Ok, weird tangent. I used to work in a fine dining restaurant here in Australia. On the night of the opening of the Sydney Olympics, I was working in the private dining room of the restaurant, serving a group of 20-odd rich white people. There was much debate about who would light the o;ympic flame that night, and I was coming in and out of the room giving updates of who was holding the torch etc. Each prominent (white) Australian athlete who held the flame met with grand approval from the room, until I came in announcing that Cathy Freeman, an Aboriginal athlete and most prominent Australian track star at the time (and since, to be fair) had lit the flame. The announcement was met with cold shock, and a number of "I'm not racist, but she's not appropriate etc etc..." sentences.

I can't put words in their mouths, but I'm confident they would all argue that they don't believe one race has a moral right to dominate another. However, it seemed to me that the main reason for their displeasure was the race of the athlete, and that they were indeed racist.

Where does this fit within your consciousness argument?

Racial domination was just one example.

I'm not going to judge twenty people I don't know, but what it comes down to is this. What a person believes makes them a racist, what they feel or say does not.

>> ^gorillaman:
What a person believes makes them a racist, what they feel or say does not.


I'm curious, what's your reaction to this video?

You're all hung up on whether or not people are racist, I'm trying to say that it ain't about who you are (and it's definitely not about your own self-assessment of who you are), it's about what you say and do.

Personally, I go a bit further, and believe that you can tell a lot about whether people are racist by their reaction to someone raising an issue about something they said. Racists always push back -- they don't apologize, and they try to act like they're being unfairly persecuted by the accusation.

For example, Dr. Laura said:

I really thought that once we had a black president, the attempt to demonize whites hating blacks would stop, but it seems to have grown, and I don't get it.

>> ^NetRunner:
I'm curious, what's your reaction to this video?


It's a good video, but I think it's symptomatic of the problem I'm talking about. A lot of well-intentioned but clumsy people spend their time worrying about whether this sounds a bit iffy or that could be hurtful; I don't think that accomplishes anything. The 'what they did' conversation is not a conversation anybody needs to have, not even when someone picks your pocket. A person doesn't pick a pocket in a vacuum of circumstance, they do it because of 'what they are'.

It can be satisfying to develop these strategies for winning arguments and generating the illusion of progress, but real progress is often tough going. Winning wars isn't easy. You need to talk about what people are.

I'd be careful applying that rule of thumb to spot racists. Like a cop who thinks he can tell when his suspect's guilty, it leads to trouble.

Dr. Laura's a retard. Racists are racist because they're stupid, if you already know someone's stupid, racism isn't really the issue anymore.

Ah, but by your standard, Dr. Laura is not a racist. She clearly doesn't think she is one, and she says she doesn't have any problem with race. She also makes the same sorts of assertions you have, namely that the big problem with race is that black people are too sensitive about stereotyping and the n-word.

I'm also having trouble deciding which side of the "what they did" vs. "what they are" argument you're trying to take up.
>> ^gorillaman:

The 'what they did' conversation is not a conversation anybody needs to have, not even when someone picks your pocket. A person doesn't pick a pocket in a vacuum of circumstance, they do it because of 'what they are'.

So people shouldn't be judged on what they've done, but on what they are, even with pickpocketing.
>> ^gorillaman:
I'd be careful applying that rule of thumb to spot racists. Like a cop who thinks he can tell when his suspect's guilty, it leads to trouble.

I agree with that, but that's why it's a rule of thumb.

But that leads to the obvious question, what does a cop do in order to establish guilt in court? They document to the best of their ability "what they did." I would argue that it's essentially impossible to prove "what they are" in any conclusive way. The best you can do in any situation is look at what they've done.

That's why I think saying "I'm not a racist" is no defense when you've said or done something racist, just like "I am not a pickpocket" is no defense when you've just been caught picking someone's pocket.

Right. Our actions are indicators of our character, but it's character that counts. Action doesn't exist in the moral dimension. If I want to pick your pocket, it doesn't matter whether I get around to doing it or not. If I'm a racist, it doesn't matter what I say; if I'm not a racist it doesn't matter what I say. It's all about what I am.>> ^NetRunner:
But that leads to the obvious question, what does a cop do in order to establish guilt in court? They document to the best of their ability "what they did." I would argue that it's essentially impossible to prove "what they are" in any conclusive way. The best you can do in any situation is look at what they've done.
That's why I think saying "I'm not a racist" is no defense when you've said or done something racist, just like "I am not a pickpocket" is no defense when you've just been caught picking someone's pocket.

>> ^gorillaman:

Right. Our actions are indicators of our character, but it's character that counts. Action doesn't exist in the moral dimension. If I want to pick your pocket, it doesn't matter whether I get around to doing it or not. If I'm a racist, it doesn't matter what I say; if I'm not a racist it doesn't matter what I say. It's all about what I am.

But "what you are" isn't knowable in any objective sense. It certainly isn't defined by your own opinion in the matter.

Back to the example of the pickpocket. What if he believes that property rights are a big fat lie perpetrated by people who just want an excuse to tell people what to do and how to act. He's not committing a crime, he's making a bold criticism of his society, and exposing how unreasonable people act over such a non-event as taking a few pieces of paper out of someone's pockets.

Is he a pickpocket? He doesn't think so. Does society think he's a pickpocket? Almost certainly. Is that the standard though? Objectively you can say he's broken laws and customs of the land he's in, and the word we use for that particular crime is "pickpocketing", and we've set up a system where we punish people for that particular infraction of social norms. It doesn't really establish what he is, but people will call him "a pickpocket" rather than "a person who picked someone's pocket".

Now technically, that's not really fair. An organized group of like-minded pickpockets could start trying to stigmatize calling people a pickpocket, since it's not really fair to conflate what a person's done with who they are. For that matter, a lot of pickpockets think the term "pickpocketing" is derogatory, and resent being called that. They think of themselves as defenders of property-blindness -- after all, only prejudiced propertarians can tell the difference between what's theirs and what's not...

This is the kind of arguments we hear all the time about race. Racism is clear cut, and easy to spot. Racism can happen unintentionally, just like stealing ("Oh, is that your pen?") and just like unintentional stealing, it becomes a much more grave offense if they don't own up to it or make amends for it ("Are you calling me a thief? I should sue you for libel you anti-theifite!"), and reflects even more negatively on the character of the offender.

It doesn't have to be knowable in any objective sense, nothing is knowable in any objective sense, it just has to be acknowledged as the absolute soul of the question.

Now, we can't allow ourselves to collapse into moral relativism. Working from common axioms, distinctions may be drawn between when it is appropriate to reassign property and when it is not. But there are legitimate reasons to steal a wallet, of course there are, because theft is action, and action is dependant on a directing mind; and the mind is always accountable, and never the action.

What if your band of pickpocket provocateurs' ideology were correct? Would society's disapproval invalidate it?>> ^NetRunner:
But "what you are" isn't knowable in any objective sense. It certainly isn't defined by your own opinion in the matter.

>> ^gorillaman:

Now, we can't allow ourselves to collapse into moral relativism. Working from common axioms, distinctions may be drawn between when it is appropriate to reassign property and when it is not. But there are legitimate reasons to steal a wallet, of course there are, because theft is action, and action is dependant on a directing mind; and the mind is always accountable, and never the action.

Ah, but what are the legitimate reasons to steal a wallet? Specifically, is merely a rejection of those common axioms sufficient to exculpate someone from the moral wrongness of stealing?

Beyond that, is it sufficient to then turn that around and say that the victim of pickpocketing is morally wrong to object or express disapproval of the pickpocket's actions once the pickpocket makes his philosophy clear?

That's your stated position on racism.

From where I sit, that goes far beyond mere moral relativism -- not only are you saying that people should only be judged by their own moral standard, you're saying that refusing to embrace that level of moral relativism is in fact an objective moral ill.
>> ^gorillaman:
What if your band of pickpocket provocateurs' ideology were correct? Would society's disapproval invalidate it?

No, but it also doesn't mean that society has some moral obligation to refrain from expressing their disapproval, either.

Society doesn't have a moral obligation to refrain from expressing their disapproval, they have a moral obligation to refrain from disapproving in the first place. It's always wrong to oppose the right.

You have a very democratic attitude to opinion for someone so opposed to racism. You say everyone's entitled to express their beliefs, this expression extending to false imprisonment in the hypothetical case of the justified pickpocket, regardless of the integrity of their position.

This is how you build objectivity in a relative universe. Moral philosophy is like mathematics, we take the fewest and most fundamental set of assumptions possible to construct a workable model. So, these axioms are never of the sort "stealing is wrong", but rather "logic works" and "other people exist." Basic, necessary stuff; none of it provably true. Anyone can reject these assumptions with total authority, but they have to throw out all morality with them.

My position on racism is that racists are criminals, whether their criminality comes out of their face or their fists or just sits stewing in their head. A person using words in the english language may or may not be a criminal just as a person driving a car or looking at a tree may or may not be a criminal.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by vaporlock.