[RD] Why y'all always trying to defend Nazis?

[Akka]

This just in: self-defense and the defense of your community is violence. Those violent Polish resistance... The Finnish are the REAL Soviets

I think you have a weird definition of violence. Because yeah, if you take arms to fight off someone it's violence. It might be perfectly justified, even commandable violence but it's very obviously violence. If some dirtbag jump on me and try to kill me and I punch his lights out, I've used violence to defend myself.
I really wonder what kind of definition you use for "violence".

You must be one of those people who doesn't understand what racism is.

I think you got it reversed, man. "racism" is pretty well and easily defined, and you seem to be part of the group who is actually trying to RE-define to fit their agenda and void it of its meaning.

Combined with above, it seems in fact that you change the meaning of words for political purpose, which is really something that should never be done, as it ends up killing any attempt at honest debate by warping the very tool of communication into manipulation attempts.

In fact, I find it pretty telling that in this thread, we see attempts at redefining words from both sides. We see Civver_764 trying to redefine nazis and you redefine racism (and in both case, it tends to come from not just individuals but entire political groups).

@Lord of Elves

I see what you mean.

That he manages to take one person and then claims that the whole forum is "a den" ?

 

[Berzerker]

Racism is institutional socioeconomic oppression

what was it before institutions?

I thought it was a sense of superiority based on race

 

[El_Machinae]

That's an argument on definitions. A bit of a waste of time. The trick, I've learned, is just to zoom to a consensus on what a word means in the context it's being used. What's often happening is that one person is being colloquial and one is being academic.

It's irritating when it causes an argument, because it is such an inessential distraction

 

[Lexicus]

Just to quote a few of the definitions that can be found in various dictionaries. As you can see, your definition of racism is very narrow, and does not capture the entirety of what is racism. Do we agree that under some of the above definitions, his statements could be understood as racist?

All I can see is an example of why dictionaries should not be used to define academic concepts. Every single one of those definitions is wrong. Or at least useless.

That he manages to take one person and then claims that the whole forum is "a den" ?

The forum can fairly be called a "den" because CFC has apparently decided that while it doesn't wish itself to be associated with curse words, it is perfectly fine with hosting (and thereby associating itself with) neo-Nazi propaganda, and furthermore that calling posters who spread neo-Nazi propaganda nazis and racists is against the rules and infractable.

 

[Akka]

That's an argument on definitions. A bit of a waste of time. The trick, I've learned, is just to zoom to a consensus on what a word means in the context it's being used. What's often happening is that one person is being colloquial and one is being academic.

It's irritating when it causes an argument, because it is such an inessential distraction

It's not at all about "colloquial vs academic" disagreement here. It's about a deliberate attempt to redefine a word in a way that not-so-coincidentally perfectly fit with the agenda pursued, and it shows a completely different thought process behind it. It also will defeat your attempt to zoom on a consensus, precisely because the very point of such redefinition is to usurp the consensus, using your very attempt at not being drawn into the issue.

Imagine you're debating with someone else about how large a big pillar is. You're saying "well, I'd say it's 3m large", he's saying "no, I'd say it's 4m large". Then you go get a measuring tape to settle the issue, but the guy try to make you measure it with his own - except his own measuring tape has a metre which is 75 cm long. How can you make a measurement when the guy is trying to redefine what the very unit of measurement is ?

All I can see is an example of why dictionaries should not be used to define academic concepts. Every single one of those definitions is wrong. Or at least useless.

Perfect example of the behaviour above : a definition is considered only "correct" if it fits the agenda of the person trying to abuse it. Instead of using language as a tool to communicate, it's an attempt to subvert the tool to manipulate the person into buying your premises so you can lead her where you want.

---

The forum can fairly be called a "den" because CFC has apparently decided that while it doesn't wish itself to be associated with curse words, it is perfectly fine with hosting (and thereby associating itself with) neo-Nazi propaganda, and furthermore that calling posters who spread neo-Nazi propaganda nazis and racists is against the rules and infractable.

That's just an extremely biased way to look at it.
You're not infracted to call someone who profess ideology X to be of ideology X. You're infracted to ignore what someone say by claiming "he's of ideology X" and sidestep his argument.

But this way to reframe who a nazi is, is yet again another perfect example of one of the many reasons why people are very wary to support white card violence against "nazi".

 

[Ryika]

All I can see is an example of why dictionaries should not be used to define academic concepts.

Racism is not an academic concept. The "prejudice + power"-definition is exactly useful in one branch of the social sciences, and utterly misplaced in everyday discussions about racism in individuals, and not institutions.

 

[Lexicus]

The "prejudice + power"-definition is exactly useful in one branch of the social sciences, and utterly misplaced in everyday discussions about racism in individuals, and not institutions.

Discussing "racism" in the abstract is pointless. There is only one system of racism that actually exists in the world, and that is white supremacy.

 

[Akka]

You're just so much proving my point at every turn, without ever questioning yourself. It's pretty frightening.

 

[Ryika]

Maybe this thread should be renamed to "Why's Lexicus so keen to defend racists?".

 

[Lexicus]

The two of you are only pushing your stupid dictionary definitions of racism so you can "prove" that there is racism against white people too...what a noble crusade *sniff* *sob*

 

[ashendashin]

The two of you are only pushing your stupid dictionary definitions of racism so you can "prove" that there is racism against white people too...what a noble crusade *sniff* *sob*

The two of you are only pushing your stupid definitions of racism so you can "prove" that there is no racism against white people...what a noble crusade *sniff* *sob*

Is this flaming? It's just so perfect. It's so perfect that I don't think that my little edits are necessary from even his viewpoint.

Edit:
Forgot one bit.

 

[Ryika]

The two of you are only pushing your stupid dictionary definitions of racism so you can "prove" that there is racism against white people too...what a noble crusade *sniff* *sob*

Nah, you're the only person who has taken their position because in this case white people are at the receiving end of racism, everybody else, or at least me, has taken their position to apply labels consistently and name things as what they are.

It's hilarious, because what do you even hope to gain from it? Even if everybody accepted your absurd application of a definition that is utterly misplaced, what would the result be? Those statements would still come from a position of prejudice against people because of the skin color they're born with, and people would still see it as a pathetic thing to do. Even if people accepted that that was not "racist" anymore, the situation would not change a bit, you literally cannot win, only obstruct to not have to admit to yourself that the position you have taken is is vacuous and idiotic for just that little while longer.

 

[Lexicus]

The two of you are only pushing your stupid definitions of racism so you can "prove" that there is no racism against white people too...what a noble crusade *sniff* *sob*

There is no need to 'prove' such an obvious and elementary fact. It might indeed be considered a noble crusade to get white people to agree with plain truths about racism, but I have to admit my aims here are not so high-minded.

It's hilarious, because what do you even hope to gain from it? Even if everybody accepted your absurd application of a definition that is utterly misplaced, what would the result be? Those statements would still come from a position of prejudice against people because of the skin color they're born with, and people would still see it as a pathetic thing to do. Even if people accepted that that was not "racist" anymore, the situation would not change a bit, you literally cannot win, only obstruct to not have to admit to yourself that the position you have taken is is vacuous and idiotic for just that little while longer.

Yes, this prejudice against white people must be a serious problem. It's why white people have drastically worse health outcomes, why white people are incarcerated at higher rates, why they are unemployed at twice the rate of non-whites, why the countries full of white people are so much poorer than the countries full of non-white people, and so on and so forth,. Clearly, prejudice against white people is a problem worth talking about.

 

[Akka]

The two of you are only pushing your stupid dictionary definitions of racism so you can "prove" that there is racism against white people too...what a noble crusade *sniff* *sob*

If you need to rewrite reality to show you're right, maybe it proves you're actually not right to begin with ?
It's pretty incredible that, faced with the fact that your entire reasoning is based on a faulty premise, you go with blaming people pointing the problem instead of actually looking at the problem.

I note that you also ignore the whole reasoning, and just go for ad hominem and mockery.

 

[Lexicus]

If you need to rewrite reality to show you're right, maybe it proves you're actually not right to begin with ?

The only ones rewriting reality are the ones claiming that racism against white people is a real problem.

I note that you also ignore the whole reasoning,

*sniffle* *sob*

 

[Akka]

The only ones rewriting reality are the ones claiming that racism against white people is a real problem.

Strawman, that wasn't the argument made. A perfect example of how you rewrite any reality proving you wrong.

"racism doesn't mean that"
"YEAH BECAUSE THE WHITES HAVE IT SO HARD HE ?"

Yeah, definitely strawman.

*sniffle* *sob*

So I point how you completely ignore the arguments to go for ad hominem, and you answer is to... completely ignore the argument and go for ad hominem ? I... guess that's a way to go at it ? Well, I DID say :
You're just so much proving my point at every turn, without ever questioning yourself. It's pretty frightening.
It's really incredible how you shield your mind from any reality which doesn't conform to what you want to believe.

I suppose if a mod ends up infracting you for this behaviour (i.e. : instead of answering an argument, you ignore it and mock), you'll just rewrite reality again to mean "the mods support RACISM !" ?

 

[Ryika]

The only ones rewriting reality are the ones claiming that racism against white people is a real problem.

Note how this person is now trying to move the goal post by pretending that the discussion was about racism against white people as "a real problem", and not just about him denying that obvious racist comments are racist.

A great demonstration of how someone who has lost the argument just can't let go.

 

[Lexicus]

You guys remind me of this meme, but unironic:

 

[Akka]

I notice you still continue to completely ignore everything that is said and go on with your strawman. Despite being repeatedly called on it. Speaks for itself.

 

[Senethro]

*shrug* Maybe when Lexicus wants to talk about the only prevailing and significantly harmful racism locally relevant to the majority of CFC posters he should just call it what it is: white supremacy.

White supremacy gets expressed in personal acts of racism and has also been reinforced and maintained by power structures and institutions built or turned to this purpose - institutional racism.

Is this useful? Because this page is really boring.