quote:

---

Originally posted by Saintonge:
I did not distort his position. I did not understand his position, so I rephrased what I thought he was thinking...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindy Viridis:
Yes. My implicit point was that I think that's exactly what other people in this thread have been doing when you've accused them of "distorting" your positions. I think there's a lot less outright dishonesty or maneuvering going on here than some people seem to think. We're just having trouble understanding each other, which is probably why this thread is now over 150 messages long. (Have we set a record yet? I haven't looked over all the threads on the site, but the ones I have seen all fit on one page. This one is now on its third.)

---

I don't know if we've set a record, yet, but if not, we're playing in the same league. Other threads have gone two pages, and the editing thread might have gone four, but I asked Snaggy to break it into pieces to lower download times (that was before we had the option of going directly to the second or third page from the board).

The reason I accused you of distorting my position is that you didn't say "Do you mean ...," you said "Your position is ..." and repeated it when I told you I did not hold the beliefs you ascribed to me. I'm sorry I misunderstood you. If you don't understand something I post, may I suggest you ask me what it means?

Ah, reading ahead, I see you do ask what I mean. "Never Mind!"

quote:

---

Saintonge:
No, you are ascribing views to me that I specifically repudiate.

---

quote:

---

Mindy:
Then I guess the problem is that I still don't see the difference. I mean, as I understand you, you've said that the problems of the underclass in the USA (including the black underclass, which, since this has developed into a discussion of racism, is the most relevant underclass for our purposes) are in large part, at this point in time (now that external oppression is much less of a factor), due to aspects of their own culture. They discourage their young from becoming educated, they idolize criminals, etc. You've also said that when the underclass (regardless of color, but certainly including the black underclass) moves into a good neighborhood, the neighborhood deteriorates.

---

So far, you have me correct.

quote:

---

My point is that much the same is true in .za, and if you ask a white segregationist why the races should be kept apart, he'll give you those exact reasons.

---

But I haven't expressed the position that the races should be kept apart (how could I talk to my next door neighbors if I thought that?). And I certainly wouldn't want to live in an all-white country or city. The only time I did that since childhood, I found myself missing the variety of more than one race.

quote:

---

The only real difference I see is that in .za it will be expressed in explicitly racial terms, whereas in the USA you speak of "the underclass" (although there is clearly a racial imbalance, such that blacks are a much larger percentage of the underclass than they are of the population in general). So I find it sort of ironic that what in .za constitutes a "racist" statement can be made in the USA with different connotations. I assume you would object to being called a "classist", even though the only difference I can see is that instead of using race as the relevant category, you use social or economic class.

Am I still misunderstanding you?

---

Now I am confused. What is a "classist"?
(Historical aside: During the Great Red Scare [1918-1920], immigrants suspected of supporting Marxism were frequently arrested. The deportation people would ask them "Do you agree with Lenin's ideas?" They'd deny it. "So what do the Communists think about [XYZ]?" The immigrant would deny knowing. "So how can you say you disagree with the Communists when you claim not to know what they think?" Maybe I am a "classist.")

quote:

---

Of course there's a purpose to rape! But it is still inherently evil.

---

quote:

---

Miindy:
And evil is defined as...? And by what authority?

---

1.Morally bad or wrong; wicked (dictionary.com)

quote:

---

Saintonge: Hurricanes are not conscious, and have no desires, awareness, control or their acts, or moral standing, as far as we know anyway. Murderers and rapists do. They are moral agents.

---

quote:

---

Mindy:
Here we come to a fundamental issue. I don't agree that most people are in any meaningful sense conscious actors. They are hormone-, reflex-, and habit-driven machines. I'm pretty sure most compulsive criminals (of any sort) have no idea why they act as they do. Maybe some of them are insightful enough to realize that they rape and murder women (or whatever) because of an abusive childhood, or a neurological condition, or something, but that doesn't give them the power to stop, any more than an autistic child can decide to be normal. If most of us aren't violent criminals, it isn't because we made a conscious choice to be nice, but simply that we weren't warped that way (whether by nature or nurture is beside the point). This is the basis of the cheetah and hurricane analogies. Sure, the cheetah is just being a cheetah, and the hurricane is just the result of air masses moving around in accord with Newtonian mechanics. But humans are no different. If it is possible to be truly conscious and free-willed, I think it must happen quite rarely, and those who find themselves in such a condition must realize very quickly that they have awakened from a dream of a world of intelligence into a real life in hell.

---

And here we fundamentally disagree. John Douglas, a profiler for the FBI, commented on those "driven" to kidnap, rape, and murder women that he'd never heard of one who couldn't control those impulses when a police officer was watching him. I believe those who claim they are "out of control" are just trying to dodge punishment.

For more on this, read one of Douglas's books, or Richard Rhodes's Why They Kill, or (if you have a strong stomach) Carr: Five Years of Rape and Murder, by Robert Frederick Carr and Edna Buchanan, an autobiographical account.

Btw, what do you think should be done about these people who you believe can't control their own acts?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindy Viridis:

No, laws of nature are not "things in the world". They are intellectual models. To say otherwise is like saying that a map is the land it (imperfectly) represents.

---

We seem to be talking past each other here. Let me illustrate: The "law of gravity" may be an intellectual model of reality, but if someone goes up to the top of the "Pyramid Building" in San Francisco and step off, they fall, and if they land on the pavement the sudden stop kills them. Any intellectual model anyone has to the contrary is pointless, they will still die. In that sense, the law of gravity is not a model of anything, it's a fact.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saintonge:
I have no idea what you are talking about.

---

You know *exactly* what I'm talking about, and pretending not to is a rather silly debating point. I've explained, very clearly, the way in which the words "racism" and "sexism" should be used, and why. You're pretending not to understand, because you don't want to think about these topics.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Petethelate:

If you feel that racism is only oriented to the "white power structure", then any discussion is pretty pointless.

---

Are you trying to claim that there isn't a white, male power structure, Pete?

quote:

---

I'm sure it must be a relief to the Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda that their mutual genocide cannot be racist in nature....

---

It isn't, for a number of reasons which you are perfectly capable of finding out for yourself. But even if the tribal conflict was the main reason for the Hutu/Tutsi war (clue for ya: it isn't), then you're still left looking pretty ignorant, Pete. The socially constructed concept of "race" doesn't have any real relevance in Rwanda. Are the Hutu and Tutsi different "races", or are they different political groupings of the black race? When you put it like that, it becomes obvious that the question is a false one, inviting a stipulation by some white guy who can't deal with a world that doesn't conform to his categories.

And finally, even if the concept of race had any scientific standing whatever (clue: it doesn't), then you're still wrong, because, as you may have noticed, the power structure in Rwanda is just a tiny bit different from that of the US technology industry.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Migrant Programmer:
Quotes are all from Astrid:

Noone is forcing anyone to use words in any certain way. However, the only way language can /work/ is if those who use it agree on what it means. Dictionaries are simply a compilation of the agreed-on meanings of words.

---

Another one trying to "argue by pretending not to understand"

{b]

quote:

---

Now. Sexism and racism have meanings that are agreed upon.[/b]

---

Factually incorrect statement. Just because something's in the dictionary, doesn't mean that there isn't a healthy philosophical debate about what the word means. Look through that dictionary of yours and you'll also find the words "mind", "intelligence", "soul" and "democracy".

quote:

---

If you feel that the meanings are wrong, trying to ascribe your own meaning to them and expecting everyone to say "Oh, of course!" is not going to help matters much. If it's that important, coin a new word.

---

No, not acceptable. Words have connotations. "Racism" means racial oppression just as much as it means "different treatment". As I have *already* explained, if the value-neutral definition you guys are trying to use were the correct one, nobody would be all het up about being called a racist.

quote:

---

To give a couple examples (examples are such fun):

---

Less than you think.

quote:

---

If a Japanese person turns down a Chinese person for a job because he/she is Chinese, is that racism?

---

If this is Japan we are talking about, the correct answer is almost certainly yes. If this is China, the correct answer is possibly no. If we are talking about the US tech industry, then the correct answer is "why are you wasting my time with these irrelevant questions?"

quote:

---

If a man can't get a job as a waiter at Hooters [a USian restaurant known for its large-breasted waitresses]), is that sexism?

---

Now that, is an idiotic remark. You honestly think you've made a clever point here, don't you? You're happy to just bring into the picture without comment:

*a society in which it is assumed that women serve food
*breast fetishisation
*"a restaurant chain known for its large-breasted waitresses" ie: a joint for leering inadequates to hang around ogling and groping.

but no; the only salient feature for you is, a *man* not being able to work there.

Now you see, migrant, I'm trying to make the point, that the fact that an economy supports "restaurants known for their large-breasted waitresses", might be a teeny, teeny bit relevant to the question of whether we should be weeping bitter tears for this poor ickle man who has bin denied his basic rights.

quote:

---

I don't think you can limit the definitions of racism and sexism to a certain race and sex. Doing that in itself could be considered racist and sexist by the popular, acknowledged definitions of the words.

---

My god, I can see we're going to have to start calling you Sherlock. That's my *whole* *damn* *point*. There's a huge great oppression machine put in place by white men, and we're meant to ignore this because any attempt to point out that all the people who run the economy are white males is meant to be the equivalent of pointing out that all the people in the basketball leages are black males. You're trying to put forward an utterly unacceptable "tu quoque".

Disclaimer: I am a white male between the ages of 18 and 40. I don't consider myself a racist, sexist, or oppressor.

What have you done, personally, in the last, say, three weeks, to assist the struggle of women and black people?

[/B][/QUOTE]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astrid Leuer:
You know *exactly* what I'm talking about, and pretending not to is a rather silly debating point. I've explained, very clearly, the way in which the words "racism" and "sexism" should be used, and why. You're pretending not to understand, because you don't want to think about these topics.

---

No, I really don't what you�re talking about.

You only recently revealed your non-standard usage of "racism" and "sexism", which appear to revolve around "oppresion" (undefined), done by "white males" (undefined) using their "power structure" (undefined). Silly me, when you originally raised the subject of racism in your post of August 22, 02:29 AM, thought you were talking about the idea that some races are inferior to others, and of less moral worth. Similarly, I'm not at all sure what the other terms I questioned mean when you use them.

Of course, in retrospect your post of August 29, 11:39 AM should have told me we weren't communicating, as you said:

quote:

---

If you believe that whites and Asians are "more qualified" for jobs than blacks, then either this is because of racism, or it's because blacks are naturally inferior.

---

In common usage, the belief that blacks are inferior is racism, and your contrast of the two should have alerted me (btw, if I were to engage in the "silly debating point[s]" you ascribe to me, I'd suggest that your words imply that you believe that blacks are inferior to whites and Asians. But in reality, I think you just wrote sloppily.)

Nor is it at all clear why "racism and sexism" by your definition upset you, since you write

quote:

---

What the heck else is there but personal and cultural preferences.

---

Combined with your condemnation of "racism and sexism," this would appear to imply that some people's preferences are to be preferred to others. Why?

Your other posts give a few clues to your thinking. For instance, your comments to Migrant Programmer:

quote:

---

Another one trying to "argue by pretending not to understand"
{b]

---

And:

quote:

---

What have you done, personally, in the last, say, three weeks, to assist the struggle of women and black people?

---

presupposes a view that is itself in dispute, and suggests you really believe that everyone already agrees with you in their heart.

Also,

quote:

---

No, not acceptable. Words have connotations. "Racism" means racial oppression just as much as it means "different treatment". As I have *already* explained, if the value-neutral definition you guys are trying to use were the correct one, nobody would be all het up about being called a racist.

---

shows you trying to transfer the emotional connotations of the agreed upon meaning of "racism" to your new usage, which conveniently makes it impossible to discuss certain issues you wish not to discuss. And your statements that there are "correct" definitions implies the use of words as power-struggle.

Put it all togeher, and methinks I smell the odor of Leftism.

Also, your statement that if the "value-neutral" definition were correct, no one would be upset at being called a racist shows a magnificent lack of understanding (assuming you are being honest there). It is precisely because the agreed upon meaning carries connotations of objective injustice that people get upset about being called racist. Being called a "participant in the white power structure" like Thomas Sowell and Margaret Thatcher doesn't upset me in the least. It amuses the Hell out of me.

Your comments on "Hooters" show an eagerness to jump to conclusions from ignorance that works to undermine your attempts to persuade (assuming you actually intend to persuade anyone herein). Fyi:

1) In the United States, it is not assumed by anyone in touch with reality that food is served by women, as there are quite a few men in the job.

2) the U.S. Civil Rights Commission actually contemplated suit against "Hooters" for not hiring male waiters. It was laughed down by the public.

I can't speak to your assumption that Hooters is for inadequates to indulge in learing and groping, due to lack of relevant experience (they're overpriced, so I don't eat there). Given the U.S.'s frequently puritanical laws, though, I would be surprised if much groping goes on at Hooters.

Hell no. I'm stating that we white males don't have any monopoly on it, though. We *also* don't have any monopoly on racism. Ask the Koreans and/or Chinese what they think of the Japanese. For that matter, do a search on "731" and "Japan".

It isn't, [racist] for a number of reasons which you are perfectly capable of finding out
and

or are they different political groupings of the black race?
and
And finally, even if the concept of race had any scientific standing whatever (clue: it doesn't), then you're still wrong,

Hmm, the Hutus and Tutsis aren't racist because they are both members of the black race, which has no scientific basis.

I think I've found your definition: Racism is something I [Astrid] can use as a club against people of the White Male Power Structure (who don't have to be white, male, or in power) to use whenever there's a disagreement.

If you don't care to use a dictionary so we can have a rational discussion, why bother?

Petethelate

quote:

---

Factually incorrect statement. Just because something's in the dictionary, doesn't mean that there isn't a healthy philosophical debate about what the word means. Look through that dictionary of yours and you'll also find the words "mind", "intelligence", "soul" and "democracy".

---

Oh, I agree completely. Debates about meanings of words are perfectly fine and useful.

However.

Getting deep into a debate about a concept/thing/whathaveyou and then suddenly piping up, "By the way, I am using a different definition of word X than you." is NOT perfectly fine and useful. Especially when word X happens to be the word used to denote said concept/thing/whathaveyou.

We weren't debating the meaning of the words racism and sexism. We were debating racism and sexism. Important difference.

Though I haven't taken a debate class at university yet, back in the mists of time at junior high school I had a debate class. The most important thing that stuck with me was that you make certain to define the words you are using before you start debating. Failure to do so leads to the other side handily winning an argument over whether "the school should have quilted toilet paper in the bathrooms", or whether "the school halls should be painted bright orange with pink polkadots."

I think it's fair to say that if questionable words are not explicitely defined at the beginning of a debate, the dictionary meanings should be used. Which dictionary can be a stickler, of course, but is certainly less troubling than someone deciding "intelligent" means "purple."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astrid Leuer:
What have you done, personally, in the last, say, three weeks, to assist the struggle of women and black people?

---

I have been not racist, not sexist, and not oppressive. While I haven't been a volunteer or mercenary for women/black causes, I haven't been a volunteer or mercenary for men/non-black causes. If I did do volunteer or mercenary work, it would likely be to help those of any race or sex.

If treating women/blacks as equals doesn't count as "assisting the struggle" as you put it, why not?

/Me smells it too.

BTW, I checked the dictionary--assuming that each tribe in the Hutu Tutsi conflict considers itself to be related (ie, each tribe has a common ancestor), it qualifies as race. Skip the politics--if someone comes after me because of my racial characteristics, it's racism...

I'm getting tired of this. If memory serves, we've been treated to the classic leftist debating ploys--1) distort a position and mock it, 2) come up with a few 'have you stopped beating your wife' questions, and 3) if all else fails, try redefining the terms. 3a) if you really need to, redefine at will. Works fine if you don't get caught.

See y'all in the shallow people threads...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Petethelate:
I'm getting tired of this. If memory serves, we've been treated to the classic leftist debating ploys--1) distort a position and mock it, 2) come up with a few 'have you stopped beating your wife' questions, and 3) if all else fails, try redefining the terms. 3a) if you really need to, redefine at will. Works fine if you don't get caught.

---

Don't forget the personal attacks (admittedly not too bad so far, but one has to start somewhere, no?).

quote:

---

Now that, is an idiotic remark.

---

quote:

---

My god, I can see we're going to have to start calling you Sherlock.

---

Yeah, let's not forget the first rule of Usenet--once someone calls someone else a Nazi, the thread is over.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saintonge:
But I haven't expressed the position that the races should be kept apart...

Now I am confused. What is a "classist"?

---

quote:

---

1.Morally bad or wrong; wicked (dictionary.com)

---

quote:

---

John Douglas, a profiler for the FBI, commented on those "driven" to kidnap, rape, and murder women that he'd never heard of one who couldn't control those impulses when a police officer was watching him.

---

As an example, let us take a slightly different sort of compulsive behavior -- alcoholism, which is a physical addiction. Now, if possession of alcohol were against the law, and an alcoholic with a flask of whiskey in his pocket was in the presence of a policeman, do you think the alcoholic would be able to restrain himself from drinking until he could get away from the policeman? Of course he could, at least for a while. This doesn't indicate that alcoholism isn't an addiction, but merely that the alcoholic doesn't want to get caught drinking.

Rape and murder are considered very serious crimes; in combination, especially for a serial rapist/murderer in the USA, it could lead to execution. Now, a man may be a compulsive rapist and murderer, but if he's not suicidal, he'll hold off until he thinks he's not being watched. Being compulsive doesn't also mean that he's stupid, or that he wants to be caught.

quote:

---

Btw, what do you think should be done about these people who you believe can't control their own acts?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saintonge:
We seem to be talking past each other here. Let me illustrate: The "law of gravity" may be an intellectual model of reality, but if someone goes up to the top of the "Pyramid Building" in San Francisco and step off, they fall, and if they land on the pavement the sudden stop kills them. Any intellectual model anyone has to the contrary is pointless, they will still die. In that sense, the law of gravity is not a model of anything, it's a fact.

---

It depends how precise we want to be about this notion of "gravity". Strictly speaking, any scientific "law" is only a "law" as long as it can be experimentally demonstrated. In the most literal sense, this would require an infinite number of experiments over an infinite amount of time for true 100% certainty; a single solid example of a failure to reproduce the phenomenon would be enough to cast doubt on the theory. What you're basically saying is that, to date, the theory that masses attract each other has been, so far as we can tell, quite reliable, and so you expect that if a man walks off the top of a tall building, he will fall to his death. I don't disagree that that is the likely result; anyone would expect it. Nevertheless, it isn't a scientific "fact", it's a prediction, however much experience backs it up.

Put another way, let's say tomorrow I walk off the top of a building and a I just float there in the air. (I know, but just accept it for the sake of argument.) It would be perfectly reasonable for you to wonder if I was somehow cheating by using magnetic repulsion, a jet-pack, or whatever, but if you could prove to your satisfaction that I was doing no such thing, would you modify your opinion of "gravity", or just stand there like a fool insisting that it was impossible? (Or just kill me to cover up the evidence, as is the traditional solution among religious fanatics.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Petethelate:
I'm getting tired of this. If memory serves, we've been treated to the classic leftist debating ploys--1) distort a position and mock it, 2) come up with a few 'have you stopped beating your wife' questions, and 3) if all else fails, try redefining the terms. 3a) if you really need to, redefine at will. Works fine if you don't get caught.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Petethelate:
Are you trying to claim that there isn't a white, male power structure, Pete?

Hell no. I'm stating that we white males don't have any monopoly on it, though. We *also* don't have any monopoly on racism. Ask the Koreans and/or Chinese what they think of the Japanese. For that matter, do a search on "731" and "Japan".

---

Let's start out with the assumption that discrimination doesn't really matter unless the people who discriminate have enough power that their discrimination really makes life harder for those who they discriminate against. In other words, discrimination only becomes "oppression" when it is systematic and backed by power, and oppression is what really matters. One could point to the Jews in Nazi Germany, blacks in Ian Smith's Rhodesia, under apartheid in .za, or in the USA before the civil rights movement, Native Americans in the USA until sometime in this century (I don't know all the history of this, sorry), and the Chinese in Japanese-occupied China during the second World War, as examples of oppressed people, by this definition.

If I were to walk into a store in a black neighborhood and be told to go away because "we don't want white folks in here", what harm does it really do me? I can trivially go somewhere else, probably on the same block. Certainly there's no shortage of businesses that will take my money. I was discriminated against, but by one person, and not in a way that caused me more than a moment's inconvenience.

So, if one wants to define "racism" such that racially-motivated "oppression", rather than merely "discrimination" or a belief in supremacy, is required, then obviously you can't be racist unless you are on the side with the power. Thus to call blacks in America, or Palestinians in Israel, "racists" would be absurd. (Though I have heard some Jews argue that since Israel is hated by all its Arab neighbors, it's really the Israelis who can't be "racists". Maybe that's another can of worms to leave unopened...)

And maybe part of the point is that the word "racism" should be a powerful thing, such that if one is guilty of "racism", one has truly harmed some racial group. The word seems devalued if it can be applied to any racial preference, even those that carry no real weight and don't really threaten anyone in a meaningful way.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saintonge:
Actually, it was forseen. The legislation was not supposed to apply to women who hadn�t been married, precisely because the Congress didn't want to create an incentive for bastardry. But it was passed during the Roosevelt administration, and some of the many leftists who�d infiltrated the govt. changed it administratively, with malice aforethough. They wanted to destroy the bourgeois family.

---

quote:

---

And right now, there are those trying to undercut the reform of four years ago, and re-expand the welfare rolls. I wonder why

---

I will also argue that the evil of corruption exists in many large cities.  I keep hearing time and time again of do-nothing positions created as sinecures for family and cronies of pols, sapping the funds for essential institutions while both long-term and immediate needs were neglected.  This is how inner-city classrooms wind up spending $6000 per student per year without having any books, and it is all done with the implicit permission of the voters.  If the voters wanted things to change, they wouldn't keep re-electing the mayors, city councils and school boards would they?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astrid Leuer:*Just* personal and cultural preferences!?!?!� What the heck else is there but personal and cultural preferences.

---

1. Laws of mathematics;
   
2. Laws of nature (physical law);
   
3. Facts of biology;
   
4. Consequences of human biological evolution;
   
5. Remnants of human sociological evolution.

quote:

---

The entire point of this whole discussion is that the social and political world is shaped by the personal and cultural preferences of white men, not by anyone else.

---

quote:

---

And as a result, criticism of the cultural and personal preferences of white men (and their enactment into social, political and economic reality) is valid, while all other critique of non-privileged groups is oppressive and contributes to the ongoing domination of those groups by white men. That's what the words "sexism" and "racism" mean; the preferences of white men.

---

quote:

---

Some of the people on this thread talk as if all the women and blacks have to do is to start acting like white men, and suddenly they'll own a fair share of the economy, and start being treated as equals by white men. Get real.

---

1. Persists in confusing "what works" with "preferences of white men".� Even white men can have dysfunctional ideas.
   
2. Confuses cause and effect.� As long as people keep holding to dysfunctional values (especially for political reasons), they will get no respect from the more enlightened and intelligent.� White male trailer-park trash get no respect from the power structure either, and for good reason.

1.)� Barnum's Law:� There's a sucker born every minute.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tau Zero:
I think I agree with the poster who opined that Astrid is merely trolling.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainbowfyre:
Sorry, this is a little delayed in the discussion! Various incoherent points:

Tests ARE biased against minorities. I can tell you that in my own experience. One of my friends at school gets great grades, studies hard, is the president of more than one student group, and is the smartest person I know. She's black, and her SAT scores are 200 points lower than mine: enough to guarantee that she won't get into a top-tier school.

---

quote:

---

Some people believe that African-American men started feeling inadequate, and didn't bother trying to protect their families anymore. (Btw, 63% of black households have no father.)

---

quote:

---

The thing about "watch your mouth" is that often, people are really saying "Get out, the MEN are trying to talk here." It is hard, when you are on the recieving end, to tell the difference. IOW, Go Astrid!

---

quote:

---

Many hi-tech types really believe that they are being gender, race neutral and at the same time treat people differently. I taught at computer camp last summer, and while I readily admit I was not the most qualified person there, I really feel like I was treated as a secretary. Alot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saintonge:
Actually, it was forseen. The legislation was not supposed to apply to women who hadn�t been married, precisely because the Congress didn't want to create an incentive for bastardry. But it was passed during the Roosevelt administration, and some of the many leftists who�d infiltrated the govt. changed it administratively, with malice aforethough. They wanted to destroy the bourgeois family.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tau Zero:
Interesting bit of history that I hadn't known, and I thank you (I love these discussions, I get so many great pointers - got any cites for further reading on that?).�

---

Nothing I can tell you offhand for further information. Look up New Deal History and Francis Perkins, who was Sect. of Labor (if I remember correctly). It was her dept. that administered AFDC.

No great disagreement with the rest of the post.

More later, have to get back to work.

Hmm, nice try. Either we stay with the dictionary definition, or we start over. I'm not interested in redefining the central concept days into the thread.

If you want to try a new word, let's go for a neologism--'Owatagosiam'. If you want to define *that* in terms of opression or whatever, feel free. Just be careful how you pronounce it. But let's leave common words to the dictionary.

Ptl

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindy Viridis:

Originally posted by Tau Zero:

I think I agree with the poster who opined that Astrid is merely trolling.

If this implies that Astrid is not being sincere, then I disagree. Her whole life would have to be insincere for this to be the case; her offline persona is no different.

---

I think it *is* legit to try and recast terms such as racism, if one believes that the canonical definition predisposes one to
categorize the world in an unreasonable way.

However, it's just ridiculous to do it without doing so explicitly, mid-stream and without context.

I both had no time to respond, and frankly
just walked away.

I do think it's a legit tactic, however.
But jeez Astrid, it's got to be up-front and explicit.

All that being said, while I think it's a legit form of argument, I disagree. White males aren't the only ones capable of sexism. Astrid, *you* are the most sexist person in evidence on the board, as best as I can tell.

....

The free-will/machine argument between Saitonge (sp?) and Mindy. Come on, if you're not willing to posit that we each of
the ability to choose our own path, then ALL of this is moot -- just a bunch of blather,
mental masturbation.

So Mindy -- if we're all just mechanism, then why try to convince anyone of anything?
Just take the shortest route to hedonism and chill. Doesn't you're arguing the point beg the question?

Tau-Zero:

Dead-on. Couldn't have (and didn't) said
it as well myself. your posting of: September 05, 2000 02:03 PM
...at least the first half. While I agree with the latter, I also believe that racism/sexism is rampant in the USA and debilitating. Victims of racism/sexism can't get out of it all on their own -- excepting separatist modalities, which themselves are limited in scope.

T-0: You last post much reminds me of _Atlas Shrugged_

Hey, has anyone ever considered that Mindy
and Astrid could be the same person with 2 different monickers? Wierd idea, but nice way to tie folks up in knots....(maybe really stupid idea too ... no offense this, in fun, but also kinda curious.)

And all this, without making a *single* post myself. Kinda shows how welcome any sort of newcomer is to this board, if they disagree with the political prejudices of a small minority. (By the way, boys, you might want to look up the dictionary definition of "Leftism", if you're gonna make so many statements about it).

And also, by the way, I seem to have been accused of "changing the definitions late in the debate". Which is entirely unfair. My third post in this thread, dated 22 August, before the discussion even started was :

quote:

---

Only if you accept the patronising, stupid idea that these things are symmetrical. In all of these cases, there is one group which is on top and one which is oppressed. We're not /in/ equilibrium here, and it isn't helpful to go around constantly picking up women or black people for their uses of "sexist" language -- it's missing the big picture.

---

The trolling accusation - well I stand by what was understandable at the time. Perhaps it wasn't, in which case I apologize for the flame of diversion there.

You may have been internally consistent all along here, but you have NOT expressed yourself as such. I went back and looked at your first 3 posts. Your stance is consistent...and not surprisingly, as I agree with you that it's not a symmetrical arrangement -- if it were, it (racism/sexism/etc) wouldn't be an
article of power and would cease to be used, because it's obviously otherwise completely non-functional.

However, you *never* claim that one should redefine/recast commmonly defined words prior to your inflammatory comment.
It's just not legit. That's my main grumble and what especially got my ire.

I also don't like it that you think that minorities can't be sexist/racist. It's
ludicrous and frankly not functional in my view. (By functional, I mean is it useful in effecting change in the world.)

My accusation of sexism comment may be over the top -- I'd have to re-read the whole bloody thread, and haven't the time -- but thinking about it the next day, I stand by it. You exhibit lots of presumption about what men are, what they think, what they do, and how to treat them. As a man, I don't like it.

Further, I think it detracts from your efforts. I think much of what you say is of interest.

Astrid Leuer: "...that men...will never understand anything."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sad:
Hi Astrid:
However, you *never* claim that one should redefine/recast commmonly defined words prior to your inflammatory comment.

---

Nor after it ("inflammatory"? Which personal insults did I make? What have I done to deserve this?). I have consistently argued that my meaning of "racism" is the correct one now, and that the attempt to force a value-neutral one is the redefinition.

In order to support this point I have advanced the evidence:

1) that "racism" is a word carrying a powerful emotional load (this is undisputed), which would not be the case if it referred to the harmless act of discrimination.

2) that the dictionary also contains definitions of numerous other words ("mind", "soul" and "democracy", for example. And "leftist") whose true meanings are a matter for dispute.

I will now also advance the new evidence:

3) All the people trying to claim that "racism" is a common word with a fixed meaning are arguing in the face of the actual historical development. "Racism" is actually a very new word, which has only been in the dictionary for about thirty years. Previously to this, the word was "racialism", which had exactly the meaning of racial biology, racial superiority, etc. The new word came out of the struggles of oppressed peoples in the 1950s and 1960s; even on etymological grounds it is arguable that its appropriation to mean the same as "racialism" is wrong.

But nobody's interested in actually arguing the case, are they? They're just keen on shouting me down (and I defy anyone to come up with a better description of ten or twelve posts during a day when I added no new material.[/b][/QUOTE]

quote:

---

I also don't like it that you think that minorities can't be sexist/racist.

---

Ah. hold up. Not "minorities". I quite agree that Poles, Irish, Jews, left-handers, Chinese, Japanese, Boers, Germans, etc (all of whom are "minorities" in the USA), can be racist. (and even blacks in the appropriate conditions. My argument is that it makes no sense to accuse black Americans of being racist in the context of American society.

quote:

---

It's
ludicrous and frankly not functional in my view. (By functional, I mean is it useful in effecting change in the world.)

---

Right. Now see, that's an argument. That's actually engaging with my point, and saying why you disagree with it. That's a lot more courageous and polite than just shouting "you are a leftist and evil and wrong". I wish more people would do this

quote:

---

My accusation of sexism comment may be over the top -- I'd have to re-read the whole bloody thread, and haven't the time -- but thinking about it the next day, I stand by it. You exhibit lots of presumption about what men are, what they think, what they do, and how to treat them. As a man, I don't like it.

---

I don't understand why. Everyone, always, presumes similar presumptions about any group that they talk about. And furthermore, I'm not a member of a group which systematically oppresses men. For example, if I were to accuse you (I'm not actually doing this) of making "frivolous arguments", and you were to accuse me of the same, then would these two sentences have exactly the same meaning? No, because "frivolous" has entirely different connotations when applied to a woman. That's the kind of point I'm trying to make.

quote:

---

Further, I think it detracts from your efforts. I think much of what you say is of interest.

---

Thanks. I have been getting a few supportive emails, but it's nice to know that at least some people are capable of taking a new point of view seriously.

quote:

---

Astrid Leuer: "...that men...will never understand anything."

If you really have that belief, why argue the point?

---

Because I was exaggerating for effect (rolls eyes). And btw, I don't think that's a verbatim quote -- I never used the word "anything". This thread's got a bit huge, but it's worth taking the trouble to make sure you get peoples' words exactly right.

quote:

---

Just trolling deary?

---

Errrrr .... you must have known that being called "deary" would make me angry, so your accusation of "trolling" is a /bit/ ironic. If you look in the "New Hackers' Dictionary", then you'll find that "disagreeing with the majority point of view" is not part of the definition of "trolling", so by your standards, I cannot be a troll.

I can't help but find it ironic that I've had huge discussions on the controversial subjects of kinky sex and artificial intelligence, all of which stayed perfectly polite, but the minute I try to address the issue of women being marginalised and driven off bulletin boards (which is what you guys accuse trolls of doing), I get this sort of treatment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astrid Leuer:
...but the minute I try to address the issue of women being marginalised and driven off bulletin boards (which is what you guys accuse trolls of doing), I get...

---

I'm sure I could devise a suitably detailed argument to "prove" that, oh, Saintonge and Tau Zero are really the same person, but the construction of complex fictions is not really my thing.

The most amusing thing about the accusation that we're really the same person is that we usually post during daylight hours for our respective locations (South Africa and California), as anyone can see by looking back through the thread. Duh.

1. In your 2nd to last post you refer to your third post in the original thread and claim to be consistent, etc.

consistent, yes. No definition of racism, etc. however. Common definitions hold.

If you wish to redefine terms, it's only reasonable that they be persistently footnoted throughout. Otherwise your arguments are reduced to some cloisted academic clubhouse where nobody knows what the heck you mean, because you've got your own cozy little vocabulary.

You mis-used. Got called on it. Claimed the definition was bull. Claimed you had redefined it. Have been perturbed for getting called on it, and responded by in effect calling those that have done so bullies. Claimed others haven't responded to your point. And yet haven't responded to the above in any meaningful way.

Deary: you called me dear at a point that
rightly or wrongly got my hackles up. Just dishin' it back.

They were your words. So I'll ask again:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astrid Leuer posted August 22, 2000 10:20 AM:
And even men who "get it", nine times out of ten, they're just being two-faced. I tend to behave in a very flirty manner, as if I don't mind the odd dirty joke or off-colour remark. You'd be surprised what I learn about a lot of self-styled "sensitive new age guys". So with a very few honourable exceptions, I'll stand by my statement that men (as a whole -- nothing wrong with generalisations in and of themselves) will never understand anything. And continue to use them as sex objects without very much respect. Deal, boys?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindy Viridis:
[QUOTE]or that you don't really exist (i.e., that you're just me under another name),

---

My own accusation of troll is well-founded if wrong. My accusation of sexism is even better founded.

There's never been any attempt on my part of marginilization, etc. However, I'm pretty frustrated with the discussion. If one's gonna twist words you're either being deliberately provocative, or sloppy.
In either case it doesn't foster honest discussion.

I see a lot of efforts on all parts here. But I'm weary of even reading it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sad:
I lost my reply. So here goes again very fast.

1. In your 2nd to last post you refer to your third post in the original thread and claim to be consistent, etc.

consistent, yes. No definition of racism, etc. however. Common definitions hold.

---

Actually, I explained, in some detail, why I don't agree that there is an accepted "common definition", or that the dictionary definition should be accepted.

quote:

---

If you wish to redefine terms, it's only reasonable that they be persistently footnoted throughout. Otherwise your arguments are reduced to some cloisted academic clubhouse where nobody knows what the heck you mean, because you've got your own cozy little vocabulary.

---

Can we assume that everyone now knows enough about what I mean to call me a "leftist" (though of course, I'm not the one demanding that people be sent off to a gulag until they repudiate their views), and that therefore, I might be met with either some arguments, or recognition that my view is at least valid?

quote:

---

You mis-used. Got called on it. Claimed the definition was bull. Claimed you had redefined it.

---

I suppose it's too much to ask that you actually read my post? *I* haven't redefined anything. I'm claiming (and presenting evidence) that the *correct* definition is the one *I'm* using. Tau Zero seems to recognise it's in common usage among what he calls "loony, Berkely" circles. I'm arguing (with evidence) that they're not loonies, and they're right. You guys are asserting (without evidence) that I'm wrong.

quote:

---

Have been perturbed for getting called on it, and responded by in effect calling those that have done so bullies.

---

What's your description for these gallant gentlemen that have labelled me, refused to take me seriously and stated that I should be confined to an island until I change my mind?

quote:

---

Claimed others haven't responded to your point. And yet haven't responded to the above in any meaningful way.

---

"In any meaningful way"?!?! Sad, I've responded at length. If you want to criticise my arguments in favour of my definition, that's fair enough. Instead, you're denying that they are "meaningful". What do you, yourself, mean?

quote:

---

Deary: you called me dear at a point that
rightly or wrongly got my hackles up. Just dishin' it back.

---

_This_is_my_entire_point_!!!! It is not symmetrical for a man to call a woman "deary" and a women to call a man "dear". "kaffir" is not symmetrical with "jarpie" because it's kaffirs who were oppressed, not jarpies. You are not at risk of being trivialised as a hysterical woman; I am. I think you know this, really.

quote:

---

They were your words. So I'll ask again:

If you really have that belief, why argue the point? Just trolling xxxxxxx?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sad:
Nobody suggested you should be placed on your own island.

---

Scroll up and read Tau Zero's last post.

quote:

---

My own accusation of troll is well-founded if wrong.

---

Seems that the dictionary is only brought out when it's "leftists" arguing over the definitions of words, then

quote:

---

I'm out of here. All terms in preceding sentence subject to later retroactive redefinition at time of my own choosing/convenience.

---

A nasty little slight. I have never done this and resent the implication that I have.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sad:
I think it *is* legit to try and recast terms such as racism, if one believes that the canonical definition predisposes one to
categorize the world in an unreasonable way.

However, it's just ridiculous to do it without doing so explicitly, mid-stream and without context.

---

quote:

---

So Mindy -- if we're all just mechanism, then why try to convince anyone of anything? Just take the shortest route to hedonism and chill. Doesn't your arguing the point beg the question?

---

Clue: You might want to look into the role of feedback in complex systems. But even without that, it's just silly to suggest that a change in a machine's internal state can't affect its output, which is essentially what you're saying when you suggest that if we're all machines, it doesn't matter what we think.

quote:

---

Hey, has anyone ever considered that Mindy and Astrid could be the same person with 2 different monickers? Wierd idea, but nice way to tie folks up in knots....(maybe really stupid idea too ... no offense this, in fun, but also kinda curious.)

---

Well, no desire on my part to have you categorized as hysterical.

I think the above comments on dear/deary from man<=>woman well illustrate Astrid's point about inherent lack of symmetry in how we use and perceive language. Worth reflecting upon.

I'll have to think much more about the notion of whether the common definition of
racism is in fact a disenfranchisment by the dominating parties. I'll chew on it.

I still believe my comments on your use of language hold.

I'll have to think about it all later...m u s t w o r k....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sad:
(Unwillingly dragged back by reason...)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sad:
Mindy:

Yeah feedback sure. But if we're machines, why care? If one takes the stance that
we're simply mechanism, then it seems to me the path'd lead to either extreme nihilism or extreme hedonism.

---

Nihilism and hedonism are not mutually incompatible stances -- you can be a nihilist about ethics and a hedonist in your personal motivation.

Impersonal hedonism is (a kind of) utilitarianism. And if you regard the distinctions between individuals as morally unimportant (a very logical stance), then hedonism in fact implies that you should act so as to maximise overall utility.