Is Racism an overused term?

[Fooloso4]

Philosch:

I just don't agree with the use of the term in this and many other cases.

See “Muslims Aren’t A Race, So I Can’t Be Racist, Right? Wrong”.
huffingtonpost.com/craig-considine/musl ... 91660.html

I don't believe for one second that him saying he wanted to ban all Muslims was a serious thought and nothing more then campaign rhetoric.

Here is a different perspective: “Steve Bannon’s war with Islam: Trump may not even understand his adviser’s apocalyptic vision”
salon.com/2017/02/05/steve-bannons-war- ... ic-vision/

[Philosch]

Philosch:

I just don't agree with the use of the term in this and many other cases.

See “Muslims Aren’t A Race, So I Can’t Be Racist, Right? Wrong”.
huffingtonpost.com/craig-considine/musl ... 91660.html

I read the article and remain completely unconvinced and yet again we are not talking about hatred and violence as you keep trying to equate with a potentially reasonable immigration policy, which again gets to the point. Even if I agree with the writer's assertions about what now constitutes racism (which I don't) in the article, Trump's actions wouldn't qualify. Not even the judge comment qualifies. Yet because you label him as such, it then becomes okay to lump him in with the violent vile thugs you keep pointing out. As for the Bannon article I could care less. I have no real use for him and it's off my point. If the immigration policy in question is classic racism according to you, then you are either missing my point or we are on completely different pages. If someone says "I hate Muslims those f'n towel head", I would concede that is racism along with some other terms. That doesn't equate with Trumps actions, sorry.

But since you want to keep getting off point I'll tell you my real opinion about all the Abrahamic religions. When any of the Occidental religions are believed at any fundamental level they are dangerous to the progression of the human race. But that's a subject of a different post. And me having such an opinion is NOT RACIST! So when those religions are practiced privately without evangelizing and attempting to convert and so on they are not a problem. They are also not morally equivalent and they are not equivalently dangerous. Islam stands at the pinnacle of dangerous religious belief systems and anyone who disputes that has their head in the sand. And yet again this is not racism. I don't hate or despise anyone with that belief system. But I think the belief system is dangerous and I would reserve the right to not engage with people who push that belief system at a fundamental level. So for instance I would reject any notion of allowing sharia law. Does that make me racist because I'm rejecting a fundamental Muslim tenant? I must be according to your reasoning. It's just such ignorance to toss around the racist label when dealing with this particular religion or any other that presents cultural, political and even criminal problems. We must be able to criticize religious groups who's beliefs can become so oppressive and insidious without being called racist.

[Togo1]

So, now that's the definition sorted out, back to Trump. Racist? Yes, of course he is. He dismissed a judge's impartality explicitly because he was a member of an ethnic minority, he locked up people in airports around the country on the basis of their ethnic identity, even though they had committed no crime and had a legal right to be there. And so on. We don't actually know what his beliefs about various ethnic groups are, we don't know what his feelings are, and we don't know his full motivations. And that doesn't matter. We know he's racist because of his actions. That's all we need.

And so here we go again. I made my point quite clearly about his claim towards the judge. He didn't have people in airports locked up because of their ethnicity, it was supposed to be a ban based on national origins. Now others claim it was a "Muslim" ban which of course is a religious test so you are just not accurate either way. Whether the ban was ill advised or not you are spewing the same stuff as the last Trump hater. You admit you don't know whether he has any feelings about this or that ethnic group and yet try to claim you can call him a racist based on actions that had nothing to do with race but rather nationality. Why, because it's just clear to you that anyone so arrogant and insensitive is quite obviously a racist. His actions through out his lifetime do not jive with someone who has been a racist but whatever, you stick to your story and further the cause of people who want to create more division. He's a bumbling spoiled rich narcissist, I have no problem saying that. But throwing the racist claim around is just nonsense. Now if you can find an example of actions that were racially motivated I'll accept your claim.

So., you didn't understand my point at all.

Your defence of dismissing the judge is based on your opinion of his motivations. You don't know his motivations. As I explained, it doesn't matter what his intentions are. What matters are his actions. In using his position to try and label a judge as biased based on no other given reason than his ethnicity, is racist. It's racist whether he did it because he doesn't like hispanics or whether he did it because he felt that aligning the race of the judge with the defendent would be better for US justice for all citizens. It's racist either way.

Similarly, it doesn't matter whether the ban on foreign travel was around a religion, or a geography, or a hairstyle. It doesn't matter. What matters is that the effect of his order was to lock up a whole lot of brown people without trial, despite them having a legal right to be there. That's racist. It remains racist irrespective of his intent, or what he was thinknig, or any other mental state you might care to come up with. My claim doesn't depend on motivations, racial or otherwise. It just depends on what he does. If he's sending armed agents to lock brown people without trial, if he's speaking out against judges based on their skin colour, then he's being racist. If he stops, he stops being racist. It's that simple.

I'll refer you to Sam Harris who in several of his podcasts has addressed this issue more eloquently than I. ... He(Sam Harris) has been called a racist because he criticizes radical Islam which is neither a race or nationality but rather a religion that's currently reeking havoc on a global scale.

Nah, he gets called a racist, because the effect of his arguement is to label huge swathes of brown people as literally incapable of controlling their own actions, and thus needing to be controlled or killed by an outside power. Again, noone knows or cares what his true motivations are. But based on his actions, yes, he's being racist.

There's a wider issue here that you seem to be falling foul of, which is a right-wing tendency to judge the worth of actions based on internal states. Sam very much exemplifies this tradition, arguing that the US bombing muslim civillian targets is less bad than muslims bombing US military targets, because of the intention behind those actions. I've been very careful in explaining to you that racism, as it is being used by those you are criticising, does not follow the definition you're using, does not involve internal states in any way, and is based purely on the outcomes of behaviour. But you keep on coming back to internal states anyway. Why?

I appreciate that you may not agree that this is the most useful definition, but that doesn't matter either. It's the one that is actually being used, and it is meaningless to criticise on any other basis.

Doesn't matter because once you are labeled a racist by people who could care less about what the word means, there is no need to pay any attention to what that person says going forward.

-- Updated March 8th, 2017, 6:47 am to add the following --

(Nested quote removed.)


And so here we go again. I made my point quite clearly about his claim towards the judge. He didn't have people in airports locked up because of their ethnicity, it was supposed to be a ban based on national origins. Now others claim it was a "Muslim" ban which of course is a religious test so you are just not accurate either way. Whether the ban was ill advised or not you are spewing the same stuff as the last Trump hater. You admit you don't know whether he has any feelings about this or that ethnic group and yet try to claim you can call him a racist based on actions that had nothing to do with race but rather nationality. Why, because it's just clear to you that anyone so arrogant and insensitive is quite obviously a racist. His actions through out his lifetime do not jive with someone who has been a racist but whatever, you stick to your story and further the cause of people who want to create more division. He's a bumbling spoiled rich narcissist, I have no problem saying that. But throwing the racist claim around is just nonsense. Now if you can find an example of actions that were racially motivated I'll accept your claim.

So., you didn't understand my point at all.

Your defence of dismissing the judge is based on your opinion of his motivations. You don't know his motivations. As I explained, it doesn't matter what his intentions are. What matters are his actions. In using his position to try and label a judge as biased based on no other given reason than his ethnicity, is racist. It's racist whether he did it because he doesn't like hispanics or whether he did it because he felt that aligning the race of the judge with the defendent would be better for US justice for all citizens. It's racist either way.

Similarly, it doesn't matter whether the ban on foreign travel was around a religion, or a geography, or a hairstyle. It doesn't matter. What matters is that the effect of his order was to lock up a whole lot of brown people without trial, despite them having a legal right to be there. That's racist. It remains racist irrespective of his intent, or what he was thinknig, or any other mental state you might care to come up with. My claim doesn't depend on motivations, racial or otherwise. It just depends on what he does. If he's sending armed agents to lock brown people without trial, if he's speaking out against judges based on their skin colour, then he's being racist. If he stops, he stops being racist. It's that simple.

I'll refer you to Sam Harris who in several of his podcasts has addressed this issue more eloquently than I. ... He(Sam Harris) has been called a racist because he criticizes radical Islam which is neither a race or nationality but rather a religion that's currently reeking havoc on a global scale.

Nah, he gets called a racist, because the effect of his arguement is to label huge swathes of brown people as literally incapable of controlling their own actions, and thus needing to be controlled or killed by an outside power. Again, noone knows or cares what his true motivations are. But based on his actions, yes, he's being racist.

There's a wider issue here that you seem to be falling foul of, which is a right-wing tendency to judge the worth of actions based on internal states. Sam very much exemplifies this tradition, arguing that the US bombing muslim civillian targets is less bad than muslims bombing US military targets, because of the intention behind those actions. I've been very careful in explaining to you that racism, as it is being used by those you are criticising, does not follow the definition you're using, does not involve internal states in any way, and is based purely on the outcomes of behaviour. But you keep on coming back to internal states anyway. Why?

I appreciate that you may not agree that this is the most useful definition, but that doesn't matter either. It's the one that is actually being used, and it is meaningless to criticise on any other basis.

Doesn't matter because once you are labeled a racist by people who could care less about what the word means, there is no need to pay any attention to what that person says going forward.

Which is why I could ignore your attempt to label me as racist. You're judging opinions without understanding them.

[Steve3007]

I agree to a large extent with the OP. The term "racist" is in danger of becoming too much of a blunt instrument - a catch-all term. It's similar to what has happened to terms like "terrorist" and "politically correct" (as discussed on another thread). The word loses most of its descriptive purpose and becomes simply a tool for stating a personal position. For the same reasons, I believe that when some dropout decides to attach himself to a religion and kill a dozen or so people, calling him a "terrorist" is no longer useful. It grants him a warrior status that he doesn't deserve. Probably best to stick to calling him a murderer and to analyse the motives for that murder in each particular case. And the reverse can also be true. We see, for example, the government of Syria routinely referring to all who oppose them as terrorists.

In examples given in the OP, as in many other cases, rather than using the blanket label "racist" I think it's best to more accurately analyse what is happening in each particular case.

From the OP:

For instance the so called Muslim ban I have heard described as racist when clearly Muslim is not a race. That's a relatively easy case to spot.

This is true. It is called a Muslim ban because it is the end result of a clearly visible process in which Trump states his aim to impose a temporary ban on all Muslims from entering the US, then looks for ways in which to do it, then creates the executive order. So it is a ban based on religion, which is why it was ruled unconstitutional. It is not a ban based on race. As far as I'm aware, the concept of "race" only enters the US Constitution in the context of voting rights (15th Amendment). So maybe if it had been based on race it wouldn't actually have fallen foul of the Constitution?!

Let's take the case of Trump saying that a Judge of Mexican decent would probably rule against him in a case where the plaintiffs were Mexican. Is this a racist statement? ... I'm going to make the case that it's not. His statement maybe be boorish, may be pompous, may be denigrating to the judge calling into question his impartiality and may even be even liable or slander in some cases but it's not racism. Trump's statement might even be considered rational from one perspective, it's actually quite reasonable to assume that a human being will side with one group he's more closely linked than another. Trump does not say that he is somehow superior to the judge because of the judges race. He does not say the judge is inferior or in anyway not as capable of judging as a white judge. Those would clearly be racist statements by the above definition.

Again, I agree that this statement in itself is not racism, but I don't agree that it is simply the result of pomposity or stupidity. It is a simple method for avoiding being censured by a Judge. If I want to use it, I first make general hostile comments towards a group to which that judge belongs, then state that the judge, being a member of that group, will probably be ill-disposed towards me and I might therefore not get a fair judgement.

You are right that it could indeed be reasonable to assume that I won't get fair treatment from that judge, because I have tried my best to ensure that I won't. Whether I'm successful would depend on the judge's ability to put aside personal animosity and act like a judge.

[Philosch]

I agree to a large extent with the OP. The term "racist" is in danger of becoming too much of a blunt instrument - a catch-all term. It's similar to what has happened to terms like "terrorist" and "politically correct" (as discussed on another thread). The word loses most of its descriptive purpose and becomes simply a tool for stating a personal position. For the same reasons, I believe that when some dropout decides to attach himself to a religion and kill a dozen or so people, calling him a "terrorist" is no longer useful. It grants him a warrior status that he doesn't deserve. Probably best to stick to calling him a murderer and to analyse the motives for that murder in each particular case. And the reverse can also be true. We see, for example, the government of Syria routinely referring to all who oppose them as terrorists.

In examples given in the OP, as in many other cases, rather than using the blanket label "racist" I think it's best to more accurately analyse what is happening in each particular case.

From the OP:

For instance the so called Muslim ban I have heard described as racist when clearly Muslim is not a race. That's a relatively easy case to spot.

This is true. It is called a Muslim ban because it is the end result of a clearly visible process in which Trump states his aim to impose a temporary ban on all Muslims from entering the US, then looks for ways in which to do it, then creates the executive order. So it is a ban based on religion, which is why it was ruled unconstitutional. It is not a ban based on race. As far as I'm aware, the concept of "race" only enters the US Constitution in the context of voting rights (15th Amendment). So maybe if it had been based on race it wouldn't actually have fallen foul of the Constitution?!

Let's take the case of Trump saying that a Judge of Mexican decent would probably rule against him in a case where the plaintiffs were Mexican. Is this a racist statement? ... I'm going to make the case that it's not. His statement maybe be boorish, may be pompous, may be denigrating to the judge calling into question his impartiality and may even be even liable or slander in some cases but it's not racism. Trump's statement might even be considered rational from one perspective, it's actually quite reasonable to assume that a human being will side with one group he's more closely linked than another. Trump does not say that he is somehow superior to the judge because of the judges race. He does not say the judge is inferior or in anyway not as capable of judging as a white judge. Those would clearly be racist statements by the above definition.

Again, I agree that this statement in itself is not racism, but I don't agree that it is simply the result of pomposity or stupidity. It is a simple method for avoiding being censured by a Judge. If I want to use it, I first make general hostile comments towards a group to which that judge belongs, then state that the judge, being a member of that group, will probably be ill-disposed towards me and I might therefore not get a fair judgement.

You are right that it could indeed be reasonable to assume that I won't get fair treatment from that judge, because I have tried my best to ensure that I won't. Whether I'm successful would depend on the judge's ability to put aside personal animosity and act like a judge.

Yeah I think you stated what I was getting at a little better then I did. Other posters will have you believe the religious vs racial distinction is irrelevant as is the intent of the ban, the only thing that matters is that a whole bunch of brown people were locked up so therefore it's racist.

Similarly, it doesn't matter whether the ban on foreign travel was around a religion, or a geography, or a hairstyle. It doesn't matter. What matters is that the effect of his order was to lock up a whole lot of brown people without trial, despite them having a legal right to be there. That's racist. It remains racist irrespective of his intent, or what he was thinknig, or any other mental state you might care to come up with. My claim doesn't depend on motivations, racial or otherwise. It just depends on what he does. If he's sending armed agents to lock brown people without trial, if he's speaking out against judges based on their skin colour, then he's being racist.

This is just a preposterous position to take. The intent of the person acting is irrelevant, consequences are all that matter? Consequentialist nonsense. Very dangerous reasoning.

There's a wider issue here that you seem to be falling foul of, which is a right-wing tendency to judge the worth of actions based on internal states. Sam very much exemplifies this tradition, arguing that the US bombing muslim civillian targets is less bad than muslims bombing US military targets, because of the intention behind those actions. I've been very careful in explaining to you that racism, as it is being used by those you are criticising, does not follow the definition you're using, does not involve internal states in any way, and is based purely on the outcomes of behaviour. But you keep on coming back to internal states anyway. Why?

Right wing tendency? OMG this made me laugh out loud. You don't know me well enough to judge that but Sam Harris couldn't be more liberal left wing. You would ignore his very vocal and prominent support of several Muslim reformers because "YOU" somehow perceive the effect of his words as denigrating to brown people. What is this brown people business, I thought we were talking about Muslims. Drawing false equivalencies between the US military accidently causing collateral damage and terrorists deliberately target innocents, beheading them and burning them alive, you are either a Chomsky fan or you are an Islamic apologist. You should check your sentence again, you realize you have the US military bombing civilians while the Muslims are bombing military targets. Freudian slip tipping your true beliefs perhaps? I think you have that backwards. In any case dude we have no common ground in which to even have a conversation. At this point I shall have to just assume from your point of view anybody with light skin is a racist. I once ran through a red light and I caused a car coming the other way to slam on their brakes. When I looked up the driver of that car was black. At that point based on your rational, the consequences of my actions made me a racist. Good to know the rules we are now playing by. As far as me trying to claim you are a racist, I have no clue where you even got that one....I would never presume to judge whether you're a racist or not. I leave such judgments to you and the other experts on racism.

[Togo1]

Yeah I think you stated what I was getting at a little better then I did. Other posters will have you believe the religious vs racial distinction is irrelevant as is the intent of the ban, the only thing that matters is that a whole bunch of brown people were locked up so therefore it's racist.

Well if it's almost entirely brown people, then yeah, that would be racist. I'm not sure why you regard this as controvertial.

This is just a preposterous position to take. The intent of the person acting is irrelevant, consequences are all that matter?

That is the definition being used, yes.

Consequentialist nonsense. Very dangerous reasoning.

Can you explain why? This is a poltiical philosophy forum, and this is the closest we've got ot a philosophical precept in the discussion so far. It might be interesting to pursue this.

I'd suggest that there is no inherent value in insisiting on a definition of racism that's impossible to prove in practice, except to neuter the term. Meanwhile there is quite a lot of value in labelling killing a lot of brown people, or refusing to let black people on the bus, as racist, without worrying about matters of intent.

Similarly, Sam Harris argues that the US killing people is fine, because their intent is pure, and that Islamic fundamentalists killing people is not, because their intent is impure. I see certain practical issues in deciding world poltics based on criteria that can't in any way be demonstrated. Do you really not see a problem here?

but Sam Harris couldn't be more liberal left wing.

He could be. He is far from liberal on the subject of Islam.

This is simply something I've observed about the Right in politics. I'm sure it occurs elsewhere as well.

You would ignore his very vocal and prominent support of several Muslim reformers because "YOU" somehow perceive the effect of his words as denigrating to brown people.

Well, me, Chomsky, and rather a lot of others. And it's nothing to do with 'denigrating' - he's advocating killing people on the basis of their opinions.

What is this brown people business, I thought we were talking about Muslims.

Not noticeably. Large populous muslim countries were left off the list.

Drawing false equivalencies between the US military accidently causing collateral damage and terrorists deliberately target innocents, beheading them and burning them alive, you are either a Chomsky fan or you are an Islamic apologist.

A Chomsky fan.

You should check your sentence again, you realize you have the US military bombing civilians while the Muslims are bombing military targets.

Yes, that was one of the examples Sam Harris used, so it's the one I'm citing. Specifically he was comparing the US bombing of a large Sudanese pharmaceutical plant that produces antibiotics, with an attack on the military personnel of Fort Hood.

Freudian slip tipping your true beliefs perhaps? I think you have that backwards.

I'm citing what Sam Harris was arguing.

I'm not sure why you find this controvertial. Did you think that the US military doesn't attack civillians? Did you think that Islamic fundamentalists don't attack military targets?

At this point I shall have to just assume from your point of view anybody with light skin is a racist.

That's a pretty extreme reaction to someone explaining to you what definition was being used in an arguement you hadn't understood.

I once ran through a red light and I caused a car coming the other way to slam on their brakes. When I looked up the driver of that car was black. At that point based on your rational, the consequences of my actions made me a racist.

Nope, your action there isn't descriminatory in result, nor does it involve the exercise of power, so I don't see that it meets either of the criteria I gave you.

Good to know the rules we are now playing by.

Racism is a problem that hurts real people every day. It's not a game.

As far as me trying to claim you are a racist, I have no clue where you even got that one....I would never presume to judge whether you're a racist or not. I leave such judgments to you and the other experts on racism.

Sorry, on reviewing your comments, it's quite true that you didn't call me a racist. That was my misreading of the section where you judge that I'm a 'Trump hater', who deliberately conflates narcissism and selfishness with racism in order to promote national divisions. My apologies for the inaccuracy.

[Philosch]

Well, me, Chomsky, and rather a lot of others. And it's nothing to do with 'denigrating' - he's advocating killing people on the basis of their opinions.

I shouldn't really bother addressing this but where on earth is he advocating killing anyone for anyone? This is so far beyond the pale. I can't even believe you are stating such a thing. Absolutely amazing. Where does Sam Harris say we should kill people based on their opinions? Can't let you get away with such utter lies.

Philosch wrote:
What is this brown people business, I thought we were talking about Muslims.

Not noticeably. Large populous muslim countries were left off the list.

So what you are suggesting is that only the Muslim countries with the brownest people were included? If large populations of Muslims were left off the list then how exactly is it a Muslim or even racial ban? As I said, ridiculous that it's considered racist. As far as the bombing of the drug plant and Ford Hood business, you are picking one example but even in that example it's a false equivalency. Chomsky is dead wrong and so are you. The intention does matter. There are thousands upon thousands of cases of Muslims killing what would be by any stretch innocent people in the most horrific way with their stated reasoning of pure hatred and intolerance and that to you is equivalent to the US military either making a targeting mistake or having mistaken intelligence. That's just remarkable that you view the US military actions as equivalent to the Islamic terrorists actions.

Nope, your action there isn't descriminatory in result, nor does it involve the exercise of power, so I don't see that it meets either of the criteria I gave you.

The criteria you gave me was that the resulting action caused a brown person to suffer in some way they wouldn't have otherwise at the hands of a white person...I mean that's the direct implication of the consequential nonsense you spewed. Intentions are irrelevant. If brown people end up bearing the brunt of a particular action no matter the intention of the person causing the action then it's racism. And you can restate it any way you like but it's nonsense.

Racism is a problem that hurts real people every day. It's not a game

This piece of arrogance I resent as much as the ridiculous Sam Harris claim. Where in any of my post do I suggest it's a game. Where do I suggest that real people are really suffering? I believe I was originally making the point that real racism is insidious. Are you judging me now? Implying that I'm insensitive to the problem, hmmm, suggesting that maybe I just don't get it...Why I believe you are and therein lies the essential point. In your own judgmental arrogance you cannot see that you will end up encouraging the very thing you are railing against.

[-1-]

Let me get this straight.

Racism is the action of one in established power by causing harm due to discrimination based on... race, I guess, to make the argument easy.

Sorry, Togo1, you can't take intent out of this. If you do, then any act can be racist and any racist act can be non-racist.

"A black foreman fires his white secretary for misconduct." Take out the motivation, and the sentence becomes "a black foreman fires his white secretary" and bang, it's racist.

"Trump dismisses judge due his being Hispanic." Take out the motivation, "Trump dismisses judge" and it is no longer a racist act.

There is something about intent you can't subtract from the charge of racism.

That's A. B. is a question by me: in American law, is racism a punishable crime?

[Steve3007]

On the subjects of intent and consequentialism that have been discussed in the last few posts:

The law clearly does make a distinction between deliberate and accidental acts even if the outcome of those acts is identical. Accidental death is different from murder. And this reflects a genuine moral difference between the two. In my view the difference is actually a consequentialist one. It is about potential future consequences.

The main purpose of laws is to reduce the occurrence of undesirable events in the future by various means. A person's motive, in killing another person, indicates the likelihood that they will kill again in the future and that other people will kill. i.e. it indicates the likelihood that some undesirable events will happen in the future. We punish or condemn deliberate killing more than accidental killing because we hope that doing so discourages future killings both by this killer and other potential killers. This moral/legal position extends to killings by military actors in situations of war.

[LuckyR]

(Nested quote removed.)



The Trump/judge situation is a perfect example of what I am describing. The actual situation does NOT state implicitly that the Orange one feels that people of Mexican heritage are specifically inferior to him. So by your definition the comment is not racist. OK, I can buy that and if this was the Lexographic Forum, then the issue would be solved. However, while I don't know the Orange one personally, I am exceedingly familiar with the rich, privileged and entitled-feeling, soft white boy type of his generation. So the dude is racist and his racism fueled his comment (which is itself NOT racist, by your stipulated definition). Thus calling his comment racist (incorrectly) actually gets across the essence of the speaker and his message even though both lie outside the exact words of his comment.

Wow, so even though you don't know him personally, you know his "type" and so therefore you declare him to be a racist. Very interesting. Sounds an awful lot like a bigoted comment to me. The "Orange One, soft white boy type " are you serious? You are making my point. I'm certainly no Trump supporter, only used that story because of the blatant hatred and demonization of the guy. He may even be worthy of demonization, even if his is rich, feels privileged and entitled, those would be characteristics you could assign to him. Those things are not racist characteristics however, so it must be nice to be you, someone who can just declare people of a certain disposition to be racist, not with evidence, just because YOU know the type. You are exactly the kind of judgmental person I was trying to reach with this post. Call him a moron if he acts moronic, call him a misogynist if he belittles and degrades women, call him a racist when he discriminates against someone because of their race. Don't just throw out the racist label because "you know" the type, makes you sound completely ignorant, actually makes you sound guilty of the same type of closed minded certainty a racist would be guilty of. What you have stated is that the end justifies the means. Calling his comment racist was incorrect but that's okay because everybody (or at least you) already knows he's a racist. You cannot seriously justify that reasoning.

You do consume news reports, right? I didn't make this up. Perhaps the two parallel info streams are confusing our communication. There has been nonstop national coverage of the Orange one's racist actions. Starting with the 1973 racial discrimination lawsuit that was front and center during the mid campaign, through to the Muslim ban of 2017 which the 9th circuit labelled as discrimination. The dude is racist, separate from my familiarity with his "type". Though, I am (and likely many here and elsewhere are also) very experienced with numerous individuals who are also racist. Not racist BECAUSE of our experience. Racist AND we have experience.

[Togo1]

Well, me, Chomsky, and rather a lot of others. And it's nothing to do with 'denigrating' - he's advocating killing people on the basis of their opinions.

I shouldn't really bother addressing this but where on earth is he advocating killing anyone for anyone? This is so far beyond the pale. I can't even believe you are stating such a thing. Absolutely amazing. Where does Sam Harris say we should kill people based on their opinions? Can't let you get away with such utter lies.

Sam advocates military action against nations and non-national actors on the basis of the beliefs they hold about the US - that it's a threat to their country, culture, religion or way of life, that it's either evil or amoral, and so on. This specifically includes pre-emptive military action, and specifically includes military action to kill particular people and/or groups. Hence Sam believes that the US should kill people based on their opinions of the US. He has quite a lot of theory around this.

Which bit are you finding inaccurate or controvertial?

What is this brown people business, I thought we were talking about Muslims.

Not noticeably. Large populous muslim countries were left off the list.

So what you are suggesting is that only the Muslim countries with the brownest people were included?[/quote]

No, I'm saying that the action is not obviously anti-Muslim since it leaves out many large Muslim countries. The list doesn't match very many obvious criteria, and getting to the precise intent involves either a lot of assumptions and guesswork, or the assumption the President is simply stupid and/or venal. Neither explanation really does it for me.

But this is the issue with trying to go by intentions. You don't know what the intentions are. Group or State actors may not have intentions, as we understand it, since the act is the result of many people with differing intentions agreeing on a course of action. All you can really judge is the results, because the results are all you have.

As I said, ridiculous that it's considered racist.

It's a conclusion that flows naturally from the definition being used. If you disagree with the definition, you're likely to disagree with the conclusion. I dont' see any obvious reason why the act of locking up a lot of brown people is something it would be 'ridiculous' to consider as racist. Can you expain why it's ridiculous?

As far as the bombing of the drug plant and Ford Hood business, you are picking one example but even in that example it's a false equivalency. Chomsky is dead wrong and so are you. The intention does matter. There are thousands upon thousands of cases of Muslims killing what would be by any stretch innocent people in the most horrific way with their stated reasoning of pure hatred and intolerance and that to you is equivalent to the US military either making a targeting mistake or having mistaken intelligence. That's just remarkable that you view the US military actions as equivalent to the Islamic terrorists actions.

I didn't mention anything to do with equivalence, or moral equivalence. Nor does Chomsky. And the bombing of the pharamceutical plant was entirely deliberate, and the consequences obviously forseeable.

And the reason why I'm talking about these particular examples is that they are ones Sam Harris is on record as defending. I didn't get to chose them. Sam did.

Nope, your action there isn't descriminatory in result, nor does it involve the exercise of power, so I don't see that it meets either of the criteria I gave you.

The criteria you gave me was that the resulting action caused a brown person to suffer in some way they wouldn't have otherwise at the hands of a white person...I mean that's the direct implication of the consequential nonsense you spewed.[/quote]

In other words, no, that's not the criterion I gave you.

If it was true that one was a direct implication of the other, then you could link them fairly easily.

Good to know the rules we are now playing by.

Racism is a problem that hurts real people every day. It's not a game

This piece of arrogance I resent as much as the ridiculous Sam Harris claim. Where in any of my post do I suggest it's a game.

In the bit I cited above. Good to know the rules we are now playing by.

I believe I was originally making the point that real racism is insidious. Are you judging me now? Implying that I'm insensitive to the problem, hmmm, suggesting that maybe I just don't get it...Why I believe you are

As far as I know, I've not made any judgements about you at all...

In your own judgmental arrogance you cannot

...Whereas you have called me arrogant, a Trump hater, and someone who deliberately conflates narcissism and selfishness with racism in order to promote national divisions. You also said that I believed everyone with light skin is a racist. I'm inclined to think that at least some of those would qualify as judgements.

[Philosch]

We are obviously at ends here so this is my last response to you....

Sam advocates military action against nations and non-national actors on the basis of the beliefs they hold about the US - that it's a threat to their country, culture, religion or way of life, that it's either evil or amoral, and so on. This specifically includes pre-emptive military action, and specifically includes military action to kill particular people and/or groups. Hence Sam believes that the US should kill people based on their opinions of the US. He has quite a lot of theory around this.

Which bit are you finding inaccurate or controvertial?

Sam advocates military action against nations and non-national actors on the basis of the beliefs they hold about the US

Absurd! Not true.

This specifically includes pre-emptive military action, and specifically includes military action to kill particular people and/or groups

Mischaracterization at best, outright lie at worst.

Hence Sam believes that the US should kill people based on their opinions of the US. He has quite a lot of theory around this.

Balderdash! Just plan Hyperbole.

It's not controversial, it's patently false. You have a right to lie and mischaracterize but it's just an abject falsehood to make the above claim. He does NOT believe the US should kill people based on their opinions of the US. The whole paragraph is just so ignorant as to be not worthy of further comment. I do sincerely wish you well and hope you never have to learn the error of your thinking the hard way.

-- Updated March 9th, 2017, 5:50 pm to add the following --

On the subjects of intent and consequentialism that have been discussed in the last few posts:

The law clearly does make a distinction between deliberate and accidental acts even if the outcome of those acts is identical. Accidental death is different from murder. And this reflects a genuine moral difference between the two. In my view the difference is actually a consequentialist one. It is about potential future consequences.

The main purpose of laws is to reduce the occurrence of undesirable events in the future by various means. A person's motive, in killing another person, indicates the likelihood that they will kill again in the future and that other people will kill. i.e. it indicates the likelihood that some undesirable events will happen in the future. We punish or condemn deliberate killing more than accidental killing because we hope that doing so discourages future killings both by this killer and other potential killers. This moral/legal position extends to killings by military actors in situations of war.

Well said again and there other reasons that pure consequentialism falls down. But your point is certainly am important one. There are moral differences in intent and while it's not always possible to discern intent and in some cases it opens up it's own moral questions, it's clear intent should be taken into account. Couldn't agree more.

[Togo1]

The whole paragraph is just so ignorant as to be not worthy of further comment. I do sincerely wish you well and hope you never have to learn the error of your thinking the hard way.

Ok, so I guess we can leave the discussion there.

For anyone with further interest in Sam's defence of the bombing of the Sudanese Pharmaceutical plant, the discussion with Chomky on the issue was apparently published at www.samharris.org