If Mort Divine ruled the world
- Thread starter Zephyrus
- Start date
Baroque
Active Member
Strawmen:
1) Claiming Antiracism is a religion, with no evidence to back it up, and then arguing against religion.
2) Anytime the author answers his own questions. Without giving us a chance to respond he oversimplifies our answers "it's complicated" "deep" "racist" "doesn't get it" etc.
3) Here, setting up an abstract situation that supposedly "so often" happens: "For example, in the “Conversation” about race that we are so often told we need to have, the tacit idea is that black people will express their grievances and whites will agree—again, no questions, or at least not real ones."
4) This, he argues against some stupid meme article instead of the actual issue: "A typical presentation getting around lately is 11 Things White People Need to Realize About Race, where the purpose of the “acknowledgment” is couched as “moving the conversation forward.” A little vague, no? More conversation? About what? Why not actually say that the purpose is policy and legislation?"
But my point which you ignored is that opinion articles are not worth reading in general. It's worth no more than forming your own opinion unless there are studies and numbers to back it up.
Dak
mentat
Since when is drawing parallels creating a strawman? Secondly, most lines of questioning about "systemic" issues usually hit bottom with something like "it's just too complicated", if it even gets that far before the questioning is met with something along the lines of "racist/don't get it". Mort's done all of the above before.
So you're saying that anyone who objects to various things in the "conversation" won't be shouted down for being a racist/misogynist/bigot/etc? There are whole websites, nonprofits, etc. dedicated to doing just that.
Meme articles and opinion pieces are a part of public life, and do much more to sway the opinion of the average person than white papers. Studies and numbers do not apply very much in this situation since raw data tells us nothing. There is always a framework of interpretation, and when the numbers don't line up with the framework, the numbers lose anyway for most people.
Baroque
Active Member
From 3 sources:
"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent."
"Straw man - a sham argument set up to be defeated"
"Straw man - misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack"
All 4 of those I posted are strawmen. If you agree with his opinion, fine. I was just pointing out that his argument does contain logical fallacies. I'm not getting drawn into another race argument.
"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent."
"Straw man - a sham argument set up to be defeated"
"Straw man - misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack"
All 4 of those I posted are strawmen. If you agree with his opinion, fine. I was just pointing out that his argument does contain logical fallacies. I'm not getting drawn into another race argument.
Baroque
Active Member
The entire article is him trying to pigeon hole all Antiracists into one group, and then claim that they're all doing and saying the same things. How is that not a strawman? Every antiracist has his or her own opinions and ways of conducting themselves. It's a strawman to set up an argument for them and then shoot it down.
If you're trying to say you're Not an antiracist, does that mean you're proracist? You're not against racism? I just don't see what you have to gain by posting this article.
If you're trying to say you're Not an antiracist, does that mean you're proracist? You're not against racism? I just don't see what you have to gain by posting this article.
Dak
mentat
See? In the second post you're doing exactly what is being discussed in the article. As soon as one rejects any portion of the platform of "antiracism", one is now a racist or at best "doesn't get it". It's as much a problem of labels and language as anything, but that's intentional on the part of theorists. It's the same thing as not identifying as a "progressive". It doesn't mean one is "against progress".
To claim the parallel mischaracterizes the typical Mortish position is going to need more than a "not all antiracists do that". To begin with, the author (or people in this thread) don't hate minorities (except Aug anyway, ironically), even though we don't identify as "anti-racists". "Anti-racists" captures exactly who it describes. Mort et al. The sort of people who believe in ethereal "privilege", read Coates with reverance, etc.
Coming from a Baptist background, I can say pretty confidently that white privelege theory is most definitely like the doctrine of Original Sin, and in both cases there's nothing that one can do to atone for it, but you should still jump through various hoops to show your repentance anyway.
To claim the parallel mischaracterizes the typical Mortish position is going to need more than a "not all antiracists do that". To begin with, the author (or people in this thread) don't hate minorities (except Aug anyway, ironically), even though we don't identify as "anti-racists". "Anti-racists" captures exactly who it describes. Mort et al. The sort of people who believe in ethereal "privilege", read Coates with reverance, etc.
Coming from a Baptist background, I can say pretty confidently that white privelege theory is most definitely like the doctrine of Original Sin, and in both cases there's nothing that one can do to atone for it, but you should still jump through various hoops to show your repentance anyway.
Baroque
Active Member
No it's also a strawman to say all antiracists believe that whites should have to attone for white privilege. It's a subset of antiracists that believe that.
I didn't claim you were racist. I asked you to clarify your position. If you're not against racism (antiracist) then what are you?
You're acting like being an Antiracist is somehow a negative thing and no, I don't get that. Please clarify why being against racism is negative? Because your argument that antiracists believe whites should have to attone for white privilege doesn't work, I can think of numerous counter examples.
Dak
mentat
Where do you get the idea that I'm not against racism?
There is a reason that many people who believe in equality between the sexes reject the feminist label, despite all arguments that "feminism just means equality between the sexes!" - because in practice, in the milieu, this is no longer the practical nature of feminism (if it ever was). In the same vein, many people who reject the hatred, mistreatment, etc. of people based on their skin color, decline to take on the label of "antiracist", or any other labeling of a similar nature. It is due to all the implicit and explicit baggage that comes along with it - baggage that that piece I linked covers to a limited degree.
CiG
Harbinger of Metal
I never even knew "antiracism" was a thing, I thought there was the default position of being a decent human and then there was being a racist on the other side. People have taken it so far that there is now a fucking label? Give me a break. White people are retards.
Anyway, this is great.
Anyway, this is great.
Dak
mentat
Oblivious Maximus
I am the worm
Baroque
Active Member
Antiracism came up because of that article both you and Dak liked. I was just responding to that article.
Baroque
Active Member
I don't understand why you're using all of this evasive language. When I asked you to clarify your opinion you could have just came out and said "I'm definitely against racism". Instead you said "Where do you get the idea that I'm not against racism?". Which is vague and still doesn't reveal your opinion.
I got the idea that you're not against racism because you linked an article that was against antiracism. I think you're making up your own definition of what antiracism is. Actual Definition:
Antiracism - the policy or practice of opposing racism and promoting racial tolerance.
You're giving it all kinds of negative connotations and I don't understand why. Why is opposing racism negative? At least use a different term for the people you oppose, because I don't think you actually oppose antitracists. But I have no way of knowing that, since you won't actually answer my questions directly.
CiG
Harbinger of Metal
Onder
Active Member
- Apr 10, 2006
- 11,386
- 2,033
- 113
CiG
Harbinger of Metal
That's what the neighbours of that married mass shooting couple said themselves.
Dak
mentat
I am definitely against racism. But I'm not an antiracist as per:
As others have said, I believe in being a decent human being, and that doesn't include witch hunts and shit-stirring. Which is exactly what being an "Antiracist" involves.
I didn't give it the negative connotations. The "antiracists" did it to themselves. I do oppose antiracists, because they are constantly creating further schism, and using bad arguments and misrepresented data(if they use any at all) on top of it. If there is any inaccuracy in the label it is because it too specifically focuses on the "antiracism" aspect, when the crowd is just generally SJWish, and as such loves participating in and cheering on the oppression and division Olympics.
CiG
Harbinger of Metal
Dak
mentat
Similar threads
