• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Don't Respond to Slurs With Rational Arguments

How are you ask people to use rational thought and logic. In this day and age it is all about emotional outrage and feeling trigger.
/sarcasm

Promoting white supremacist nonsense is not an example of rational thought.

These are just two posts from the OP.


If a state became majority black, I would hope and pray that they'd let whites have separate facilities and free association. It's very unlikely that they would, however.

I'd love it if buses were still segregated. What would the location matter?

He can cry all he likes when his positions are denounced and called out for exactly what they are. If you don't want your bigoted views called out, don't share bigoted views. If you do, don't cry about it and then try to play the victim.

It's pretty simple.
 
Here's an assertion: Black people commit crimes at a greater rate than the general population, and should be excluded from the US.

True or false?

Morals claims (claims regarding what people should or shouldn't do) often have more ambiguous truth values than simple factual claims, but that doesn't mean they lack truth values altogether.

The answer to your question will be the same as for any other case of group punishment. Whether the assertion is "racist" is irrelevant either way.

I assure you, if I personally use these terms to describe one of your arguments, you shouldn't regard the criticism lightly. I don't invoke the terms lightly.

Though those words are often invoked lightly, the point in the OP actually doesn't depend on the solemnity with which they are invoked. If a claim is false, its falsehood should be demonstrated. If it's true, it should be acknowledged. Either way, the ist/ic words are irrelevant. Even if you define an ist/ic word and argue why a claim falls in that category, you've still not demonstrated anything unless you show that all claims in that category are necessarily false. And if you do demonstrate that, you'll have thereby proven the original assertion to be wrong, so the ist/ic word would again be irrelevant.

I hate to break it to you, but single words like the ones you've mentioned are NOT arguments. They are only words, and they may or may not be accurate descriptions of certain persons.

Whether or not a given person is described by any such word, is irrelevant to the truth value of any claim they make, or the validity of any argument they make. As such, interjecting them into a conversation about an issue is a form of derailment.
 
People worried about being called out for their racist positions or support for racist commentary could always just stop with the racist rhetoric.

It's not rocket science.

As I said in the other thread, there's a name for people who find themselves more offended by the calling out of bigotry than the bigoted opinions themselves. They are, as evidenced by their behavior, bigotry enablers.

If that's the look you're going for, congratulations, you certainly succeeded.

Schroedinger's race card: Playing the race card and attacking the race card at the same time. :bravo:

Promoting white supremacist nonsense is not an example of rational thought.

These are just two posts from the OP.






He can cry all he likes when his positions are denounced and called out for exactly what they are. If you don't want your bigoted views called out, don't share bigoted views. If you do, don't cry about it and then try to play the victim.

It's pretty simple.

Whenever I say something critical of a pathology on the left, it seems there are always leftists ready and waiting to prove my point.
 
As I said in the other thread, there's a name for people who find themselves more offended by the calling out of bigotry than the bigoted opinions themselves. They are, as evidenced by their behavior, bigotry enablers.

If that's the look you're going for, congratulations, you certainly succeeded.

Supporters of racism feel entitled to their racism. They feel entitled to not having that racism called out in any way.

When it is called out, they act in the very manner that they accuse anti-racists of.
 
Supporters of racism feel entitled to their racism. They feel entitled to not having that racism called out in any way.

When it is called out, they act in the very manner that they accuse anti-racists of.

The Trump era has made gaslighting an art form. “Don’t believe what you see! Don’t call it what it plainly is! “
 
The Trump era has made gaslighting an art form. “Don’t believe what you see! Don’t call it what it plainly is! “

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." --1984
 
I don't casually throw around racism accusations but I will call out actual instances if I see it and the need arises. I make no apologies for calling out racism, that's what any sane and reasonable person will do. I'm not going to pander to racists and neither you or anyone else for that matter will silence me or make me believe it's a bad thing to do.

LOL do whatever you like. Doesn't mean anyone has to listen to you.
 
Calling an argument or assertion racist is a way of distracting from the question of what's true and what isn't. If a statement is true, it doesn't matter if it's "racist". If a statement is false, then it's false regardless of whether or not it's "racist". Either way "racism" is irrelevant.
But it does matter if a statement is racist
 
The Trump era has made gaslighting an art form. “Don’t believe what you see! Don’t call it what it plainly is! “

Ironic.

Democrats are currently the most gaslighted group I've ever seen.

Their irrational rage over Queen Sociopath Hillary's loss & their addiction to the plutocracy's spoon-fed conspiracy theories have driven them into a state of near lunacy.
 
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." --1984

^ ^ Democrat orthodoxy.
 
Ironic.

Democrats are currently the most gaslighted group I've ever seen.

Their irrational rage over Queen Sociopath Hillary's loss & their addiction to the plutocracy's spoon-fed conspiracy theories have driven them into a state of near lunacy.

Oh I see. It’s about irony, huh? Maybe we should go back to looking for Obamas secret Kenyan birth certificate and enrolling in Trump University. It is better than Harvard! :lamo
 
Oh I see. It’s about irony, huh? Maybe we should go back to looking for Obamas secret Kenyan birth certificate and enrolling in Trump University. It is better than Harvard! :lamo

Yes. :)
 
The words "racist", "bigot", "Xphobe", and so on are not rational arguments, they are slurs

Philip K. Dick is famous for saying:

"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words."

---Think about that the next time you hear words like "racist", "fascism" and "patriot", just for starters.
Trumpkins have actually managed to manipulate the meaning of quite a few words. Those three above are the tip of the iceberg.

But it won't be enough for you guys. Your Ministry of Truth is going to collapse under its own weight.
 
Promoting white supremacist nonsense is not an example of rational thought.

These are just two posts from the OP.






He can cry all he likes when his positions are denounced and called out for exactly what they are. If you don't want your bigoted views called out, don't share bigoted views. If you do, don't cry about it and then try to play the victim.

It's pretty simple.

When people make racist posts and they get all butthurt when people point out the racism in their posts, what can you do but just shake your head..
 
People worried about being called out for their racist positions or support for racist commentary could always just stop with the racist rhetoric.

It's not rocket science.

Not always true. Just today I was diagnosed with TDR. Imagine that.
 
The words "racist", "bigot", "Xphobe", and so on are not rational arguments, they are slurs (whether directed against a person or against an argument) designed to make people be quiet. They have the same value and purpose as the n word.

If you make a rational argument, and someone counters by calling you or the argument some variant of ist, ism, or ic, it is counter-productive to try to respond to such slurs with further argument (imagine the absurdity of a black person getting called the n word, and proceeding to argue that that slur is inaccurate as applied to them). Depending on the particular person you're dealing with, the correct response will either be to stop responding to them, or to try to calmly explain that such terms are irrelevant to the question of what's true. In no case does arguing that you aren't a racist (or what have you) have any value, it only encourages further use of such slurs by allowing the conversation to be derailed from the original point.

In today's "debate" world, it's a really good idea to understand logical fallacies so you can recognize them and not get sucked in.
 
People worried about being called out for their racist positions or support for racist commentary could always just stop with the racist rhetoric.

It's not rocket science.

Well, we agree here. It certainly is NOT rocket science. It's not even debate.
But congrats on using "racist" 3 times in one sentence.
 
The words "racist", "bigot", "Xphobe", and so on are not rational arguments, they are slurs (whether directed against a person or against an argument) designed to make people be quiet. They have the same value and purpose as the n word.

If you make a rational argument, and someone counters by calling you or the argument some variant of ist, ism, or ic, it is counter-productive to try to respond to such slurs with further argument (imagine the absurdity of a black person getting called the n word, and proceeding to argue that that slur is inaccurate as applied to them). Depending on the particular person you're dealing with, the correct response will either be to stop responding to them, or to try to calmly explain that such terms are irrelevant to the question of what's true. In no case does arguing that you aren't a racist (or what have you) have any value, it only encourages further use of such slurs by allowing the conversation to be derailed from the original point.

Denial...the first sign of guilt! LOLOL
 
Ironic.

Democrats are currently the most gaslighted group I've ever seen.

Their irrational rage over Queen Sociopath Hillary's loss & their addiction to the plutocracy's spoon-fed conspiracy theories have driven them into a state of near lunacy.

near?;)
 
The words "racist", "bigot", "Xphobe", and so on are not rational arguments, they are slurs (whether directed against a person or against an argument) designed to make people be quiet. They have the same value and purpose as the n word.

If you make a rational argument, and someone counters by calling you or the argument some variant of ist, ism, or ic, it is counter-productive to try to respond to such slurs with further argument (imagine the absurdity of a black person getting called the n word, and proceeding to argue that that slur is inaccurate as applied to them). Depending on the particular person you're dealing with, the correct response will either be to stop responding to them, or to try to calmly explain that such terms are irrelevant to the question of what's true. In no case does arguing that you aren't a racist (or what have you) have any value, it only encourages further use of such slurs by allowing the conversation to be derailed from the original point.

So will the right stop with the slurs hurled at the Squad and the "disloyal" Jews?
 
Why is the person identifying the alleged racist behavior? What is his motivation? If it is to shut down or derail a conversation, then that could be a net negative act.

That an assumption on your part. If you see a group of tiki torches carrying white supremacists chanting, "Jews will not replace us!", do you go, "naaah that ain't racist"?
 
The words "racist", "bigot", "Xphobe", and so on are not rational arguments, they are slurs (whether directed against a person or against an argument) designed to make people be quiet. They have the same value and purpose as the n word.

If you make a rational argument, and someone counters by calling you or the argument some variant of ist, ism, or ic, it is counter-productive to try to respond to such slurs with further argument (imagine the absurdity of a black person getting called the n word, and proceeding to argue that that slur is inaccurate as applied to them). Depending on the particular person you're dealing with, the correct response will either be to stop responding to them, or to try to calmly explain that such terms are irrelevant to the question of what's true. In no case does arguing that you aren't a racist (or what have you) have any value, it only encourages further use of such slurs by allowing the conversation to be derailed from the original point.
Here’s some simple advice for those concerned about being called a racist; Don’t post racist ****.
 
Here's an assertion: Black people commit crimes at a greater rate than the general population,
True or false?

The statistic is 100% correct. Blacks do commit crimes at a greater rate than the general population. How the statistic is used is the important issue.

It can be used inappropriately as you demonstrated ..... " and they should be excluded from the US"..... and to justify cutting aid, educational resources, infrastructure maintenance, bus routing, etc. It can be used to justify increased redlining, discriminatory corporate policy, gerrymandering, purging voter rolls, residential segregation etc.


Or it can be used to initiate a study to determine why the crime rate is higher and the causes.

Just because a fact is true doesn't mean some racist won't use it to justify their racism.
 
The words "racist", "bigot", "Xphobe", and so on are not rational arguments, they are slurs (whether directed against a person or against an argument) designed to make people be quiet. They have the same value and purpose as the n word.

If you make a rational argument, and someone counters by calling you or the argument some variant of ist, ism, or ic, it is counter-productive to try to respond to such slurs with further argument (imagine the absurdity of a black person getting called the n word, and proceeding to argue that that slur is inaccurate as applied to them). Depending on the particular person you're dealing with, the correct response will either be to stop responding to them, or to try to calmly explain that such terms are irrelevant to the question of what's true. In no case does arguing that you aren't a racist (or what have you) have any value, it only encourages further use of such slurs by allowing the conversation to be derailed from the original point.

Are we allowed to call Obama a racist?
 
Back
Top Bottom