Sorry, can't hear you over flushing noises. Try again tomorrow.

No, I'm busy taking a crap. Get someone else to do it. :up:

:cry:

Banned @Zenny for refusing moderation by repeatedly posting off-topic posts in the religion thread.

Anything that does not address this:

why do humans have the belief that there is some entity or entities outside of their own species that have influence and determination of their being something after the physical death of a human. — David S

will be deleted.

Dude, this is supposed to be about religion. You can discuss racism in the racism thread. That's the way it works re keeping things on topic.

Lock that mf up. :party:

No, it's not true. That's been established as far as I'm concerned. Nothing racist was said. The accusations were false. As for the rest, read what I wrote and stop being a drama queen. Or if you must, take it to the other thread.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11047/racism-or-prejudice-is-there-a-real-difference

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/26/ireland-israel-de-facto-annexation-palestinian-land

"Ireland’s government has supported a parliamentary motion condemning Israel’s “de facto annexation” of Palestinian land in what it said was the first use of the phrase by an EU government in relation to Israel.

The foreign minister, Simon Coveney, backed the motion on Tuesday and condemned what he described as Israel’s “manifestly unequal” treatment of the Palestinian people. The draft will be debated on Wednesday evening.

“The scale, pace and strategic nature of Israel’s actions on settlement expansion and the intent behind it have brought us to a point where we need to be honest about what is actually happening on the ground ... It is de facto annexation,” Coveney told parliament.

“This is not something that I, or in my view this house, says lightly. We are the first EU state to do so. But it reflects the huge concern we have about the intent of the actions and, of course, their impact.”
...
Coveney also insisted on adding a condemnation of recent rocket attacks on Israel by the Palestinian militant group Hamas before he agreed to government support for the motion, which had been tabled by the opposition Sinn Féin party. “The acts of terror by Hamas and other militant groups ... should not ever be justified,” Coveney said."

:up:

OK. For others, just send me a PM.

MERGED OP BY TIBERIUSMOON:

Replying to Zenny's "The new Racism" post that was closed. :/
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11046/the-new-racism
Given the nature of the topic it is difficult to support the topic if you don't understand debate fallacies.
As OP of this post I will keep the debate under rational control.


"What is the reason behind this acceptance of blatant racism?"
Good question and I can explain it in detail.
I will use my fundamental philosophy to break down and explain:

What we see as a result of racism can be a physical/verbal attack, explicit discriminative treatment or implicit towards a race.

Break those down and we have:
Physical/verbal attack that is influenced by immoral behaviour.
Explicit discrimination to judge someone because of their ethnicity.
Implicit discrimination to influence judgement on a subconcious level.
The word race which on observation is classified as a social group.

Then simplfy them to establish fundamentals to racism:
We have "judge", "Influence", "behaviour" and "observation" that can be described as a person's way of thinking or "Judgement".
Given that this is immoral behaviour, research into law shows there are levels of murder not just the singular level; as such the terms; implicit, explicit, and attack can be a measure of immoral behaviour, since we are using the context of social groups the word "Culture" is needed.
Then we have "Social group which was explained in the previous paragraph.

Inspecting the fundamentals:
As philosopher's we know about our fair share of debating skills, as such "Judgement" can be inspected.
Looking at fallacies we see many logical flaws: Bandwagon, Genetic, Personal incredulity and Ad Hominem fallacies depending on the scenario.

Then there is "Culture", for good or for bad a culture is the accumilation of experiences, influences, traditions and other historical teachings to an identifying social group. (or an individual if they wish to change their culture)

A "Social Group" can range from the whole of humanity to an individual and his friend, it is the identity of a group of more than one person.

Bias evaluation:
From observation we see that flawed judgement can influence a "Culture" or "Social Group" bias, the influence of social bias can be seen as: Political, Religious, Sport, Country and many others that influence a "us vs them ideology".
When you accept an ideology without considering the other ideologies it can become a implicit/explicit bias.

Conclusions: (the answer to OP's post)
So if a social group was influenced by social bias in a accepting way it can lead to an influence in their culture, then when the next generation in that group is raised they are also raised with the same ideology.
This would create social bias tendencies towards other social groups, the outcome of which depends on their "Judgement". (or can be how accepting of immoral behaviour they were raised to accept)

This can create a paradox of accusations
If you have two social groups accusing each other of racism or social bias that is based on culturally biased influenced assumptions, you end up with one side assuming they are socially biased/racist and another the same when they are both blind to their own cultural biases.

There is three solutions to sovle this paradox:
Religious education:
Pro's; reducing social assumptions of another social group.
Con's; will reduce the assumptions of a specific social group only.

Cultural interaction:
Pro's; interacting with other social groups can reduce the assumptions of other social groups.
Con's; Will reduce the assumptions of only those social groups you have met.

Awareness of cultural/social bias itself:
Pro's; An understanding of your own culture and how it is influenced by social bias can give you awareness to the judgement you make explicity and in time implicitly. (creating good habits)
Con's; It can be difficult to teach others as it requires a certain level of open mindedness/will power.

This discussion was merged into Racism or Prejudice? Is there a real difference?

It's seems to me you think YOU are the arbiter of what is and isn't racism. — Zenny

On this site, the whole mod team are, including, yes, me. Anyway, the nonsense stops now. You've had your run. From here on in, it gets deleted, so that a more serious conversation may be faciliated.

So by the same token black jesus is racist as well? — Zenny

The phrase "black Jesus" is neither racist nor not racist in itself. It's meaningless without context. Jesus wasn't black or white, he was a Palestinian Jew.

Absurdity hypotheticals?! Have you seen some of the governments in Africa?
False? It's that you didn't agree mate. Nothing was false. — Zenny

Your accusation was. And if you can't handle that, your loss. You don't get to run around like a twat shouting stuff you can't back up.

At this point, if I were you, I would be apologizing for your false accusations of racism instead of scrambling for absurd hypotheticals concerning things that were never said.

"As a Palestinian Jew, Jesus was not white, and the ubiquitous depiction of Jesus as not only white, but often blonde-haired and blue-eyed as in the famous Warner Sallman illustration "Head of Christ," is not without consequences, both theological and psychological.

An exclusively white Jesus not only narrows our understanding of him, it sends a message that connects Jesus to the powerful, not the oppressed."

Some more context. From the National Catholic Reporter.

https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/editorial-why-white-jesus-problem

Educate yourself.

Whatever contextualisation is relevant. The context of the original comment was 180 complaining about a group not because they're white but because of their attitudes and behaviours.

Racism as an attitude is not exclusive to, or of, any one group (I don't believe anyone argued for that), but accusations of racism must always be contextualized.

Get out of town mate. — Zenny

I suppose you only like people from your own town, don't you?

Come on Banno,are you seeing @Baden with his outlandish eccentricity of words? — Zenny

Oh, Banno, Banno, where art thou Banno? :eyes:

This is what I was getting at earlier. There are such mild and natural forms of prejudice we all experience, it's pretty fucking stupid to try to make an equivalence between these and racism.

That is the best nonsense comment I've heard since I did not have relations with that woman. — Zenny

:lol:



In the widest sense of the word, having an uninformed bias against people on the basis that they are not related to you is a prejudice, yes. It's also a (more or less) acceptable prejudice in my view.

Yet you want to differentiate as to make prejudice acceptable or some lesser sin. — Zenny

Without a doubt any sane person would pick his close Family above all else. — Zenny

That's a form of prejudice.

Everyone is prejudiced in some way, dude. It's hardly possible not to be. Not being racist is a lot easier.

So if you're a white person who is prejudice you are a racist. — BitconnectCarlos

No, you can be a white Republican prejudiced against Democrats, for example, and not be considered racist. White religious bigots also aren't necessarily racist. There's lots of prejudice against atheists that's not considered racist, for example.

That something isn't deeply morally repugnant doesn't compel me to consider it "acceptable". But, for example, I don't much like Trump supporters. That's a reflexive prejudice (though I try to work to mollify it). It's a prejudice based on their choice to support someone who I consider morally objectionable though. So, I don't consider myself to be morally repugnant any more than I consider Republicans who don't like Democrats to be morally repugnant. Those Republicans often just object to Democrats' choices to support things they morally object to, like abortion. They are, in no way, the moral equivalent of racists. And their prejudice is, in some sense, acceptable or justifiable.

Racism (in all its forms, including anti-semitism) is deeply and inexcusably morally repugnant. Prejudice isn't, necessarily. One way it isn't is that it can be directed at behaviours, i.e. choices, for which people are morally responsible, rather than arbitrary biological traits. The danger of these word games is in obscuring that.

Apples and oranges are both types of fruit; therefore, apples are the same as oranges. No, you're comparing apples and oranges.

I asked you repeatedly is it OK for white minorities in a black majority to use black as a pejorative. And your silence was an answer. — Zenny

I told you it was off-topic in the last thread, which it was, and I answered you here.

If you took every white American and made them black and every black American and made them white, I'd be concerned about racism against the whites rather than the blacks. — Baden

I condemn racism, period. Now, racist quotes, please?

180 Proof has said many things. Let's wait till he clarifies. And I've seen others use white as a pejorative. — Zenny

You need to back these accusations up with evidence, i.e. quotes. Otherwise, retract.

But,back to the point. The whole public discourse and how "white" is used is racist. But your changing the topic as normal. — Zenny

I don't think it generally is. "White privilege", for example, decries the privilege not the race.

It's the definition of racism to focus on arbitrary biological characteristics as, in themselves, important, no?

It doesn't but that didn't happen in 180's case as far as I can see. I mean, it's possible to be racist against whites, but it's kind of like men complaining about sexism against them, the complaints are often trivial or unfounded. Now, if someone called a white person a "cracker" here or something, that would immediately be modded as racist.

If you took every white American and made them black and every black American and made them white, I'd be concerned about racism against the whites rather than the blacks.. Arbitrary biological factors such as skin color are irrelevant except insofar as they signal power differentials and asymmetries. It's thinking otherwise that's racist.

Anyway, maybe get back on topic, please. I don't think the charge sticks at all. I think you and T Clark misinterpreted the comment. If you disagree, take it to another mod.

Criticizing the belief that Jesus is white is racism? No, it's the belief that Jesus is white is racist or at least, ignorant and deserving of criticism.

Yes, really.

Whining about potential racism (which I don't see anyway) — Baden

So white minorities,can they use pejoratives based on color? — Zenny

https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2020/06/25/how-an-iconic-painting-jesus-white-man-was-distributed-around-world/

“Every time you see white Jesus, you see white supremacy,”

There's your racism.

My interpretation is the phrase "white-jesusism" refers to religious believers that think Jesus was white. So, no racism there anyway except in that belief.

Whining about potential racism (which I don't see anyway) against the socially and politically dominant group that runs, controls, and owns the vast majority of the resources while imposing actual systemic racism against the dominated group. Sorry, no sympathy from me. Take it to another mod.