Now, please answer my question:

And why must all of the following, for example, "clearly" be white people:

1) Religious hypocrtites
2) Opioid addicts
3) Adulterers
4) Strippers
5) Maskless morons
6) Unwed mothers — Baden

I think I've set up this discussion in a clear and fair way. — T Clark

I disagree, but I'm not going to delete or close it quite yet (although maybe another mod will, which is fine by me). I expect the response will be more akin to my interpretation that this is not at all a fair way to represent someone's quote than your idea that this is just a low key civil thing to do.

You're again falsely accusing another poster of being racist with no evidence whatsoever when you've been informed on several occasions there is no evidence. Having no leg to stand on, you again present this in a misleading way and try a trial by poll. There's nothing civil or "low key" about that at all. Either show me the exact racist quote or retract the accusation.

if I text were about white people, would it be acceptable. — T Clark

Dude, if the cap fits, whoever it fits needs to wear it, whatever race they are. You are retroactively presuming it does fit a particular race and then asking if that's racist. If there's a racist in that scenario, it's you.

You have no right to inject your own racist inferences into other posters' posts.

And why must all of the following, for example, "clearly" be white people:

1) Religious hypocrtites
2) Opioid addicts
3) Adulterers
4) Strippers
5) Maskless morons
6) Unwed mothers

That, if anything, is a racist assumption on your part.

There's no mention of race in the quoted post. There's only a reference to "white Jesusism" which is not a race but the racist idea that Jesus was white. You're allowed to critize that obviously.

You're currently in the lead in the crowd of volunteers. :up:

Awesome yay. it's a holiday weekend but I may open up a thread tomorrow morning if I get time. Actually have your buddy Baden open up a separate category and just you and me duke it out — 3017amen

There's a debate category already. Put your proposal in proposals. I'd be happy to see this go ahead.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/categories/29/debate-proposals

It's a hazard to mental health to interact with him, — tim wood

That's your own problem, frankly. Ignore him or report him and stay on-topic here, please.

Deleted that.

True. But at some point you're going to have to link these quotes to an argument relevant to the OP.

Anyone who brings up anti-natalism again here will be mercilessly modded. Hope that answers your q.

And it wouldn't mitigate the atrocious moral wrong of this to examine how many children Israelis had. This is what makes you a nutter or a troll.

Yes, I think that outside of very specific contexts, most people who identify as religious and as atheists are hardly different in any significant way at all. Thats been my experience at least.

You'll need to get back on topic. As I said, this stuff is obvious, boring, predictable and no one cares.

The provocation stuff doesn't work on me, Amen. Nor should it on anyone, considering how long you've been doing it and how obvious it is.

Well, I do agree that this is the case in some atheists. But according to the OP this is not so in all cases: — Apollodorus

I've gone through the stage myself of being vocal and angry about religion. But I don't think it applies to most people outside online forums and I don't think it lasts for most people to whom it applies temporarily. It's an exaggerated phenomenon based on a small biased sample size in my view.

1. Would you like to live there? If not, why not? — 3017amen

I did live there for three years. I think I'd prefer Sweden, also atheist, but less polluted.

It's all about religion for the Einsteinian fanatical atheist, like yourself — 3017amen

Hm, I think I've made one post on atheism and religion in the past year. So, the bar for fanatical atheist is pretty low there. :lol:

BTW, I'll be happy to debate you one-on-one about atheism. — 3017amen

I don't think you get it. I really don't give a fuck. You can believe what you like.

Are you too, an angry atheist? — 3017amen

Dog help anyone who's angry about being an atheist. It's the freer and more fun position to be in, surely.

You're either an anti-Israel and possibly anti-semitic parody account or mentally ill. Either way, you're not contributing anything with these bizarre anti-natalist posts.

You need to consider the broader picture outside of, for example, the bubble of online forums. For the vast majority of the world's atheists, religion isn't an issue, and there is no connecting psychological thread between atheists. I mean, consider the one billion Chinese. Almost, everyone is an atheist. Do you think there's anything at all significant in that? Are they angrier than, say, Americans?

Being an atheist is not like supporting one football team over another (like being religious is). It's more like not giving a shit about football. So, generalizing about atheists in this way is laughably silly.

As I said, this level of parody, while very cutting, is kind of in bad taste. Anyway, you've been rumbled so you can pack up the circus now.

The problem with people using children as the face of victimhood here ignores the facts I pointed out earlier.
People are having more children they can afford and more than the land can house for often ideological reasons to outnumber the other side.

You can't just have loads of children and blame all their problems on someone else.

"Does Abu Talal not worry about bringing children into such a world?

"No, because if I lose 200 of my grandchildren, I will still have 200 left."" — Andrew4Handel

As readers have probably noticed, Andrew is a parody account aimed at making supporters of Israel look like sociopathic child murderers. I'm no fan of Israeli policy but I think you are probably taking this too far.

Rehumanization. It's a start. :pray:

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.