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.

Ok, didn't notice, but I don't think racist white southern Jesus freaks need protecting.

The religious are not an ethnic group. And if you think their ideas should be protected then the same principle applies to the ideas of those who reject religion. If you have any other complaints, you can start a feedback thread or send a PM but your comparison is invalid.

:up: This is the thing that was understood from the start by the British. Even by right-wingers like Thatcher. They talked tough but were always keeping lines of communication open and looking for compromises. Eventually they found one. Israel's strategy is baffling except as an attempt to maintain the conflict for as long as possible as cover for expansions of settlements, expulsions, and further encroachments.

So, you would be happy for ANTIFA to burn down your house as long as you're given a warning. Off-topic. But, ok, check.

Yes, see, before making families homeless and destroying all their worldly posessions, Israeli terrorists let them know that that's what's about to happen before hand. So it's all good. — StreetlightX

Same modus operandus as the IRA, in fact. Though the IRA were much more consistent in giving warnings and killed far less civilians than Israel has.

Crikey.

Tim, you are babbling. The argument is not whether Israel "had to" kill civilians or target civilian buildings in the way that they did. They chose to. For example, they did not "have to" bomb the media building housing the Associated Press. It was part of a strategic response. If you're going to argue that they are not justified in doing that because they didn't have to, you cannot justify any strategic response. So, you move up a level and discuss what of their choices (none of which they "have to" take by definition) are jusified and what are not and why. My approach has been to try to short circuit the intuitive support for Israel's actions based on an analogy that tends to evoke a different intuitive response but, in substance, is similar. If we take away the words "Israel", "the IRA", "Hamas", "the Irish", "The Palestinians" etc, we maybe meet in the middle and at least agree that you need more than "party A once used a building for some unspecified military purpose" to justify party B bombing and killing innocent civilians in party A's community who happen to be in that building. Can we get that much common ground?

Biased sources are not acceptable in any serious debate. I wouldn't present a Palestinian website as evidence of Palestinian casualties, for example, and I doubt you'd accept it. Having said that, the extra numbers wouldn't make any significant difference in terms of our discussion anyway.

If the IRA was dropped into Gaza it would the moderate voice that is loved by Israel. — BitconnectCarlos

I very much doubt it. The IRA were always 100% behind the Palestinians.

This a defense of no one's actions. Will you in turn claim that if given to the Palestinians everything within reason that they want, that there will then be peace? If you will suppose it, then I would think it reasonable for the Israelis to give them that. And then we'll see. — tim wood

That argument isn't part of the topic of the thread and I'm not interested in having it. I've got a specific on-topic point to pursue here. Start a new thread if you want.

Yes if you have to. — tim wood

Obviously Israel doesn't have to send warplanes in to bomb civilian tower blocks or media centres or the families of Hamas operatives. Only a complete moron would think those responses were absolutely necessary. So, I think we agree their response has been unjustified

I pretty much agree with this.

Your vague glib statements give me the impression you really don't give a fuck and are just killing time again.

Again, you realize how low that bar is? For example, a group of Hamas operatives go into a coffee shop and do some research. Days later, Israel blows it up killing a bunch of innocent civilians. They could (at least theoretically) use that excuse word for word. +There is usually no evidence provided to back up their claims.

I'm sure it would be told in Arab households — BitconnectCarlos

Obviously, many Arab households would be anti-Zionist although if you look at the lack of support among Arab countries for Palestine, you might question the blanket presumption. Secondly, I'm Irish, which is one reason I brought up the IRA as an example.