I'm really not trying to be obtuse here, but I see no reason to think that scoring well on the MCAT and having good undergraduate GPA predicts skill as a doctor. I'm more familiar with law school, though, so maybe the two aren't as similar as I think.

Are people still pretending the emotional appeals to racism don't exist if a person is mistakenly labeled a racist?
Are people also pretending that the racist label, in various forms, has never been mistakenly applied in the forums?

Edit: Ah, yes. Even delighting in it.

Except that's just wrong as you must know. Just because you can't look deeper doesn't mean that racist person doesn't refer to their character

Its just causing trouble when you know it will be misunderstood. It was and it is and you still do it, most likely because you enjoy it.

It's useful for marking people who misunderstand his meaning. And it's useful to mark those people.

i don't normally take sides, but i don't see how you think he's wrong.

if i say i won't see a black doctor, i'm racist. in a disgusting sort of way. but if i say i feel weird about seeing a black doctor because there's all kinds of media telling me i should, and therefore i check out a black doctor's credentials especially carefully before seeing him, then i'm still racist, but also trying to be part of the solution. assuming we all agree that racism is something that should not exist.

I'm not familiar with the terms but their besides the point.

The only things we know is they did equally well and for one there were more obstacles along the way.

Easy choice for me.

Oh, that's pretty easy then imo. There's no "just made it" into that category. If you're an unrepentant racist then you easily qualify. That's pretty much all it takes.

As your son so wisely points out, if you can take a moment to even internally think that you might be biased or thinking in a prejudicial manner, you're not part of the "get out of my gene pool" category. Simple as that.

1. It's not wrong. It's like, exactly how the English language works. Your definition makes it impossible to ever know if someone is a racist - which seems like you've made our language kind of useless.

2. I agree it refers to their character. But I think saying and doing racist things is an indication of your character.

I don't think it will be misunderstood. And yes, I do get enjoyment out of someone that says/does racist stuff getting upset about getting called a racist.

I don't suppose you will ever believe me but Bruce passes that test easily.

What about the 'get out of the forum' category? Your previous post implied you feel enabled to decide who other people communicate with here.

Also, does this mean that you think AlexM and BruceZ are not racists? If so, does it bother you other people do? Considering that means they are filth not fit to belong in the fellowship of humanity from your view, it is hefty burden to put on innocent people, eh?

Let's take emotion out of it. If someone says a bunch of stupid stuff, we call them things like idiot, dummy, etc. There's no way to know everything someone knows - especially on something like an internet forum with limited interactions. It's quite possible that someone I call stupid is actually really knowledgeable and smart in certain other areas - maybe even more than I am in some sort of global way.

But I'm still going to call them an idiot because that's a concise way of summing up my opinion of them based on the limited information I have.

Its not you're using one way to describe two different things

Seriously! that's the point and why you need two different ways to describe it.

Indications can mislead. Inferences can be wrong. As this fiasco demonstrates too well.


It is misunderstood. I know you enjoy it.

I don't doubt that actually. And I don't think he should be perma-banned either. But I also am glad he's not a mod even if it means he doesn't post here anymore. No amount of abuse from authority is worth whatever contribution he had to offer imo.

what fiasco?

How can you delight in calling people racist using incomplete information if emotion is taken out of it?

You have given enough information here in this post to conclude you are an idiot, or at least someone who has no problem jumping to idiotic conclusions about a person and enjoying their pain-filled response. No wonder you fit in so well with certain other posters.

Saying their an idiot when its taken very differently to saying they said something idiotic would be putting the emotion in it.

That would rarely apply because its not usually heated with idiocy. With racism and on this occasion it clearly applied, there's no excuse for not making the effort to be clear.

It's hard for me to undestand why you and others don't get that it's problematic to label everyone you think says racist things a racist, when you have guys like Anais and many others saying they are vile and we should hate them. That doesn't allow you much room to be wrong. Hard to walk that back when you've gone all in like that.

Well Named was arguing we are all a bit racist, and we should call people out when we see it, and that's fine. Tomdemaine did just that with Bruce, while also saying he's a pretty good guy otherwise. So that kinda doesn't work with the whole, they're vile and hateful business.

Edit: Please forgive the crosspost from SMP:

seriously?

I'm not defending Bruce here, I know what he did. But others didn't behave so well either and with a bit more care and a bit less fun on their part we might have had a much better outcome, maybe not who knows.

I still have a tiny hope we might but I'm not betting on it.

Not really. Obviously it is useful to mark the card carrying members.

The reason we make it clear that we are hating on a behavior or an idea rather than labeling a person is because it allows them the opportunity to change.

It is one of the first things you teach parents who are underperforming as parents, couples that are underperforming as couples, and teachers who are underperforming as teachers.

If I presume that you actually care about the problem of racism due to some sort of normal-ish human emotions, it should be pretty clear that maximizing the odds of people correcting their behavior.

I am fairly sure that if the only people were the ones you find deserving of life (atheists, non-pot smokers, antiracists, etc.*) procreated, you'd have never been born. Given that you seem at least fairly smart and well-read, I assume that you are doing some sort of ironic aping of part of the worst parts of conservative-racist thinking with a liberal bent.

(It is a fairly popular technique. We started doing comparative studies of iq differences between racists and nonracists to ape Herrnstein and Murray. Some liberal research psychologists are a bit cruel to make a point at times.)

*I don't pay attention enough to have your full list.

Yawn. Once again I have no interest in defining a word in a way that it can never be used. It's absurd.

As far as I'm concerned this 'fiasco' wasn't caused by inferences being wrong. My inference still stands due to no new information ever being brought to light.

Foldn, I don't agree with the idea that all racist people or racist actions automatically make somebody a horrible, whatever was said.

That's just as much a stupid definition as what Chez is advocating.

Just wanted to add that I think it's absurd for a group of people to enable/tolerate the **** Bruce said while simultaneously banging the drums about the power of the word 'racist'.

And to be fair, I find it equally absurd to see people championing the cause of denouncing racism while making sexist remarks or mocking mental illness.

Its not about definitions. You are deliberately refusing to recognise a distinction many people recognise even though refusing to recognise it is causing a problem.

That would be absurd if you didn't have a reason to do it.

This whole thing is about definitions.

And I don't think it's causing a problem. Please point out one problem caused by someone who says racist things being called a racist.

Anyone who has gotten this far while maintaining racist attitudes has probably been given plenty of opportunity to change via kinder, gentle methods and it may be time to use something that involves less coddling.

I'm likely to give more leeway to someone whose racism seems to be the result of ignorance vs. someone whose racism seems to be the product of well-developed thoughtfulness on the issue.