I know, but for whatever reason he's resistant to admitting racism isn't exclusively understood as a behavior. I think it's just that he's extremely (to a faupt) dedicated to dispelling the sacred-inner-heart stuff, but I'm not entirely sure.

In totally unrelated news Stormfront, has been thrown off the open web by its hosting provider.

I think you are entirely missing his point.

His point, as I understand it, is this: your definition of racist doesn't matter. Your original question (is blah blah blah racist?) is unanswerable because people define the word racist in different ways. Therefore, the question is a pointless distraction.

LirvA didn't start the thread. Continue being wrong.

I don't think it's possible to be "to a fault" when it comes to dispelling this secret-heart crap. But, like most peeps, you misunderstand what I'm yapping on about. This isn't exactly it.

What am I "resistant to admitting" exactly?

Is it that peeps, today in USA English in the USA, in common everyday usage, use the r-word in all sorts and sundry and amazing and surprising and sometimes self-contradictory ways. Of course not. There is a whole academic discipline that studies this shiz. It's called entomology, or something similar sounding. I'm not in denial that it is sound academics. That would be absurd.

If I'm down at the bar, and I overhear "The refs are racist against vikings" during certain NFL games, I fully receive the information that has been transmitted.

However, the receiving side of information flow hasn't been what we've been chatting about ITT. Instead, we've been chatting about the transmitting side of information flow. We've been discussing "framing", and the "optics", and the OSJers wild claims that these mysterious SJWers threw last POTUSBOWL.

On the transmitting side of information flow I feel, for both strategic and tactical reasons, that reinforcing these afore mentioned certain faction's propagandic use of this secret heart stuff should be avoided like poop sandwiches are avoided. Instead, I feel it should be directly and aggressively confronted at every opportunity.

This. In a lot fewer words.

A substantial portion of ST's posts over the years has had to do with racism. I'm asking him to explain what it is he thinks that term means in more detail which I believe to be a worthy exercise; specifically, I'm hoping he'll let me know whether he believes the term can be applied strictly based on beliefs as opposed to actions.

So yeah, not so pointless if understanding each other is a desirable outcome of all the posting we do.

This is what I meant with this...

...and I think pretty much ends my line of questioning.

Still think it's weird you won't just say, "Yeah, racism can be determined based on beliefs and not just behavior." But whatever, lol

OK. I'll explain in some detail how I personally use one of my own words... the r-word.

To do so, I need to necessarily wander off into the weeds of philosophy. To me, words have no meanings. To me, they are only pointers to ideas. So asking me what this word "means" is always a flat out absurd Q, to me, on the very face of it. To me, instead, one of the many uses of words can be to convey ideas.

How peeps use their own words is highly context dependant. All peeps, all day, every day, myself included. My difference is that I'm always self-conscious of this fact, both on the receiving side, and on the transmitting side. The fact that there are two sides here is important. It's just as useful to guess how a peeps hears the r-word, as it is useful to guess how a peep says the r-word.

OK, with me so far?

Peeps can use there own words to mean any damn thing they please, or nothing at all. However to convey ideas, certain patterns must needs be evident. A fundamental building block pattern is the distinction between actions and labels. In the context of English, these are called nouns (labels), and verbs (actions). Conflating nouns and verbs is gibberish.

OK, with me so far?

The whole (unstated) premise behind the underlying Q is that I use some kinda "calculus" to arrive at how I use my own r-word. A "calculus" that has, potentially, inputs of both observable actions IRL =and= my perhaps wild imaginations of something forever unknowable: what some other peeps thoughts might be.

Even on a operational level, where words do indeed have agreed upon meanings, the underlying Q is still gibberish. It is asking to conflate verbs (actions IRL) with nouns (labels of imagined thoughts).

OK, with me so far? Here is the answer to your Q about how I use my own r-word:

I take it as a given, that we have four general bunches of peeps (2x2=4). When I hear the r-word here in Politardia, and I care to respond, this is my "calculus": If it's clear to me, in context, which of the four bunches the poaster is referring to, I'm not going to quibble. If it isn't, I'll ask them to clarify. If they are pushing gibberish, like the underlying Q, I'm going to push back against that gibberish.

Because conflating verbs and nouns is gibberish.

The only reason I believe someone is racist is because of their actions. I can't know their beliefs until the show them to me through some action. If someone says racist **** and then says they don't believe they are racist, I'll take their actions over their beliefs everyday.

How do you assess someone who spouts racism but doesn't let it affect their interactions with ethnic minorities?

Think I'll read this for getting more perspective:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

Yeah, how about the owner of my local bar. He has a strict "no n-word" policy, which he instructs his solo shift ~90lb female barkeeps to enforce upon the ~300lb biker gang members who frequent the joint. He's fired on the spot a long time employee, and 86ed a long time regular, who started spewing racial hate in his bar. His best friend is a black regular.

He'll also tell you, in confidence, and as long as he doesn't think that you'll take it the wrong way... that he's not a white supremacist, but he is a white separatist. But only as a theory, never as a goal.

At least you can choose a different bar to drink in. I have to work with my ****er.

There's a hell of a lot of them about.

Words are actions, especially on the internet. He'd win least offensive racist, which is good for dinner for two at Outback.

o wait this should go here too:

Hey, you asked me a personal Q... several times. I finally took the time to write out a long winded answer. How about a little feedback?

What I think was weird, is you thinking it's weird, that I just don't view the world the same ways you do. To me, your insistence that I admit I that I use your preferred "calculus" regarding my use of the my own r-word is simply baffling. To me, it's like some religious person asking me if I saw the hand of the devil, or the hands of angels, in this Houston hurricane... I answer "none of the above"... and they say it's weird that I won't admit that I view things via the hand of angels/devil.

Today, after the 1960s US segregationists popularized this new-fangled secret heart definition, the r-word works differently than every other word in the English language. To illustrate this, let's compare being a r-word-er -vs- being a baseball player.

Saying	Baseball Player (imo)	R-word-er
"Joe is a r-word-er" "Joe is a baseball player"	Truth value determined by Joe taking baseball playing actions	??
"Strom Thurmond was a r-word-er"[left]"Roy Campanella was a baseball player"	Truth value determined by the fact Campanella took baseball playing actions	??
"Scott Sheppard is a r-word-er" "Chris Sabo is a baseball player"	The disntinction with Sabo is active -vs- retired MLB. If some peep said Sabo is a MLBer, other peeps would quibble that he is retired. What peeps would not do is start into arguing that the term baseball player itself, "by definition", does/does-not "officially" include both/only active/retired.	??
"Look, there's r-word-ism going on, the peeps responsible are r-word-ers" "Look, there's baseball going on, the peeps participating are baseball players"	Truth value determined by examining if baseball actions are in fact taking place	??
(in general)	(standard English)	(a buncha gibberish)

??? are racists somehow offended by general public using the r-word? in that case, bring back unchained imo.

Ah. You've noticed that.

Pocket posted can be deleted

ST, do you think/feel the "R-word" is a verb?

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/racist

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/racist

Nouns, adjectives and verbs are interrelated imo.

I've already explained that, to me, words have no meanings. They are only pointers to ideas. That there are no "official" meanings for words. Instead, words can be useful as a means of conveying ideas, but only if certain patterns are evident.

I've also already explained that, in today's common usage, the r-word isn't regular. In standard English usage, most all nouns/adjs/verbs/etc interrelate in a regular manner. The r-word, in today's common usage, fails catastrophically here.

I've also, also already explained how this state of the failure regarding the r-word came about. This is, once again, because of an active and ongoing astroturfed propaganda campaign to push this new fangled secret heart definition. Which was started in the 1960s by segregations.

Given all that, the fact you are asking me about dictionary definitions, tells me you have -zero- understanding of what I'm yapping on about.

Words have meanings, imo. They are tries to relate to ideas. Not perfectly succeeding, but generally more than nothing.

You said words are only pointers to ideas. Then their meaning is being pointers, and hence words have meanings.

What is it about you SMP folk, that make you all the nut-low at math and philosophy (and science too, I'd imagine). IIRC you are multilingual too, so you have no damn excuse at all.

How about this... sequences of sounds, strings of unicode, gestures, patterns of smoke puffs, and other shiz of this sort have no meanings, in isolation from some active agency that can experience such thingees.

Is this something you have an "imo" about?

Second, one of the things words can be useful for is conveying ideas.

But, words have all sorts of other uses. In poetry, and words used in song, the goal often as not is to convey mood. Speaking to others IRL, and listening to others IRL, just makes peeps happy. I talk to Sabo all-day, every-day... every waking hour. I'm rarely trying to convey ideas to him.

Words are the stuff we mainly have have to communicate with here. So guess we have to give them more than arbitrary meaning. IRL there's other stuff to.

OTH here are some smilies, maybe we should use them more, no words?

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/meaning

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/word

So a word is a carrier of meaning. But in normal language you can also talk about what a word means. Which idea it does represent.