Page 12 of 12 [ 184 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,176
Location: Right over your left shoulder

22 Jan 2019, 5:46 pm

Daniel89 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:

When you go insisting that people who aren't of the majority ethnic stock in a nation can't truly be fully citizens of a nation, that is within most lay definitions of racism. While clearly both your position and your reasoning are fuzzy and inconsistent, taking the hardest line interpretation of what you've laid out is pretty unambiguously racist - what you've said since shows that you're more worried about being labelled racist than remaining consistent in reasoning.

One can be racist without explicitly advocating for racial or ethnic superiority. Ethno-nationalism might not be inherently racially supremacist, but even without that quality it's inherently racist. You appear to be towards the softer end of that ideology, but you're pretty consistent in advocating for positions that fit the definition.

I'm sorry you don't appreciate the shoe, but it fits whether or not you're willing to wear it.


I said nothing about citizenship, I do not support taking citizenship away from people because they are not native Britons.

I do not consider the Indians living in Fiji to be Fijians is that racist? Richard Dawkins was born in Kenya does that make him Kenyan?


I never suggested you supported stripping legal citizenship, but your running argument has been that they're less entitled to view themselves and be viewed as full citizens of the nation.

Yes, if Indians living in Fiji view themselves as Fijians, they're entitled to define themselves as such and it would racist to insist they're not - whether it's you or their government doing it, I would describe that as racist.

Was he born in Kenya or British East Africa? Was he raised there? Does he consider himself Kenyan, or Anglo-Kenyan, or does he view himself as having another nationality? If he has citizenship and self-identifies as such and lives there, he's Kenyan, or Anglo-Kenyan by the definition I've consistently used. Considering he works in the UK, has British citizenship and was born in British Kenya, I don't think it would be appropriate to call him Kenyan.


_________________
"If you stick a knife in my back 9 inches and pull it out 6 inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out, that's not progress. The progress is healing the wound that the blow made... and they won't even admit the knife is there." Malcolm X
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


Daniel89
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Oct 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,592

22 Jan 2019, 6:02 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:

When you go insisting that people who aren't of the majority ethnic stock in a nation can't truly be fully citizens of a nation, that is within most lay definitions of racism. While clearly both your position and your reasoning are fuzzy and inconsistent, taking the hardest line interpretation of what you've laid out is pretty unambiguously racist - what you've said since shows that you're more worried about being labelled racist than remaining consistent in reasoning.

One can be racist without explicitly advocating for racial or ethnic superiority. Ethno-nationalism might not be inherently racially supremacist, but even without that quality it's inherently racist. You appear to be towards the softer end of that ideology, but you're pretty consistent in advocating for positions that fit the definition.

I'm sorry you don't appreciate the shoe, but it fits whether or not you're willing to wear it.


I said nothing about citizenship, I do not support taking citizenship away from people because they are not native Britons.

I do not consider the Indians living in Fiji to be Fijians is that racist? Richard Dawkins was born in Kenya does that make him Kenyan?


I never suggested you supported stripping legal citizenship, but your running argument has been that they're less entitled to view themselves and be viewed as full citizens of the nation.

Yes, if Indians living in Fiji view themselves as Fijians, they're entitled to define themselves as such and it would racist to insist they're not - whether it's you or their government doing it, I would describe that as racist.

Was he born in Kenya or British East Africa? Was he raised there? Does he consider himself Kenyan, or Anglo-Kenyan, or does he view himself as having another nationality? If he has citizenship and self-identifies as such and lives there, he's Kenyan, or Anglo-Kenyan by the definition I've consistently used. Considering he works in the UK, has British citizenship and was born in British Kenya, I don't think it would be appropriate to call him Kenyan.


That just seems colonialist to me. That you can move to someone else's homeland claim to it be equally your homeland.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,176
Location: Right over your left shoulder

22 Jan 2019, 9:53 pm

Daniel89 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:

When you go insisting that people who aren't of the majority ethnic stock in a nation can't truly be fully citizens of a nation, that is within most lay definitions of racism. While clearly both your position and your reasoning are fuzzy and inconsistent, taking the hardest line interpretation of what you've laid out is pretty unambiguously racist - what you've said since shows that you're more worried about being labelled racist than remaining consistent in reasoning.

One can be racist without explicitly advocating for racial or ethnic superiority. Ethno-nationalism might not be inherently racially supremacist, but even without that quality it's inherently racist. You appear to be towards the softer end of that ideology, but you're pretty consistent in advocating for positions that fit the definition.

I'm sorry you don't appreciate the shoe, but it fits whether or not you're willing to wear it.


I said nothing about citizenship, I do not support taking citizenship away from people because they are not native Britons.

I do not consider the Indians living in Fiji to be Fijians is that racist? Richard Dawkins was born in Kenya does that make him Kenyan?


I never suggested you supported stripping legal citizenship, but your running argument has been that they're less entitled to view themselves and be viewed as full citizens of the nation.

Yes, if Indians living in Fiji view themselves as Fijians, they're entitled to define themselves as such and it would racist to insist they're not - whether it's you or their government doing it, I would describe that as racist.

Was he born in Kenya or British East Africa? Was he raised there? Does he consider himself Kenyan, or Anglo-Kenyan, or does he view himself as having another nationality? If he has citizenship and self-identifies as such and lives there, he's Kenyan, or Anglo-Kenyan by the definition I've consistently used. Considering he works in the UK, has British citizenship and was born in British Kenya, I don't think it would be appropriate to call him Kenyan.


That just seems colonialist to me. That you can move to someone else's homeland claim to it be equally your homeland.


How many generations does it take? Are white Americans and Canadians sufficiently 'native' yet? Would the descendents of slaves, coolies, those sentenced to transportation, etc be in a different boat so-to-speak than those who had more say?

Just an aside, would you consider Freddie Mercury British? Do especially desirable to claim individuals get special treatment, if so, can Kenya claim Richard Dawkins, or using his hypothetical clone**, Dick Rawkins who self-identifies as Kenyan, works there and lives there, would the UK still be entitled to claim him?

(** yes, I understand this isn't reflective of how cloning really works)


_________________
"If you stick a knife in my back 9 inches and pull it out 6 inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out, that's not progress. The progress is healing the wound that the blow made... and they won't even admit the knife is there." Malcolm X
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


Daniel89
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Oct 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,592

22 Jan 2019, 9:59 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:

When you go insisting that people who aren't of the majority ethnic stock in a nation can't truly be fully citizens of a nation, that is within most lay definitions of racism. While clearly both your position and your reasoning are fuzzy and inconsistent, taking the hardest line interpretation of what you've laid out is pretty unambiguously racist - what you've said since shows that you're more worried about being labelled racist than remaining consistent in reasoning.

One can be racist without explicitly advocating for racial or ethnic superiority. Ethno-nationalism might not be inherently racially supremacist, but even without that quality it's inherently racist. You appear to be towards the softer end of that ideology, but you're pretty consistent in advocating for positions that fit the definition.

I'm sorry you don't appreciate the shoe, but it fits whether or not you're willing to wear it.


I said nothing about citizenship, I do not support taking citizenship away from people because they are not native Britons.

I do not consider the Indians living in Fiji to be Fijians is that racist? Richard Dawkins was born in Kenya does that make him Kenyan?


I never suggested you supported stripping legal citizenship, but your running argument has been that they're less entitled to view themselves and be viewed as full citizens of the nation.

Yes, if Indians living in Fiji view themselves as Fijians, they're entitled to define themselves as such and it would racist to insist they're not - whether it's you or their government doing it, I would describe that as racist.

Was he born in Kenya or British East Africa? Was he raised there? Does he consider himself Kenyan, or Anglo-Kenyan, or does he view himself as having another nationality? If he has citizenship and self-identifies as such and lives there, he's Kenyan, or Anglo-Kenyan by the definition I've consistently used. Considering he works in the UK, has British citizenship and was born in British Kenya, I don't think it would be appropriate to call him Kenyan.


That just seems colonialist to me. That you can move to someone else's homeland claim to it be equally your homeland.


How many generations does it take? Are white Americans and Canadians sufficiently 'native' yet? Would the descendents of slaves, coolies, those sentenced to transportation, etc be in a different boat so-to-speak than those who had more say?

Just an aside, would you consider Freddie Mercury British? Do especially desirable to claim individuals get special treatment, if so, can Kenya claim Richard Dawkins, or using his hypothetical clone**, Dick Rawkins who self-identifies as Kenyan, works there and lives there, would the UK still be entitled to claim him?

(** yes, I understand this isn't reflective of how cloning really works)


No White North Americans are not native, that doesn't make them less American or Canadian though as Europeans formed these countries.

I would consider Freddie Mercury to be British Asian not British doesn't mean I dislike him or consider him inferior.

The clone of Dawkins would still be British yes, the same way Chinese people who don't live in China are still Chinese.



Gromit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 May 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,302
Location: In Cognito

22 Jan 2019, 10:51 pm

aspiesavant wrote:
Louis Mackey wrote:
Actually, the gap between, say, Plato or Nietzsche and the average human is greater than the gap between that chimpanzee and the average human.

The gap in what? That is a quantitative claim. If it reflect more than Louis Mackey's feeling about the subject, there must have been a measurement. What was measured, and how? If the claim is just based on Mackey's subjective feeling of awe, it has bugger all to do with any scientific assessment of the intellects of humans and chimps.



SaveFerris
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Sep 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,762
Location: UK

22 Jan 2019, 11:01 pm

Gromit wrote:
aspiesavant wrote:
Louis Mackey wrote:
Actually, the gap between, say, Plato or Nietzsche and the average human is greater than the gap between that chimpanzee and the average human.

The gap in what? That is a quantitative claim. If it reflect more than Louis Mackey's feeling about the subject, there must have been a measurement. What was measured, and how? If the claim is just based on Mackey's subjective feeling of awe, it has bugger all to do with any scientific assessment of the intellects of humans and chimps.


aspiesavant has been banned dude.


_________________
R Tape loading error, 0:1

Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury. Raise the double standard


Daniel89
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Oct 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,592

22 Jan 2019, 11:03 pm

SaveFerris wrote:
Gromit wrote:
aspiesavant wrote:
Louis Mackey wrote:
Actually, the gap between, say, Plato or Nietzsche and the average human is greater than the gap between that chimpanzee and the average human.

The gap in what? That is a quantitative claim. If it reflect more than Louis Mackey's feeling about the subject, there must have been a measurement. What was measured, and how? If the claim is just based on Mackey's subjective feeling of awe, it has bugger all to do with any scientific assessment of the intellects of humans and chimps.


aspiesavant has been banned dude.


Really why?



SaveFerris
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Sep 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,762
Location: UK

22 Jan 2019, 11:15 pm

Daniel89 wrote:
SaveFerris wrote:
Gromit wrote:
aspiesavant wrote:
Louis Mackey wrote:
Actually, the gap between, say, Plato or Nietzsche and the average human is greater than the gap between that chimpanzee and the average human.

The gap in what? That is a quantitative claim. If it reflect more than Louis Mackey's feeling about the subject, there must have been a measurement. What was measured, and how? If the claim is just based on Mackey's subjective feeling of awe, it has bugger all to do with any scientific assessment of the intellects of humans and chimps.


aspiesavant has been banned dude.


Really why?


I could tell you but then I'd have to kill you :lol:

Also Rule 3

Quote:
3. Other inappropriate content and behavior prohibited on Wrong Planet:
This includes copyrighted material, serial codes, and posts made to promote a website, group or product, particularly if made repeatedly and without other participation in the WP community (spamming). This also includes discussion of locked topics, discussion of banned members and why they were banned and anything else that purposely causes conflict with other members.


_________________
R Tape loading error, 0:1

Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury. Raise the double standard