Shins said:

Do you generalize the KKK as racists?  Why is that not proper?  When the organization is based on something I think it's pretty fair to generalize based on that.

---

Tipote said:

Shins said:

Do you generalize the KKK as racists?  Why is that not proper?  When the organization is based on something I think it's pretty fair to generalize based on that.

---

well yes.. because they are a group defined by its racism so its members will be racist.  Larger groups like entire religions cannot be generalised about so easily. The smaller and more specific groups mean generalisations about that group are more accurate. Saying "I dont like Jews" is stupid because there is a variety of jews in the world. Zionist fascism is not representative of most Jews. Daesh's islamofascism is not representative of most Muslims.

---

WAN said:

Tipote said:

Shins said:

Do you generalize the KKK as racists?  Why is that not proper?  When the organization is based on something I think it's pretty fair to generalize based on that.

---

well yes.. because they are a group defined by its racism so its members will be racist.  Larger groups like entire religions cannot be generalised about so easily. The smaller and more specific groups mean generalisations about that group are more accurate. Saying "I dont like Jews" is stupid because there is a variety of jews in the world. Zionist fascism is not representative of most Jews. Daesh's islamofascism is not representative of most Muslims.

---

So if I said "I don't like apples" it would be stupid too because there were a variety of apples?

---

Tipote said:

WAN said:

Tipote said:

Shins said:

Do you generalize the KKK as racists?  Why is that not proper?  When the organization is based on something I think it's pretty fair to generalize based on that.

---

well yes.. because they are a group defined by its racism so its members will be racist.  Larger groups like entire religions cannot be generalised about so easily. The smaller and more specific groups mean generalisations about that group are more accurate. Saying "I dont like Jews" is stupid because there is a variety of jews in the world. Zionist fascism is not representative of most Jews. Daesh's islamofascism is not representative of most Muslims.

---

So if I said "I don't like apples" it would be stupid too because there were a variety of apples?

---

it depends what you didnt like about all apples. if it factually applied to all of them then that seems somewhat reasonable. But people are not apples. There is a complexity in every single person so people cannot be summed up in such simplistic terms and collectively judged.

---

WAN said:

Tipote said:

WAN said:

So if I said "I don't like apples" it would be stupid too because there were a variety of apples?

---

it depends what you didnt like about all apples. if it factually applied to all of them then that seems somewhat reasonable. But people are not apples. There is a complexity in every single person so people cannot be summed up in such simplistic terms and collectively judged.

---

You are essentially dictating to me what opinion/s I should have and what I can or cannot like.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

WAN said:

Tipote said:

WAN said:

So if I said "I don't like apples" it would be stupid too because there were a variety of apples?

---

it depends what you didnt like about all apples. if it factually applied to all of them then that seems somewhat reasonable. But people are not apples. There is a complexity in every single person so people cannot be summed up in such simplistic terms and collectively judged.

---

You are essentially dictating to me what opinion/s I should have and what I can or cannot like.

---

I think you missed his point.

If you don't like apples because they are a fruit, then it is correct to say you don't like any apples.

If you say you don't like apples because they are yellow, then it is not correct to say you don't like any apples, because not all of them are yellow.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

You don't have to explain yourself.


But in this case, Shins asked why it was ok to generalize the KKK as racists, but not ok to generalize Muslims (as rapists for example).

The answer is because the KKK is a racist organization by definition, but not all Muslims are rapists.


Apples are all fruit, but not all apples are yellow, so if you claim you hate all apples because they are yellow, then you're not making logical sense.

---

WAN said:

But seeing as how I don't need to explain to you why I hate apples, you can't say that I am "not making any logical sense" or whatever.

---

WAN said:

I also dont see why there needs to be a logical reasoning process involved.  Sometimes when people like or dislike anybody or anything, it's a visceral process.  There is no thinking involved.

---

WAN said:

Also, if one generalizes a racial group to be in possession of whatever characteristic/s, it doesn't mean every member has to be that in order for the generalization to hold true.  For example, some people think that Asians are bad at driving and good at math.  Are *ALL* Asians like that?  No, of course not.  However, there are enough asians who are like that for this particular generalization to hold true.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

WAN said:

But seeing as how I don't need to explain to you why I hate apples, you can't say that I am "not making any logical sense" or whatever.

---

That's correct.  Only if you had given an illogical reason would anyone say you're not making logical sense.

---

Quote:

WAN said:

I also dont see why there needs to be a logical reasoning process involved.  Sometimes when people like or dislike anybody or anything, it's a visceral process.  There is no thinking involved.

---

And you have that right.  But then don't provide an illogical reason.

---

Quote:

WAN said:

Also, if one generalizes a racial group to be in possession of whatever characteristic/s, it doesn't mean every member has to be that in order for the generalization to hold true.  For example, some people think that Asians are bad at driving and good at math.  Are *ALL* Asians like that?  No, of course not.  However, there are enough asians who are like that for this particular generalization to hold true.

---

I don't even know if your generalization is true.  Can you back it up?  Even so, aren't there enough white people like that for your generalization to also "hold true" (whatever that even means)?

If you just say you're a racist, no one can really argue with you.  If you say you're a racist for a reason that isn't justified, they can.

---

WAN said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Only if you had given an illogical reason would anyone say you're not making logical sense.

---

I didn't give you any reason, logical or not.

---

Exactly.  No one was saying you were being illogical.  Relax. 

WAN said:

Oh, so now I need to give you liberals a reason that's "justified" before I can go on and become a racist.

---

No, you don't have to give any reason and that's fine.  But if give a reason, like you hate apples because they're yellow, or you hate Muslims because they're rapists, then your reasoning can be criticized if it's illogical (but not your racism).

WAN said:

You are just like tipote.  You think you get to dictate to other people what they can or cannot think.

---

Not at all.  You can be as racist as you like.  But if you're going to try and justify your racism, your justification is subject to criticism, just like any logical discussion on these boards.

airclay said:

That infographic, Tip, reminds me of a map I saw years ago that showed the same sort of depiction but with the US and Native nations

---

Quote:

A Bantustan (also known as Bantu homeland, black homeland, black state or simply homeland) was a territory set aside for black inhabitants of South Africa and South West Africa (now Namibia), as part of the policy of apartheid. Ten Bantustans were established in South Africa, and ten in neighbouring South West Africa (then under South African administration), for the purpose of concentrating the members of designated ethnic groups, thus making each of those territories ethnically homogeneous as the basis for creating "autonomous" nation states for South Africa's different black ethnic groups.

The term was first used in the late 1940s and was coined from Bantu (meaning "people" in some of the Bantu languages) and -stan (a suffix meaning "land" in the Persian language and some Persian-influenced languages of western, southern and central Asia). It was regarded as a disparaging term by some critics of the apartheid-era government's "homelands" (from Afrikaans tuisland). The word "bantustan", today, is often used in a pejorative sense when describing a region that lacks any real legitimacy, consists of several unconnected enclaves, or emerges from national or international gerrymandering.

---

@Falc