Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

3 Things Liberals Need to Understand About Racism and Phobias

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 3 Things Liberals Need to Understand About Racism and Phobias

    I have noticed as of late a habit among liberals on this forum and in general to be exceedingly eager in calling anything they don’t like that drifts in front of their nose racist or some other such epithet. They have such an obsession for their buzzwords that they often use them incorrectly. To aid them in their complaining, I have provided the following list of facts they need to learn before they go screaming about racism, sexism, and everything else.

    1 – “Illegal Immigrant” isn’t a race.

    Leftists have this bad habit of screaming racist every time the right talks about border security. They howl that conservatives are racist against Hispanics any time. While they are busy hosing us down in righteous indignation they overlook the fact that people aren’t complaining about Hispanics entering the country, they are complaining about the ones entering the country illegally. That is the main target of ire. Thus far most right wingers haven’t had a peep to say about legal immigration. Illegal immigration is the issue, not Hispanics. And there is no race called “illegal immigrant” so it is hardly racist to disapprove of them.

    2 – Factually incorrect statements are not always racist.

    One of the greatest examples of not-really-racism-but-touted-by-the-left-as-such speech was Donald Trump’s statement that Mexico was sending us their rapists and murderers. This statement is definitely untrue and foolish, but the left quickly went into a frenzy and called it racism. It’s not. Racism is defined by Mirriam Webster as:

    the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
    o prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

    Mexican isn’t a race, it’s a nationality. And Donald Trump engaged in no generalizations about the character of Mexicans or Hispanics anyway. He made a statement that Mexico was pursuing a national policy of exporting criminals. False? Absolutely. But not racist. Criticizing a person of a different skin color is not always racist.

    3 – A phobia is an irrational fear.

    Another word liberals shout with regularity without fully understanding the context is “x-phobe”. “Homophobe, Islamaphobe, it’s become a buzzword to label any form of anxiety or disapproval as phobic. What liberals don’t understand is that phobias are irrational fears and consequently when liberals start chanting the phrase they often misdiagnose what is going on.
    In the example of Islamic terrorism, the fear of which quickly leads to people being labeled “Islamaphobic”, you have a threat to national security and public safety which is a fear but not an irrational fear. People who opposed bringing in Syrian refugees were called Islamaphobic even though ISIS operates in Syria and has openly stated a desire to perform terror attacks on US soil.

    Now the Mayo Clinic defines a phobia as:

    an overwhelming and unreasonable fear of an object or situation that poses little real danger but provokes anxiety and avoidance

    People declaring an intention to murder you and launching large scale terror attacks on concerts, nightclubs, and other public places definitely qualify as a threat. Thus fear, the emotion of self preservation, is perfectly justified in such circumstances and is thus not a phobia. Calling someone an Islamaphobe for being anxious about terrorism is like calling someone an arachnophobe for being afraid to touch a Sydney funnel web. It’s not a phobia when the danger is real.

    The phobia term is also often misused when it comes to “homophobia” (which incidentally actually means a fear of similarity or fear of men depending on whether we’re using the greek or latin but I’ll grant you the pop culture definition). Liberal scream homophobe anytime they see anyone express even the slightest disapproval of homosexuality.
    Now, again, the clinical definition of a phobia is an irrational fear and homophobia does in fact exist but liberals get a little carried away with it. For example they often accuse conservative Christians of being homophobic. In the case of moral panics where some Christians were saying that homosexuals were pedophiles or trying to turn youth to the homosexual lifestyle this would certainly be an accurate description. But in the case of people who have no fear or hatred of homosexuality but simply cannot bring themselves to grant approval because of the scripture they were raised to revere – and in the case of people who don’t want to bake a cake for a gay wedding – homophobia is not the act being perpetrated. This is not to say there isn’t a social force at work that should be addressed, but use of the term homophobia is both an oversimplification and a misdiagnosis of the force at work.

    And perhaps that is the big problem with the left. They seem to rush to oversimplify things. Don’t like ObamaCare? You hate poor people! Want a border wall? Racism! All lives matter? You must hate black people!

    I am reminded of the Dungeons and Dragons and violent video game moral panics. My mother often worried about the effect video games like Mortal Kombat would have on me and I even caught the tail end of “Dungeons and Dragons will make your teen commit suicide” panic. In both of those circumstances I noticed that parents often listened to the advice of “experts” who simply observed a few kids they weren’t raising, made a few assumptions, then presented the assumptions as fact. Then the parents ran with the assumptions. No one ever bothered to try sitting down with the kid and asking what he was thinking, what was going on in his head. It was a conversation us kids weren’t invited to. The shrinks speculated and our input wasn’t considered.

    I see the same thing happening here. With all this talk about the “alt right” as the latest boogieman you have leftists fearing conservatism and making all these assumptions about what Trump supporters think and never bothering to actually ask conservatives what their concerns are or to take those concerns seriously. They take a few cherry picked sound bites from the “experts” and then run with that as being the overall narrative. Fear of the “alt right” is very much a moral panic.
    A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

  • #2
    This is what a liberal arts education gets you these days...

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
      I have noticed as of late a habit among liberals on this forum and in general to be exceedingly eager in calling anything they don’t like that drifts in front of their nose racist or some other such epithet. They have such an obsession for their buzzwords that they often use them incorrectly. To aid them in their complaining, I have provided the following list of facts they need to learn before they go screaming about racism, sexism, and everything else.

      1 – “Illegal Immigrant” isn’t a race.

      Leftists have this bad habit of screaming racist every time the right talks about border security. They howl that conservatives are racist against Hispanics any time. While they are busy hosing us down in righteous indignation they overlook the fact that people aren’t complaining about Hispanics entering the country, they are complaining about the ones entering the country illegally. That is the main target of ire. Thus far most right wingers haven’t had a peep to say about legal immigration. Illegal immigration is the issue, not Hispanics. And there is no race called “illegal immigrant” so it is hardly racist to disapprove of them.

      2 – Factually incorrect statements are not always racist.

      One of the greatest examples of not-really-racism-but-touted-by-the-left-as-such speech was Donald Trump’s statement that Mexico was sending us their rapists and murderers. This statement is definitely untrue and foolish, but the left quickly went into a frenzy and called it racism. It’s not. Racism is defined by Mirriam Webster as:

      the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
      o prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

      Mexican isn’t a race, it’s a nationality. And Donald Trump engaged in no generalizations about the character of Mexicans or Hispanics anyway. He made a statement that Mexico was pursuing a national policy of exporting criminals. False? Absolutely. But not racist. Criticizing a person of a different skin color is not always racist.

      3 – A phobia is an irrational fear.

      Another word liberals shout with regularity without fully understanding the context is “x-phobe”. “Homophobe, Islamaphobe, it’s become a buzzword to label any form of anxiety or disapproval as phobic. What liberals don’t understand is that phobias are irrational fears and consequently when liberals start chanting the phrase they often misdiagnose what is going on.
      In the example of Islamic terrorism, the fear of which quickly leads to people being labeled “Islamaphobic”, you have a threat to national security and public safety which is a fear but not an irrational fear. People who opposed bringing in Syrian refugees were called Islamaphobic even though ISIS operates in Syria and has openly stated a desire to perform terror attacks on US soil.

      Now the Mayo Clinic defines a phobia as:

      an overwhelming and unreasonable fear of an object or situation that poses little real danger but provokes anxiety and avoidance

      People declaring an intention to murder you and launching large scale terror attacks on concerts, nightclubs, and other public places definitely qualify as a threat. Thus fear, the emotion of self preservation, is perfectly justified in such circumstances and is thus not a phobia. Calling someone an Islamaphobe for being anxious about terrorism is like calling someone an arachnophobe for being afraid to touch a Sydney funnel web. It’s not a phobia when the danger is real.

      The phobia term is also often misused when it comes to “homophobia” (which incidentally actually means a fear of similarity or fear of men depending on whether we’re using the greek or latin but I’ll grant you the pop culture definition). Liberal scream homophobe anytime they see anyone express even the slightest disapproval of homosexuality.
      Now, again, the clinical definition of a phobia is an irrational fear and homophobia does in fact exist but liberals get a little carried away with it. For example they often accuse conservative Christians of being homophobic. In the case of moral panics where some Christians were saying that homosexuals were pedophiles or trying to turn youth to the homosexual lifestyle this would certainly be an accurate description. But in the case of people who have no fear or hatred of homosexuality but simply cannot bring themselves to grant approval because of the scripture they were raised to revere – and in the case of people who don’t want to bake a cake for a gay wedding – homophobia is not the act being perpetrated. This is not to say there isn’t a social force at work that should be addressed, but use of the term homophobia is both an oversimplification and a misdiagnosis of the force at work.

      And perhaps that is the big problem with the left. They seem to rush to oversimplify things. Don’t like ObamaCare? You hate poor people! Want a border wall? Racism! All lives matter? You must hate black people!

      I am reminded of the Dungeons and Dragons and violent video game moral panics. My mother often worried about the effect video games like Mortal Kombat would have on me and I even caught the tail end of “Dungeons and Dragons will make your teen commit suicide” panic. In both of those circumstances I noticed that parents often listened to the advice of “experts” who simply observed a few kids they weren’t raising, made a few assumptions, then presented the assumptions as fact. Then the parents ran with the assumptions. No one ever bothered to try sitting down with the kid and asking what he was thinking, what was going on in his head. It was a conversation us kids weren’t invited to. The shrinks speculated and our input wasn’t considered.

      I see the same thing happening here. With all this talk about the “alt right” as the latest boogieman you have leftists fearing conservatism and making all these assumptions about what Trump supporters think and never bothering to actually ask conservatives what their concerns are or to take those concerns seriously. They take a few cherry picked sound bites from the “experts” and then run with that as being the overall narrative. Fear of the “alt right” is very much a moral panic.
      Except for the fact that you were wrong in two out of three of your contentions...
      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        Except for the fact that you were wrong in two out of three of your contentions...
        Better than his average.
        "Ask not what your country can do for you"

        Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

        you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

        Comment


        • #5
          Buzzwords are a political staple that transcends political ideology. This is tied into name calling and selective examples, which are used frequently by all political movements. It is part of shaping the message and meant to imprint upon the audience a desired impression.

          In the US, both sides are so guilty of this that for any one side to try and claim any moral superiority is disingenuous at best. Both parties and their supporters abuse perjoratives with abandon.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            Except for the fact that you were wrong in two out of three of your contentions...
            Well....there is established medical consensus on what constitutes a phobia, no statistical survey lists illegal immigrant as a race, and I can't think of any grammatical laws that make false statements automatically racist so I'm curious to get a more complete rebuttal than "you're wrong"? Are you saying Mayo is wrong? Or Merriam-Webster?

            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

            http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-c...n/con-20023478

            Where is the error?
            Last edited by Pirateship1982; 29 Aug 16, 16:11.
            A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
              Well....there is established medical consensus on what constitutes a phobia, no statistical survey lists illegal immigrant as a race, and I can't think of any grammatical laws that make false statements automatically racist so I'm curious to get a more complete rebuttal than "you're wrong"? Are you saying Mayo is wrong? Or Merriam-Webster?

              http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

              http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-c...n/con-20023478

              Where is the error?

              It's like historical research. You can't just accept the first thing you read, you have to dig into bibliographies and footnotes.


              http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/race

              "a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock"

              Nation. Like Mexico.


              Phobia and -phobe ... let's see...

              http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phobia

              "intolerance or aversion for <photophobia>"

              http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phobe

              "one fearing or averse to (something specified)"

              Intolerance. Aversion. Not just clinical fear.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by NoPref View Post
                It's like historical research. You can't just accept the first thing you read, you have to dig into bibliographies and footnotes.


                http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/race

                "a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock"

                Nation. Like Mexico.


                Phobia and -phobe ... let's see...

                http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phobia

                "intolerance or aversion for <photophobia>"

                http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phobe

                "one fearing or averse to (something specified)"

                Intolerance. Aversion. Not just clinical fear.
                Point 1: Nation BELONGING TO THE SAME STOCK. This refers to homogeneous nations formed under one ethnic group. Mexican is not a race anymore than American or Canadian is a race. Hispanic is a race and Caucasian is a race but Mexican is a nationality. Besides, Illegal Immigrant is neither a nationality nor a race.

                As for phobia, incorrect. You are using the common definition of the word which has no meaning when diagnosing a problem. Medical and psychological consensus have a very specific definition of what constitutes a phobia which I cited. Merriam-Webster is a dictionary company, not a medical institute. In this circumstance the clinical term takes precedent. You can call someone a whatever-phobe but the term has no serious meaning unless it meets the clinical standard. Under the standard you present Democrats would be Republiphobes, Republicans Demophobes, and anyone who washes their hands even once would be a germophobe. At that point the word is pointless. When it comes to diagnosing and treating a specific psychological issue you must use the clinical definition, not common parlance.
                A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
                  Point 1: Nation BELONGING TO THE SAME STOCK. This refers to homogeneous nations formed under one ethnic group. Mexican is not a race anymore than American or Canadian is a race. Hispanic is a race and Caucasian is a race but Mexican is a nationality. Besides, Illegal Immigrant is neither a nationality nor a race.
                  "Stock: the source from which others descend"

                  You added "homogeneous" and "one ethnic group" to make it fit your argument. Then you negated your own argument by claiming Hispanic is a race.

                  As for phobia, incorrect. You are using the common definition of the word which has no meaning when diagnosing a problem. Medical and psychological consensus have a very specific definition of what constitutes a phobia which I cited. Merriam-Webster is a dictionary company, not a medical institute. In this circumstance the clinical term takes precedent. You can call someone a whatever-phobe but the term has no serious meaning unless it meets the clinical standard. Under the standard you present Democrats would be Republiphobes, Republicans Demophobes, and anyone who washes their hands even once would be a germophobe. At that point the word is pointless. When it comes to diagnosing and treating a specific psychological issue you must use the clinical definition, not common parlance.
                  The use of -phobe & -phobia is not a medical diagnosis. A "problem" is not a medical condition, so you use the common definitions of words when discussing the problem.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
                    Point 1: Nation BELONGING TO THE SAME STOCK. This refers to homogeneous nations formed under one ethnic group. Mexican is not a race anymore than American or Canadian is a race. Hispanic is a race and Caucasian is a race but Mexican is a nationality. Besides, Illegal Immigrant is neither a nationality nor a race.
                    Hispanic is not a race, it's a language. Is someone from Brazil "Hispanic?" How about an indigenous Indian like a Mayan in Mexico, or a descendent of the Inca in Bolivia?

                    Is a Black living in Cuba or Puerto Rico "Hispanic?"

                    How about a person of Japanese descent, like Alberto Fujimori, ex-President of Peru? Is he "Hispanic?"

                    Is a European from Spain "Hispanic?" He or she would speak Spanish...

                    Hispanic has to be one of the biggest BS "races" ever dreamed up by Leftist 'tards.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                      Hispanic is not a race, it's a language. Is someone from Brazil "Hispanic?"

                      YES

                      Is a Black living in Cuba or Puerto Rico "Hispanic?"

                      YES

                      How about a person of Japanese descent, like Alberto Fujimori, ex-President of Peru? Is he "Hispanic?"

                      YES
                      Is a European from Spain "Hispanic?" He or she would speak Spanish...

                      YES
                      Hispanic has to be one of the biggest BS "races" ever dreamed up by Leftist 'tards.
                      It's just in your BS dreams.

                      According to census reports, of the above races the largest number of Hispanic or Latinos are of the White race, the second largest number come from the Native American/American Indian race who are the indigenous people of the Americas. The inhabitants of Easter Island are Pacific Islanders and since the island belongs to Chile they are theoretically Hispanic or Latinos. Because Hispanic roots are considered aligned with a European ancestry (Spain/Portugal), Hispanic/Latino ancestry is defined solely as an ethnic designation (similar to being Norse or Germanic). Therefore, a person of Hispanic descent is typically defined using both race and ethnicity as an identifier—i.e., Black-Hispanic, White-Hispanic, Asian-Hispanic, Amerindian-Hispanic or "other race" Hispanic.

                      Notice something? Hispanic is not a race, only in you nightmare dreams about liberal progressive libtards
                      "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                      Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                      you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
                        Point 1: Nation BELONGING TO THE SAME STOCK. This refers to homogeneous nations formed under one ethnic group. Mexican is not a race anymore than American or Canadian is a race. Hispanic is a race and Caucasian is a race but Mexican is a nationality. Besides, Illegal Immigrant is neither a nationality nor a race.

                        As for phobia, incorrect. You are using the common definition of the word which has no meaning when diagnosing a problem. Medical and psychological consensus have a very specific definition of what constitutes a phobia which I cited. Merriam-Webster is a dictionary company, not a medical institute. In this circumstance the clinical term takes precedent. You can call someone a whatever-phobe but the term has no serious meaning unless it meets the clinical standard. Under the standard you present Democrats would be Republiphobes, Republicans Demophobes, and anyone who washes their hands even once would be a germophobe. At that point the word is pointless. When it comes to diagnosing and treating a specific psychological issue you must use the clinical definition, not common parlance.
                        Hispanic is not a race as much as it is a cultural similarity. Argentina is the most lily-white nation is South America and many Argentinians are of Italian extraction, as in the case of the current Pope, or of German extraction. Peru is described as multi-ethnic as is Brazil. In fact I would say that the terms "Hispanic" and "Latino" are quite misleading as the primary cultural commonality of the Latin-American countries is the Spanish language, although even that does not really apply across the board; in Brazil the primary language is Portuguese and in French Guyana the primary language is French. You may want to consider doing a bit more research before posting.
                        Give me a fast ship and the wind at my back for I intend to sail in harms way! (John Paul Jones)

                        Initiated Chief Petty Officer
                        Hard core! Old School! Deal with it!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by NoPref View Post
                          "Stock: the source from which others descend"

                          You added "homogeneous" and "one ethnic group" to make it fit your argument.
                          I didn't add it. That's what the dictionary was talking about when it used the term "stock".

                          Originally posted by NoPref View Post
                          "The use of -phobe & -phobia is not a medical diagnosis....
                          Phobias are specifically listed in the DSM 5.

                          http://www.theravive.com/therapedia/...Multiple-Codes)

                          Here are the qualifiers for diagnosis:

                          The DSM-5 criteria for a specific phobia are:
                          •Marked and out of proportion fear within an environmental or situational context to the presence or anticipation of a specific object or situation
                          •Exposure to the phobic stimulus provokes an immediate anxiety response, which may take the form of a situationally bound or situationally predisposed panic attack.
                          •The person recognizes that the fear is out of proportion.
                          •The phobic situation(s) is avoided or else is endured with intense anxiety or distress.
                          •The avoidance, anxious anticipation or distress in the feared situation(s) interferes significantly with the person's normal routine, occupational (or academic) functioning, or social activities or relationships, or there is marked distress about having the phobia.

                          If you want to claim that people who fear terrorism as Islamaphobic then give me a case study and hit those checkmarks. If you want to claim that a Christian who won't bake a cake for a wedding is homophobic, there's your qualifiers. Get cracking.
                          A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Bass_Man86 View Post
                            Hispanic is not a race as much as it is a cultural similarity. Argentina is the most lily-white nation is South America and many Argentinians are of Italian extraction, as in the case of the current Pope, or of German extraction. Peru is described as multi-ethnic as is Brazil. In fact I would say that the terms "Hispanic" and "Latino" are quite misleading as the primary cultural commonality of the Latin-American countries is the Spanish language, although even that does not really apply across the board; in Brazil the primary language is Portuguese and in French Guyana the primary language is French. You may want to consider doing a bit more research before posting.
                            You made some interesting points but when you got to the end you force me to ask: who's research?

                            http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...icity-or-both/

                            Among Hispanics polled (in THIS poll anyway) only 19% said Hispanic has nothing to do with race. The rest having an opinion said racial and ethnic or racial alone.

                            Who's research should I go with as I "do more research"? Should I use this poll or find one more in line with your worldview?

                            I will say this. The debate showed me that people have differing opinions on what race is. But it looks like this argument isn't quite as cut and dried as what constitutes a phobia.
                            A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
                              I didn't add it. That's what the dictionary was talking about when it used the term "stock".
                              http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stock

                              "5 a : the original (as a person, race, or language) from which others derive : source"

                              Neither homogenous nor ethnic group are mentioned.


                              Phobias are specifically listed in the DSM 5.

                              http://www.theravive.com/therapedia/...Multiple-Codes)

                              Here are the qualifiers for diagnosis:

                              The DSM-5 criteria for a specific phobia are:
                              •Marked and out of proportion fear within an environmental or situational context to the presence or anticipation of a specific object or situation
                              •Exposure to the phobic stimulus provokes an immediate anxiety response, which may take the form of a situationally bound or situationally predisposed panic attack.
                              •The person recognizes that the fear is out of proportion.
                              •The phobic situation(s) is avoided or else is endured with intense anxiety or distress.
                              •The avoidance, anxious anticipation or distress in the feared situation(s) interferes significantly with the person's normal routine, occupational (or academic) functioning, or social activities or relationships, or there is marked distress about having the phobia.
                              DSM is not a dictionary. A descriptive term is not a diagnosis.

                              If you want to claim that people who fear terrorism as Islamaphobic then give me a case study and hit those checkmarks. If you want to claim that a Christian who won't bake a cake for a wedding is homophobic, there's your qualifiers. Get cracking.
                              If you want to argue about the meaning of a word, use a dictionary. You may also need to look up the meanings of the words used in definitions.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X