Don't worry, she'll be sure to be peaceful with one of her biggest donors.
Gee, maybe I misread the subject of this topic?
Islamophobia is as much a form of ethnic or cultural racism as antisemitism. If you want to ignore this in favor of a strict definition of biological racism, be my guest. I don't want to argue semantics. If you want to ignore how some words are used colloquially, that's your prerogative. However, it's likely to cause snowballed arguments like this when you do so.
To say a judge's heritage will lead to bias and/or incompetence, so he or she shouldn't be allowed to do one's job, is racist. Trump's rational is irrelevant to whether or not it's racist.
Yes, I have: with definitions and examples. You just disagree with my use of the word racism.
Snide remarks like these are why we can't have nice things. Don't take this conversation so personally, particularly when it's one about semantics. I know you think you need to defend your original points and be right, but it's okay to concede things every once in awhile if one's goal is to come away from a conversation with more truth and knowledge than before. It's okay to admit, for example, that a libertarian solution to discrimination in the marketplace doesn't exist, regardless of whether or not you think there should be a solution, and it's okay to admit that Trump has said racist things depending on one's usage of the word racist.
There's a lot left to be desired regarding Secretary Clinton's foreign policy, but Donald Trump has advocated for going into Syria with "tremendous force," "bombing the shit" out of the middle east, allowing more countries to have nuclear weapons, "taking out" family members of ISIS, expanding torture, and more.
I agree with this characterization. I think Secretary Clinton would largely enforce the status quo, which I believe is very preferable to the negative change Donald Trump would bring.
And Secretary Clinton received more primary votes than Donald Trump.
Some liberals like to argue that Senator Sanders had a better chance of winning against Donald Trump (the evidence for this isn't conclusive), and they're trying to frame the election as an "I told you so" moment if Trump wins. However, aggregate polling shows Secretary Clinton with a narrow lead against Trump. Nationally and in many swing states, she's currently ahead by about two or three points, and in almost the rest of the swing states that most models say she doesn't need to win if everything else stays where it's at, it's virtually tied.
If you want to claim "culture racism" then A) say so in the first place, as there's a difference between it and strictly race-oriented "racism" and B) we'd have to establish whether or not "Muslim" is a culture, and I don't think it is, more on that later. The term is stupid and unnecessary, "xenophobia" is perfectly servicable in this instance. I don't see why organizations such as the UN would use a phrase like "cultural racism", it comes across like "oven fridge" or "flying car". It's what it says on the tin, the word doesn't seem applicable from a linguistic point of view.
Absolutely false. You don't want the judge presiding over a case to belong to a group affected by the defendant in order to avoid a conflict of interest, no matter what that group might be. This has nothing to do with superiority and/or inferiority, it's supposed to eliminate conscious and subconscious bias. To think of a random example, you wouldn't want a jewish judge presiding over a case concerning a vocal anti-semite, specifically because the anti-semitic angle. Even a slim possibility that a judge might rule based on personal feeling casts a shadow of doubt on the proceedings, and you definitely don't want that.
As does Merriam-Webster.
It's not snide, it's honest - I do feel like I'm talking to an alien. I'm not taking the conversation personally, this is just the way I speak nornally - I'm a part of the Hateocracy, I suppose. No harm, no foul.
I did, from the beginning.
You have a right to your point of view, I suppose. I don't really care if you think it's necessary or not though.
The case has nothing to do with race, and Trump's the one making it about race. Learn what conflict of interest is, because to say a judge cannot meet the job description of impartiality as evidenced solely by race/ethnicity is racism. If there's a court case involving the prosecution of an alleged Nazi who killed the judge's family during the holocaust, that's conflict of interest. If there's a neo Nazi who allegedly did an unrelated crime, the Jewish judge is presumed impartial until shown otherwise. I refer you to your own comments on how burden of proof works.
You should read your own sources. What I've said about how the word racism is popularly used stands.
In what world does saying I'm making an ass out of myself contribute anything substantive to this conversation? As for whether or not it's snide, I refer you to Merriam-Webster. It's probably in your bookmarks.
If it worked, we wouldn't have a problem.
Having a degree in linguistics, I can tell you that no real linguist takes such a prescriptivist approach to language. This is going to have to be one of those agree to disagree issues. Like I've said a hundred times, I don't care about having an extended argument about semantics.
I thought about the fairness of this comparison when I made it, but cultural Islam exists. Cultural Christianity exists. And many in the United States take an us vs. them approach that fits a very real definition of racism, regardless of whether or not you're offended by it.
This is why I don't think our conversation is useful, because it's just a matter of semantics.
You were claimimg racism from the get-go, not the bizarre "cultural racism" you pulled out of a hat now.
Likewise, it was entertaining enough. I love the smell of an ideological battle in the morning.
Same here as it is healthy for the mind. Thanks @Lacius for that discussion a few days back as i enjoyed it.Likewise, it was entertaining enough. I love the smell of an ideological battle in the morning.
A majority of liberals don't take such an absolutest point of view, so I don't think it's a fair comparison. There's a difference between banning guns altogether and common sense gun regulation that minimizes gun violence without being too burdensome to responsible gun owners.
Yes, that is what they say, but they rarely elaborate on what the "responsible regulation" is. When pressed, at least in my experience, they just tend to be afraid of guns even existing. They're against open carry because the sight of a gun scares them, they're afraid of closed carry because they can't see who's armed and who isn't and thus they feel threatened. Nothing seems to be "reasonable", at least nothing short of just removing guns from the equation altogether.
I doubt all pf them are legally owned however. Plus what is considered "legally owned" varies by state.
@
NormalCatelol:
@
The Real Jdbye:
