Society/Culture Woke. Can you tell real from parody? - Part 2 - NO SLEEP TILL BROOKLYN

[evolved2]

You should really make me a SRP mod Chief

 

[Kram]

This joint has and will always be quite similar to the bay and the ufo boards.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

You should really make me a SRP mod Chief

There's only one way in. You need to find the hidden button.

 

[UltraEgo]

I'd vote One Nation before the Greens in an election held today.

that is beyond ****ed

 

[sr36]

Here's the argument, displayed simply:
1. A racist nation is a nation that has hierarchical structures which disadvantage minorities based on race.
2. Australia has hierarchical structures that disadvantage minorities based on race, left over from the White Australia policy and colonialism.
Therefore, Australia is a racist nation.

Descriptors before nouns that are not binary do usually require a comparison to other examples of that noun. Thus, describing Australia as "a racist nation/country" does imply a comparison to other nations and is not a helpful description.

 

[Gethelred]

Descriptors before nouns that are not binary do usually require a comparison to other examples of that noun.

Is this in a grammatical or formal logic context?

Thus, describing Australia as "a racist nation/country" does imply a comparison to other nations and is not a helpful description.

'Usually' is not equivalent to 'always'.

Can you make a specific case as to why describing a single nation as racist requires another comparison to another nation?

 

[Kram]

Here's the argument, displayed simply:
1. A racist nation is a nation that has hierarchical structures which disadvantage minorities based on race.
2. Australia has hierarchical structures that disadvantage minorities based on race, left over from the White Australia policy and colonialism.
Therefore, Australia is a racist nation.

Feel free to provide some examples to support this.

 

[sr36]

Is this in a grammatical or formal logic context?

'Usually' is not equivalent to 'always'.

Can you make a specific case as to why describing a single nation as racist requires another comparison to another nation?

I was talking grammatically, as "Australia is a racist nation" is used rhetorically and thus includes connotations, and implications. As a phrase, it's not used in a way that has an agreed upon definition for what constitutes "a racist nation".

If, like you did, you establish a binary definition for a "racist nation" where any level of structural racism means that the nation can be defined as racist, it's an accurate statement. However, unless that has been established as the meaning, many will interpret it as comparative to other nations - as that's how descriptors work. And as a comparative to other nations, the statement becomes very questionable.

It's not a helpful statement.

 

[Gethelred]

I was talking grammatically, as "Australia is a racist nation" is used rhetorically and thus includes connotations, and implications. As a phrase, it's not used in a way that has an agreed upon definition for what constitutes "a racist nation".

Then - from a formal logic perspective - you're attacking premise 1 on the basis of its definition of 'racist'. The problem with your criticism comes here:

If, like you did, you establish a binary definition for a "racist nation" where any level of structural racism means that the nation can be defined as racist, it's an accurate statement.

... because you entail that your specific gripe doesn't actually render the logic escapable; which is to say, this is a dispute concerning the definition of racism without actually making explicit that dispute.

The other side of the coin is, this is all a sideshow to the actual point: that mine and evolved2's arguments don't actually interact with each other. For our arguments to intersect, you would have to successfully argue that that my provided definition of racism is incorrect.

So - with that in mind - do you dispute my definition of racism as provided in that post?

 

[Gethelred]

Feel free to provide some examples to support this.

I don't actually need to.

The point of laying out the argument as presented in that manner is to create an argument that is - logically speaking - as tight as you can make it; that if the premises are true and the conclusion follows on from the premises, you cannot escape the conclusion.

This is how formal logic operates, because it so frequently discusses concepts that cannot be demonstrated: can existence be proven? Is there a god? Do we possess free will?

Feel free to disagree with or dispute the premises of my post, but if I were to require support for either premise it would be premise 2: Australia has hierarchical structures that disadvantage minorities based on race, left over from the White Australia policy and colonialism.

And this one is piss easy to prove, Kram.

I have a question: did you really think you were going to get me on something so chickenshit as this?

 

[sr36]

Then - from a formal logic perspective - you're attacking premise 1 on the basis of its definition of 'racist'. The problem with your criticism comes here:

... because you entail that your specific gripe doesn't actually render the logic escapable; which is to say, this is a dispute concerning the definition of racism without actually making explicit that dispute.

So - with that in mind - do you dispute my definition of racism as provided in that post?

The other side of the coin is, this is all a sideshow to the actual point: that mine and evolved2's arguments don't actually interact with each other. For our arguments to intersect, you would have to successfully argue that that my provided definition of racism is incorrect.

Yes I am talking about the definition - or in other words the meaning. I'm not saying you're right or wrong. Your arguments can't interact because you're using different definitions. Neither definition is right or wrong. evolved2 post made it clear that he views "a racist nation" as comparative between nations, which is a perfectly reasonable definition. You've given an alternative perfectly reasonable definition of the term which makes it non-comparative. In standard rhetoric, I'd suggest that evolved's is the more common interpretation of the statement. However, that doesn't make either definition right or wrong. Except on a very rudimentary level, definitons are agreed upon or not, rahter than right or wrong - it's why key terms are defined at the beginning of a logical exposition.

So my specific gripe with what you wrote was that although the logic was sound, it was irrelevant to Evolved's interpretation. You didn't use logic to show he was wrong - you just used a different definition of a phrase - and then said this is the right definition. Logical deduction isn't the right tool for an agreed definition - definitions aren't the product of logic.

 

[Kram]

Historically we are are a racist country, in the past century.. We arent now, and there is some support, could be a lot more.. There is no 'overloards' holding Indigenous Austrlians from pulling ourselves out if the hole now.

 

[Gethelred]

Yes I am talking about the definition - or in other words the meaning. I'm not saying you're right or wrong. Your arguments can't interact because you're using different definitions. Neither definition is right or wrong. evolved2 post made it clear that he views "a racist nation" as comparative between nations, which is a perfectly reasonable definition. You've given an alternative perfectly reasonable definition of the term which makes it non-comparative. In standard rhetoric, I'd suggest that evolved's is the more common interpretation of the statement. However, that doesn't make either definition right or wrong. Except on a very rudimentary level, definitons are agreed upon or not, rahter than right or wrong - it's why key terms are defined at the beginning of a logical exposition.

So my specific gripe with what you wrote was that although the logic was sound, it was irrelevant to Evolved's interpretation. You didn't use logic to show he was wrong - you just used a different definition of a phrase - and then said this is the right definition. Logical deduction isn't the right tool for an agreed definition - definitions aren't the product of logic.

I wasn't using logic to show he was wrong, I used it to show how our arguments didn't interact and to show his conclusion didn't follow from his premises. Formal logic isn't all that good at proving things to be correct, it's too specific for that; its role is depicting arguments and demonstrating sound argument structure. It's a method of argument analysis first and foremost, an technique to ensure you are not wrong as opposed to being correct.

Aside from that, I think your complaint is with the statement 'Australia is a racist nation' rather than with me. You're welcome to view it as unhelpful if you choose (it's a rather silly thing to complain about, argumentum ad populum around alternative definitions aside) but it doesn't really affect the reality of the thing.

 

[sr36]

Aside from that, I think your complaint is with the statement 'Australia is a racist nation' rather than with me. You're welcome to view it as unhelpful if you choose (it's a rather silly thing to complain about, argumentum ad populum around alternative definitions aside) but it doesn't really affect the reality of the thing.

Phrasing and definitions do shape opinion which then affects reality.

I like the rhetorical power of "Australia is a racist nation." Just as I liked Hillary's "basket of deplorables". But I think they're both really unhelpful statements. They're preaching to the converted and alienating rather than convincing.

I didn't like your argument, as to me it's obvious that the statement will be interpreted comparatively by many. That's the strength of the statement and what makes it powerful. Even if the statement isn't comparative to you - it will be to much of the audience.

"Australia is a racist nation/country" is a lot more powerful than "There is a lot of racism in Australia." Quite simply because it does imply a comparison between nations. I don't think it's helpful, because I don't think that the comparison is true.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Phrasing and definitions do shape opinion which then affects reality.

I like the rhetorical power of "Australia is a racist nation." Just as I liked Hillary's "basket of deplorables". But I think they're both really unhelpful statements. They're preaching to the converted and alienating rather than convincing.

I didn't like your argument, as to me it's obvious that the statement will be interpreted comparatively by many. That's the strength of the statement and what makes it powerful. Even if the statement isn't comparative to you - it will be to much of the audience.

"Australia is a racist nation/country" is a lot more powerful than "There is a lot of racism in Australia." Quite simply because it does imply a comparison between nations. I don't think it's helpful, because I don't think that the comparison is true.

Australia is one of the only colonized countries to not have a national treaty with the original inhabitants.

As such, it looks a lot more racist than comparable countries (ie. Canada, New Zealand), don't you think?

 

[sr36]

Australia is one of the only colonized countries to not have a national treaty with the original inhabitants.

As such, it looks a lot more racist than comparable countries (ie. Canada, New Zealand), don't you think?

It's not where I'd begin to compare - nor would I only compare Australia to "western" countries if comparing nations. I think that's a bit dodgy in terms of a racism discussion.

 

[JackOutback]

Historically we are are a racist country, in the past century.. We arent now, and there is some support, could be a lot more.. There is no 'overloards' holding Indigenous Austrlians from pulling ourselves out if the hole now.

The ol' bootstraps argument? We know that now more than ever wealth can be generational, we are barely a generation removed from when Aboriginal people were not allowed to engage in making wealth in any meaningful way, but they are expected to just 'figure it out'. Removing the racist structures but doing nothing about the structural inequalities that were built into the system does not mean you have ended racism. You've just let it fester.

Also, we're not a racist country now

150 police visits in 20 months: Indigenous mother takes action after her boys subjected to ‘relentless’ checks

Exclusive: A family has launched a court case against NSW police alleging racial discrimination is behind excessive bail checks

www.theguardian.com

 

[Scotland]

"Australia is a racist nation/country" is a lot more powerful than "There is a lot of racism in Australia." Quite simply because it does imply a comparison between nations. I don't think it's helpful, because I don't think that the comparison is true.

Australia is actually one of the least racist countries on Earth. How many migrants came to Australia in 2025? Where did they come from? What customs were they required to cease practicing once they got here?

Japan is one of if not my favourite country to visit and the people are incredibly friendly. Their society is still much more racist than ours. But they aren't a white majority country with minority groups so they don't get a guernsey.

It's funny how a "racist nation" not only allows people from a range of different cultures to emigrate and live freely, but is also a sought after destination in the eyes of those people.

 

[Scotland]

Australia is one of the only colonized countries to not have a national treaty with the original inhabitants.

As such, it looks a lot more racist than comparable countries (ie. Canada, New Zealand), don't you think?

People talk about NZ and Canada like it's all smooth sailing. It really isn't.

Canada is more comparable because of the size of the country, population density and indigenous peoples making up a relatively small share of the total population. Colonial era Maori history vs colonial era Aboriginal history were poles apart.

Australia started as a collection of colonies scattered over a giant island. It's not like the British planted a flag in Port Jackson and then immediately set about drawing up a constitutional framework with the Noongar, Wik and Woiworung peoples. That's not realistic. A national treaty is 20th, now 21st, century consideration.

From my POV Kevin Rudd said sorry in 2008. That was 17 years ago. Feels like Australia has only gotten more racist since, or more accurately more people keep saying it is. Do you think if we had a federal treaty it would make the country "less racist"? I'm not arguing it's a bad idea but I don't think it would have the impact some believe.

 

[the_interloper]

Australia is actually one of the least racist countries on Earth. How many migrants came to Australia in 2025? Where did they come from? What customs were they required to cease practicing once they got here?

Japan is one of if not my favourite country to visit and the people are incredibly friendly. Their society is still much more racist than ours. But they aren't a white majority country with minority groups so they don't get a guernsey.

It's funny how a "racist nation" not only allows people from a range of different cultures to emigrate and live freely, but is also a sought after destination in the eyes of those people.

This is true, and they're particularly racist against other Asians from what I've observed.

 

[Scotland]

This is true, and they're particularly racist against other Asians from what I've observed.

That's common the world over.

I worked with a bloke who married a Korean woman. They are settled here and have a family. As he explained it her family and the small Korean community here don't really accept him and are disappointed in her for having half white kids. Not in a hateful way, but in an insular, traditional sense of culture and whatnot. Which is fine, that is why Korea, Japan etc. are how they are when you go there... meanwhile in the US people go looking for racism in homophones.

 

[RCAB]

Australia is actually one of the least racist countries on Earth.

It's not.

Go do some traveling and you'll realise how racist this country is. It's one of the worst.

 

[the_interloper]

It's not.

Go do some traveling and you'll realise how racist this country is. It's one of the worst.

Worse than some Asian countries? (Against other Asians to be clear, white people generally have a good run in Asia)

 

[sr36]

Worse than some Asian countries? (Against other Asians to be clear, white people generally have a good run in Asia)

Attitudes towards Africans are off the charts in many Asian countries.

 

[Gough]

Attitudes towards Africans are off the charts in many Asian countries.

The Afrikaans are the worst people in the world, I see their point.