Society/Culture When is racism really racism?

Remove this Banner Ad

Seeds

Hall of Famer
Sep 15, 2007
40,306
36,393
I don't know
AFL Club
Geelong
I don't think there is such a thing as objective ethics. For example, I hear some Nordic countries ban the desexing of animals, as it is considered cruel mutilation. I personally believe that animals can live even happier lives after being desexed, and you wind up with far less unwanted puppies and stray dogs and cats in society.

Ethics is like the meaning of words, or even the value of money... It is what ever society broadly agrees for it to be. Eg if an old lady is struggling to carry her shopping bags across the street, we'd nearly all agree that politely assisting her would be a kind action, whilst laughing at her misfortune and mocking her would be bad. Clear as mud?
when I say objective I don’t necessarily mean bestowed on us by some external force like a God. It could also be so ething that comes from within us all.

Ethics can only be based around the belief of an objective right and wrong. to see this we need to distinguish between personal values and ethical values. Personal Behaviours/values are behaviours and values that you believe you should follow and live up to but do not believe others should follow.

an ethical system is one you believe everyone should follow. I.e values and behaviours everyone should hold and follow. Not just yourself. And you could only believe others should also follow certain behaviours/values if you believe in an objective good and wrong. If it’s not objective then why should others follow it? I.e. If it was just your own subjective determination of right and wrong then why should I follow it?

if you believe helping an old lady across the road is ethically right then you believe in most circumstances we should all do it. and there must be a reason why you believe that is an ethical action. i.e. there must be an ultimate source of good behind helping an old lady across the road. Why should we do it?

I’m asking you what believe is that objective good? why is helping an old lady something we should do? If you believe it’s subjective and not objective then why the hell should I do it to?
 
Last edited:

FireKrakouer

When you're in hell, keep going
Jul 5, 2011
12,326
18,419
AFL Club
Collingwood
when I say objective I don’t necessarily mean bestowed on us by some external force like a God.

If it’s a collective determination by humanity then it also objective. Ethics can only be objective. subjective ethics is nothing more than personal values. Personal values are Behaviours and values that you believe you should follow and live up to but do not believe others should follow.

an ethical system is one you believe others should also follow certain behaviours and hold certain values. Not just yourself. And that can only be true if you believe in an objective good and wrong.

if you believe helping an old lady across the road is ethically right and then you believe in most circumstances we should all do it. and there must be a reason why you believe that is an ethical action. i.e. there must be an ultimate source of good behind helping an old lady across the road.

I’m asking you what believe is that good? why is helping an old lady something we should do?
I guess I'd simplify if down to being ethical is to minimise or not cause suffering (and preferably causing some joy along the way). Being unethical is to cause suffering. And I'm a massive hypocrite here (like most humans are hypocrites) because I'm an omnivore, who certainly contributes to the suffering of mass farmed animals.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Seeds

Hall of Famer
Sep 15, 2007
40,306
36,393
I don't know
AFL Club
Geelong
I don't see why the conservativism conversation was out of bounds. Not all conservatives are racist but most, if not all, racists are conservative in some way shape or form.
That’s not true.

the left can be simplified to three factions.
socialists
classical liberals
identitarians

the identitarians whole ideology is soaked in racism/sexism. Being aware that they are racists they have made an attempt to redefine racism so that only people from the race they perceive to be privledged can be racist. But thats frankly ridiculous. Anyone who believes that only certain races should wear certain clothes, sing certain songs, get certain government benefits and rights is an out an out racist. These people exist both on the left and the right.
 

Seeds

Hall of Famer
Sep 15, 2007
40,306
36,393
I don't know
AFL Club
Geelong
I guess I'd simplify if down to being ethical is to minimise or not cause suffering (and preferably causing some joy along the way). Being unethical is to cause suffering. And I'm a massive hypocrite here (like most humans are hypocrites) because I'm an omnivore, who certainly contributes to the suffering of mass farmed animals.
That’s not far off my definition.

if Given a choice do you choose cage free eggs and meat from ethically treated farm animals even though it costs a fraction more? If you do then you are helping the cause of farm animals. Ofcourse you can do more, like vote for the greens, give money or time to PETA. but there are lots of issues out there that matter and we only have certain free time and resources to help them.

farm Animals will soon no longer be a thing with animal free real meat soon to be commercialised.
 

FireKrakouer

When you're in hell, keep going
Jul 5, 2011
12,326
18,419
AFL Club
Collingwood
That’s not far off my definition.

if Given a choice do you choose cage free eggs and meat from ethically treated farm animals even though it costs a fraction more? If you do then you are helping the cause of farm animals. Ofcourse you can do more, like vote for the greens, give money or time to PETA. but there are lots of issues out there that matter and we only have certain free time and resources to help them.

farm Animals will soon no longer be a thing with animal free real meat soon to be commercialised.
When I lived rural I ate my chickens eggs and bought meat from the butcher that came from an ethical that I knew personally. I grew a lot of my own food too, including animals.

Now I'm back in the suburbs, I would never in a million years buy caged eggs or chicken meat that is not free range or barn raised. A vet contact of mine says it's better to buy barn eggs ("barn", not "caged") rather than free range, as the free range birds suffer more stress from the weather and predators etc.

I have seen that fake meat is on the rise. If I could have a thick juicy steak that was created in a lab rather than a food lot, I'd be delighted.
 

Seeds

Hall of Famer
Sep 15, 2007
40,306
36,393
I don't know
AFL Club
Geelong
When I lived rural I ate my chickens eggs and bought meat from the butcher that came from an ethical that I knew personally. I grew a lot of my own food too, including animals.

Now I'm back in the suburbs, I would never in a million years buy caged eggs or chicken meat that is not free range or barn raised. A vet contact of mine says it's better to buy barn eggs ("barn", not "caged") rather than free range, as the free range birds suffer more stress from the weather and predators etc.

I have seen that fake meat is on the rise. If I could have a thick juicy steak that was created in a lab rather than a food lot, I'd be delighted.
I did not know that about barn vs free range. Interesting.

im talking about real meat not fake meat. It just doesn’t come from a living creature. It will taste exactly the same as it is the same. Its going to be commercialised fairly soon.
 

FireKrakouer

When you're in hell, keep going
Jul 5, 2011
12,326
18,419
AFL Club
Collingwood
I did not know that about barn vs free range. Interesting.

im talking about real meat not fake meat. It just doesn’t come from a living creature. It will taste exactly the same as it is the same. Its going to be commercialised fairly soon.
Re the barn vs free range thing, take it with a grain of salt as it was just the opinion of one veterinarian. The main rule is just don't buy caged, they should be banned. I've been through some of the caged egg farms and those birds live a life of torture.
 

Sweet Jesus

Brownlow Medallist
Suspended
Dec 20, 2014
23,145
19,273
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
ferball here you go...

You said "it depends how you define racism."

I get the rest of what you are saying but its not really your call.
I don't know what that means. You asked for my opinion and I've explained my reservations about ethnonationalism.

China for example has a particular association with ethnic group but also has some very specific cultural aspects that are as much a part of their identity as anything else. They have a long history under the influence of particular schools of thought.
So what?

RW nutjobs in the US say Anglo-Saxon traditions have some very specific cultural aspects and are part of their identity. They have a long history under the influence of certain schools of thought.

Hard-line Buddhists say the same thing in Myanmar and that's why they don't recognise the Rohingya.

Hindu nationalists say the same thing in India and that's why they don't like the Muslims.

Are you cool with that?

When you defend certain kinds of ethnonationalism, you create a permission structure for other kinds of ethnonationalism.

The examples from Myanmar (partially) and India are of course religious rather than ethnic but you take my point.

Are you fu**en serious? The only thing uniting the Ayran Nations is jail time.
I'm talking about white separatist/white nationalist movements.

If you're OK with indigenous tribes declaring themselves a separate nation, why not white folks? Why is one acceptable to you but not the other? As you might say, "it's not really your call".

If you round up 10 million neo-confederate nutjobs and they all "identify" as being part of their own separate all-white nation, who are you to disagree?

Again, when you defend certain kinds of ethnonationalism, you create a permission structure for other kinds of ethnonationalism.

History and migration did that.
And should we continue to enshrine these differences in our politics? I'd hope not. I'd hope we reject any politics that promotes such differences.

Maybe you have a rose coloured view of Australia .... but its definitely moving in that direction, toward a truly cosmopolitan nation.
I don't have a rose-coloured view of Australia. Racism exists. But we don't officially endorse it. It's not enshrined in our politics. We are not a white ethnostate. Nor should we be.

We had a White Australia policy. I can only assume that's the kind of "bad ethnonationalism" you'd condemn as opposed to the "good ethnonationalim" you're willing to defend.

You can come from quite a few places on a plane (but not on a boat.)
That's different. That's about preserving a system of legal immigration. That's not about ethnicity, per se.

I said I don't endorse ethnonationalism. I didn't say anything about sovereignty and border security.

And surely you can see the difference between a place like Australia and one like China or Japan. Ethnicity plays a huge role in those nations because historically they shared a culture for generations. They speak separate languages that carry a whole truck load of cultural baggage. or connection.
So what? How is that a justification for preserving an ethnostate?

You are either in favour of divvying people up on the basis or race, ethnicity and ancestry or you aren't. You want to pick and choose.

If you want to play that game, don't complain when white nationalists join the party, promoting the same kind of divisive racial essentialism.

There is no "white" ethnicity. It doesn't exist. And people who claim it does are denying the many different cultures in Europe and around the world as a result of European movement. Its as fictional as the "Anglo Saxon political" garbage those w***ers you linked to are banging on about. The Anglo Saxons lost power in England 1000 years ago. Common Law is basically a French invention. Its not really comparable to actual national identities that are built around a long term culture as well as long (mostly) term common ancestry. Like the french, or the English or the Irish, The Spanish etc etc.
You're dodging the question.

You know that white nationalism is grotesque but still want the flexibility to defend ethnonationalism more generally. Can't have it both ways.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Sweet Jesus

Brownlow Medallist
Suspended
Dec 20, 2014
23,145
19,273
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
They don't need to.
Says who?

What if a bunch of neo-confederates get together and decide they want to form a white ethnostate without black or brown people?

What if the hardliners in Myanmar decide the Rohingya are in fact "Bengalis" and therefore not citizens?

If you're not opposed to ethnonationalism on principle, why would you object?

Is there "good ethnonationalism" and "bad ethonationalism" based on whatever you decide? How about we just agree that it's generally undesirable and shouldn't be promoted?
 
Last edited:

ExcitementMachine

Club Legend
Aug 5, 2019
1,381
1,013
AFL Club
Collingwood
Says who?

What if a bunch of neo-confederates get together and decide they want to form a white ethnostate without black or brown people?

What if the hardliners in Myanmar decide the Rohingya are in fact "Bengalis" and therefore not citizens?

If you're not opposed to ethnonationalism on principle, why would you object?

Is there "good ethnonationalism" and "bad ethonationalism" based on whatever you decide? How about we just agree that it's generally undesirable and shouldn't be promoted?
The reason we are talking about ethno nationalism is because pseudo nazi rad roo declared he was one.
Xi's nationalism as we know is bad news for the urghers. The person we have engaged with is all good and even when in to bat for rad roots position lets not forget how this topic was brought up.
 

Sweet Jesus

Brownlow Medallist
Suspended
Dec 20, 2014
23,145
19,273
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
The reason we are talking about ethno nationalism is because pseudo nazi rad roo declared he was one.
Xi's nationalism as we know is bad news for the urghers. The person we have engaged with is all good and even when in to bat for rad roots position lets not forget how this topic was brought up.
I think ferball believes there is "bad ethnonationalism" and "good ethnonationalism".

Personally, I don't understand the distinction.

I think it's something we should reject across the board because of where it can lead.
 

ferball

Premium Platinum
Jul 24, 2015
23,554
44,682
AFL Club
North Melbourne
The reason we are talking about ethno nationalism is because pseudo nazi rad roo declared he was one.
Xi's nationalism as we know is bad news for the urghers. The person we have engaged with is all good and even when in to bat for rad roots position lets not forget how this topic was brought up.
What are urghers?
 

ferball

Premium Platinum
Jul 24, 2015
23,554
44,682
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Says who?
Countries like Australia and the us aren't as free of white ethnonationalism as you'd like to think. Hence the need for those people not to form new states based on it.

What if a bunch of neo-confederates get together and decide they want to form a white ethnostate without black or brown people?

What if the hardliners in Myanmar decide the Rohingya are in fact "Bengalis" and therefore not citizens?

If you're not opposed to ethnonationalism on principle, why would you object?
In the first example so what? If they get together and decide they want to do it what of it? They have to successfully act on it before it becomes an issue. Even then they'll probably just vote for the next trump.

Rohingya example or Modi in India are great examples of bad ethnonationalism. Obviously I'd reject them because the consequences of those forms of ethnonationalism is the issue not the idea of it itself. Modi's use of hindutva is a classic example of perverting a good form of ethnonationalism into a toxic one imo.

Is there "good ethnonationalism" and "bad ethonationalism" based on whatever you decide? How about we just agree that it's generally undesirable and shouldn't be promoted?
How about we agree to disagree.
 

Sweet Jesus

Brownlow Medallist
Suspended
Dec 20, 2014
23,145
19,273
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Countries like Australia and the us aren't as free of white ethnonationalism as you'd like to think. Hence the need for those people not to form new states based on it.
I'm acutely aware of the presence of white ethnonationalists in Australia and the US.

Most decent, sensible people reject that ethnonationalism.

But apparently some ethnonationalism is OK, particuarly if it's non-white people doing it?

How the hell do you square that circle?

In the first example so what? If they get together and decide they want to do it what of it? They have to successfully act on it before it becomes an issue. Even then they'll probably just vote for the next trump.
Did you ask, so what?

So I hope we'd both reject the claims of white ethnonationalists and condemn their impulses as grotesquely racist and divisive. Right?

But how would you make that case while defending other forms of ethnonationalism?

You want it both ways.

Rohingya example or Modi in India are great examples of bad ethnonationalism. Obviously I'd reject them because the consequences of those forms of ethnonationalism is the issue not the idea of it itself. Modi's use of hindutva is a classic example of perverting a good form of ethnonationalism into a toxic one imo.
Of course the idea is the issue. The idea is what begets the consequences.

The idea of ethnonationalism leads Myanmar to recognise certain ethnicities as citizens while excluding others, which in turn leads to consequences for the Rohingya as an excluded minority.

The idea is what empowers Modi to campaign on Hindu nationalism despite India supposedly being a secular country with separation of church and state.

Of course the idea is the issue.

But tell me, how do you distinguish "good ethnonationalism" from "bad ethnonationalism"?

What is the principle that informs this distinction? Or is it just whatever you decide case by case?

How about we agree to disagree.
You can agree to whatever you like.

No one forced you to hitch your cart to Rad Roo, who is clearly deranged. That was your mistake.

If you come for the king, you better not miss.
 
Last edited:

ferball

Premium Platinum
Jul 24, 2015
23,554
44,682
AFL Club
North Melbourne
I'm acutely aware of the presence of white ethnonationalists in Australia and the US.

Most decent, sensible people reject that ethnonationalism.

But apparently some ethnonationalism is OK, particuarly if it's non-white people doing it?

How the hell do you square that circle?

Did you ask, so what?

So I hope we'd both reject the claims of white ethnonationalists and condemn their impulses as grotesquely racist and divisive. Right?

But how would you make that case while defending other forms of ethnonationalism?

You want it both ways.

Of course the idea is the issue. The idea is what begets the consequences.

The idea of ethnonationalism leads Myanmar to recognise certain ethnicities as citizens while excluding others, which in turn leads to consequences for the Rohingya as an excluded minority.

The idea is what empowers Modi to campaign on Hindu nationalism despite India supposedly being a secular country with separation of church and state.

Of course the idea is the issue.

But tell me, how do you distinguish "good ethnonationalism" from "bad ethnonationalism"?

What is the principle that informs this distinction? Or is it just whatever you decide case by case?

You can agree to whatever you like.

No one forced you to hitch your cart to Rad Roo, who is clearly deranged. That was your mistake.

If you come for the king, you better not miss.
You're basically saying all ethnonationalism is exactly the same. I disagree.

The distinction is the one you keep pretending is a defining point of all ethnonationalism. That it directly means excluding others.

You mention Modi, but there is no formal church as an institution in India. Hinduism isn't like that. And even the ethnonationalist ideology that Modi is hijacking actually makes allowance for people of multiple different religions.

rad roo needs all the help he can get. And his point was a good one, however clumsily made - that is there is still heaps of racism in Australia.
 

ExcitementMachine

Club Legend
Aug 5, 2019
1,381
1,013
AFL Club
Collingwood
You're basically saying all ethnonationalism is exactly the same. I disagree.

The distinction is the one you keep pretending is a defining point of all ethnonationalism. That it directly means excluding others.

You mention Modi, but there is no formal church as an institution in India. Hinduism isn't like that. And even the ethnonationalist ideology that Modi is hijacking actually makes allowance for people of multiple different religions.

rad roo needs all the help he can get. And his point was a good one, however clumsily made - that is there is still heaps of racism in Australia.
He actually didn't say all ethnonationalism is the same. That's your straw man now, you're losing the argument you're doshonest on many levels.
Just like rad too i'm sure Blair cottrell makes some valid points on racism too that you dont.
Doesn't mean you should go into bat for him.

The reason you went in to bat for a pseudo nazi is because of your own racism exposed in this thread.
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad