User talk:GrammarCommie

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>

, (new)

Leave my userpage alone.

I'm allowed to troll collapse DM's comments. As you can see he is trolling. I don't know about you, but saying insults is not a sign of high intelligence. ✝^BibleStudy

CoopNotice

A case involving you has been raised at the Chicken Coop. Feel free to comment.

✝BibleStudy

Thanks ...

... for de-Kenning my talk page. 😀 ^{— Unsigned, by: Scream!! / talk / contribs}

Removing posts

Can you stop removing my posts because you don’t like them? As AMG said it’s not a crime to be dumb. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

For engaging Andrew

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Somebody just wants to let you know you did something silly.

Remember the old adage: Don't feed the troll. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

RE Bar discussion

If you intend for that to be a dichotomy, it's a false one. The word itself (like all words) is not racist, and while it can be used to express racism, it can also be used to express other things. Your question is like asking, "If you roll 2d6, will your results end in -day or be an even number?" If you want a one-word answer, "potentially". 192․168․1․42 (talk) 13:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@192․168․1․42 So you'd agree that racism is a phenomena that exists independent of intent? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

In the sense that the use of race as the basis of differential treatment or judgement can in principle be done without conscious intention to, sure. For example, the plaintiffs' proposal to draw district borders along racial lines in order to produce a racial representation outcome is racist, but they presumably would disagree with that characterization due to using a different definition. Note however that the plaintiffs intended to use race as the basis of differential treatment, so the intent is racist despite the presumed lack of realization. Do you have an intent-independent scenario in mind? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@192․168․1․42 I'm laying out my reasoning for taking issue with your appeals to motive. Also, what makes you say redistricting along racial lines is racist? If you were to try to fix racial gerrymandering, would that not involve redistricting along racial lines or similar? That reasoning doesn't really hold up outside of a very technical sense. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

"I'm laying out my reasoning for taking issue with your appeals to motive." You haven't explained why my point regarding motive in the absence of differences in action was incorrect. Were you fishing for a "gotcha"?

"what makes you say redistricting along racial lines is racist?" It is (in the case of the plaintiffs' proposal) the use of race as the basis of differential treatment. In this case, membership in voting districts and the derived representation. With the stated goal of race-based representation. Which happens to be at odds with the racial demographics of the state, but that's neither here nor there.

"would that not involve redistricting along racial lines or similar?" No. The (proximal) problem with racial gerrymandining is the use of race as the basis of differential treatment. So the solution is to not use race as the basis of districting. As it happens, the current gerrymandering that led to this discussion appears to be partisan rather than racist, so there is no racial gerrymandering problem to solve. One may, of course, hold that partisan gerrymandering is bad, but why that is and how to fix it has been set aside to focus on a racial issue that appears to not in fact exist. And by "a very technical sense" do you mean the actual definitions of words? Those are kind of important. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@192․168․1․42 ""Why would we need to read their minds?" Because in that case, the difference between something being racist and not being racist is motivation, not observable action." Again, I take issue with this thesis. As you yourself have noted people can be racist without intending to. Also, I resent the accusation of "gotcha" fishing. Whatever else my engagement may be, it has been good faith.

To respond to your second and third points, (which fail to understand that both my questions are digging at the same issue), and to address the part of my second question you omitted in your reply, if "racism" is defined as "engaging along racial lines at all" then yes, any policy that attempts to address racist laws, policies, etc would be racist. Now, your position here is malformed. You simply treat "race" as a given category, rather than interrogating it and its history. Doing so reveals the category to be a spurious and, bluntly, illiberal social construct. With that in mind, one could make the case that operating along racial lines at all is "racist". However, even with that in mind I don't see such a position as solid, as it attempts to straight up ignore a phenomena in human societies that has very real affects, which in turn cannot simply be ignored. This means attempts at "race blindness" force one to function as a useful idiot for the perpetuation of racist phenomena. A better approach is to account for racial disparities, and then utilize economic and political leverage to address the issue. Now, I define racism as "policies, laws, social norms, stereotypes etc which perpetuate undue discrimination along racial lines", which I developed after observing the failures of definitions like your own. Failures based on the idea that racism is a moral issue, not a psychological and sociological phenomena. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

"Again, I take issue with this thesis." It's elementary analysis that you still have not actually addressed. To rephrase:

1 In a scenario where a racial group has a very strong partisan skew, districting by race and districting by party would produce (largely) the same observable results.

2 Given the observation of such districting, claiming that the districting is racist requires the assumption that race rather than partisan affilation was used as the basis of the districting, since either would produce the same observalbe result.

3 Given that the districting planner is a partisan organization presumably intending to optimize its advantage in partisan elections, and that this obvious motivation completely explains the observed districting pattern, there does not seem to be any reason to invoke racism as an explanation for the districting. Occam's Razor, null hypothesis, etc.

If you disagree with that reasoning, what SPECIFICALLY do you disagree with?

"Also, I resent the accusation of "gotcha" fishing." You JUST did it right there. Following a hypothetical acknowledgement of the possibility of racism being independent of intention (but only by way of differeing definitions resulting in believing that actually-racist intentions aren't actually racist - the specific situation with the plaintiffs), you mentioned it in response to the current districting situation as if that had anything to do with it. As if I did not remember precisely what I had noted, and instead would be convinced by a rhetorical "gotcha". And I mentioned gotcha fishing because you had spent the previous exchanges asking loaded questions and claiming that the explanations of how they're loaded wasn't "engaging with" the question.

"if "racism" is defined as "engaging along racial lines at all"" Then the heavily-Democratic partisan skew among black Americans is itself racist. As is the prevalence of hair-care products for black Americans in areas where they constitute a large part of the population. Which is why no one who wants to address problems in race relations uses such a definition.

"then yes, any policy that attempts to address racist laws, policies, etc would be racist." Still no. Even by that definition, the non-racist thing would be to not "engage along racial lines at all". For example, if applicants of different races have different college admission rates, the non-racist thing to do according to that definition would be to strip racial information from all student files so that racial lines are no longer trackable to engage with. See why that's a terrible definition to use?

"You simply treat "race" as a given category, rather than interrogating it and its history." Categories can be defined any way you want. What does "interrogating it and its history" have to do with the question of whether a districting proposal is racist or not? I'm looking for something that can be checked against observations of reality here.

"Doing so reveals the category to be a spurious and, bluntly, illiberal social construct." Ah, wrongthink. So therefore we deductively know that there is no territory that corresponds to the map.

"a phenomena in human societies that has very real affects" What phenomenon? The ability of humans to sort themselves into groups based on such empirical criteria as outer physical appearance which track the variance of historic population distributions. "Social constructs" are often based on physical reality like that.

"This means attempts at "race blindness" force one to function as a useful idiot for the perpetuation of racist phenomena" That's a bold take on Martin Luther King. But then, we have come along way since then. A question though. What definition of racism are you using such that institutionalizing race-based double standards is the way to not perpetuate racist phenomena?

"A better approach is to account for racial disparities, and then utilize economic and political leverage to address the issue." Can you give a specific example of what you mean? Because "accounting" and "utilizing" "leverage" aren't actionable policies that can be evaluated for consequences.

"I define racism as "policies, laws, social norms, stereotypes etc which perpetuate undue discrimination along racial lines"," So how can a situation be checked for the presence or absence of racism? What discrimination "along racial lines" is "due" and therefore not "racism"? What does "perpetuation" involve?

"after observing the failures of definitions like your own" Care to give an example of such a failure? Most such claims of failure that I've encountered are of the form mentioned in the earlier discussion, where someone wants people to regard something as bad without having to make a new argument about why it's bad.

"the idea that racism is a moral issue," Your definition does this specifically, via invoking the notion of "undue" discrimination. The definition I posted earlier, "the use of a person's race as the basis of differential judgement or treatment" is morally agnostic and based on behavior (observable) or motivations (inferrable) for identification. That is, it encompasses psychological and sociological phenomena in a way that its presence or absence can be checked without reference to a particular moral system. But at any rate, the common usage of labeling something as "racism" is to identify a way in which it is to be regarded as bad. Moral issues are central to the word's usage, though naturally people subscribe to varying moral systems and mean different things when they use the word. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 09:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@192․168․1․42 Look, if you aren't going to engage honestly we can just cut this off here. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you identify a single point in which I did not engage honestly, explain how it fails to engage honestly, and provide a hypothetical response that would have qualified as honest engagement in that situation? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 03:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

You're accusing me of dishonesty without any evidence of malice. Either you're arguing in bad faith or you're a moron. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Let's try this again. Can you identify a single point where I accused you of dishonesty? As in a quote. Malice and dishonesty are independent of each other, so that bit suggests some sloppy conceptual mapping. You might reread the conversation with that in mind. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

"Malice and dishonesty are independent of each other..." Fuck off. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Your not allowed to do that?

Stop removing Queex and my comment! The Community Standards state: Talk pages (including user talk as well as article talk pages) and other discussion pages, such as debates or the Saloon bar, are community property. They must not be deleted, nor protected, although they can be archived periodically. Similarly, users should not delete or change another user's comments on a talk or discussion page, with the following exceptions... Mil Mi-8 (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

You could bring it up here. TranslationForAll (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mil Mi-8 It's derailing because Queex isn't actually addressing the underlying issue, and is instead jumping in to defend their position without first establishing the relevant basis. In other words, tough shit. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Its goes aganist Community Standards!!! If you want to bring your opinion, just place your comment at the bottom of the thread. I'm not talking to you intill you do that. Mil Mi-8 (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mil Mi-8 Are you a child? I don't are whether you respond or not, only that truth be established. Queex's crap was in the way so it was dealt with. Respond, find a new topic to engage with, or leave the site. You are free to engage in any of these choices. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

"Concern trolling"?

Apparently, all concern is concern trolling? Is this attitude about world affairs not the same attitude that allowed Islamic radicalism to rise and the September 11th attacks to happen? This seems like a disingenuous attempt to silence anyone who raises a degree of concern about a fairly reckless move by the Biden-Harris administration rather than preventing perceived trolling. INTO THE BREACH (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)