Quote:
Originally Posted by parksgm
Justify this - there is no widespread conception that the United States has a corrupt legal system. However, there IS the widespread belief that China's legal system is corrupt. Most of the commenters on the board have tacitly agreed with the underlying assumption that China has a corrupt legal system in their posts.
By and large, there is no large scale bribery of the judicial system in the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Prof. Peabody 
I meant that both countries are corrupt in the sense of being anti-democratic and being ruled by an elite group that the laws don't apply to (among other things).
I think the onus is on you to prove that there is rampant corruption in the Chinese judicial system and that judges are regularly "bought off." Merely saying (paraphrased), "everyone here agrees with me" (about that) is not the same as proving your point. I could easily do the same.
I mostly only wanted to point out that the original statement was (IMO of course), borderline racist and had "a tone" that was hardly different from making jokes about "darkies" or whatever. It came across as a mean spirited dig at an entire culture and race for no reason other than pure nastiness.
I didn't *report* the post as offensive or racist as I know these things can be open to (some) interpretation, but it seemed to me like a pretty disgusting kind of remark to make.
Perceptions can be either racist or just plain ignorant (as in uneducated or uninformed). A true racist is, of course, also uninformed. Throwing accusations of racism could in itself be argued as an act of racism.
Better to assume that a posters comments are uninformed unless blatant racists remarks are made obvious. To educate or attempt to educate and enlighten is far more constructive than name calling.
A racist is not going to change by the fact of his/her nature being pointed out. An uniformed person, on the other hand, more likely has the potential to learn and change.
Just because a breakfast cereal claims that something lowers cholesterol doesn't mean the cereal either has cholesterol lowering capabilities or that it even contains the said thing. Not everybody realises this when such an advert is presented, just as not everybody realises that some
widespread conception could be wrong.
I believe Orwell called
acceptable widespread conception, bellyfeel and Stephen Colbert calls it truthiness.