If we agree with the UN (on this point anyway), then it's hard to argue with finding that there is racism in the original statement.
The UN is hardly a good source to turn to when attempting to define what racism is, as the UN is one of the biggest sources of racism on the planet today. The KKK is a bunch of boy scouts compared to the UN's racism. The UN's Durban III conference which was recently held was a huge flop. I am anti anti-racists, as they are some of the biggest racists around.
I also know what the hidden phrase said before it was removed, because I happened to read it. You can be glad that it's gone.
Racism and racial discrimination are not the same thing. And note that the definition of racial discrimination that you quote is from the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which appears to have gone for the broadest possible definition of racial discrimination, and stated that it is for the purpose of the convention, rather than a general definition.
I think that you are over-reaching now. Referring to a person's nationality, except directly in the context of argumentum ad hominem, in which it could then be an implied pejorative, is not necessarily racism. Once the other slurs were removed, the description ceased to carry that connotation. Nor is it racial discrimination, since the poster has no power (that we are aware of) to discriminate against the subjects in question.
I like your "argumentum ad hominem" and will counter with a "mens rea."
I believe it is obvious that a prima facie reading of the sentence would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the specific and willful intent is to specifically disparage the Samsung executives based upon their collective ethnicity as South Koreans.
You are correct that discrimination correctly refers to specifically treating a particular class in a unique way simply based upon being a member of that class, whatever the definition of that class might be. By contrast racism is a demonstration, among other things, of prejudice.
Colloquially however, I think there is ample evidence that the layman equates racism and racial discrimination to collectively refer to all manner of demonstrating prejudice based upon race, ethnicity, country of origin, etc. A sub-distinction then being made where racial discrimination is applied in situations where it equates to an action such as denying a person a job based on ethnicity, for example.
Given the linkage in common parlance between racism and racial discrimination, I think it's reasonable to look at the UN's language re: a defintion of racial discrimination to provide additional defintion to the term racism, as well.
I'm not sure how one could find that making a specific distinction with respect to the sub-category of South Koreans among all of the executives at Samsung in the context of making a negative aspersion with respect to their ethics is not at all done in the context of racism (or ethnicism. if you prefer)
I agree with almost all your comments, and I have no doubt the original poster was taking a racist position.
However, I think that you may have lost sight of the original point that I was trying to make, which was that once Mel removed the obvious slurs, the sentence, as it remained, was not necessarily racist, and so criticizing him for not removing the nationality was not necessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmhisey
I like your "argumentum ad hominem" and will counter with a "mens rea."
I believe it is obvious that a prima facie reading of the sentence would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the specific and willful intent is to specifically disparage the Samsung executives based upon their collective ethnicity as South Koreans.
You are correct that discrimination correctly refers to specifically treating a particular class in a unique way simply based upon being a member of that class, whatever the definition of that class might be. By contrast racism is a demonstration, among other things, of prejudice.
Colloquially however, I think there is ample evidence that the layman equates racism and racial discrimination to collectively refer to all manner of demonstrating prejudice based upon race, ethnicity, country of origin, etc. A sub-distinction then being made where racial discrimination is applied in situations where it equates to an action such as denying a person a job based on ethnicity, for example.
Given the linkage in common parlance between racism and racial discrimination, I think it's reasonable to look at the UN's language re: a defintion of racial discrimination to provide additional defintion to the term racism, as well.
I'm not sure how one could find that making a specific distinction with respect to the sub-category of South Koreans among all of the executives at Samsung in the context of making a negative aspersion with respect to their ethics is not at all done in the context of racism (or ethnicism. if you prefer)
Yeah, and when you say "white trash," I hope you realize that's offensive to a whole lot of uneducated, illiterate, poor, dirty, drunken, meth-addicted, mean, unemployed losers out there. Who's going to stand up for them?
I agree with almost all your comments, and I have no doubt the original poster was taking a racist position.
However, I think that you may have lost sight of the original point that I was trying to make, which was that once Mel removed the obvious slurs, the sentence, as it remained, was not necessarily racist, and so criticizing him for not removing the nationality was not necessary.
I'm glad that you agree with nearly all my comments but won't be satisfied until we get to 100%
In fact, despite all the dissembling and pedantry re: parsing the defintions and connotations of racism, the relevance of UN's definition of racial discrimination vis-Ã*-vis racism, and so on, I think I'm the only one who's remained on point.
All along I've contended that anyone being satisfied that racism, prejudice, ethnicism, or anything else that quacks like the proverbial duck was completely eradicated by the redaction of a slur or profanity is missing the most insidious form of racism.
Making an unecessary reference to an ethnicity in the context of a sentence where a negative assertion is being made can only be interpreted as ignorance or a willful display of prejudice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple II
Different rules apply in war situations. There is nothing wrong with demonizing one's enemies and it is actually a useful tool in the propaganda war.
Defending the propaganda and unifying benefits of ethnic slurs in times of war could be quickly extended down the slippery slope of defending Nazi Germany's Final Solution because it created a unifying "us vs. them" rallying point among the German people. Reductio ad absurdum at its finest.
The US concentration camps to hold American Japanese citizens in World War II must also be a defensible demonization of one's enemies then?
Defending the propaganda and unifying benefits of ethnic slurs in times of war could be quickly extended down the slippery slope of defending Nazi Germany's Final Solution because it created a unifying "us vs. them" rallying point among the German people. Reductio ad absurdum at its finest.
The US concentration camps to hold American Japanese citizens in World War II must also be a defensible demonization of one's enemies then?
Dehumanizing (and demonizing) your enemy is the easiest way to allow atrocities to be committed.
The US concentration camps to hold American Japanese citizens in World War II must also be a defensible demonization of one's enemies then?
I believe that internment camps is a more appropriate word to use instead of concentration camps. I haven't studied that particular topic in depth yet, and because of that, I do not have a definite opinion on it. I am leaning towards it being not acceptable, though it may have been defensible in certain instances. I do support racial, ethnic and religious profiling in the current WOT, as I am a big believer in math and science.
Has anyone used a Hitler comparison yet in this thread? Because, you know, that's where this discussion is rapidly headed.
I believe there's an internet law whereby any and all arguments will eventually involve a comparison to Hitler or the Nazi party (appropriately or not)
If that isn't an established e-law you may all refer to it as "Tristan's Law" named after me.
I believe there's an internet law whereby any and all arguments will eventually involve a comparison to Hitler or the Nazi party (appropriately or not)
If that isn't an established e-law you may all refer to it as "Tristan's Law" named after me.
I cannot think of too many circumstances where a company would allow and sanction another company's icons and marketing materials mix with their own in a customer facing kiosk.
I cannot remark for Europe but in the US these types of things are taken very seriously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
it's been all but confirmed that the wall display belongs to Euronics and not Samsung and it is part of the store decor.
I cannot think of too many circumstances where a company would allow and sanction another companies icons and marketing materials mix with their own in a customer facing kiosk.
I cannot remark for Europe but in the US these types of things are taken very seriously.
It's not in the Samsung kiosk. It's on a different wall some distance behind the display back wall. Look at the picture more closely. And it's not a Samsung store. It's reported as a Euronics store, who has apparently set aside an area to promote Samsung products much like some US stores have done for Sony or Apple or Bose.
Comments
If we agree with the UN (on this point anyway), then it's hard to argue with finding that there is racism in the original statement.
The UN is hardly a good source to turn to when attempting to define what racism is, as the UN is one of the biggest sources of racism on the planet today. The KKK is a bunch of boy scouts compared to the UN's racism. The UN's Durban III conference which was recently held was a huge flop. I am anti anti-racists, as they are some of the biggest racists around.
I also know what the hidden phrase said before it was removed, because I happened to read it. You can be glad that it's gone.
When and how can an ethnic slur possibly not be racism?
When a country isn't a race.
Racism and racial discrimination are not the same thing. And note that the definition of racial discrimination that you quote is from the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which appears to have gone for the broadest possible definition of racial discrimination, and stated that it is for the purpose of the convention, rather than a general definition.
I think that you are over-reaching now. Referring to a person's nationality, except directly in the context of argumentum ad hominem, in which it could then be an implied pejorative, is not necessarily racism. Once the other slurs were removed, the description ceased to carry that connotation. Nor is it racial discrimination, since the poster has no power (that we are aware of) to discriminate against the subjects in question.
I like your "argumentum ad hominem" and will counter with a "mens rea."
I believe it is obvious that a prima facie reading of the sentence would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the specific and willful intent is to specifically disparage the Samsung executives based upon their collective ethnicity as South Koreans.
You are correct that discrimination correctly refers to specifically treating a particular class in a unique way simply based upon being a member of that class, whatever the definition of that class might be. By contrast racism is a demonstration, among other things, of prejudice.
Colloquially however, I think there is ample evidence that the layman equates racism and racial discrimination to collectively refer to all manner of demonstrating prejudice based upon race, ethnicity, country of origin, etc. A sub-distinction then being made where racial discrimination is applied in situations where it equates to an action such as denying a person a job based on ethnicity, for example.
Given the linkage in common parlance between racism and racial discrimination, I think it's reasonable to look at the UN's language re: a defintion of racial discrimination to provide additional defintion to the term racism, as well.
I'm not sure how one could find that making a specific distinction with respect to the sub-category of South Koreans among all of the executives at Samsung in the context of making a negative aspersion with respect to their ethics is not at all done in the context of racism (or ethnicism. if you prefer)
When and how can an ethnic slur possibly not be racism?
Different rules apply in war situations. There is nothing wrong with demonizing one's enemies and it is actually a useful tool in the propaganda war.
Different rules apply in war situations. There is nothing wrong with demonizing one's enemies and it is actually a useful tool in the propaganda war.
Well, there is something wrong with it in that it shouldn't be done at all, but it's certainly not racism. That's my only point.
However, I think that you may have lost sight of the original point that I was trying to make, which was that once Mel removed the obvious slurs, the sentence, as it remained, was not necessarily racist, and so criticizing him for not removing the nationality was not necessary.
I like your "argumentum ad hominem" and will counter with a "mens rea."
I believe it is obvious that a prima facie reading of the sentence would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the specific and willful intent is to specifically disparage the Samsung executives based upon their collective ethnicity as South Koreans.
You are correct that discrimination correctly refers to specifically treating a particular class in a unique way simply based upon being a member of that class, whatever the definition of that class might be. By contrast racism is a demonstration, among other things, of prejudice.
Colloquially however, I think there is ample evidence that the layman equates racism and racial discrimination to collectively refer to all manner of demonstrating prejudice based upon race, ethnicity, country of origin, etc. A sub-distinction then being made where racial discrimination is applied in situations where it equates to an action such as denying a person a job based on ethnicity, for example.
Given the linkage in common parlance between racism and racial discrimination, I think it's reasonable to look at the UN's language re: a defintion of racial discrimination to provide additional defintion to the term racism, as well.
I'm not sure how one could find that making a specific distinction with respect to the sub-category of South Koreans among all of the executives at Samsung in the context of making a negative aspersion with respect to their ethics is not at all done in the context of racism (or ethnicism. if you prefer)
Yeah, and when you say "white trash," I hope you realize that's offensive to a whole lot of uneducated, illiterate, poor, dirty, drunken, meth-addicted, mean, unemployed losers out there. Who's going to stand up for them?
Lindsay Lohan.
Lindsay Lohan.
LOL
Different rules apply in war situations. There is nothing wrong with demonizing one's enemies and it is actually a useful tool in the propaganda war.
Hello Dr. Strangelove.
I agree with almost all your comments, and I have no doubt the original poster was taking a racist position.
However, I think that you may have lost sight of the original point that I was trying to make, which was that once Mel removed the obvious slurs, the sentence, as it remained, was not necessarily racist, and so criticizing him for not removing the nationality was not necessary.
I'm glad that you agree with nearly all my comments but won't be satisfied until we get to 100%
In fact, despite all the dissembling and pedantry re: parsing the defintions and connotations of racism, the relevance of UN's definition of racial discrimination vis-Ã*-vis racism, and so on, I think I'm the only one who's remained on point.
All along I've contended that anyone being satisfied that racism, prejudice, ethnicism, or anything else that quacks like the proverbial duck was completely eradicated by the redaction of a slur or profanity is missing the most insidious form of racism.
Making an unecessary reference to an ethnicity in the context of a sentence where a negative assertion is being made can only be interpreted as ignorance or a willful display of prejudice.
Different rules apply in war situations. There is nothing wrong with demonizing one's enemies and it is actually a useful tool in the propaganda war.
Defending the propaganda and unifying benefits of ethnic slurs in times of war could be quickly extended down the slippery slope of defending Nazi Germany's Final Solution because it created a unifying "us vs. them" rallying point among the German people. Reductio ad absurdum at its finest.
The US concentration camps to hold American Japanese citizens in World War II must also be a defensible demonization of one's enemies then?
Defending the propaganda and unifying benefits of ethnic slurs in times of war could be quickly extended down the slippery slope of defending Nazi Germany's Final Solution because it created a unifying "us vs. them" rallying point among the German people. Reductio ad absurdum at its finest.
The US concentration camps to hold American Japanese citizens in World War II must also be a defensible demonization of one's enemies then?
Dehumanizing (and demonizing) your enemy is the easiest way to allow atrocities to be committed.
Dehumanizing (and demonizing) your enemy is the easiest way to allow atrocities to be committed.
And to commit atrocities yourself...
The US concentration camps to hold American Japanese citizens in World War II must also be a defensible demonization of one's enemies then?
I believe that internment camps is a more appropriate word to use instead of concentration camps. I haven't studied that particular topic in depth yet, and because of that, I do not have a definite opinion on it. I am leaning towards it being not acceptable, though it may have been defensible in certain instances. I do support racial, ethnic and religious profiling in the current WOT, as I am a big believer in math and science.
Has anyone used a Hitler comparison yet in this thread? Because, you know, that's where this discussion is rapidly headed.
I'm sure you realize that just by saying that you're bound to attract one of those damn Hitler vids where he's trying order an IPhone 4 or whatever...
/thread
Has anyone used a Hitler comparison yet in this thread? Because, you know, that's where this discussion is rapidly headed.
I believe there's an internet law whereby any and all arguments will eventually involve a comparison to Hitler or the Nazi party (appropriately or not)
If that isn't an established e-law you may all refer to it as "Tristan's Law" named after me.
I believe there's an internet law whereby any and all arguments will eventually involve a comparison to Hitler or the Nazi party (appropriately or not)
If that isn't an established e-law you may all refer to it as "Tristan's Law" named after me.
It's Godwin's Law. . .
It's Godwin's Law. . .
Lol I knew it had a name. Thought I was mentally meshing Poe's law with the Nazi thing.
I cannot remark for Europe but in the US these types of things are taken very seriously.
it's been all but confirmed that the wall display belongs to Euronics and not Samsung and it is part of the store decor.
I cannot think of too many circumstances where a company would allow and sanction another companies icons and marketing materials mix with their own in a customer facing kiosk.
I cannot remark for Europe but in the US these types of things are taken very seriously.
It's not in the Samsung kiosk. It's on a different wall some distance behind the display back wall. Look at the picture more closely. And it's not a Samsung store. It's reported as a Euronics store, who has apparently set aside an area to promote Samsung products much like some US stores have done for Sony or Apple or Bose.