Disagree again. There are some whites who believe that blacks were better off as slaves because they are unable to make decisions and think for themselves. There are some whites who believe that blacks are a little less intelligent and a little less wise than whites. Would you disagree that the former are more racist than the latter? Yet clearly both positions are racist by any measure, essentially being "my race is inherently better than your race."Nobody can be more or less racist than anyone else. You either are or you aren't. There can be differences in the behavior/conduct related/incidental to racism, but racism itself is the underlying belief, and it's either on or off.
BS.Nobody can be more or less racist than anyone else. You either are or you aren't. There can be differences in the behavior/conduct related/incidental to racism, but racism itself is the underlying belief, and it's either on or off.
Games have content; therefore games can be racist. Term papers can't hold beliefs either, but write a term paper about how blacks are inferior to whites and everyone will call it (and you) out as racist.
Disagree again. There are some whites who believe that blacks were better off as slaves because they are unable to make decisions and think for themselves. There are some whites who believe that blacks are a little less intelligent and a little less wise than whites. Would you disagree that the former are more racist than the latter? Yet clearly both positions are racist by any measure, essentially being "my race is inherently better than your race."
Content can be very racist, it happens daily.
Content is created by the person who writes its view points to begin with.
You're blowing smoke out of your ass at this point.
Content isn't sentient, but content is the expression of sentient thought. As such, if that thought is racist, then its expression must be racist. To believe otherwise would be to accept that we can never know if anyone is racist, for we can't see their hearts except through the content of their expressions. There is something to be said for not judging another's heart, but there's also something to be said for not being blind to the world. For instance, I'm not going to knowingly go into business with someone writing a column in the KKK newsletter, or allow them to keep my grandchildren; even though I cannot see his heart, I can see the content of his expression by which he shows me his heart.You admit that neither can hold beliefs, yet you still think that they can be racist.... that's just weird.
Content cannot be racist. Content isn't sentient.
The authors of the games or the term paper could be racist, but not the content.
Content isn't sentient, but content is the expression of sentient thought. As such, if that thought is racist, then its expression must be racist.
Nope. Expressions are racist IF they are.Did I understand the argument correctly? Expressions are racist because they are?
Plenty of hate on both sides here.There is plenty of racist content in this thread, and many others, on anandtech.
No need to go to stormfront you can get your hate fix and discuss Broadwell at the same time!
You do not understand any argument at all to a capacity that I can have a conversation with you it appears.Did I understand the argument correctly? Expressions are racist because they are?
Plenty of hate on both sides here.
Full disclosure, I've never actually been to Stormfront, because I am capable of learning from the experience of others and see no reason to generate a page hit for a cesspool. But I am comfortable describing it as full of racist content because of all the people I've heard discuss it, I've yet to hear anyone defend it, even in principle other than to say it should be allowed to exist.
Nope. Expressions are racist IF they are.
Are you seriously going to argue there is no racist content on Stormfront?
A given occurrence of an adjective can generally be classified into one of four kinds of uses:
Attributive adjectives are part of the noun phrase headed by the noun they modify; for example, happy is an attributive adjective in "happy people". In some languages, attributive adjectives precede their nouns; in others, they follow their nouns; and in yet others, it depends on the adjective, or on the exact relationship of the adjective to the noun. In English, attributive adjectives usually precede their nouns in simple phrases, but often follow their nouns when the adjective is modified or qualified by a phrase acting as an adverb. For example: "I saw three happy kids", and "I saw three kids happy enough to jump up and down with glee." See also Postpositive adjective.
Predicative adjectives are linked via a copula or other linking mechanism to the noun or pronoun they modify; for example, happy is a predicate adjective in "they are happy" and in "that made me happy." (See also: Predicative expression, Subject complement.)
Absolute adjectives have meanings that are implicitly unable to be used comparatively or superlatively; for example, dead is an absolute adjective, as the words deader or deadest are not normally used to describe states of death.
Nominal adjectives act almost as nouns. One way this can happen is if a noun is elided and an attributive adjective is left behind. In the sentence, "I read two books to them; he preferred the sad book, but she preferred the happy", happy is a nominal adjective, short for "happy one" or "happy book". Another way this can happen is in phrases like "out with the old, in with the new", where "the old" means, "that which is old" or "all that is old", and similarly with "the new". In such cases, the adjective functions either as a mass noun (as in the preceding example) or as a plural count noun, as in "The meek shall inherit the Earth", where "the meek" means "those who are meek" or "all who are meek".
In many languages, including English, it is possible for nouns to modify other nouns. Unlike adjectives, nouns acting as modifiers (called attributive nouns or noun adjuncts) usually are not predicative; a beautiful park is beautiful, but a car park is not "car". In plain English, the modifier often indicates origin ("Virginia reel"), purpose ("work clothes"), or semantic patient ("man eater"), however, it may generally indicate almost any semantic relationship.
You do not understand any argument at all to a capacity that I can have a conversation with you it appears.
So Justoh, I guess everyone that has ever said "that guy made a racist comment" is wrong because a comment can't be racist, right?
Well then let's check out the Oxford definition of racist and expand their example usage section:
A person who believes that a particular race is superior to another
Any old comment I make is immediately construed to be racist by some people.
Clearly their examples don't all fit their own definition.
I'll make this real simple for you. An adjective can be applied to any noun. A noun can be any person, place or thing.Clearly their examples don't all fit their definition.
Unless by racist he means the comment of a racist. So you have to read it as, "Any old comment I make is immediately construed by some to be the comment of a racist."
I guess that makes sense, if he's racist (or assumed to be), since he does say "any comment." Any comment he makes then rightlywould be a construed to be the comment made by a racist person.
That's the definition when used as a noun. Check the definition when used as an adjective.
Having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another
I'll make this real simple for you. An adjective can be applied to any noun. A noun can be any person, place or thing.
Sure, comments can't have beliefs but can indicate something that the person making the comments may or may not believe. Doesn't mean the comments themselves can be racist.