By the way, here’s my enlightened opinion on the recent… controversy (what a contrast between the word’s neutral blandness and its meaning) featuring that guy:
He’s not really a “racist” at all. He does not have any hatred, irrational or otherwise, of other ethnicities. He’s just a bit of an asshole—or more than a bit. He’s very protective of his in-group and very insensitive to everyone outside it—and flaunts it, at an age when he should really know better. He appears to be not the type of person that we want to encourage in civilized society. I certainly wouldn’t care to meet him. But firing him just for being an asshole was stupid.
Considering what a horrible can of worms the definition of that word is and that “racist” represents a strong political and debating weapon against any enemy, I think society would be much helped to adopt a rationalist taboo on it. Even LessWrong discussions would be improved by this I think.
Yeah, sure. I was going from the minimal (= most right-wing) definition still accepted in polite society today, because I don’t want to hear someone complaining that leftists and postmodernists and Jews are overcomplicating things, or whatever.
By the way, here’s my enlightened opinion on the recent… controversy (what a contrast between the word’s neutral blandness and its meaning) featuring that guy:
He’s not really a “racist” at all. He does not have any hatred, irrational or otherwise, of other ethnicities. He’s just a bit of an asshole—or more than a bit. He’s very protective of his in-group and very insensitive to everyone outside it—and flaunts it, at an age when he should really know better. He appears to be not the type of person that we want to encourage in civilized society. I certainly wouldn’t care to meet him. But firing him just for being an asshole was stupid.
Your implicit assertion that hating other ethnicities is a necessary condition for meriting the label “racist” is not universally accepted.
Considering what a horrible can of worms the definition of that word is and that “racist” represents a strong political and debating weapon against any enemy, I think society would be much helped to adopt a rationalist taboo on it. Even LessWrong discussions would be improved by this I think.
Yeah, I’m inclined to agree.
Yeah, sure. I was going from the minimal (= most right-wing) definition still accepted in polite society today, because I don’t want to hear someone complaining that leftists and postmodernists and Jews are overcomplicating things, or whatever.
Nonsense! No one here would say such a thing. There are no Jews on LessWrong.