4 ms·

Well I was arguing against the use of the phrase "russian barbarians". If we agree that was wrong, then we agree here. It does sadden me to see how little has

Well I was arguing against the use of the phrase "russian barbarians". If we agree that was wrong, then we agree here. It does sadden me to see how little has been learnt from post-9/11 where muslims or even people wearing turbans were subject to increased demonisation and abuse while everyone applauded. Individuals should not be targetted and demonising groups based on ethnicity with comments of "Russian barbarians" is a big way this type of thing starts. Anyway, plenty of people seem hellbent on reserving their "right" to demonise whole ethnic groups when the opportunity arises so going to leave it here. Thank you for the discussion in any case although the outcome very much saddens me.

Etherlord87 5y ago
> If we agree that was wrong, then we agree here. I feel like I'm talking with a wall. No, we don't agree, we disagree. I've put some effort to formulate specific arguments and I didn't see a response to them. To say that a plural form describes individuals is outright ridiculous and reminds me of a comment I've seen on Reddit once: > The individual voice does matter if it's expressed by a large enough group https://www.reddit.com/r/cynicalbritofficial/comments/63w0qq/comment/dfy9n0x/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/cynicalbritofficial/comments/63w0qq...
- TapWaterBandit 5y ago
  > To say that a plural form describes individuals is outright ridiculous and reminds me of a comment I've seen on Reddit once: So then what is your problem with the term "Israeli Barbarians" or would it be better if I used the phrase "Israeli Occupiers"? And I presume you also have no issue with "Black savages" or "Black barbarians"? And I'm guessing you also have no problem with "Muslim barbarians" either? Because remember, it is "ridiculous" to say the plural form describes individuals. So there is no coherent logical standard that makes "Russian barbarians" okay but not those other examples. In these types of cases you need to think about what the norm you are establishing will mean when it is turned against you, and it won't be pretty.
  - Etherlord87 5y ago
    > I feel like I'm talking with a wall. You repeat questions I already answered.

Etherlord87 5y ago

> If we agree that was wrong, then we agree here. I feel like I'm talking with a wall. No, we don't agree, we disagree. I've put some effort to formulate specific arguments and I didn't see a response to them. To say that a plural form describes individuals is outright ridiculous and reminds me of a comment I've seen on Reddit once: > The individual voice does matter if it's expressed by a large enough group https://www.reddit.com/r/cynicalbritofficial/comments/63w0qq/comment/dfy9n0x/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/cynicalbritofficial/comments/63w0qq...

TapWaterBandit 5y ago
> To say that a plural form describes individuals is outright ridiculous and reminds me of a comment I've seen on Reddit once: So then what is your problem with the term "Israeli Barbarians" or would it be better if I used the phrase "Israeli Occupiers"? And I presume you also have no issue with "Black savages" or "Black barbarians"? And I'm guessing you also have no problem with "Muslim barbarians" either? Because remember, it is "ridiculous" to say the plural form describes individuals. So there is no coherent logical standard that makes "Russian barbarians" okay but not those other examples. In these types of cases you need to think about what the norm you are establishing will mean when it is turned against you, and it won't be pretty.
- Etherlord87 5y ago
  > I feel like I'm talking with a wall. You repeat questions I already answered.