3 ms·

Are we asserting here that the traditional rules of martial engagement are the same across all cultures in the world? Or we are saying that European cultures ar

Are we asserting here that the traditional rules of martial engagement are the same across all cultures in the world? Or we are saying that European cultures are not fairly similar to one another in this regard, due to a shared religious heritage? I’m confused what people are angry about here.

krapp 3y ago
There are no "traditional rules of martial engagement." White people surround, mob up on and beat the shit out of people just as much as people of any other race. To imply that white people are above such behavior (and thus that other races are less civilized) is a white supremacist and racist mentality. But you already knew that.
- hajile 3y ago
  You inferred a lot of stuff that quote doesn't actually say.
  - krapp 3y ago
    "Jumping a guy like that is dishonorable obviously. It’s not how white men fight." Is this not implying that white men don't fight dishonorably? Is not the implication that follows from that, that fighting dishonorably is a trait that belongs to non-white races? If not, why mention "white men" specifically? Why not claim this is not how honorable people fight? What did I infer that wasn't there? I stand by my interpretation.
    - hajile 3y ago
      If someone said, "That's not how Samurai fight", would you then assume that any non-Samurai is being disparaged? Probably not despite the rampant xenophobia in Japan. At best, you have him gatekeeping all the white races and applying a no-true-Scotsman fallacy. If he'd mentioned a non-white race at all, I suspect you'd be making the same case then as well. People read into these things whatever they want to read based on whichever team they're cheerleading for.
      - krapp 3y ago
        >If someone said, "That's not how Samurai fight", would you then assume that any non-Samurai is being disparaged? Probably not despite the rampant xenophobia in Japan. Yes. That would be the obvious reading. If someone looked at a group of Samurai fighting and said that isn't how Samurai fight, by implication a comparison is being made between "Samurai" and "not Samurai." If someone sees a group of white people fighting and says that isn't how white people fight, by implication a comparison is being made between "white people" and "not white" people. >At best, you have him gatekeeping all the white races and applying a no-true-Scotsman fallacy. Yes, and that's racist. >If he'd mentioned a non-white race at all, I suspect you'd be making the same case then as well. Yes, it would still be racist, for the same reasons. >People read into these things whatever they want to read based on whichever team they're cheerleading for. Case in point.
        hajile 3y ago
        > Case in point. I've never watched his show outside of some occasional clips. > Yes. That would be the obvious reading. If someone looked at a group of Samurai fighting and said that isn't how Samurai fight, by implication a comparison is being made between "Samurai" and "not Samurai." Yet, very similar codes of conduct applied to other warriors from many different groups and races. At most you logically infer that this was applied to a subset of all the people it might be applied to. Further reading would conclude that his assertion is faulty in several ways (notably the no-true-Scotsman fallacy, lumping many races together based on similar skin tones, and the very obvious observation that every known group of non-sport fighters throughout history have taken every advantage they could). There's plenty that is provably wrong with his statement without resorting to unprovable inferences, but that doesn't give the dopamine hit that outrage does. > > At best, you have him gatekeeping all the white races and applying a no-true-Scotsman fallacy. > Yes, and that's racist. No-true-Scotsman isn't inherently racist. I agree that lumping in all white races together is racist, but most people in the US are ignorant that white is a color rather than a race and nobody has issues referring to any of these "collections" of races by their "color". It's simply not possible to determine here if he is ignorant of white racial diversity or if he was using a colloquialism.
- pfannkuchen 3y ago
  This is a strangely hostile interpretation of what Carlson said and also of what I have said. You seem very ready to be angry about this. I am interested in a lucid discussion of the topic, and I would be happy to engage with you in that way if you are so inclined. I think it is pretty clear that in context the Carlson quote means "how white men [should] behave [according to their culture (which is not completely homogenous but does have a bulk of fairly common values sourced from Christianity and longstanding cultural cross pollination on the continent and related colonies)]". Other cultures have different cultural traditions and rules for behavior. This is a fact and it is not innately offensive, in a vacuum. We see N-on-1 combat as immoral because we have been brainwashed with a particular morality. I don't believe it is the case that all groups throughout history have seen N-on-1 combat as immoral. Would you claim that they have and do, and that N-on-1 combat is universally immoral? My best guess at why people are angry when this is discussed is because they have internalized our time-and-place morality as universal, and so any mention of people having a different morality is interpreted as equivalent to calling them "bad people". Calling other groups "bad people" is itself highly immoral in today's time-and-place morality, so, transitively, anyone mentioning other groups' differing morality have themselves committed an immoral act. The moral impulse in the observer is thus inflamed. There is an extremely ironic submerged Eurocentrism in this way of thinking (i.e. internalizing our Euro-rooted time-and-place morality as universal).
  - krapp 3y ago
    I note how you and other posters here are referring to "cultures" when Tucker Carlson was explicitly referring to race, not culture. "white" is not a culture. Tucker Carlson was not making a comment based on a neutral anthropological analysis of European cultural values as derived from Christianity and as they apply to the ethics of organized combat, which, again, don't actually exist but one based on racial stereotypes, specifically, black racial stereotypes related to violence and criminality. He even admits this. It shouldn't even be debatable. I'm not going to continue further because it's obvious you're trying very, very hard not to grasp such a simple and obvious point. I'm afraid you might sprain something reaching so hard. And no, calling someone racist is not itself highly immoral in today's time and place morality, and thus equivalent to racism itself. Your rationale is as puerile as it is obviously in bad faith. Good day.
maxerickson 3y ago
It'd be less offensive if it were even vaguely true. Lots of guys willing to jump you or slit your throat for a nickel or whatever.
- pfannkuchen 3y ago
  Well, sure, not everyone follows the moral code of their culture. It is like if the Jones family tells their misbehaving son “this is not how Jones’ behave” and the son replies “I am a Jones and I am behaving this way, so your statement is inaccurate, QED”. Other groups have different cultures, and it is reasonable to speak for one’s own group and one’s own cultural moral code. It is only offensive if you believe European values are universal - do you? I am a moral relativist, personally.
  - maxerickson 3y ago
    That's sort of the offensive part, that the claimed culture meaningfully exists and also does not engage in the criticized behavior. Both are wrong.
    - pfannkuchen 3y ago
      It’s offensive that a pan European base culture exists? Have you met people from many different European countries? They are different, but compared to non-European cultural groups they have an absolutely tremendous amount in common culturally. There is no claim that Europeans do not engage in whatever immoral behavior. The claim is simply that European culture prohibits whatever behavior, even though of course this rule does get violated by Europeans (as all moral rules do get violated by whatever groups hold the rules). Moving countries or continents does not delete one’s base culture, it’s weird that people pretend it does…

krapp 3y ago

There are no "traditional rules of martial engagement." White people surround, mob up on and beat the shit out of people just as much as people of any other race. To imply that white people are above such behavior (and thus that other races are less civilized) is a white supremacist and racist mentality. But you already knew that.

hajile 3y ago
You inferred a lot of stuff that quote doesn't actually say.
- krapp 3y ago
  "Jumping a guy like that is dishonorable obviously. It’s not how white men fight." Is this not implying that white men don't fight dishonorably? Is not the implication that follows from that, that fighting dishonorably is a trait that belongs to non-white races? If not, why mention "white men" specifically? Why not claim this is not how honorable people fight? What did I infer that wasn't there? I stand by my interpretation.
  - hajile 3y ago
    If someone said, "That's not how Samurai fight", would you then assume that any non-Samurai is being disparaged? Probably not despite the rampant xenophobia in Japan. At best, you have him gatekeeping all the white races and applying a no-true-Scotsman fallacy. If he'd mentioned a non-white race at all, I suspect you'd be making the same case then as well. People read into these things whatever they want to read based on whichever team they're cheerleading for.
    - krapp 3y ago
      >If someone said, "That's not how Samurai fight", would you then assume that any non-Samurai is being disparaged? Probably not despite the rampant xenophobia in Japan. Yes. That would be the obvious reading. If someone looked at a group of Samurai fighting and said that isn't how Samurai fight, by implication a comparison is being made between "Samurai" and "not Samurai." If someone sees a group of white people fighting and says that isn't how white people fight, by implication a comparison is being made between "white people" and "not white" people. >At best, you have him gatekeeping all the white races and applying a no-true-Scotsman fallacy. Yes, and that's racist. >If he'd mentioned a non-white race at all, I suspect you'd be making the same case then as well. Yes, it would still be racist, for the same reasons. >People read into these things whatever they want to read based on whichever team they're cheerleading for. Case in point.
      - hajile 3y ago
        > Case in point. I've never watched his show outside of some occasional clips. > Yes. That would be the obvious reading. If someone looked at a group of Samurai fighting and said that isn't how Samurai fight, by implication a comparison is being made between "Samurai" and "not Samurai." Yet, very similar codes of conduct applied to other warriors from many different groups and races. At most you logically infer that this was applied to a subset of all the people it might be applied to. Further reading would conclude that his assertion is faulty in several ways (notably the no-true-Scotsman fallacy, lumping many races together based on similar skin tones, and the very obvious observation that every known group of non-sport fighters throughout history have taken every advantage they could). There's plenty that is provably wrong with his statement without resorting to unprovable inferences, but that doesn't give the dopamine hit that outrage does. > > At best, you have him gatekeeping all the white races and applying a no-true-Scotsman fallacy. > Yes, and that's racist. No-true-Scotsman isn't inherently racist. I agree that lumping in all white races together is racist, but most people in the US are ignorant that white is a color rather than a race and nobody has issues referring to any of these "collections" of races by their "color". It's simply not possible to determine here if he is ignorant of white racial diversity or if he was using a colloquialism.
pfannkuchen 3y ago
This is a strangely hostile interpretation of what Carlson said and also of what I have said. You seem very ready to be angry about this. I am interested in a lucid discussion of the topic, and I would be happy to engage with you in that way if you are so inclined. I think it is pretty clear that in context the Carlson quote means "how white men [should] behave [according to their culture (which is not completely homogenous but does have a bulk of fairly common values sourced from Christianity and longstanding cultural cross pollination on the continent and related colonies)]". Other cultures have different cultural traditions and rules for behavior. This is a fact and it is not innately offensive, in a vacuum. We see N-on-1 combat as immoral because we have been brainwashed with a particular morality. I don't believe it is the case that all groups throughout history have seen N-on-1 combat as immoral. Would you claim that they have and do, and that N-on-1 combat is universally immoral? My best guess at why people are angry when this is discussed is because they have internalized our time-and-place morality as universal, and so any mention of people having a different morality is interpreted as equivalent to calling them "bad people". Calling other groups "bad people" is itself highly immoral in today's time-and-place morality, so, transitively, anyone mentioning other groups' differing morality have themselves committed an immoral act. The moral impulse in the observer is thus inflamed. There is an extremely ironic submerged Eurocentrism in this way of thinking (i.e. internalizing our Euro-rooted time-and-place morality as universal).
- krapp 3y ago
  I note how you and other posters here are referring to "cultures" when Tucker Carlson was explicitly referring to race, not culture. "white" is not a culture. Tucker Carlson was not making a comment based on a neutral anthropological analysis of European cultural values as derived from Christianity and as they apply to the ethics of organized combat, which, again, don't actually exist but one based on racial stereotypes, specifically, black racial stereotypes related to violence and criminality. He even admits this. It shouldn't even be debatable. I'm not going to continue further because it's obvious you're trying very, very hard not to grasp such a simple and obvious point. I'm afraid you might sprain something reaching so hard. And no, calling someone racist is not itself highly immoral in today's time and place morality, and thus equivalent to racism itself. Your rationale is as puerile as it is obviously in bad faith. Good day.

maxerickson 3y ago

It'd be less offensive if it were even vaguely true. Lots of guys willing to jump you or slit your throat for a nickel or whatever.

pfannkuchen 3y ago
Well, sure, not everyone follows the moral code of their culture. It is like if the Jones family tells their misbehaving son “this is not how Jones’ behave” and the son replies “I am a Jones and I am behaving this way, so your statement is inaccurate, QED”. Other groups have different cultures, and it is reasonable to speak for one’s own group and one’s own cultural moral code. It is only offensive if you believe European values are universal - do you? I am a moral relativist, personally.
- maxerickson 3y ago
  That's sort of the offensive part, that the claimed culture meaningfully exists and also does not engage in the criticized behavior. Both are wrong.
  - pfannkuchen 3y ago
    It’s offensive that a pan European base culture exists? Have you met people from many different European countries? They are different, but compared to non-European cultural groups they have an absolutely tremendous amount in common culturally. There is no claim that Europeans do not engage in whatever immoral behavior. The claim is simply that European culture prohibits whatever behavior, even though of course this rule does get violated by Europeans (as all moral rules do get violated by whatever groups hold the rules). Moving countries or continents does not delete one’s base culture, it’s weird that people pretend it does…