Originally posted by Merriman Weir
Similarly, if the banking conspiracy is a Jewish cabal, surely this means that all Jews are in on it then? How likely is that? All the
Jewish population in the world on a sinister scheme to rob the goyim clean! What kind of organisational structure would that entail? How efficient
must that enormous cabal be? This gets adjusted to 'of course, not all the Jews, just some of the them, the ones that do blah, blah, blah or work for
blah, blah, blah'. So although it's not all the Jews that are apparently in on it, it's somehow a Jewish conspiracy.
No. It wouldnt mean "all" Jewish people would have to be in on it.
And, I want to make it clear right now that I am not arguing for the fact that there IS a Jewish cabal, I am addressing the logic only as this is
incorrect.
All it would require is that the members of the cabal all be Jewish, OR that they are all promoting an agenda that was favorable to Jews over other
ethnic groups.
The fact that all white supremacists promote an agenda of differential treatment of whites as opposed to other ethnic groups does not mean that ALL
whites are white supremacists. Nor, oddly enough, does it mean that all white supremacists are white.
The whole concept of who belongs to what group in "some or all" statements in logic is something that has to be understood in order to make sense of
the kinds of statements you are making.
"All pumpkins are vegetables" is not equivalent to "all vegetables are pumpkins."
Originally posted by Merriman Weir
Yet bigotry is built on false logic like all this. The flaws in racist 'logic' can be pointed out time-and-again but if someone doesn't want
to face up to that, they never will and therefore it's going to be continually perpetuated.
I appreciate the sentiment behind 'giving them rope to hang themselves with' if their arguments are ridiculous, but, after so much of it, it's
getting frankly tedious.
Dont argue expecting the racist person to change their mind. Argue so that other readers do not see racism go unchallenged and so that they can judge
for themselves the relative logic of the two arguments.
I dont expect someone who is deeply prejudiced to change their mind. That kind of prejudice is rarely based in logic, and so I dont expect logic to
touch it. My foster mother for instance, really, really, disliked Japanese people. And, it spilled onto anyone who
might be Japanese as well.
Which was uncomfortable for me because, growing up in Hawaii, I had quite a few friends I could not have over to my house. Or if they did come over,
it was uncomfortable for everyone.
There was no reasoning with her, however. She lived near Pearl Harbor when it was bombed. Her mother went into labor and died in the confusion of
the attack being unable to get medical attention. She saw Japanese neighbors get up on their roofs and wave the rising sun flags so that they wouldnt
be bombed. She never got over that. I think it is unfortunate that she couldnt, it certainly was illogical, but her hatred was not founded in logic.
It was founded in grief, and in fear, and in a sense of betrayal by her neighbors.
I dont argue against racism for people like my foster mother. What could I ever say that could undo that kind of emotional pain? I might try, but I
dont expect them to change. I argue because not everyone out there has a strong emotional reason to feel the way some racist feel. Most people in
the borderline are NOT deeply wounded, they are accustomed to thinking a certain way, out of habit only. Those people you have the chance to impact.
Some people arent racist at all, but are simply taking it all in as spectators. I dont want them to get the impression that racism is what everyone
believes, just because the loudest people may espouse it. I argue against it because people need to see that the
majority do not feel that
way. That they dont have to chose that side unless they want to. That there is support for those who might wish to say, "I dont believe that" when
if no one said anything against it, they might be afraid to dissent on their own.
