Will Smith says that we can now cleanse trump supporters.

[isak]

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50880262]yufyufuyfyuftzxfghjjklknbhgcvhjklmknjkhg vcjbksdc tell me, what does the above 'mean'?[/QUOTE]

"I know I'm saying 2+2 is 5, but it's subjective, [I]my[/I] interpretation of 5 is different than yours, so you can't call me an idiot because you're the one not respecting my interpretation!"

If you're losing an argument, don't start arguing that [i]language doesn't mean anything[/i]. You can't abstract something out that far without looking like you're grasping at straws. Sure, in an infinite universe there might be a planet somewhere out there with an identical history where somehow the only thing different is that "gas the kikes" means "hello," but [i]we're talking about Earth, not your imagination[/i]. Not everything is subjective. "Gas the kikes" has a pretty fucking explicit meaning, man. You can't just blame language for having a bad argument.

[Sobotnik]

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50880230]Thats not how language works. Gas the kikes does not objectively mean kill the jews... for some really isolated fictitious group of people it could very well be a greeting of respect. the meaning words have is determined by the person speaking them, anyone else is just interpreting and guessing. This is where misunderstandings come from.[/QUOTE]

i've been reading this post for ten minutes and i still can't figure out how many layers of irony down this is

[JumpinJackFlash]

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;50868012]Why are you people even whining so much about choices of word anyway

The form is a bit wonky but the substance is clear enough. Only idiots focus on the former and ignore the latter.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=hoodoo456;50868055]Focusing on how he said it instead of the meaning is the only way anyone can make this look bad[/QUOTE]Watch what you fucking say and how you say it and there won't be any problems, precision of language is important. People are upset because you can't just go, "well yeah he clearly meant [I]this,"[/I] and expect that to stick because [I]evidently it is not clear at all.[/I] Sure he might be talking about the problems caused by some people but he might be advocating for the solution to those problems by permanently eliminating those people, it's quite literally impossible for you to know. Outside of using telepathy to gleam into the insights of Will Smith's mind we have only his words, and several posters above have merely pointed out how those words can be possibly construed.

Personally I couldn't give a fuck what Will Smith has to say about anything. Really, he could say, "white people are a cancer on humanity and need to be round up and killed," and I'd just chuckle at the thought of motherfuckers trying it.

[QUOTE=hoodoo456;50868055]"America should be less hateful" OMG HOW COULD YOU SAY THAT WILL!!!!

Like get fuckin real people[/QUOTE]Plenty of people throughout history have opened up with a sensible statement and then followed it with something completely fucking bizarre. You're an American, our politics are full of those verbal cockblocks from all the crazy, corrupt assholes in our government.

[editline]14th August 2016[/editline]

All that aside [I]I believe[/I] he meant rid ourselves of bad things in our culture, not the people who may or may not propagate them.

[AxeI]

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50880178]People here are misunderstanding "social isolation" and confusing it with "legal isolation."

Should you refuse service to someone wearing a Trump hat? No, of course not. If your friend starts supporting Trump and saying terrible shit, is it within your rights to stop associating with that person? Sure.

Nobody is calling for putting Trump supporters in cleansing camps. They're saying that social isolation of vocal racists can slowly kill off that racism. Racists in the 60s didn't all stop being racists because they realized that all races inherently deserve the same legal right - a lot of them stopped because social pressure forced them to reconsider their views if they wanted to keep their social relationships alive.

If I had a friend who was a Trump supporter and I stopped spending as much time with him because he was always a racist shit, he'd either self-isolate and go more extreme or he'd back down once he started losing relationships.

This does work both ways - I know a lot of liberals in Texas surrounded by far-right-wing people who get isolated and become literal communists. But even more of them give in to that social pressure and accept the views that their social group imposes on them. The internet complicates the whole thing, but the idea that using social pressure to influence political opinion is at all similar to racial segregation is a joke.[/QUOTE]
I think we've already pointed out why social isolation is a retarded 'solution'. I've also provided real world examples to back my point up. Yes, people change through social pressure but to do that requires [I]social contact[/I]. You won't go through social change by taking the social lives of those you disagree with hostage.

[Blizzerd]

[QUOTE=Arctic-Zone;50880392]You're the one saying it's objective - that what the person speaking means to say is what they're actually saying. We're arguing that it's subjective actually. That multiple interpretations of the same words can be held by the audience.[/QUOTE]

Im talking about the objectiveness of interpretation, basically 'gass the kikes' could be taught to a toddler to mean 'thank you' if they were isolated from society in some hypothetical lab experiment.
Does this mean the toddler grown up to be an adult and released in the world would deserve being disenfranchised for saying 'gass the kikes' to people around them?
Not saying im denying reality that a lot of people will get pretty upset at this person, and that this person would be wholesomely confused about the whole situation.

[B]but no, no, they wouldn't deserve it. their meaning behind the words matter. and they matter supreme. [/B]

You cannot hold others responsible for how YOU interpret a word or a phrase, unless you can argue they are aware of what it means to the people they are addressing.
If i say 'flower' to a person being taught all their lives that 'flower' means 'i will kill you slowly and painfully' and i am AWARE this person has that use for the word then yes... i carry blame. if im not aware then no. i dont carry blame.
Some of you guys make valid reasoning on the basis that since we live in a globalist world that you should be able to expect some words to be pretty universally understood to be used in a way. Gas the kikes for example will probably only ever be used in that context... but then again that is an assumption on probability... not a fact that is undeniable...
When a teacher talks about 'removing' children if they are too rowdy, they are not talking about taking them to a wall and executing them... when Hitler was early on talking about 'removing' the jew influence thats a whole other story... context also matters.

This is also the prime reason why if someone steps up to a perceived girl and says she looks lonely, and then that person turns out to be a man or someone identifying as a man throws a hissyfit over not being addressed with their preferred pronouns is just bonkers to me... it as an honest misunderstanding of context... get over yourself. But the misunderstanding has similarities between the arguments brought forth here...
Unless your argument is one based on language being universal, you cannot support objective language knowledge and use.

[B]A real life example;[/B]
In the (admittedly tiny and rural) town i grew up in, faggots were bundles of sticks useless for anything other then fuelling a fire. When people in a group effort, for example when building a house (this was a communal task done by the family in my home town) were being useless, lazy or not cooperative, we would playfully compare them to faggots. as in they were being useless. sometimes to just give them a verbal kick under the ass so they would get their act together, but for some it was just a 'we know you are always slacking' sigh. Heck we actually had an openly gay relationship in the town, we just called them 'best friends' even though they kissed openly and lived together and nobody gave a fuck. Some girls even still tried to court them thinking they would get 2 husbands for the price of one and the status connected to that. (some real drama and endless stories i could tell around that hahah.)

The point is, in my head i still use the word faggot for people. I'm bisexual and aware of the struggle of the gay community now, but its how my language was moulded. The word has a different meaning for me then it does when i see it used most and under times of not paying attention i do use it in that context. I've been marked a gay hater by colleagues who caught me on the wrong moment for that, only to realise later im in a homosexual relationship with the love of my life.

[B]Context matters
Word use matters[/B]
The one using the word is sending the word in the meaning they think they are, if a receiver misinterpreter based on their own bias and without understanding the context then that is their responsibility to correct.

[BrickInTheHead]

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50883328]You cannot hold others responsible for how YOU interpret a word or a phrase, unless you can argue they are aware of what it means to the people they are addressing.[/QUOTE]

not to cut you short or anything but yeah this is exactly what we did. this is a process that's pretty well enshrined within international justice. you track the history of a particular word and its usage within a specific administration or nation. words have collective societal definition. you link that word to violent acts through exclamations of it during war crimes, and establish through extensive document and speech review that the person making the utterance is establishing a breakdown of the barrier between combatant and non-combatant by way of referring to both combatants and noncombatants using the same language. this indicates to the objective reviewer that the person making the utterances does not respect the difference between combatants and noncombatants, and is thus perpetuating crimes against a group on ethnic, racial, religious, or sociopolitical grounds.

ie if a soldier is murdering a jewish person and is yelling (to take from your example) "kike" over and over again, we can logically deduce that there is an element of racial hatred going on there. further use of the word "kike" (even in non-violent contexts) can then be viewed with scrutiny to establish guilty mind.

[fnox]

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;50880274]Click Here To See this User Lose ALL His Credibility In Only 3.5 Seconds[/QUOTE]

Like he had any.

[Curls]

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50883328]Im talking about the objectiveness of interpretation, basically 'gass the kikes' could be taught to a toddler to mean 'thank you' if they were isolated from society in some hypothetical lab experiment. [/QUOTE]

I love how anyone would go this out of there way with such an extreme hypothetical example

like this example is so pointless and meaningless, what is even the point. It transcends contexts and word use. IT's so obvious that no matter what they'd be corrected and change use to the objectively correct "thank you"

[Nebukadnezzer]

[QUOTE=J!NX;50867940]Yes we absolutely should socially isolate racists and homophobes

I have no care for anyone who believes in treating other human beings as second class citizens and anyone who thinks they deserve to be taken seriously and not laughed in the face at can go away

[editline]11th August 2016[/editline]

and please, no one turn this into big idiotic a segregation thing, its not the fucking same thing[/QUOTE]

see you say "go away" but what you are implying is "deport or execute" which is really fucked up

you don't have to be racist to think deporting or systematically executing racist people is fucked up as long as they're keeping it to themselves. And if they don't keep it to themselves, you can already charge them with a hate crime.

racism is on a decline anyway, social evolution means it'll die out on it's own as long as the vast majority find it reprehensible.

[editline]16th August 2016[/editline]

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50880362]So all of you think language is objective? holy fuck the American education system really is crap.[/QUOTE]

but most of the people here aren't even american