Support NeoGAF

[Katsura]

Indeed.



I already did. Can you explain me what aint racist about it?

That's not how it works. You're claiming a long established tradition is racist. The onus is on you to prove that it is

Indeed, its not actually hurting Anyone. Its all fake in the end. So why not change? Kids dont care.
Tell me, what do we loose if we change it? The party is still the same only the decor is adjusted. Some adjustments to songs because their so old that their full of stuff no one says anymore.
Nothing of value is lost of we change it.

You lose part of your culture which is part of your identity. Also, let's not pretend it's going to stop there when we all know it wont. There will always be someone who is offended at something. There is no way to prevent that and nor should we. The overwhelming majority can't be expected to change because of a tiny group of people. It's the other way around

Its old folks scary to let go of thing they reminds so well. Understandable, but not a valid reason imo.

Well i guess that's that then. You've declared it invalid without explaining why so case is closed. No more Christmas, kids

With very valid opinions. If we have to wait for the rest to come with change it will be forever.

Their opinions are no more valid than anyone else's. They're a tiny minority so their options are either convince people to come to their side using convincing arguments, accept things as they are and wait it out or find another place where they wont have to suffer the horror. That's how it works. Majority rules

 

[Rien]

Yes, but the vast majority doesn't care at the end of the day.

Thats why it’s racist imo.

The vast majority doesnt care that their precious fake image is offending people every year. .They to scared to loose ‘identity’. If Zwarte Piet is our identity then it’s a sad state.

You only just have to look at picture. It’s not far reached that certain people are not amused by it.

That's not how it works. You're claiming a long established tradition is racist. The onus is on you to prove that it is

Read above

You lose part of your culture which is part of your identity. Also, let's not pretend it's going to stop there when we all know it wont. There will always be someone who is offended at something. There is no way to prevent that and nor should we. The overwhelming majority can't be expected to change because of a tiny group of people. It's the other way around

Sure and in many cases I agree with you. Only in this case I think we should actually listen to person who feel offended. If you talk about identifying then this is the case we can do better.

Well i guess that's that then. You've declared it invalid without explaining why so case is closed. No more Christmas, kids

I do explain myself all the time here. You just dont like what I think. Thats okay.

Majority rules

Majority sucks

 

[DS_Joost]

That's not how it works. You're claiming a long established tradition is racist. The onus is on you to prove that it is


You lose part of your culture which is part of your identity. Also, let's not pretend it's going to stop there when we all know it wont. There will always be someone who is offended at something. There is no way to prevent that and nor should we. The overwhelming majority can't be expected to change because of a tiny group of people. It's the other way around

Well i guess that's that then. You've declared it invalid without explaining why so case is closed. No more Christmas, kids


Their opinions are no more valid than anyone else's. They're a tiny minority so their options are either convince people to come to their side using convincing arguments, accept things as they are and wait it out or find another place where they wont have to suffer the horror. That's how it works. Majority rules

Listen to this kids. This is how the world works. Would be wise to take this into account whenever you blame the world for something you don't agree with.

 

[Psykodad]

Thats why it’s racist imo.

The vast majority doesnt care that their precious fake image is offending people every year. .They to scared to loose ‘identity’. If Zwarte Piet is our identity then it’s a sad state.

You do realize that vast majority includes all kinds of ethnicities and not just white Dutch people?

This isn't some white vs black issue.

 

[Katsura]

Thats why it’s racist imo.

The vast majority doesnt care that their precious fake image is offending people every year. .They to scared to loose ‘identity’. If Zwarte Piet is our identity then it’s a sad state.

You only just have to look at picture. It’s not far reached that certain people are not amused by it.



Read above



Sure and in many cases I agree with you. Only in this case I think we should actually listen to person who feel offended. If you talk about identifying then this is the case we can do better.



I do explain myself all the time here. You just dont like what I think. Thats okay.



Majority sucks

So your evidence is that it offends some people therefore it's racist? Is that correct?

As for the tongue in cheek comment, you didn't explain that particular claim. That's all

As for the rest, no the majority should never be forced to change because of tiny minority. The majority can decide to change it if they want to. If they don't, tough shit for the minority in which case we're back at the previously mentioned options

You may think it sucks but it's the best thing we've got. Feel free to come up with something better, convince people it's better and change the world. Until then, majority rules

 

[DS_Joost]

Rien you like to live in a democracy right?

 

[Ascend]

He lived in a small village with no colored people and went to school in a town with predominantly white people and hung out with "kakkers".
After he realized how he was starting to act, he changed his tune and he'snow actually living in Amsterdam and has a colored girlfriend from Brazil.

Fair enough.

Curious to see how you will spin this in such a way that Sinterklaas causes racism.

Funny that you think that is my intention. But based on the above, would it actually be fair to assume that some "kakkers" cause racism?

But if you actually read my posts with the intent of understanding, rather than defending or being dismissive or with anticipation, you would have understood that I didn't say it's the cause of racism, but I did say that it facilitates it. Which brings me to....;

You know, I'm colored myself, so it's not like I don't understand those against Black Pete.
But there is a difference between feeling discriminated against and actually being discriminated against.

Is Black Pete racist? No.

Is what happened to that footballer at Den Bosch racist? Definitely.

There's a big difference between the two though.

I agree that there is a big difference. But, look at it this way. What happened to that footballer over there, if there was no Sinterklaas, what other way would the racism of this individual have been expressed? He literally would have had to call the footballer a dumb black nigger or whatever, which is a lot more obvious, which in turn might help avoid it from occurring in the first place. In this case, the player was called a bunch of things, but, it's quite the coincidence that it happens right in the time period that Sinterklaas is coming to town. Again, Sinterklaas is not the cause for racism, but, it facilitates it.

And with facilitation I mean that it can always be shoved aside as some sort of joke related to an innocent child's holiday. It is a softening blanket to what people really think. It is the exact definition of covert racism. It is a platform where racism can be openly expressed and people can get away with it with little consequences. It is a sort of catalyst for racism. Racism, like most "isms" is subtle. People in general will not easily say "you're dumb because you are black" (although some will). That is too obvious. But they can easily say "you're just like zwarte piet".

Leaving this here as a side-note...;

Open letter: Rutte, talk to Kick Out Zwarte Piet about racism - DutchNews.nl

The recent, violent events surrounding anti-Zwarte Piet protesters, and the lack of a response from Mark Rutte, means it is high time the prime minister started a conversation with Kick Out Zwarte Piet, say campaigners Jerry Afriyie, Naomie Pieter, Elvin Rigters, Jessica de Abreu and Mitchell...

www.dutchnews.nl

 

[DS_Joost]

And with facilitation I mean that it can always be shoved aside as some sort of joke related to an innocent child's holiday. It is a softening blanket to what people really think. It is the exact definition of covert racism. It is a platform where racism can be openly expressed and people can get away with it with little consequences. It is a sort of catalyst for racism. Racism, like most "isms" is subtle. People in general will not easily say "you're dumb because you are black" (although some will). That is too obvious. But they can easily say "you're just like zwarte piet".

Have you, by any chance, any idea what you are talking about?

 

[Rien]

You do realize that vast majority includes all kinds of ethnicities and not just white Dutch people?

This isn't some white vs black issue.

Other ethnicities cant have racist views? Look, I am the last person who pulls the racist card for every fart but Zwarte Piet is outdated shit and needs to be changed.

So your evidence is that it offends some people therefore it's racist? Is that correct?

As for the tongue in cheek comment, you didn't explain that particular claim. That's all

As for the rest, no the majority should never be forced to change because of tiny minority. The majority can decide to change it if they want to. If they don't, tough shit for the minority in which case we're back at the previously mentioned options

You may think it sucks but it's the best thing we've got. Feel free to come up with something better, convince people it's better and change the world. Until then, majority rules

What are you on about evidence? Does common sense not count anymore? You really need a prove of why its racist to come to the conclusion that it is indeed not the most subtle thing we have showing each year?.

If you want to see prove then come to Edam-Volendam next year when Sinterklaas arrives.. look at picture when the boat comes in and tell me if its a great identify to hold on to.

As your last point.. was again a bit cynical with the majority sucks comment.

Rien you like to live in a democracy right?

Sure buddy!

 

[InterMusketeer]

It doesn't matter what the people think about Sinterklaas anyway. The tradition is slowly dying. There's hardly any Petes on TV anymore, and companies wouldn't dare use them in marketing anymore either, in fear of getting labeled racist. Shopkeepers get their windows smashed if they have traditional Petes in their store displays, so many are forced to remove them too. New songs don't feature Pete at all anymore, and old ones are being rewritten to not feature the word "black". Black Pete is slowly disappearing. It's going to end up impossible for family members to dress up as Pete to surprise the kids, because without the facepaint they'll just get recognised.

I predict that, when the tradition's almost dead, companies will try to revive it again. They'd much rather sell toys and treats twice in december, after all. Who knows what shape it'll take at that point.

Leaving this here as a side-note...;

Open letter: Rutte, talk to Kick Out Zwarte Piet about racism - DutchNews.nl

The recent, violent events surrounding anti-Zwarte Piet protesters, and the lack of a response from Mark Rutte, means it is high time the prime minister started a conversation with Kick Out Zwarte Piet, say campaigners Jerry Afriyie, Naomie Pieter, Elvin Rigters, Jessica de Abreu and Mitchell...

www.dutchnews.nl

"Recent events demonstrate yet again how important it is that we should have a discussion about institutional racism.
Kick Out Zwarte Piet (KOZP) has been organising peaceful protests since 2014 to accomplish a visible change to the Sinterklaas celebrations and to promote a public debate on racism in Dutch society."

Regardless of your opinion on Black Pete, this group shouldn't be taken seriously. It's obvious they're just using the tradition as an excuse to whine about "institutional racism" in one of the most social countries on the planet. I know racism is alive and kicking in this country (like everywhere else) but to pretend that it's institutional is a joke. They're just another ragtag group of far left intersectional extremists.

 

[Katsura]

What are you on about evidence? Does common sense not count anymore? You really need a prove of why its racist to come to the conclusion that it is indeed not the most subtle thing we have showing each year?.

'common sense' doesn't mean anything. Your common sense and mine are vastly different. Yes, i really do need evidence. That's how things work outside of twatter and reddit. You make a claim to support you wanting change, you have to provide evidence to support your claim. Saying something like 'anyone can see it's racist' is an empty statement that doesn't prove anything

If you want to see prove then come to Edam-Volendam next year when Sinterklaas arrives.. look at picture when the boat comes in and tell me if its a great identify to hold on to.

No, i'd rather have you explain why it's racist. If you can't then you don't have a leg to stand on here

As your last point.. was again a bit cynical with the majority sucks comment.

I mean, majority rules is obviously not without it's own list of flaws but it's the best we have

 

[Ascend]

Have you, by any chance, any idea what you are talking about?

Have you, by any chance, a counter argument?

 

[EightBit Man]

People complain about everything today. Can we all just agree that the majority of people are just plain miserable and bored to death? Situations like this, the alt-right, the social justice warrior phenomenon would've been unthinkable twenty years ago. What happened? Globalization, the internet, social media, the drowning of people with information 24/7. We are in other words, obsessed.

 

[Rien]

It doesn't matter what the people think about Sinterklaas anyway. The tradition is slowly dying. There's hardly any Petes on TV anymore, and companies wouldn't dare use them in marketing anymore either, in fear of getting labeled racist. Shopkeepers get their windows smashed if they have traditional Petes in their store displays, so many are forced to remove them too. New songs don't feature Pete at all anymore, and old ones are being rewritten to not feature the word "black". Black Pete is slowly disappearing. It's going to end up impossible for family members to dress up as Pete to surprise the kids, because without the facepaint they'll just get recognised.

I predict that, when the tradition's almost dead, companies will try to revive it again. They'd much rather sell toys and treats twice in december, after all. Who knows what shape it'll take at that point.

This is true. It’s kinda sad the way you write it down. But change doesnt have to be bad.

No, i'd rather have you explain why it's racist. If you can't then you don't have a leg to stand on here

Fine... I get where you coming from but I just dont get it lol. No disrespect ofc. My gf is on the same opinion you are so you can imagine how it goes. I mostly ignore these threads but I was in the waiting room for a root canal and then read this thread with a major toothache. And we’re here now lol

mean, majority rules is obviously not without it's own list of flaws but it's the best we have

True. I am happy living here besides its flaws

E EightBit Man

Good post

 

[FranXico]

If there was no Sinterklaas and no Zwarte Piet, would black people regularly be called zwarte piet in public as a derogatory term? The answer is obviously no. That does not mean that the holiday itself is racist, but that it is causing an incentive to use it in a racist manner.

You are blaming the holiday (which you yourself are admitting is not by itself racist) for being twisted and used by racists. Things do not "cause incentives to be used".
People use or misuse things. People choose to misuse things.

 

[Katsura]

This is true. It’s kinda sad the way you write it down. But change doesnt have to be bad.



Fine... I get where you coming from but I just dont get it lol. No disrespect ofc. My gf is on the same opinion you are so you can imagine how it goes. I mostly ignore these threads but I was in the waiting room for a root canal and then read this thread with a major toothache. And we’re here now lol



True. I am happy living here besides its flaws

Fair enough. I believe that progress should be organic, not forced and since the current climate has many people simply demanding change without any good arguments why, i have a tendency to jump right into these threads. That is usually a bad thing but around here most people can have actual discussions without resorting to yelling or smearing each other. That's a rare thing on the internet these days

 

[DS_Joost]

Sure buddy!

Then you must agree with me that Katsura is right here. You cannot change the rules of democracy whenevet it suits you. Majority rules, that's the basis of democracy.

It makes my eyes spin every time I see someone who likes democracy try to spin it in their way whenever they feel like it.

 

[DS_Joost]

Have you, by any chance, a counter argument?

I can give an argument if there is a statement that is actually based on reality instead of a bland statement showing that you absolutely have no idea what the context behind Sinterklaar is.

First do some research. Then we'll argue.

Edit: to clarify, your statement is a book smarts statement. You have no idea about actual context in the form of culture, political atmosphere, geological difference, sociological difference or philosophical for that matter. You cannot understand a societal problem just by reading about it on the internet.

 

[Rien]

Fair enough. I believe that progress should be organic, not forced and since the current climate has many people simply demanding change without any good arguments why, i have a tendency to jump right into these threads. That is usually a bad thing but around here most people can have actual discussions without resorting to yelling or smearing each other. That's a rare thing on the internet these days

Yes. As another poster already mentioned this thread would have been a bloodbath on another place. This was actually a good discussion tho. Didnt lead anywhere lol but still mannered in a good way. Thats not bad for the shitplace people say this is.

Then you must agree with me that Katsura is right here. You cannot change the rules of democracy whenevet it suits you. Majority rules, that's the basis of democracy.

It makes my eyes spin every time I see someone who likes democracy try to spin it in their way whenever they feel like it.

Katsura is definetly in the right about the majority rules part. I just dont agree with this specific subject.

But I was about to wrap up this discussion since we are not going to be on the same page here. Besides being on the same page in this thread.

But good discussion all together!

 

[Ascend]

You are blaming the holiday (which you yourself are admitting is not by itself racist) for being twisted and used by racists. Things do not "cause incentives to be used".
People use or misuse things. People choose to misuse things.

Can't say I agree. Sure, people choose to misuse things. But... If from the beginning, the petes were rainbow colors for example, no one would really be using the pete as a derogatory term against non-whites.

Do you think it is a coincidence, that just when the season is coming up, that someone in sports gets called names based on this holiday? I suspect that if the holiday was non-existent, these remarks would not have come up in this instance. You're free to disagree, obviously, but I'd love it if you actually tell me why you think that the same person in that same arena at that same time would still have been insulted based on his race, if the holiday was not around the corner. I'll wait.

Then you must agree with me that Katsura is right here. You cannot change the rules of democracy whenevet it suits you. Majority rules, that's the basis of democracy.

It makes my eyes spin every time I see someone who likes democracy try to spin it in their way whenever they feel like it.

Ok. I was avoiding going in this direction, but, here we go. Newsflash. Democracy sucks. Yes, that's right. Independent of whether you believe it is the best thing we have or not, it still sucks. Why? Because it cannot work. Why?

Let me give you an example. Imagine you are going on an airplane and the passengers have to elect the pilot. There are two candidates.
1) The first one says that if you vote for him, he'll fly according to aviation laws and do his best for everyone to arrive safely at the destination.
2) The second candidate says that everyone who votes for him will sit in business class, and provide one additional free ticket for the one's that cannot fit in business class.

Who do you think most people will vote for? The second one. Obvious, right? The first one is completely boring and the second one sounds like a much better deal.
The problem is, the second one never told you that he's never flown a plane. You will ultimately crash, thus failing to enjoy business class and failing to use that second free ticket. And even if you voted for the other guy, you're still on that plane and will crash with everyone.

That is democracy in a nutshell. And that is why democracy will never work, nor will it arrive at good, let alone best results. It all crashes in the end. Not only do people not know how to vote, they are not provided with the necessary information to vote properly. The one that advertises better wins, independent of capabilities. That is without taking into account the obvious issue that the promises made during campaigns are easily broken without any repercussions. And all that is also without taking into account the different layers of voting that basically nullify your vote anyway.

I can give an argument if there is a statement that is actually based on reality instead of a bland statement showing that you absolutely have no idea what the context behind Sinterklaar is.

First do some research. Then we'll argue.

Edit: to clarify, your statement is a book smarts statement. You have no idea about actual context in the form of culture, political atmosphere, geological difference, sociological difference or philosophical for that matter. You cannot understand a societal problem just by reading about it on the internet.

Thank you for unknowingly proving my point. The above translates to "I know better than you, so shut up", obviously, written in a more socially acceptable manner. The arrogance and scorn is appalling.

You have zero knowledge of my background or what I do or do not know. If you actually went back in the thread, I'm probably the one that posted the most resources in here regarding the subject.

Secondly, I avoid making things personal like the plague. I already said I'm partially Dutch, and I also proved that I understand Dutch perfectly, which is more than I already wanted to divulge. Let's just say that I'm a lot closer to the issue than you think. But it's really convenient to pretend you know more than someone else to outright dismiss their views, isn't it?

Here's some practical advice for you;

 

[Katsura]

Can't say I agree. Sure, people choose to misuse things. But... If from the beginning, the petes were rainbow colors for example, no one would really be using the pete as a derogatory term against non-whites.

That's demonstrably false though. Look at the ok sign. 4chan started a campaign of misinformation, claiming it was used by white supremacists. Suddenly, the ok emote is banned from large website chats, people are banned from stadiums for making the sign etc.

You don't get rid of things because a few bad people use them for something bad. If you follow through with that logic, you have to ban cars as well. People use them for terrorist attacks not to mention drunk driving or speeding which results in crashes. You cannot stop bad people from doing bad things. The only thing you accomplish is making everything worse for all the good people. Racists will be racist no matter what. The only reasonable thing you can do is combat it with information and logic

Ok. I was avoiding going in this direction, but, here we go. Newsflash. Democracy sucks. Yes, that's right. Independent of whether you believe it is the best thing we have or not, it still sucks. Why? Because it cannot work. Why?

Let me give you an example. Imagine you are going on an airplane and the passengers have to elect the pilot. There are two candidates.
1) The first one says that if you vote for him, he'll fly according to aviation laws and do his best for everyone to arrive safely at the destination.
2) The second candidate says that everyone who votes for him will sit in business class, and provide one additional free ticket for the one's that cannot fit in business class.

Who do you think most people will vote for? The second one. Obvious, right? The first one is completely boring and the second one sounds like a much better deal.
The problem is, the second one never told you that he's never flown a plane. You will ultimately crash, thus failing to enjoy business class and failing to use that second free ticket. And even if you voted for the other guy, you're still on that plane and will crash with everyone.

That is democracy in a nutshell. And that is why democracy will never work, nor will it arrive at good, let alone best results. It all crashes in the end. Not only do people not know how to vote, they are not provided with the necessary information to vote properly. The one that advertises better wins, independent of capabilities. That is without taking into account the obvious issue that the promises made during campaigns are easily broken without any repercussions. And all that is also without taking into account the different layers of voting that basically nullify your vote anyway.

This example is just so flawed so i'll just say this - direct democracy is not used in any country to my knowledge, for a good reason. Most countries have some variation of representative democracy. Also, what's your alternative to democracy?

 

[InterMusketeer]

Can't say I agree. Sure, people choose to misuse things. But... If from the beginning, the petes were rainbow colors for example, no one would really be using the pete as a derogatory term against non-whites.

No, they'd be calling them "monkeys" or "apes" and making jungle noises. Y'know, the way racists do all the time throughout Europe during soccer matches.

This really is a flawed argument. You think people with big ears wouldn't be made fun of if Dumbo didn't exist? You think short people wouldn't be made fun of if the Smurfs and Frodo didn't exist? You think people with big noses wouldn't be made fun of if Pinocchio or Rudolph didn't exist? Should all those characters be outlawed or changed because people could potentially bully people? Should we genocide all monkeys and apes so racists can't equate them to black soccer players?

Doesn't matter what country or season it is. Doesn't matter if a tradition or character is altered. Racists will find a way to yell racial slurs at black people anyway. Better to focus on the problem at hand, rather than getting sidetracked by things that ultimately don't really matter. The traditional Black Pete is not turning people racist, in the same way Dumbo isn't causing irrational hatred of big ears in people.

 

[Ascend]

That's demonstrably false though. Look at the ok sign. 4chan started a campaign of misinformation, claiming it was used by white supremacists. Suddenly, the ok emote is banned from large website chats, people are banned from stadiums for making the sign etc.

You don't get rid of things because a few bad people use them for something bad. If you follow through with that logic, you have to ban cars as well. People use them for terrorist attacks not to mention drunk driving or speeding which results in crashes. You cannot stop bad people from doing bad things. The only thing you accomplish is making everything worse for all the good people. Racists will be racist no matter what. The only reasonable thing you can do is combat it with information and logic

There's quite a big difference between false information causing censorship like the ok sign with 4chan and what we're talking about. To my knowledge, the ok sign did not create real victims of white supremacy. Correct me if I'm wrong. Zwarte piet obviously did create real victims of racism.

Let me ask you this. Based on the idea that you don't get rid of things because a few bad people use them for something bad, are you for or against everyone being allowed to own a gun and walk around with it in public?

This example is just so flawed so i'll just say this - direct democracy is not used in any country to my knowledge, for a good reason. Most countries have some variation of representative democracy. Also, what's your alternative to democracy?

How is my example direct democracy rather than representative democracy? The voting was about who flies the plane, not about how to fly the plane.

Also, technically, I don't agree that an alternative to democracy must be provided to acknowledge that democracy has flaws. It's just like saying "but who will pick the cotton" when someone argues for abolishing slavery. The important part is recognizing how slavery is wrong and that it needs to be abolished. We'll figure out later what alternative we come up with to pick the cotton. And the same applies to democracy.

That being said, I am for a form or derivation of epistocracy, where basically only the knowledgeable are allowed to vote for certain things. Now that sounds like a dictatorship, but, it isn't. Let me elaborate.

I think it was already quite clear that I'm not that keen on representative democracy, because, the elected ones have no obligation to keep their promises and receive no repercussions when they fail to do so. And the more levels there are, the less power the people have.
The next best thing is the same concept as a referendum. That method is a form of direct democracy on one specific subject. But as I already explained, people don't know to vote due to personal emotional convenience and lack of information.

So what's the solution? People vote in the area they are knowledgeable in. A short version would be that certain tests are required to be given a license to vote on a specific subject. This means, no more voting for a person, or for a whole party or whatever.
The voting will be segmented in different aspects like, health, economy, education, etc. There is a test in place to assess the knowledge of the individual. The test includes all segments, but will tell you at the end that you will only be allowed to vote on the segments you passed. So for example if I pass Education and Health, but fail economy, I cannot vote on what direction we will take to improve the economy. If you passed Education and Economy, you will not be allowed to vote on health. But both of us can vote on the subject of education. Everyone needs to re-take the test every set amount of time to confirm they are keeping up. Each segment has a specific list of subjects that need to be tackled. The ones that passed will vote on the subjects to determine priority, and the course of action to solve the problem. This eliminates the vote of the incompetent in that particular subject. The problems of the general public need to be recorded. So there are regular surveys that every citizen can fill in without doing any test. These will then be divided into the appropriate segments for the qualified to work on.

It is possible to take advantage of the system, so checks and balances are required. Obviously doctors will know more about health than everyone, so that group will probably consist of mostly doctors, but they have to be screened to not take advantage of their knowledge for themselves at the cost of everyone else. Points of conflict of interest must be identified, and those specific people are not allowed to vote on those.
The different segments must also coordinate with each other, considering there are multiple overlapping subjects. But that's getting too complex already.

Technology has advanced quite a bit, and this enables the method above, among many other possibilties. We couldn't have done this in the past. Our political system is outdated and needs to move with the times. Otherwise it will never work.

 

[Katsura]

There's quite a big difference between false information causing censorship like the ok sign with 4chan and what we're talking about. To my knowledge, the ok sign did not create real victims of white supremacy. Correct me if I'm wrong. Zwarte piet obviously did create real victims of racism.

By real victims, you mean hurt feelings?
I'm pretty sure the guy who get a lifetime ban from the stadium of the club he supports feels like a victim

Let me ask you this. Based on the idea that you don't get rid of things because a few bad people use them for something bad, are you for or against everyone being allowed to own a gun and walk around with it in public?

Irrelevant. You're arguing that we should change something because some people use it for racism, despite the thing itself not being racist. Following through with that logic, cars should be banned since they are used for terrorist attacks. Do you want to get rid of cars? And bats? And racquets? And tools? etc. See the problem yet? You cannot ban everything that can be misused for something bad

How is my example direct democracy rather than representative democracy? The voting was about who flies the plane, not about how to fly the plane.

What? That doesn't make sense. You cannot vote on how to fly. A direct democracy is where you vote on every single issue, in this case who will fly the plain. In a representative democracy, you vote for a party which will then appoint people to represent the voters in each case. You do not vote directly on every issue

Also, technically, I don't agree that an alternative to democracy must be provided to acknowledge that democracy has flaws. It's just like saying "but who will pick the cotton" when someone argues for abolishing slavery. The important part is recognizing how slavery is wrong and that it needs to be abolished. We'll figure out later what alternative we come up with to pick the cotton. And the same applies to democracy.

So you want to abolish democracy without having a solution in place? What could possibly go wrong with that

That being said, I am for a form or derivation of epistocracy, where basically only the knowledgeable are allowed to vote for certain things. Now that sounds like a dictatorship, but, it isn't. Let me elaborate.

I think it was already quite clear that I'm not that keen on representative democracy, because, the elected ones have no obligation to keep their promises and receive no repercussions when they fail to do so. And the more levels there are, the less power the people have.
The next best thing is the same concept as a referendum. That method is a form of direct democracy on one specific subject. But as I already explained, people don't know to vote due to personal emotional convenience and lack of information.

So what's the solution? People vote in the area they are knowledgeable in. A short version would be that certain tests are required to be given a license to vote on a specific subject. This means, no more voting for a person, or for a whole party or whatever.
The voting will be segmented in different aspects like, health, economy, education, etc. There is a test in place to assess the knowledge of the individual. The test includes all segments, but will tell you at the end that you will only be allowed to vote on the segments you passed. So for example if I pass Education and Health, but fail economy, I cannot vote on what direction we will take to improve the economy. If you passed Education and Economy, you will not be allowed to vote on health. But both of us can vote on the subject of education. Everyone needs to re-take the test every set amount of time to confirm they are keeping up. Each segment has a specific list of subjects that need to be tackled. The ones that passed will vote on the subjects to determine priority, and the course of action to solve the problem. This eliminates the vote of the incompetent in that particular subject. The problems of the general public need to be recorded. So there are regular surveys that every citizen can fill in without doing any test. These will then be divided into the appropriate segments for the qualified to work on.

It is possible to take advantage of the system, so checks and balances are required. Obviously doctors will know more about health than everyone, so that group will probably consist of mostly doctors, but they have to be screened to not take advantage of their knowledge for themselves at the cost of everyone else. Points of conflict of interest must be identified, and those specific people are not allowed to vote on those.
The different segments must also coordinate with each other, considering there are multiple overlapping subjects. But that's getting too complex already.

Technology has advanced quite a bit, and this enables the method above, among many other possibilties. We couldn't have done this in the past. Our political system is outdated and needs to move with the times. Otherwise it will never work.

Who makes the test? How do we decide who are in charge of that? What if it's a field where experts are divided? Who will decide which experts to listen to? Who monitors the experts to make sure they're abusing the system? Who will be responsible for removing experts who did something wrong? How do we decide? I could go on and on finding flaws in that scenario and it is absolutely not a viable alternative to democracy

 

[Ascend]

No, they'd be calling them "monkeys" or "apes" and making jungle noises. Y'know, the way racists do all the time throughout Europe during soccer matches.

Can't disagree here.

This really is a flawed argument. You think people with big ears wouldn't be made fun of if Dumbo didn't exist? You think short people wouldn't be made fun of if the Smurfs and Frodo didn't exist? You think people with big noses wouldn't be made fun of if Pinocchio or Rudolph didn't exist?

No one ever said they wouldn't. I always argued that there is a group of people that would go the extra mile to do things out of line. You flipped the question. The real question is whether more people do it because those characters exist. It's quite convenient though, that you quoted specifically that part, and not this part of my question;

Do you think it is a coincidence, that just when the season is coming up, that someone in sports gets called names based on this holiday? I suspect that if the holiday was non-existent, these remarks would not have come up in this instance. You're free to disagree, obviously, but I'd love it if you actually tell me why you think that the same person in that same arena at that same time would still have been insulted based on his race, if the holiday was not around the corner. I'll wait.

You did nothing to address that question.

Should all those characters be outlawed or changed because people could potentially bully people? Should we genocide all monkeys and apes so racists can't equate them to black soccer players?

Probably not.
But then again....
No country enslaved people with big ears and have a holiday where people dressing up as stupid elephants with big ears represent freed slaves.
No country enslaved short people and have a holiday where everyone dresses up like dumb Smurfs to represent the freed short people.
No country enslaved people with big noses and have a holiday where everyone dresses like a retarded Pinocchio to represent the freed big nose people.
The Netherlands has a past of enslaving black people, and has a holiday where everyone dresses as clownish black people to represent freed slaves.

Doesn't matter what country or season it is. Doesn't matter if a tradition or character is altered. Racists will find a way to yell racial slurs at black people anyway. Better to focus on the problem at hand, rather than getting sidetracked by things that ultimately don't really matter. The traditional Black Pete is not turning people racist, in the same way Dumbo isn't causing irrational hatred of big ears in people.

That racists will find a way does not mean that certain things shouldn't be avoided. Since thieves will find a way to steal, that doesn't mean you should simply leave your door and windows open.

By real victims, you mean hurt feelings?
I'm pretty sure the guy who get a lifetime ban from the stadium of the club he supports feels like a victim

Do you think the soccer player was a victim or not?

Irrelevant. You're arguing that we should change something because some people use it for racism, despite the thing itself not being racist. Following through with that logic, cars should be banned since they are used for terrorist attacks. Do you want to get rid of cars? And bats? And racquets? And tools? etc. See the problem yet? You cannot ban everything that can be misused for something bad

Actually no, it's not irrelevant, and you didn't answer the question. Guns don't kill people. People kill people, and they can use guns, or knives, or cars, or a simple push in the right location. Since they can use all those other tools, does that mean that guns should be allowed in public too?

What? That doesn't make sense. You cannot vote on how to fly. A direct democracy is where you vote on every single issue, in this case who will fly the plain. In a representative democracy, you vote for a party which will then appoint people to represent the voters in each case. You do not vote directly on every issue

Fine. Change the two people to a flight crew. Two parties. And the party within themselves will vote for the pilot. Same thing.

So you want to abolish democracy without having a solution in place? What could possibly go wrong with that

We want to abolish slavery without knowing who will pick the cotton? What could possibly go wrong with that...?

Who makes the test? How do we decide who are in charge of that? What if it's a field where experts are divided? Who will decide which experts to listen to? Who monitors the experts to make sure they're abusing the system? Who will be responsible for removing experts who did something wrong? How do we decide? I could go on and on finding flaws in that scenario and it is absolutely not a viable alternative to democracy

Oh come on. I expected better from you. I can do the same thing to the current system.

Who counts the votes? How do we decide who is in charge of that?
What if two parties are in a coalition that have opposite views? Who will decide which party to listen to?
Who monitors the ministers to make sure they're not abusing the system? Who will be responsible for removing politicians that did something wrong? How do we decide?

In fact, I have a few more for democracy;
What if the majority votes wrongly and the bad people get in power?
What if people stop voting?
What if the politician gets bought out by institutions that have more money than the government?
What if there is party that I agree with?
Why would any party take blank votes seriously?
How do we reverse something we did not want?
How can we hold politicians accountable for their campaign?
How can anything be achieved if the whole government changes every X years?

Etc. Etc. Etc. That there are questions does not mean something doesn't work.

 

[Katsura]

Do you think the soccer player was a victim or not?

What soccer player? I have no idea what you're talking about. Why are you evading my questions?

Actually no, it's not irrelevant, and you didn't answer the question. Guns don't kill people. People kill people, and they can use guns, or knives, or cars, or a simple push in the right location. Since they can use all those other tools, does that mean that guns should be allowed in public too?

Yes, it should. Now answer my question about banning cars

Fine. Change the two people to a flight crew. Two parties. And the party within themselves will vote for the pilot. Same thing.

The goal posts are moving so fast i can't even

We want to abolish slavery without knowing who will pick the cotton? What could possibly go wrong with that...?

False analogy and you really should know that. A country lacking cotton vs a country lacking any sort of leadership and government

Oh come on. I expected better from you. I can do the same thing to the current system.

The difference being your questions do not expose a fundamental flaw in the system but rather issues that have to be handled by it

Who counts the votes? How do we decide who is in charge of that?

In my country, volunteers do that but you could also simply have every party running in an area supplying members to balance things out. By the way, we haven't had any case of voter fraud that i'm aware of in modern times here

What if two parties are in a coalition that have opposite views? Who will decide which party to listen to?

That makes no sense

Who monitors the ministers to make sure they're not abusing the system? Who will be responsible for removing politicians that did something wrong? How do we decide?

Parliament does. Should be obvious

In fact, I have a few more for democracy;
What if the majority votes wrongly and the bad people get in power?

Ooops that's quite the authoritarian slip there. There is no such thing as voting wrong. What the fuck?

What if people stop voting?

Then they are using their right not to vote. Can you name a single democracy where everybody stopped voting?

What if the politician gets bought out by institutions that have more money than the government?

Then they have committed a crime. How is that a flaw in democracy?

What if there is party that I agree with?

I assume you mean 'isn't' in which case you just have to accept you're in such a small minority that no one agrees with you. Either deal with it or move

Why would any party take blank votes seriously?

Not sure what you mean here but in my country a blank vote is mostly used to send a signal that you're unhappy with the options available

How do we reverse something we did not want?

By changing the laws?

How can we hold politicians accountable for their campaign?

By voting for someone else if the person you voted for lied

How can anything be achieved if the whole government changes every X years?

The same way it has for centuries

Etc. Etc. Etc. That there are questions does not mean something doesn't work.

Those questions aren't remotely comparable to mine though

 

[Cobenzl]

Thanks, first post that actually explains the situation and mentality behind it. It’s way overblown of course but that’s the world we’re living in at the moment.

Great explanation on European culture! I’m Scottish and worked in Vienna for a couple of years. Every morning I’d walk into the office and proclaim “Good Morning”, loudly, in English, whilst simulataneously raising my left arm in a Nazi* salute...guys loved it, no-one was offended, no dramas...

*Nazi’s used their right arm.

 

[Ascend]

What soccer player? I have no idea what you're talking about. Why are you evading my questions?

Ahmad Mendes Moreira

I didn't avoid your question. You asked whether by real victims I meant hurt feelings. I asked whether you think that the person named above was a victim or not in that recent incident. If you don't know what happened, look it up. It is a requirement before I can answer your question, or rather, to know if it's worth answering at all, because technically, nothing physical happened. Not that that somehow makes this incident ok.

Yes, it should. Now answer my question about banning cars

Ok. Fair enough. No, I'm not for banning cars because some people kill others with it.
Then again, there is no history of a whole country running people from other countries over with cars, and celebrating the end of this with people dressing up like flat humans that were ran over by cars.

The goal posts are moving so fast i can't even

There was no movement in goal posts. The same principles apply and always applied. Whether voting for a person or a party, for the most part the same issues are there.

False analogy and you really should know that. A country lacking cotton vs a country lacking any sort of leadership and government

In your country the government never fell and it was never a few months without a government?

The difference being your questions do not expose a fundamental flaw in the system but rather issues that have to be handled by it

No... Most of the issues cannot be handled by it.

In my country, volunteers do that but you could also simply have every party running in an area supplying members to balance things out. By the way, we haven't had any case of voter fraud that i'm aware of in modern times here

Then why would this be an issue in the system I was proposing?

That makes no sense

Then why does yours make any sense?

Parliament does. Should be obvious

Right. And what if the majority in parliament is of the same party as the one in government? I can keep asking, but, it's not as if you're going to get the point anyway...

Ooops that's quite the authoritarian slip there. There is no such thing as voting wrong. What the fuck?

Uh... If you vote for a party that turned the country to shit, what else can it be called other than a wrong vote?

Then they are using their right not to vote. Can you name a single democracy where everybody stopped voting?

Actually there were multiple, where they then implemented mandatory voting. You can't name a single country that implemented the system I described, so then, how can you say that it wouldn't work? See how that works?

Then they have committed a crime. How is that a flaw in democracy?

Then why your question on how to monitor if someone is abusing the system? That would obviously be illegal also.

Skipping a few here...

Those questions aren't remotely comparable to mine though

 

[Katsura]

Ahmad Mendes Moreira

I didn't avoid your question. You asked whether by real victims I meant hurt feelings. I asked whether you think that the person named above was a victim or not in that recent incident. If you don't know what happened, look it up. It is a requirement before I can answer your question, or rather, to know if it's worth answering at all, because technically, nothing physical happened. Not that that somehow makes this incident ok.


Ok. Fair enough. No, I'm not for banning cars because some people kill others with it.
Then again, there is no history of a whole country running people from other countries over with cars, and celebrating the end of this with people dressing up like flat humans that were ran over by cars.


There was no movement in goal posts. The same principles apply and always applied. Whether voting for a person or a party, for the most part the same issues are there.


In your country the government never fell and it was never a few months without a government?


No... Most of the issues cannot be handled by it.


Then why would this be an issue in the system I was proposing?


Then why does yours make any sense?


Right. And what if the majority in parliament is of the same party as the one in government? I can keep asking, but, it's not as if you're going to get the point anyway...


Uh... If you vote for a party that turned the country to shit, what else can it be called other than a wrong vote?


Actually there were multiple, where they then implemented mandatory voting. You can't name a single country that implemented the system I described, so then, how can you say that it wouldn't work? See how that works?


Then why your question on how to monitor if someone is abusing the system? That would obviously be illegal also.

Skipping a few here...

Twatter gifs? Really? Listen, you're flailing left and right with fallacies and now you're resorting to twatter idiocy. You're making a fool of yourself and i'm starting to doubt you're capable of an intelligent debate. Not to mention you keep avoiding questions, set up strange requirements in order to answer them etc. I get it, you're getting desperate because you're losing but stop stooping so low or we're done

Now, you're basically just stated that killing people with cars is not as bad as hurting someone's feelings. Think really hard about that. That's an insane position and something i'd expect from REEEE. You want to stop this tradition because feelings were hurt yet you're ok with allowing cars despite them killing people. There isn't even consistency in your flawed logic. It seems like you're making it up as you go

All of this because you cannot properly account for why we should change a long standing tradition. It boils down to feelings. That's it. You want to force a change because a tiny minority are offended for no good reason and because someone can use it for racism. You know what else racists do? Drink water. We should ban water

 

[alienator]

Leaving this here as a side-note...;

Open letter: Rutte, talk to Kick Out Zwarte Piet about racism - DutchNews.nl

The recent, violent events surrounding anti-Zwarte Piet protesters, and the lack of a response from Mark Rutte, means it is high time the prime minister started a conversation with Kick Out Zwarte Piet, say campaigners Jerry Afriyie, Naomie Pieter, Elvin Rigters, Jessica de Abreu and Mitchell...

www.dutchnews.nl

Jerry Afriyie

The "leader" of Kick Out Zwarte Piet.

is openly against homos and lesbians and writes about it
organises black-only dating evenings for men
believes in seperation of man and woman and doesnt considder them equally
Attacked a cop in 2014 during his first kick-out zwarte piet demonstration and has been convicted for that.

just my side-note.

 

[FranXico]

Zwarte piet obviously did create real victims of racism.

No. RACISTS create victims of racism. Not zwarte Piet, nor Sinterklaas, nor Snow White, or what have you. Racists hurt people, not legendary characters.

 

[Psykodad]

Great explanation on European culture! I’m Scottish and worked in Vienna for a couple of years. Every morning I’d walk into the office and proclaim “Good Morning”, loudly, in English, whilst simulataneously raising my left arm in a Nazi* salute...guys loved it, no-one was offended, no dramas...

*Nazi’s used their right arm.

When I was a teen, I once walked right in front of a police car to make em stop and raised my right arm while yelling "black power" as I walked past the passenger side looking the cop straight in his eyes.

He was just looking at me mad. Lol

 

[Ascend]

Not to mention you keep avoiding questions, set up strange requirements in order to answer them etc.

I did not avoid anything. The requirement is not strange. It might be strange to you because you don't know where I'm going with it, nor are you interested in it. But I guess your lack of empathy for Mendes Moreira kind of says it all. You really think that as long as someone is not physically hurt, it's not racism? I guess someone not landing a job because of skin color is not racism...

I get it, you're getting desperate because you're losing but stop stooping so low or we're done

Good to know that your main reason for debating is winning aka ego boosting rather than increasing your knowledge, or actually making others understand things. I have the same advise for you that I posted for someone else earlier;



When your goal is 'winning', you're willing to be as dishonest and foul as possible, just to be right, and, I am not into that game. If you want to keep playing that, do it with someone else.

Now, you're basically just stated that killing people with cars is not as bad as hurting someone's feelings.

I said no such thing. It is not even implied. I have no idea where you got that nonsense from. Oh. Let me guess. You said that because I said cars shouldn't be banned even though people use it for killing, while zwarte pete should be banned (which I obviously did not say if you actually read and understand my points) because of racism.

Even though that whole premise of yours is wrong as already shown, all I can say is, just because shooting someone is worse than punching someone, it doesn't mean that punching someone should be allowed. In other words, two wrongs don't make a right.

You want to stop this tradition because feelings were hurt yet you're ok with allowing cars despite them killing people.

Where did I say I want to stop it? Go ahead, quote it.

I'm just as much against using cars to kill people as I am against using zwarte piet for racism. The difference is, a car is something that is used daily as a necessity for transportation. Zwarte piet is an eventful happening once a year that is actually not a necessity. It is literally a nice-to-have. So technically, comparing cars to zwarte piet is a false equivalency. You're silently equating the utility of the car to the utility of zwarte piet, and because it's atrocious to get away with something that is of high utility like a car because of a small percentage of killings, you argue it is atrocious to get away with something that is of low utility, like Zwarte piet because of people being hurt by it.

Honestly, after this thread, I'm really starting to think that if it the strong supporters weren't racist, there wouldn't be so much resistant to changing it. But whatever.

Not that you will ever admit that, because, you are focused on 'winning'.

There isn't even consistency in your flawed logic. It seems like you're making it up as you go

And you put words in people's mouth so that you have an argument.

All of this because you cannot properly account for why we should change a long standing tradition.

And yet "tradition" is the most shallow excuse to uphold something. What is the reason to uphold this tradition specifically? That is not a loaded question by the way. Read it as is by itself. I say that, before you start using that questions as somehow being an indication that I want to end it.

It boils down to feelings. That's it. You want to force a change because a tiny minority are offended for no good reason and because someone can use it for racism.

And here we go again.... I ask you again, because you still did not answer. Do you think Mendes Moreira was a victim of racism, yes or no?

You know what else racists do? Drink water. We should ban water

That's nonsense and doesn't even come close to my arguments. The amount of straw man arguments in your posts is quite telling.

No. RACISTS create victims of racism. Not zwarte Piet, nor Sinterklaas, nor Snow White, or what have you. Racists hurt people, not legendary characters.

Fine. I worded it poorly. But I guess that if I say that it facilitates it, we're back again at the same point that was already discussed. And you STILL have not answered what I asked you;

Do you think it is a coincidence, that just when the season is coming up, that someone in sports gets called names based on this holiday? I suspect that if the holiday was non-existent, these remarks would not have come up in this instance. You're free to disagree, obviously, but I'd love it if you actually tell me why you think that the same person in that same arena at that same time would still have been insulted based on his race, if the holiday was not around the corner. I'll wait.

Still waiting.

 

[InterMusketeer]

Do you think it is a coincidence, that just when the season is coming up, that someone in sports gets called names based on this holiday? I suspect that if the holiday was non-existent, these remarks would not have come up in this instance. You're free to disagree, obviously, but I'd love it if you actually tell me why you think that the same person in that same arena at that same time would still have been insulted based on his race, if the holiday was not around the corner. I'll wait.

It's obviously no coincidence in this particular case. There was an anti-Black Pete protest that took place in the city before the match, which these hooligans tried to disrupt. This heated situation gave them the excuse to continue their embarrassing behavior after they went to see the soccer match. The cause wasn't the mere existence of the holiday though, which is what you're arguing. Most people are perfectly capable of celebrating without insulting others. It's not like this happens all the time during the holiday season. For this one example of racism you have, I could point to the hundreds if not thousands of matches that have happened over the years druing the holiday season, that were finished without incident. In addition, we've already talked about the jungle noises racists keep making during soccer matches all across Europe, whenever they feel like. Racist behavior doesn't happen specifically because of Sinterklaas.

 

[Katsura]

I did not avoid anything. The requirement is not strange. It might be strange to you because you don't know where I'm going with it, nor are you interested in it. But I guess your lack of empathy for Mendes Moreira kind of says it all. You really think that as long as someone is not physically hurt, it's not racism? I guess someone not landing a job because of skin color is not racism...

I still have no idea who Mendes is nor do i particularly care. Describe what the issue is and how it's relevant and i will tell you what i think about what ever happened to him. Also, talk about putting words in someones mouth? The irony here is almost too much. I didn't say someone has to be hurt physically in order for it to qualify as racism. I said it's hurt feelings. Feelings can get hurt because of racism. If you're going to accuse me of putting words in your mouth perhaps you should take a look at what you're doing. Oh and someone getting offended is not comparable to someone being discriminated against like with not landing a job. Some might even call that a false equivalency

Good to know that your main reason for debating is winning aka ego boosting rather than increasing your knowledge, or actually making others understand things. I have the same advise for you that I posted for someone else earlier;


When your goal is 'winning', you're willing to be as dishonest and foul as possible, just to be right, and, I am not into that game. If you want to keep playing that, do it with someone else.

It's not my goal. It's just a side effect of you not being intellectually honest which results in you feeling pressure and thus lash out with things like twatter gifs and labels. Also, i would be able learn much about your stance if you didn't constantly post counter questions instead of answering mine. Still not watching your youtube videos by the way

I said no such thing. It is not even implied. I have no idea where you got that nonsense from. Oh. Let me guess. You said that because I said cars shouldn't be banned even though people use it for killing, while zwarte pete should be banned (which I obviously did not say if you actually read and understand my points) because of racism.

Asked and answered within the same paragraph

Even though that whole premise of yours is wrong as already shown, all I can say is, just because shooting someone is worse than punching someone, it doesn't mean that punching someone should be allowed. In other words, two wrongs don't make a right.

True but stopping murders should be a higher priority than stopping fist fights

Where did I say I want to stop it? Go ahead, quote it.

What do you actually want then?

I'm just as much against using cars to kill people as I am against using zwarte piet for racism. The difference is, a car is something that is used daily as a necessity for transportation.

It sure doesn't seem you are but assuming that's true, it's a matter of convenience then?

Zwarte piet is an eventful happening once a year that is actually not a necessity. It is literally a nice-to-have. So technically, comparing cars to zwarte piet is a false equivalency. You're silently equating the utility of the car to the utility of zwarte piet, and because it's atrocious to get away with something that is of high utility like a car because of a small percentage of killings, you argue it is atrocious to get away with something that is of low utility, like Zwarte piet because of people being hurt by it.

No, i'm simply following through using your own logic. You want it changed because 'it facilitates racism'. Cars facilitate terrorism just as much. Again, if it seems illogical that's because it is. Which has been my point all along

Honestly, after this thread, I'm really starting to think that if it the strong supporters weren't racist, there wouldn't be so much resistant to changing it. But whatever.

Oh we've reached that point now? If you disagree with my flawed logic you're a racist?

Not that you will ever admit that, because, you are focused on 'winning'.

Your flawed logic is not the yard stick by which we determine whether someone is racist or not

And you put words in people's mouth so that you have an argument.

See above. Savour the irony

And yet "tradition" is the most shallow excuse to uphold something. What is the reason to uphold this tradition specifically? That is not a loaded question by the way. Read it as is by itself. I say that, before you start using that questions as somehow being an indication that I want to end it.

Tradition is part of culture which is part of identity. It's very important and should not be changed every time a vocal minority screeches

And here we go again.... I ask you again, because you still did not answer. Do you think Mendes Moreira was a victim of racism, yes or no?

See above

That's nonsense and doesn't even come close to my arguments. The amount of straw man arguments in your posts is quite telling.

Not a straw man, it's using your own logic

Fine. I worded it poorly. But I guess that if I say that it facilitates it, we're back again at the same point that was already discussed. And you STILL have not answered what I asked you;

As much as cars facilitate terrorism

 

[DS_Joost]

I did not avoid anything. The requirement is not strange. It might be strange to you because you don't know where I'm going with it, nor are you interested in it. But I guess your lack of empathy for Mendes Moreira kind of says it all. You really think that as long as someone is not physically hurt, it's not racism? I guess someone not landing a job because of skin color is not racism...


Good to know that your main reason for debating is winning aka ego boosting rather than increasing your knowledge, or actually making others understand things. I have the same advise for you that I posted for someone else earlier;



When your goal is 'winning', you're willing to be as dishonest and foul as possible, just to be right, and, I am not into that game. If you want to keep playing that, do it with someone else.


I said no such thing. It is not even implied. I have no idea where you got that nonsense from. Oh. Let me guess. You said that because I said cars shouldn't be banned even though people use it for killing, while zwarte pete should be banned (which I obviously did not say if you actually read and understand my points) because of racism.

Even though that whole premise of yours is wrong as already shown, all I can say is, just because shooting someone is worse than punching someone, it doesn't mean that punching someone should be allowed. In other words, two wrongs don't make a right.


Where did I say I want to stop it? Go ahead, quote it.

I'm just as much against using cars to kill people as I am against using zwarte piet for racism. The difference is, a car is something that is used daily as a necessity for transportation. Zwarte piet is an eventful happening once a year that is actually not a necessity. It is literally a nice-to-have. So technically, comparing cars to zwarte piet is a false equivalency. You're silently equating the utility of the car to the utility of zwarte piet, and because it's atrocious to get away with something that is of high utility like a car because of a small percentage of killings, you argue it is atrocious to get away with something that is of low utility, like Zwarte piet because of people being hurt by it.

Honestly, after this thread, I'm really starting to think that if it the strong supporters weren't racist, there wouldn't be so much resistant to changing it. But whatever.

Not that you will ever admit that, because, you are focused on 'winning'.


And you put words in people's mouth so that you have an argument.


And yet "tradition" is the most shallow excuse to uphold something. What is the reason to uphold this tradition specifically? That is not a loaded question by the way. Read it as is by itself. I say that, before you start using that questions as somehow being an indication that I want to end it.


And here we go again.... I ask you again, because you still did not answer. Do you think Mendes Moreira was a victim of racism, yes or no?


That's nonsense and doesn't even come close to my arguments. The amount of straw man arguments in your posts is quite telling.


Fine. I worded it poorly. But I guess that if I say that it facilitates it, we're back again at the same point that was already discussed. And you STILL have not answered what I asked you;


Still waiting.

Ascend, give it up. You are making a fool of yourself. You make clear with every answer that someone like Katsura is way out of your league intellectually. That person is running circles around you left right and center. You haven't got the ability to debate on this level, and it hurts to see you try, sorry.

Edit: your comment about people using Zwarte Piet for racism proves my earlier comment right. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The whole reason for the existence of the debate is because people aren't using Zwarte Piet for racism. It's not intentional. It's not an outlet for hidden feelings. It's not some case of hidden white pride or something. If that was the case, this whole social debate wouldn't have existed. Get it?

 

[VanEs]

Do you think it is a coincidence, that just when the season is coming up, that someone in sports gets called names based on this holiday? I suspect that if the holiday was non-existent, these remarks would not have come up in this instance. You're free to disagree, obviously, but I'd love it if you actually tell me why you think that the same person in that same arena at that same time would still have been insulted based on his race, if the holiday was not around the corner. I'll wait.

In 2013, when they racially abused Jozy Altidore, they used the jungle/ape noises. This was in January or February so they don't need to (ab)use the Sinterklaas festivities to hurt people, they'll find something to hurt people anyway. Also the (white) assistant referee was bombarded with ice balls because that's how hooligan imbeciles operate. It's a tribal mentality that uses everything and anything if they think it can upset their perceived enemies.

Jerry Afriyie

The "leader" of Kick Out Zwarte Piet.

is openly against homos and lesbians and writes about it
organises black-only dating evenings for men
believes in seperation of man and woman and doesnt considder them equally
Attacked a cop in 2014 during his first kick-out zwarte piet demonstration and has been convicted for that.

just my side-note.

Kick Out Zwarte Piet also wrote an instruction letter to their white followers to basically fuck off into the background whenever a camera crew was nearby, because the black KOZP'ers are the victims so the whiteys basically got Rosa Parks'd. Had a little heart and wink smiley at the end because you need to fluff that racism up a bit. The white followers didn't dare protest this nonsense because of course they don't; they have backbones made out of wet noodles.

And let's not forget upstanding citizen Mitchell Esajas who hopes this black power lone wolf, who loves fighting the white man, starts doing something at a Sinterklaas event. Peacefully, or violently if he so pleases.

Just wonderful people trying to make the Netherlands a better place for everyone

 

[Ascend]

It's obviously no coincidence in this particular case. There was an anti-Black Pete protest that took place in the city before the match, which these hooligans tried to disrupt. This heated situation gave them the excuse to continue their embarrassing behavior after they went to see the soccer match. The cause wasn't the mere existence of the holiday though, which is what you're arguing. Most people are perfectly capable of celebrating without insulting others. It's not like this happens all the time during the holiday season. For this one example of racism you have, I could point to the hundreds if not thousands of matches that have happened over the years druing the holiday season, that were finished without incident. In addition, we've already talked about the jungle noises racists keep making during soccer matches all across Europe, whenever they feel like. Racist behavior doesn't happen specifically because of Sinterklaas.

Fair enough.

I still have no idea who Mendes is nor do i particularly care.

Yeah... That was obvious... You care more about a virtual character like zwarte piet than a real person, because it suits your agenda.

Describe what the issue is and how it's relevant and i will tell you what i think about what ever happened to him.

Not going to happen. It's something that happened in your country and was all over the news there. The fact that you don't know about it says a lot about how informed you are. And even worse, not willing to look into it, but demanding that someone else spoon feeds you the information shows how interested you really are in what is now a very critical issue. And with a lack of interest, how can one expect you to be objective? You've obviously already made up your mind and are not interested in even considering another perspective. If you're genuinely interested, look it up, and we'll talk. If not, consider this case closed.

It's just a side effect of you not being intellectually honest which results in you feeling pressure

Feeling pressure? Give me a break. If I really cared about 'pressure' I would have been long gone, considering all you triggered Dutch people jumped on me and anyone that disagrees about how things are right now. I couldn't give a rat's ass whether you believe you are winning or not, nor what any of you think of me. I will speak out for what I believe, and if you think it's stupid or whatever, that is on you. I have actually learned a few things in here, and, that is my goal. I play devil's advocate sometimes, for that exact reason.

thus lash out with things like twatter gifs and labels.

What did that GIF do to you? After I posted it, it's as if you feel insulted. You're constantly mentioning it as if it's a huge deal. It's quite telling that many important points, you simply ignore, and you only reply to what is convenient to you. The second I do it, suddenly you have a problem with it. Nice double standards there.

Oh we've reached that point now? If you disagree with my flawed logic you're a racist?

No. But if you're constantly avoiding examples and deliberately unwilling to acknowledge the victims that are used as examples, well... Let's just say that says a lot.

Ascend, give it up. You are making a fool of yourself. You make clear with every answer that someone like Katsura is way out of your league intellectually.

And this is your second "I know better than you so shut up argument". Guess there really is nothing to say here. You're definitely getting the honor of going on the ignore list, because, you literally added nothing and are only attempting public shaming. Goodbye.

 

[Katsura]

Fair enough.


Yeah... That was obvious... You care more about a virtual character like zwarte piet than a real person, because it suits your agenda.


Not going to happen. It's something that happened in your country and was all over the news there. The fact that you don't know about it says a lot about how informed you are. And even worse, not willing to look into it, but demanding that someone else spoon feeds you the information shows how interested you really are in what is now a very critical issue. And with a lack of interest, how can one expect you to be objective? You've obviously already made up your mind and are not interested in even considering another perspective. If you're genuinely interested, look it up, and we'll talk. If not, consider this case closed.

Feeling pressure? Give me a break. If I really cared about 'pressure' I would have been long gone, considering all you triggered Dutch people jumped on me and anyone that disagrees about how things are right now. I couldn't give a rat's ass whether you believe you are winning or not, nor what any of you think of me. I will speak out for what I believe, and if you think it's stupid or whatever, that is on you. I have actually learned a few things in here, and, that is my goal. I play devil's advocate sometimes, for that exact reason.


What did that GIF do to you? After I posted it, it's as if you feel insulted. You're constantly mentioning it as if it's a huge deal. It's quite telling that many important points, you simply ignore, and you only reply to what is convenient to you. The second I do it, suddenly you have a problem with it. Nice double standards there.


No. But if you're constantly avoiding examples and deliberately unwilling to acknowledge the victims that are used as examples, well... Let's just say that says a lot.


And this is your second "I know better than you so shut up argument". Guess there really is nothing to say here. You're definitely getting the honor of going on the ignore list, because, you literally added nothing and are only attempting public shaming. Goodbye.

Posting a gif is something woke twatter does when they don't have a good point. It's a show of desperation and lack of ability to engage in an intelligent way. It doesn't hurt me. It hurts you

Also, i'm not Dutch. Read that again. Then again, please. I've never once indicated i was Dutch. The fact that you're now jumping to assumptions about me being not only Dutch but also racist because i refuse to accept your flawed logic speaks volumes about what kind of mindset you're in this thread with. You claim to debate because you want to be exposed to different viewpoints, or at the very least you derided me for 'only wanting to win' yet here you are making several assumptions about me that have no basis in reality

This tells me that you are in fact not approaching this in a genuine way and my previous remark about your intellectual dishonesty was correct. I don't see how anything positive can come from further engaging with you on this subject given you've already decided what i am with zero facts to support it

 

[Ascend]

Posting a gif is something woke twatter does when they don't have a good point. It's a show of desperation and lack of ability to engage in an intelligent way. It doesn't hurt me. It hurts you

That's your interpretation, which you are free to have. In this case, it was simply a sign of cynical agreement, because, it was not worth to talk about the subject anymore, because you're holding the current standard to a much lower pedestal than the new one.

Also, i'm not Dutch. Read that again. Then again, please. I've never once indicated i was Dutch.

Ok. What are you? Belgian? What you indicated about how your country works sounds a lot like the Dutch governmental system. If you're not, my apologies then.

At least I can apologize when I'm wrong. can you?

The fact that you're now jumping to assumptions about me being not only Dutch but also racist because i refuse to accept your flawed logic speaks volumes about what kind of mindset you're in this thread with.

Like I said before, actions speak louder than words, and your actions clearly indicate that you are not interested in hearing the side of the victims. Am I wrong? Let me guess, you'll tell me that "victims means feelings".

You claim to debate because you want to be exposed to different viewpoints, or at the very least you derided me for 'only wanting to win' yet here you are making several assumptions about me that have no basis in reality

Any discussion requires assumptions. And since we're clearly not going anywhere, and you're an expert at dodging the point, I made an assumption to shift the conversation in another direction. The assumption wasn't true I guess, and, I apologize again.

This tells me that you are in fact not approaching this in a genuine way and my previous remark about your intellectual dishonesty was correct. I don't see how anything positive can come from further engaging with you on this subject given you've already decided what i am with zero facts to support it

Right. So after I call you out on your BS, you shift it around trying to pretend you are calling me out on my BS so that you pretend to have the 'last word' and end up the 'winner'. You want to hear it? Here. I'll say it. YOU WON. Happy? Good. See ya then. And just to piss you off more;

Jerry Afriyie

The "leader" of Kick Out Zwarte Piet.

is openly against homos and lesbians and writes about it
organises black-only dating evenings for men
believes in seperation of man and woman and doesnt considder them equally
Attacked a cop in 2014 during his first kick-out zwarte piet demonstration and has been convicted for that.

just my side-note.

That's interesting... I looked a little bit into it. What I found is...

He admitted to being a homophobe and thinks he should work on that since he thinks he shouldn't be. That is.... Weird. My position? If someone wants to live a gay life, let them. If they start politicizing their sexuality, I have a problem with that.

The dating evening was advertised as being specifically for "dark single people" from South American, Caribbean and African origin. Honestly, at first I was not sure if this is an issue or not. Some people prefer people from similar backgrounds after all... But the fact that he mentions the dark skin thing makes it an issue, because if you're from those places are look white you probably wouldn't be allowed to attend. That's quite the double standard. However, finding dirt on the spokesperson doesn't mean there is not a problem. To be fair, it doesn't necessarily mean that there IS either...

The separation of men and women thing... It seems kind of weak. All I found was a tweet with a picture of black male achievers, that only had men in it. When asked, he said this one was for men and that there's one for women... I... Don't see the issue. If anything, it brings issues regarding men's rights more than anything, but, that's a whole other subject that I'm not gonna get into here.

The "attack" on the cop in 2014 was a pinch in the leg. Seems like things were blown out of proportion on reporting on this one, but, what do I know.



Seems like a mixed bag. On some points he's definitely shady, on other points, it seems like attempt at slander.

 

[Chairman Tickles]

On its own its a harmless term. We say it all the time in English in sports and gaming 'for the win'.

It's not like he's specifically refering to and supporting violent anarchists that burn people alive. Cough hong kong/blizzard situation cough.

 

[Katsura]

That's your interpretation, which you are free to have. In this case, it was simply a sign of cynical agreement, because, it was not worth to talk about the subject anymore, because you're holding the current standard to a much lower pedestal than the new one.


Ok. What are you? Belgian? What you indicated about how your country works sounds a lot like the Dutch governmental system. If you're not, my apologies then.

At least I can apologize when I'm wrong. can you?


Like I said before, actions speak louder than words, and your actions clearly indicate that you are not interested in hearing the side of the victims. Am I wrong? Let me guess, you'll tell me that "victims means feelings".


Any discussion requires assumptions. And since we're clearly not going anywhere, and you're an expert at dodging the point, I made an assumption to shift the conversation in another direction. The assumption wasn't true I guess, and, I apologize again.

Right. So after I call you out on your BS, you shift it around trying to pretend you are calling me out on my BS so that you pretend to have the 'last word' and end up the 'winner'. You want to hear it? Here. I'll say it. YOU WON. Happy? Good. See ya then. And just to piss you off more;

That's interesting... I looked a little bit into it. What I found is...

He admitted to being a homophobe and thinks he should work on that since he thinks he shouldn't be. That is.... Weird. My position? If someone wants to live a gay life, let them. If they start politicizing their sexuality, I have a problem with that.

The dating evening was advertised as being specifically for "dark single people" from South American, Caribbean and African origin. Honestly, at first I was not sure if this is an issue or not. Some people prefer people from similar backgrounds after all... But the fact that he mentions the dark skin thing makes it an issue, because if you're from those places are look white you probably wouldn't be allowed to attend. That's quite the double standard. However, finding dirt on the spokesperson doesn't mean there is not a problem. To be fair, it doesn't necessarily mean that there IS either...

The separation of men and women thing... It seems kind of weak. All I found was a tweet with a picture of black male achievers, that only had men in it. When asked, he said this one was for men and that there's one for women... I... Don't see the issue. If anything, it brings issues regarding men's rights more than anything, but, that's a whole other subject that I'm not gonna get into here.

The "attack" on the cop in 2014 was a pinch in the leg. Seems like things were blown out of proportion on reporting on this one, but, what do I know.



Seems like a mixed bag. On some points he's definitely shady, on other points, it seems like attempt at slander.

If that tirade was an attempt at sounding calm and collected, it failed pretty bad. It seems you're incapable of arguing your point using sound logic which means that either your point is a bad one or you don't have the capacity to understand it well enough to actually argue it. At this point, i'm also certain you're a bigot who has been projecting this entire time. Even your apology was half assed which indicates that you're not actually sorry for anything except getting exposed

Also, i'm not Belgian either. Keep assuming and perhaps one day, you'll get it right

 

[DS_Joost]

Fair enough.


Yeah... That was obvious... You care more about a virtual character like zwarte piet than a real person, because it suits your agenda.


Not going to happen. It's something that happened in your country and was all over the news there. The fact that you don't know about it says a lot about how informed you are. And even worse, not willing to look into it, but demanding that someone else spoon feeds you the information shows how interested you really are in what is now a very critical issue. And with a lack of interest, how can one expect you to be objective? You've obviously already made up your mind and are not interested in even considering another perspective. If you're genuinely interested, look it up, and we'll talk. If not, consider this case closed.

Feeling pressure? Give me a break. If I really cared about 'pressure' I would have been long gone, considering all you triggered Dutch people jumped on me and anyone that disagrees about how things are right now. I couldn't give a rat's ass whether you believe you are winning or not, nor what any of you think of me. I will speak out for what I believe, and if you think it's stupid or whatever, that is on you. I have actually learned a few things in here, and, that is my goal. I play devil's advocate sometimes, for that exact reason.


What did that GIF do to you? After I posted it, it's as if you feel insulted. You're constantly mentioning it as if it's a huge deal. It's quite telling that many important points, you simply ignore, and you only reply to what is convenient to you. The second I do it, suddenly you have a problem with it. Nice double standards there.


No. But if you're constantly avoiding examples and deliberately unwilling to acknowledge the victims that are used as examples, well... Let's just say that says a lot.


And this is your second "I know better than you so shut up argument". Guess there really is nothing to say here. You're definitely getting the honor of going on the ignore list, because, you literally added nothing and are only attempting public shaming. Goodbye.

I would argue that you publicly shamed yourself with some of those comments you made. It's always nice to see people engaging debate without ever being able to have some self reflection.

You just found out how the world works. Although I am going to tell you that in real life, there is no ignore button. Anyway, it was fireworks seeing you go down. Always love a good show. I don't mean anything personal (always good to separate debate from personal feelings), but I love seeing people debate circles around someone, which in this case was happening. This one can go into GAF's end of year best of for me. Truly spectacular.

 

[alienator]

That's interesting... I looked a little bit into it. What I found is...

He admitted to being a homophobe and thinks he should work on that since he thinks he shouldn't be. That is.... Weird. My position? If someone wants to live a gay life, let them. If they start politicizing their sexuality, I have a problem with that.

The dating evening was advertised as being specifically for "dark single people" from South American, Caribbean and African origin. Honestly, at first I was not sure if this is an issue or not. Some people prefer people from similar backgrounds after all... But the fact that he mentions the dark skin thing makes it an issue, because if you're from those places are look white you probably wouldn't be allowed to attend. That's quite the double standard. However, finding dirt on the spokesperson doesn't mean there is not a problem. To be fair, it doesn't necessarily mean that there IS either...

The separation of men and women thing... It seems kind of weak. All I found was a tweet with a picture of black male achievers, that only had men in it. When asked, he said this one was for men and that there's one for women... I... Don't see the issue. If anything, it brings issues regarding men's rights more than anything, but, that's a whole other subject that I'm not gonna get into here.

The "attack" on the cop in 2014 was a pinch in the leg. Seems like things were blown out of proportion on reporting on this one, but, what do I know.



Seems like a mixed bag. On some points he's definitely shady, on other points, it seems like attempt at slander.

admintting being a homophobe is usually where i stop reading, everybody is equal, but not according to him.

imagine holding a datenight in this day and age stating : "whites only" , we can see where that one ends right ?

there was never a photo taken of all the female black achievers. because they wernt invited.

the attack.. he got convicted for it infront of a judge and now has a criminal record.

.. and thats the frontman of KOZP make of it what u will ... im checking out of this "discussion" Sinterklaas was 2 days ago and since then noone here in .nl even talks about it anymore. until next year i guess.

 

[Ascend]

admintting being a homophobe is usually where i stop reading, everybody is equal, but not according to him.

imagine holding a datenight in this day and age stating : "whites only" , we can see where that one ends right ?

there was never a photo taken of all the female black achievers. because they wernt invited.

the attack.. he got convicted for it infront of a judge and now has a criminal record.

.. and thats the frontman of KOZP make of it what u will ... im checking out of this "discussion" Sinterklaas was 2 days ago and since then noone here in .nl even talks about it anymore. until next year i guess.

Not to go too far away from the point, but, I doubt the two that replied before you would consider me an 'equal', considering their condescending attitude, independent of whether I am equal, inferior or superior. The whole equality thing has been blown out of proportion. Would you consider a drug addict equal to Jeff Bezos? In what aspects? Because it all depends what we're talking about here. The term equality is being thrown around without really thinking about it. Equal as in, we're all human? Yes. But as soon as any sort of function comes into play, equality flies out the window. Should people be treated differently based on skin color? No. Should people be treated differently because of sexual preference? Well... That one is already slightly more complicated, considering pedophilia can be argued to be a sexual preference, and, someone who acts on those desires if they have them, I doubt anyone would argue they should receive equal treatment. That in no way extends to homosexuals, but, it becomes a problem when homosexuality is treated as equal in value, because, sexuality is biologically the drive to reproduce, and homosexuals cannot biologically reproduce. Does that mean homosexuals should be limited in society? Definitely not. But it definitely means that it's not a good idea to say that their sexuality is equal in value as heterosexuals, and it definitely becomes a problem when things like gay pride is being tied to institutional power.
It's quite interesting by the way, that even though in principle they are exactly the same, the push by gays and their sexuality is seen as positive, the one by feminists for women is seen as positive, and the one of blacks and their skin color is seen is negative. That actually says a lot...

As for the zwarte piet discussion... It always dies down and ultimately returns the next year. And it will keep returning until it is resolved. And it will not be resolved until actual listening takes place, rather than projecting and dismissing.

 

[Kamina]

From uncle google:
"Sieg Heil is a German phrase, which literally means "For ensured victory", or "For The Win"." As far as I know, Sieg Heil means "Say hail".

Even if it means “for the win” it still indicates a nazi shit in there unfortunately

The old Germanic tribes used Heil similarly as we use Luck today. Everyone wished each other a specific form of Heil. Like Travel Heil, or Sieg Heil (which means Victory Heil, and is therefore a simple blessing for Victory)

 

[Psykodad]

Meanwhile, Black Pete and racism discussions have already died down again, because nobody actually gives a fuck.

 

[CuNi]

Came here imaging a sports reporter shouting Sieg Heil and making the gesture. Instead got a reporter making a joke that the too sensitive world is butthurt about. Great place and time to be alive in I guess.

 

[Moses85]

why would he randomly say sieg heil?

Because the left guy in the interview is a German coach. Van Basten tried to be funny.

It was dumb but to be honest, when I first saw this I thought. What the heck he didn’t said that.

Are you guys serious? You don’t know the Phrase „Sieg Heil“ what do you learn in Highschool?

Even from WW2 Games you should know that.

 

[SaucyJack]

Is there some actual context to any of this or are we just supposed to be outraged? What was the match? Who was he taking to etc? Is there a translation of the actual conversation?

nah, we’re just meant to be outraged.