MMA a style?

[drop bear]

I don't want to start talking about Drop Bear, but you highlighted my point. He's selectively respectful. Which means he isn't respectful.

That is a weird way of looking at things.

 

[skribs]

That is a weird way of looking at things.

Let's say someone isn't racist, except that they hate Asians. Would you say that person is reapectful of race?

 

[Steve]

Let's say someone isn't racist, except that they hate Asians. Would you say that person is reapectful of race?

I think you're very disrespectful of MMA fanboys.

 

[skribs]

I think you're very disrespectful of MMA fanboys.

I start off respecting them, but if they show disrespect to others, why should I respect them?

The same goes for self defense aficionados who disrespect MMA training.

 

[Steve]

I start off respecting them, but if they show disrespect to others, why should I respect them?

The same goes for self defense aficionados who disrespect MMA training.

So, then let's go back to your question. You said this:

Let's say someone isn't racist, except that they hate Asians. Would you say that person is reapectful of race?

By your logic, if you hate Asians, your racism is justified as long as you think some Asians hated you first? Sounds... iffy.

Come on, man.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

If that is the ruler we're going to use, then all ANY of us train is MMA. Not only would that criteria make it a style, it would make it the ONLY style.

Thats not overly a issue in my view, a lot of martial arts are amalgimations of diffrent ones. And then most martial arts are the same conclusions just found out independeltly.

 

[skribs]

So, then let's go back to your question. You said this:By your logic, if you hate Asians, your racism is justified as long as you think some Asians hated you first? Sounds... iffy.

Come on, man.

Nope. I'm judging based on actions.

Someone trains MMA and is respectful of others, they're cool. Someone trains MMA and is an ***, they're an ***. Note that whether or not they train MMA is irrelevant. That's a nonfactor in my judgment of them.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

also, to nip this other in the bud. Racism is only being discrimintory/predijucial based on a persons race. If race has no factor in it, its not racism. If its based on somones sex its sexism, sexuality, i dont actually know the overarching word for that one, i dont think one exists. Class, it becomes classism etc etc etc. (some of these dont have words for them).


and in this overarching example, if somone hates asians and its not based on their race, its probbly for a very good reason. Like they have only been robbed by asians, found the overarching asian cultrure repulsive/not compatible with their views etc. Or any number of reasons like that. Its largely the reason you are allowed to dislike people/be untrust worthy of some people. But to reiterate, unless its soley based on race, its not racism or soley racism.

And i somewhat mis read the topic, but some of that has to be prefaced and estbalished before getting onto this subject, the word has been mis used and is commonly mis used.

 

[Danny T]

Yeah, but that’s not generally people who actually train MMA.

While I agree for the most part in my experience it's more those who actually compete in MMA. That said, in my area the majority of those who train MMA also compete.

As to the discussion on high kick...can they be effective? Sure, but that doesn't mean high kicks are best high percentage thing to do. Especially in a multiple opponent situation. Take a look at Team MMA Competitions. There are very few high kicks utilized.

 

[Steve]

Nope. I'm judging based on actions.

Someone trains MMA and is respectful of others, they're cool. Someone trains MMA and is an ***, they're an ***. Note that whether or not they train MMA is irrelevant. That's a nonfactor in my judgment of them.

Sure. Makes sense. Very surgical of you. But as you say, if you're selectively disrespectful. Here, I'll let your own words speak for you:

He's selectively respectful. Which means he isn't respectful.

So, even if you're being selectively racist... you're still racist. Right?

 

[Steve]

also, to nip this other in the bud. Racism is only being discrimintory/predijucial based on a persons race. If race has no factor in it, its not racism. If its based on somones sex its sexism, sexuality, i dont actually know the overarching word for that one, i dont think one exists. Class, it becomes classism etc etc etc. (some of these dont have words for them).


and in this overarching example, if somone hates asians and its not based on their race, its probbly for a very good reason. Like they have only been robbed by asians, found the overarching asian cultrure repulsive/not compatible with their views etc. Or any number of reasons like that. Its largely the reason you are allowed to dislike people/be untrust worthy of some people. But to reiterate, unless its soley based on race, its not racism or soley racism.

And i somewhat mis read the topic, but some of that has to be prefaced and estbalished before getting onto this subject, the word has been mis used and is commonly mis used.

Okay. Hold up a minute. I think you're going a bit rogue here. If someone hates a group of people who all happen to be Asian, that is the very definition of racism, regardless of what in particular it is that person hates about Asians. I literally laughed when I imagined an employer trying that argument on a judge or an EEOC arbitrator.

Now, to level set here, it's not illegal to be a racist. It's just illegal to act based on racism, whether to hire, fire, discipline, rent a home to, sell cakes to, etc. And yes, if you discriminate against a group of people for any reason, and they all just by sheer happenstance belong to the same protected base, you're probably violating the law.

 

[skribs]

also, to nip this other in the bud. Racism is only being discrimintory/predijucial based on a persons race. If race has no factor in it, its not racism. If its based on somones sex its sexism, sexuality, i dont actually know the overarching word for that one, i dont think one exists. Class, it becomes classism etc etc etc. (some of these dont have words for them).


and in this overarching example, if somone hates asians and its not based on their race, its probbly for a very good reason. Like they have only been robbed by asians, found the overarching asian cultrure repulsive/not compatible with their views etc. Or any number of reasons like that. Its largely the reason you are allowed to dislike people/be untrust worthy of some people. But to reiterate, unless its soley based on race, its not racism or soley racism.

And i somewhat mis read the topic, but some of that has to be prefaced and estbalished before getting onto this subject, the word has been mis used and is commonly mis used.

Your first paragraph is true, but the second is completely wrong.

If I dislike a specific group of Asians because it is their official policy to mistreat people, that's one thing. If I dislike all Asians because some have mistreated me, that's racism.

 

[skribs]

Sure. Makes sense. Very surgical of you. But as you say, if you're selectively disrespectful. Here, I'll let your own words speak for you: So, even if you're being selectively racist... you're still racist. Right?

That was my point.

I am selective based on actions and behavior, not based on generalizations based on what group you belong to.

 

[skribs]

Let me phrase it a different way.

Say Bob and Darryl work for the BD Company.

If Bob mistreats me, it is unfair to hold Darryl in contempt. However, if Bob mistreats me, and quotes the company policies that encouraged him to do so, then it's entirely fair to assume Darryl will mistreat me as well.

The difference is what is individual choice, and what is group mandate.

I also used to try and show them respect. But I realized that doing so was serving nobody. They never got more respectful. If anything, they got less. So instead of trying to compromise and come to an understanding, I just say my piece unfiltered.

 

[Steve]

That was my point.

I am selective based on actions and behavior, not based on generalizations based on what group you belong to.

You're literally arguing both sides to the middle.

 

[skribs]

You're literally arguing both sides to the middle.

In this case, I think taking any side is the problem. My issue is with people who take sides.

 

[drop bear]

That was my point.

I am selective based on actions and behavior, not based on generalizations based on what group you belong to.

Ditto.

I am respectful based on actions and behavior.

Therefore I am disrespectful.

 

[skribs]

Ditto.

I am respectful based on actions and behavior.

Therefore I am disrespectful.

This is why I was trying to keep my comments more generalized instead of singling you out. I didn't want this thread to devolve into another pissing match between the two of us.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Okay. Hold up a minute. I think you're going a bit rogue here. If someone hates a group of people who all happen to be Asian, that is the very definition of racism, regardless of what in particular it is that person hates about Asians. I literally laughed when I imagined an employer trying that argument on a judge or an EEOC arbitrator.

Now, to level set here, it's not illegal to be a racist. It's just illegal to act based on racism, whether to hire, fire, discipline, rent a home to, sell cakes to, etc. And yes, if you discriminate against a group of people for any reason, and they all just by sheer happenstance belong to the same protected base, you're probably violating the law.

Alas, that is not the case.


I dont belive racism covers "hate because", its Discrimination/predicuce on the basis of race, unless you do either of those on the basis of race, its not racism and you arent a racist. But you can discriminate on muiltiple factors. (and also hate somone just because of their race or those other factors)

If they all happen to be asian, doesnt make it racist, maybe its a only asian gang that goes around victimising people? So people would be weary of asians on that criteria? Its a perfectly natural and sound reaction to being victimised, it might not be the best, but it can happen and is more likely to happen and be a reasonable reaction if Asians are a minority in your area. It probbly wont happen if asians are split 50/50 with what ever the other race is, but that might manifest into a generic mistrust of people because they are all around you.

Like, i dont think white people in white dominated areas become distrustful of white people if they are victimised by one, it manifests in the mesure of generic distrust. But if say asians are a minority and you are, it might manifest for them down to them being a foreign entity.


For the second point, no it isnt and you cant really make people not discriminate. And to be fair, you have to be stupid to put down a protected chracteristic as why you didnt hire somone, you dont have to give a reason. Just give a non asian the job is you are racist towards asians, or a male/female if you dislike either or. Innocent until proven guilty and the police force has to find a reason for it, you cant just call racism or sexism etc because you arent hired, or by happen stance only one race/sex is employed. *

Plus for the law where i am at, you can (within reason) not hire somone based on "protected chraracteristics". there is actually a protection, and thats largly down to it being inappriate to have them there. eg non catholics at a catholic school, males at a all female school, females at a all male school so fourth.

Agree with it or not, thats what i make of my readings of the explinations of the laws for where i live, i only included that for a intrest factor.



Addendum: This has accidentally been made semi more political than i intented. and its sort of rambely.

* for some reason re reading that i got reminded of a "thats so raven" episode where that was the topic, unless somone is stupid enough to say in explicty black and white "x didnt get the job because they are [insert protected characterstic]" and it be recorded, nothing is going to come of it more than likely.

 

[drop bear]

This is why I was trying to keep my comments more generalized instead of singling you out. I didn't want this thread to devolve into another pissing match between the two of us.

Is it generalized? or were you basically taking a shot at me the whole time?