Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

mobsters

31 (83.8%)

supremacists

6 (16.2%)

Total Members Voted: 35

[pisskop]

Do you think the difference lies in the application of belief or knowledge?

[LordBucket]

The second half of your definition is where you show that you're wrong in identifying each and every single person as a supremacist. I may believe that my culture is superior to others, but that does not mean I believe that I then deserve to dominate, control, or rule those not in my culture. You're wrong.

Problem is that applying that second part you've bolded disqualifies an awful lot of people that common use would consider to be supremacists. For example, consider the stereotypical white supremacist who believes that the white race is the best, genetically superior, etc and wants to deport blacks back to africa. He doesn't want to "dominate, rule or control" them. He wants them gone. He wants them to not be part of his experience. Would you say he is therefore not a white supremacist? I don't think you would.

Look at the root of the word: "supreme." Simple interpretation would be someone who believes that something is "supreme" or superior.

You're wrong.

Meh. Bait harder.

[Cheeetar]

The second half of your definition is where you show that you're wrong in identifying each and every single person as a supremacist. I may believe that my culture is superior to others, but that does not mean I believe that I then deserve to dominate, control, or rule those not in my culture. You're wrong.

Problem is that applying that second part you've bolded disqualifies an awful lot of people that common use would consider to be supremacists. For example, consider the stereotypical white supremacist who believes that the white race is the best, genetically superior, etc and wants to deport blacks back to africa. He doesn't want to "dominate, rule or control" them. He wants them gone. He wants them to not be part of his experience. Would you say he is therefore not a white supremacist? I don't think you would.

You wouldn't say that forceful deportation is a measure of control?

Edit: If you're going to bring in a definition, you should be willing to stand by it. If you disagree with your own definition, come up with a different one.

[misko27]

We've spent a lot of time talking about supremacists, but what type of mobsters are we talking about? The hardcore Drug Lords are roughly as bad as the supremacists who get in the news for slaughtering minorities (which is to say, the worst ones), but Mafia, for example, hmm. I think a sufficiently powerful Mafia would be willing to make concessions on limiting the drug trade in exchange for support from the community.


In the end, unless one side is dramatically less evil then the other, it comes down to which you think is worst when taken to its extreme: misguided, destructive ideals or selfish, heartless pragmatism. I, for one, would rather live with the heartless pragmatists, as they seem more reasonable, and I can work with that.

[LordBucket]

come up with a different one.

Ok. How about the one provided by google:

su·prem·a·cist
noun
1. an advocate of the supremacy of a particular group, especially one determined by race or sex.

We've spent a lot of time talking about supremacists, but what type of mobsters are we talking about?

I asked the same question. Like you point out, Italian mafia vs South American druglords...very different proposition. Or the example I gave: I don't think life under an Al Capone would necessarily be all that bad. But I suppose at the same time, a mobster sort of by definition can't be running a country, because if they are, they're not mobsters. They're government.

In the end, unless one side is dramatically less evil then the other, it comes down to which you think is worst when taken to its extreme: misguided, destructive ideals or selfish, heartless pragmatism.

Those characterizations seem misplaced to me. A supremacist is generally interested in self promotion of his group. It's only "destructive" to elements that threaten or are antagonistic to the group. It's a survival thing. And as for mobsters, I don't necessarily see anything heartless about it, and I don't see how pragmatism is relevant. Look at prohibition-era mobsters. Alcohol previously had been legal. Lots of people made it. Lots of people drank it. It was part of the culture. Even in churches people were drinking alcohol. Government made it illegal, and people were unhappy about it. Was it "heartless" to supply it?

[Cheeetar]

come up with a different one.

Ok. How about the one provided by google:

su·prem·a·cist
noun
1. an advocate of the supremacy of a particular group, especially one determined by race or sex.

That doesn't mention culture at all- belief that being nice is superior to not being nice wouldn't make me a supremacist by that definition, nor would it make the majority of people supremacists.

[LordBucket]

That doesn't mention culture at all- belief that being nice is superior to not being nice wouldn't make me a supremacist by that definition, nor would it make the majority of people supremacists.

Read the definition again. "Especially" does not mean "exclusively."

[Bohandas]

Interesting fun fact, both of these possibilities were the premises of original series "Star Trek" episodes:

Mobsters ("A Piece of the Action")
Supremicists ("Patterns of Force")

[Cheeetar]

So by your definition, Bucket: I group people into two groups- alive, and not alive. I believe alive is superior. I am a supremacist?

[Bohandas]

"Zombie eat brains but zombie cannot swallow this injustice"

_.

[LordBucket]

So by your definition, Bucket: I group people into two groups- alive, and not alive. I believe alive is superior. I am a supremacist?

I suppose it depends on how rigidly you want to apply the definition.

But let's step back for a moment and ask a question: what exactly is your goal with engaging me over this? Do you want to argue definitions for the sake of arguing definitions? Do you have a specific point that you're leading up to so you can make it at some point?

Because, if you actually have a point, feel free to make it any time.

[Cheeetar]

I disagreed with your assertion that we're all supremacists in one way or another, because it's based on a deeply flawed definition of supremacist. It also sounds very suspiciously similar to the 'we're all racists' kind of apologism, and I'd rather not see that brought up. If you don't want what you say challenged, you shouldn't bring it into a discussion

[LordBucket]

there's absolutely no point to this train of logic other than... well, where we are now. A heated argument over whatever-the-hell this is.

Unfortunately I find that most of my conversations with Cheetar end up there. Between that and the very obvious baiting with the need to say "you're wrong" in two out of three sentences in a post, I just...don't think he's actually trying to have a conversation.

[Loud Whispers]

I asked the same question. Like you point out, Italian mafia vs South American druglords...very different proposition. Or the example I gave: I don't think life under an Al Capone would necessarily be all that bad. But I suppose at the same time, a mobster sort of by definition can't be running a country, because if they are, they're not mobsters. They're government.

Don't forget mobsters like the Yakuza who for all intents and purposes are both mobsters and pseudo-governments who treat protection money like taxes. They'll kill their opposition, but also do things like handing out blankets and water after natural disasters.

And as for mobsters, I don't necessarily see anything heartless about it, and I don't see how pragmatism is relevant. Look at prohibition-era mobsters. Alcohol previously had been legal. Lots of people made it. Lots of people drank it. It was part of the culture. Even in churches people were drinking alcohol. Government made it illegal, and people were unhappy about it. Was it "heartless" to supply it?

Ah yes, the noble capitalist merely fulfilling the desires of the consumer... Amongst other things. Selling alcohol was not the only thing they did, nor was the means they went about so entirely ethical. In fact, incredibly immoral. And alcohol is the most destructive drug on this planet right now in sheer scope and scale of human impact, so while we continue to drink our poison because yolo, to go against an effort to save everyone's kidneys in the pursuit of profit does require a certain heartlessness or kidneyless.

[Zangi]

Give people something else that provides both the social aspect and the personal drowning in forgetfulness just as effectively and cheaply... and we can ween em off alcohal?