"Jumping a guy like that is dishonorable obviously. It’s not how white men fight."
Is this not implying that white men don't fight dishonorably?
Is not the implication that follows from that, that fighting dishonorably is a trait that belongs to non-white races? If not, why mention "white men" specifically? Why not claim this is not how honorable people fight?
If someone said, "That's not how Samurai fight", would you then assume that any non-Samurai is being disparaged? Probably not despite the rampant xenophobia in Japan.
At best, you have him gatekeeping all the white races and applying a no-true-Scotsman fallacy. If he'd mentioned a non-white race at all, I suspect you'd be making the same case then as well. People read into these things whatever they want to read based on whichever team they're cheerleading for.
>If someone said, "That's not how Samurai fight", would you then assume that any non-Samurai is being disparaged? Probably not despite the rampant xenophobia in Japan.
Yes. That would be the obvious reading. If someone looked at a group of Samurai fighting and said that isn't how Samurai fight, by implication a comparison is being made between "Samurai" and "not Samurai."
If someone sees a group of white people fighting and says that isn't how white people fight, by implication a comparison is being made between "white people" and "not white" people.
>At best, you have him gatekeeping all the white races and applying a no-true-Scotsman fallacy.
Yes, and that's racist.
>If he'd mentioned a non-white race at all, I suspect you'd be making the same case then as well.
Yes, it would still be racist, for the same reasons.
>People read into these things whatever they want to read based on whichever team they're cheerleading for.
I've never watched his show outside of some occasional clips.
> Yes. That would be the obvious reading. If someone looked at a group of Samurai fighting and said that isn't how Samurai fight, by implication a comparison is being made between "Samurai" and "not Samurai."
Yet, very similar codes of conduct applied to other warriors from many different groups and races. At most you logically infer that this was applied to a subset of all the people it might be applied to. Further reading would conclude that his assertion is faulty in several ways (notably the no-true-Scotsman fallacy, lumping many races together based on similar skin tones, and the very obvious observation that every known group of non-sport fighters throughout history have taken every advantage they could).
There's plenty that is provably wrong with his statement without resorting to unprovable inferences, but that doesn't give the dopamine hit that outrage does.
> > At best, you have him gatekeeping all the white races and applying a no-true-Scotsman fallacy.
> Yes, and that's racist.
No-true-Scotsman isn't inherently racist. I agree that lumping in all white races together is racist, but most people in the US are ignorant that white is a color rather than a race and nobody has issues referring to any of these "collections" of races by their "color". It's simply not possible to determine here if he is ignorant of white racial diversity or if he was using a colloquialism.
