That seems to be a hallmark of most all “-isms”. “Just because you see _____-ism in everything, doesn’t mean _____-ism is everywhere”. I have to admit I’ve been guilty of this myself at times.
I should qualify my first answer here - when I answered “No” to “do people accuse others of racism to shut them up or shut down debate”, I was speaking for myself and the general case, I have no doubt there are others who do do that, but I consider them the exception, rather than the rule.
I name racists because I think that makes for more honest debate, not to shut it down. Which is why I think GD is flawed in that regard.
It’s true that I do believe the debate about the supposed genetic inferiority of Black people is already resolved by science showing that the common genetic race conception is not a valid scientific concept, like phlogiston and Lysenkoism, so doesn’t need endless rehashing. A sticky would do.
But that’s one particular small subset of the debate on racism, and I’m quite happy to have all the other debates, based on the social construct of race. But honestly.
Okay. Does it ever work? Has there ever been a thread where accusations of bigotry actually shut up the person being called a bigot? Or are people so thoroughly inured to it that even in cases where the accusation is entirely justified, the thread just keeps on chugging? Often for hundreds of posts, even when the racism is super fucking clear? I’ve never seen it actually work.
This is another thing. There’s a huge fucking difference between “someone called me a bigot without reason (and I ignored it and kept talking about how the real problem is anti-white racism for 20+ pages or kept talking about how black people are dumber than white people for 35+ pages)” and “someone called me a bigot without reason, and this led to me being assaulted/deplatformed/etc.”.
The former just does not matter. Like, at all. It has literally no effect. I’ve had a former partner accuse me of racism when I criticized Islam; this was annoying but I pointed out how silly it was and it didn’t stop the discussion. It’s akin to any stupid rhetorical fallacy - you’re going to run into it from time to time, best to just ignore it and move on, and not do what fuckwits like Sargon do and turn a tweet with two notes into something that represents the entire left.
The latter matters, but remains vanishingly rare. I can think of a small handful of examples, which the right brings up without fail every time the issue is mentioned (if this were a common thing, you’d think we’d hear about different, more recent events, rather than the same few cases every single time), but, again, this is not a common thing.
I feel like the OP is conflating the two things. “Shutting down debate” does sound pretty awful, and yeah, what happened to Milo, Murray, and that one Oberlin professor was shitty. But it’s exceedingly rare. Meanwhile, someone in a debate calling the other person “racist” and being ignored by everyone else? That’s pretty common. It just really doesn’t matter.
And that’s the typical right-wing gambit - act like the common, inconsequential occurrence of someone calling someone else “racist” and it having no actual fucking impact is the same as someone being assaulted by protesters for being a bigot, and waxing poetic about how scary it is that our free speech is under attack by those evil leftists. And it works. This is a horrifyingly huge part of modern right-wing discourse.
There is ex facie racism then there is what can be construed as racist. Its the latter where most of the arguments are.
On the genetic inferiorty, or superiority I agree. To take an example from sports, lots of “common sense” streotypes have been shown over the years to be false.
On the other hand, some might have some validity, might. (See thelater half of this video).
Sorry, could you please rephrase this, I don’t understand what you’re saying?
It seems like you’re saying there’s more non-racism that seems racist, than there is actual racism? I’d call busllhit on that if that’s what you’re saying. Or are you saying people are just more inclined to argue about the former? Which seems like a circular answer to the OP.
IIUIC, he’s saying there is evident racism (racism “on its face”) and stuff that may or may not be racist, and that most arguments are about the stuff that may or may not be racist. Which frankly falls into “no shit Sherlock”, but with some Latin.
Man, I wish that were the case. Instead, finding something which is racist with perfect consensus is virtually impossible - even cases where someone was called “nigger” to their face get downplayed. Or, to put it more bluntly, there are people who would deny that the president - who started his run by accusing Mexico of sending us drug dealers and rapists and, well into his presidency, both-sidesed (yes, I’m verbing that noun, and you can’t stop me) neo-nazis and anti-fascist protesters, then called a later speech where he condemned the neo-nazis the biggest mistake of his career - is racist.
How do you make literally any statement, up to and including lynching a black man while shouting “nigger nigger nigger” at him, “controversial” on the question of whether it’s racist or not? Simple - have President Trump do it.
You are either being purposefully obtuse or are stupid and I don’t think it’s the later.
Saying that a race is better or worse at something inherently is clearly racist. On the other hand, in the video I linked, a sports scientist stated that the Kalenjin ethnicity in Kenya is the best in the world at endurance running, because of evolutionary advantages. Thats not inherently racist, but certainly can be seen as that.
I use sports since ethnic and racial stereotypes have a long history in organised sports and still persist in many cases despite many having been disproved.
Cheap tactics? Like what, asking you to cite your claims? That’s the main thing I’m doing.
Or there’s my pointing out that you’ve incorrectly leveled this charge against me in the past, and your deliciously ironic interpretation of that as some sort of personal attack on you.
Seriously? Okay, I’ll jump through this hoop, with the understanding that it’s the one hoop I’ll jump through on your orders.
You think a major part of the problem is that people such as your coworkers–for whom you have tremendous respect–never engage in real discussion with the kinds of people that frequent this board. In you opinion, mostly what we end up with is situations like this where mostly middle class white people, many if not most of whom have never had any legitimate interaction with minorities as a true equal, have conversations with other white people about how bad another class of white people are.
Some people “see” more of it than others, because of course individuals differ on what are valid and invalid claims of racism. If one approaches it from a perspective of “[Other person] said is racist but I don’t find to be racist, therefore [Other person] is either hysterically oversensitive or a member of the uber-PC thought police trying to shut me down”, then one will perceive a higher percentage of claims of racism to be invalid. That doesn’t mean that isn’t racist (nor that it is); it merely demonstrates a rather narrow and self-centered approach to assessing these claims.
Assuming what the sports scientist said was true, why would a fact be racist? That and the tactic of labeling all manners of commentary as racism, or bigotry, or hate speech is what leads to a rejection of the notion.
This is a warning for personal insults. Your points can be well made without this type of rhetoric. If you feel you must, the BBQ Pit is right around the corner.
[/moderating]
“The Kalenjin ethnicity in Kenya is the best [subgroup] in the world at endurance running,” if indeed correct, is not a racist statement.
Extrapolated to “blacks are better runners” it becomes so.
We needn’t go back over why this is, right?
It’s true that a fact can’t be racist, but it’s entirely possible that a claim is, especially if the criterion used to accept that claim as fact is predicated on racist stereotypes. The basic “I already want to believe this, so I accept it as true without any justification” mindset.
People just accept that Kenyans are the best runners. When people just accept it without any evidence, study or reason, I’d say that’s stereotyping, even though it may actually be true.
Well this is interesting. I don’t recall agreeing with anything you’ve said 110% like this. You’re spot on the money with this one, though. I can’t agree more.
This sounds like the tactics of our very own in-house racialist Chief Pedant.
Agreed, that’s what I meant by that “circular argument” part. I wasn’t sure because a quick google only turned up that phrase as legalese about documents you could reject out of hand, which seemed counter-intuitive.
That sort of stereotype doesn’t just pop up. The so-called stereotype of Kenyan marathon runners being better than average is evidence based.
Like the so-called stereotype of Jews being good at basketball…
No, some people have evidence of the claim and therefore conclude the stereotype is true.
Others believe the stereotype is true and therefore conclude there is evidence somewhere out there for it.
I’m not accusing you of either, so please don’t feel attacked, but even if I grant that you have done your due diligence and arrived logically at that conclusion, I know a lot of ignoramuses who fall in the later category.
In short, the racism (or lack there of) behind a claim cannot be ascertained by the objective truth of the claim, rather it can only be surmised through an understanding of how the individual came to believe the claim was true.
I don’t think that’s possible to do in Watchmaker fashion, though, so simply observing a possible belief in a stereotype is insufficient to establish how that belief was arrived upon.
You know that’s an apple to cabbage comparison. Tsk!