Another common one, which I have heard multiple black comedians riff on, is that black males don’t smile when having their picture taken. Would that be considered racist? It has nothing at all to do with ethics, brains, financial status or anything that could be construed as demeaning to a race.
No they don’t. That interpretation is a figment of your imagination. What do you call someone who believes blacks are stupid but make top-notch athletes? What do you call someone who believes Asians are good at math, but are horrible drivers? What do you call someone who believes whites are blue-eyed devils, but make excellent cooks? I can only think of one word that fits these people: racist. And in these cases “overall inferior/superiority” isn’t being advocated.
Frankly, I don’t understand why people have the need to make “racism” out to be this difficult, hard-to-put-your-finger-on kind of phenomenon. If I were to say that gay men pose a risk to children, would there be any doubt that I’m being homophobic, despite the fact that I’m not saying gay men are “inferior overall” to straights? If I were to say that Jews are trying to take over the world and steal all the money, would people be trying to figure out if I was being something other than Anti-Semitic, just because it’s theoretically possible that Jews are trying to take over the world and steal all the money? If I were to say that women are dumber than men, but are better nurterers, would I not be sexist?
Little things like the “blacks are poor tippers” could be racist or it could be a valid observation of a cultural proclivity. I don’t know. Whether its racist or not, his belief is not a problem as long as he treats black customers with the respect that he gives other customers. If he thinks blacks are poor tippers because of some inherent character flaw, I would feel more confident in calling him racist.
Well, no. Being “smarter than” does not equal “better than”. And even though Asians, as a group, may score higher on intelligence tests, that does not mean that a random Asian is smarter than a random white. On average, Americans are smarter (as measured by IQ tests) than Australian Aborigines. I’m not being nationalistic/racist by stating this. I’m just reporting what’s on record.
Racism comes in when a fact is given importance that it doesn’t have. White people are disproportionately rich compared to blacks. This is true and therefore not a racist statement. It would be racist if I said this means that whites are unscrupulous, greedy bastards. It is not racist to say that blacks are disproportionately poor compared to whites. It would be racist if I said this was evidence that blacks are lazy and stupid. I’m lacking the data to support such an assertion. I’m ignoring a multitude of explanatory variables.
Well, I wouldn’t say “racist” necessarily. My friends and I exchange racial jabs all the time. Maybe we’re being racist or maybe we are just poking fun at each other. If using a racial joke is “racist”, then, I guess I am one. And since I don’t plan to change, I guess I’m an unapologetic one.
If thinking that’ll get you through the night, knock yourself out.
The other day I contemplated asking you if I could e-mail you to see if we could find some common ground and end our pointless bickering. I sincerely wanted to make some kind of peace, and maybe, down the line, a friendship. It is becoming increasingly clear to me, however, that, at least with regard to me, you are nothing but a stalker who delights in twisting logic and reality to find a way to contradict me. Here are your very words from our most recent spat–bolding mine.
I’m done with you.
When I worked in a pub in D.C. as a waiter, I noticed that black people not only tip worse than any other race, but rarely tip at all ! It’s a long running joke at the place where I used to work, when a larger black party used to sit down to eat, we would flip on who waited on them all night, because we knew it would be for nothing, well, it would be for our big $2.00 an hour wage. lol Nothing racist about it, it was the truth 99% of the time.
I’m not attacking you personally. I’m challenging your flawed interpretation of what it means to be racist. You insist that in order for something to be racist it has to meet x, y, and z conditions that are not evident in any authoriative references. It’s not “pointless bickering” to say that you are wrong and not simply agree with you so we reach some kumbaya happy ending.
Please note that this definition…
…does not stipulate “overall superiority” as you insist that it does. You can be racist if you think race accounts for differences in intelligence, or athleticism, or morality, or all of these things at the same time. And you can be racist if you think one race is superior to other races with respect to intelligence, or athleticism, or morality, or all of these things at the same time. It’s not an all or nothing thing, as you insist.
Classic racist ideology preached that races have their proper places. Blacks are good in the cotton fields where their superior brute strength and high endurance allows them to work much harder than whites. Whites, with their superior minds, are better suited in the aristocracy, taking care of society. Classic sexist ideology ("women belong in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant) was no different. Women are supposedly superior to men in all areas concerning the home, while men are superior when it come to intelligence and decision-making. 'Tis the natural order of things, yes it is.
Can’t you see that the same system of rules that we follow in labeling something “sexist” works with “racist”, too?
But your definition does not say superior overall. You imply it means that, but it doesn’t.
If I believe that blacks are superior to whites in 99 out of 100 virtues, conceding that whites are more sexually attractive than blacks, am I free from the racist label? Or am I required to rate blacks higher in all aspects?
I’m sure there are stone-cold racists out there who will concede that a so-called “inferior” race has some good qualities. In the colonial days, whites felt superior to Native Americans, but many of them accepted the myth of the noble savage, pure of heart and spirt. During the slave days, whites felt superior to blacks, while believing that blacks were physically stronger. No anti-Semite ever questions the
Neither history or common sense supports your definition of racism.
No anti-Semite ever…
called me no nigger.
(Damn boss, coming in here interupting me while I’m on the 'Dope!)
Not **my **definition. **Her **definition. Specifically chosen in a vain hope to avoid yet another conflict with her. Stupid me.
It says “superior to others.” Are you asserting that that means “superior in any particular way at all?” Or does it make more sense to say “generally superior?” Please read my response to Max if you are interested in my take on “superior.”
“Overall” does not mean “in every case.” It means “generally,” or “as a rule,” or “taking all the different aspects of a situation into account.”
Her definition, dammit. Her definition. My definition is quite different, but I had no interest if refighting that fight. I am beginning to suspect that you, as well as she, see my name and immediately make assumptions without even bothering to read what I have written.
you with the face,
As I said, I am done with you. I do not use the ignore function because it breaks up the dialog, but I will no longer respond to you, unless you are interested in making an attempt off-board to see if we can come to some understanding that will allow for more reasoned interactions in the future. My e-mail is in my profile.
I’ve noticed that old people and crackheads are much worse tippers than black people. I have also noticed that old people usually order the pan fried oysters. Does that make me an ageist? Or druggist?
I have worked in the same bar for over a year and we don’t get many black people, but they have all seemed to be fairly average tippers except one family - who I will remember and who will not get overly-friendly service from me in the future.
I have also noticed that gay men always seem to be excellent tippers. Has anyone noticed or studied that?
You’re probably just smokin’ hot. 
I don’t know about gay men, but when I was a bartender/waiter groups of women were the death knell for any chance of a good night. Except the ‘sisters’, or the 'choir members, (lesbians). They were out for a good time and tipped quite well.
I think it comes down to why one beleives the fact, and what they do with it. A person who sees the research and beleives it isn’t racist, but it doesn’t absolve anyone who came to the same conclusion through a racist process, like through stereotypes and confirmation bias, just because their racist notion happened to be right.
I’ll be honest; my heart sinks a little when I seat random black people in my restaurant.
Actually, my heart sinks whenever anyone I don’t know comes into my restaurant. 
Blacks are shitty tippers because people in general are shitty tippers. The only group that aren’t poor tippers are current or former waiters.
It’s pretty much generally agreed that intelligence is a good thing. Thus, if I believe that asians are smarter than whites, but have no opinion about about their relative abilities in any other single area, then, logically, I believe that asians are superior to whites.
I don’t think someone needs to believe something applies to 100% of a group in order to be racist. Someone who thinks that blacks are nearly all savage idiotic subhuman brutes might still recognize that, say, Colon Powell is a smart and able and civilized individual. He might just think Powell is a way-outlying exception. He can recognize that individual blacks are fine people while still being horribly racist.
Relating to monstro in specific, but the conversation as a whole in general, I think part of the problem with this discussion is that “racist” is SUCH a (justifiably) loaded word that no one wants to apply it to things that aren’t, in some sense, “bad”. As in, if I see anything of myself in a position, and if I believe that I’m basically not racist, then that position must not be racist. Whereas, I’d argue that racism is a continuum, and almost all of us have some racist traits. We all, being dopers and thus superior and tolerant human beings, may be <0.02 on the racist scale, but very few of us are 0.0.
Also, no matter how hard someone tries, is it really possible not to let generalizations and stereotypes affect how you act, even in the slightest bit? If you think that, on average, blacks are poor tippers, EVEN IF THAT IS CORRECT, it is certainly the right thing to do to attempt to still give every customer the same service, but no matter how well-meaning you are, will you succeed?
Superior in intelligence. You admittedly have no belief about anything but intelligence. In your imposssible hypothetical, superior is a word that **only **refers to intelligence, for you either have no information about any other characteristic, or you have information and choose not to use it when forming an opinion. Either you are re-stating the obvious, “smarter is better,” or assigning a general meaning to the word “superior” based on one set of data points concerning a very complex group, which is foolish. And by no means logical.
If you were shopping for a car, and you goal was to get the best car available (superior) would you stop looking if the first one had the best wheels on the market? Would you declare this car superior to all other cars? Surely not.
This subject, by the way, has recently been debated in this thread.
What if I had no access to any information other than a consumer reports article that measured reliability, and only reliability. And it told me that Fords were more reliable than Toyotas. Based on the knowledge I had, if I had to choose between a Ford and a Toyota, I should choose the Ford.
Of course, that’s not answering the question, is it? “Reliability” covers a lot of individual characteristics, not just one. If “some crazy research were done” (your words) and it was proven incontrovertibly that asians were ‘better people’ than whites, then yes, you would be justified in believing they were ‘superior.’
The problem with your hypotheticals is that in the real world you would not have “no opinion” about a class of people unless you were totally unfamiliar with them. And if that were the case, you would only be justified in claiming that they had superior intelligence, not that they were a superior race.
The same goes with the car analogy. It would be foolish to buy a car based one one review in one magazine that only considered two cars. You would only be justified in believing that Ford had superior reliability, not that Ford was a superior car. How much more reliable? Enough to offset numerous other factors where Fords are inferior?
You are engaging in a pointless exercise in semantics. “Superior” in and of itself has no particular meaning without a reference. If all you know about asians is that they have superior intelligence, then you most certainly do not know that they are superior to whites in any aspect other than intelligence, and without the qualifier your statement becomes meaningless. You can believe it if you insist you must, but beliefs based on such scant evidence are best shared with the very least discriminating of audiences, if you hope to avoid general ridicule and scorn.
Which is exactly why the concept of “overall superiority” is so vague as to be meaningless. It begs the question: superior with respect to what? Racists believe race determines character and ability, and it is with respect to specific elements of character and skill that the question of superiority revolve around. Not some nebulous, ill-defined idea of “overall superiority”. You are conflating racial supremacy with racism. If you click that link, you’ll see that the white supremacists specifically believe that they are “racially superior” to other races. Generic racism is not bound to that requirement.
And you know what? If my frank approach to challenging your arguments bothers you, sorry. That’s your issue, not mine.