Agreed, but the point for me is to ask whether the racial reasons are justified, rather than try and come up with a semantic that only applies to certain people.
I don’t see that in the OP at all.
Racism needs a stable definition regardless of the race of the racist. At the heart of racism is having double-standards.
That’s not really relevant, as all I’m saying is that it is possible for someone to vote for X “because X is black” and not thereby be a racist. Some people are responding to the OP by insisting that if you vote for someone “because he is black” this is enough to make that a racist voting decision. But it’s not.
If you have good reasons to believe number 3, (and on the assumption you can only watch one or the other) then (either racism is sometimes okay or) it is not racist to watch the Black guy instead of the White guy.
I would not call it racism, but if you insist that it is, then we can conclude that it is sometimes wise to be a racist. Since I think racism is by definition (not just accidentally but by the definition of the term*) unwise, I don’t think this can count as racism.
Whatever you want to call it, though, if you really do know (or anyway, have good reasons to believe) number 3, (and there is nothing else that you know that is relevant,) then you really do have good reasons to watch the Black guy instead of the White guy in the situation you outlined. I’ll mention again what I mentioned in the first paragraph–that my point is just to show that it is possible to vote for somebody “because he is black” and not thereby be a racist. People are responding to the OP by saying that voting for someone “because he is black” is sufficient to establish that the voter is a racist. It’s not.
I specified the three propositions are all you know. This means, as you point out, that the person in the situation is acting on incomplete information. But no one ever has any other kind of information to act on. You can only act on the information you have.
I guess another option is simply not to vote. I’d be sympathetic with that–I think more people vote than ought to–but I have taken it as a governing assumption in this conversation that voting is somehow an imperative.
-FrL-
*Certain ideological racists would disagree, but they’re misusing the language when they do so.
I don’t get it.
Not perhaps; definitely.
-FrL-
It is an abuse of language to call anything racism (outside maybe an academic context) which one does not mean thereby to disparage. It is a feature of the language you and I are using right now that “racist” and “racism” are disparaging terms. There can be no such thing as justified racism in this language.
Of course you’re welcome to forge a new language in which such a phrase can denote something that does exist. But by pretending its the same language the rest of us are using, you’d only end up confusing people rather than making anything clear.
-FrL-
I believe you are being accused of using the word “we” to speak only for yourself.
(Though I don’t really see why this accusation should be levelled; it’s perfectly cromulent, and obviously what you were doing, to speak of what other people should do, even where this differs from what they they actually do do)
[Tee-hee… Doo-doo…]
But a mouse can’t read.
-FrL-
Yes. It most definitely is racist. It’s the definition of racist.
If a group of white supremacists said “we’re not trying to keep the blacks and jews down–we’re just trying to elevate whites to the top,” would that get them a pass? No. Of course not.
It doesn’t matter whether the group is being discriminated for or against, whether they’re in power or not, whether they themselves have been discriminated against or not. It’s still racism.
Being a mistake to base a vote “purely” on self-interest; I agree. Smith’s self interest is tempered by the modifiers of “rational” or “enlightened”.
As for a commitment to natural law: are not natural law and natural justice embodied in the very conceptual foundations of your government? (caveat: non-US Doper).
Your President swears to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”, the preamble to which states that the purpose of that document is (in part) to “insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty…”
Assuming that your President is capable of the office, and not false in their oath, have we suitably covered the requirements for “sympathy for others and a commitment to natural law”?
It’s not exactly that simple either:
Fact 1. There has never been a female president before.
Fact 2. 100% of the presidents present and prior have been men.
(And I’m assuming we can reasonably exclude from the OP’s concerns those who will be voting Republican – and hence against both the black and female candidates).
sigh
Yeah, if the ONLY reason you’re voting for a candidate is because you share their race*, then that’s a clear example of prejudice.
However, racism is a belief or ideology that all members of each racial group possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially to distinguish it as being either superior or inferior to another racial group or racial groups.
My WAG is that you’ll find quite different attitudes among blacks with regard to ‘superiority or inferiority’ voting for Obama than among certain sections of the white population in, let’s say, West Virginia, who were willing to state quite unambiguously that they would not vote for a black candidate.
Don’t have a cite for it, but then, find me a cite for blacks voting for Obama solely based on race, then we’ll talk.
*bullshit sociological construct
I would say that assumption is not always correct. In any event, if a group’s freedom, power, and status increases, it can sometimes come at the expense of another group’s freedom, power, and/or status. Which brings us back to the self-interest argument.
Is it legitimate to vote for a candidate out of self interest?
So you’re… agreeing with me… I think?
It’s not clear, becase we were talking about Adam Smith’s prescriptions, but now you’re talking about those of the USA’s founding documents.
-FrL-
I’m among those who disagree with the OP. If black voters are voting for a black candidate in hopes that it will improve the general situation of black people that that is a racial reason. And any improvement that generally affects black people will be to the relative disadvantage of white people (for the sake of argument we’ll leave other races out of this) even if that improvement is to remove unfair advantages that have been held by white people. Such being the case, a white person can vote against a black candidate for the same racial reasons a black person can vote for him. And a single reason cannot be racist for one race and not racist for another.
Disregarding everything else, cannot something make black people better off without making white people worse off? I don’t see why this would be zero-sum.
Yes, and that’s why many people of many different stripes are Pro-Obama.
Irrespective of anything else, this doesn’t hold logical water. Why would you assume that if one set of people gain some benefit, other people must necessarily lose?
Economics, and government policy, are not necessarily fixed-pie games. Something that confers a specific advantage upon black people, or removes a specific disadvantage, could in fact also have a positive impact on white people. Opening up more employment and educational opportunities for black people, for instance, could result in a larger, stronger economy, due to the benefits of previously under-used black labor. By working, innovating, investing and producing, black labor would cause the economy to grow and create jobs. Whites would benefit by virtue of getting some of those jobs, as well as all the associated benefits of greater prosperity (less crime, nicer communities, economic security, etc.)
Or for a more obvious example, how did the Civil Rights Act hurt whites in general? I’d argue it helped them.
Of course, you could construct a scenario where a policy DID help blacks and hurt whites. But it’s just not the case that it must always be so.
Well, you need to support this assertion, don’t you? I’m thinking a good cite would be something like an actual definition of the word racism.
Because whites are already at the top. So anyone making this statement should automatically be considered a dumbass at a minimum. Charges of racism are secondary to the crime of abject stupidity.
This is like saying it doesn’t matter if you’re poor and your kids are starving, if you take a loaf of bread without paying that’s stealing just the same as a corporate exec pocketing $25,000 from his employees 401ks so that he can go to the Riviera for a month. Only if you base your sense of ethics around semantics could you can say such a thing and have that statement convey anything more than “I can apply a label to something, yay look at me!”.
Background circumstances do matter when you’re comparing two situations. Both may technically qualify as racism based on some dictionary in some unseen place, but just saying this doesn’t advance an argument in any kind of meaningful way.
Originally I had said:
To which you replied:
I was attempting to argue that since those two foundations were indeed amongst the ideals of your founding documents that we could perhaps reasonably also take Smith’s word for rational self interest being a good thing – or at least a thing in-line with US concepts of government. (While at the same time agreeing that self-interest should not be the only factor – and that it must be rational).
I’d note for myself that opposing someone purely on the basis of their skin tone falls well short of “rational”.
It’s really not that complicated, come on.
If there’s discrimination going on, how it racist for those being discriminated against to vote in a a way that helps ameliorate that discrimination? Are gay people heterosexist for voting for politicians that speak to their wants and needs?
If people just want to be treated equitably and fairly, their desires should not be equated with those who want the opposite. Doing so may make the math even out in a feel-good kind of way, but its disingenous and blatantly self-serving to those who benefit from status quo.