Then what you asked is so vague as to be useless.
And the OP did assume they were likely to know about specific customs anywhere on the continent.
But the only way that it would be make someone an expert that someone’s parents are from a country is if they inherited all the knowledge of their parents. It’s not a strawman on my part, it is directly addressing the faulty assumption of the OP that you claim is reasonable based on their parentage.
You made a claim that the information in the OP was enough to reasonably assume that the person was an expert on India.
The information given was his appearance and his parents’ country of origin. You then said that it wasn’t just his appearance that you would go by.
I was being a bit flippant with the goa’uld comment, I don’t really believe that there exists parasitic space leeches that have taken over the galaxy. So, instead of masterfully refuting that they are alien creatures, explain in your own words why you think that having parents from another country makes you an expert on that country? This way, there’s no confusion as to what you mean.
Right, because your question was phrased as a presuming absolutist question that had no bearing on the actual subject.
Then maybe you just are very poor at asking questions that are relevant.
Yes, you do seem to have done this with your absolutist questions.
But anyway, like I said, go ahead and explain, in your own words, what in the OP would lead you to believe that this person is an expert on India, and we can see who the conversation progresses from there.
Wrong, Completely wrong. Quote me where I said that.
Post #178. I respond to Isamu’s absolutist statement of whether you should never take a person’s appearance into account, by replying whether you should make assumptions based on a person’s appearance. In this case, the OP making the assumption that the person was an expert on India.
You said that the OP had more than appearance. Well, the other thing that the OP had was a claim that the parents were from India.
So, if you were not claiming that someone’s parents being from a country is enough to reasonably assume makes them an expert on that country, what point, if any at all were you actually trying to make? (You can use your own words here, to clear up any possible confusion.)
Or are you just randomly finding places where you can attempt to make contrary non-sequiturs that are not related to the discussion at hand?
I picked you up on the fact that your reporting of the OP was incomplete. That’s all. Were there a specfic claimI was making you’d know it.
You said that
and I clearly have not, you can’t quote it because the claim doesn’t exist. If you think that is what I believe you could ask me instead of assuming But I can help you out with a quote that is far more relevant.
Which is a billion miles from any of the imaginary claims you assign to me.
If you are at all uncertain about the claims I’m making, like if you go searching through all my previous posts and can’t find where I made a specific claim, or if you think what I said was in any way ambiguous then the best thing to do is ask me straight out and I’ll give you straight answer.
I’ll even do you the massive favour of answering the question you ask rather than the one I would personally prefer to answer.
I feel like the context from the Merriam-Webster entry got a bit elided in that snip:
The lexicographer’s role is to explain how words are (or have been) actually used, not how some may feel that they should be used, and they say nothing about the intrinsic nature of the thing named or described by a word, much less the significance it may have for individuals. When discussing concepts like racism, therefore, it is prudent to recognize that quoting from a dictionary is unlikely to either mollify or persuade the person with whom one is arguing.
Which is pretty much exactly what I’m saying (the context of my post definitely didn’t make the cut in that snip).
If you look at the issue from the POV of both people involved:
- one will quite possibly react poorly to the “othering” comment, and
- the commenter will quite possibly not take kindly to the use of the term “racist.”
Invoking that term, quite often, seems to miss the forest for the trees.
Several have stated they feel there’s some important distinction to be made between saying something racist and being racist. I’m not convinced that kind of fine distinction applies in the real world. Take the OP for example. He recounted the conversation with the co-worker “He then said ‘I think what you just said was racist’.” Yet looking at the thread title, it reads ‘Co-Worker accused me of being racist.’ So the OP certainly didn’t make that distinction and I’m sure he would not be alone in this regard. The OP’s intent appears to have been conveying the message - I value your opinion on a matter that I suspect you have some expertise on. The co-worker seems to have disregarded the OP’s intent, and instead glommed on to his erroneous assumption. And, yes, to be accused of engaging in any racist behavior or words is seen as being a very bad thing in our society. Folks that either walk that walk or talk that talk are bad people. Claiming there are shades of criminality or sin here is not particularly convincing. We judge people both by their words and their deeds and label them accordingly.
Well, no, you didn’t as I didn’t make any claims as to what was in the OP. I was responding to a poster about whether you should make assumptions about someone based on their appearance, when you helpfully butted in to point out that there was more than appearance in the OP.
Okay, what in the OP makes you think that it is reasonable to think that the co-worker would be an expert on India?
As you said:
Which implies that you think that the co-worker would have some sort of knowledge about India based on the information given in the OP. Do you think that the OP was wrong to make the assumption that the co-worker was an expert on India?
Okay, do you think that all children of immigrants are experts on their parents’ country of origin?
I don’t know why that would ever have occurred to me.
Which is why people refuse to reflect and grow. If you point out a behavior that is problematic, instead of fixing it, they become defensive and double down on it.
Probably not. There are quite a number of people who get severely offended over being called out for saying something racist.
That doesn’t in any way make it right.
And it was the assumptions that led the OP to think that the co-worker would have expertise on that matter that were racist.
Because the intent wasn’t what was incorrect there, it was the racist assumptions that were made.
Some people take it as a sign to reflect and grow, some take it as an insult to their pride and get butt-hurt over it.
No, just folks who defend that walk or talk. Those who engage in it after being told that it is problematic.
No one claims that there are any shades of criminality or sin. The only sin is in doubling down and getting offended over someone pointing out something that they said that is racist.
Some people feel the need to label people accordingly, and make assumptions based on those labels. They then project that everyone is labeling them as well.
I’ve said before that English needs a distinction like Spanish has between ser and estar. Caveat that I’m remembering this distinction from high school Spanish and welcome correction, but the basic idea IIRC is that ser is used for “to be” where you’re talking about an immutable (or immutable-ish) characteristic, and estar is used where you’re talking about a temporary state. It’s possible to “be racist” in the moment without “being a racist” as a personality characteristic.
The lack of this subtle distinction can make communication difficult, but we press on; and it’s really helpful if folks can learn not to mistake estar for ser.
Well fair enough, if your initial comments were not related to the OP then me picking you up on leaving information out was irrelevant. A simple “I was not talking about the OP there” is all that was needed.
Nothing, I don’t think that and never have. see my quote in my previous post.
No, at no point have I suggested that, see my quote in my previous post.
No, far from it. I’d go so far as to say that few of them probably are. But again, where did I ever claim anything about being an expert? again I refer you to my quote in my previous post.
Your previous post says:
So, if it wasn’t wrong at all to ask the question, then it wasn’t wrong at all to assume that the co-worker would have some sort of knowledge about India.
Right?
Or do you just use words and then abandon them when they become inconvenient?
I guess I made the mistake of assuming that you were actually making comments that were relevant to what I said rather than random non-sequiturs. This did lead me to make other assumptions, like that you had any sort of point to what you were saying.
My bad, I will not make those assumptions about your posts in the future. See, we can all grow.
How you dress does indicate things about you, clearly. If what are wearing is voluntary (not a dress code or uniform) it shows personal style. It may show religious preference, the crucifix as in your example (but sometimes it’s just a style choice, remember Madonna?) but mostly it just shows styles and colors the person likes. What it doesn’t show is nationality. Or even ethnicity. And certainly not if a person knows how to keep a nation of various ethnicities, cultures and languages, from typing in an URL wrong.
So what should we call making rude unfounded assumptions about a person based on stereotypes relating to the persons racial appearance? Or should such behavior be condoned for fear that calling it out as wrong might offend the person who engaged in it.
You can call that person a racist. However, doing so is probably not going to result in the positive outcome that some folks hope will happen.
What would you recommend instead?
I don’t claim to have a good answer to the problem.
So again, what would you suggest? Just grin and bear it? Accept the constant offense silently for fear of offending them?
This sort of racially insensitive behavior is bad and should be discouraged. It is clear that many people don’t know that it is bad, and those people need to be educated. The ideal way to convince them otherwise is to teach them empathy so that they understand why their behavior is wrong and internalize a desire to do better in the future. But that is often difficult. Being told you have done something bad is going to hurt. Since people don’t like to feel that they are behaving badly they will tend to convince themselves that their behavior wasn’t actually bad. An alternative is to apply social pressure such that even if they haven’t internalized a desire not to do this bad thing they stop doing it just to avoid the social consequences. (similar to the HR discussion in one of my previous posts).
So yes, calling people out for their racist behavior is going to offend them, and they may feel that they are socially stigmatized by that accusation, but that is the only way to achieve progress.
I think this requires looking at the long game. Will it stop the behavior now? Maybe not. But if society starts calling this stuff out, it will change people’s perception that it’s ok and will be tolerated.
OP didn’t really think it was an issue. I bet he does now.