A racist is a person who believes that at least one race is inherently and irredeemably inferior to at least one other race. They don’t care about facts regarding how the races compare on average with respect to certain traits–they believe that the inferior race is intrinsically inferior.
I don’t believe any race is inherently and irredeemably inferior to any other race. I have read the race/IQ studies and have no reason to dismiss them out of hand, so I provisionally accept their results until I have some reason to reject them. All those studies are about is one characteristic that appears to vary across racial lines–they say nothing about any race’s inherent inferiority. Also, the results of these studies could change in the future and show blacks on average have higher intelligence than all other races, and I would still discuss those studies just like I do today.
How do you account for us all coming to the same conclusion? Hint: It’s not a giant conspiracy against you. You insist that you’re the only one who has defined racism in this thread, but you are wrong. Other people have given definitions of racism that I agree with, but since it doesn’t agree with yours, you’ve ignored them.
I prefer bigot to racist. It sounds better as an insult and it’s more widely applicable. Pedantic assholes like to try to argue their way out of being called a racist by saying, “I don’t believe other races are inferior, I just judge the individuals by racial characteristics!” Fine, then maybe you’re not a racist, but you’re still one huge bigot.
Rand, the problem with your definition of racism is that it is entirely hung up on declaring that a person is or isn’t “a racist,” and basically ends the conversation there. If you’re “a racist,” you believe this one thing, and if you aren’t, you don’t; either way, we’re finished here. That isn’t worth much to very many people. The person being characterized as a racist probably believes that’s a really important distinction, but to everyone else it is a game.
People talk about racism because it has effects that matter to them, and your definition has nothing to do with effects at all. It is - and who would have ever expected this from a Rand Rover - as selfish as all-fucking-get-out. It’s not a conversation that’s even relevant to why racism is bad. It’s a conversation about you. By your definition, there’s no way to tell if anyone is “a racist,” unless you take his word for it. Somebody can do or say a bunch of things that, like was just mentioned, 99% of the people you ask will agree has racist implications in the real world, but if they say “I don’t think white people are naturally better than black people,” they aren’t racist. That is a definition that nobody in the world actually gives a shit about if you’re supporting prejudiced ideas and practices that have the real world effect of unfairly putting one race above or below others on some meaningful level.
So, I mean, since this is your objective, I’ll go ahead and say it. Rand Rover, you are not racist by your own definition of racism. You are a winner in that contest. Most of the rest of us belief that racist actions and words are what matter in the end, though, because that’s what affects the rest of us, and the shit you keep saying is fairly characterized as some racist shit. In that context, saying “you are a racist” is just shorthand for saying “this thing that you just did has a racist effect on the real world and appears to have been motivated by a desire to achieve that effect, even though I don’t know what’s inside your precious snowflake of a brain.”
Definition of “racist” as used herein = characteristic of bigotry based on race. It’s not actually hard to understand.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
So if I called you intractably stupid, would you think I was making a value-neutral statement about you? Sure you would.
I don’t even know why a guy like you even cares about being called a racist. Embrace what you are, man. Stop running away from yourself. As much as you have denied in other threads the existence of racism, I think the time is nigh that you go on and give your beliefs the right name.
I understand the problems you are having with my definition of racist. But that’s an age-old problem that we have good solutions for–almost every crime has a mens rea requirement, meaning the state must prove that the defendant thought something specific when he did something specific. So, for certain types of murder, the defendant must have had the intent to kill. That intent is usually inferred from the defendant’s actions–a person who doesn’t want to kill someone wouldn’t put a gun to that person’s head and pull the trigger. Similarly, I don’t think a reasonable person can infer that I am a racist (under mý definition) based on what I have said in this thread or on this board.
As for your definition, what does “characteristic of bigotry based on race” mean? More specifically I guess, what does “bigotry” mean?
Also, orcenio, the definitions you posted seem to support the credibility of my definition, don’t you think?
please provide your definition of racist and explain how I meet that definition. Or just continue prattling on like an idiot, I really don’t care either way.
I’m not having a problem with your definition, with all due respect. You’re having a problem getting other people to agree with it. Mens rea is a fine illustration of the point, if you want to use that example: mental state is an element of a crime, and a crime is a thing somebody did. The point of a criminal conviction isn’t that the defendant is a batterer or whatever, it’s that a battery has been committed – the result is what people care about. When intent matters, it’s intent to commit the act, not intent to be a criminal while doing it. When people use the shorthand “he’s a murderer/wifebeater/thief,” they’re talking about what he’s done, not his true inner self.
And what people are telling you, in effect, is that you’re committing the offense of racism. You keep responding that you are not “a racist.” But if you, say, break into the house of another during the night-time with the intent to commit a felony therein, you can’t just say “but I’m not a burglar!” and expect anybody to care. For the same reason as it’s irrelevant to mens rea what you “are,” I think it’s irrelevant here.
I know enough about what you believe to know that my answer won’t be satisfactory because it’s too context-sensitive, so I’ll just say that up front. Like if it isn’t racist for there to be a black student union, why would anyone say it’s racist to start a white student union, and all that… I’m not getting into that.
With that said, I’ll do my best: a thing that’s racist is a thing that does (or tries to, I guess) contribute to inequality among races because of race. It’s related to your definition in that it’s a good bet that what you call a racist would probably do a lot of “racist” (my version) things, but I don’t need to declare every person who does them “a racist” (your version).
So to get down to it, saying the population you define as black scored lower on IQ tests than the population you define as white is not racist. Taking that one step further and using those scores in basically every way I’ve ever seen them used will be, in my opinion, racist. I’ve never seen them used in a way that didn’t appear to simply be a proxy for saying “black people actually deserve less because they’re black,” which is a premise I reject. I’ll agree with you that a person can say that fewer black people deserve to be doctors than other kinds of people and still not actually literally believe that black people are worth less in some spiritual sense. I just don’t care. I think that belief contributes to what is already a fucked up degree of social inequality – I think it will keep deserving black doctors from becoming doctors – and I’m against it on those grounds.
And this gets us back to the dilemma I just presented: Why do you care how a prattling black idiot like myself defines racism? And why do you even care enough to convince us that you’re not racist? If some bozos on the internet accused me of being racist, I’d just laugh them off due to their absurdity. I certainly wouldn’t draw anyone into some lameass dictionary contest.
By arguing with people over definitions–and cherry picking until you find the one that best allows you to believe what you do without bearing the guilt of the truth–you’re basically admitting to us that you’re racist. You’re like the guy with a tiny dick who has taken out a tape measure to show that his one inch is actually 1.5 inches, when he sucks in his stomach and thinks of Halle Berry at the same time. What this guy fails to realize is that whether we’re talking 1" or 1.5", we’re still talking about a micropene.
Acting like that extra half an inch is a game-changing variable is only something self-deluded racists do.
OK. I think I understand you now. Your definition is results-oriented whereas my definition is motivation-oriented.
If someone does something that has the affect of causing or increasing a detriment to black people, then you’d probably say that person is a racist and the act is racist. I would say that the act may tend to indicate that the person is a racist and it may not depending–the effect of a detrimental result isn’t enough, I’d ask whether they intended that result or the result was so foreseeable that they must have intended it or acted in reckless disregard of its probability.
Really I think our definitions illustrate the fiscal conservative / fiscal liberal divide. I just want the government to set up a fair playing field and let the cards fall where they may. Fiscal liberals want the government to insure a certain outcome (one they would describe using words like “social justice” or having a lack of “social inequality”).
More specifically on the race/IQ thing, I’m sure I would agree with you on several stupid uses of those statistics. They don’t mean that a business should only hire asians or whites. They don’t mean that black people “deserve less” (whatever that means. Really I think the only practical application of those statistics is in education–programs like No Child Left Behind would be much improved if people could simply acknowledge that we shouldn’t expect all races to score the exact same, and a racial disparity in scores does not necessarily mean that one race is being treated unfairly.
Jimmy, thanks for finally discussing this issue. Please let me know if I’ve mis-stated your position.
Just trying to fight your ignorance. I thought maybe you would learn something if you sat down and actually tried to construct an argument. I do this a lot around here–asking people to actually make an argument for a position they assert–and they hardly ever do (really I think it’s happened like twice). I think some people honestly don’t know how to construct an argument.
In any event, I’ve had a good discussion with Jimmy and a partially good discussion with MOL, so this thread wasn’t a total waste.
But she was wrong about that, as she seems to have acknowledged. (Skin color isn’t the sole or even primary motivator behind some street attacks, but it plays a role.)
The woman told me not to walk around with my phone out because there has been a string of robberies. This is solid, good advice. Not walking around with your expensive phone out is good advice for anyone of any race.
So what additional information did she convey by saying they were robbing white people? Besides keeping my phone on the DL, what other advice could she have possibly been giving?
Don’t be white? Not possible, I’m afraid. Don’t walk home? Also, not going to happen. Keep in mind this was 7:00 PM on a Thursday- it’s not like I was wandering the streets drunk at 2AM on a rowdy Saturday night. Don’t live here? Too late for that. None of these messages are sensible, so it probably wasn’t what she was trying to say.
What else is left that she could have been trying to communicate? The only thing I can think of is she could have been saying to be wary of black people. But that doesn’t really make sense as it’s a black neighborhood. Even being wary of young black people doesn’t really work- I live literally a block away from Howard. Chances are most black people I run into are going to be from a group of the smartest, most put-together young black people in the world. Being wary of all black people isn’t something any of us could realistically do.
So given that “they are robbing white people” doesn’t really lead to any actually applicable information or any behaviors I could change, what could she have meant by saying it? What was she trying to tell me?
The only reasonable conclusion I can come up with is that it was meant as a bit of us vs. them neighborly bonding. Gross.
Obviously I wasn’t there, so I don’t know the tone she took. However, just from your story I can’t help but think that you’re reading way too much into her advice. It sounds like she saw a young woman playing with her Iphone and cautioned her to use a little more situational awareness. I know you’ve had a lot of experience in rough places, but the woman had no way of knowing that, and probably mistook you for a typical clueless newcomer, who may never have lived in a city. At worst it was presumptuous.
As far as the racial element goes, I don’t see anything worse in what she said than someone telling a black person to be cautious while driving through, say, Oildale, CA. I’d certainly want to know if I was being singled out for violence.
I wouldn’t worry too much about it. I know the area you live in, and it’s not that bad, as you are no doubt aware. Most people aren’t criminals, regardless of their hue. I don’t practice situational awareness nearly as much as I should, yet haven’t had many problems. But the phenomenon she describes does exist, and i don’t think it’s necessarily racist to point it out.
Even sven, the extra piece of information she could have been conveying is “you are in a group that is more likely to be robbed in this area.”
Let’s say you were talking to a 30-year-old Arabic man who’s never been to the US, and he’s planning to travel around the US by purchasing one-way same-day tickets for cash and not checking any luggage. Do you think you might say something to him similar to what Pearls said to you? If so, would that make you a racist?