# Race, Racism and Such **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [April 28, 2016, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346 "2016-04-28T15:58:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2016, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346/61 "2016-05-01T18:11:07Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > As I said six months ago, I think the word should be acceptable sometimes. In this case, it’s unambiguously applicable. I think there are other cases in which it’s also unambiguously applicable–for example, if someone meets the straightforward dictionary definition of “racist,” by proclaiming that black people are genetically inferior to white people on a relevant axis. Much of the time, it should not be allowed–for example, while I believe there are serious racist implications to voter ID laws, I do not think it should be okay for me (or anyone) to call someone a racist for advocating such laws, because that doesn’t meet a straightforward definition, but is rather an ambiguous position. > > Also as I said in the other thread, I don’t anticipate ever calling someone a racist in GD. My reasoning for this is much the same as my reasoning for not using the word “niggardly.” In both cases, we have perfectly cromulent, precise, accurate words; but there are those with, let’s call it an imperfect understanding of language, who would find themselves so distracted by their misunderstanding of the word’s penumbra that discussion would be hopelessly hijacked. > > I don’t anticipate using “racist” as a label any more than I anticipate using “niggardly.” I think it’s a terrible idea to ban either word. Your precision and care for language are admirable. And if people were universally precise, accurate, and careful rules nor moderation would be necessary. ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2016, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346/62 "2016-05-01T18:16:17Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Say you have a question: why are men more likely to engage in mass shootings? Should I dismiss you by calling you sexist or look at statistics and see if your claim is true? If your claim is true should I call you sexist or delve into reasons why your claim is true? If my sensibilities as a man are so offended and triggered that I can’t help but to respond by calling you sexist isn’t the burden on me to avoid participation in that thread instead of ruining it for those who are less emotional? But that’s in no way analogous to what we are talking about. If I say grown women are inherently inferior to men with significant gaps in their executive functions and so basically approximate to teenage boys, and that as such it makes sense that they be denied the vote and control of their own finances, and that their legal status should permanently be that of a dependent on their father or their husband, how am I not a sexist? How is calling a person that holds those views insulting them? So yeah, if I espouse textbook sexist views, call me a sexist. That’s totally different from someone taking my stated views, extrapolating that I am a sexist, and labeling me such. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2016, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346/63 "2016-05-01T18:17:40Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > For the love of Christ, I answered that question about two dozen times in great detail in that thread. Have you forgotten? > > It is absolutely not saying I want to call someone a name. I am not buying it. Sorry. Look, unless the poster calls himself a racist, you dont know that he is. You’re just basing your namecalling on a few posts on a Message board. Maybe he’s playing devils advocate, maybe "just asking questions’ maybe trolling or most significantly- \*maybe you’re wrong about what opinions makes someone a racist. \* Yes, and it’s Ok to use the tern “Nazi” when using it for a poster that \*self identifies as such. - Same with “Democrat, Muslim, pacifist”. Even tho Muslim isnt a pejorative like Racist or Nazi , it’d still be wrong to call someone that based upon the fact they say they read the Koran. There’s no need at all to call someone any term -unless they self-identity with that term. Mainly because you could be wrong. Sure, that opinion they just posted sounds pretty racist- so say that- about the post, not the post_er._ ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2016, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346/64 "2016-05-01T18:21:27Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I have no idea why you think that repeated accusations of dishonesty are somehow conducive to debates, but as long as you’re going to continue doing so, conversation with you is worthless. Your posts serve simply to demonstrate the terrible priorities of this board: using precise language to describe viewpoints is banned, but the mods themselves engage in well-poisoning like this. Further, your claim of “precise language to describe viewpoints” demonstrates your persistent refusal to acknowledge the reality that words convey more than simple definitions. You may actually believe that an accusation that one is a racist, (a sexist, a bigot, a homophobe, etc.), is not an insult, but that indicates a serious disconnect from the reality of language. Regardless whether or not the target actually is one of those things, the label is an insult that stops discussion and promotes personal feuding. And the insistence that one be permitted to insult another poster when there is no bar to pointing out that their statements are racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic, etc., seems to indicate more a desire to be offensive than an effort to be “precise.” ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2016, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346/65 "2016-05-01T18:40:53Z")
> [@MandaJo](#): > > But that’s in no way analogous to what we are talking about. If I say grown women are inherently inferior to men with significant gaps in their executive functions and so basically approximate to teenage boys, and that as such it makes sense that they be denied the vote and control of their own finances, and that their legal status should permanently be that of a dependent on their father or their husband, how am I not a sexist? How is calling a person that holds those views insulting them? > > So yeah, if I espouse textbook sexist views, call me a sexist. That’s totally different from someone taking my stated views, extrapolating that I am a sexist, and labeling me such. Let’s accept your premise that the above is textbook sexism. Nothing productive is gained by calling you a sexist. It leads to a fight about who you are when who you are or what are you is irrelevant to the veracity of your stated point of view. Or the point of you view that you may be advocating as an academic exercise to learn more about the arguments pro and con. The ideal solution is to point out facts that disprove the initial assumptions that lead to the conclusion that women are inferior. Or to advance the point of view that in law and society that it’s not a prerequisite to share identical DNA in order to be considered or treated equally. Nasty rhetoric has real power and is a valid tactic in some environments where anything is acceptable to advance one’s agenda. Message boards like this aren’t usually that environment. A message board like this believes that civility enhances the goal of educating on factual subjects so has rules about personal attacks. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2016, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346/66 "2016-05-01T19:39:59Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Let’s accept your premise that the above is textbook sexism. Nothing productive is gained by calling you a sexist. It leads to a fight about who you are when who you are or what are you is irrelevant to the veracity of your stated point of view. Or the point of you view that you may be advocating as an academic exercise to learn more about the arguments pro and con. > > The ideal solution is to point out facts that disprove the initial assumptions that lead to the conclusion that women are inferior. Or to advance the point of view that in law and society that it’s not a prerequisite to share identical DNA in order to be considered or treated equally. > > Nasty rhetoric has real power and is a valid tactic in some environments where anything is acceptable to advance one’s agenda. Message boards like this aren’t usually that environment. A message board like this believes that civility enhances the goal of educating on factual subjects so has rules about personal attacks. I agree that “racist” has negative power as an insult, but so do racist assertions, like (unfortunately commonly repeated in some form on this board) ‘black people are inherently intellectually inferior due to genetics’. In this sense I agree with **LHOD** , and if people are allowed to assert that black people are inherently inferior in Great Debates, even if the language is flowery sounding, then it should be allowed to refer to them as racist, in my view. Not a huge deal, in my opinion, since it’s almost the same thing (and takes anything personal out of it) to call their assertions racist, and calling assertions racist (rather than posters) is allowed. And as a rule, even in the Pit, I’ve almost never called any posters racist (just a very few times, I think, considering how often I’ve involved myself in these topics), though I’ve called out the assertions that I thought were racist more frequently… so even if this rule were changed, I probably wouldn’t change my posting behavior at all for the vast majority of cases. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2016, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346/67 "2016-05-01T19:51:25Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I agree that “racist” has negative power as an insult, but so do racist assertions, like (unfortunately commonly repeated in some form on this board) ‘black people are inherently intellectually inferior due to genetics’. In this sense I agree with **LHOD** , and if people are allowed to assert that black people are inherently inferior in Great Debates, even if the language is flowery sounding, then it should be allowed to refer to them as racist, in my view. > > Not a huge deal, in my opinion, since it’s almost the same thing (and takes anything personal out of it) to call their assertions racist, and calling assertions racist (rather than posters) is allowed. And as a rule, even in the Pit, I’ve almost never called any posters racist (just a very few times, I think, considering how often I’ve involved myself in these topics), though I’ve called out the assertions that I thought were racist more frequently… so even if this rule were changed, I probably wouldn’t change my posting behavior at all for the vast majority of cases. Either genetics is a legitimate topic for debate or it is not. If it is than why should the rules for debate change because you or others find the discussions of genetics distasteful or politically unpalatable? ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2016, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346/68 "2016-05-01T19:55:05Z")
We truly have been around this mulberry bush before. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I’ve argued this ad nauseum before, but it’s not in that category at all. “Racist” is an assessment of the nature of a person’s views. The pejorative aspect comes because racist views are socially unacceptable. “Asshole” etc. jump straight to the pejorative. There is a distinction between asshole and racist. Doesn’t make racist appropriate for GD. > [@](#): > > There is no other word that communicates the idea that “racist” communicates without the judgment attached, because the negative judgment is attached to the content of the views, not to the word itself. I think we have a real problem on our hands, to the extent that certain views _not having to do with the personality of the poster_ can’t be discussed with clarity. But I don’t see that as insurmountable. The word racist is heavily charged in early 21st century America: you can’t call a person a racist without insulting them (with few exceptions). Most racists deny being racist after all. **Ibn** pointed out to me that it really wasn’t necessarily the 50 megaton insult that I thought it invariably was. I’ve come around to that view. But it’s still insulting and best left out of GD. That implies that vocal anti-racists have to battle with a handicap IMHO. Which is a bummer. In practice this can be reasonably viewed as another form of conservative sponsored political correctness. Not a problem to me. I’ll add that the amount of crap that minorities have to deal with in this country is lamentable. I concede that GD is a (small, like everything else at this message board) part of the mountain. > [@Acsenray](#): > > The fact that “racist” is treated as an insult in our society is now the main obstacle to defeating racism. Set aside “Main obstacle”. I think there are a number of GD-acceptable workarounds for this problem. It’s not like the civility bar in GD is especially high. > [@DrDeth](#): > > Look, unless the poster calls himself a racist, you dont know that he is. You’re just basing your namecalling on a few posts on a Message board. Maybe he’s playing devils advocate, maybe "just asking questions’ maybe trolling or most significantly- \*maybe you’re wrong about what opinions makes someone a racist. \* I disagree with this. If somebody espouses early 20th century racist views without qualification, I think they can be properly characterized as an early 20th century style racist in the context of an early 21st century message board post. I just think that stuff should be argued in the Pit. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2016, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346/69 "2016-05-01T20:12:33Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Either genetics is a legitimate topic for debate or it is not. If it is than why should the rules for debate change because you or others find the discussions of genetics distasteful or politically unpalatable? It is, and genetics can be discussed (even the genetics of intelligence) without making racist claims. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2016, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346/70 "2016-05-01T23:59:04Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > This’s being disingenuous. You know that the tactic of calling one’s opponent a racist or a sexist is not an attempt at honest debate. The irony is rich here. You think that accurate, precise descriptions of beliefs is not good debating, but what you’re doing–accusing your opponent of arguing in bad faith, of dishonesty–is good debating? No way. > [@Colibri](#): > > This subject has been “discussed to exhaustion” by you repeatedly in the past. I am not sure what you feel you are accomplishing by discussing it to exhaustion yet again. After your contributions to the last thread, you may rest assured that what I want to accomplish has nothing whatsoever to do with you as an audience or as a conversational partner. > [@tomndebb](#): > > It was not an accusation of dishonesty. I suspect that you actually want to believe this stuff, but it is not based on reality, therefore it is pretend. And this just about says it all. You accuse me of twisted logic, but you’re certainly going to get away with this sort of execrable behavior as you always do. A reasonable board would warn you for this and would remove you from the ranks of moderators for your habit of making this sort of post. We know this won’t happen, that you’ll almost certainly continue accusing people of dishonesty/disingenuity/whatever synonym you come up with and then making excuses for yourself, as though your debating tactics aren’t the worst sort of well-poisoning. But woe betide any who point out the racists who come to the board! ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2016, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346/71 "2016-05-02T00:03:28Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > your persistent refusal to acknowledge… > …You may actually believe that … > …that indicates a serious disconnect from the reality of language… > …the insistence that one be permitted to insult another poster… > …seems to indicate more a desire to be offensive than an effort to be “precise.” A poster who does not so regularly engage in sneering dismissal of others through the sort of backhanded ad hominems as these might have a bit more credibility when they advocate civility in discourse. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2016, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346/72 "2016-05-02T00:06:34Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > The word racist is heavily charged in early 21st century America: you can’t call a person a racist without insulting them (with few exceptions). Most racists deny being racist after all. **Ibn** pointed out to me that it really wasn’t necessarily the 50 megaton insult that I thought it invariably was. I’ve come around to that view. But it’s still insulting and best left out of GD. I appreciate your acting as a model of civility, MfM, even though we disagree. Here’s the thing, as I’ve said before: the insult is the referent, not the word. The idea that someone is racist is offensive. But you know what else is offensive? The idea that someone is inferior to another based on their race. In both cases, it’s the idea referenced, not the word itself, that carries the insult. I’d be much happier with banning the word “racist” if the racist ideas themselves were banned. But if we’re going to have the frank exchange of ideas that includes the offensive idea that some posters are racially inferior to others, we should also have the frank exchange of ideas that includes the offensive idea that some posters are racist. Again, it’s the idea, not the word, that carries offense. Ban both ideas or neither, but be consistent. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2016, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346/73 "2016-05-02T00:40:41Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Here’s the thing, as I’ve said before: the insult is the referent, not the word. The idea that someone is racist is offensive. But you know what else is offensive? The idea that someone is inferior to another based on their race. In both cases, it’s the idea referenced, not the word itself, that carries the insult. I think this is false. Dictionaries aren’t the final authority on these matters. But they are a good starting point in my view. My copy of Websters New World College Dictionary (better than Merriam Webster, btw, which is published by a different company), has 3 definitions of racism. (Racist doesn’t get a title of its own but is included inside the racism entry). Here they are. [INDENT]1. belief or doctrine asserting racial differences in… [/INDENT] That’s what you’re alluding to above. Let’s go on. [INDENT]2. any program or practice of racial discrimination, segregation, etc… such as a program or practice that upholds the political or economic domination of one race or over another or others. [/INDENT] …sometimes called institutional racism. It’s a useful concept. Thinking it over, it wouldn’t be a bad piece of rhetoric to say in GD, “You appear to be advocating a program that upholds the political domination of one race over another or others.” Pretty high intensity - it could use some softeners. I expect it to receive mod monitoring. But it has the advantage of clarity. I am assuming a case where substantiation would be provided _as well as consideration of policy alternatives_. One or two sentence wonders are seldom helpful, except as wisecracks. But here’s the kicker: [INDENT]3. feelings or actions of hatred or bigotry toward a person or persons because of their race. [/INDENT] There’s no way around #3. It’s a personal insult and it’s jam-packed into the term. Why did my dictionary list racism=bigotry in position 3? A: My dictionary generally lists definitions in _historical_ order. Not in order of prevalence of usage. There wouldn’t be a problem with calling someone a racist in GD in 1916. Because the idea would be mostly tinged by #1. In 2016? No: for most people definition #3 will spring to mind. And there’s no way that can’t be an insult. Even in 1916. Very few like being accused of being temperamentally unfair, even if they go so far as to believe in, say, Jim Crow. Bizarre but true. I acknowledge that this places a handicap on anti-racists in GD. Because arguing #1 is pretty insulting, though I support the board’s policy on this. By way of full disclosure, I’ll also say that I generally don’t bear this particular burden: it’s not my issue. (Ibn I think recognizes the above and would prefer to use the phrase “Scientific racist”, to allude to #1. I dislike that construction for a number of reasons. Hm. Racial differentiator? I suppose that could be used, except that best practice involves labeling the idea rather than the poster.) ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2016, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346/74 "2016-05-02T01:01:56Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > The irony is rich here. You think that accurate, precise descriptions of beliefs is not good debating, but what you’re doing–accusing your opponent of arguing in bad faith, of dishonesty–is good debating? > > No way. > > After your contributions to the last thread, you may rest assured that what I want to accomplish has nothing whatsoever to do with you as an audience or as a conversational partner. > And this just about says it all. You accuse me of twisted logic, but you’re certainly going to get away with this sort of execrable behavior as you always do. A reasonable board would warn you for this and would remove you from the ranks of moderators for your habit of making this sort of post. We know this won’t happen, that you’ll almost certainly continue accusing people of dishonesty/disingenuity/whatever synonym you come up with and then making excuses for yourself, as though your debating tactics aren’t the worst sort of well-poisoning. But woe betide any who point out the racists who come to the board! You assume everyone is willing and capable to engage precisely and accurately at all times. You have far too much faith in humanity. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2016, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346/75 "2016-05-02T01:23:07Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > A poster who does not so regularly engage in sneering dismissal of others through the sort of backhanded ad hominems as these might have a bit more credibility when they advocate civility in discourse. So, you only want to champion an approach using so-called “precise language” when it allows you to insult other posters, but you take offense when it is directed at your statements. So noted. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2016, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346/76 "2016-05-02T01:24:29Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > So, you only want to champion an approach using so-called “precise language” when it allows you to insult other posters, but you take offense when it is directed at your statements. > > So noted. Are you really so certain **LHOD** doesn’t 100% believe what he’s saying? I certainly think he’s sincere. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2016, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346/77 "2016-05-02T01:40:18Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Are you really so certain **LHOD** doesn’t 100% believe what he’s saying? I certainly think he’s sincere. Where do you draw that conclusion? I think that he is 101% sincere. I just think that his views do not align with reality in the realm of language. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2016, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346/78 "2016-05-02T01:40:53Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > If somebody espouses early 20th century racist views without qualification, I think they can be properly characterized as an early 20th century style racist in the context of an early 21st century message board post. I just think that stuff should be argued in the Pit. This is the crux of it. Some posters feel they just must, must, MUST be able to use the word “racist” to identify the ideas that we as a society find abhorrent. And the people who espouse them. But it’s almost never the case that the view or person is one where there’d be unanimity about. So, discussion that involve race and may point to the superiority or inferiority of one race over another, quickly get moved into the racist category. What they really mean, of course, is RACIST!! in an attempt to discredit both the opinion and poster with a simple word. There protestations to the contrary are malarky, as they refuse to use a perfectly good and correct word—racial—which solves the problem out of the time without even having to write around it. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2016, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346/79 "2016-05-02T01:43:59Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > It is, and genetics can be discussed (even the genetics of intelligence) without making racist claims. Is a discussion looking at the correlation between world class sprinters and black skin racist? Can one looking at the possible explanations as to why blacks in the U.S. do so poorly academically look at genetics as a possible cause? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2016, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346/80 "2016-05-02T01:44:46Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Is a discussion looking at the correlation between world class sprinters and black skin racist? Can one looking at the possible explanations as to why blacks in the U.S. do so poorly academically look at genetics as a possible cause? No and yes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-racism-and-such/753346.md?page=5)