They held no racial animus, other than not allowing them to be free. Massah so good to me, he loves me jus’ like he loves them there hound dogs!
If you can’t see that it’s inappropriate to “have affection” for another human being in the way you “have affection” for livestock, I’m not sure what I can say.
The slave owner “had affection” for the slave as long as said slave accepted his place as a slave. How twisted is that? How much “affection” did the slave owner have if the slave decided he wanted to make love to the slave owner’s daughter? Or wanted to wonder off the plantation and have a little fun for a few weeks?
That has nothing to do with what I said, unfortunately. I never said it was remotely appropriate; on the contrary, I’m giving it as an example of why I’m not convinced we need to find an element of overt hostility in a poster’s words in order to conclude that they’re racist. They may, as you suggest, have the same attitude toward other humans that they’d have toward livestock (or children, or pets, or whatever), and still be racist.
Well, at best that just shows that we can’t agree on what it means to be a racist, doesn’t it?
It shows that you have no idea what “animus” means, at least.
Errrr… you’re the one who stupidly insisted that racism required “ill feelings” towards black people.
You never stated that people who didn’t view blacks as “their equals” weren’t racist and doing so would have made your defense of CP look asinine because it’s embarrassingly obvious to everyone familiar with him that he certainly doesn’t consider blacks to be “his equals” anymore than Ahmadinejad is “just asking questions” when he calls for conferences to “study the Holocaust”.
Don’t move the goal posts once you’ve realized how your definition was incomplete.
Just admit you were wrong. We’re all wrong at times.
Be fair. Keep in mind based on his definition of racism neither Daniel Malan nor Hendrik Verwoerd were racist since neither had “ill feelings” towards blacks any more than our beloved CP did but genuinely thought that what they proposed would be for the best for them and for the blancs of South Africa.
I am acquiring cold feet regarding my stance on the use of the word racist in GD. On the one hand, it’s a 20 megaton insult when applied to somebody who wants to cut welfare spending. Well not really, but it is an insult and it does hijack the thread. On the other, tendentious hijacks about race and IQ in unrelated threads are basically slaps at people of color.
On the third hand Christians receive such slaps here as well. On the fourth hand cite?!? that this occurs in nontopical threads with regularity. (I thought it did some years back, but found after some examination that the examples were limited to one banned poster, not Der Trihs interestingly enough. Can’t locate the pit thread though.)
ISTM that folks want to slap back or at least affix a label in response to these provocative posts and hijacks. Now frankly I’m not too keen on doing that to conservative posters like Shodan or magellan01. I feel differently about one trick ponies.
I say it boils down to context and moderator discretion and I might recommend that context and moderator discretion be directed with greater flexibility. Or at least consider doing that.
We’re here to fight ignorance. Let’s discuss good practices, albeit not necessarily best practices. But not borderline practices. First, use the term racist as part of a question. Second affix an adjective to clarify whether or not animosity is involved.
“Certain early 20th century investigators measured skull sizes and performed standardized tests in a now discredited attempt to delineate different races. They called themselves racists. Do you consider yourself in the tradition of early 20th century racism? Because you seem to be espousing a lot of racial theory in a one-sided manner. Scientists call this practice cherry picking. Answering these questions would help us understand your argument better.”
I don’t know whether that’s really the best method. I generally prefer mockery and broad brushed characterizations when I encounter crackpot stuff. But given mid 20th century Jim Crow and early 20th century lynchings, my joviality can sometimes feel a little forced (except when male posters cite those who try to establish relationships between penis size and intelligence. Yes. This happens. Quack and crackpot, remember?) So I typically leave these chores to Ibn et al.
Here’s the thing. “Racist” is a powerful word. In the U.S. anyway. If you were to read or hear, “Joe is racist”, what picture would form in your mind of Joe?
Or if you were told, “Joe is always saying racist things”, what kinds of statements would you imagine Joe saying?
For me, and I think the vast percentage of people, we’d be forming a picture of Joe as being ignorant, hateful, not liking black people, thinking himself better than black people, thinking all black people are beneath him/beneath all white people, etc. And the racist statements he be uttering would reflect those views.
That’s what the word connotes. The very reason the word has so much power is that it connotes thoughts that society feels are vile, hateful and ignorant.
Let’s say that Joe really is a racist, as the word connotes. The problem arises when the word is applied not to Joe, but to Bob, who holds none of the opinions the Joe holds, yet is looking at differences in races for reasons that are scientific. Maybe Bob is a doctor looking at diabetes or sickle cell anemia, a researcher looking at musculature that produces the best human performance in running or weightlifting, or a sociologist looking at education for different minorities.
For the purposes of this argument, let’s assume that you personally know Bob and his work. You know that he is nothing like Joe and doesn’t have a racist bone in his body. Would you feel any reluctance to describe him as racist, his work as racist? Do you acknowledge that if you did apply the word “racist” to him or his work that you’d be pinging an inaccurate and unfair picture of him in the minds of others? That people would think him, due to your description to be like Joe? And do you think that would be unfair to Bob?
Again, I think folks, including mods, are confusing the concept with the referent. “Racist” is a powerfully negative word only because racism is a powerfully negative ideology. “Racism” has historically negative connotations because racism has historically negative effects.
This is totally different from a word like “cocksucker,” which is powerfully negative not because of its referent but because of the opinion about the referent that it conveys.
So yes. Big reveal: I don’t have a high opinion of people who appear to be racists. But that has nothing to do with the word: it has to do with the beliefs they hold. The reason there’s no less-offensive word for “racist,” as there is for most categories indicated by insulting words, is that it’s the concept itself that people find offensive, not the particular combination of letters used to reference that concept.
Okay. But could you please answer the specific questions in the last paragraph? I’m trying to precisely see where the disagreement is.
That said, I think racial is often not only a good substitute, but a better word, was it does not connote the negativity when that is not part of what one is trying to convey. “Race-based” is another good phrase, to, for example, describe Bob’s work.
Assuming I trust the source, probably something like a picture of a person who has racist beliefs that he thinks are okay, acceptable, and true. Like that he thinks black people are intellectually inferior, for example.
I wouldn’t necessarily jump to anything involving hate or animus – many or even most racists probably don’t hate other races, in my experience. Many do, of course.
Things like “black people are inherently inferior in intelligence”, or black people are inherently more criminal or more aggressive, or Jews are inherently greedier and less trustworthy, and things like that. He may or may not make liberal use of racial slurs, I don’t know.
I think this is the cartoon version of racists – though they certainly exist. I think there are quite a few racists in America, and few are hateful people. Racism doesn’t require hate, and never did.
From what you’ve described, I’d have no reason to apply the word “racist” to Bob or anything he has said or done. If he said that “black people are inherently inferior in intelligence”, then I might call that statement racist, because I think it is a racist assertion. But from what you’ve described then I wouldn’t expect him to say that or any other racist statements.
I’ll add that, in my view, it’s impossible to know with certainty whether anyone on earth (and even one’s own self) has “a racist bone in their body”. I don’t know if I do. I strongly hope I don’t, and I strive to never say or do racist things. I’m quite confident that my friends and family do not hold racist beliefs, but I’m not positive, and every so often one of them says something racist. If I hear it, I try and correct them on it. That’s what I want people to do with me – saying something racist is not the end of the world, and it’s something that most people I’ve ever known have probably done. I’ve done it, with certainty, as a younger man, and I regret it. I’ve learned from it. And that’s one of the reasons I think it’s so important to point it out – I believe most people (even people who say racist things sometimes!) are good people, and most people don’t want to say or do racist things. So I want to give them a chance to improve themselves, if I think they have said something racist. If this starts a conversation, that’s great, and it often does. Like this conversation that we’re having (not that I can recall calling any of your posts racist).
Racism is not black and white, in my view, in the sense that it’s not an on-off switch. “Black people shouldn’t play QB in NFL football – rather, they’re more suited for WR and DB” is a racist statement, as is “black people should be enslaved for their own good and for the good of society”. The first is mildly racist, and the latter is extremely racist. Someone who says the first is probably a decent person. Nonetheless, in my view, the assertion should be called out so the person can have a chance to learn. Not a huge deal, and not the end of the world.
I’m afraid the previous paragraph doesn’t provide me sufficient information. Does Bob, as a result of his research, believe that a particular race is superior to another? If he does, I think his research has some real problems (i.e., the idea of “race” is only useful in sociology, and then only as an explanation for granfalloons), and I think he’s racist. But if he thinks, for example, that people who self-identify as black in the Southern US have higher than average rates of sickle-cell anemia, or that people who self-identify as black in the United States score lower than average on the SAT, I don’t see how that would match the definition of racist.
Do you think we should substitute “Holocaust Skeptic” or “Holocaust revisionist” for “Holocaust Denier”?
If not, why not?
Hell, let’s go to something more immediate.
A poster writes:
Does everyone agree that this post evinces a belief in the insidious nature of Jewish thought? Does everyone agree that this post pretty dang far on the “antisemitic” end of the spectrum, well past the “yup, that’s antisemitic” marker?
I suspect I would not get warned if I wrote, “The OP (original post) is antisemitic”, but if I wrote, “The OP (original poster) is antisemitic,” I’d risk a warning. Is this correct?
And do we really think there’s so much daylight between the two that this distinction leads to better conversations?
And others beat, tortured and raped their slaves at will.
The treatment of slaves in the United States varied by time and place, but was generally brutal and degrading. Whipping and sexual abuse of women, including rape, were common.
Here,
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=771623&page=2
in post 75,** Really Not All That Bright**
Posts:* "In other threads Construct has been quite open about his racism. "*
Is that not calling him a racist? 
Actually, yeah I see daylight between the two and I perceive a bright line distinction worth preserving on this message board. One is an attack on the post. The other is an attack on the poster. A certain degree of diplomacy is required in GQ, GD and in real life.
If you characterize my post, we can discuss that in GD. If you characterize me, that’s a hijack, a hijack for the pit. (If you try to game that distinction, you can be modded. If you game it so as to avoid moderation, I can take you to the pit. This set of qualifications shouldn’t be necessary to state, and for most of my readers they are not.)
As an aside, the poster in your link is so blatant that delivering the SD smackdown is straightforward. Our resident racists here more typically engage in the rhetorical equivalent of 3 card monte. That is trickier.
That might be a difference in what they are. Is there any difference in what they mean? That is, if I am saying a post is antisemitic (evincing a mistrust of Jews), unless I am accusing the poster of lying, I am accusing the poster of being antisemitic (mistrusting Jews).
I understand the idea that we should attack ideas, not people, but I think the particular way the board draws the line is arbitrary and nonproductive. Correctly identifying a poster as following a particular ideology is far more useful to discussion than, say, calling a post stupid. The identification of a poster as operating in a certain set of beliefs can actually facilitate conversation, even though it breaks the board’s current rules, whereas saying, “This is the dumbest post I’ve ever read” does nothing to facilitate conversation, even though it follows the board’s current rules.