Well, considering that words are the only thing you can tell about a person online, I can’t see body language or hear their tone of voice, I am going to assume that if it - sounds - racist it - is - racist. People can “speak in code” and get away with being racist online but you can’t in real life, ie, body language and tone of voice. Words are all we have here. So if something sounds even remotely racist, I assume it - is - racist. Because, given these parameters, someone who is not racist, ie, someone who has regard for others, would choose more careful language (but not as careful as someone speaking in code, what a conundrum…).
And then there are actions. Well, what constitutes for actions on an internet forum. If someone spends day after day after day, week after week, year after year, complaining about minorities or the “politically correct police”, I’m going to assume they are racist.
I find questionable as well, the attitude of someone who is really, really, really concerned about people being “mislabeled” racists because… “all they want to do is come here to talk… agh!!!.. you evil liberals misunderstand me!!!”
It allows you to describe something that is discussing race without being pejorative.
Hell, no word is better. Because inaccurate information is worse than no information.
Ask yourself why you insist on couching things with “inferior”. It’s because your statement is very close to ""I think it’s racist to to say ‘Black people are inherently inferior’. “Inferior” is a qualitative judgement that describes, in this case, a person. The observation being made and hypothesis being offered goes to one particular trait that people possess. You want people like CP to be perceived as being racist, even if they’re not. And that’s because, as I’ve said, you want to make the discussion that you don’t like taboo. Hell, maybe you’re not even doing it consciously, but that’s what you’re doing all the same.
Would you say that “Asians are inherently inferior in height?” That “Whites are inherently inferior to Blacks in intelligence”? The Whites and Asians are inherently inferior to Blacks when it comes to melanin? I doubt it. Yet, you insist on talking about the metric of intelligence that way. As I’ve said, it’s really begging the question, ascribing motivation, animus to someone who is discussing data. And I don’t think you answered this before: In your mind, are Asian people inferior because they are, on average shorter? Or Whites inferior because they have less melanin?
Now, I fully understand your point that things like stature and skin color do not go as close to the value of a person, or a race, as intelligence does. But, again, let’s say that the intelligence gene is found. Would id be racist to mention that scientific fact? We get back to, “Can nature be racist?” To which you’ve said “no”. So I don’t think shining a light on a fact of nature is racist. I’m not appreciating where the line is crossed from empirical data to racist for you. I do agree that data can be used for racist purposes, and I understand that this is something that you (and I) fear might happen if the intelligence gene is identified and found to not be dispersed among different races in an egalitarian manner, but that does not mean it is necessarily the case. One should be able to explore the relationship between race and stature, melanin, susceptibility to disease, intelligence, whatever, without the statements around the exploration being deemed racist. And the person stating them, being labeled a racist, even indirectly.
Oh, please. I’m on record on a bunch of occasions stating that I do not agree with CP’s hypothesis. And since, as you say, all you really have to go by on a message posed are the words someone types, I find it odd that non of this post of your speaks to the quote of mine you included in your response. Do you disagree with any of it? Which parts? Why?
Believe it or not… I have only a marginal remembrance of you and your comments. I do recall that overall you lean right. I can see that, now, you are putting an exorbitant amount of energy into defending the “misuse” of the word racist.
B and C provide no useful information, and are not as accurate as A, if the statement is “black people are inherently inferior in intelligence”.
I call it “racist” not because it “is discussing race” – discussing race is not racist. I’m fine with discussing race, and don’t call things that discuss race “racist” unless they include an assertion that one racial group is superior/inferior, greater/lesser, or similar, in something like intelligence or morality or some other fundamentally human characteristic that’s been used to justify brutality in the past.
Saying such a statement is “racial” tells us nothing and is less accurate and precise then saying it’s “racist”. I don’t care if it’s pejorative or insulting if I think it’s accurate. Why would I? People can respond and try to explain why they think it’s not racist, or take it back, or whatever, and that can be a good discussion.
I’m not interesting in protecting people’s feelings from the truth.
I “insist” on attributing the same terms that other people use. CP said black people are inferior in intelligence due to genes. He explicitly said this. I don’t know (and don’t particularly care) if he’s a racist person, but he said that, and I think it’s a racist assertion.
Again, I’m using the same word CP used to describe the intelligence of black people.
I’m pretty sure I’ve answered your question or something like it many times – no, I don’t think Asian people are inferior for any reason, or whites, or any other race.
I’m all fine with such explorations, and when someone makes a claim about intelligence, I look at the data before I respond. So far, every single claim that I’ve seen that black people are inherently inferior in intelligence has been based on zero or feeble data, and every such claim has been racist. I still don’t see the problem with calling bad claims about the inherent inferiority of black people’s intelligence based on bad data racist. When such a claim is based on good data, then I would consider evaluating it differently. I don’t believe it’s racist to state facts, as a general principle. But there are no facts about inherent inferiority in intelligence being asserted in any of the threads we’re discussing.
So I’ll turn the question around to you – is it racist to assert that black people are inherently inferior in intelligence if the only supporting data is terrible/worthless/feeble, or if there is no supporting data whatsoever? If you think that it is, as I do, then the only disagreement here is about the terribleness (or not terribleness) of the data in question.
Of course. That is the way the human mind works. It is called compare and contrast. Making one thing distinct from another is a key part of learning and a key part of communication.
But there is a difference between being noticing a difference in the normal way that people notice things and being - obsessed - with “racial” differences. Just as, there is a difference between saying… hey, don’t be so quick to judge/label and being - obsessed - with defending people who are “incorrectly” labeled a racist.
Somebody who has a lower IQ than me is inferior to me in terms of IQ (and probably intelligence, all things being equal). Somebody who is shorter than me is inferior to me in terms of height. A vein that supplies blood to the heart from the upper part of the body is superior to the vein that supplies blood to the heart from the lower part of the body, which is inferior.
Inferior and superior are often used scientifically terms to describe the relative position or amount of one thing to another. I may not think less of or despise a person with a lower IQ than mine but I can certainly say their IQ is inferior to mine.
If I say a members of the societal structure of one race is inherently inferior to members of another race, then I would be a racist. It’s a simple term. I don’t have to hate or have disdain for the people I say are inherently inferior. I just have to believe they are inherently inferior. In fact, If I want to play the role of a scientific racist, I imagine I would be using superior/inferior quite a bit.
Which is all well and good, and entirely valid…but there’s a world of difference between the scientific or technical uses of a word and its common, colloquial usage. Hell, I can literally say I am superior to people shorter than me–I’m literally above them. But of course saying I am superior to people because they are shorter carries a lot of connotation beyond the strictly literal.
So based on the above, I assume you would agree with the following:
Suppose Poster 1 says “members of Group A have, on average, inferior intelligence to members of Group B”, and then Poster 2 comes along and says “Poster 1 says members of Group A are inferior to members of Group B”, Poster 2 is misrepresenting what Poster 1 actually said.
I agree. So what? I might say to a person X “Your IQ is inferior to mine” and depending on the context, X might be horribly offended or X might just nod in agreement. Either way I making a comparison.
If I say a race X is inherently inferior to race Y then I am making a racist claim. I might say such a thing with venom in my voice, perhaps if I were some ignorant racist, or I might say it in a clinical tone if I were some pseudo-intellectual scientific racist. Either way, racist is racist, and if your behavior fits the definition then the word can be readily applied without all the text gymnastics.
Now if you’re offended that a word is accurately applied to your behavior, then re-think how you behave.
When Poster 1 says “members of Race A have, on average, inherently inferior intelligence to members of Race B”, and then Poster 2 comes along and says “Poster 1 is a racist”, Poster 2 is correct.
Your answer is inferior to one that would indicate that you would like to engage in an actual discussion and can follow the logic of what is being asked.
It’s worse than that. Using "inferior that he way he and others do is stilted. They’re just desperate to use the word because then it sounds a lot like what a racist would actually say, i.e., that one race is superior to another.