Dude, you just compared being called a “nigger” to being called a “racist”. If that’s not begging for martydom, I don’t know what else is. You’re whole argument jumped the shark with that shit.
Yes, I am. “Nigger” is a slur and only a slur. It’s a direct application to a person, place, or thing only serves to provoke an emotional response. “Racism/racist” is a noun/adjective referring to a particular belief and/or behavior. The terminology is no more a slur than words like sexism or homophobia are. These are facts.
I only get concerned because too many people make the assumption, frequently followed by an accusation, that annoying racial assumptions are PROOF of real racism and that’s not always true, warranted or necessary. Yeah, it is like assuming a blonde’s a bimbo.
“Racist” is, strictly speaking, nonperogative and nonderogatory, especially among practicing racists.
But calling someone who opposes a given belief system and resents their personal association with it is by that the name of that group’s adherents is frequently regarded as an accusation of some sort, and folks react to it as they would any ordinary personal insult.
Well, would ya look at that. An attitude OR an action can be considered racist.
Gotta strain out a lot of gnats to overlook all the attitudes and beliefs in this here definition. But keep up the diligent work, please. Wouldn’t want to mistakenly call someone who just thinks black people are shit-eating niggers a racist. Oh no, never that. Laws no. :rolleyes:
Since it is typical of you to fail to address the salient parts of my arguments, I am surprised that it has taken you this long to manufacture a blanket dismissal. It is called argument ad hominum. Rather than counter my argument, you attack me.
Please explain how being factual robs a comment of derogatory elements.
I sincerely try to make my exchanges with you civil, but it is getting harder and harder not to think that you are just a dumbass.
Power. System of advantage. Both are actions, or results of actions.
You are cordially invited to show where I stated that belief was not an element of racism. Oh wait. Jumped the shark. Forgot. Damned convenient for you.
I specifically said your argument jumped the shark. Go read up on what an ad hominem is please. I thought you’d quit with this type of blunder after the stupid “active voice” bullshit.
As for your salient points, I don’t think you even know them yourself. You’re all over the place. You bring up a string of random dictionary definitions as if to prove that someone can’t be a racist unless they do something. Problem is is that they don’t prove that at all, and I pointed that out to you. So what is your point?
How about another vocabulary lesson.
To diagnose a behavior, belief, or person as racist is no more derogatory than diagnosing someone with obesity. If you show the symptoms, then you have the condition. If would only be derogatory if you’re using the term as a verbal weapon.
See this? That’s an ad hominem. Good job.
How is a system an action? How is power an action? How many gnats are you trying to strain?
You are cordially invited to explain how someone who only thinks all black people are monkeys is not being racist.
Some people argue that you aren’t really “racist” unless you act on it. In other words, thinking it isn’t enough, you actually have to do something about it. The theory goes that if you harbor racist attitudes or beliefs but you do not discriminate in how you actually treat people, then you’re not really a racist. To paraphrase Forrest Gump, “racist is as racist does.”
I heard that kind of argument all the time in the south. I don’t really buy it but that may be what Contrapuntal means.
You’re right. Not ad hominum. Still, a blanket dismissal of all previous arguments based on one statement is foolish and illogical.
You will note that, however, that
A) I conceded the point.
B) It was not you who made the point.
C) The poster who did make the point agreed with me that your argument was weak. He just objected to my use of thephrase “active voice.”
How convenient for you.
Random? That’s kind of funny. Really. I got a chuckle out of that. Your dictionary cite was not random, I take it? Only mine? Right.
You provided a cite to show that simply thinking a racist thought is sufficient to bring about a charge of racism. I provided multiple cites to counter that. They do. And they do no matter how they were generated; by lottery, or throwing darts at a map, or playing tiddlywinks, or by searching for cites to support my argument. The main point was that an appeal to authority, as a debating tactic, is a poor one, and open to a counter appeal.
Same as it ever was. That this statement is false – Everyone, and I mean everyone, suffers from internalized racism.
That I do not suffer in such a manner.
That simply having a thought that is deemed racist is insufficient to justify the charge of racism. It is no more true than having a musical thought makes one a musician, or having a literary thought makes one a writer.
Ooh, diagnose. Good doctor word.
Let’s look at your definition. Say my wife is a terrible cook. Can’t even boil hotdogs. Let’s also say that we have been taken to dinner by another couple, and I offer to reciprocate by serving dinner at our house. I am asked “what is your wife’s specialty” to which I respond, “Nothing. She’s a terrible cook. I’m not kidding! Man, she can’t even boil hotdogs! I’m the cook at our house.” Have I disparaged, belittled, or diminished my wife? Have I thusly not been derogatory?
Hmmm, no. If I had said your argument was wrong because you are a dumbass, that would be ad hominum. I just stated that it is getting harder to think you are not one.
Case in point. I said ‘action, or the result of an action.’ If you can set up a system without performing any acts, please tell me how. ‘Power’ is powerless without action. It is nonsensical to state that I have power over you, but am powerless to implement it. If I can make it so that your life is affected, I can only do so through action.
Because only thinking it has zero effect on black people’s lives.
Laws, Laws, Miss Scarlett, I don’t know nothin’ birthin’ no babies.
[quote=you with the face]
You are cordially invited to explain how someone who only thinks all black people are monkeys is not being racist.
So in order for something to be racist, it has to have an effect on people?
If John Doe calls me a monkey-faced nigger it will have zero effect on me, because I couldn’t give two shits about what John Doe thinks about me. So does that mean John Doe is not a racist?
You keep twisting the definition of “racist” so that it becomes harder and harder to qualify as one. Do you have a good reason for parsing the word so arbitrarily?
And I’m curious about something. Based on my previous interactions with you, I would have assumed that you wouldn’t be arguing that you must have power to be a racist. Wouldn’t that mean that minorities can’t be racist, since they–by definition–have less power than the majority? If a black kid says “I hate Whitey” and a white kid says “I hate Darkey”, are they equally racist, or is the white kid more racist because he’s a member of the power structure? Or is neither one of them racist since they haven’t actually done anything except express their opinion?
You seem to be arguing a bunch of confusing things. I’d love for you to clarify.
As long as we can define, “doing something about it” as “Pretty much any action that shows your support and approval for racist ideology, actions or traditions or your disapproval of any progessive racial ideas, actions, rights and mores” I’d agree.
If you’re a card-carrying white racist who hates black people to the depths of your soul and you are yet self-possessed enough to NEVER say a mumbling word or lift a finger to any black person about how you really feel, ever – and not even to your fellow linen liners at your local Klavern when your only daughter conforms to every racist belief you have and runs off with a black guy, has seven kids by him, all out of wedlock, on welfare, and their names all have three to five syllables and begin with Sha- and end in -Na, well gee. You got me there. I guess if you can’t even carry the courage of your most hateful and cherished beliefs, you can’t possibly be racist. This totally beliveable and completely likely hypthetical scenario that mirrors preceisely how people really think and act has me undone.
Contrapunctal. You’re just being a meanie, man. And you know damn well you’re being disingenuous about “not insulting” you with the face by saying she’s “getting harder not to think of as a dumbass” is not a personal attack. That’s unworthy of you.
It means I don’t care about what his sociopolitical beliefs are, John Doe is about to get knocked the fuck out. Blee dat.
But the effect in this case is that John Doe has, in fact, actually done something: he called you a racial slur. It may be ineffectual to you, or devastating to someone else, or an excuse for me to kick his ass and rub lye in the wounds, but in any event it’s an actionable example of something’s he’s done that gives a glimpse into his mental state. If he does nothing, says nothing, gives away nothing non-verbally or body language, ever, there’s no proof at all of him as a racist: therefore it’s the same as him not being a racist.
No. What I said is that simply thinking a thought that is considered racist is insufficient to sustain a charge of racism. The reponse you quoted was a reply to face, who asked why simply thinking a racist thought does not constitute racism. It might be helpful to contemplate the concept “necessary and sufficient.” It might be necessary to have a racist thought in order to be open to a charge of racism , but it is not sufficient. The act must follow. Calling you a monkey-faced nigger might have zero effect on you, but it certainly would have an effect on "black people,"which is the question she asked.
I guess I am going to have to ask for a cite for my continual twisting of the definition of ‘racism.’ I am unaware of it. As to my definition being arbitrary, meh. No more arbitrary than anyone else’s.
I am not arguing anything other than what I am arguing. The word ‘power’ was included in the defintions I used to refute faces contention that thoughts alone can be racist. My singular point, again, is that racism has to have an effect to be racism. If 5 Black guys beat me up because they hate White guys, they have the power, and they are racist.
They are both equally racist, in that they have committed an overt act (vocalization.)
What exactly has confused you? I would love to clarify.
Hate crimes are actions, or a call to actions, which can be seen as evidence of racist thought and beliefs. “I hate whitey” is next to meaningless in a racist context. “I hate all these white bastards” is racist. “Kill whitey” is the most racist of all.
Being a part of any given power structure may not afford a person the ability to be racist, especially if that power structure is pretty progressive. Being a racist within a racist power structure guarantees he will be racist: he’ll be surrounded by his peers, secure in his actions. I don’t know what the white kid is unless I know his past allegiances and behavior and the nature of the power structure to which he belongs.
That said, neither one of these kids sounds particularly racist to me. Yelling “darkey” and “whitey.” Hmf. Are they talking about each other or chicken parts?
Sorry. I missed your post and Dio’s. What I have argued is that no racism has occurred when all that has happened is a racist thought has been entertained. I have been told in this thread that a pedophile is a pedophile even if he never once assaults a child, and that a homophobe is a homophobe even if he never once acts upon his beliefs, and this argument has been used to support the charge of racism as a condition shared by all humans. If it is actually necessary to move the dialog along, and in the case of this specific, narrow definition, I will concede that point. But I have to ask, so what? What effect does it have on people’s lives? Who has been harmed? Which is worse, a crazed neo-Nazi who sits aorund in his room all day making mental notes of how fucked up the monkey-faced niggers are, or the man who finds a way to pass over a deserving Black person for promotion, but otherwise has little to say or think about racism? Does this not water down the definition of racism beyond practical use?
My threshold for what constitues a racist act is very low, but no one has seen fit to question what it might be, only to engage in games of gotcha, and selective parsing of arguments.
I never said it was not a personal attack. I never said I did not insult her. This is what I mean by selective parsing of my posts. What I said say was that did I not use it as a response to her arguments.
I get very frustrated dealing with her, and sometimes it comes out.
I don’t think racism is inherently bad, evil, dangerous, or scary. If you believe that it is, then of course things like impact and effect have revelance. If you have a simpler definition, they don’t matter. If I hate you but still pass the peas when you ask for them, I still hate you. Whether or not you should try to change my mind is another issue, one not related to whether or not I hate you. Redefining “hatred” so that it is predicated on action rather than thought is absurd. Redefining “racist” so that it is predicated on action–and moreover the lasting impact of action–is also absurd.
My father has said some really bad things about Jews in the company of family. AFAIK, he has never uttered these words to a Jewish person (probably because he doesn’t run into them so much). Am I wrong to call him an anti-Semite? Or should I fish around in my purse for another word, one not so inflammatory?
It seems to me that all this stupid quibbling detracts from meaningful dialogue about race. If I say “All white people are child-rapists and liars”, does arguing if I’m racist or just bigoted really advance the discussion? No, it doesn’t. It only serves to intellectualize a concept that doesn’t need to be intellectualized.
Taken to an extreme, semantic games stall progress and the end result can be tragic.
I don’t know what “it” you’re talking about, but I don’t think you’re so immune from selective parsing yourself.
Don’t look at me. I don’t buy for a second all humans are inherently racist, or even “a little bit racist.” Racism is such an extreme behavior and belief system I don’t for a second believe all humans subscribe to that level of hatred and violence toward others (or even have cause to do so) even given as pervasive as we’ve seen racism become in different societal contexts in the last four centuries. I do believe nearly all humans at some point in their development, once they become aware of “self” and “identity,” tend towards a benign ethnocentrism, and this can be exacerbated into things like xenophobia, tribalism and finally racism. So, again: I reject the idea that racism is a condition shared by all human beings. I think ethnocentrism is shared by all, and what a person deems as their ethnos varies with amzing diversity of purpose and difference and hinges on a lot more variety than their skin color.
If we limit the definition to never taking physical actions only – admittedly not much. If we slightly expand the definition to include spreading the ideology of racism, through talk and writing – it becomes and undying meme. The effect on passing on a discredited belief system is obvious.
It depends if the neo-Nazi is psyching himself up toward violent action or is mentaly masterbating to his crazed hate fantasies. It may depend on how long the discriminating manager has passed over deserving blacks for promotions. I keep a narrow definition of racism in order to explain the motives for each man. In the case of a Neo-Nazi and (likely) racist manager, both are a threat. The neo-Nazi ia a potential violent thread, the (possibly) racist manager is an non-violent active one.
You’re free to share what your threshold is, by all means. My own threshold is significantly higher than average, and yet we seem to agree on several fundamental points.
