I think if you DON’T think that racism is inherently bad, evil, dangerous or scary you’re either 1) kidding yourself or 2) never been jumped on, endangered or shot at just for being black in the wrong place.
I agree to the extent that the hypothetical “silent racist” who only ever thinks about niggers and racism and never ever acts on it violently or to promote this belief doesn’t exist. You might have a silent prejudiced person who is not consciously aware of their own prejudices, but racist behavior is so extreme I don’t think you can be silent and inert about it.
Yeah. He may just be a bigot. (Wonderful word, “bigot.” Cuts right to the chase and doesn’t preclude being polite.) If he’s not especially hateful, violent, intolerant or verbally disparaging, he’s probably NOT an Anti-Semite. The fact that “bigot” may be viewed as less infammatory is a happy coincidence. it’s also a more accurate description of your father’s rather complicated feelings for Jews.
You may be right. i personally think everyone getting a better understanding of the practical between a bigot and a racist would do wonders for everyone’s idea on race relations and concepts like racial bias.
BTW, all white people are not child-rapists and liars. Just this one.
But if he knows that he has this belief, then he should be informed that it is a racist one regardless of whether he acts on it or not. He shouldn’t be told “it’s okay if you think blacks are niggers; just don’t call them that because that would be racist.” That’s just craziness. It would be like someone trying to convince themselves that they’re not gay just because they haven’t actually slept with the same sex. Orientation is determined not by deeds but by attitudes and inclinations. Why be so afraid to append beliefs with their appropriate adjectives?
To parse and tweak definitions in such a way so that only the most egregious examples of bigotry and prejudice qualify as racism is a petty, childish game that impedes any rational discussion about race. I find it interesting that Contra’s first foray in this thread was to deny that he is even just a little bit racist, and then he has gone on to show us how he has reached that conclusion. His logic? Because he hasn’t actually ever done anything that’s racist. Nevermind the fact that this particular requirement only exists in his mind, and nevermind the fact that nobody cares about him and how racist he is anyway. He has managed to contort the English language in such way that permits him to go on feeling comfortable about his beliefs and behaviors, because apparently the idea that he is not 100% infallible troubles him somehow. Textbook example of why obsessing over terminology is counterproductive.
And look at where this True Scottsman-style debate has gotten us this time. We’ve gone from looking at the situation presented in the OP to hemming and hawing over whether a somene who only believes blacks are niggers deserves to be called a racist. When even the obvious shit has to be passed under a magnifying glass and dissected down to the gristle, that’s when I start feeling like I’m living in the Twilight Zone. It’s ridiculous.
Yes, “racist is as racist does”. Which means that if you think like a racist, then by gollee, you’re probably a racist. Thinking is a form of action, too. You just don’t see it happening.
I think racism is bad, just like I think greed is bad and jealousy is bad. But I don’t think it’s inherently evil (because I believe you can be a loving person and still be racist) nor do I think it’s inherently dangerous (a person who calls me a nigger has harmed me how?).
Racism practiced by institutions and powerful individuals is definitely scary. Racism practiced by the ignoramous down the street? Maybe, but not necessarily scarier than the other shitty things the ignoramous down the street does.
Racist behavior is extreme only if you pen “racism” on extreme behaviors. Barring black people for voting is racist. So is putting up a swatiska on their front porch. So is dumping white paint on a black child. So is screaming “NIGGER!” from the back of a pick-up truck. I mean, in the ideal world all of these are extreme. Calling one “bigotry” and another “racist” makes absolutely no sense to me.
I said he has said some horrible things about Jews, so of course he was being verbally disparaging, as well as hateful. “Bigot” is entirely too broad since it’s just this one group he has a problem with. “Anti-Semite” fits much better.
Your calculus is artifically difficult and arbitrary.
No it is isn’t. If I tell you he’s a bigot and that’s it, you could assume he hates blacks, whites, Mexicans, physically disabled, Republicans, Japanese, and albinos…all of them or just one of them. By saying he is anti-Semitic, we jump through the round-about bullshit. You know exactly who he has a problem with.
Sorry, but I disagree that there is a meaningful difference between a racial bigot and racist…only that the latter is less cumbersome than the former.
The antecedent for ‘it’ is ‘threshold.’ Tu quoque aside, cite? I am also waiting for a cite for my continual twisting of the definition of ‘racist.’ This is one of ywtf’s annoying techniques. She makes a claim, and when called on it, refuses to respond.
Bwhahahahah! This is absolutely priceless. You really don’t give a shit what you say, do you?
Why should he be informed? Who made you the thought police? Whose job is it to do the informing? Who in the fuck is telling him it’s OK to think blacks are niggers? It’s called a false dichotomy.
Askia, this is ecxactly what I am talking about. ywtf has made this up out of whole cloth. My first foray was into this thread was to deny that I am “suffering from internalized racism.” As for the second claim, ywtf, you are a liar, and if the best you can do is make shit up, the hell with you.
Again you are either lying, or so invested in insulting me that plain English text blurs before your eyes. At least twice in this thread I have admitted error; once to Excalibre, and once to you. You, on the other hand, have failed to even acknowledge it when your factual errors have been pointed out.
I wasn’t looking at you. I was responding to your request for an explanation. If the shoe don’t fit…
Agreed.
Agreed. Talking and writing are overt actions.
Unless I read you wrong, you said it was unworthy to claim I never insulted her. I did not claim I never insulted her. I also never claimed it was not a personal attack. I claimed it was not an *ad hominem *attack. I called her a dumnass, and then proceded to refute her arguments with arguments of my own.
As seen here, you went hunting for several definitions for “racism” and then preceded to act as if they proved you have to commit an action in order to be racist (when as I pointed out, they do not: both beliefs AND actions are considered racist) and then when called on that, you resort to goal post shifting by claiming that it’s not racism unless it causes an effect.
As I stated before, you don’t even know what your own argument is. You’re all over the place.
I just did (see above)
It’s sad you need to ask this question. If you don’t know why it’s wrong to go around thinking people are subhuman just because they are in another race, I don’t know what I can say to help you understand it. You’re beyond help.
Any time somebody goes to the lengths that you have to show that racists are only people who behave like racists, you’re essentially saying it’s okay to have their unacted-upon beliefs go unchallenged and unexamined. Nothing you said in this thread suggests you believe that behavior that doesn’t cross the line into “racism” merits much concern or attention (hence, your failure to comment upon the situation in the OP). So why would you not think it’s okay for someone to think blacks are niggers? It’s not an action so according to you, it’s not a problem.
Whine. Whine. Whine.
I haven’t made any factual errors. You keep accusing me of not addressing your lame and desperate arguments, when I’ve done so repeatedly. Let’s go over what I’ve already shown.
The definition I use for racism, which is supported by American Heritage, does not require an action to take place in order for something/someone to be racist.
Your definitions for “racism” do not prove the two separate assertions you made (that being, racism requires action and an effect).
Your insistence that these definitions do support your assertions, contrary to what is evident in both the definitions themselves as well as common sense, shows that you are spending an inordinate amount of attention on parsing the English language to suit your own purposes.
You don’t understand what “derogatory” means, otherwise you would not keep comparing the word “racist” to words that only serve as insults, like “nigger”.
You are an idiot for telling a black woman that she is using “verbal black face” when she is only being playful with a Southern dialectic expression. Which thus shows that:
You really are thick. Those are not my definitions, merely citations I used to counter your claims. I use the word ‘effect’ in a direct response to one of your hypoyheticals, not as an offer of a definition.
c
The question I asked was ‘why.’ You are merely re-stating your assertion.
You should just bookmark your posts under “Logical Fallacies I Have Known and Loved.” Here we have the non sequiter. I did not adderess the rest of the OP because others were doing quite well without me.
Not sure what fallacy is. False attribution? Weasel words? I said it was not racism. I did not say it was not a problem. Problem to whom? What kind of problem?
Thanks for proving my point. You stated a deliberate falsehood concerning my comments, I called you on it, and this is how you respond. I’ll say it again. You are a fucking liar.
See above.
Bully for you. The several defintions I provided do.
The ‘effect’ red herring has been dealt with, although you would be hard pressed to provide an example of an action that has no effect. I notice that “proof” is not a standard you aply to your own dictionary citations, only mine. At any rate, as I have stated and you have ignored, my point was that an appeal to authority is weak, if only because it is open to a counter appeal. Not the “dueling dictionaries” comment.
Evident to you, more’s the pity. Selective cognition makes for a very happy place, doesn’t it.
Here’s another challenge for you. Show where I ‘keep demanding’ such a thing.
Since I just made the term up, you will excuse me if I am unimpressed by your cite. Here’s a hint – “verbal.”
This is just sad. Your quiver is empty, and now you are flinging dirt clods at me?
Backpedal much? I must have just been imagining things when you said this:
While on the first page you wrote:
If someone behaves in a racist manner, it is quite possible that it won’t have any effect. Someone badmouthing another race in the company of people who don’t give a damn about their opinions is pretty inconsequential. The effect, in other words, is nil. Yet they’re still being racist. But even if they didn’t voice their opinions and simply chose to badmouth blacks in their own head without verbalizing it, they’d still be racist. The only difference between the quiet racist and the audible one is that the audible one put his thoughts to sound. Big deal.
You want to continue to perform oragami on the English language in order to justify putting the quiet racist in a completely different category than the audible one, simply because he manages to keep his mouth shut? Go right ahead. But don’t expect anyone to take you seriously the next time you vehemently deny you are free from racism.
See? You get me.
[/quote]
Barring black people for voting is racist. So is putting up a swatiska on their front porch. So is dumping white paint on a black child. So is screaming “NIGGER!” from the back of a pick-up truck. I mean, in the ideal world all of these are extreme. Calling one “bigotry” and another “racist” makes absolutely no sense to me.
[/quote]
In my world, I would describe all the things you just mentioned as various racially motivated assaults and potential threats to a person’s freedom, safety and civil rights, and unquestionably racist. Every one. However, I must admit that if dude had merely yelled “Water Buffalo!” or “Hood Rat!” from the truck, yeah, I’d be far less inclined to assume the worst than hearing the N-bomb…
See? My calculus isn’t that arbitrary.
I really wanted to respond more to you with the face and Contrapunctal, but it’s such a nice day out…
Good point. I freely amend my statement thusly: if an act has no effect no racism has occurred.
That was a question. Notice the funny looking curly thing at the end of the sentence? It was part of a series of questions I asked Scoundrel Swanswater, who apparently likes to post drive-bys, as sort of a range finder to get at what he considers racism to be. It is a serious rhetorical error to mistake a question for a statement of position.
In your scenario, has any racism occurred?
There you go again. Making shit up. I have called you on this time and time again, and the best thing I can say about you is that you have the good sense not to try and defend your lies. If only somehow you coud be persuaded to stop uttering them.
If you were generally asking a sincere question, then you’d be right. But it’s rather evident that this question you posed was actually a rhetorical declaration of your beliefs, as evident by your later posts in which you esposed matter-of-factly that an action/effect has to occur in order for someone to be racist.
What do you mean “occured”? Racism is not a verb nor a derivative of a verb, so this question of yours makes no sense to me. Has pedophilia “occured” when a man fantasizes about sex with a 6 year-old? Has Anti-Semitism “occured” when a person believes The Turner Diaries represents good, fine literature and should be recommended reading for every tow-headed kid in America?
What am I making up? Everything you written in this thread suggests you believe a completely different system of nomenclature should be used to distinguish the person who has certain beliefs but keeps them to themself from the person who acts these beliefs out. If you doubt me, go read your own posts, including the one I’m responding to. You shouldn’t be calling me a liar for simply repeating back the very same arguments you’ve been making.
“But don’t expect anyone to take you seriously the next time you vehemently deny you are free from racism.”
I never vhemently denied I was free from racism. For that matter, I never vehemently denied I was not free from racism, which I suspect is what you meant. At any rate, an invention on your part.
“His logic? Because he hasn’t actually ever done anything that’s racist.”
I never said this, and when challenged, you went all second grade on my ass.
Another of your inventions. An outright lie, as a matter of fact.
“He has managed to contort the English language in such way that permits him to go on feeling comfortable about his beliefs and behaviors, because apparently the idea that he is not 100% infallible troubles him somehow.”
Another lie. I have never claimed or indicated that I was 100% infallible. At least three times in this thread I have acknowledged being wrong. And speaking of contorting the language, this gem is a real feat of pretzel logic. – “Thinking is a form of action, too. You just don’t see it happening.” Especially when juxtaposed with this –“How is a system an action? How is power an action? How many gnats are you trying to strain?”
There seems to be a thick cloud of them buzzing about your head. If I could seive them into a bag and whisk them away, perhaps you would start making a bit more sense. Or did you mean “*At *how many gnats are you trying to strain?”
Okay, so please help me understand what you meant when the OP wrote this:
And you wrote:
Now there is only a few ways one could interpret this response.
You don’t suffer from internalized racism because you don’t believe you are racist at all.
You don’t “suffer” from internalized racism because you are a reveller of racist beliefs and enjoy them like the British enjoy tea and crumpets. Hence, you believe “suffer” puts a negative tint on something that should be relished and celebrated, not treated like a disease.
Which of these interpretations is the right one? Or am I missing another possible interpretation? Help me understand, because I’m confused. If I’m wrong about assuming the 1st interpretation is the correct one, mea culpa. I didn’t think your objection all along has been that you are racist and lovin’ it, but I guess that would help explain why you took issue with the OP’s use of the word “suffering”. But then shouldn’t “racist” be taken as a compliment then, not as a derogatory insult? It is all so confusing. I need clarification.
At this point, I’m not arguing with you, because there’s nothing to argue. It just seems like I’m a magnet for people who claim one thing and then later say they were being deliberately misunderstood and accuse me of being a liar. Why they do this, I dunno, because it’s not like I can’t go back and show what was said. Do you not remember your own posts?
Where is the vehemence in this statement – “Not me.”? It was about as mild a denial as I can imagine.
I have documented the things that you said about me that were not true. You have neither acknowledged them or apologized for them. You are the one whose memory is short, not mine.
When I have been called on a contradiction, misstatement, or misapprehension, I have acknowledged it, so your charge of claiming to be misunderstood is unsupported.
You have characterized me as vehement, as claiming infallibility, as claiming never to have done a racist thing in my life. All false. Do you not remember your own posts? I have pointed them out to you at least twice.
Ohhh. So you dispute my characterizing your denial as being a “vehement denial”. Okay. Whether it was or wasn’t is a matter of opinion. Denials which come out of the blue, even though no fingers are being directed at you personally, kind of strike me as being inherently vehement in nature, but whatever. It certainly isn’t grounds for accusing me of inventing anything.
But in the interest of being fair and balanced, let’s modify my statement.
“You want to continue to perform oragami on the English language in order to justify putting the quiet racist in a completely different category than the audible one, simply because he manages to keep his mouth shut? Go right ahead. But don’t expect anyone to take you seriously the next time you deny you are free from racism.”
*Adj. 1. vehement - marked by extreme intensity of emotions or convictions; inclined to react violently; fervid; “fierce loyalty”; "in a tearing rage"; “vehement dislike”; "violent passions"
{ Synonyms: fierce, tearing, violent, trigger-happy
2. vehement - characterized by great force or energy; “vehement deluges of rain”; “vehement clapping”; “a vehement defense”
By Wordnet Dictionary
Vehement: (?), a.
Acting with great force; furious; violent; impetuous; forcible; mighty; as, a vehement wind; a vehement torrent; a vehement fire or heat.
Very ardent; very eager or urgent; very fervent; passionate; as, a vehement affection or passion. “Vehement instigation.” Shak. “Vehement desire.” Milton.
Syn. – Furious; violent; raging; impetuous; passionate; ardent; eager; hot; fervid; burning.
By Webster Dictionary
*Bolding mine.
A matter of opinion? {Blackadder}Ah yes. Opinion is divided. All of the other captains say ya do, I say ya don’t."{/Blackadder}
With absolutely no smart-assedness in mind, I beg you to read slowly what you just wrote. I pointed this out to you just upthread.
Here is my response –I have never denied being free from racism. I have come close to asserting that I am free from racism, but I heve never denied it.
By the way, the origami reference? Not really an insult. I think of origami as taking something common and plain and turning it into someting new and delghtful.
As for the “manages to keep his mouth shut,” that’s another of your deliberate mischaracterizations. I said ‘action’. Most folks are able to do all sorts of things without their mouths hanging open. If that does not apply to you, you have my sympathies.
For the record, I am not a racist, internally or otherwise. To me, it is a grave insult to be called one.
Sometimes I make snap judgements about people, often based on how they look. I never act on those judgments, mainly because in my experience those judgments were in error. I also often judge folks on their behavior. I am more often right then wrong in those cases. Nevertheless, I take no action unless it directly involves me. (Or involves the defense of a helpless person.) The difference between what I think and what I do is the difference between thinking about rape and actually raping someone. A world of difference, in other words.
Now, if you want to argue that most people who harbor racist thoughts go on to act on them, you would probably be on firm ground. At any rate, I would not care to take the contraray position.
Are you being serious or are you kidding with me? I’m asking you this sincerely. This all reads like a joke but something makes me think I should be interpreting this as literally as it seems you have interpreted “manages to keep his mouth shut”.
I don’t care if you are a racist or not, but if you’re not one, good for you. If you are, then I don’t care whether you find it insulting to be called one. A fat person shouldn’t find it insulting to be called fat if that’s what they are.
We all do.
It all depends on why you haven’t acted on your thoughts. If you think all blacks are lowly subhuman trash, but you never come in contact with blacks because you live in the boondocks, then you’re not going to have opportunity to discriminate against them. You’re still racist, though. If you hate blacks but you’re too afraid to call them nigger to their face or do anything else hateful, then you’ll probably be keeping your thoughts to yourself. And? It doesn’t change the fact that you have hateful thoughts inside of you. It doesn’t change the fact that you are a bigot.
As monstro pointed out, you’re conflating two different issues. Just because someone’s hate doesn’t cause anyone any problems, doesn’t mean that the hate isn’t there and can’t be described with the appropriate adjectives. If I dislike you because you’re Jewish but I choose to put on a smiley face when you come by my office, all that means is that I’m smart enough to know that acting out my Anti-Semitism goes against my self-interests. My professional savvy doesn’t make me any less Anti-Semitic than the fool who is too stupid to hide his bigotry.
To me, the claim that “everyone is a little racist” is not worth nitpicking and arguing over. I don’t think you have to be Hitler in order to show racist tendencies, therefore this isn’t an extraordinary claim that needs to be backed up with cites. Wringing your hands over the question of who is and who isn’t really racist starts to look desperate after 3 pages, especially when the “exemption clauses” that you think exist are far from universially recognized and in fact are absent in any authoritative reference on the subject.
It’s like arguing that a woman is still a virgin just as long as her hymen is intact. Anyone who seriously argues that the integrity of the hymen determines someone’s virgin status should be laughed at when they proclaim that they are virginal. In fact, I hasten to say that someone who would make such a claim is probably “looser” than someone who defines virginity less legalistically.
That’s what I’ve always heard, which is why it now seems a little sadistic of my grandma to tell her (black) grandkids that if we couldn’t see our “moons”, our cuticles weren’t pushed back far enough.
