Resolved: "Racist!" is The White Man's "Nigger!"

[you_with_the_face]

@Rodgers01

Claiming racism, in comparison, is easier.

Not really. Take a look at what goes on this board. Honestly, read some race threads and read them with a critical eye. Accusations of racism against specific posters are pretty rare compared to other types of accusations, and many times when those accusations are made, even when the evidence is pretty damning, there are more than a few posters who rally around to defend the accused or explain why what they’re saying/doing doesn’t meet the necessary criteria to establish that they are racist. In fact, it is usually those who dare utter the “r” word that are usually the ones who are attacked and accused of fighting dirty, even if that’s not the case. As I mentioned already, this has happened to me.

Shit, look at recent events. Richards got in trouble for his tirade, but as evident in the Pit thread that bears his name, you can hardly say there is a unanimous Doper consensus that the guy is racist. People get accused of racism all the time and nothing happens precisely because the “proof” is never definitive enough for some people. Whites are often skeptical and therefore willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to the accused. I never fail to be amazed at the lengths that some are willing to extend this benefit of the doubt.

As long as whites are in the majority and are predisposed to reacting defensively at the mere mention of the word racism, there is no way that calling someone racist can be as damaging as you suggest it is. That would only work if these type of accusations were blindly accepted by most people. They aren’t precisely because whites react defensively whenever they hear the r-word, and are in the majority.

I don’t quite see how you’re getting that from what I or anyone else has said here. I haven’t seen anyone claim that you shouldn’t call clear-cut racism anything but racism.

As I explained to tomndeb, that is the implication if you’re going to lable the term an insult as the OP has done. Whether it is an example of “clear-cut” racism (whatever that is) or not, the intent behind of the word determines whether it is an insult. I would never call anyone racist if I didn’t think that’s what they were. That has nothing to do with white people’s feelings and has more to do with my personal desire to be honest.

But, now that you mention it…hmmm. I wonder if “racism” shouldn’t be saved just for clear-cut, proveable cases of racial discrimination.

Bad idea. Short of genocide and slavery, there are very few examples of “clear-cut, proveable” cases of racism. That doesn’t even address the headache of actually finding a definition of racism that everyone is comfortable with. People have been finding ways to rationalize away their actions since the days of Abraham. Avoiding certain words out of fear of hurting feelings really only makes this rationalization process easier.

[tomndebb]

@monstro

How can you know that “nigger” impacts me and other black people the same way “racist” affects you or other white people? All you can say is that “racist” is an emotionally charged word that can be used as an insult. Why must people draw comparisons with “nigger” to illustrate such a simple point?

“The same way”? I probably can’t “know” one way or another. I know a white guy who was falsely accused of racism by a black employee who stewed over it for months despite the other employees (black and whirte) dismissing the charge as being prompted by anger and having no basis in fact. I had a black co-worker who found “nigger” hilarious and used to make a point of laughing at the stupidity of whites who called him that. Personal reactions are different among all of us.

And I am not actually trying to set up any sort of equivalence. I have simply agreed with the point Askia posted that among the various race-related insults that people in this society can hurl at each other, “racist” has the power to inflict distress on whites in a way similar to the way that “nigger” has the power to inflect distress on blacks, whereas “honky” and “cracker” and similar terms generally fail to inflict distress (although they can clearly incite anger). If you want to assert that, overall, nigger has more power to injure more deeply greater numbers of blacks than racist has to injure less deeply fewer numbers of whites, go ahead. I am not in a contest for who get to show the deepest wounds. I freely admit that I have not suffered much from racism and I generally laugh at attempts to make me feel bad. That is the result of my personal life experiences and I am not going to get into a contest where we roll up our sleeves and show off our scars because–aside from its pointlessness–I will lose.

My only contribution to this thread has been an effort to ensure that Askia’s actual point was not dragged off into some blind alley and lost.

[Rodgers01]

@you with the face

Not really. Take a look at what goes on this board. Honestly, read some race threads and read them with a critical eye. Accusations of racism against specific posters are pretty rare compared to other types of accusations, and many times when those accusations are made, even when the evidence is pretty damning, there are more than a few posters who rally around to defend the accused or explain why what they’re saying/doing doesn’t meet the necessary criteria to establish that they are racist. In fact, it is usually those who dare utter the “r” word that are usually the ones who are attacked and accused of fighting dirty, even if that’s not the case. As I mentioned already, this has happened to me.

Shit, look at recent events. Richards got in trouble for his tirade, but as evident in the Pit thread that bears his name, you can hardly say there is a unanimous Doper consensus that the guy is racist. People get accused of racism all the time and nothing happens precisely because the “proof” is never definitive enough for some people. Whites are often skeptical and therefore willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to the accused. I never fail to be amazed at the lengths that some are willing to extend this benefit of the doubt.

My claim was that it is easier to accuse someone of racism than tax evasion or pedophilia (read further up the thread for context): tax evasion has clear cut documentary evidence one way or the other, and to charge pedophilia you have to find some children you can coach. Racism, in comparison, can fairly simply be claimed, though you’re right, it can be hard in some cases to make the charges stick. (Then again, some people, upon hearing another person accused of racism, will always look down on that person as racist, no matter what evidence is shown to the contrary, such is the strength of the taboo. )

I can’t speak much for what happens on this board, because I haven’t taken part in many of the race discussions here, and I haven’t read the Michael Richards thread. But in any event, I don’t think you can really compare the effect of charges of racism on the SDMB to the effect in the real world. This is a self-selecting community, and the anonymity of the message board allows people to be more candid here than they would be in real life. In real life I think white people bend over backwards to prove they’re not racist far more than they may do here.

As long as whites are in the majority and are predisposed to reacting defensively at the mere mention of the word racism, there is no way that calling someone racist can be as damaging as you suggest it is. That would only work if these type of accusations were blindly accepted by most people. They aren’t precisely because whites react defensively whenever they hear the r-word, and are in the majority.

My impression is that the pendulum is swinging back a towards people being a bit more skeptical about charges of racism than they might once have been, though at its peak it still is/was pretty damaging: witness the infamous “niggardly” incident, for example. And in certain circles, it is still among the very worst things you can be called.

Bad idea. Short of genocide and slavery, there are very few examples of “clear-cut, proveable” cases of racism. That doesn’t even address the headache of actually finding a definition of racism that everyone is comfortable with.

There are definitely more examples of clear-cut, proveable racism than genocide and slavery. Well, at least using the “reasonable man” approach to the definition: you’re never going to get everyone to agree what’s racist and what’s not. IMHO, your average reasonable person on the street would agree that restricted country clubs, segregated schools, calling people niggers, refusing to serve black people in stores, etc., are pretty clear-cut racist acts.

People have been finding ways to rationalize away their actions since the days of Abraham. Avoiding certain words out of fear of hurting feelings really only makes this rationalization process easier.

It’s not a matter of just wanting to avoid hurting someone’s feelings, but making sure that very strong, damaging words are being appropriately applied, instead of being thown out there hapharzadly based on mere suspicions. Again, you wouldn’t immediately call someone who loves kids a bit too much a “pedophile” without being sure about it, nor would you automatically call someone who likes a strong state a “fascist.”

I still have mixed feelings about this last point; in general, I just wish people would be a little more judicious in their use of the term “racism.” It’s flung around so casually sometimes – I see it at the schools I work at.

[athelas]

@you with the face

Shit, look at recent events. Richards got in trouble for his tirade, but as evident in the Pit thread that bears his name, you can hardly say there is a unanimous Doper consensus that the guy is racist.

[snip]

As long as whites are in the majority and are predisposed to reacting defensively at the mere mention of the word racism, there is no way that calling someone racist can be as damaging as you suggest it is.

Somehow, I think that the reaction of the club owners is more relevant to him than the opinion of a few dozen people on the internet. And in the public sphere, where attention to facts is usually subordinate to demagoguery, racism does stick much more frequently. As for your second claim, I refer you again to the water buffalo incident. Also, the extremely weak claims of racism made against Trent Lott, which still forced his resignation. The racist card is a powerful one.

[monstro]

@tomndebb

“The same way”? I probably can’t “know” one way or another. I know a white guy who was falsely accused of racism by a black employee who stewed over it for months despite the other employees (black and whirte) dismissing the charge as being prompted by anger and having no basis in fact. I had a black co-worker who found “nigger” hilarious and used to make a point of laughing at the stupidity of whites who called him that. Personal reactions are different among all of us.

Right. So I’m failing to see why comparisons have to be made at all. If people would just say "It sucks mightily to be called ‘racist…’, then I wouldn’t be posting to the thread. I don’t understand why people have to add: “…just like it sucks to be called a ‘nigger’”. If something sucks, just say so. No need to provoke a debate by equating (or analogizing, or whatever it is people are doing here) with a word that only serves one purpose: to inflame and hurt.

@tomndebb

And I am not actually trying to set up any sort of equivalence.

You might not be, but there are others in the thread who seem to be bent on doing that.

I must have misread your last response to you with the face when you said the point of the debate was to argue whether or not “racist” has the emotional impact on whites that “nigger” has on blacks. In other words, if “racist” and “nigger” throw the same punch when used as an invective.

I insist that not only can we not answer this question, because doing so would require us to experience the other group’s collective or individual hurt feelings, but it is a question that makes no logical sense. You can ponder “racist” intellectually, even when it’s used as an insult. You cannot do that to a racial slur. That alone makes “nigger” and “racist” apples and oranges.

I have simply agreed with the point Askia posted that among the various race-related insults that people in this society can hurl at each other, “racist” has the power to inflict distress on whites in a way similar to the way that “nigger” has the power to inflect distress on blacks, whereas “honky” and “cracker” and similar terms generally fail to inflict distress (although they can clearly incite anger).

Say what now? Are “racist” and “nigger” similar or different? I’m not following how this paragraph is not in conflict with the one posted above.

If you want to assert that, overall, nigger has more power to injure more deeply greater numbers of blacks than racist has to injure less deeply fewer numbers of whites, go ahead. I am not in a contest for who get to show the deepest wounds. I freely admit that I have not suffered much from racism and I generally laugh at attempts to make me feel bad. That is the result of my personal life experiences and I am not going to get into a contest where we roll up our sleeves and show off our scars because–aside from its pointlessness–I will lose.

Um, seriously tomndebb? Why are you so defensive here? I’m not asking you to show off anything. I don’t present myself as a victim of anything in this conversation. Nor am I trumpeting “nigger” as the biggest insult against all of humanity. So honestly, no need for all the qualifiers.

I’m just saying that this whole debate makes no sense. I mean, I could easily say “atheist”, when used as an insult by a really mean person, can pack a wallop just as powerful as “nigger”. Insert “lawyer”, “liberal”, “conservative”, “Christian”, “StraightDope moderator”, “politician”, or any value-neutral noun. And I’m sure there would be some sensitive person out there who would agree with me. But what would be the point? Does this say more about the word or the sensitivity of the person who’s feelings are hurt?

My only contribution to this thread has been an effort to ensure that Askia’s actual point was not dragged off into some blind alley and lost.

I have no problem following Askia’s point. I get it: “Racist”, when used as an insult or when hurled as an false accusation, hurts many white people’s feelings. My point: This is a simple statement that needs no metaphors or analogies to be understood. Bringing up “nigger” to make your point only serves to belittle it severely.

[tomndebb]

@monstro

I have no problem following Askia’s point. I get it: “Racist”, when used as an insult or when hurled as an false accusation, hurts many white people’s feelings. My point: This is a simple statement that needs no metaphors or analogies to be understood. Bringing up “nigger” to make your point only serves to belittle it severely.

Have you noticed the title of Askia’s OP?
Did you actually read the OP?

[monstro]

@tomndebb

Have you noticed the title of Askia’s OP?
Did you actually read the OP?

How is what I said not a direct response to the OP or Askia’s title?

[tomndebb]

@monstro

How is what I said not a direct response to the OP or Askia’s title?

In a post which directly responds to my comments, at length, you close up with what appears to be a question of why I should participate in a discussion of the topic.

I had not realized that you had switched from addressing me to simply asking a rhetorical question of the board.

[monstro]

@tomndebb

In a post which directly responds to my comments, at length, you close up with what appears to be a question of why I should participate in a discussion of the topic.

No, I was summarizing my contribution to the thread, just as you did earlier. I wasn’t asking you for anything.

I had not realized that you had switched from addressing me to simply asking a rhetorical question of the board.

Sorry about that. I meant “you” in a general sense, not in a tomndebb sense.

[monstro]

@athelas

Somehow, I think that the reaction of the club owners is more relevant to him than the opinion of a few dozen people on the internet.

It’s not relevant, since Rodgers’ point relates to how profound the impact a mere accusation has, regardless of its merit. That the club owners had a negative reaction towards Richards doesn’t mean anything by itself, since Richards was clearly being an ass regardless of whether you want to call him a racist or not. Unless you dispute that, then I don’t get your point.

And in the public sphere, where attention to facts is usually subordinate to demagoguery, racism does stick much more frequently.

As compared to what?

As for your second claim, I refer you again to the water buffalo incident. Also, the extremely weak claims of racism made against Trent Lott, which still forced his resignation. The racist card is a powerful one.

I never said it wasn’t, I just dispute the idea that it sticks more than any other “card” when it comes to public perception. I could just as easily pull up examples of when the sexist card (Harvard president) or the sexual harrassment card (Bill Clinton) were played and earned the accused significant flak, but that would prove very little.

[monstro]

What the hell?

The above is not me. you with the face’s computer must be regurgitating its Thanksgiving cookies.

[you_with_the_face]

Sorry.

[Zoe]

Is “racist” more insulting than “sexist”?

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@Zoe

Is “racist” more insulting than “sexist”?

By an order of magnitude, I’d say. The word “sexist” is way more commonly used outside the media at least, such that it has no sting.

[tomndebb]

@The Flying Dutchman

By an order of magnitude, I’d say. The word “sexist” is way more commonly used outside the media at least, such that it has no sting.

What a sexist comment.

[Zoe]

Why the smiley face, Tom? Do you think his comment really is or is not sexist? Is sexism amusing?

The Flying Dutchman: The word “sexist” is way more commonly used outside the media at least, such that it has no sting.

I agree that the word “sexist” is used more commonly and that it probably has less sting for most people. Could that be because sexism itself is so common and ingrained that sexists don’t recognize the extent of the damage anymore than racists at the turn of the 20th Century? Why should it be any less of a sting to diminish or limit someone based on gender?

I think the insult of calling someone a “sexist” should be just as great as “racist” and that people are even more likely to be blind to this character flaw within themselves. I don’t think that either come anywhere close to “nigger” for some people. “Trash” is closer and for some women, “slut” may have much the same effect as “nigger” in my estimation. I would think the person would have to have a lot of self doubt for such words to undermind. But I can’t imagine what it would be like to be put down relentlessly day in, day out.

[tomndebb]

@Zoe

Why the smiley face, Tom? Do you think his comment really is or is not sexist? Is sexism amusing?

The smiley indicated my recognition that by asserting that one form of prejudice was “an order of magnitude” worse than another, he had set himself up for a fair amount of rather hostile challenge to his assertion.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@tomndebb

The smiley indicated my recognition that by asserting that one form of prejudice was “an order of magnitude” worse than another, he had set himself up for a fair amount of rather hostile challenge to his assertion.

Wow. I thought it was a friendly gesture. In fact I was about to commend you on your effectiveness in stinging me with the previous comment which felt as bad when I’ve been called a racist, nullifying my previous statement in my own mind. Then I saw your smiley and silently mouthed “touche”.

So now I see you want to be hostile to me in GD , laugh at me, and invite a pile on of flames. I thought I knew you better than that.

For your information, I DID NOT ASSERT that one form of prejudice was worse than another. What I did assert was that the sting of receiving the insult was worse in the case of racism as opposed to sexism.

[tomndebb]

@The Flying Dutchman

So now I see you want to be hostile to me in GD , laugh at me, and invite a pile on of flames. I thought I knew you better than that.

No. My smart-assed remark was intended as a good natured “You’re going to get smacked for that one”–which, in fact, you did.

This whole flippin’ thread (and the one that preceded it) is a collection of posts by people either asserting their rights to be offended or people dismissing the rights of others to be offended. Any post that indicates that one insult is greater or less than another insult is going to bring down the wrath of some other aggrieved poster.

I do not think that you said anything “wrong” (and I do not think that sexism is “funny”), but any post that is perceived to apply a ranking of greater or lesser suffering is going to draw out angry replies.

[Shodan]

@MGibson

@Askia

If you are racist, you’ve been outed; if you aren’t racist your thoughts and beliefs have been impugned and you now have to defend yourself against the accusation.

Sure, which is a great way to change the subject up for discussion.

Marc

Right, and I think that is a problem, and one of the reasons that “racist” carries much less sting than the N-word.

It is used too often to mean “person who is winning an argument with a black liberal”. I’ve seen it happen.

I’m with John Mace. Call me a racist if you like, I don’t care and won’t re-examine my attitudes just because you (generic you) called me a name. I usually interpret it as a signal that you have run out of arguments.

Regards,
Shodan