Ronald Reagan was a white supremacist (new Reagan-Nixon tape)

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Rayks_Marcial

I’m still clueless. If I call a Filipino a monkey, will I be racist? How 'bout a Swede? And third party reactions, which is what your story is about, hardly matter to me.

People thought Reagan was stupid, or at least not up to the caliber of guys like Carter and Mondale. That I know.

Christ almighty, someone just explained your username. Forget I engaged.

[Rayks_Marcial]

You needed explanation? True or False:

1. there’s a big possibility that Marcial might be my real name;
2. Herman Goering’s honorific was pronounced “rhysh-marshall”;
3. Reagan wasn’t talking about Jews.

[Voyager]

@Rayks_Marcial

I’m still clueless. If I call a Filipino a monkey, will I be racist? How 'bout a Swede? And third party reactions, which is what your story is about, hardly matter to me.

Gee, for some reason calling a Swede a monkey is not going to have the same effect, since no one called Swedes subhuman.
Good catch by LHoD. You can stick your racist crap where the sun don’t shine.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Voyager

Good catch by LHoD.

Thanks, but credit MrDibble. I’m not up on my Nazi military ranks and had no idea.

[Kimstu]

@UltraVires

So, if I say that many members of a racial group have propensity X, then that is okay, no racism to see here.

I think you’re conflating the related but definitely different concepts “many members of a racial group have propensity X” and “[racial group] community has serious problems with X”.

Talking about a “community” and its “problems” suggests a particular social and historical context where they exist. Nobody’s denying that the modern American black community, for a variety of reasons, does have disproportionately serious problems with crime. It’s not racist to acknowledge the existence of a specific historical phenomenon.

Talking about the “propensities” of “members of a racial group”, on the other hand, suggests some kind of innate tendency linked to that racial identity, which is more likely to come across as racist.

[Rayks_Marcial]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Thanks, but credit MrDibble. I’m not up on my Nazi military ranks and had no idea.

Geez, for racist hunters you guys have serious gaps in your knowledge.

[Rayks_Marcial]

@Voyager

no one called Swedes subhuman.

No one? You never talked with any foreigner who lived in Sweden? :rolleyes:

[Bone]

Leave shots at other posters and their names for the Pit.

[/moderating]

[D_Anconia]

@Sherrerd

Reagan was not even remotely popular with at least half the country.

If he wasn’t remotely popular with at least half the country, how did he win 49 states? :dubious:

[UltraVires]

@Kimstu

I think you’re conflating the related but definitely different concepts “many members of a racial group have propensity X” and “[racial group] community has serious problems with X”.

Talking about a “community” and its “problems” suggests a particular social and historical context where they exist. Nobody’s denying that the modern American black community, for a variety of reasons, does have disproportionately serious problems with crime. It’s not racist to acknowledge the existence of a specific historical phenomenon.

Talking about the “propensities” of “members of a racial group”, on the other hand, suggests some kind of innate tendency linked to that racial identity, which is more likely to come across as racist.

I guess that is my point. If a person concedes that blacks engage in crime at a higher rate than whites, then that is non-controversial, merely a true statement. IMHO, it only becomes a “racist” statement if I conclude that the high crime rate in the black population is due to the genetics or some other innate quality of people from sub-Saharan Africa. The “this race is better than that one” theory.

So there is where the racism v. non-racism issue stops: my belief as to why a race does certain things.

If I commit the fallacy that because a large percentage of a group does X, then an individual member of that group must do X, then I don’t see how that makes my prior belief any more or less racist. The prior belief remains either racist or non-racist.

The fallacy just makes me illogical and clueless.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@UltraVires

I guess that is my point. If a person concedes that blacks engage in crime at a higher rate than whites, then that is non-controversial, merely a true statement. IMHO, it only becomes a “racist” statement if I conclude that the high crime rate in the black population is due to the genetics or some other innate quality of people from sub-Saharan Africa. The “this race is better than that one” theory.

So there is where the racism v. non-racism issue stops: my belief as to why a race does certain things.

If I commit the fallacy that because a large percentage of a group does X, then an individual member of that group must do X, then I don’t see how that makes my prior belief any more or less racist. The prior belief remains either racist or non-racist.

The fallacy just makes me illogical and clueless.

That’s an odd take. There are different ways a conclusion can be racist:

1. A conclusion that certain socially-constructed racial groups are genetically inferior to others (specificially whites) is thoroughly discredited. Belief in it despite the complete lack of evidence is racist.
2. A conclusion that members of a racial group have certain traits that are stereotypical (black people are lazy/violent/great entertainers/watermelon fiends) is racist.
3. A conclusion that a particular member of a racial group has those stereotypical traits is racist.

Your doubt on this third idea seems to hinge on the principle that it’s not racism, it’s illogical. Which is what I find so weird, because all racism is illogical. That’s one of the reasons why racism is not hunky dory. It’s kind of one of the defining characteristics of racist beliefs.

[UltraVires]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

That’s an odd take. There are different ways a conclusion can be racist:

1. A conclusion that certain socially-constructed racial groups are genetically inferior to others (specificially whites) is thoroughly discredited. Belief in it despite the complete lack of evidence is racist.
2. A conclusion that members of a racial group have certain traits that are stereotypical (black people are lazy/violent/great entertainers/watermelon fiends) is racist.
3. A conclusion that a particular member of a racial group has those stereotypical traits is racist.

Your doubt on this third idea seems to hinge on the principle that it’s not racism, it’s illogical. Which is what I find so weird, because all racism is illogical. That’s one of the reasons why racism is not hunky dory. It’s kind of one of the defining characteristics of racist beliefs.

All racism is illogical, but not all illogical beliefs are racist. Again, once we have conceded that it is not racist to believe that blacks commit crimes at a higher rate than whites because of historical discrimination, then why does it follow that it is racist if I think Dave, a black man, probably commits crimes because of historical discrimination?

It’s not racist. It is simply illogical.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Oh, for pity’s sake. When someone

1. Makes an assumption about a stranger
2. That’s harmful, and is
3. Based on racial stereotypes
4. Especially when the assumer is a member of a dominant racial group, and the person having the assumption made about them is a member of a group that’s faced serious oppression based on race,

you can’t call that “racist”?

Fine. In deference to your sensibilities, let’s not call that “racist.” We’ll make up a new word to describe this sort of behavior: it’s wacist.

Now, can we recognize that wacism is a scourge, and that Reagan grew up during a time of serious wacism and white supwemacy? Can we recognize that ideas about the criminality of black men have led to continued oppression, to the extent that one author has labeled the resulting prison/industrial complex The New Jim Cwow?

I certainly don’t want to get caught up in yet another ridiculous, fussy argument about definitions of words, so wacism is fine for this discussion.

[UltraVires]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Oh, for pity’s sake. When someone

1. Makes an assumption about a stranger
2. That’s harmful, and is
3. Based on racial stereotypes
4. Especially when the assumer is a member of a dominant racial group, and the person having the assumption made about them is a member of a group that’s faced serious oppression based on race,

you can’t call that “racist”?

Fine. In deference to your sensibilities, let’s not call that “racist.” We’ll make up a new word to describe this sort of behavior: it’s wacist.

Now, can we recognize that wacism is a scourge, and that Reagan grew up during a time of serious wacism and white supwemacy? Can we recognize that ideas about the criminality of black men have led to continued oppression, to the extent that one author has labeled the resulting prison/industrial complex The New Jim Cwow?

I certainly don’t want to get caught up in yet another ridiculous, fussy argument about definitions of words, so wacism is fine for this discussion.

So you aren’t seriously going to address my comments, then?

[Fiddle_Peghead]

@Scumpup

LHoD meant, as was implicit in his post, other white people.

Seems as though LHoD doesn’t want to answer, but it sounds like he meant there are white people in this thread that back up his assertion. I simply want to know how LHoD knows who is white in this thread. I’m not saying he doesn’t, maybe he knows everyone personally. Or maybe I misunderstood him.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Fiddle_Peghead

Seems as though LHoD doesn’t want to answer, but it sounds like this person meant there are white people in this thread that back up his assertion. I simply want to know how LHoD knows who is white in this thread. I’m not saying he doesn’t, maybe he knows everyone personally. Or maybe I misunderstood him.

Or maybe I think it’s an irrelevant gotcha question that I don’t plan to dignify with a response other than this one :).

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@UltraVires

So you aren’t seriously going to address my comments, then?

I don’t think there’s anything serious to address there. You’re for some reason wanting to claim that something obviously and archetypically racist isn’t racist, and I don’t see any point at all in engaging in such a silly exercise. Let’s acknowledge that a turd by any other name smells just as foul.

[UltraVires]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

I don’t think there’s anything serious to address there. You’re for some reason wanting to claim that something obviously and archetypically racist isn’t racist, and I don’t see any point at all in engaging in such a silly exercise. Let’s acknowledge that a turd by any other name smells just as foul.

So in other words, you got nothing.

The logic of what I am saying is rather simple, even if it doesn’t fit the rush to call everything racist.

If the overall philosophy is not X, then the individual application likewise cannot be X. The individual application may be incorrect, silly, stupid, illogical or whatever, but it cannot be X.

[Fiddle_Peghead]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Or maybe I think it’s an irrelevant gotcha question that I don’t plan to dignify with a response other than this one :).

Not a gotcha. I just try to be wary of someone who makes an assumption about one thing in order to support another. However, this thread should really be about Reagan, so no matter.

[iiandyiiii]

@UltraVires

So in other words, you got nothing.

The logic of what I am saying is rather simple, even if it doesn’t fit the rush to call everything racist.

If the overall philosophy is not X, then the individual application likewise cannot be X. The individual application may be incorrect, silly, stupid, illogical or whatever, but it cannot be X.

But your hypothetical person isn’t applying a stereotype because of statistics, they’re applying a stereotype because of racism. Applying racial stereotypes is racist, full stop. If you think a black guy is a criminal because he’s black, then it doesn’t matter if you think it’s because of statistics – you’re applying a racial stereotype. That’s racist – making a negative judgment on someone due to their skin color. There’s no way for that to not be racist.