Study says Republican voters more likely to be racist

[Liberal]

@you with the face

What experience are you talking about?

The same experience that I presume you are talking about: the experience of a racial minority who has seen racism versus mere bias.

Of course, when you read the statement in context, you would know that the argument I was presenting wasn’t as simplistic as you are portraying it. In the sentence immediately following the one you just quoted I wrote: "They [white people], as a group, have never been viewed as less than human or less deserving of civil liberties or less than the beauty ideal. "

And that wiggles you to where exactly? Setting aside that you have not defined white people (which apparently does not include people from the British Isles or Mediterranean), White Race Traitors are viewed as animals and Privileged Whites are viewed as rights abusers. I know that some Indian nations view whites on the whole with great suspicion as untrustworthy liars. Their men are ugly with facial hair. Their women are skinny and weak.

The oppression of European immigrants is a red herring, not only because of their race but also because of who their oppressors were (white people!). At least in the case of Italians, they weren’t even viewed as white anyway, so you’re actually not supporting your case by mentioning them.

You’ve danced right back to where you were: playing both sides and contradicting yourself. If white on white oppression is racist then black on black oppression is racist too; otherwise, neither is. You will not be afforded the luxury of using opposites to support your argument. We have the Law of Noncontradiction for a reason.

Because they are not germane to the discussion. Why is it anti-white to say that whites have privilege that others do not by dint of race? You have failed to argue your position. And can you please elaborate more on these White Race Traitors? I have no idea about what you are talking about.

And yet you have the nerve momentarily to demand that I do my own homework. Look it up. Regarding this: “Why is it anti-white to say that whites have privilege that others do not by dint of race”, I’ll give you the opportunity to correct whatever you mistyped because the question, on its face, is absurd.

Please. I did not. You are mischaracterizing my position once again. Poor form.

So far, in practically every response to me, you have accused me of mischaracterizing your position. If you believe that I am deliberately dishonest, then what are you doing having a discussion with me? If, on the other hand, you believe I have honestly mischaracterized your position, then why don’t you state it plainly and once and for all without altering your words slighlty from post to post (e.g., racist -> anti-white) and yelling foul?

I specifically asked the reading audience to supply their own list because I don’t know what one would look like. Why should I do your work for you? State your own case.

I have stated my case very clearly and repeatedly without equivocation: it is impossible to make a non-racist statement that one race is more racist than another.

Why should a white person be greeted with “positive affirmations of his or her whiteness”? I don’t expect the same as a black person. I just want to be treated like everyone else.

Nonsense. No two people are ever treated exactly alike. There are also sorts of biases and prejudices that have nothing to do with race — or even that do have to do with race — but are not racist. No one owes you a dime or a date just because you are black or whatever.

I’ve known plenty of white guys who played on predominately black teams and performed well on the court and on the football field. They were not rare exceptions either.

Football, yes. Basketball, I challenge you to provide citation.

But I’ll gladly accept this as one of the things white people should be on the look out for when the Revolution comes. Basketball is certainly not a trivial matter.

Stop being coy. What is not trivial is the four-year full-term scholarship as well as the prospect of a six or seven figure income along with fame and privilege that is afforded to people with the talent to play.

[Jackmannii]

@Kimstu

When I’m discussing my own opinions, on the other hand, then “ISTM” is all the justification I need.

I think this is sig material.

Sorry if you don’t like that, but as noted above, you’re under no obligation to discuss my opinions with me.

Certainly. But the next time you decide to dismiss another poster’s statements in GD, bring facts, not ISTM.

[you_with_the_face]

@Liberal

Setting aside that you have not defined white people (which apparently does not include people from the British Isles or Mediterranean), White Race Traitors are viewed as animals and Privileged Whites are viewed as rights abusers.

What is a “White Race Traitor”? You bandy this around like we are all supposed to know what you are talking about.

I know that some Indian nations view whites on the whole with great suspicion as untrustworthy liars. Their men are ugly with facial hair. Their women are skinny and weak.

What does this have to do with the biases of black people?

You’ve danced right back to where you were: playing both sides and contradicting yourself. If white on white oppression is racist then black on black oppression is racist too; otherwise, neither is. You will not be afforded the luxury of using opposites to support your argument.

My argument does not rest on what meets the definition of racist. That would be a pointless exercise in semantics that I haven’t the time nor inclination to get sucked into.

And yet you have the nerve momentarily to demand that I do my own homework.

How audacious of me!

Regarding this: “Why is it anti-white to say that whites have privilege that others do not by dint of race”, I’ll give you the opportunity to correct whatever you mistyped because the question, on its face, is absurd.

Maybe this will be clearer for you: “Why is it anti-white to point out that white people have a certain privilege that non-whites do not because of their race?”

If you believe that I am deliberately dishonest, then what are you doing having a discussion with me?

Because it gives me a rush. I get a kick out of watching anyone who, when they realize they lack the skills to challenge my actual arguments, resorts to taking my points out of context and deliberately misinterpreting my words. Every time you do it, you are essentially telling me that I’m a better debater than you. It gives me the warm fuzzies.

But seriously, I think I’m denial. I don’t want to believe that you are dishonest debater. So I keep on talking to you.

If, on the other hand, you believe I have honestly mischaracterized your position, then why don’t you state it plainly and once and for all without altering your words slighlty from post to post (e.g., racist -> anti-white) and yelling foul?

Cite for when I altered my words from post to post? I’ve taken pains to use the same terminology over and over again just so that no one would accuse me of the very thing that you are.

I have stated my case very clearly and repeatedly without equivocation: it is impossible to make a non-racist statement that one race is more racist than another.

But you haven’t argued that very well. Opinions belong in IMHO.

Football, yes. Basketball, I challenge you to provide citation.

Didn’t you make the assertion in the first place? I challenge you to provide a citation.

[Liberal]

@you with the face

What is a “White Race Traitor”? You bandy this around like we are all supposed to know what you are talking about.

Just so you know, it isn’t you-and-the-world versus me. There is no “we”, there is only “you”, singular, the one — not the many — with the face. That said, you and the others in your head certainly have Google and other resources available when you encounter a new word or phrase. It is a pejorative used by white supremacists to reference whites and “high-yellows” and others who pose as white (which is how they seem to perceive me), but who advocate on behalf of other races.

What does this have to do with the biases of black people?

Just so you know, there are races (as a social construct) other than black and white. There was that Trail of Tears thingy and that Holocaust thingy and other thingies throughout history that involved oppression of people other than those of African descent. At any rate, what you asked about was my experience. And that’s what I gave you. My paternal grandmother was a bigot through and through, never having met a white person she believed deserved respect. She effectively disowned my father when he married a woman who was only 3/4 Cherokee. That’s my experience. That’s what you asked about.

My argument does not rest on what meets the definition of racist. That would be a pointless exercise in semantics that I haven’t the time nor inclination to get sucked into.

Your argument? Ty Pennington could host a makeover show featuring your argument. It seems to have morphed from there never having been any oppression of whites to your enjoyment of stirring up shit just to see what happens, as you explain shortly.

How audacious of me!

Your sarcasm notwithstanding, it is indeed audacious to demand that I look up references while insisting that I supply you with definitions of common phrases.

Maybe this will be clearer for you: “Why is it anti-white to point out that white people have a certain privilege that non-whites do not because of their race?”

Why are you asking me that? I have not ever used the expression “anti-white” in my whole history on this board, let alone in this thread. If you are equating racism with being anti-white or anti-black, then I submit that you have a Neanderthal understanding of what racism is. But that aside, your blanket assertion lumps poor white Appalachians (although it is conceivable that you will say they, too, as you said about Italians, aren’t really white) in with people who have privileges, when in fact the poverty level of urban Blacks pales in comparison to the poverty level and desperation of these people. A non-working toilet would be a step UP for them.

Because it gives me a rush. I get a kick out of watching anyone who, when they realize they lack the skills to challenge my actual arguments, resorts to taking my points out of context and deliberately misinterpreting my words. Every time you do it, you are essentially telling me that I’m a better debater than you. It gives me the warm fuzzies.

I believe that the exercise of posting just to get one’s jollies from the reactions of people is expressly forbidden here.

But seriously, I think I’m denial. I don’t want to believe that you are dishonest debater. So I keep on talking to you.

Then perhaps you will, at some point, take it upon yourself to address the argument I have made repeatedly: it is a metaphysical impossibility to formulate a non-racist assertion that one race is more racist than another.

Cite for when I altered my words from post to post? I’ve taken pains to use the same terminology over and over again just so that no one would accuse me of the very thing that you are.

I gave you one cite in what you quoted: you introduced the term “anti-white” into the discussion.

But you haven’t argued that very well. Opinions belong in IMHO.

It is not a mere opinion that Not A contradicts A. The assertion that whites are more racist than blacks is itself a racist assertion.

Didn’t you make the assertion in the first place? I challenge you to provide a citation.

It strains credulity that you need a citation supporting the assertion that Blacks dominate the sport of basketball. If you acknowledge any cite given to you as valid or applicable, it will surprise me, but here are two:

“Basketball is the metaphoric center of black juvenile culture, a major means by which even temporary forms of cultural and personal transcendence of personal limits are experienced.” — Be Like Mike? Michael Jordan and the Pedagogy of Desire, from Reflecting Black: African-American Cultural Criticism, 1993. Michael Eric Dyson, a professor of African and Afro- American studies at the University of North Carolina.

“Players of the game do not even deny this difference. Orlando Magic center Rony Seikley said “If 80% of the league is black, that means that black players are better than white players … the black players are superior. No doubt.” (Price: 40) This black game is the game played on the street where basketball means more than winning and losing. The black domination of basketball may be the result of how much it means to inner-city black players – it often becomes the greatest piece of culture they have, something they will fight for and something at which they will fight to be the best.” — Basketball - The Black Game — From the American Studies website of the University of Virginia, bibliography here.

Now, may I have a cite for your counter-assertion?

[BrainGlutton]

@Askia

[.The title of this thread is highly misleading. Nowhere in the article does it say “Republicans voters are more likely to be racist.”

It used the terms “racial bias” “anti-black prejudice” “implicit bias” “hidden bias” “more difficulty associating black faces with positive concepts than white.”

NONE of these terms equate with racism. Words like those, and words like “discrimination” are used as synonymnous with racism – and they aren’t! As I have said before, they indicate some possible racism. They clearly point to bias, prejudice and bigotry. But this is not the same thing as racist. Racism is an extreme, discredited ideology of a heirarchy of races.

No it isn’t, Askia. You’re using an indefensibly narrow definition of the term, supported neither by contemporary nor historical usage.

[you_with_the_face]

@Liberal

It strains credulity that you need a citation supporting the assertion that Blacks dominate the sport of basketball.

Surely you know that simply because one group dominates in a particular area doesn’t mean that group-outsiders will be discriminated against? I mean, I can probably pull up tons of cites showing that sumo wrestling is the “metaphoric center of Japanese culture”, but that says squat about negative bias against the non-Japanese with respect to that sport.

Now, may I have a cite for your counter-assertion?

Sure. But let me remind you of what you wrote: “Do you honestly think that, with rare exceptions, white boys on the basketball team are anything more than bench warmers and the brunts of jokes?”

Yes, I do think white boys are more than basketball benchwarmers.

Googling “high school basketball team players” yields the following images of white boys playing ball.

For something to be a “rare exception”, it didn’t take very long for me to come up with these pictures. Maybe your definition of “rare exception” is signficantly different than mine.

[Liberal]

@BrainGlutton

No it isn’t, Askia. You’re using an indefensibly narrow definition of the term, supported neither by contemporary nor historical usage.

Then history and contemporaries have cheapened the word. We now need a new word to signify “The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.” And we need to inform American Heritage that it now means only “bias” or “discrimination”.

[Liberal]

@you with the face

Surely you know that simply because one group dominates in a particular area doesn’t mean that group-outsiders will be discriminated against? I mean, I can probably pull up tons of cites showing that sumo wrestling is the “metaphoric center of Japanese culture”, but that says squat about negative bias against the non-Japanese with respect to that sport.q

I would settle for your addressing what I’ve asked you several times now to address. How is it possible, within the bounds of reason, to make a non-racist statement that one race is more racist than another?

Sure. But let me remind you of what you wrote: “Do you honestly think that, with rare exceptions, white boys on the basketball team are anything more than bench warmers and the brunts of jokes?”

Yes, I do think white boys are more than basketball benchwarmers.

Googling “high school basketball team players” yields the following images of white boys playing ball.

For something to be a “rare exception”, it didn’t take very long for me to come up with these pictures. Maybe your definition of “rare exception” is signficantly different than mine.

And so you pit your Google images against my scholarly citations? Remarkable. Incidentally, in your second image, the black player is towering above all the white players and dunking on their collective asses.

[you_with_the_face]

@Liberal

I would settle for your addressing what I’ve asked you several times now to address. How is it possible, within the bounds of reason, to make a non-racist statement that one race is more racist than another?

Show me where I put forth that position and maybe I’d bother to defend it. Racism is not the same as bias. I’ve only been talking about the latter.

[LonesomePolecat]

@you with the face

Show me where I put forth that position and maybe I’d bother to defend it. Racism is not the same as bias. I’ve only been talking about the latter.

You’re just playing silly word games. Give it up.

[Liberal]

Indeed. In the form of Maypole.

[you_with_the_face]

Well, just a few posts above, Liberal suggests that bias is different than his working definition of racism. See:

@Liberal

Then history and contemporaries have cheapened the word [racism]. We now need a new word to signify “The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.” And we need to inform American Heritage that it now means only “bias” or “discrimination”.

Are words only what you want them to mean, Liberal? If so, at least apply your meanings consistently. When I say bias, I mean “A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment”. Note its difference to the definition of racism that you gave above.

I understand that you want me to be talking about racism so you can come out with your ever-predictable and immature “A-ha! You’re being racist by saying whites are more racist!” game. Somehow that little semantic trick doesn’t work as neatly when we limit the discussion to bias, though. Frustrating, I know.

[tomndebb]

Liberal and you with the face, I hope you are both having fun. I am no longer sure exactly how you got to this point in your discussion. On the other hand, when I went back to the original exchange:

@Liberal

@you with the face

There was never a goverment-sanctioned system of oppression directed toward whites.

Some early American Irish and Italian immigrants might have begged to differ.

I noticed two things:

1. The discrimination suffered by Italians and Irish was not due to their “race” but their “ethnic” or “national” origin, so I am not sure what they are doing in this thread. (They were whites who suffered discrimination, but not for being white).

2. The discrimination they suffered was not a government-sanctioned system of oppression. It was pretty much all free market personal hatred. (One might make the case that the Palmer Raids targeted Italians more heavily than others, but no language in the laws invoked named Italian immigrants, specifically, and people who were not living in immigrant enclaves, (e.g., Enrico Caruso), were not targeted for their ethnicity–certainly not by law.)

[BrainGlutton]

This promising thread has degenerated into a hopeless trainwreck-clusterfuck, so I’ve started a new one with a clearer and narrower focus: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=356812

[Liberal]

@tomndebb

Liberal and you with the face, I hope you are both having fun. I am no longer sure exactly how you got to this point in your discussion. On the other hand, when I went back to the original exchange: I noticed two things:

1. The discrimination suffered by Italians and Irish was not due to their “race” but their “ethnic” or “national” origin, so I am not sure what they are doing in this thread. (They were whites who suffered discrimination, but not for being white).

I already covered that. They were the wrong kind of white. An “off-white”. Or as Face said of the Italians, not really white. The Irish were “red whites”. And among Indian nations, certain tribal chiefs sanctioned violence against white people. Besides, if race is a social construct, then the line between race and ethnicity is thin and arbitrary.

2. The discrimination they suffered was not a government-sanctioned system of oppression. It was pretty much all free market personal hatred. (One might make the case that the Palmer Raids targeted Italians more heavily than others, but no language in the laws invoked named Italian immigrants, specifically, and people who were not living in immigrant enclaves, (e.g., Enrico Caruso), were not targeted for their ethnicity–certainly not by law.)

Government is government, whether it is in Washington DC or in New York’s City Hall. There is nothing free about a market that is under the control of government and business cronies.

[Liberal]

@you with the face

Well, just a few posts above, Liberal suggests that bias is different than his working definition of racism. See:

Are words only what you want them to mean, Liberal? If so, at least apply your meanings consistently. When I say bias, I mean “A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment”. Note its difference to the definition of racism that you gave above.

I understand that you want me to be talking about racism so you can come out with your ever-predictable and immature “A-ha! You’re being racist by saying whites are more racist!” game. Somehow that little semantic trick doesn’t work as neatly when we limit the discussion to bias, though. Frustrating, I know.

The topic of the thread is (…glancing upward…) racism.

[John_Mace]

@tomndebb

Liberal and you with the face, I hope you are both having fun. I am no longer sure exactly how you got to this point in your discussion. On the other hand, when I went back to the original exchange: I noticed two things:

1. The discrimination suffered by Italians and Irish was not due to their “race” but their “ethnic” or “national” origin, so I am not sure what they are doing in this thread. (They were whites who suffered discrimination, but not for being white).

I disagree. A hundred years ago it was common to speak of the “Irish race” or the “Italian race”. I think the idea of what constituted a race was different then than it is now. Or, note how German racists subdivided Europeans into Nordics, Alpines, Mediteranians, etc.

Race is whatever a person thinks it is. Today we still talk of anti-Arab racism even though “Arab” is not a race.

[Askia]

@BrainGlutton

No it isn’t, Askia. You’re using an indefensibly narrow definition of the term, supported neither by contemporary nor historical usage.

@Liberal

Then history and contemporaries have cheapened the word. We now need a new word to signify “The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.” And we need to inform American Heritage that it now means only “bias” or “discrimination”.

Ah, you guys.

Yes, I am using a narrower definition of the term, because I happen to disagree vehemently with contemporary usage. It’s devalued. It’s too wide. “Racist” in my usage is deliberately simple, precise, accurate and applies equally to people who have an antiblack or antiwhite ideology. People confuse the tools and indicators of possible racism with the ideology of actual racism all the time. But bigotry, prejudice, racial bias, xenophobia and ethnocentrism are NOT the same as having an inherent belief in a systemized hierarchy of races. The methods and beliefs you use to enforce racism – dehumanizing slurs, segregation, apartheid, economic sanctions, restricted civil rights, violence, miscegenation, overt discrimination – may well indicate racism, especially when they are used in concert, but individually they are not the same as being racist. Racism is an ideology of often violent hatred of another group for a presumed inferiority, within a racial heriarchy.

Everything else can be lumped in with discrimination, bigotry, xenophobia, racial bias and prejudice.

I don’t believe in “subconscious racism.” Most racists I’ve known are proud to be racists, loudly proclaim their racism, and condemn other races for their faults.

I do believe in subconcious indicators. You may be unconsciously discriminatory. You may be unconsciously bigoted. You may have unconscious racial biases. (I also believe in being well aware of your prejudices and pretending otherwise - willful ignorance is insidious.)

A person who may not otherwise be racist but occassionally uses a term like “nigger toes” to describe Brazil nuts is and claims not to know what the fuss is when they use the word may be at worst a bit bigoted.

A person who otherwise may not be racist but feels uneasy walking past any given group of Southern white guys is being prejudiced.

A person who otherwise may not be racist but sees foreign applicant with a name like Jose Maria Pizarro and assumes they aren’t going to “fit in” is being discriminatory.

A person who otherwise doesn’t believe they are racially superior but assumes any given Korean grocer or Jewish merchant is out to cheat them is being a bigot… and a hypocrite.

These may all be unconscious reactions to how we interact with different races but actual racism is rarely unconscious. I’ve never seen it.

This means actual overt racism is a rarer thing than it used to be.

This means that bigotry and subtle discrimination are as a widespread as ever.

My definition helps focus the difference between hating an oppressed people when you’re in the power elite, and an oppressed people’s hatred and resentment of a racist oppressor. I rarely find that the oppressed people’s hatred to be racist in turn. It’s usually bigoted hatred. Different strokes, folks.

I do not believe my hatred of white Klan members makes me a biological, mental, physical or moral superior black man. It just makes me a bigot.

This also means that a good percentage of hate crimes may be – I stress, may – be motivated by bigotry rather than racism.

[you_with_the_face]

@Askia

Yes, I am using a narrower definition of the term, because I happen to disagree vehemently with contemporary usage. It’s devalued.

That’s my problem with your attempt to define racism so narrowly. It seems like you are trying to impart a statement of value to the term so that all someone has to do is call something racist in order to convey How Shockingly Horrorible That Is. Which is why threads like these gets derailed, because there is always someone so hellbent on calling someone a racist (classic ad hominem tactic) that the main issue gets obscured under semantic quibblings.

I’m quite content in saying that racism encompasses a wide range of things. The white guy who thinks blacks are intellectually inferior is racist. The black lady who thinks white men are predisposed to pedophilia is racist. The idea that an all-white town is more optimal than a mixed one is a racist idea. The idea that black people are inherently more trustworthy than white people is a racist idea. There is no need to factor in the power differential when determining which point-of-views are racist. All of them are because they attribute certain things to race that are not determined by race.

The power differential only becomes relevant when we are talking about the impact, pervasiveness, and flavor of racism in one group vs another. Historical background also figures in to that. Two ideas can be racist and rate differently in terms of their practical implications. “Blacks are better dancers than whites” is racist, but has less damaging implications than the racist statement"Whites are morally superior to blacks." This is what I’ve been trying to get Liberal and others to see.

The problem with using racism as a value-loaded term is that by labeling the two statements above as racist, it’s like saying they are equal in scale. But they are not. Using my definition, I can call both statements racist, but then explain why one is more significant than the other.

Racism, in my eyes, encompasses both unconscious bias and conscious bigotry. The cop who has a trigger finger when it comes to blacks because he unconsciously thinks of blacks as criminals is exhibiting racist tendencies. The cop who shoots black guys because he hates black guys is also exhibiting racism. Racist thought, IMO, encompasses a continuum of beliefs ranging from the implicit to the explicit, and its rather arbitrary to draw the line at conscious beliefs.

[MaxTheVool]

@AFAIKnow

The premise of this whole debate was that Republicans are more likely to be racist. When those that rightly point out that that is a flawed conclusion if you base racism only against blacks then we get the same crap you posted in (a), that somehow only racism against blacks that matters. I just don’t get this mindset that you people can’t get the fact through your heads that anyone can be racist. And anyone can discriminate towards any race. You can’t fight racism and at the same time chose to elevate one race above the others no matter how well your intentions may be. It’s hypocritical and counterproductive. Anti-black racism is NOT the only racism that matters. Got it?

I think we’re going around in circles here, but…
Do you think that the difficulty/danger/hurt that an average white person runs into over the course of his/her life in the US right now due to racism is more or less than the difficulty/danger/hurt that an average black person runs into over the course of his/her life in the US right now due to racism? Do you think it’s even close?

If your answer to the above question is “it’s close”, well, then I must be the luckiest damn white boy ever born. If your answer is “it’s not close”, then why are you getting into such a tizzy?

I’m not saying that only certain races can be racist. I’m not saying that only certain races can be the victims of racism. I’m saying that, in the US right now, racism against certain groups is vastly enormously hugely more prevalent and more damaging than against other groups, and thus is a far more important topic to discuss.
An analogy: The vast majority of victims of violent rape are women. But a few are men. Is it OK to focus our anti-rape efforts largely (but not exclusively) on women? Or do we somehow, every time we mention rape, use elaborately gender-neutral speech constructions to ensure that we are always being fair to male rape victims?
And, by the way, precisely what of what I posted was “crap”?