Two answers. One is that what most of would agree is racial is deemed by others to be racist. As mentioned earlier, referring to these people as something like “racial realists” is not problematic. It identifies people who hold a particular belief, separates them out from the rest, yet is not an insult and won’t inflame or stop a debate.
Also, racist is a very toxic word and labels people as unworthy of having anything to offer in the debate. And that’s the real game many want to play. They want to identify someone who might be thinking racially, a race realist, and then jump from there to full on “racist”. The two are not the same thing by way of definition, but some want to on the one hand say that they are equivalent and then insist on using the more toxic word. Why, because it is more toxic.
The question I ask you is what I just put to you. Will you answer it this time?
[QUOTE=magellan01]
The question is, WHY is it necessary to call someone a racist in a debate? If they are racist, won’t that be evident by the arguments they put forth? What purpose does it serve? What can be achieved through those means that can’t be achieved without the insult? Can you answer that, please.
[/QUOTE]
So? If they are so vile, and that is so evident, can’t you point that out without insulting the poster? Can’t you make the point without ad hominems? I suggest that a person who cannot is better fit for things other than debating.
Those are not answers. They spectacularly fail to address the points i made. But you knew that.
Sorry, the fact that you say something doesn’t make it true. Calling someone who believes in inherent racial superiority and inferiority a “race realist” is problematic, for reasons that have been explained to you on multiple occasions in this thread. The fact that you keep ignoring the arguments, and pretending they don’t exist, rather than addressing them in a substantive way, doesn’t change the fact that they’ve been explained to you quite clearly by numerous people.
Why is it that you and the “race realists” are the ones who get to decide where that dividing line is? You seem unable to conceive of the notion that something that you call “race realism” might actually be racism. For you, it’s all about allowing the very people holding those views to frame the debate and set the definitions. Sorry, bucko, but it doesn’t work that way.
If someone expresses a belief in inherent racial superiority and inferiority, then calling them a “race realist” is just as insulting as calling them a racist. The only difference is who gets insulted. Calling such a person a “race realist” implies that their supremacism is valid, and thus insults everyone they are claiming is inherently inferior.
I and others have addressed this issue on multiple occasions. The fact that you can’t or won’t comprehend the answer is your problem, not mine.
Bullshit. Just because you don’t like an answer doesn’t mean one has been supplied.
And here’s the game you and others want to play. They want to, on the one hand, identify people who believe that races exist and to the degree that they do, some real differences exist. These people are race realists. But then you want to ascribe to them the notion that they must necessarily believe that one race is inherently superior to the the others. It’s a slight of hand seen all to often, so consider yourself called on it.
But let’s say you’re right for a second. And that these race realist are the very same people who believe that one race is, let’s see how did you put it—inherently racially supreme. Now most of these people I’ve encountered who believe that 1) races exist and that 2) we can see real differences between them, also believe that blacks have something genetic that makes them the fastest sprinters on the planet. Right or wrong, they believe this. And since they believe this, and since you seem to think that these same people necessarily believe in the “inherent racial supremacy” of one race over all others, then these people must hold that blacks are the inherently supreme race.
Now, do you really think that that is the case? Please.
Here’s your problem. You ascribe to race realists the notion of “supremacy”. I think that there is thing that would can meaningfully talk about as race, but I do not think that the differences we can see between the races makes one race supreme. What I think is that the same way that there might be height differences or facial structural differences there are likely to be other differences not as readily visible. It appears to be clear that there is something about blacks with a West African lineage that allows people from that group to be the fastest people on the planet. The studies in IQ, if I recall the claims correctly, that indicate that Asians have the highest IQs. Yet, that acknowledging these differences doesn’t mean that I hold one race to be supreme. In fact, based on what I’ve heard, I’d have a hard time saying which race might be “supreme”. Your use of that word is not helpful. But I know you don’t care to hear that. Because you want to keep it in your toolbox so you can contort logic and go from “racial realist” to "race supremacist; from someone who may believe Blacks appear to be faster and Asians appear to be smarter to "Racist! I bet you’d like to turn the clock back a hundred years or so you could do yourself some lynchin’ and cross burnin’.
And finally, I would assume that you would say that most of these racial realists/racists are white, would you not? Well if they are, and they believe the studies, which race do you think they hold to be "inherently superior to all others? Blacks, because they are faster sprinters? Or Asians, by virtue of their higher IQs? And by what metric would you say these race realists/scientific racists hold the white race to be “inherently superior”? Because I’m not aware of any measurement that aligns with heritable traits in which these white racists would be able to argue that the white race is “inherently supreme”?
It would serve you and logic better if you would simply leave the notion of inherent supremacy out of your discussion about race realists/scientific racists, for the above reasons. Instead, focus simply on their acceptance of differences. Because while racists do exist, they are a mere subset of the larger group who accepts that there are races and there are differences among them.
We had a very similar debate to this in a Pit thread, IIRC.
I don’t think this is quite the case- believing in distinct biological races alone, without accompanying beliefs about differences in abilities, does not seem to fall into the category of “racism”. I like Wikipedia’s first paragraph in the racism article (bolded portion mine):
I strongly disagree. Racism, which has a lot of history behind it, is not, and has never been about foot speed. Racism, historically, has been about the most fundamentally human characteristics- usually intelligence and morality. And one thing the race realists generally all have in common is a believe that black people are genetically intellectually inferior on average. And many would add to that that they believe black people are genetically more inclined (on average) to greater aggression/anti-social behavior/dishonesty/etc.
Those are the most fundamental characteristics of racism, historically speaking. If this belief – that one race is inherently inferior (on average) in intellectual or moral ability – is not a racist belief, then nothing is a racist belief.
Racism does not necessarily equal white (or any other sort) supremacism.
So many of them are not also white supremacists, but the belief that black people are inherently less intelligent on average, due to genetics, fits right into the definition of a racist belief.
So it’s okay (not necessarily racist) to simply believe that different races exist? Good that’s a start. Now tell me, Is it okay to acknowledge how those races might differ. For instance, is it okay to point out that Asians, on average, tend to be shorter than whites? Is it okay to point out that blacks tend to have darker skin than whites? And is it also okay to point out that it appears to be the case that fastest human sprinters have a West Africa heritage?
If a person points these things out and argues that they are real differences, are they a racist?
So, you accept foot speed can be pointed out as a difference and the person doing so would not necessarily be racist. Good, we agree again. After all, we have extremely convincing date that that is the case. So, if there were to surface data that indicated that asians have higher IQs than whites, is that now “racism”? PLease answer that directly, if you don’t mind.
Here’s where I think you’re reasoning is faulty. You’re looking at distinct characteristics of the distinct subset of race realists who are “racist” and then attributing those racist beliefs out to all other subsets in that group. That’s simply fallacious reasoning. We can say that all racists are race realists, but that does NOT mean that all race realists are racists.
Oh, I agree. But let’s be honest, that’s the issue, as you seem to agree with via your “historically speaking”.
Again, this is the very problem. You’re attempting to use a “racist belief” as a common denominator for both racists and race realists. And once you do that you can start to apply “racist” to people who are race realists, but NOT necessarily racist. The problem is that you’re ignoring the difference between “racial” and “racist”. Pointing out that blacks tend to have kinkier hair and broader noses than whites, are faster runners at the elite level; that Asians have different eye structure and tend to be shorter of stature than whites, or that they may have higher IQs are not in and of themselves racist views…they are racial views. I don’t get why you and others are so intent on not acknowledging this very real difference. On a board that, supposedly, dedicated to fighting ignorance. Because at the very heart of that there needs to be a reverence for logic.
All of this comes down to the last paragraph you posted, so I snipped the rest. I don’t know if all race realists are racists. I don’t know the beliefs of all race realists. The claims about foot speed, height, hair texture, and other physical characteristics are not racist claims, in my opinion, whether or not they’re true. Claims about test scores (like IQ or SAT scores) are generally not racist either, whether or not they’re true. But claims that one race (usually black people) is genetically inclined to lower intelligence, on average, is indeed a racist claim.
Do you see the difference? Intelligence is different than test scores, and different than height/foot speed/hair texture/skin color. Intelligence is just a different characteristic, and gets at the heart of the history of racism, as do related claims about genetic tendencies towards aggression/criminality/etc.
Perhaps this is a fundamental divide, but I don’t see how you can miss it- if saying one race is inherently genetically dumber on average is not a racist claim, than what is a racist claim? That’s pretty much the purest example of a racist belief – the belief that one race is inherently less intelligent, or less moral, on average, than another race. Not foot speed, not height, not other superficial characteristics, but the very essence of our humanity: intelligence and moral behavior. So if that doesn’t qualify, I’ll ask you seriously – what does?
I have to say when I see Magellan go through all sorts of contortions to try and claim that the scientific racists aren’t really racists I’m reminded of Noam Chomsky insisting that we shouldn’t call Holocaust Deniers anti-Semites because he sees “no anti-Semitic implications in the denial of the Holocaust”.
As he says, they’re not explicitly claiming that Jews are somehow inferior.
As several rather unamused Jewish intellectuals pointed out, using Chimsky’s logic, believers in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion weren’t anti-Semites.
Of course, based on Magellan’s arguments, Chomsky was correct and we shouldn’t call people who claim the Holocaust was a hoax or that the US is controlled by an evil Jewish cabal looking to manipulate gentiles for the sake of Israel.
I think that magellan01 does have a valid point insofar as the label “racist” and “racism” can be used to shut down debate, to discredit the opponent so as to suggest none of their points are worth listening to. Yes, the word “racist” carries negative tones precisely because the ideas that label applies to are considered negatively, and the word itself carries an objective meaning along with that subjective baggage.
I would consider the question megellan asks: if you are choosing to describe someone’s views as racist or calling them a racist in a thread, ask yourself why you need to describe them as such. Is it so that, by stating it such, you can dismiss the claims without further attention?
“Race realists” (as megellan calls them, which I don’t really like that term - I might call them “race believers” instead) start with a premise that races of humans actually exist. Furthermore, they map them with the traditional groupings based largely on visible features, primarily skin color and facial features. That is actually two claims embedded as one. Then there’s the further step that assumes that intellect and/or moral sense are features that can vary across races. If we were to assume races are real, then it is plausible that this could be so. Now let me ask the $50 question: how does labeling that claim as “racist” assess the validity of that claim? Yes, it states that the claim makes groups of humans inherently superior and inferior with regards to certain traits we consider the essence of being human, of being “worthy”. It does NOT address the question of whether groups of humans do, in fact, vary in those traits.
I think the dangerous ground is not in trying to assess those claims. The real danger comes along with what a person does by establishing those claims. If we assume for a moment races are real, that they largely map to physical traits as historically assigned, that intelligence and moral ability are features that can vary by race, and that we can somehow definitively show one race has lower on average intelligence and/or moral sense, the question then becomes: so what? What are you proposing to do with that data? Impose tighter laws on blacks versus whites because of their supposed inherent nature? Discount sub-saharan Africa as not worth economic and social aid? Justify more economic and social aid because they are inherently unable to take care of themselves? Merely try to justify that there are social imbalances like higher incarceration rates for blacks versus whites and stiffer penalties on blacks than whites for similar crimes? Defend the notion that there should be those imbalances and seek to proactively maintain them?
And that is my question for the “race believers” who don’t think they are supremecists. What is the payoff? What is it you are trying to gain? Feeling smug that their troubles are their own fault so no effort should be made to help? Closing off society (“We shouldn’t allow immigration from SSA as that just brings more troublemakers”)?
It just seems to me that such efforts mask the fundamental point that we are all humans, and all have elements of the good and bad traits inside us.
Honestly, I’ve been following the debate here with interest. The word ‘racist’ is an interesting one that doesn’t admit of a simple ruling and you all have produced an interesting back-and-forth regarding it. Thanks.
Still, Mace seems a bit anxious so I’ll rule.
Caveat: Rulings in this sort of thing are not cut-and-dried. Those wishing for one-rule-to-rule-them-all should maybe alter their expectations. As I believe I said upthread, in a forum such as this with multiple rules for different areas and multiple moderators ruling, the expectation of a mechanistic enforcement policy is unrealistic.
My rulings are my own. And to hold any other moderator to them is to court insanity. Those wishing to do so should again reexamine their beliefs about such.
My ruling is that the word ‘racist’ (and it’s affiliates such as ‘race realist’, ‘racism’ and all such) is not worth an automatic warning. The word itself can be used safely as a descriptor of an argument or third party.
That said, using is as a descriptor of a poster becomes far too close to ad hominen - even if it may be perceived as an accurate assessment of a poster. To use it in such ways becomes an insult and such are not allowed in Great Debates.
As for the post in question, it’s my intention to allow it to go on unmoderated. Both because it’s been several days and because it was before I’d sat down and thought about it. As Star Gordon believed, sometimes it’s best to do nothing.
Note, though, that to think my attitude towards it would govern all other moderators in all other situations would be foolish.
Still, I believe the most important thing that’s come about from this thread is the discussion you all have had. I’d deeply appreciative of it and believe some good was had by all.
This is an excellent post. Well thought out and well written. You expressed much of what I’ve said more than once and presented it perhaps better. At least, that is my hope, as it maybe the points will be better received. As far as “what’s the payoff?”, you’ll have to ask those doing the research and starting the threads. I do not know. My only point is about the use of the word “racist”. And the games people play with it in order to discredit the poster rather than the arguments he or she makes. No one has adequately answered, what’s the upside of doing it.