Is racism really so difficult to define?

[Juiblex]

Except that those do exist. For example, Patriot Prayer, Proud Boys, outlaw biker gangs trafficking drugs, violent white supremacist groups, anti-govt militia groups, and some ultra-radical Christian sects.
As I mentioned in the OP, when white groups protest the govt, it's freedom and patriotism. When minority groups protest the govt, there's a call for more law and order (or 'send them back'). The targeted law and order bit is what then leads to the dynamic you observed between police and minorities. If there was a 'law and order' crackdown on white people every time they protested the govt, you would see the same.

I'm not saying they don't exist. But how many of these are causing enough problems for the police to panic on a daily or hourly basis? Do the proud boys terrorize neighborhoods with organized crime? Does some ultra-radical Christian sects perform drive-bys on other churches? Are rival biker gangs killing each other over turf in the city? I'm not seeing it to the same degree.

 

[Juiblex]

You just made a post complaining about how you get called racist and then said that black people are to blame for police officers shooting them without cause due to some sort of collective responsibility they have by virtue of sharing a skin color.

Damn dude.

Yup! That's called reality. So far its been a good discussion though.

 

[fskimospy]

Yup! That's called reality. So far its been a good discussion though.

Can you explain a non-racist reason why someone inherits a responsibility to take action to prevent police from killing them simply because of the skin color they were born with?

Does this apply to other things? For example would that mean that white people inherit a responsibility to right the wrongs of slavery due to their skin color?

 

[pcgeek11]

what a dum-dum

What a pecker head ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[SMOGZINN]

Yup! That's called reality. So far its been a good discussion though.

It is also called racism. It is literally racism. It is judging someone based on their race. Especially when there are other factors that more reasonable account for the event. You even lay out an argument that it is something other then their race that creates this situation and then conclude that cops are right to judge them based on their race. That is naked racism.

 

[Vic]

I'm not saying they don't exist. But how many of these are causing enough problems for the police to panic on a daily or hourly basis? Do the proud boys terrorize neighborhoods with organized crime? Does some ultra-radical Christian sects perform drive-bys on other churches? Are rival biker gangs killing each other over turf in the city? I'm not seeing it to the same degree.

That's because you choose not to see it.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trial-...s-accused-of-attacking-protesters-11564701419

https://www.newsweek.com/patriot-pr...sitioned-themselves-roof-ahead-august-1171862

Then the Gilroy shooter, the Christchurch shooter, the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter, Jeremy Christian, Dylan Roof, and on and on and on.

How would you like to blamed for all of those incidents just because you happen to be white like the perpetrators? You wouldn't right? So maybe you should stop doing that to black people.

 

[glenn1]

That's because you choose not to see it.

Then the Gilroy shooter, the Christchurch shooter, the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter, Jeremy Christian, Dylan Roof, and on and on and on.

How would you like to blamed for all of those incidents just because you happen to be white like the perpetrators? You wouldn't right? So maybe you should stop doing that to black people.

We already are blamed and “alt-right” and right wing extremist violence committed by whites gets mentioned a lot. It’s used all the time as a justification for strict gun control laws if not outright bans.

 

[Vic]

We already are blamed and “alt-right” and right wing extremist violence committed by whites gets mentioned a lot. It’s used all the time as a justification for strict gun control laws if not outright bans.

How do calls for gun control equate to discrimination against whites? Especially when it's mostly whites calling for gun control?

Or if you're claiming that gun control is discrimination against conservatives, let's try to remember that political affiliation is a choice, not an accident of birth, and also that conservatives tend to be viciously discriminatory towards non-conservative political groups (ie calling them anti-American, lumping them all together as communists or authoritarian socialists, calling them mentally ill, and threatening to deport them because of their speech).

 

[UNCjigga]

I think there’s a casual, banal version of racism that is very hard to define.

You’ve got your obvious hardcore, wholesale ethnic-cleansing version of racism. You’ve got the slightly softer, “I’m gonna fuck you up if I see you but won’t kill you” racists. Then you’ve got the “I’m gonna put you in your place because you don’t deserve at better from me” racists (many white supremacists in this camp)

Next, you’ve got institutional racism—i.e. banks that won’t lend in African American communities, defunded public schools in certain districts, voter disenfranchisement, etc.

Beyond that, there’s a gray area of slightly racist and unconsciously racist that can be finely nuanced. This seems to be what “woke” media has been focusing on as of late and a lot of folks still haven’t figured out why. I’d lump together confederate flags/statues, teens donning blackface at Halloween, frat boys singing certain songs etc in this category of racism. There may not be a racist intent on behalf of the person taking these actions, but the action is inherently racist and just hasn’t always been recognized as such.

I think there is a separation between “racist” and “prejudiced”. I’d put literal pearl-clutchers in the prejudiced camp. Same as when you avoid certain roads/neighborhoods when driving around town, or avoid certain areas at night. Or when you look at a black man in baggy jeans/hoodies/exposed underwear differently vs. a black man in a business suit. It’s different from conscious or unconscious racism, it’s more of a learned behavior. I also think prejudices are part of human nature and difficult to eradicate, nor do they need to be eradicated. People just need to recognize their prejudices and acknowledge them, in order to prevent them leading to racist actions or beliefs.

 

[Maxima1]

Does this apply to other things? For example would that mean that white people inherit a responsibility to right the wrongs of slavery due to their skin color?

Can you show the effect of slavery lingers and how much of the variability it accounts for? It's not surprising that black people captured in Africa and sent over here would do poorly across generations. It's seen in other groups of people, but the logic that we must have fucked them over doesn't fly.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/asian-american-success-and-the-pitfalls-of-generalization/

So far we have followed research convention in treating Asian-Americans as a single group. But there are wide differences between different Asian-American groups. Many are struggling economically; the “Asian” advantages popularized in the media are far from universal.

Many groups from East Asia and India are doing very well economically. But Cambodians and Hmong are on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder, with very high poverty rates, of 38 percent and 29 percent respectively. Why is this? And is there an explanation of why some Asian groups do so well, while others struggle? According to the “model minority” theory of the case, economic hardship ought not to matter so much. Culture and values are supposed to overwhelm economic conditions.

 

[HomerJS]

I'm not saying they don't exist. But how many of these are causing enough problems for the police to panic on a daily or hourly basis? Do the proud boys terrorize neighborhoods with organized crime? Does some ultra-radical Christian sects perform drive-bys on other churches? Are rival biker gangs killing each other over turf in the city? I'm not seeing it to the same degree.

Then those people shouldn't be cops. Police seem to panic about people they want to panic about. What group has been the greatest perpetrator of domestic terrorism in the last 10 years. Hint its not black people yet the federal government under Trump has cut the budget and staff of agencies designed to fight white supremacist terrorism.

 

[Vic]

Can you show the effect of slavery lingers and how much of the variability it accounts for? It's not surprising that black people captured in Africa and sent over here would do poorly across generations. It's seen in other groups of people, but the logic that we must have fucked them over doesn't fly.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/asian-american-success-and-the-pitfalls-of-generalization/

So far we have followed research convention in treating Asian-Americans as a single group. But there are wide differences between different Asian-American groups. Many are struggling economically; the “Asian” advantages popularized in the media are far from universal.

Many groups from East Asia and India are doing very well economically. But Cambodians and Hmong are on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder, with very high poverty rates, of 38 percent and 29 percent respectively. Why is this? And is there an explanation of why some Asian groups do so well, while others struggle? According to the “model minority” theory of the case, economic hardship ought not to matter so much. Culture and values are supposed to overwhelm economic conditions.

Or generationally fucked over Asian groups do just as poorly as generationally fucked over African groups.

 

[glenn1]

How do calls for gun control equate to discrimination against whites? Especially when it's mostly whites calling for gun control?

Or if you're claiming that gun control is discrimination against conservatives, let's try to remember that political affiliation is a choice, not an accident of birth, and also that conservatives tend to be viciously discriminatory towards non-conservative political groups (ie calling them anti-American, lumping them all together as communists or authoritarian socialists, calling them mentally ill, and threatening to deport them because of their speech).

Nobody including me has called or will call that discrimination. However it's an example of stereotyping being used to justify policies. Here on ATPN there's a couple threads both discussing "violent fascists" (one from the right, another from the left. The alt-right racist mass shooter boogeyman is brought up to justify gun control here all the time.

Now replace the "violent fascists" with "super-predators who need to be brought to heel" which was widely meant to refer to blacks, and you can see where this becomes problematic. Not only did you use stereotyping to justify a bad policy that had huge adverse impacts on those you scapegoated to get the policy in place, but it also shows how the line of where "stereotypes" end and where "racism" begins can be a fine one indeed. To stick with the example of gun control, selling that policy idea on an idea that some group is uniquely violent and we need to protect ourselves from them isn't new - sure it's "white alt-right racist extremists" today but a couple decades ago it was Muslims and a few generations before that it was blacks (and to a certain extent still is).

If you went out there and said "blacks should not be allowed to keep and carry arms as that will inevitably produce discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State" that would be widely seen as racist (slightly paraphrasing from the Dred Scott decision). But would it somehow not be racist if you replaced the word "blacks" (actually "negroes" in the original) with whites since they're the majority racial group in the U.S. would you still consider that racism? Likely not.

Which is why in my first post in this thread I suggested that "racism" be mostly limited to its old use of those who believe in innate and unchangeable differences in the races that make one superior/inferior to another. Otherwise you get into this weird realm where stuff that's merely stereotyping or bigotry gets conflated with racism, diluting the meaning of the later word and reducing its impact. It's not trying to minimize racism, just keep the definition clear and consistent.

 

[sandorski]

Everyone knows that Racist/Racism are bad things. Some choose to avoid being Racist. Others choose to quibble about what Racism is.

 

[glenn1]

Everyone knows that Racist/Racism are bad things. Some choose to avoid being Racist. Others choose to quibble about what Racism is.

Words mean things. They don’t change their definition just because you think “racist” sounds like a more serious charge to level at someone than a word like “bigot” or “prejudiced.” It’s not defending someone if you use a more precise word to describe their bad behavior. The word “bigot” still has an amazingly bad connotation to it and is a very serious charge to level at someone, especially if they are a public figure like a high-ranking government official.

 

[sandorski]

Words mean things. They don’t change their definition just because you think “racist” sounds like a more serious charge to level at someone than a word like “bigot” or “prejudiced.” It’s not defending someone if you use a more precise word to describe their bad behavior. The word “bigot” still has an amazingly bad connotation to it and is a very serious charge to level at someone, especially if they are a public figure like a high-ranking government official.

No, Words have usage. Definitions are merely descriptions of how Words are used.

 

[glenn1]

No, Words have usage. Definitions are merely descriptions of how Words are used.

Okay, let's play out the thought experiment. If "racism" now has no requirement to include a belief in racial superiority/inferiority and now has subsumed behavior that was once called bigoted or prejudiced, then what word or phrase should we use for those who actually believe that (insert race here) is inferior and should be ethnically cleansed? Is racism the new "sexual assault" which can include everything from forced sexual penetration to groping someone? Is that an improvement where using words or phrases in a less precise way is supposed to be somehow "better" because you can use strategic ambiguity to label someone with the worse sounding "rapist" or "racist" whereas in previous ages of more linguistic precision these terms would have been considered inappropriate to use to describe the conduct?

And yes, I realize completely that Trump is somewhat of an edge case that completely defies all norms of civilized behavior and thus doesn't really deserve efforts to nunace the words we use to condemn his behavior. This conversation is more general in nature than Trump and will still be applicable once Trump is out of office and died and gone to Hades where he belongs.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Racism has been watered down today. Today, if you speak critically (even citing facts) of some demographics and the left brands one a racist. Don't agree with a leftist narrative? Get branded a racist. This continued screaming of "racism!" at every turn will only make people numb to it, boy that cried wolf stuff.

Punch that straw bunky. Punch it real hard.

Got your silver shirt yet?

 

[SMOGZINN]

Words mean things. They don’t change their definition just because you think “racist” sounds like a more serious charge to level at someone than a word like “bigot” or “prejudiced.” It’s not defending someone if you use a more precise word to describe their bad behavior. The word “bigot” still has an amazingly bad connotation to it and is a very serious charge to level at someone, especially if they are a public figure like a high-ranking government official.

Anytime bigotry or prejudice is based on perceived racial traits it is racism. All racism can be described as bigotry or prejudice. Racism is a subset of those.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Anytime bigotry or prejudice is based on perceived racial traits it is racism. All racism can be described as bigotry or prejudice. Racism is a subset of those.

So again, if I say positive messages - are they racist? Or is it stereotyping? Or is it just statistics?

E.g
"Asians in America are statistically smarter"
"Black people statistically run faster than others"

Hell, Andrew Yang made an Asian stereotype joke while he was at the debate the other day. Was that racist?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Punch that straw bunky. Punch it real hard.

Got your silver shirt yet?

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/greys-anatomy-ellen-pompeo-racist-kamala-harris-comment

Some actress called Kamala Harris overconfident. Leftists brand her as racist for such a bigoted remark.

Yet you act like what I said was off point. You're the blind one, not me.

You lefties are just a giant victim factory now. Racism is the modern red scare. Nice job, liberals.

 

[Vic]

So again, if I say positive messages - are they racist? Or is it stereotyping? Or is it just statistics?

E.g
"Asians in America are statistically smarter"
"Black people statistically run faster than others"

Hell, Andrew Yang made an Asian stereotype joke while he was at the debate the other day. Was that racist?

Only if you're capable of believing that prejudice, bigotry, and racism can be positive.

 

[Victorian Gray]

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/greys-anatomy-ellen-pompeo-racist-kamala-harris-comment

Some actress called Kamala Harris overconfident. Leftists brand her as racist for such a bigoted remark.

Yet you act like what I said was off point. You're the blind one, not me.

Some actress says something and some other people on "social media" say something about what she said. Wow!

btw, got your silver shirt yet?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Some actress says something and some other people on "social media" say something about what she said. Wow!

btw, got your silver shirt yet?

Hey, Ilhan, if you just dumb a specific instance down to "something" you can make it sound like it wasn't a big deal at all. An actress called Kamala Harris overconfident. People conditioned by the left to be victims manufactured racism out of her criticism of Kamala Harris. Liberals manufacture racism where there was none. Most "racism" that occurs today is manufactured like this.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Only if you're capable of believing that prejudice, bigotry, and racism can be positive.

It is prejudging, no? Whether it's negative or positive doesn't take away from the fact that it is.. you know.. prejudging.