Racism...

[Zen0]

in my first statement, I am not attributing a race to dancing. i am attributing the race to my friend. YOU are the one attributing the race to dancing. it's how you are interpreting it. that makes you the one who is racist IMO.

No, it does not make me racist, it makes me a greater interpreter of English language composition and inductive reasoning.

It brings into question:

1) Why you brought up the race of your friends. Why is this relevant to your statement?

2) Why is the race of a friend relevant to dancing?

A person's choice of words is reflective of their intents, whether they realize it or not. There is a possibility that the person is less competent in communicating their intents, that is then a matter of misunderstanding. In that case, it does not make me racist and it does not make you racist. But people WILL (rationally) more than likely view you as racist based on your sentence construction and word choices.

 

[blurredvision]

It is not an "issue", unless you mean my intelligence and reasoning capability is an "issue".

I think purbeast knows the difference in effect the two statements make.

Obviously, who you make the statement matters as well. A lower intelligence human, or perhaps a non-native speaker, may not be able to differentiate the two.

No, I mean that it is your issue that you are the one who trying to take a racist slant from what he is saying when he's not. I'm sure purbeast understands the difference in effect between the two statement, it's just that your effect differs wildly from his.

I'm not trying to say you lack intelligence or reasoning capability, just that I think you're definition of what is racism is completely skewed. I think your way of defining racism is much more harmful to race relations overall than mine.

 

[blurredvision]

No, it does not make me racist, it makes me a greater interpreter of English language composition and inductive reasoning.

It brings into question:

1) Why you brought up the race of your friends. Why is this relevant to your statement?

2) Why is the race of a friend relevant to dancing?

A person's choice of words is reflective of their intents, whether they realize it or not. There is a possibility that the person is less competent in communicating their intents, that is then a matter of misunderstanding. In that case, it does not make me racist and it does not make you racist. But people WILL (rationally) more than likely view you as racist based on your sentence construction and word choices.

If we assume that he's defining his friend as black because of the dancing, then we're coming back around to the argument that a stereotype is or isn't racism. We're just going in circles now. 😛

 

[purbeast0]

No, it does not make me racist, it makes me a greater interpreter of English language composition and inductive reasoning.

It brings into question:

1) Why you brought up the race of your friends. Why is this relevant to your statement?

2) Why is the race of a friend relevant to dancing?

A person's choice of words is reflective of their intents, whether they realize it or not. There is a possibility that the person is less competent in communicating their intents, that is then a matter of misunderstanding. In that case, it does not make me racist and it does not make you racist. But people WILL (rationally) more than likely view you as racist based on your sentence construction and word choices.

it does make you racist because you are making race the primary point of my statement, when it clearly isn't and i've explained that more than once to you.

again, we'll agree to disagree, there really is no point in talking about it anymore because neither of us are going to change our opinion.

 

[Zen0]

No, I mean that it is your issue that you are the one who trying to take a racist slant from what he is saying when he's not. I'm sure purbeast understands the difference in effect between the two statement, it's just that your effect differs wildly from his.

I'm not trying to say you lack intelligence or reasoning capability, just that I think you're definition of what is racism is completely skewed. I think your way of defining racism is much more harmful to race relations overall than mine.

It's not my definition, it's not your definition.

It's Society's definition, which includes EVERYTHING as it relates to race.

You can start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

 

[Zen0]

it does make you racist because you are making race the primary point of my statement, when it clearly isn't and i've explained that more than once to you.

again, we'll agree to disagree, there really is no point in talking about it anymore because neither of us are going to change our opinion.

You didn't answer either of my questions.

I did not make race the primary point of your statement, you made it that way through your sentence construction.

The choice of words in important. If I took that question on the GRE or GMAT and assumed that race was not the point you were trying to make, I would have failed the verbal section of those exams miserably.

 

[purbeast0]

You didn't answer either of my questions.

The choice of words in important. If I took that question on the GRE or GMAT and assumed that race was not the point you were trying to make, I would have failed the verbal section of those exams miserably.

yea i didn't answer your questions because it is pointless. what the hell does this have to do with the GRE and GMAT? you are fucking reaching for straws here.

oh and you should read your own definition you linked to on wikipedia...

Racism is the belief that the genetic factors that constitute race, ethnicity, or nationality are a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that ethnic differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

please show me where my statement gave any implication that a race is superior to another race.

PROTIP: you can't.

 

[blurredvision]

It's not my definition, it's not your definition.

It's Society's definition, which includes EVERYTHING as it relates to race.

You can start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

oh and you should read your own definition you linked to on wikipedia...

please show me where my statement gave any implication that a race is superior to another race.

PROTIP: you can't.

Purbeast's response pretty much sums up what my response would've been, so I'll just leave it at that.

 

[Zen0]

yea i didn't answer your questions because it is pointless. what the hell does this have to do with the GRE and GMAT? you are fucking reaching for straws here.

oh and you should read your own definition you linked to on wikipedia...



please show me where my statement gave any implication that a race is superior to another race.

PROTIP: you can't.

I can see that there is no point in this. "And" is a conjunction used to connect two ideas, which may or may not be independent.

GRE and GMAT was brought up as a source of grammatical and verbal reasoning authority, establishing a baseline for analyzing your sentence construction.

Again, I thought that was fairly obvious, but it seems it was not.

Let me be perfectly clear on this then:

"Racism is the belief that the genetic factors that constitute race, ethnicity, or nationality are a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that ethnic differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."

is properly deconstructed as two independent statements:

"Racism is the belief that the genetic factors that constitute race, ethnicity, or nationality are a primary determinant of human traits and capacity"

AND

"Racism is the belief that ethnic differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."

They are not exclusionary to the other - therefore you do not need profess superiority to be racist. Simply attributing a human trait or capacity makes you racist, whether or not you qualify that trait.

 

[purbeast0]

you are making absolutely no sense now.

 

[Taughnter]

It wouldn't change that being a racial statement.

This is actually true. This entire thread is "racial", as it pertains to race. Maybe the confusion here is that it's implied by everything that you've said that OP's use of the descriptor "black" about his work friend would be "racist".

I get your argument/point that using the racial or skin-color descriptors in a text setting implies something about the speaker, but even if that is proven to be true (saying it's proven/true, by the way, don't make it so) it doesn't make them racist and it certainly doesn't tell you anything definitive about them. Maybe they're a visual person and they describe things based on what they see....maybe in the context of the conversation it is relevant.

Also, a person can believe that people of different races are different without being racist, particularly if you don't think their race is the cause of those differences.

Do yourself a favor, go look up the words "racial" and "racist". It looks like the word you're really looking for is "racialist". Or don't. I suspect that you're not even trying to have a discussion here and are just trying to stir the pot.

 

[Zen0]

you are making absolutely no sense now.

I can see that, if someone else would like to explain the differences further, then please do.

This is fairly elementary verbal capabilities you should have developed in High School.

 

[purbeast0]

I can see that, if someone else would like to explain the differences further, then please do.

This is fairly elementary verbal capabilities you should have developed in High School.

well there have already been 2 people trying to explain it to you and you don't get it so i doubt a 3rd person will make a difference.

 

[ss284]

"Racism is the belief that ethnic differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."

It would be illogical not to believe at least part of this. Namely that genetic differences between races result in differences in traits and characteristics.

Also, a person can believe that people of different races are different without being racist, particularly if you don't think their race is the cause of those differences.

I don't see how this statement makes any sense.

 

[Zen0]

This is actually true. This entire thread is "racial", as it pertains to race. Maybe the confusion here is that it's implied by everything that you've said that OP's use of the descriptor "black" about his work friend would be "racist".

I get your argument/point that using the racial or skin-color descriptors in a text setting implies something about the speaker, but even if that is proven to be true (saying it's proven/true, by the way, don't make it so) it doesn't make them racist and it certainly doesn't tell you anything definitive about them. Maybe they're a visual person and they describe things based on what they see....maybe in the context of the conversation it is relevant.

It is true that not all racial statements are racist.

A racial police statement describing a suspect is by function and necessity, and it is not racist.

When race is applied in a statement where the only rational reason why it is applied is to imply something about the race... is not merely "racial", it is by definition, racist. Either that, or the speaker is non-fluent or simply less educated.

I have already explained my view on Racism, I believe it is damaging but I don't condemn it wholly, nor do I profess to be a saint about it.

Also, a person can believe that people of different races are different without being racist, particularly if you don't think their race is the cause of those differences.

If you believe that race is a subset of another factor - such as culture or economics, then this is a reasonable assertion.

The truth is, that is not the case in general. If you say because culturally, more gang violence tends towards Blacks and Latinos, then you believe that Blacks and Latinos are different, you somehow get out of racist.

That is a specious line of thinking. Attributing culture to race, rather than the other way around, is not any less a direct reflection on the race.

This is your line of logic:

I do not like Gangbangers.
Gangbangers tend to be Latinos.
I therefore avoid Latinos and I am therefore not racist because it is not a factor of their race but the culture that predominates the race

Versus

I do not like Latinos
Because Latinos are all Gangbangers
I therefore avoid Latinos

In either example, you are avoiding Latinos. Whether or not you believe that most Gangbangers are Latinos or most Latinos are Gangbangers becomes a fairly irrelevant point.

You believe that "people of different races are different". but "race is not the cause of the differences"

Of course, being Latino does not cause one to be a Gangbanger. But you knew that already.

So what is it is about Latinos that make them different as a race?

It is a specious and illogical line of reasoning. I would like to hear your example of a case where "people of different races are different but race is not the cause of the differences"

 

[Zen0]

It would be illogical not to believe at least part of this. Namely that genetic differences between races result in differences in traits and characteristics.



I don't see how this statement makes any sense.

Correct, as a practical example, it is fairly obvious that genetic differences produce different phenotypic traits - hair color, eye color, skin color example.

Professing superiority of one genetic expression over another becomes the point of contention. Why are gingers (red heads) maligned? Why are Blondes desired?

 

[Zen0]

well there have already been 2 people trying to explain it to you and you don't get it so i doubt a 3rd person will make a difference.

I would like you to understand that a conjunction can be used to connect two independent statements.

Racism, as defined by Wikipedia, is not dependent on both professing racial superiority AND traits and capacities. One, or the other, is sufficient in making something racist.

That was the purpose of the grammar lesson in the usage of "and".

 

[purbeast0]

I would like you to understand that a conjunction can be used to connect two independent statements.

Racism, as defined by Wikipedia, is not dependent on both professing racial superiority AND traits and capacities. One, or the other, is sufficient in making something racist.

That was the purpose of the grammar lesson in the usage of "and".

wow ...

i know what AND means ... and I know what OR means.

you apparently don't.

if wikipedia meant OR it would have said OR.

holy shit you are dense.

 

[jonks]

"Racism is the belief that the genetic factors that constitute race, ethnicity, or nationality are a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that ethnic differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."

is properly deconstructed as two independent statements:

"Racism is the belief that the genetic factors that constitute race, ethnicity, or nationality are a primary determinant of human traits and capacity"

AND

"Racism is the belief that ethnic differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."

They are not exclusionary to the other - therefore you do not need profess superiority to be racist. Simply attributing a human trait or capacity makes you racist, whether or not you qualify that trait.

Wow, so fail, hahaha.

Would it clarify things for you if the word "those" was inserted before "ethnic differences"?

wow ...

i know what AND means ... and I know what OR means.

you apparently don't.

if wikipedia meant OR it would have said OR.

Maybe he should edit the wiki article and change it to OR.

 

[Taughnter]

It is true that not all racial statements are racist.

A racial police statement describing a suspect is by function and necessity, and it is not racist.

When race is applied in a statement where the only rational reason why it is applied is to imply something about the race... is not merely "racial", it is by definition, racist. Either that, or the speaker is non-fluent or simply less educated.

I have already explained my view on Racism, I believe it is damaging but I don't condemn it wholly, nor do I profess to be a saint about it.



If you believe that race is a subset of another factor - such as culture or economics, then this is a reasonable assertion.

The truth is, that is not the case in general. If you say because culturally, more gang violence tends towards Blacks and Latinos, then you believe that Blacks and Latinos are different, you somehow get out of racist.

That is a specious line of thinking. Attributing culture to race, rather than the other way around, is not any less a direct reflection on the race.

This is your line of logic:

I do not like Gangbangers.
Gangbangers tend to be Latinos.
I therefore avoid Latinos and I am therefore not racist because it is not a factor of their race but the culture that predominates the race

Versus

I do not like Latinos
Because Latinos are all Gangbangers
I therefore avoid Latinos

In either example, you are avoiding Latinos. Whether or not you believe that most Gangbangers are Latinos or most Latinos are Gangbangers becomes a fairly irrelevant point.

You believe that "people of different races are different". but "race is not the cause of the differences"

Of course, being Latino does not cause one to be a Gangbanger. But you knew that already.

So what is it is about Latinos that make them different as a race?

It is a specious and illogical line of reasoning. I would like to hear your example of a case where "people of different races are different but race is not the cause of the differences"

1. On Racial vs. Racist: You seem to largely agree with me here except for you statement about implying things about race. Since you want to use Wikipedia's definition for racism, I'll use that too. Under that definition we're talking about race, ethnicity, and nationality. If someone were to ask me if a particular person were circumsized and my response was, "Well, he IS Jewish after all." There's clearly an implication made by me that being Jewish has something to do with being circumsized. The same sort of statements could be made about other groups. I'm not going to sit here and come up with examples, if you don't agree, then that's your prerogative.

2. I don't think "race is a subset of another factor", I think that those other factors have correlational relationships with race based on a variety of things that are NOT DNA. Why have certain groups been persecuted against? Jealousy? Greed? If you can't see that the way Blacks, Native Americans, Jews, or any other persecuted group has been treated could lead to socioeconomic differences, then again, feel free to believe differently.

3. Your whole Gangbanger/Latino thing, while labeled as my logic, is not. It's actually your example of what I guess you assume my logic is. I don't recall anything in my post that could have indicated subscribing to that line of logical reasoning. To me it looks like you constructed a strawman argument to tear down.

4. I never said there WERE differences between races. What I said was, a person could believe there were differences between races without those underlying races being the cause. In the context of my post, I was talking about how a person could have the perception of differences between two races without being racist. I could, for instance, believe that my indian friend has a different body odor than my white friends because of his diet. I might be right or wrong, but am I a racist under your definition?

That's not to say I couldn't identify a number of presumed differences between races that I believe are based on geography, culture, and the result of other external factors, but who even cares? I'm not the first person to espouse this view. Feel free to educate yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_germs,_and_steel

 

[soulcougher73]

Well, I have no doubts you would disagree, but you are the one wrong.

There is a reason police can stereotype on certain levels as long as race is not a criteria.

They are profiling and it works. Have you not seen Criminal Mind? Sheesh lol

 

[soulcougher73]

I think this is in part what Alkemyst is saying:

http://xkcd.com/385/

Here's 3 statements:

1. "...the robbery suspect is a black male, mid-twenties, 185 lbs, tattoo on arm..."

2. "The mexican janitor at work is so lazy..."

3. "That asian driver next to me sucks..."

Statement 1 is not racist; it is a description of a person. Statements 2-3 are racist because race has no bearing on work ethic or driving behavior, and is only mentioned because that's the stereotype. Race wouldn't be mentioned in statements 2-3 if they were white.

None of the above are racist either. They are just "descriptors". What if the mexican janitor actually is lazy and admits to it? How is that racist?

Racism has to have some sort of hatred to it. None of the above do. Now if you said something like "All mexicans are lazy good for nothings and should only work as janitors" Now that is racist because you are saying they are below you somehow.

And on another note. Who cares if someone is racist anyways? It is their right to be if they want to. You may not agree with it, but so what. I dont agree with Christianity but im fine with people following it if that is what floats their boat.

 

[alkemyst]

And on another note. Who cares if someone is racist anyways? It is their right to be if they want to. You may not agree with it, but so what. I dont agree with Christianity but im fine with people following it if that is what floats their boat.

that's pretty damn major there.

You realize (really I am doubting this being optimistic) that people KILL over both religion and being racist. I am not really OK with that even if it floats there boat and the others following it.

 

[gophins72]

I agree to a certain extent, not that I condone racism, or any -ism for that matter. -Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus. I'd still have to bum rides off people.

 

[alkemyst]

Sure it does, that's what racism is. There is no grey in my definition. Either you make a statement that implies race superiority or you only use race as a descriptor. If you're not implying race superiority, then it's not racism, just a stupid adjective.

Maybe our raising has a lot to do with our differing definitions of racism. I grew up in the hills of eastern Kentucky, where many people hate anybody that isn't white or redneck. I've seen racism, I've seen the actual hatred for other races. I'm going to guess you grew up in a much more diverse environment where your take on racism is completely different, possibly where you've not actually seen it first-hand, so just saying a race as an adjective is considered sin.

You are clueless. I am sure now you grew up in some 'hills' in eastern Kentucky.

Racism goes both ways.