Remove this ad
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Defining the Boundaries of Racism
13175 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / The centroic of a...
Offline
Posted 7/3/10
Racism is a word that strikes a different emotional chord for each of us. There are those who would be considered persecutionists, who would take the initiative to make the subject of their ill feelings as uncomfortable and as inconvenienced as possible. Then there are those who exploit moral superficiality and emotional weaknesses, those who are not inherently ill willed towards any particular race but finds the delicacy of the whole racism topic to be utterly ridiculous. So they proclaim themselves racists, if only to spite that ridiculousness.

I belong to the second group.

I do understand the harms of racism, but like all things it's not completely bad and should not be automatically condemned in all conceivable circumstances. Sure, a lot of racial stereotypes are lies and slander, but there is also a significant amount that are actually true. Neighborhoods with a high black population tends to be more inclined to criminal activities. Most Asians are terrible drivers because they think too far ahead and do not want to risk going faster. Mexicans possess a distinct smell due to their food, that is repulsive to those not used to it. White people tend to be richer than others, and so are a bit more snobby.

So I don't want to live in a black neighborhood because I don't want to deal with crime. I don't want to drive behind an Asian driver because I don't want to be late. I avoid Mexicans' homes because I can't stand the smell and I avoid the company of overconfident Caucasian businessmen because I find their personality to be abrasive. Am I wrong?

I'm sure some of you will tell me that not all people of a certain race will fit neatly into their racial profiling, and I agree. However I'm not going to give them the benefit of the doubt if I don't absolutely have to. Not all snakes are poisonous, but I'm not going to go ahead and let them bite me just to see which ones are. That is stupidity, and that is basically what the politically correct anti-racism beliefs are telling us to do.

I will not take the initiative to harm anyone of a different race because of their race. I will however, announce my resentment towards the stupidity of the sensitivity towards the topic of racism. I will also take precautions to protect myself from what I believe to be ways the other races may disrupt my rhythm of life.

So I ask you, dear reader, what exactly is wrong with that?
Posted 7/3/10
What's wrong with racism is that just like sexism, much of what you said about the negativity being portrait by one's racial and ethnic stereotypes being true, are in fact a type of self-fulfilling-prophecy and socialization process all-in-one:


Furthermore, you as a racist is making a very ethnocentric and thereby bias view on the subject that's racism caused by stereotypes. Because you never considered just how and why exactly these stereotypes did became true. That's the inherent danger of structural functionalism; it tends to be very conservative and prevents societal changes, by creating insufficient justification and unrealistic ideologies on various social phenomenons. In other words, your line of reasoning is more of an excuse as oppose to critical thinking, and that's just not very scientific.
13175 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / The centroic of a...
Offline
Posted 7/3/10

DomFortress wrote:


If I may ask, where is the threshold between insufficient justification and sufficient justification, unrealistic ideologies and realistic ideologies? Are you implying my very state of mind, that of someone who hates the delicacy attributed to racism, is unable to make a sufficient justification or realistic ideology regarding a phenomenon?

Or perhaps I do understand the underlying reasons why these stereotypes came to be, but I simply don't feel as if it's my responsibility to bear the burden of change for these people.

A better question, if we were able to quantifiably prove a certain racial stereotype, to prove that these are not self-fulfilling prophecies, are we then entitled to prejudice based on that stereotype?
Posted 7/3/10
To me they all just sound like excuses to be racist.
13175 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / The centroic of a...
Offline
Posted 7/3/10

LosingOrbit wrote:

To me they all just sound like excuses to be racist.


That might very well be the case. However it might also be the case that you've been so immersed in anti-racism propaganda since an early age that you no longer think about its implications but go with a gut feeling that it's right. Of course in doing so you'll also automatically denounce anything and everything that does not mesh well with your idealism.

I'm not some crazy shotgun toting redneck going around shooting random non-Caucasians, I'm trying to explore the facets of racism itself and perhaps even get to the bottom of our disillusions. If you have something interesting to say, you're welcome to post. Otherwise please refrain from posting one liners, as last I checked, that's against the rules of extended discussion.
Posted 7/3/10

excalion wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


If I may ask, where is the threshold between insufficient justification and sufficient justification, unrealistic ideologies and realistic ideologies? Are you implying my very state of mind, that of someone who hates the delicacy attributed to racism, is unable to make a sufficient justification or realistic ideology regarding a phenomenon?

Or perhaps I do understand the underlying reasons why these stereotypes came to be, but I simply don't feel as if it's my responsibility to bear the burden of change for these people.

A better question, if we were able to identifiably prove a certain racial stereotype, to prove that these are not self-fulfilling prophecies, are we then entitled to prejudice based on that stereotype?
Look at it this way, the moment that you think people don't need to change is the point that you as a person would withheld your own opportunity to change, for better or worst. And that's self-fulfilling-prophecy at its finest; you wanna to be a stereotypical racist, and that won't change as long as it doesn't reduce your own quality of life for the better.

In other words, you don't care that if your own ideology is making other people's lives at a disadvantage, just as long as you're not the one who's in a disadvantageous situation because of it. In short "ignorance is bless" for those who think that they're superior than everyone else:

excalion wrote:

So I don't want to live in a black neighborhood because I don't want to deal with crime. I don't want to drive behind an Asian driver because I don't want to be late. I avoid Mexicans' homes because I can't stand the smell and I avoid the company of overconfident Caucasian businessmen because I find their personality to be abrasive. Am I wrong?
And you're wrong simply because there are no certain ethnic or racial stereotype that's 100% true and applicable to all individuals within that said group. And when a justification process(racism) is proven to be unreliable(stereotypes), because it doesn't produces sufficient result(social disadvantage) that correlates with the actual reality(individual success). Then the whole process itself is insufficient, unrealistic, and wrong until proven otherwise:

excalion wrote:

I'm sure some of you will tell me that not all people of a certain race will fit neatly into their racial profiling, and I agree. However I'm not going to give them the benefit of the doubt if I don't absolutely have to. Not all snakes are poisonous, but I'm not going to go ahead and let them bite me just to see which ones are. That is stupidity, and that is basically what the politically correct anti-racism beliefs are telling us to do.
Finally, if your entitlement claim on racism is based solely on your own fear of other races and/or ethnicity, then you're trapped in a typical Type I pattern of self-deception.
13175 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / The centroic of a...
Offline
Posted 7/3/10

DomFortress wrote:


Please don't go about changing my words, I mean what I say.
By


A better question, if we were able to quantifiably prove a certain racial stereotype...

I mean to have a quantifiable means of measurement to prove something. Thus proving it more or less statistically, not definitively.

You only repeat what I've already said when you tell me "there are no certain ethnic or racial stereotype that's 100% true and applicable to all individuals within that said group." I already know this, but can you say there are no stereotypes that hold true for 60% of a given group? Of 70%? 80%? What about the fact that most Asians have small eyes? Or the fact that Blacks are more resistant to UV rays? Are these not basically stereotypes that have been proven quantifiably?



Look at it this way, the moment that you think people don't need to change is the point that you as a person would withheld your own opportunity to change, for better or worst. And that's self-fulfilling-prophecy at its finest; you wanna to be a stereotypical racist, and that won't change as long as it doesn't reduce your own quality of life for the better.

I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time understanding what you're trying to say here. I don't know if you're a native English speaker, but it would really help me understand your semantics if you paid more attention to your tenses. I think what you're trying to say here is this: "As long as I'm comfortable with where I am, I have no necessity to change, and therefore I won't." I don't see what self-fulfilling prophecy has to do with this. Please elaborate.

Let me ask you this, in your vehement denial of racism, what form of self denial are you trapped in? Unless you can deny the efficiency of racial profiling in any and all circumstances, you are also trapped in self denial.

I should clarify, I've never once said all stereotypes are correct; what I've claimed is some are. If you wish to contest something, contest this. Arguing anything else would be pointless as that's not what I'm trying to say and if you cannot conclusively prove all stereotypes are wrong, you've already conceded to my views.
Posted 7/3/10

excalion wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Please don't go about changing my words, I mean what I say.
By


A better question, if we were able to quantifiably prove a certain racial stereotype...

I mean to have a quantifiable means of measurement to prove something. Thus proving it more or less statistically, not definitively.

You only repeat what I've already said when you tell me "there are no certain ethnic or racial stereotype that's 100% true and applicable to all individuals within that said group." I already know this, but can you say there are no stereotypes that hold true for 60% of a given group? Of 70%? 80%? What about the fact that most Asians have small eyes? Or the fact that Blacks are more resistant to UV rays? Are these not basically stereotypes that have been proven quantifiably?



Look at it this way, the moment that you think people don't need to change is the point that you as a person would withheld your own opportunity to change, for better or worst. And that's self-fulfilling-prophecy at its finest; you wanna to be a stereotypical racist, and that won't change as long as it doesn't reduce your own quality of life for the better.

I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time understanding what you're trying to say here. I don't know if you're a native English speaker, but it would really help me understand your semantics if you paid more attention to your tenses. I think what you're trying to say here is this: "As long as I'm comfortable with where I am, I have no necessity to change, and therefore I won't." I don't see what self-fulfilling prophecy has to do with this. Please elaborate.

Let me ask you this, in your vehement denial of racism, what form of self denial are you trapped in? Unless you can deny the efficiency of racial profiling in any and all circumstances, you are also trapped in self denial.

I should clarify, I've never once said all stereotypes are correct; what I've claimed is some are.
If you wish to contest something, contest this. Arguing anything else would be pointless as that's not what I'm trying to say and if you cannot conclusively prove all stereotypes are wrong, you've already conceded to my views.
The fact that you don't understand the scientific semantics of racial and ethnic "stereotyping" within the context of sociology isn't my problem. When genetic "traits" based on biological differences isn't collectively "quantifiable" -one's superior over another- in academic science, only individually "identifiable"; observable via relative changes.

Therefore when racism based on stereotypes isn't biologically inherent within the human specie, it's therefore only a cultural ideological concept that needs to be learned via socializing. In other words, there's no "racist" genes just as there's no "sexist" genes, when people are naturally born 100% racists and sexist free.

BTW if you haven't notice it already, science is in fact very bad at proving a negative throughout history. Therefore when the negative of 100% true is anything less than a 100%, aka false. Your reasoning that a stereotype is true is in and of itself a statistical impossibility.

So don't condescend me with anything remotely scientific in a debate, when I personally have been reading and studying scientific journals and reports since I was 6 years old in 2 different languages.
28 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Pittsburgh, PA
Offline
Posted 7/3/10
I generally think people try too hard to be "politically correct". I am Native American, and I don't mind a good joke about it every once in while.

The only thing that irks me is when people say "Indian" instead of "Native American". Not because it hurts me in any way, but because it is factually incorrect and confusing. If I were to talk about actual Indians(people from India of course) the first thing people think of is actually Native Americans. It's annoying that I have to say "Indians from India" because it is redundant and ridiculous.

The only think I consider real racism, is denying someone something, or hurting them because of race
13175 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / The centroic of a...
Offline
Posted 7/3/10

DomFortress wrote:


While I'm certain we can sit here all day and link definitions, which fit our argument, of various words at one another; frankly it is not within my interest to do so. Stereotyping as I'm using it here is a manner of association between one racial trait of a group of people with another observable trait of that group of people. It has nothing to do with genetics. Racism as I'm using it here is to use that manner of association as a norm within society to interpret and predict the tendencies of that same group of people.

That is not to say I will not yield to exceptions within the norm, but the need to classify something as an exception is a testimony of the existence of the norm. "The exception proves the rule." if you will.

Please note that I never mentioned one's genetics being superior or inferior to another, rather what I was trying to say is the observable actions of different races of people are different. This could be due to upbringing, cultural differences, economic situations and various other factors. Whatever the reasons may be, the end result is a society where the behavioral norm for certain groups of people are established. Since people of similar race tend to be immersed within similar cultures, experience similar upbringings; possess similar genetic traits(distinction: not good or bad traits, similar traits), they ultimately tend to have similar perspectives. The end result of all of these factors combined together is that people of similar race are likely to have similar tendencies. Is this an ironclad rule? No. Is it very likely? Most certainly yes.

In case I haven't made it abundantly clear, a stereotype doesn't have to be 100% true to be true. it only needs to accurately describe the norm of a given group of people to be worth its while.

PS: I'm not here to have a pissing contest with you. I'm interested in your arguments, not your life's story.
53816 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
51 / F / Atlanta GA
Online
Posted 7/3/10 , edited 7/3/10
Well to me most of you are wrong big time. Thiers bigotry, bias, prejudice, and thinking of someone less than equal or just different to themselves do not understand other cutler. Racist is somebody that thinks of other races sub human to them. Ethnic cleansing is a good example, so is slavery, which goes today sad to say. The racism is over used in today’s language it used to justify acting out against other through force. The word racist has lost it true meaning now ethnic cleansing and most people really do not have clue what it means remember news papers are writing with audience of a sixth grade reading level.
67647 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 7/3/10

excalion wrote:



So I ask you, dear reader, what exactly is wrong with that?


I Think you're mistaken on so many levels. There's a lot wrong with what you say. But I'll concede empathy for some of your feelings.

When I worked as a security guard I'd get standard reasons given to my as to why I shouldn't do my job. Children thought their parents could overturn any authority. Rich Caucasians would rant about being big wheels or 'proper treatment of a paying customer'. And some groups would play the race card...

Thing was....

I was always reacting to behaviour outside established and posted boundaries. that was the only time I COULD act under the 'trespass to property act' (the chief enabling legislation for the work of a Canadian Security guard.) It was never about who they WERE. but what they were DOING when I was forced to give them the choice between ceasing or being escorted from the property.

So I understand your implied thesis of impatience with those who cheapen the real victims of racism with frivolous claims.

Still, your examples reek of racialist ignorance. For Example:

Stinky Mexicans: News FLASH! we ALL stink. Unless you're a bathing fetishist, or soaked in perfume. you have body odour. YOU can't smell it because your nose stops reporting odours even strong ones after a few minutes. However, trust me, You Stink, your Home Stinks. It may be a stink your friends like because they have similar diets and metabolisms but everyone stinks. Some of us smell of Curry, Some smell of Garlic, I'm sure frat boys often smell of stale beer and the breakdown products of alcohol. As a diabetic I have my own unique palette of sugary, rotting fruit, toxic chemical smells depending on how good my blood sugar control has been this week. singling out All Mexicans just because something secreted from common mexican foods offends your sense of smell is frankly simplistic and ignorant.

Cautious Asians: Where have you been living? Here in Toronto the problem with the Asian drivers is that they think things like stop lights and traffic signs (no u-turns at this intersection) don't apply to them. Then again... It's the same for the Persians. Of course since I live in the overlap zone between the Korean and Persian communities here that's 90% of the drivers I see... Hmmm... for that matter the East European drivers I see are the same. ... Heck all Toronto drivers are mad(wo)men and asshats.

True... some of the worse neigbourhoods in Toronto for crime and violence are largely populated by blacks. But they are to be avoided for their crime and poverty (assuming poverty is to be avoid) not because they are black. I think that's an important distinction. The racial mix at my work place makes me look like the lone bar of soap in a bag of coffee beans but I've never had reason to believe my co-workers are any more or less moral, any less or more law abiding than the WASPs that comprised the bulk of the population of my previous workplace.

The absolute worst neighbourhood is probably two to three blocks on a certain street downtown. The majority of the populace are refugees or illegals from a small group of neighbouring countries. The whole lot of them are former child soldiers for one warlord or another, basic training began before they reached puberty and included the enforced murder of their parents and enough drugs to keep them battle crazed for days on end. Now adults they're drug addicted with no social skills, untreated PTSD, and propensity to use lethal violence to deal with their issues. This would be a bad neighbourhood not matter what continent they came from. but since it happens to be Africa...
Being black is totally ancilliary to the real cuases of the poverty and violence. It's not bad becuase it's a 'black' neighbourhood it's bad because it's a neighbourhood of drugged up, messed up, former child soldiers.

So yes, you're wrong. At least in the examples you give.

As for later posts where you ask if it's okay to stereotype if a proven percentage live down the the stereotype. I think you're dealing with a slippery slope there.









67647 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 7/3/10

Lilithe wrote:

I generally think people try too hard to be "politically correct". I am Native American, and I don't mind a good joke about it every once in while.

The only thing that irks me is when people say "Indian" instead of "Native American". Not because it hurts me in any way, but because it is factually incorrect and confusing. If I were to talk about actual Indians(people from India of course) the first thing people think of is actually Native Americans. It's annoying that I have to say "Indians from India" because it is redundant and ridiculous.

The only think I consider real racism, is denying someone something, or hurting them because of race


Me too.. well not really. I wasn't raised with an 'in group' appreciation of the native side of my heritage, and my skin is too pale to even warrant being called an 'apple'

Thing is, some jokes are rooted in contempt. (laughing AT not laughing WITH if you will.) and they are the start of your latter complaint. I've known otherwise good people who are firmly entrenched in their belief of the drunken Indian with his beer money provided by the government. For such people, any attempt at Native justice is instead seen as 'claiming more special privilidges'. They vote. They elect officials who believe as they do or pupport to, or will at least adhere to a hard line on such issues.

That said...

you've probably heard the joke about the new Native Wine. (gimme back my land!)

but I've recently heard a joke about a new White Wine.

"I want a casino TOO!"


Anyhow... Hope those qualify as 'good'


Posted 7/3/10
The only boundary to cross is when you decide that you can judge a wise man by the color of his skin instead of the contents in his heart. There are inherent traits we can observe in the different races of humanity, but there is no majority of 100% for any of them. They say a black man can always jump higher than a white man, yet that can be easily proven false when we see two equally fit men jumping the same distance vertically or horizontally. Then we had the retarded notion of 'affirmative action' here in the United States. Not one man should be hired for being a minority, since it all comes down to capability.

Our eyes constantly deceive us. Preconceived notions arising out of false teachings never did us any good.
13175 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / The centroic of a...
Offline
Posted 7/3/10 , edited 7/3/10

papagolfwhiskey wrote:



I appreciate the tone you're taking here, maybe extended discussion section has changed since I've last been around these parts. Anyhow, pleasantries aside I have to ask you this. If I've been in the house of 6 different Mexicans, and my immediate reaction is I wanted to puke, how do I logically come to the conclusion that I would want to enter yet another Mexican residence if I had a choice not to? Like I've said before, I'm unwilling to give the benefit of the doubt if I can help it, but that doesn't mean I'm completely unwilling to give it under any and all circumstances. I also stated that I'm not unwilling to accept exceptions to the norm. (Note: I'm not asking everyone else to agree with me here about the smell, I'm saying I find it offensive, so I will avoid possible scenarios where I might have to face it again. In this case, the scenario is entering a Mexican residence.)

Also considering I did explicitly state that a lot of stereotypes are lies and slander, but some are true, I've already avoided the slippery slope fallacy by admitting middle ground. Those who are arguing just because some stereotypes are false then all stereotypes are false, are the ones actually committing that fallacy.

Edit: Also read what I've said about environmental factors that shape a group of people rather than genetics themselves.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.