Racist

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Satinavian:

trunkage:
Have you got any stats to back up that claim?

The whole race theory psedoscience was thoroughly debunked decades ago. And that humans don't have races is a well known fact.
Everyone from a country with an education system worth being called one who is younger than 80 knows that.

So how likely is it to run into someone who actually believes in races, and not only that but also that there are superior/inferior races and that these old clichees are true ?

Sure, there are always some people who reject scientific facts they don't like and sooner believe that all schools are part of some conspiration than give up their precious prejudices, but that would make racists as much a fringe group as flat earthers are.

Now, xenophobes, those are a lot more common. The same with people who have prejudices against certain ethnicies or cultures.

A major driver for this whole thread was a Sam Harris interview with... I want to say Jonathon Haidt but I cant remember the name. I've tried looking in My History but can't figure out which one it was. He did a paper very recently about race.

So this guy did a study comparing white and black Americans. He found that the former were, on average, a bit smarter. But was quick to point that there was more difference across whites/blacks than between them.

Harris was interviewing him because, after the release he got some backlash from those mean academics from Universities calling the paper racist.

One claim of racism was that this paper would be used BY racist for policies against non whites. Which to me sent alarm bells ringing. Sounds like this author heard the word racist and thought they were talking about him.

Of course, Harris with his own axe to grind, never questions it. He point out that these academics are just anti-Free Speech. You know, the normal 'criticism is actually anti-Free Speech' that gets trotted out way too much. He also claimed they were racial ideologues finding racism everywhere. Which is possible.

And then I couldn't figure out where I listened to it to check up on the facts. It took me a few days to process what happened. So I made this thread instead

erttheking:

Shadowstar38:

erttheking:

My point still stands.

Same here. Good talk.

Only by the standards of a conversation where the side pretending to be polite (you) basically pulled a "my personal experiences are are more valid than yours" card.

Well that didn't happen at any point.

Satinavian:

Saelune:
I mean sure, if we let racist people define what racism is, then the accusations will be more likely to be wrong. But just because someone claims say, 'White Supremacy' isn't about racism, doesn't mean White Supremacy isnt 100% racism.

Except that i didn't take the definition of a racist. I used the one
from Lil devils x which until now seemed to be agreeable to you.

We punish innocent people by not punishing the guilty. If we assume every rape accusation is false, then we are punishing the innocent victims of rape.

Welcome to modern civilisation and ethics.

Yes, people don't like criminals potentially getting away. But they sure like being imprisoned wrongly even less so they have to suck it up.

You're gonna have to point out this definition for me.

No one wants to really find out what the truth is though, certainly those defending racists and rapists don't anyways. I don't want to jail innocent people, but innocent until proven guilty has clearly been abused. I mean, why not 'We don't know if they are guilty so lets find out'?

But then, sometimes we do investigate and find out and put them in jail but people still claim they arent a Nazi and that they didnt murder that woman with their car.

Shadowstar38:

erttheking:

Shadowstar38:

Same here. Good talk.

Only by the standards of a conversation where the side pretending to be polite (you) basically pulled a "my personal experiences are are more valid than yours" card.

Well that didn't happen at any point.

Yeah...whatever you say man.

The Lunatic:

trunkage:
Yes, I know Lunatic. You're all high and mighty, telling us lowlifes how to live.

Funny how you couldnt leave this alone. Had to go around, telling us how above it all you are.... Perhaps it affects you more than you think.

You know I was actually asking for people opinions on what racism is, in their opinion. How about you add that since the current definition is so absurd? Then, perhaps, we could actually have a chat instead of insults

I do my best, thank you for noticing.

Anyway, given you're looking for the definition of racism, I'd define it as such:

A willfully harmful prejudice against a group of people, purely for their race.

And how is that definition different from most people here? Or Saelune?

Saelune:
You're gonna have to point out this definition for me.

When you review the definition of racism above, it is not just about thinking necessarily negative things about another race, it is also believing ( ignorantly so) that "races possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races." so that by thinking that Black people feel less pain, and not even realizing you are doing it, you are experiencing unconscious racism. It is no different than thinking that one race is more trustworthy than another or that one race makes better Physicians than another. It is all nonsense, and yes racist.

First page of this thread.

But then, sometimes we do investigate and find out and put them in jail but people still claim they arent a Nazi and that they didnt murder that woman with their car.

Well, those people are wrong.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is an important and valuable principle that must not be given up. No exception, not even for rape. But when the guilt is actually proven, then it simply stops to apply.

And investigating rape is fine. The problem with rape is that it is hard to prove, not that people are not interested in investigating it.

trunkage:
A major driver for this whole thread was a Sam Harris interview with... I want to say Jonathon Haidt but I cant remember the name. I've tried looking in My History but can't figure out which one it was. He did a paper very recently about race.

So this guy did a study comparing white and black Americans. He found that the former were, on average, a bit smarter. But was quick to point that there was more difference across whites/blacks than between them.

This particular kind of study object seems to be an all-time favourite in the US. We have nearly a century of "are whites smarter than blacks ?" - studies from America. It is like an obsession because America still can't let behind its slavery past and corresponing flimsy justifications.
Many of them did find indeed whites smarter. But basically all of them have been proven to seriously flawed in regard to sampling or (the earlier ones) even had tests based on typical middle class life more familiar to white subjects. Black Americans have on average a worse education than white Americans. If you try to account for it, differences vanish in sampling errors. That is the result of the vast majority of studies, but outliers can exist.

But all this time racist groups picked up any result that seemed to reinforce their preconceptions and ran with it, ignoring all caveats and sampling problems.

So having yet another study seemingly finding black Americans dumber than white ones, most likely with the very same sampling flaws as the earlier ones would give rise to the suspicion that the author was racist and wanted to produce ammunition for White Power groups.
That doesn't necessarily need to be true. It could have been a well made study, it could even be that the author didn't like the results (as it often happens with experiments). But to find out if that is true you would have to actually read the paper.

Satinavian:
And investigating rape is fine. The problem with rape is that it is hard to prove, not that people are not interested in investigating it.

It is flat out untrue that people aren't not interested in investigating it. There are piles and piles of rape kits in the US that are thrown out because testing them isn't deemed important and they are taking up valuable storage space. To the extent that private charities have been formed to get some of the backlog tested.

I'll say that again, investigating rape in the US is such a low priority that private charities have to fund testing of rape kits, because the state won't.

Additionally, there's always plenty of people actively opposed to investigating rapes, for any number of reasons.

Thaluikhain:

Satinavian:
And investigating rape is fine. The problem with rape is that it is hard to prove, not that people are not interested in investigating it.

It is flat out untrue that people aren't not interested in investigating it. There are piles and piles of rape kits in the US that are thrown out because testing them isn't deemed important and they are taking up valuable storage space. To the extent that private charities have been formed to get some of the backlog tested.

I'll say that again, investigating rape in the US is such a low priority that private charities have to fund testing of rape kits, because the state won't.

Additionally, there's always plenty of people actively opposed to investigating rapes, for any number of reasons.

Maybe the US is just a shitty country then.

Satinavian:

Saelune:
You're gonna have to point out this definition for me.

When you review the definition of racism above, it is not just about thinking necessarily negative things about another race, it is also believing ( ignorantly so) that "races possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races." so that by thinking that Black people feel less pain, and not even realizing you are doing it, you are experiencing unconscious racism. It is no different than thinking that one race is more trustworthy than another or that one race makes better Physicians than another. It is all nonsense, and yes racist.

First page of this thread.

But then, sometimes we do investigate and find out and put them in jail but people still claim they arent a Nazi and that they didnt murder that woman with their car.

Well, those people are wrong.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is an important and valuable principle that must not be given up. No exception, not even for rape. But when the guilt is actually proven, then it simply stops to apply.

And investigating rape is fine. The problem with rape is that it is hard to prove, not that people are not interested in investigating it.

Yeah no, you weren't using that definition. People called racist I found usually actually are.

Yes those people are wrong, but there are too many of them.

It is more that they are interested in NOT investigating rape, such as in Brett Kavanaugh and Donald Trump's cases. Still havent actually investigated either.

Satinavian:

Thaluikhain:

Satinavian:
And investigating rape is fine. The problem with rape is that it is hard to prove, not that people are not interested in investigating it.

It is flat out untrue that people aren't not interested in investigating it. There are piles and piles of rape kits in the US that are thrown out because testing them isn't deemed important and they are taking up valuable storage space. To the extent that private charities have been formed to get some of the backlog tested.

I'll say that again, investigating rape in the US is such a low priority that private charities have to fund testing of rape kits, because the state won't.

Additionally, there's always plenty of people actively opposed to investigating rapes, for any number of reasons.

Maybe the US is just a shitty country then.

It is certainly way shittier than a lot of people want to admit, and way shittier than it should be.

trunkage:

RobertEHouse:
The word is starting to lose all contexts and meaning by the way people use it now for everything. They just happen to call anything/ anyone a racist at a drop at a hat because of their opposing political views, religion, science etc. Loosely dropping the word at a whim in conversations when neither race, creed was anywhere in the discussion. Weakens the meaning of the word and thus the power it has to help to change recourse. Instead of change and action it becomes nothing more the noise lost of meaning and impact. It is the one sole reason I have never used it in discussions, as it has little impact of creating a constructive dialogue .

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/07/time-to-retire-the-word-racist

I'd actually be fine with this as long as all other misappropriated words and symbols were treated the same. Eg. Confederate flag, PC, sexist, ageist, SJW, Alt-Right, Nazi, Antifa, Peogressive, Conservative, Libertarian, etc.

Actually, I'd want the term Post-Modern Cultural Marxist to be the first, since its an actual oxymoron and just shows how little you want to understand the different sides of the 'Left'. They are just as much at the opposite ends of the spectrum as Left and Right are

The thing is the misappropriation of words and symbols; I.e (insert any group) is usually for lack of understanding. So if you have a person called a Sexist, Nazi ,SJW etc, the notion of what those titles curtail is based more upon self opinions. Facts be dammed, people will loosely apply titles, slurs and symbols to anyone or thing. It is easier for an individual to latch on black and white concepts of something then the details of reality. It's why in advertisement words like "Quality, Best Seller, Now, and New" are used a lot. People like things simple, the same with terms of slurs and symbols. Sadly it just never changes ...(sigh)

Satinavian:

Thaluikhain:

Satinavian:
And investigating rape is fine. The problem with rape is that it is hard to prove, not that people are not interested in investigating it.

It is flat out untrue that people aren't not interested in investigating it. There are piles and piles of rape kits in the US that are thrown out because testing them isn't deemed important and they are taking up valuable storage space. To the extent that private charities have been formed to get some of the backlog tested.

I'll say that again, investigating rape in the US is such a low priority that private charities have to fund testing of rape kits, because the state won't.

Additionally, there's always plenty of people actively opposed to investigating rapes, for any number of reasons.

Maybe the US is just a shitty country then.

Yup. It gets even worse than not testing the rape Kits, they actually encourage rape victims not to report it, and threaten them instead. They actively interfered and prevented investigation from taking place.

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/126039/washington-cop-reportedly-bullied-rape-victim-threatening-eliminate-subsidized-housing
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2018/11/investigates/police-destroyed-rapekits/springfield.html
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0886260514556765?rss=1&
https://www.baltimorebrew.com/2018/09/14/shellenberger-sent-police-to-rape-victims-home-to-threaten-her-lawsuit-alleges/
https://nypost.com/2017/11/23/cops-tried-to-intimidate-rape-accuser-out-of-pressing-charges-lawyer
/

trunkage:

The Lunatic:

trunkage:
Yes, I know Lunatic. You're all high and mighty, telling us lowlifes how to live.

Funny how you couldnt leave this alone. Had to go around, telling us how above it all you are.... Perhaps it affects you more than you think.

You know I was actually asking for people opinions on what racism is, in their opinion. How about you add that since the current definition is so absurd? Then, perhaps, we could actually have a chat instead of insults

I do my best, thank you for noticing.

Anyway, given you're looking for the definition of racism, I'd define it as such:

A willfully harmful prejudice against a group of people, purely for their race.

And how is that definition different from most people here? Or Saelune?

Under his definition, not giving black patients the same amount of pain medicine as other patients is not racist because they were not doing so " willfully with the intent to harm" but were doing so because they unconsciously thought they were in less pain due to bias's they were unaware they had. Actual racism is both however, regardless of if you are aware of it. Cutting off half the definition and wanting to apply only part of it does not suddenly make it not racism. People have been known to think all sorts of absurd things about other races, and yes that is all a part of it, and is often the underlying basis for the expansion of that into hatred and actively trying to harm other races due to the ignorant nonsense they had already convinced themselves of about other races to begin with.

Lil devils x:

trunkage:

The Lunatic:

I do my best, thank you for noticing.

Anyway, given you're looking for the definition of racism, I'd define it as such:

A willfully harmful prejudice against a group of people, purely for their race.

And how is that definition different from most people here? Or Saelune?

Under his definition, not giving black patients the same amount of pain medicine as other patients is not racist because they were not doing so " willfully with the intent to harm" but were doing so because they unconsciously thought they were in less pain due to bias's they were unaware they had. Actual racism is both however, regardless of if you are aware of it. Cutting off half the definition and wanting to apply only part of it does not suddenly make it not racism. People have been known to think all sorts of absurd things about other races, and yes that is all a part of it, and is often the underlying basis for the expansion of that into hatred and actively trying to harm other races due to the ignorant nonsense they had already convinced themselves of about other races to begin with.

I concur. This is my opinion of his interpretation of his definition of racism. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they would say that not giving the same amount of medication is character building. Thus it's beneficial

But I want to hear it from the horse's mouth. I don't like people not being able to defend themselves.

The big issue with racism is that its not logical. Neither are most of the big predgidis

n one hand its the feeling of being superior, Genetically, socially, financially, religion, science, or societal progression. We hae used all manner of words to describe this.

Savage.
Barbarian.
Infidel.

Even if you take something controversial as race, ethnicity, gender, orientation, gender identity, and so on, humans will find something else just as if not more stupid.

How many arguments have sprung up over Kirk and Picard or DC and Marvel? How many barfights started because of rival sports fandoms?

As much as parents used to rally against video game violence back in the day, how many of those same parents would try to pick a fight with a coach or even the children on the Peewee game their kids were playing against?

Hell, I am old enough to remember when the console wars were a thing.

So how to fix this?

I am not saying I'm an expert, but education is a good start. Part of it is ignorance, and part of it is just things that have been drilled into people's skulls sine they were little for as long as anyone could remember. So taking this out and adding in something for the lack of a better word, HEALTHY, and we can improve something.

Send, there needs to be an end of this us or them. Martin Luther King didn't die fighting for equality for nothing, and his vision has far from died with him. Its dimmed slightly, but a new generation to act as a bulb and we can stand together illuminating a solution. We are a light on a hill that cannot be covered up. And I am out of metaphors here.

Third, this is going to take time. Its had hundreds of years to grow and fester, and just because its a tumor that can be cut away does not mean its not going to A. Cut a large chunk out of you, and B. leave a scar. We are getting better at this, but this is probably going to be our grand kids or great grand kids generation that finaly becomes free of it. We just have to do the work for them to get it to that point.

Satinavian:

trunkage:
A major driver for this whole thread was a Sam Harris interview with... I want to say Jonathon Haidt but I cant remember the name. I've tried looking in My History but can't figure out which one it was. He did a paper very recently about race.

So this guy did a study comparing white and black Americans. He found that the former were, on average, a bit smarter. But was quick to point that there was more difference across whites/blacks than between them.

This particular kind of study object seems to be an all-time favourite in the US. We have nearly a century of "are whites smarter than blacks ?" - studies from America. It is like an obsession because America still can't let behind its slavery past and corresponing flimsy justifications.
Many of them did find indeed whites smarter. But basically all of them have been proven to seriously flawed in regard to sampling or (the earlier ones) even had tests based on typical middle class life more familiar to white subjects. Black Americans have on average a worse education than white Americans. If you try to account for it, differences vanish in sampling errors. That is the result of the vast majority of studies, but outliers can exist.

But all this time racist groups picked up any result that seemed to reinforce their preconceptions and ran with it, ignoring all caveats and sampling problems.

So having yet another study seemingly finding black Americans dumber than white ones, most likely with the very same sampling flaws as the earlier ones would give rise to the suspicion that the author was racist and wanted to produce ammunition for White Power groups.
That doesn't necessarily need to be true. It could have been a well made study, it could even be that the author didn't like the results (as it often happens with experiments). But to find out if that is true you would have to actually read the paper.

I would agree to all this. By the sounds of things, at least one author was very conscious of the result and was trying to write the result in a particular way. Unfortunately, any result will be politically used against minorities. Imagine if the result was reversed. There would then be an outcry against blacks getting too much money from the government, or getting advantages from schools/university they don't deserve.

Let's do an analysis on this study another way. Let's presume that the study is right, and it all comes down to genetics. What does that mean for policies in the US? It should mean nothing. Currently it's being used as a wedge to destroy Affirmative Action. "Clearly Asians are way smarter than African Americans. Why aren't their percentages of attendance higher?" Is the current thought. And it's strange. Asian are also allegedly smarter than whites, so why is African Americans being picked on? Affirmative Action could be called pro- African American and Asian at the same time. Getting rid of Affirmative Action will increase the rate of attendance of white people. Only. Asian attendance should decrease if Affirmative Action goes.

"Pull yourself up by your bootstraps" is a common term used by white peoples who have no understanding that they never pulled themselves up by themselves. They had help along the way that they don't recognise. And they expect everyone else to do it alone, which is the opposite of how Capitalism works. And I can understand being frustrated over government intervention, becuaee I understand it's dangers. But that's not the only help people get. Being connected to powerful people is a far greater advantage than any governmental intervention. And that's why Affirmative Action exists, to connect minorities to majorities. Not split them

Racist is a word that implies motivation. It says that someone is acting a certain way because of race.

You can not point at something being "racist" without expressly attributing motivation, and therefor calling someone a racist with the same action. Racism is defined by its motivation and actions themselves do not have any.

It is not an interaction between two different races, but one shaped by how someone views those races. This can be positive or negative even, but that motivation behind their behavior and actions is what defines if it is racism or not.

It is almost always used to describe an action by the motivation behind it that is justified by the action itself. The white guy hit the black guy because he is racist. And he is racist because he is a white guy who hit a black guy. It assigns a motivation, even if that motivation is not actually correct, and largely serve no purpose to a discussion outside of how it creates sides, and how it is used as bludgeon to kill off conversation by attacking the character of other people disagreeing.

This is often used to intentionally disparage someone, to shut down discussion, or to just simplify something into far simplier "black and white" political positions. But all of that is bad for conversation and discussion.

Because of the cancerous nature of the current use of the word to any sort of discussion, I can fully understand why people would respond to the use of it so negatively. Because it very rarely is meant to be used in one in good faith to begin with.

Racism is treating someone differently because of race. Too many pretend that it is treating someone of a different race different when the reason for that is not race (the problem of correlation, not causation and such), and then attribute the term based on that.

Now, that itself being poison to a discussion for being bad in bad faith is problem enough. But with terms like "racist" it is worse, as they carry stigma on them that can cause actual harm. People get fired for being called that. People get attacked. And some people know that and intentionally hope it happens.

As for why this shuts down discussions itself, I think that is a misidentified symptom. The word doesn't shut down discussions itself, it is just used by those who wish to do so, and arguments start because of that. Much like the word itself, motivation is the most important aspect.

runic knight:
Racist is a word that implies motivation. It says that someone is acting a certain way because of race.

You can not point at something being "racist" without expressly attributing motivation, and therefor calling someone a racist with the same action. Racism is defined by its motivation and actions themselves do not have any.

It is not an interaction between two different races, but one shaped by how someone views those races. This can be positive or negative even, but that motivation behind their behavior and actions is what defines if it is racism or not.

It is almost always used to describe an action by the motivation behind it that is justified by the action itself. The white guy hit the black guy because he is racist. And he is racist because he is a white guy who hit a black guy. It assigns a motivation, even if that motivation is not actually correct, and largely serve no purpose to a discussion outside of how it creates sides, and how it is used as bludgeon to kill off conversation by attacking the character of other people disagreeing.

This is often used to intentionally disparage someone, to shut down discussion, or to just simplify something into far simplier "black and white" political positions. But all of that is bad for conversation and discussion.

Because of the cancerous nature of the current use of the word to any sort of discussion, I can fully understand why people would respond to the use of it so negatively. Because it very rarely is meant to be used in one in good faith to begin with.

Racism is treating someone differently because of race. Too many pretend that it is treating someone of a different race different when the reason for that is not race (the problem of correlation, not causation and such), and then attribute the term based on that.

Now, that itself being poison to a discussion for being bad in bad faith is problem enough. But with terms like "racist" it is worse, as they carry stigma on them that can cause actual harm. People get fired for being called that. People get attacked. And some people know that and intentionally hope it happens.

As for why this shuts down discussions itself, I think that is a misidentified symptom. The word doesn't shut down discussions itself, it is just used by those who wish to do so, and arguments start because of that. Much like the word itself, motivation is the most important aspect.

What?...No seriously, what?

Actions do not have motivation? What? That is just absurd. The saying 'Actions speak louder than words' exists for a reason.

Saelune:

runic knight:
Racist is a word that implies motivation. It says that someone is acting a certain way because of race.

You can not point at something being "racist" without expressly attributing motivation, and therefor calling someone a racist with the same action. Racism is defined by its motivation and actions themselves do not have any.

It is not an interaction between two different races, but one shaped by how someone views those races. This can be positive or negative even, but that motivation behind their behavior and actions is what defines if it is racism or not.

It is almost always used to describe an action by the motivation behind it that is justified by the action itself. The white guy hit the black guy because he is racist. And he is racist because he is a white guy who hit a black guy. It assigns a motivation, even if that motivation is not actually correct, and largely serve no purpose to a discussion outside of how it creates sides, and how it is used as bludgeon to kill off conversation by attacking the character of other people disagreeing.

This is often used to intentionally disparage someone, to shut down discussion, or to just simplify something into far simplier "black and white" political positions. But all of that is bad for conversation and discussion.

Because of the cancerous nature of the current use of the word to any sort of discussion, I can fully understand why people would respond to the use of it so negatively. Because it very rarely is meant to be used in one in good faith to begin with.

Racism is treating someone differently because of race. Too many pretend that it is treating someone of a different race different when the reason for that is not race (the problem of correlation, not causation and such), and then attribute the term based on that.

Now, that itself being poison to a discussion for being bad in bad faith is problem enough. But with terms like "racist" it is worse, as they carry stigma on them that can cause actual harm. People get fired for being called that. People get attacked. And some people know that and intentionally hope it happens.

As for why this shuts down discussions itself, I think that is a misidentified symptom. The word doesn't shut down discussions itself, it is just used by those who wish to do so, and arguments start because of that. Much like the word itself, motivation is the most important aspect.

What?...No seriously, what?

Actions do not have motivation? What? That is just absurd. The saying 'Actions speak louder than words' exists for a reason.

He never said actions do not have motivation, but in order for an act to be racist, it requires a racist motivation.

Take a situation where someone gets up in my face in an aggressive manner over some form of slight. I respond to the aggression with aggression and punch them.

The present narrative is that if I punched someone of the same ethnicity as myself then it's me punching a person. If I punch someone of a different ethnicity to myself it's me punching an ethnicity and I'm a racist for doing so.

Someone could lay off 50 staff members at their job, and if they all happened to be of African or South American origins that person could be labelled as racist for doing so - but what if all those staff were in a particular department the company no longer wished to support? They were not targeting people due to their ethnicity, but to their position in the business. Of course the headline would be "CEO fires over 50 black/latino workers" rather than "CEO shuts down courier wing of company".

Abomination:

Saelune:

runic knight:
Racist is a word that implies motivation. It says that someone is acting a certain way because of race.

You can not point at something being "racist" without expressly attributing motivation, and therefor calling someone a racist with the same action. Racism is defined by its motivation and actions themselves do not have any.

It is not an interaction between two different races, but one shaped by how someone views those races. This can be positive or negative even, but that motivation behind their behavior and actions is what defines if it is racism or not.

It is almost always used to describe an action by the motivation behind it that is justified by the action itself. The white guy hit the black guy because he is racist. And he is racist because he is a white guy who hit a black guy. It assigns a motivation, even if that motivation is not actually correct, and largely serve no purpose to a discussion outside of how it creates sides, and how it is used as bludgeon to kill off conversation by attacking the character of other people disagreeing.

This is often used to intentionally disparage someone, to shut down discussion, or to just simplify something into far simplier "black and white" political positions. But all of that is bad for conversation and discussion.

Because of the cancerous nature of the current use of the word to any sort of discussion, I can fully understand why people would respond to the use of it so negatively. Because it very rarely is meant to be used in one in good faith to begin with.

Racism is treating someone differently because of race. Too many pretend that it is treating someone of a different race different when the reason for that is not race (the problem of correlation, not causation and such), and then attribute the term based on that.

Now, that itself being poison to a discussion for being bad in bad faith is problem enough. But with terms like "racist" it is worse, as they carry stigma on them that can cause actual harm. People get fired for being called that. People get attacked. And some people know that and intentionally hope it happens.

As for why this shuts down discussions itself, I think that is a misidentified symptom. The word doesn't shut down discussions itself, it is just used by those who wish to do so, and arguments start because of that. Much like the word itself, motivation is the most important aspect.

What?...No seriously, what?

Actions do not have motivation? What? That is just absurd. The saying 'Actions speak louder than words' exists for a reason.

He never said actions do not have motivation, but in order for an act to be racist, it requires a racist motivation.

Take a situation where someone gets up in my face in an aggressive manner over some form of slight. I respond to the aggression with aggression and punch them.

The present narrative is that if I punched someone of the same ethnicity as myself then it's me punching a person. If I punch someone of a different ethnicity to myself it's me punching an ethnicity and I'm a racist for doing so.

Someone could lay off 50 staff members at their job, and if they all happened to be of African or South American origins that person could be labelled as racist for doing so - but what if all those staff were in a particular department the company no longer wished to support? They were not targeting people due to their ethnicity, but to their position in the business. Of course the headline would be "CEO fires over 50 black/latino workers" rather than "CEO shuts down courier wing of company".

If not for runic knight's political history, I might accept that, but he regularly defends that white supremacists are not ya know, racist pieces of garbage, and even when their actions are clearly racist, he often argues otherwise.

Abomination:
Someone could lay off 50 staff members at their job, and if they all happened to be of African or South American origins that person could be labelled as racist for doing so - but what if all those staff were in a particular department the company no longer wished to support? They were not targeting people due to their ethnicity, but to their position in the business. Of course the headline would be "CEO fires over 50 black/latino workers" rather than "CEO shuts down courier wing of company".

Yeah but my question in that scenario would be "Why have you put all your black/latino workers into the one apparently quite disposable department?"

Palindromemordnilap:

Abomination:
Someone could lay off 50 staff members at their job, and if they all happened to be of African or South American origins that person could be labelled as racist for doing so - but what if all those staff were in a particular department the company no longer wished to support? They were not targeting people due to their ethnicity, but to their position in the business. Of course the headline would be "CEO fires over 50 black/latino workers" rather than "CEO shuts down courier wing of company".

Yeah but my question in that scenario would be "Why have you put all your black/latino workers into the one apparently quite disposable department?"

Because these individuals are hard workers, suited to the hustle and bustle of such an occupation, and were the best suited candidates to the role. Unfortunately, the economies of scale are no longer in favour of the company supporting such a branch, when there are dedicated courier companies that we can partner with instead.

Abomination:

Palindromemordnilap:

Abomination:
Someone could lay off 50 staff members at their job, and if they all happened to be of African or South American origins that person could be labelled as racist for doing so - but what if all those staff were in a particular department the company no longer wished to support? They were not targeting people due to their ethnicity, but to their position in the business. Of course the headline would be "CEO fires over 50 black/latino workers" rather than "CEO shuts down courier wing of company".

Yeah but my question in that scenario would be "Why have you put all your black/latino workers into the one apparently quite disposable department?"

Because these individuals are hard workers, suited to the hustle and bustle of such an occupation, and were the best suited candidates to the role. Unfortunately, the economies of scale are no longer in favour of the company supporting such a branch, when there are dedicated courier companies that we can partner with instead.

Sounds more like profiling to me

Saelune:
If not for runic knight's political history, I might accept that, but he regularly defends that white supremacists are not ya know, racist pieces of garbage, and even when their actions are clearly racist, he often argues otherwise.

Be that as it may, he never said that actions do not have motivation. Rather, he was arguing that the motivation of an action is what would ultimately make it racist or not. I agree with this, for if there is no racist motivation, the ethnicity of the people being affected is merely unfortunate circumstance than targeted.

Palindromemordnilap:

Abomination:

Palindromemordnilap:

Yeah but my question in that scenario would be "Why have you put all your black/latino workers into the one apparently quite disposable department?"

Because these individuals are hard workers, suited to the hustle and bustle of such an occupation, and were the best suited candidates to the role. Unfortunately, the economies of scale are no longer in favour of the company supporting such a branch, when there are dedicated courier companies that we can partner with instead.

Sounds more like profiling to me

Might sound like it, but it doesn't mean it was. Every single courier that works for my company is non-White. They were not hired because they were not white, they were hired because they had the drive and work ethic better than the other candidates.

Did the recruiting manager decide to only hire people into that position because they viewed those ethnicities as more easily disposable? Only the person's intent can truly reveal that. Perhaps the hiring manager did profile them, believing that people of that ethnicity are usually hard up for money, and will work harder when paid appropriately when compared to other ethnicities. They also likely had no idea that corporate was going to scrap the entire division and are probably upset that all their work has now gone up in flames.

But we feel far more catharsis by just calling corporate, or the hiring manager, racists when trying to deal with the disappointment of those people losing their jobs.

Abomination:

Palindromemordnilap:

Abomination:
Because these individuals are hard workers, suited to the hustle and bustle of such an occupation, and were the best suited candidates to the role. Unfortunately, the economies of scale are no longer in favour of the company supporting such a branch, when there are dedicated courier companies that we can partner with instead.

Sounds more like profiling to me

Might sound like it, but it doesn't mean it was. Every single courier that works for my company is non-White. They were not hired because they were not white, they were hired because they had the drive and work ethic better than the other candidates.

Yeah thats still sounds like profiling. Like, really really sounds like some generic buzzwords have been used to disguise the fact that your recruiter seems to only want the non-white people doing the menial running around job

trunkage:

Let's do an analysis on this study another way. Let's presume that the study is right, and it all comes down to genetics. What does that mean for policies in the US? It should mean nothing. Currently it's being used as a wedge to destroy Affirmative Action. "Clearly Asians are way smarter than African Americans. Why aren't their percentages of attendance higher?" Is the current thought. And it's strange. Asian are also allegedly smarter than whites, so why is African Americans being picked on? Affirmative Action could be called pro- African American and Asian at the same time. Getting rid of Affirmative Action will increase the rate of attendance of white people. Only. Asian attendance should decrease if Affirmative Action goes.

You're misunderstanding this. Affirmative Action isn't actually anti-white. The people who suggest it is are wrong, and there do even exist places where white men are the beneficiaries. Affirmative Action is being targeted as bad for Asians because it's pro-proportionality. The thinking of schools with regards to affirmative action is that if race isn't a factor in acceptance, then the population of the school should have the same demographic breakdown as the general population or perhaps the population of the people applying. The people at least claiming to represent Asian American students are arguing that they have better credentials than the average people applying, so that fact that they aren't represented proportionally higher means they are being segregated out.

Honestly, there isn't an easy answer as to the right way to do that. If you ignore race and go only by credentials, you will get more Asian and fewer Black students than you would if you were trying to have a perfectly racially diverse campus. Is it racist either way? I don't know, but it hardly matters with the Harvard law suit. Harvard is a top school, they're going to have a diverse pool of qualified applicants to choose from regardless.

Palindromemordnilap:
Yeah thats still sounds like profiling. Like, really really sounds like some generic buzzwords have been used to disguise the fact that your recruiter seems to only want the non-white people doing the menial running around job

There is nothing menial about couriers. It is actually quite an involved and difficult occupation. Requiring time management, being physically robust, navigational aptitude, customer service skills, and being able to drive and maneuver a heavy vehicle. They are generally paid very well for what is, essentially "unskilled" (does not require tertiary education) labour.

runic knight:
Racist is a word that implies motivation. It says that someone is acting a certain way because of race.

You can not point at something being "racist" without expressly attributing motivation, and therefor calling someone a racist with the same action. Racism is defined by its motivation and actions themselves do not have any.

It is not an interaction between two different races, but one shaped by how someone views those races. This can be positive or negative even, but that motivation behind their behavior and actions is what defines if it is racism or not.

It is almost always used to describe an action by the motivation behind it that is justified by the action itself. The white guy hit the black guy because he is racist. And he is racist because he is a white guy who hit a black guy. It assigns a motivation, even if that motivation is not actually correct, and largely serve no purpose to a discussion outside of how it creates sides, and how it is used as bludgeon to kill off conversation by attacking the character of other people disagreeing.

This is often used to intentionally disparage someone, to shut down discussion, or to just simplify something into far simplier "black and white" political positions. But all of that is bad for conversation and discussion.

Because of the cancerous nature of the current use of the word to any sort of discussion, I can fully understand why people would respond to the use of it so negatively. Because it very rarely is meant to be used in one in good faith to begin with.

Racism is treating someone differently because of race. Too many pretend that it is treating someone of a different race different when the reason for that is not race (the problem of correlation, not causation and such), and then attribute the term based on that.

Now, that itself being poison to a discussion for being bad in bad faith is problem enough. But with terms like "racist" it is worse, as they carry stigma on them that can cause actual harm. People get fired for being called that. People get attacked. And some people know that and intentionally hope it happens.

As for why this shuts down discussions itself, I think that is a misidentified symptom. The word doesn't shut down discussions itself, it is just used by those who wish to do so, and arguments start because of that. Much like the word itself, motivation is the most important aspect.

So... Slavery for African Americans was beneficial. Becuase someone else decided it was. The first thing to understand about anyone accused of... well anything, but including racist, is that they will find an excuse or just deny being racist. Same with a murderer, rapist or even innocent people. Denials of the accusation never do anything for me. You're just doing an instinctual response and thus has no real meaning for the situation. The South thought that they were benefitting African Americans but never let the 'victims' have a say. Some thing happened with the Black Lives Matter movement. African Americans assumed that they were victims again and a whole bunch of people decided they shouldn't have a voice. It never came down to whether the police were treating African Americans unfairly or not. It ended up being a political fight that, like most poictal fights, never discussed the issues.

I do listen to explanations of situations

Abomination:

Saelune:
If not for runic knight's political history, I might accept that, but he regularly defends that white supremacists are not ya know, racist pieces of garbage, and even when their actions are clearly racist, he often argues otherwise.

Be that as it may, he never said that actions do not have motivation. Rather, he was arguing that the motivation of an action is what would ultimately make it racist or not. I agree with this, for if there is no racist motivation, the ethnicity of the people being affected is merely unfortunate circumstance than targeted.

You can determine a lot of motivations from the actions. Trump's actions show he is a bigot, for example.

Saelune:
You can determine a lot of motivations from the actions. Trump's actions show he is a bigot, for example.

You can infer a lot. I believe the Cheeto in Chief is bigoted, but I think most of it is driven by his desire to garner votes from a certain demographic.

It's either pandering or genuine, and I do not believe his decisions to be entirely Machiavellian that there is not some truth to his bigotry, but I do not think he is purely bigoted and is at least capable of using peoples prejudices against them. Trump is a bully, bizarrely oblivious, but also a practices manipulator. I think he's got a foot in all camps, but the perfect storm of his personality means he can not be 100% directed towards any extreme... unless the extreme is "Bad For America".

Abomination:

Saelune:
You can determine a lot of motivations from the actions. Trump's actions show he is a bigot, for example.

You can infer a lot. I believe the Cheeto in Chief is bigoted, but I think most of it is driven by his desire to garner votes from a certain demographic.

It's either pandering or genuine, and I do not believe his decisions to be entirely Machiavellian that there is not some truth to his bigotry, but I do not think he is purely bigoted and is at least capable of using peoples prejudices against them. Trump is a bully, bizarrely oblivious, but also a practices manipulator. I think he's got a foot in all camps, but the perfect storm of his personality means he can not be 100% directed towards any extreme... unless the extreme is "Bad For America".

The only people Trump can con are people who want to be conned. No one with any sense whatsoever would ever fall for Trump's BS.

Ignorance is no excuse for ANYONE who supports Trump.

Abomination:

Palindromemordnilap:
Yeah thats still sounds like profiling. Like, really really sounds like some generic buzzwords have been used to disguise the fact that your recruiter seems to only want the non-white people doing the menial running around job

There is nothing menial about couriers. It is actually quite an involved and difficult occupation. Requiring time management, being physically robust, navigational aptitude, customer service skills, and being able to drive and maneuver a heavy vehicle. They are generally paid very well for what is, essentially "unskilled" (does not require tertiary education) labour.

See what you've done there is just described menial work. Menial doesn't mean easy, it means its hard labour with little prestige attached to it. So you yourself describing it is hard work that gets classified as unskilled, well you've kind of demonstrated my point there haven't you?
Also, not to put too fine a point on it, but as someone who's worked in a job centre and helped people fill out CVs, pretty much every quality you listed other than the heavy vehicle license reeks of marketing guff designed to bulk out an otherwise unimpressive occupation (and even then, how exactly are you classing 'heavy vehicle'?). Time management especially was a favourite, because everyone has to be at work on time so hey, there you go!

But veering back to the "all of our couriers were non-white" thing, if you don't think it was profiling on behalf of your recruiter, what do you think the cause was? Because the entire staff of one department in an otherwise (I assume) mixed company being non-white is a hell of coincidence, so there must be a cause. Whats your explanation?

Palindromemordnilap:

Abomination:

Palindromemordnilap:
Yeah thats still sounds like profiling. Like, really really sounds like some generic buzzwords have been used to disguise the fact that your recruiter seems to only want the non-white people doing the menial running around job

There is nothing menial about couriers. It is actually quite an involved and difficult occupation. Requiring time management, being physically robust, navigational aptitude, customer service skills, and being able to drive and maneuver a heavy vehicle. They are generally paid very well for what is, essentially "unskilled" (does not require tertiary education) labour.

See what you've done there is just described menial work. Menial doesn't mean easy, it means its hard labour with little prestige attached to it. So you yourself describing it is hard work that gets classified as unskilled, well you've kind of demonstrated my point there haven't you?
Also, not to put too fine a point on it, but as someone who's worked in a job centre and helped people fill out CVs, pretty much every quality you listed other than the heavy vehicle license reeks of marketing guff designed to bulk out an otherwise unimpressive occupation (and even then, how exactly are you classing 'heavy vehicle'?). Time management especially was a favourite, because everyone has to be at work on time so hey, there you go!

But veering back to the "all of our couriers were non-white" thing, if you don't think it was profiling on behalf of your recruiter, what do you think the cause was? Because the entire staff of one department in an otherwise (I assume) mixed company being non-white is a hell of coincidence, so there must be a cause. Whats your explanation?

I already said earlier why they were chosen, they were profiled because the hiring manager found they perform better than other ethnicities in that job.

Time management does not mean "turn up to work on time" it means being able to prioritise tasks in a manner that saves time and allows a good work flow.

They are paid more. I do not see how this is making them seem menial as if it was menial they would not be offered more pay.

Abomination:

Palindromemordnilap:

Abomination:
There is nothing menial about couriers. It is actually quite an involved and difficult occupation. Requiring time management, being physically robust, navigational aptitude, customer service skills, and being able to drive and maneuver a heavy vehicle. They are generally paid very well for what is, essentially "unskilled" (does not require tertiary education) labour.

See what you've done there is just described menial work. Menial doesn't mean easy, it means its hard labour with little prestige attached to it. So you yourself describing it is hard work that gets classified as unskilled, well you've kind of demonstrated my point there haven't you?
Also, not to put too fine a point on it, but as someone who's worked in a job centre and helped people fill out CVs, pretty much every quality you listed other than the heavy vehicle license reeks of marketing guff designed to bulk out an otherwise unimpressive occupation (and even then, how exactly are you classing 'heavy vehicle'?). Time management especially was a favourite, because everyone has to be at work on time so hey, there you go!

But veering back to the "all of our couriers were non-white" thing, if you don't think it was profiling on behalf of your recruiter, what do you think the cause was? Because the entire staff of one department in an otherwise (I assume) mixed company being non-white is a hell of coincidence, so there must be a cause. Whats your explanation?

I already said earlier why they were chosen, they were profiled because the hiring manager found they perform better than other ethnicities in that job.

Time management does not mean "turn up to work on time" it means being able to prioritise tasks in a manner that saves time and allows a good work flow.

They are paid more. I do not see how this is making them seem menial as if it was menial they would not be offered more pay.

Yes, what you are stating is racial profiling. It also appears you may have a different understanding of " menial" than others do. Some examples of menial jobs here are :
garbage man
delivery boy
bus driver
taxi driver
sanitation worker
construction worker
stock boy
warehouse worker
maid
landscaper
assembler
cook
bus boy

These are all low tier menial jobs and to racially profile anyone for these jobs is terribly racist. They should be equally considered for employment in " white collar" jobs as well as CEO's, Physicians, lawyers, accountants, analysts, financial advisers ect. If they are lacking education to be able to participate equally in these fields, you increase access to resources to them to make education for these fields obtainable. Part of the problem is not that they are not "inclined" for this work, it is that they lack the proper support structures throughout their early development and childhood to be able to obtain the necessary skills for the work. If their parents and grandparents were restricted from such education and work, they lack the skills to instill this in their children and grandchildren. This can be supplemented by having resources made available to them in both their community and home environment during early development. This should be started from the time they take their infant home from the hospital, not waiting until after their brains are more fully formed as you can teach skills necessary for engineering while they are a toddler, not an adult. It is vital to have support throughout the entire time their brains are forming, not wait until they already have.

Education is not something that is limited to "school" it is what a child experiences throughout their entire life.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here