[Predator] Racism on SD.net forums

[Spoonist]

Nice argument there...

The threads subject was long gone before I ever joined in the discussion.
Read the OP again.

[Darth Wong]

Nice argument there...

The threads subject was long gone before I ever joined in the discussion.
Read the OP again.

I have, fucktard. It's about someone accusing others of racism. It's only natural to then ask how racism is defined, you idiot. Without a definition, it is impossible to confirm or refute the accusation, or are you honestly too goddamned stupid to understand that?

It is not natural to turn it into a thread about politically motivated self-censorship. That's just your dumb-shit hijack, asshole.

[Spoonist]

I have, fucktard. It's about someone accusing others of racism. It's only natural to then ask how racism is defined, you idiot. Without a definition, it is impossible to confirm or refute the accusation, or are you honestly too goddamned stupid to understand that?

It is not natural to turn it into a thread about politically motivated self-censorship. That's just your dumb-shit hijack, asshole.

1st, I stayed out of the topic until everyone else had conceded or quit. I did not interfere with the topic discussion itself.
2nd, In a topic where the definition of racism is discussed, to also discuss the definitions. to me, is on topic.
3rd, in my first post in this thread I thought that I made it quite clear that I wasn't joining the argument, instead I pointed out that your use of the definition is counterproductive.
4th, I also tried to make it clear that this was a personal opinion and had nothing to do with the pragmatical use of the definition.
5th, if you think that I changed the topic, then how come you didn't call me on it in the first place? Or split it? Your answer to my first post, to me, indicated instead that you had misunderstood my post.
6th, if you want to flame me, fine. But could you at least make the small effort to point out what you actually think is irrational about my posts? If you can't be bothered/don't have time then just say so instead and then neither of us need to waste our time.
To make it easier for you I will boil it down to this issue:
If you agree with the dictionary definition of racism:

Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
- rac·ist /-sist also -shist/ noun or adjective

Main Entry: dis·crim·i·na·tion
Pronunciation: dis-"kri-m&-'nA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 a : the act of discriminating b : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently
2 : the quality or power of finely distinguishing
3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination>
synonym see DISCERNMENT
- dis·crim·i·na·tion·al /-shn&l, -sh&-n&l/ adjective

then prove that this at all is possible:

And it is possible to function in life without discriminating on the basis of race, so don't be too eager to say that racial discrimination is something that everyone does,

You can look at my last longwinded post to see my argument.
To counter this:

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

you must use this:

2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

Which because of semantics will lead to a catch22:
To counter racism you must use racism. (Which doesn't make sense if you use the word racism instead of a descriptive sentence, hence why I've been trying to explain that you need to seperate racism from racial behavioral actions otherwise accusing people of the 2nd definition will make them think that you also accuse them of the 1st definition).


Oh, and if someone else is still reading this topic could you point out if I'm not making any sense at all or if I and Wong are just misunderstanding eachother.

[Predator]

Oh, and if someone else is still reading this topic could you point out if I'm not making any sense at all or if I and Wong are just misunderstanding eachother.

Carry on I say, I'm interested to see where this goes.

[Darth Wong]

5th, if you think that I changed the topic, then how come you didn't call me on it in the first place? Or split it? Your answer to my first post, to me, indicated instead that you had misunderstood my post.

Yes, because at first I assumed that you were actually trying to address the thread subject, asshole. That is normally a reasonable assumption. When you clarified that you were trying to change the subject, I told you to shut the fuck up and get back on topic, and you have been refusing for reasons which are not obvious to me unless you think it is wise to test my patience by repeatedly ignoring my warnings.

To make it easier for you I will boil it down to this issue:
If you agree with the dictionary definition of racism:

Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
- rac·ist /-sist also -shist/ noun or adjective

Main Entry: dis·crim·i·na·tion
Pronunciation: dis-"kri-m&-'nA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 a : the act of discriminating b : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently
2 : the quality or power of finely distinguishing
3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination>
synonym see DISCERNMENT
- dis·crim·i·na·tion·al /-shn&l, -sh&-n&l/ adjective

Yes, I agree with that definition. I've only been saying that for several fucking pages already.

then prove that this at all is possible:

And it is possible to function in life without discriminating on the basis of race, so don't be too eager to say that racial discrimination is something that everyone does,

I'm supposed to prove a negative now? Don't be a fucktard. You have to show that someone is discriminating, not ask him to prove that he does not discriminate. If you don't care what race of person you date, then you're not discriminating.

You can look at my last longwinded post to see my argument.
To counter this:

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

you must use this:

2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

Which because of semantics will lead to a catch22:
To counter racism you must use racism. (Which doesn't make sense if you use the word racism instead of a descriptive sentence, hence why I've been trying to explain that you need to seperate racism from racial behavioral actions otherwise accusing people of the 2nd definition will make them think that you also accuse them of the 1st definition).

And why do you think people should not lump the two actions together? Why is "aesthetically superior" somehow different from "superior"? Why do I need to make this point repeatedly?

[Spoonist]

When you clarified that you were trying to change the subject, I told you to shut the fuck up and get back on topic, and you have been refusing for reasons which are not obvious to me unless you think it is wise to test my patience by repeatedly ignoring my warnings.

As I told you in my former post, personally I think it to be on topic but if you don't, then just split it or just say you don't want to bother with this line of reasoning. Until you do I'm assuming that you wish to continue this discussion in this thread.

Clarify exactly what you mean by "warnings". Until you do I will not continue this discussion.
I do not like the implied innuendo.

[SirNitram]

Clarify exactly what you mean by "warnings". Until you do I will not continue this discussion.
I do not like the implied innuendo.

That one's easy. Consult Parting Shots for people who thought they were clever to ignore moderators telling them to stop playing Stupid Fuckers.

[Spoonist]

Clarify exactly what you mean by "warnings". Until you do I will not continue this discussion.
I do not like the implied innuendo.

That one's easy. Consult Parting Shots for people who thought they were clever to ignore moderators telling them to stop playing Stupid Fuckers.

I'm quite familiar with Parting Shots.
That is why I before was trying to get a reality check by asking others who read this topic if I was making any sense or not.
If I'm not making any sense to anyone then I will off course retract my posts.
But if it's only Darth Wong who doesn't think I'm making sense then it would seem more prudent to continue the discussion. Either in a new topic or continue in this one.

[Zero]

I would suggest starting a new thread to discuss what you're discussing. I'm actually interested in this discussion, and would enjoy seeing it continued, but it appears that Wong is quite angry about sidetracking this topic, so I'd say starting a new one might be cool.

[Noble Ire]

If I'm not making any sense to anyone then I will off course retract my posts.
But if it's only Darth Wong who doesn't think I'm making sense then it would seem more prudent to continue the discussion.

As far as I can tell, your contrabution to this thread has amounted to saying that we shouldn't use the word "racist" because its meaning is too broad. I personally do not agree with this notion at all, it would seem to be a way of allowing actual racists to get away with what they do by spending hours trying to pin down exactly what they did wrong with a long-winded and incomprehnsible statement rather than just condeming them in clear terms. In any event, as Lord Wong has stated before, the point is off subject any ways. Perhaps you should start a new thread, but right now, your just clogging this one with what amounts to a semantics gripe. So no, in effect, your not making any sense.

[Edi]

Most of the time people use the word "racist" they mean the in-your-face outspoken bigots and fuckwits everyone despises. It doesn't mean that someone whose racism and bogoted behavior is less overt and not as virulent as the white supremacists isn't racist. Calling those people racists is quite perfectly correct, and pointing out even very mildly racist (often unconscious/unwitting) behavior as racist is also quite correct.

For some reason a lot of people in this thread seemed to have a big fucking problem with the last two, especially the very last one. Mostly it seemed that it hit a little too close to home and they made the leap in logic of assuming they were being treated as if they were equally bad compared to KKK members and white supremacists instead of just having questionable values/preferences that were racist in nature, even if of a mild form.

Edi

[Hobot]

For some reason a lot of people in this thread seemed to have a big fucking problem with the last two, especially the very last one. Mostly it seemed that it hit a little too close to home and they made the leap in logic of assuming they were being treated as if they were equally bad compared to KKK members and white supremacists instead of just having questionable values/preferences that were racist in nature, even if of a mild form.

Edi

Well racism is a heavily loaded word. It is a word associated with the worst people and acts in all of history. It's not surprising that so many people in this thread want to distance themselves from the word. This board is one of the few places where admitting to being racist will not immediately draw comparisons to Hitler and the KKK being made.

While it might seem dangerous, perhaps it would be useful to have a different word for the milder forms of racism. The reason being that if, for example, you try to point out to a friend or colleague that they're being racist, they will most likely become very defensive and angry. They will interpret it as an attack and assume that you're being unreasonable. I think with a milder word you would be more successful in convincing them to reconsider their actions/words.

Of course, I'd expect someone with more backbone and stronger convictions than I, like Darth Wong, would disagree. But not all of us are capable of being so forthright.

[Edi]

Well racism is a heavily loaded word. It is a word associated with the worst people and acts in all of history. It's not surprising that so many people in this thread want to distance themselves from the word. This board is one of the few places where admitting to being racist will not immediately draw comparisons to Hitler and the KKK being made.

Loaded or not, still accurate. The reason those comparisons don't immediately come up here is that people have learned the hard way that it is a good method of getting thoroughly curbstomped.

While it might seem dangerous, perhaps it would be useful to have a different word for the milder forms of racism. The reason being that if, for example, you try to point out to a friend or colleague that they're being racist, they will most likely become very defensive and angry. They will interpret it as an attack and assume that you're being unreasonable. I think with a milder word you would be more successful in convincing them to reconsider their actions/words.

What's the fucking point? Even if you don't call them racists for their views, but instead say that they are wrong and give reasons why, they will often just pull the equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling "LALALALALAAA, CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!" at the top of their lungs, or they come back with the oh-so-clever "Are you accusing me of being a racist but are too cowardly to say it outright?" defense where they try to paint anyone who doesn't accept their bigotry as the offender. I've been hit by that a couple of times, and I've always fired back that, yes, they're being racists and if they don't like it, too fucking bad. There is no need to add some nerfed down half-measure PC bullshit definition that just gives the racists more ammo and the bullfuckery tactic of saying "No, I'm not a racist, I'm just a <insert bullshit nerfed term here>, that's A-okay" and everyone will nod sagely and slap themselves on the back for avoiding a confrontation and possible bad words that tend to upset all the fucking sheep who insist on always being politically correct.

Of course, I'd expect someone with more backbone and stronger convictions than I, like Darth Wong, would disagree. But not all of us are capable of being so forthright.

I expect he will do just that. Thing is, as I said before, it's in people's own best interests to be forced to look into the mirror, because otherwise bad shit tends to happen. Dehumanization and demonization is the first step toward casual murder and genocide, and racism and jingoism are one of the quickest ways to accomplish them. I don't see why there is any need to give those two or other forms of bigotry any breaks or opportunities to thrive uncontested.

Edi

[Zero]

Sexual preferences (which was the subject of debate earlier in this thread) won't lead to genocide. Grouping sexual preferences with genocide doesn't seem quite right to me. Are you saying that the two are equally horrific, or just that they fall under the same extremely broad catagory of 'racism'?

This is obviously a matter of degree. If I preferred dark skin over light skin in terms of partners, that doesn't mean that I want white people to go and die. If I prefer light skinned women over dark skinned, that doesn't have any bearing on how I act in most social situations, and it sure as hell doesn't mean I want to kill myself (not white).

[Coyote]

Racism does tend to automatically conjure images of the Klan and Nazis, etc. It is a very accusatory word, and makes people defensive even if, as Edi points out, it is technically accurate for minor stances on being 'racially discerning' or selective.

Probably 'discriminating' is the best word to use for such instances-- it is loaded too, but not quite so bad as the "racist" label.

[Darth Wong]

Sexual preferences (which was the subject of debate earlier in this thread) won't lead to genocide.

And this is precisely the same logic of the fucktards who say "the US isn't becoming a theocracy; real theocracy is much worse" or "the Patriot Act is not an infringement on civil liberties; real police states are much worse".

It is the logic of apologist bullshitters who don't understand the distinction between logic and black/white fallacies. Explain away everything that isn't Class One Evil. No, don't even explain it away; actually chastise people for even mentioning it. Because ya know, anything less than genocide is OK

[Zero]

I didn't say that anything less then genocide is okay. Never expected to accuse the leader of this forum of strawmanning... oh well, I'll let it go.

Wong, discriminating in terms of sexuality isn't going to harm anyone. If I prefer light-skinned women over dark-skinned, I'm not going to go out denying black women jobs or any such bullshit. There's no correlation here. As long as I cause no one harm, there's no reason to bitch and moan about it.

The line is very simple to draw. Am I causing anyone specific pain with my sexual preferences? I happen to go for fat chicks.. does this make me evil? What am I allowed to find attractive/unattractive?

[Kuroneko]

Mr. Zero, it is very unclear why the label of racism has to imply some sort of negative moral judgement. There is absolutely nothing in either of the two denotations provided above, which you yourself have quoted, which states such a thing. Unless the wrongness of racism regardless of circumstance, manner, or effect is established, the only reasonable conclusion is that the automatic negative connotation that most people ascribe to it is simply irrational. This is especially true with respect to utilitarianism--it is quite possible that some forms of racism are amoral rather than immoral, and your own example makes this very plausible. Since your argument is apparently dependent on the negative connotation of the word, I cannot see it as a sound one.

[Edi]

I didn't say that anything less then genocide is okay. Never expected to accuse the leader of this forum of strawmanning... oh well, I'll let it go.

He's not making a strawman. The point is, the logic in committing a genocide based on skin color, discrimination in hiring based on skin color and discrimination in choosing a partner based on skin color is the same. The magnitude of the action varies, the underlying logic does not. Do you now understand the point?

Wong, discriminating in terms of sexuality isn't going to harm anyone. If I prefer light-skinned women over dark-skinned, I'm not going to go out denying black women jobs or any such bullshit. There's no correlation here. As long as I cause no one harm, there's no reason to bitch and moan about it.

Not really, but I do not expect that skin color is the sole factor that makes or breaks your attraction to a woman. Am I right?

The line is very simple to draw. Am I causing anyone specific pain with my sexual preferences? I happen to go for fat chicks.. does this make me evil? What am I allowed to find attractive/unattractive?

No, it doesn't make you evil. But again, does plumpness or lack thereof make or break the attraction? When speaking of sexual attraction, it is usually not a good idea to isolate some single feature and then declare it a binary on-off switch that makes or breaks the attraction. It leaves you vulnerable to accusations of discrimination, whether racial or otherwise and your opponent will run circles around you.

For myself, I either find a woman attractive or not, and it is no single factor that makes or breaks things, it's how the whole of it is put together.

Edi

[Darth Wong]

I didn't say that anything less then genocide is okay. Never expected to accuse the leader of this forum of strawmanning... oh well, I'll let it go.

Fuck you, you little shit.

Sexual preferences (which was the subject of debate earlier in this thread) won't lead to genocide. Grouping sexual preferences with genocide doesn't seem quite right to me. Are you saying that the two are equally horrific, or just that they fall under the same extremely broad catagory of 'racism'?

You said that unless some form of racism is "equally horrific" to genocide, it should not be classified at all, you worthless little lying cunt.

Wong, discriminating in terms of sexuality isn't going to harm anyone.

So you would have absolutely no problem with a society where no one ever racially intermarries, since that particular form of discrimination apparently does not count as discrimination in your eyes?

[Darth Wong]

Question for the apologists: do you believe that the statement "white people are better-looking than black people" is innocent of the charge of racism?

[Kuroneko]

Guilty as charged, of course--some statements are so obviously true that it is not interesting to even attempt to deny them. What is much more interesting is the next natural question--does this kind of dating pattern have any moral significance? It seems to require at least one of the following: (a) the fault is mental, i.e., a racially discriminating attraction is immoral; or (b) it leads to faulty actions, i.e., racially discrimanting dating pattern is immoral. Either might be supported, but not without a certain amount of controversy. On one hand, (a) goes against the mainstream ethical notion that actions are what is most important, although could fit comfortably within virtue ethics. On the other hand, (b) seems to require something more substantial, as it is not at all clear how denying someone the (dubious) privelege of dating oneself could be immoral.

What is most confounding about Mr. Zero's apparent view is that he denies the moral significance of this kind of situation while at the same time finding the label negative. This is simply irrational; if the former view is correct, then in this case the label is simply an amoral fact. It is impossible to have it both ways.

[Predator]

Question for the apologists: do you believe that the statement "white people are better-looking than black people" is innocent of the charge of racism?

I'm not an apologist - hopefully my first post here illustrates that my position isnt quite the same as some others here, but to my mind that statement is clearly racist, and I would also contend that it's a harmful thing to say - stating that an entire racial group of people arent as good looking as another is divisive and may damage the self esteem of individuals who are placed in that group or who identify with it.

My position would never be to defend a statement like that - quite the opposite. My personal preferences have me admiring women of all different backgrounds frequently. The only limiting factor is exposure - there are less black women around that I find attractive primarily because there arent that many black women hanging around here. And a bit like Bob in my example, I do actually have preferences that, if you study statistics on races, jump around the racial map of humanity (though mine are not specifically the preferences I gave him).

The problem is, if you worked out how all of my maximally preferred attributes correlated to different racial groups and subgroups and however else you want to divide humanity, I am sure you would find that the percentages of women of different backgrounds that I find attractive will not be equal. To pull some numbers out of my arse, you might find that I consider 13% of caucasians, 11% of asians, and 9% of africans absolutely stunning. I can imagine that if you looked for percentages that I find merely attractive, the hierarchy might not even be the same as for absolutely stunning. But in any case, it's unlikely that my preferences - or Bobs for that matter - will work out perfectly equally. So does that throw things back into the racist category?

I think where we might have a different set of assumptions is in that you assume that if someone prefers some characteristic that is correlated with or against some race, it is because this person has the seed of racism within them and from that flows preferences that discriminate. I on the other hand dont think this is necessarily so - it may be for some, but at the same time, someone really, genuinely might just prefer, say, short legs, and it's not their fault that one group tends on average to have shorter legs than another.

I considered bringing up the following point before but I didnt - I will now. I hope that we can entertain this hypothetical example from a purely academic standpoint, because it is a sensitive one.

I do not know whether different races, on average, have inherent differences in their intellectual capacities in one regard or another. I hope not, and in all honesty I'm not actually interested, because I think that such information, if it did come to light through genuine scientific study, should be totally irrelevant, because ideally we'd treat people according to their individual abilities and charateristics, not that of their group average.

In fact, I hope that if such differences do exist, we never discover them, because it could only serve to divide people and fuel racism. But lets say hypothetically, that a valid set of scientific studies does determine some difference.

Before we get to specifics, lets also simplify things by assuming that there is no institutionalised racism - that hiring practises and interviewers and so forth are genuinely hiring based on capabilities, and have no racial agendas and so forth, and that people around the world have equal access to quality education - I just want to take extraneous variables out of the equation so that we dont get stuck in nitpicks and sidetracks.

Now, NASA wants smart people. NASA and humanity's space efforts will suffer if they dont have smart people, in fact the smartest people they can get. Various other important fields need smart people. If their hiring practises are based on merit, upon hiring the smartest people for the job, then in all likelyhood they will have a disproportionate racial makeup in their staff, proportional to the average difference between racial groups in relevent intellectual capabilities.

Does this make NASA racist? NASA is simply hiring the smartest people, and the particular intelligence they're looking for happens to be most highly correlated with some racial groups and not others, and their staff makeup naturally reflects this.

I dont think it is fair in this scenario to call NASA racist. It is not the fault of this organisation that, in our hypothetical scenario, there are average differences between the intellectual capabilities of racial groups.

This comes close to getting into the traditional affirmative action debate, but I've hopefully sufficiently separated that by proposing that in this scenario there is no institutionalised racism that needs to be combatted.

To relate this back to the topic and my argument, if someone's subjective preferences arent chosen based on racism, but are innate, random, or instinctual and a person does not, or strives as much as is humanly possible not to judge based on category but instead on an individual level, I dont think it is fair or accurate to call them racist, if their maximally preferred attributes dont happen to average out equally, on the whole, between all races.

This is especialy so given that, in order to combat these supposedly "racially discriminatory" preferences, some extreme sort of psychological conditioning would be necessary, and still impossible to configure in a perfectly equal way - if you could reprogram me to have a fetish for broad noses, I would then favour broad nosed individuals over those without broad noses, simply swinging the pendulum too far to the other extreme. Perhaps alternatively you could reprogram me not to see noses. In any case, I'm sure that at this point a human rights violation is being committed on a scale too high to justify any potential benefits.

In any case, I'd better draw this to a close by saying that yes, such a statement as above is definitely racist, and for some, aesthetic preferences might be drawn out of a subconscious racism, however this is not necessarily so, and I dont think people should be automatically branded racist if their overall preferences do not favour every race perfectly equally - indeed, I'd wager many readers werent even aware of half of the statistical information on race aesthetics until I presented them in this thread (where lovers of long legs may have found to their surprise that their preference is considered racially discriminatory).

[Spoonist]

One question for Darth Wong:
If I continue our discussion in a new thread, would you reply or not?

It would be a waste of time for me to create a whole new topic and argument just to find out that you can't be bothered.

[Spoonist]

Oh, and Predator in your hypothetical example, it would be a more realistic point to say "higher education" than intellligence.

Since most of our ways to measure adult intelligence usually only tests our cognitative skills regarding subjects which you gain through "higher education".
This is why you can "train" to get higher intelligence scores in most tests.