[Predator] Racism on SD.net forums

[Lord Woodlouse]

I'm talking about intent of action.

You're missing the point. Discrimination is an action. If you treat black people differently than you treat white people, then you are discriminating. There is no point trying to figure out what the "intent" is if you can observe someone who treats black people and white people differently as a matter of course.

But not all actions are discriminatory. You're looking at it from the wrong angle. Like my example of the "chinky" to denote a Chinese restaurant. As far as those concerned using it, it's merely descriptive. They're not discriminating against Chinese people. No more than they would be if they said "We're going to a Chinese restaurant".

Some words and phrases can be gray areas with regards racism, and that grey area is because it revolves more around the intent of the person saying it. The phrase CAN be interpreted as racist because it CAN cause insult. But it would only be particularly discriminatory if the person saying it KNEW it would cause insult.

...and yes, I know this is a slightly nitpicky thing. But I think it's worth saying if only for the intellectual analysis of "what is racism?"

Where do you draw the line, then? Since the intentions of a person cannot be measured in any way, and since the perception of another's intentions are not consistent between observers, it is ridiculous to define racism by the intentions of the person involved. It is particularly difficult since outright racial profiling and similar behavior can be passed off innocently in virtually all cases. "I wasn't tailing that guy just because he was Latino. I was concerned he was an illegal alien because he... um... spoke Spanish."

That's the point, mate. Sometimes you CAN'T quanitify racism so easily. But then this is not really so much worse than defining racism as that which causes insult or offense, as that's as subjective too.

Racism can be tackled with common sense guidelines. But, as with so many things, there is room for interpretation.

Those 2 statements are self contradictory

Nah. But you can be forgiven for thinking it as such because the whole thing is quite loosely defined.

Some people are able to be discriminatory without knowing it, and they're still discriminatory according to regular definitions of what discrimination is. Where, as in the example I showed, they propose an action which would discriminate. But there are other statements, too, which can be regarded as discriminatory but which simply refer to observations or descriptions rather than propositions. Like, as said, if I were offended by the term "Limey" and someone used that term KNOWING it caused offense to me. That would be racist, while most of the time that term would not be, because it generally does not cause offense and none is generally offered. So some words and phrases can only really be taken as they are offered. They can not, in themselves, constitute racist statements.

[Justforfun000]

Well as far as I'm concerned, the term itself may include all those little examples of personal preference, but it isn't deserving of a negative connotation.

In those cases the action of racism is simply OK. It's not a type of racism that deserves censure.

It's no different then taking the flip side of the coin. The concept of tolerance is naturally thought to be a good thing just like racism is naturally thought to be bad.

But you can't be tolerant of EVERYTHING. Would you be tolerant of a child molester abusing your child?

Like anything, it's all shades of grey.

In the examples of personal sexual preference, racism is totally justified. It's not something you CHOOSE to be attracted to after all, you simply are or you aren't. No different then it would be wrong to give someone shit for not liking the taste of vegetables and then accusing them of being racist against the vegetable species.

[Lord Woodlouse]

Well as far as I'm concerned, the term itself may include all those little examples of personal preference, but it isn't deserving of a negative connotation.

In those cases the action of racism is simply OK. It's not a type of racism that deserves censure.

It's no different then taking the flip side of the coin. The concept of tolerance is naturally thought to be a good thing just like racism is naturally thought to be bad.

But you can't be tolerant of EVERYTHING. Would you be tolerant of a child molester abusing your child?

Like anything, it's all shades of grey.

In the examples of personal sexual preference, racism is totally justified. It's not something you CHOOSE to be attracted to after all, you simply are or you aren't. No different then it would be wrong to give someone shit for not liking the taste of vegetables and then accusing them of being racist against the vegetable species.

Ah, but I'd not even class it as racism. Strictly my preference for Asian, then Caucasian and then everyone else in terms of what I deem attractive IS racist, just a completely harmless form of racism (which most people would not term as such, and not call me, because of the negative cannotation). That's because discrimination is at work.

But one could be said to be discriminating for prefering intelligent to stupid workers. Discrimination is not, in itself, a bad thing. But it's one of the most important factors when determining something as racist. Hence the ambiguous terms I refer to. If no clear discrimination (intended or not) is in place, it's not really racist.

[Darth Wong]

Like anything, it's all shades of grey.

In the examples of personal sexual preference, racism is totally justified.

It's interesting how you say that it's all shades of grey, and then you follow it up with an absolute statement.

Consider this scenario: you meet two people. One of them has no racial preference in partners whatsoever: he thinks asians, whites, blacks, indians, etc. are all attractive. The other one says that he is only attracted to people of his own skin colour, and doesn't find others attractive. Now you say that you attach no negative connotations whatsoever to racial preferences, but wouldn't you feel, somehow, that the first guy is more enlightened?

[Darth Wong]

Ah, but I'd not even class it as racism.

Why the fuck not? I grow tired of the way you keep stating this bullshit without explaining WHY the fucking situation does not fit the definition of the word.

But one could be said to be discriminating for prefering intelligent to stupid workers.

Of course you would. I am a proud intelligencist. So what? How does that refute the fact that racial discrimination is defined as racism?

[Zero]

Racism is different from many other types of discrimination for one simple reason: it isn't logical, or backed up by the facts. There's no reason that the different races should actually be any better or worse then any other. The reason we do often see differences is because of socio-economic factors. There's no real reason to discriminate against someone purely on the grounds of race, unless it's a special circumstance such as a play or movie, where the role requires someone of a specific race/ethnicity/profile.

In discriminating against stupid people, you're doing so for the sake of productivity. A fucktard isn't going to be able to get the job done as well as a genius, if that job is related to intellectual ability. If the job is instead related to physical ability, then a weaker person would be less productive of an employee then a stronger person. This is the difference between racism and many other kinds of discrimination.

[Lord Woodlouse]

Why the fuck not? I grow tired of the way you keep stating this bullshit without explaining WHY the fucking situation does not fit the definition of the word.

Because, as I explained, no clear discrimination was at work. Accidental or not. Unless you propose that anyone can definite discrimination itself as they see fit? In which case every single utterance of any language whatsoever is potentially racist, and therefore IS racist by the absolute standards you're proposing.

Discrimination when talking about descriptions of people or things of ethnicity is all about intent. That is my point. When looking at or talking about actions it is altogether more simple, and no matter how much a person might protest to the contrary we can generally see the discrimination plainly. Language, and language alone, is harder to paint with such a broad brush because discrimination in this regard is defined, at least partially, on the intent of the speaker, and the knowledge of the context with which he is speaking. Ignorance in this regard MAY be an excuse.

Now, to avoid any confusion, this is the point I felt the chap himself was addressing (it came straight after I said effectively just that). That's the wider context of the conversation from my point of view.

Of course you would. I am a proud intelligencist. So what? How does that refute the fact that racial discrimination is defined as racism?

It does not, that was a single example to back up a different assertion which you picked out of the air because it looked juicey. In that instance I was actually backing up your earlier assertion that sexual preference based on race IS racist, just a harmless form of racism.

I'll be honest and say that I'm not sure I'm arguing this all very effectively, I have a habit of digressing rather a lot and going into detail about incidental things when in debate. I'd say you have to forgive me for this, but I know you're not quite that forgiving. I will instead plead for mercy.

[Lord Woodlouse]

Racism is different from many other types of discrimination for one simple reason: it isn't logical, or backed up by the facts. There's no reason that the different races should actually be any better or worse then any other. The reason we do often see differences is because of socio-economic factors. There's no real reason to discriminate against someone purely on the grounds of race, unless it's a special circumstance such as a play or movie, where the role requires someone of a specific race/ethnicity/profile.

Is the racism of sexual preference illogical? Only so much as any notions of beauty can be said to be, or of the nature of love itself, I think.

[General Zod]

Is the racism of sexual preference illogical? Only so much as any notions of beauty can be said to be, or of the nature of love itself, I think.

That analogy is only valid if you hold sexual preference to be a willful choice as opposed to a biological imperative.

[Darth Wong]

Why the fuck not? I grow tired of the way you keep stating this bullshit without explaining WHY the fucking situation does not fit the definition of the word.

Because, as I explained, no clear discrimination was at work. Accidental or not.

What are you, a fucking retard? What do you think "discrimination" means?

Unless you propose that anyone can definite discrimination itself as they see fit?

You're the only one proposing that. I'm using the dictionary definition.

In which case every single utterance of any language whatsoever is potentially racist, and therefore IS racist by the absolute standards you're proposing.

Do you have shit in your ears? I'm talking about people who say they find entire ethnicities to be unattractive and will tend not to approach them for dates. You were responding to a post by Justforfun000 in which he was talking about the same fucking thing. Don't pretend you were just talking about the use of certain words, asshat.

It does not, that was a single example to back up a different assertion which you picked out of the air because it looked juicey. In that instance I was actually backing up your earlier assertion that sexual preference based on race IS racist, just a harmless form of racism.

Then why the fuck did you respond to Justforfun000's statement about "personal sexual preference" by saying "I'd not even class it as racism"? Does the left side of your brain even know what the fucking right side is saying?

I'll be honest and say that I'm not sure I'm arguing this all very effectively, I have a habit of digressing rather a lot and going into detail about incidental things when in debate. I'd say you have to forgive me for this, but I know you're not quite that forgiving. I will instead plead for mercy.

Here's a hint: read what the fuck you're responding to, rather than firing off cookie-cutter responses without bothering to see whether they even apply.

[Justforfun000]

It's interesting how you say that it's all shades of grey, and then you follow it up with an absolute statement.

Consider this scenario: you meet two people. One of them has no racial preference in partners whatsoever: he thinks asians, whites, blacks, indians, etc. are all attractive. The other one says that he is only attracted to people of his own skin colour, and doesn't find others attractive. Now you say that you attach no negative connotations whatsoever to racial preferences, but wouldn't you feel, somehow, that the first guy is more enlightened?

Well the shades of grey are the variable desires people have. Judging how someone naturally desires or does not desire another human being physically is pointless because it's not really something under their control?

As to the scenario you gave, I don't know if enlightened would be the right word? Lucky...easier to please...lol. Consequently I fit the first example anyway. I find every race has attractive people and I've never personally discriminated sexually by that factor. But I can't blame someone if they just don't have attractions to people of a certain race.

Now it's TOTALLY possible of course that the person is full of shit and he or she is just letting the skin colour, features, or even just the CONCEPT of them being "different" as the basis for not even being able to look at them with an unbiased eye. In that scenario it would of course be a stronger and in my opinion anyway, negative type of racism. But only the person themself knows if this is their reason or they tell you.

But others I know personally have had discussions with me and when I've been pointing out someone I thought was hot that was black, asian, native, etc. they simply didn't find them attractive and when grilled they couldn't explain why. No expressed hostility or dislike towards the race or type, just no "shwing" down there. Also these were people I tend to believe when they say they have no bigoted feelings in that way.

So what can I say to them? Would it be right to hold that against them? I don't know how to stoke their mojo for them. Shame too because I've had some really hot times with variety. Sometimes even the colour contrast is a major turn on. They don't know what they are missing.

[Darth Wong]

Well the shades of grey are the variable desires people have. Judging how someone naturally desires or does not desire another human being physically is pointless because it's not really something under their control?

Why does it matter whether something is under your control? Let's take a kid who was raised by rabid white-supremacists and carefully cloistered away from minorities. Due to what is literally a lifetime of indoctrination and conditioning, he is terrified of black people. When he meets one, he feels a palpable sense of fear. Is this his "fault"? Is it a conscious choice, or is it subconscious conditioning?

In the end, it doesn't matter. What matters is that he discriminates, and that is racism.

[Lord Woodlouse]

What are you, a fucking retard? What do you think "discrimination" means?

Absolutely. The act of showing prejudice. I don't see that as applicable in the example I cited in the conversation that I was involved in.

You're the only one proposing that. I'm using the dictionary definition.

No, I've distinguished between what I feel is discrimination and what is not. In the conversation I say that a term which is regarded as racist is not necisarily so. Such as the term "Chinky" which has embedded itself so heavily into the English language that most people are simply unaware of any negative cannotation of the word. When they utter the word, all they're using is a slang term for a Chinese restaurant. Is the phrase "Chinese restaurant" racist? Is it discriminatory? Does it show prejudice? I hardly think so.

This CAN change, however, with intent. If a person knows that word is going to cause offense to people of a specific race it BECOMES racist. But, as I argue, it is not inherently racist. This has been the point of what I've been saying from the moment I entered the thread (and I openly admit, I'm probably not making it very clear, and I know that's my problem. But at the same time, you're being needlessly aggressive over something so trivial)

Do you have shit in your ears? I'm talking about people who say they find entire ethnicities to be unattractive and will tend not to approach them for dates. You were responding to a post by Justforfun000 in which he was talking about the same fucking thing. Don't pretend you were just talking about the use of certain words, asshat.

His post came straight after mine, the opening phrases seem to be addressing what I addressed. Only after the fact did I realise that he might have not been addressing that point whatsoever. If so, you have my apologies for an honest mistake made. I am clearly not disagreeing with the point you made, and I thought I made that pretty clear even in the first response.

I assure you, I am not pretending anything. Any wires crossed are entirely genuine.

Then why the fuck did you respond to Justforfun000's statement about "personal sexual preference" by saying "I'd not even class it as racism"? Does the left side of your brain even know what the fucking right side is saying?

Because I thought when he said

"Well as far as I'm concerned, the term itself may include all those little examples of personal preference, but it isn't deserving of a negative connotation.

In those cases the action of racism is simply OK. It's not a type of racism that deserves censure."

Given the post I had just made, I automatically presumed he was talking of the words and phrases, which can be said as personal preferences, that I was talking about. I felt he was saying those things I were talking about were minor racist statements. It is now abundantly clear that he was almost certainly refering to an earlier point you had made. The mistake was honest, however, and it seemed fairly logical at the time of writing. Since you seemed to indicate I had not, at any time, tried to prove my assertion I was further egged on to presume it was relating to the points I had made myself.

Here's a hint: read what the fuck you're responding to, rather than firing off cookie-cutter responses without bothering to see whether they even apply.

Cookie cutter? I felt it was a rather direct way of addressing what I felt was the point in question. It seemed to be the same conversation, and not entirely about the subject of sexual preference in race. As I say, you have my absolute apologies for making the mistake. There was no duplicitous intent involved, just a perhaps over-zealous defence of my own opinions.

[Spyder]

I think the Asian countries are socially backward. Does this make me a racist who dislikes Asians? With a surname like "Wong"?

As an interesting yet totally irrelevant note. One of the guys I used to work with was from Singapore, he couldn't stand other Asians for all the stereotypical reasons. Oddly enough it turned out he was an overstayer and wasn't allowed back into the country after he returned home for a funeral.

[Predator]

I tend to prefer smaller noses to broad ones. Doesnt mean a broad nosed lady cant be attractive, some faces can make it work.

Now, I have problems with the claim that my preference is racist, which is what some would argue it is, against people of african descent - I read a similar thread in the past. One being that I do find many women of african descent attractive - including those who arent "half caste" - and even some who have broad noses, which I dont prefer, but usually those who dont happen to have broad noses. I also find many women not of african descent, especially but not limited to those with broad noses, less attractive. I dont view it as a matter of race, I view it as a matter of nose. Call me noseist, or rhinoist, or - I cant imagine what the term would be.

Another problem I have is that it requires that in order for my preference to be classified as racist, we have to divide women up into race and make generalisations about noses according to race in order to do so. To claim I'm racist in my preference, you must claim that black people tend to have broad noses. That may seem a relatively harmless generalisation, but it's a racial generalisation nonetheless, and I think that in the spirit of race blindness and judging people as individuals, on their merits or individual attributes, we shouldnt be making generalisations about races unless absolutely necessary -and it rarely is - even if we can carry out studies and find correlations and averages and so forth.

If somebody does generate statistics on nose broadness by race however, and perhaps combines them with statistics on another of my preferences - straight or wavy hair as opposed to curly - they will probably be able to show that I find a smaller proportion of women of african descent preferable compared to women of some other races, and this will be the basis of their claim that I have racist preferences. All I can say is, I am not the one who is bringing up the issue of race and who wants to frame this in terms of race and racial generalisations.

All this said, if someone with similar preferences to myself used their perceptions of general trends within races to claim that they're "not attracted to black women" or somesuch, then I think they are being racist. They're transforming their preferences towards individuals into a group judgement.

Finally, I'm not going to claim that judging people based on some random aesthetic attribute is morally acceptable. Not allowing people with black curly hair into a restaurant is equally unacceptale as not allowing black people - though not because black curly hair is probably most highly correlated with black people, but because posession of black curly hair regardless of your race is not a morally relevant characteristic upon which to treat someone differently.

The problem is, what my dick responds most vigorously isnt morally defined. And we no doubt come back to the heterosexual = sexist example. In the end, yes our sexual preferences are discriminatory, but it may seem like quibbling over a detail, I would claim that my preferences are not racist, but are noseist, hairist, for that matter sizeist, and various other technically incorrect terms I'm not going to bother to invent. I dont accept that my attitude towards a certain attribute, if that attribute happens to correlate more highly with some race, makes me racist against members of that race, even if such an attitude is not morally superior to a racist preference.

Sexist on the other hand, I will readily admit to - the complete package of attributes necessary to find someone attractive are found *only* in females, and not in *any* males, even post-op transexuals. I pursue females, exclusively, with extreme prejudice

[HemlockGrey]

One of the guys I used to work with was from Singapore, he couldn't stand other Asians for all the stereotypical reasons.

I've noticed there's a lot of racism even in the more developed Asian countries against other Asian nations.

[Darth Wong]

One of the guys I used to work with was from Singapore, he couldn't stand other Asians for all the stereotypical reasons.

I've noticed there's a lot of racism even in the more developed Asian countries against other Asian nations.

I'm not sure why that should come as a surprise. Look at the history of intra-European ethnic hatreds.

As for the various people who keep trying to defend the morality of racially correlated preferences, three points:

1. It's still racism. You can say it's not as immoral as job discrimination, but it is discrimination nonetheless.
2. Frankly, separating characteristics of a race from the race itself for the purposes of saying it's not racism is nothing more than rhetorical bullfuckery. And in fact, numerous courts have ruled repeatedly that you can't use that kind of logic to escape the charge of racism, for obvious reasons: every fucking racist will do it. What's to stop someone from simply saying that he only likes people with white skin, blue eyes, and blonde hair, while pretending that this has nothing to do with race?
3. At best, even if we were to accept your defensive nonsense, you are only revealing that you are an extremely superficial prick by professing such a narrow range of preferences in a partner. It's no better than assholes who dismiss a girl as undesirable because her tits aren't big enough. So these persistent attempts to turn this into a debate about the morality of the issue are a non-starter; you could be 100% telling the truth and it would still reflect badly on your character.

[His Divine Shadow]

I'm dating an oriental woman, oriental sounds pretty and oriental looks are pretty I think, thats actually racist you know, better go down my klan outfit I 'spose.

[WyrdNyrd]

I think, thats actually racist you know, better go down my klan outfit I 'spose.

Black/white fallacy (no pun intended). I think that's Mike's point: It is racist, but it's quite low-damage, as racism goes.

It seems a lot of people abuse the absolutism inherent in racism debates. They will label someone as "racist", using the most broad possible definition of the word, knowing that people will just here the word "racist", not pay attention to the definition used, and assume the worst of the person so labelled.

For example:

Joe: Jack is racist!
Joe: Jack is white, and only dates white girls.
Public (thinks): Jack hates blacks!

Anyway, we are all racist, it's just the degree that varies. And the degree to which we try to overcome our baser instincts.

[Edi]

I don't get most of you people at all. What the hell is so difficult admitting that preferences, sexual or otherwise, if based on something like skin color etc, are racist in nature?

Racism is just one form of xenophobia, and usually something that we have to learn by choice or be indoctrinated with, and I suppose it's hard for people to admit to having prejudices that would tarnish their image of themselves. It's not a nice thing to discover those prejudices in oneself if they are not rational, but if one refuses to see them, they will come back and bite you in the ass some day.

Predator was about the only one who made a coherent argument that addressed the issue of preferences. Many people here have gone on about how they find this or that ethnicity sexually attractive or not attractive. When I look at a woman of any race or natonality, I see her as a woman first, the race is not an issue at all. Whether or not she is attractive to me depends on other things. And while I might have some inclination toward finding certain types of features (e.g. full breasts) more attractive than others (e.g. very small breasts), it does not mean that I consider the latter unattractive at all. It's the whole package that counts and does the trick.

Stereotyping and categorizing by hasty generalization is just another method of making simplistic arguments sound nicer and to dismiss problems without even trying to address them. It helps keep up the walls of those little enclaves of xenophobia, but that's about all that it is useful for, at least in a discussion of racism.

Edi

[His Divine Shadow]

I think, thats actually racist you know, better go down my klan outfit I 'spose.

Black/white fallacy (no pun intended). I think that's Mike's point: It is racist, but it's quite low-damage, as racism goes.

I'm joking, chill.

[Hokalus]

I don't get most of you people at all. What the hell is so difficult admitting that preferences, sexual or otherwise, if based on something like skin color etc, are racist in nature?

I agree that it is racist to find one colour of skin more attractive than another, but the same applies to hair / eye colour, breast size, and any other physical preference we have when looking for a mate. It is all discrimination, and we all do it to some degree. That said, someone who refuses to go out with someone simply because of the colour of skin/eyes/hair, or whetever are shallow morons who should be mocked.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

On the other hand, a woman's bodyfat ratio (and thus breast size) and hips size are both indicators of fertility. It is rational to try to find the most fertile woman if one is looking to procreate, so I don't think that looking for such a preference makes one discriminatory in a bad way. They are not discriminating for irrational reasons.

Similarly, women ovger 80 are less likely to be fertile than women of your age. How many octogenarians have you dated? None? You racist bastard.

[Darth Wong]

On the other hand, a woman's bodyfat ratio (and thus breast size) and hips size are both indicators of fertility.

Hip size is, but breast size is not. There are plenty of women who are in good shape and quite fertile but don't have large breasts. That's just a nice-sounding reason guys slap on top of being shallow assholes.

Similarly, women ovger 80 are less likely to be fertile than women of your age. How many octogenarians have you dated? None? You racist bastard.

Were you born this stupid, or do you inhale paint thinners in your spare time? That would make you ageist, not racist, and yes, I admit to being ageist. Besides, what moron would marry someone who's going to die in the next ten years, if he's got another 50 years to go? Got any other dumb-shit arguments to throw my way?

[Kamakazie Sith]

I don't get most of you people at all. What the hell is so difficult admitting that preferences, sexual or otherwise, if based on something like skin color etc, are racist in nature?

Because people don't like being thrown into a group that contains groups like the KKK, Nazis, and Aryan Nation. Is that really that difficult to understand?

I for one wouldn't want to be considered in the same group with those assholes just because I have a preference for a certain type of girl.