So how racist are the people around you?

[Darth Wong]

DW, on your comment about the Somalians (I am asking, I am not challenging anything here, I want to know an honest opinion. I am not going to debate the answer) Could the same logic be applied to the WWII Japanese intrenment camps. I have often argued (on the loosing end) the case that the "Japanese" are not a race, but of a nationalist fear. Not that this did or did not justify what happened.

It would only apply if those people had recently come from Japan. But even people who had been here for generations were caught up in that sweep, so it was clearly racist. And why weren't people of German and Italian descent also taken away?

[LordShaithis]

...according to an ultra-literal take on the dictionary definition of racism...

...an ultra-literal take on the dictionary...

ultra-literal

[Darth Wong]

HEY FUCKHEAD, I DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK WHETHER YOU CALL IT ULTRA-LIBERAL OR ULTRA-LITERAL; EITHER WAY YOU OBVIOUSLY DISAGREE WITH IT, AND ULTRA-LITERAL IS JUST AS FUCKING STUPID AS ULTRA-LIBERAL BECAUSE IT'S STILL JUST A LABEL AND A TOTALLY WRONG ONE; THE DICTIONARY IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ALLEGORICAL. THE IDEA OF NOT TAKING IT LITERALLY IS ABSOLUTELY IDIOTIC, AS ARE YOU.

One more time: is it your fervent wish to get banned tonight?

[Sam Or I]

DW, on your comment about the Somalians (I am asking, I am not challenging anything here, I want to know an honest opinion. I am not going to debate the answer) Could the same logic be applied to the WWII Japanese intrenment camps. I have often argued (on the loosing end) the case that the "Japanese" are not a race, but of a nationalist fear. Not that this did or did not justify what happened.

It would only apply if those people had recently come from Japan. But even people who had been here for generations were caught up in that sweep, so it was clearly racist. And why weren't people of German and Italian descent also taken away?

I see the point. Thank you for your answer..

BTW, there were German and Italian internment camps, but not on the same scale. (A relative of german decent was actual in one, thats why I often argue the point.)

[LordShaithis]

Actually, I agreed with brianeyci's characterization of dating preferences as "harmless racism" in my next post after the "ultra-literal" one. And then, I referred to those who fight this point with you in every racism thread as "retards". So I don't actually disagree with the dictionary definition.

All I did was point out that it's a form of racism that people don't "give a damn" about. And they don't. It's harmless.

And when this topic comes up, inevitably someone like this turns up and spews out something unintelligible about NASA's hiring practices in an alternate universe, and everyone's eyes bleed.

[Darth Wong]

I don't actually disagree with the dictionary definition.

Rather curious since you say that nobody actually uses it. I would assume that "nobody" excludes you as well.

All I did was point out that it's a form of racism that people don't "give a damn" about. And they don't. It's harmless.

Actually it's not. To cite duty ethics, if everyone thought like that, then there would always be racial segregation; the twain would never mix.

[LordShaithis]

Rather curious since you say that nobody actually uses it. I would assume that "nobody" excludes you as well.

Well, obviously I shouldn't make absolute statements.

But yes, I would say that in the minds of a majority of the population, the word racism refers to the overtly harmful sort. And while it's true that anything which discriminates (even incidentally) against certain races can be called racist, people generally aren't concerned with the forms thereof that don't hurt anyone.

Actually it's not. To cite duty ethics, if everyone thought like that, then there would always be racial segregation; the twain would never mix.

For the sake of clarity, I should point out that I'm referring strictly to a sexual preference for certain physical attributes that incidentally discriminate against particular races. I make no defense of those who won't date someone specifically because of their race.

But as far as this sort of "incidental" racism goes, I would argue that it's harmless in and of itself. Because if it were the only form of racism which existed, it would be utterly irrelevant. If there were no, pardon the expression, "real" racism then the twain could mix as quickly or slowly as it liked and it wouldn't matter.

[Darth Wong]

Well, obviously I shouldn't make absolute statements.

But yes, I would say that in the minds of a majority of the population, the word racism refers to the overtly harmful sort.

You've polled them? In reality, in the minds of the majority of the population, the word "racism" has no real meaning; it's an insult that refers only to Nazis and people who drag black guys behind their pickup trucks. All of the millions of people out there who fear and mistrust blacks or stereotype Jews don't consider themselves racists; I know, after arguing with more of them than I would have liked to ever encounter.

And while it's true that anything which discriminates (even incidentally) against certain races can be called racist, people generally aren't concerned with the forms thereof that don't hurt anyone.

Funny that you entered this thread in order to respond to LT who was using it in precisely the form that you say nobody ever uses it. I think that a lot of people who are very serious about ending racism will view it that way, while a lot of people who think racism is not really a big problem don't.

[LordShaithis]

You've polled them? In reality, in the minds of the majority of the population, the word "racism" has no real meaning; it's an insult that refers only to Nazis and people who drag black guys behind their pickup trucks. All of the millions of people out there who fear and mistrust blacks or stereotype Jews don't consider themselves racists; I know, after arguing with more of them than I would have liked to ever encounter.

It's true that people will take a word with negative meaning and selectively redefine it to the point of idiocy in order to exclude themselves. But a defintion of racism so literal that preferring to date tall women qualifies, while not literally incorrect, is so broad as to be almost useless.

A woman who prefers to date short men does have a preference which would tend to discriminate against black men, even if she herself is black and has only ever dated black men, who happen to be short. This is true. But since it's a preference that is neither malicious nor racially motivated, pointing out that it falls within the bounds of "racism" seems rather... beside the point?

It's not that I think you're wrong when you get onto this topic. I just wonder purpose it serves. By the strictest definition of the word, the entire world is racist and always will be, unless everyone ceases to have any strong preferences in terms of physical attractiveness.

Funny that you entered this thread in order to respond to LT who was using it in precisely the form that you say nobody ever uses it.

Well, LT says she's disinclined towards black men because of some racism that seeped through from her grandmother, who considered such couplings "shameful". That's more along the lines of (again, pardon the expression) "real" racism as opposed to racism of the totally incidental "I like blondes, hey you're right, that doesn't include many Africans" sort.

[Darth Wong]

It's true that people will take a word with negative meaning and selectively redefine it to the point of idiocy in order to exclude themselves. But a defintion of racism so literal that preferring to date tall women qualifies, while not literally incorrect, is so broad as to be almost useless.

That would only be true if tall women were a race.

A woman who prefers to date short men does have a preference which would tend to discriminate against black men, even if she herself is black and has only ever dated black men, who happen to be short. This is true. But since it's a preference that is neither malicious nor racially motivated, pointing out that it falls within the bounds of "racism" seems rather... beside the point?

Since the overlap in height between races is so wide, it's silly to equate height to race in this case.

It's not that I think you're wrong when you get onto this topic. I just wonder purpose it serves. By the strictest definition of the word, the entire world is racist and always will be, unless everyone ceases to have any strong preferences in terms of physical attractiveness.

That's simply false; there are people out there who have no particular tastes which can be strongly correlated to race. People make up rationalizations like yours in order to blur the line between racial preference and non-racial preference.

[LordShaithis]

Ghetto edit:

unless everyone ceases to have any strong preferences in terms of physical attractiveness.

Make that "as long as anyone has almost any preferences whatsoever." If I hate country music, and consider loving country music to be a point against a girl, that probably applies to more white girls than Puerto Ricans or what have you.

[LordShaithis]

Well then, you're not defining it as literally as I (for some reason) thought you would, so I'll bow out. For the record, I do hear "I'm not racist, I just don't find dark skin and curly hair attractive" and pretty much take it for a cop-out.

[brianeyci]

I lurked the last time this happened and don't understand why some people can't get that there is such a thing as harmless racism . Preferring black girlfriends is harmless racism.

Brian

You know this, and I know this. And everytime DW brings it up, there's a six-page flamefest where some retard gets himself banned.

That's because morons keep trying to hijack a definition to be a social equalizer. The retard gets himself banned for saying the exact same thing you said not for saying what I said. There's a reason why I put "ultra-literal" in quotes, there's no such thing as too literal when debating a definition.

And harmless racism is still racism, I don't know why you put it in quotes. Quotes aren't just there to cover your ass if you don't know what it means. Adding an adjective doesn't change the definition of the noun.

Brian

[brianeyci]

Well then, you're not defining it as literally as I (for some reason) thought you would, so I'll bow out. For the record, I do hear "I'm not racist, I just don't find dark skin and curly hair attractive" and pretty much take it for a cop-out.

It is a cop-out, but nobody said that that (you're begging the question) and practically everybody admits to being racist so I don't know your point.

It's good that you quit, but I don't think you get the point yet.

Brian

[brianeyci]

Actually it's not. To cite duty ethics, if everyone thought like that, then there would always be racial segregation; the twain would never mix.

For the record, that's not what I meant when I said harmless racism. Not everybody does think like that though, and it works the other way around... if a black man likes big white hairy cunt that's still racism. But it ends up being harmless racism and good for the gene pool. You've made this point before in other threads.

Brian

[TimothyC]

I'd like to think that I'm not, but I probably am to a certain degree.

In high school there was one black guy in my senior class, and While weren't friends, I never treated him differently than anyone else (not that I treated those who hadn't shown themselves to be intelligent well).

I was accused of being racist once. I was in two week Engineering camp in Clemson South Carolina. A kid from Japan was playing soccer in the hallway and took out the emergancy exit sign. I watched the whole thing happen, and told him that If he didn't go down to the security desk and tell what would happen I would. He later said he thought I was being racist, although the black security guard ended up siding with me.

[Zero]

Even mate-selection being based on race isn't entirely harmless racism. I mean, at first it would seem so, but there are many other actions that our notions of attractive vs. unattractive lead to, such as irrational preference for job selection, and things like that. Although the consequences aren't as readily apparent, you'll still treat people significantly differently based on your notions of attractivity, so you'll still be racist.

That being said, I'm subject to this form of racism. I'm primarily only attracted to lighter-skinned women. It's not something I'm entirely certain how to go about changing, though.

[The Guid]

If you are rationally aware of a bizarre emotional response I daresay that you can just use your reason to check that you are selecting said person for a job for the right reasion.

[Darth Wong]

If you are rationally aware of a bizarre emotional response I daresay that you can just use your reason to check that you are selecting said person for a job for the right reasion.

It also helps to spend time with people of the race in question. I've known some very, very attractive black women (and yes, they have the wide nose and the curly hair; no fucking surgically caucasianized black women here), but I suspect that someone whose impressions of beauty are formed mostly by TV and magazines would have prejudices against those kinds of women until he spends some time in their company. In Hollywood, it's OK to be a black woman as long as you have a white nose and dyed hair.

[The Yosemite Bear]

well sociology trains us to seek out mates that are like our mothers. Psychology refers to this pack instinct as an part of the "Oedipus Complex" however, it's still a social instinct. Now Biology gives us an imperitive to seek out the best possible mate in order to dispurse our own geneome as far and wide as possible. Now can we stop arguing?

[LordShaithis]

Just for my own edification, would someone point out what ethical differences, if any, they perceive between these two scenarios?

A - Jose Hernandez moves from Costa Rica to Chicago, in order to take a new job. In Chicago he meets Mary Jenkins, a caucasian woman of English ancestry. Mary's a good-looking woman with a nice personality, who shares Jose's love of seafood and 17th century French poetry. The two of them fall in love, get married, and have three children.

B - Jose Hernandez moves from Costa Rica to Chicago, in order to take a new job. In Chicago he meets Maria Alvarez, whose parents moved to Chicago from Costa Rica shortly before she was born. Maria's a good-looking woman with a nice personality, who shares Jose's love of seafood and 17th century French poetry. The two of them fall in love, get married, and have three children.

[Surlethe]

Just for my own edification, would someone point out what ethical differences, if any, they perceive between these two scenarios?

A - Jose Hernandez moves from Costa Rica to Chicago, in order to take a new job. In Chicago he meets Mary Jenkins, a caucasian woman of English ancestry. Mary's a good-looking woman with a nice personality, who shares Jose's love of seafood and 17th century French poetry. The two of them fall in love, get married, and have three children.

B - Jose Hernandez moves from Costa Rica to Chicago, in order to take a new job. In Chicago he meets Maria Alvarez, whose parents moved to Chicago from Costa Rica shortly before she was born. Maria's a good-looking woman with a nice personality, who shares Jose's love of seafood and 17th century French poetry. The two of them fall in love, get married, and have three children.

I don't see any ethical difference between the two scenarios, barring any undisclosed information. Since the choice wasn't based on race in either scenario, I'm not sure how somebody could say either option is racist.

[The Yosemite Bear]

my grandparents were very, very rascist, until one aunt of mine brought home a Panther, and another one brought home David Wong (whom she later married)

[LordShaithis]

Race is more of a human psychological construct than a hard scientific biological one. Therefore I tend to think that having existing races intermarry to the point of being physically indistinguishable wouldn't really defeat racism. The Irish are caucasian, after all, but that didn't stop the English from regarding them as savages. Koreans and Japanese are both asian, but they have their own long-standing history of ethnic hatred.

In a society where racist attitudes didn't exist, physical differences wouldn't matter. In a society where racist attitudes prevail, almost any difference is enough to provide an excuse for discrimination.

[SirNitram]

Race is more of a human psychological construct than a hard scientific biological one. Therefore I tend to think that having existing races intermarry to the point of being physically indistinguishable wouldn't really defeat racism. The Irish are caucasian, after all, but that didn't stop the English from regarding them as savages. Koreans and Japanese are both asian, but they have their own long-standing history of ethnic hatred.

In a society where racist attitudes didn't exist, physical differences wouldn't matter. In a society where racist attitudes prevail, almost any difference is enough to provide an excuse for discrimination.

You're confusing Racism and Nationalism, which are seperate things. One is from fear of unknown/different things(Racism), the other is from long held, often completely ridiculous, greivances.