Racism as perceived by ViperOverLord

[BigBallinStalin]

You're being awfully vague and not at all rational. Or maybe I'm just misreading your posts. You have not defined racism, for example. You keep telling Natty to look at the statistics that I provide, but you're not indicating why you want him to look at them. Maybe I'm assuming too much, but it appears that you think these statistics back up the presumption that race, not something else, is justification for NYPD activities or blanket assumptions about a certain race.

your definition is correct IMO.

your statistics (indicating that blacks are more likely to commit crimes) DO justify blanket assumptions about a certain race by the NYPD. if a police officer arrives at a crime scene and sees two potential suspects fleeing in opposite directions (one white and one black), it is both racist and completely logical for him to chase the black one, because the difference between percentage of criminals and percentage of overall population for african-americans is statistically significant. in my scenario, being a racist leads to a higher chance of catching the criminal.

even if there is nothing about being black that inherently makes one more likely to commit a crime (the higher percentage of black criminals being explainable by socioeconomic factors or the like), being a racist is STILL justified. the cause of the statistical difference doesn't matter at all; the fact that it exists is enough reason to influence one's actions.

people are just too afraid to admit that racism doesn't always have to be a terrible thing, because the word "racist" has highly negative connotations and people are scared of being labeled a bigot. fortunately, i'm one of the most open-minded people i know and it's not a big deal to me if someone online has a false idea about who i am.

I can't find a particular problem with anything you posted here necessarily. However, I would note, again, that the reason the NYPD officer chases the black guy instead of the white guy is not entirely because of skin color. It's because of the context and environment. Specifically, the use of the acronym "NYPD" shows that the context or environment in which a police officer would chase a black suspect instead of a white suspect is in New York City. If you have the same scenario in another city or in another country where statistics, you may have a different result. In sum, it's not merely skin color that causes this particular result. You have skin color + city + crime having just been committed. Those are three factors.

Anyone who downplays the harmful effects of racism is a racist.

In short, racial differences only exist in the imagination of the racist.

By introducing three reasonably defended factors, according to natty_dread, you're racist because the additional two factors would downplay the harmful effects of racism. And you're racist for imagining racial differences. I'm sure you thought of differences among races (whatever those differences may be) at some point in time. For instance, you see a person, you notice that person is "black," so you're a racist, and violent thegreekdog.

[thegreekdog]

As a former TPDS member, it's difficult for me to get away from being violent and/or racist.

[natty dread]

That's tremendously vague and thus illogical.

Thanks, Sheldon.

So, there is a black culture?

Is there? I've never made such a statement, but I'll allow you to expand on that notion if you wish.


Just to make things clear - anyone can be a racist. Black people can be racists, white people can be racists, all people can be racists. People of any race or ethnicity can have prejudices about people of any other race or ethnicity.

However, that still doesn't change the fact that white people are in a more privileged position when it comes to racial discrimination. Even if there are situations where a white person can be discriminated against for being white, it still doesn't change the fact that generally, black people face much more racial discrimination than white people. The same is true for other minorities as well.

[Neoteny]

Your next question will be why is there a higher percentage of poor African Americans than poor white Americans. I don't know the answer. I think the answer has to do with failing public schools in cities (where a higher percentage of African Americans live) and the disintegration of two parent families.

Indeed, you did well, but why did you stop predicting?

I agree our education system is crap. Would your proposed education reform include more spending on education or less?

If the end result is crap, and if you put more money into the production process, would more crap come out?

If the machine is producing crap, you either fix it or toss it and buy a new one. I see your point, but it's not relevant to what I was hoping to get at.

Your next question will be why is there a higher percentage of poor African Americans than poor white Americans. I don't know the answer. I think the answer has to do with failing public schools in cities (where a higher percentage of African Americans live) and the disintegration of two parent families.

Indeed, you did well, but why did you stop predicting?

I agree our education system is crap. Would your proposed education reform include more spending on education or less?

Do black families disintigrate more than white families?

I think I'm almost done with the lazy questions, so bear with me.

I don't like this - I'm usually the one asking questions I already know the answer to.

(1) My proposed education reform may include different spending on education, I'm not sure if it would be increased. On a purely idealist level, I would propose an education plan that eliminates all teachers unions and forces teachers to be classified as professionals. Apart from that I haven't really thought about it much. I think our education system is not necessarily shit (we spend the most per student by far)... I think parental guidance is shit (which is why I talked about two parent families).

(2) I don't know if black families disintegrate more than white families. I suspect there are statistics on this. In any event, there are a lot of reasons why family disintegration (and I might even say, two parent homes where both parents "have" to work) have harmed children. And I think that gets to another problem - the cause of poverty. Why can't a two family home where one person works as a welder and the other stays at home to raise the kids succeed anymore? Is it because our definition of success has changed? Is it because necessities cost more? Is it because we have redefined necessities to include things like cellular phones, flat screen televisions, and personal computers? And lest anyone think otherwise, I'm not suggesting that the woman must stay home.

I'm all over the place now and I can't begin to solve the economic woes of our society in a post on the internet from a guy who barely escaped college with a 3.0 and majored in history. I will say this - President Obama said something in his State of the Union yesterday that was awesome - he wants to make unemployment benefits include reeducation benefits (or retraining benefits). In other words, if you're on unemployment, you can go to school for some reduced cost to learn something new so you can get a job. That, I thought, was a good idea.

I suppose I'll stop with the silly questions and just get to my point, since you people are always so damn reasonable and never say what I want you to say. Where's Phatscotty with an eagle picture when you need him?

If there's one thing I've learned in all these internet discussions is that there is always a severe lack of perspective. We all think what we believe is right, of course, but it takes a higher order of thinking to consider how our opinions sound. And I'm not really talking about tone. At one point, I was sorta gung-ho about Draw Mohammed Day (I was against it and for it and against it again). I was all like "f*ck yeah! You can't tell me what to do!" Some people responded with "dude, you're being a tool." My response to that was "well, yeah, but that's kinda the point."

Someone else asked who I was trying to sell on that point. My speech is protected, most Americans agree I should be able to draw silly pictures to a reasonable extent, and most Muslims are probably just mildly put-off. You're not convincing the group you're targeting, and, indeed, you're only feeding the narrative that the extremists trying to sell: that the west is at war with Islam. Is that effective, and if not, is it worth it? I've decided that the correct answer is to ignore the extremists, because by taking their threats seriously, and engaging them, I am validating and encouraging their behavior. Just sitting back saying "meh, still no god," irritates them enough for my taste (side note: I saw a woman in full cover the other day, all burqaed up; except she was wearing flip flops... the narrative usually goes that the women are shielding [or having it shielded] their sexuality. So what about a dude with a foot fetish? That will be in a Tarantino movie someday, just wait).

So, relavent to this discussion we have a relative wealth disparity. We have a prison disparity. We have an education disparity. What is the perspective of those that live this? It's delineated along racial lines, so... what? The rich white people say we're just lazy. The rich white people say our teachers (what is the racial composition in failing schools?) are not good enough. The rich white people say that our criminals can't be rehabilitated. The rich white people don't want to pay to fix anything, but they'll spend billions to blow people up. That is the narrative we live in, whether any of this perspective is accurate or not. From that perspective, how did we get here? Where does the responsibility lie? Who had a head start? We look to the left, struggling minorities for blocks. Look to the right, the same image. And race is a minor issue?

Anecdote time: I've spent most of my life in the deep south. I was fortunate to have racially aware parents, and an exposure to cultures from my father's military movements (want an interesting experience as a white person? Go to high school in Hawaii.). But it's still ingrained here. Even the normal looking ones that don't drive raised trucks with an archaic battle flag (let's be serious, that's tipping over 30 seconds after shit goes down). I have heard "I don't date blacks" enough to expect it. You'll hear "nigger" in 30 minutes at a frat house enough times to fill a rap album. A woman told me she was buying her daughter a stuffed monkey because she wanted to have a porch monkey. WTF why would you tell me that?

These are all just people saying shit to me. And I'm white. How do these people treat blacks on a day-to-day basis? The opposite of how they talk? These people make up local business. These people make up local government. These people make up local education and parenting. And that's only the racism from white people; there's plenty of it to go around.

Moral of the story: for anyone to say that racism is not a big deal, or is blown out of proportion, you probably need to take that broader perspective. Maybe it's nicer up in Pennsylvania. But it's alive and well in Georgia. And when you have to live it daily, it can be overpowering. I'm just a middle class white dude, and I'm sick of it. Maybe black people are trying to take advantage of the system. But when the system also includes, literally, miles of disparity, it's hard not to think there might be a racial issue.

EDIT: shit, I forgot to throw in the new phrase I've coined; when you throw in PLAYERian discrimination (discrimination via unintended consequences) with more explicit racism, you get all kinds of craziness.

[natty dread]

Neoteny, I agree with everything you say.

[Neoteny]

Neoteny, I agree with everything you say.

I get that a lot.

[thegreekdog]

That was a great post Neoteny and you have some great examples. That being said a couple of nitpicky items:

- I would be much more concerned with the economic divide than the racial divide (and I am). And, as I demonstrated above, although there is a higher percentage of black people that are poor than white people that are poor, there is a WHOLE lot more white people that are poor. Who cares, may be your response. My response would be that we should find solutions for all of the poor people, not just the black ones or the white ones. And those solutions should (should!) be able to be used across racial lines.

- You mention all the racism in the deep south... things like "I don't date blacks" and the Confederate Flag and the "n" word. Honestly? I've heard those things in Pennsylvania too. And that's racism and it sucks. But is it preventing someone who is black in the deep south from doing the things he or she wants to do? I know that question may sound crass, but I don't mean it that way. I mean, people can call me whatever the f*ck they want, but if I can get a good-paying job that's all that matters. Oftentimes, in my limited experience with racial issues (and yes, I've had them), there seems to be too much emphasis on words and less emphasis on actions.

So, I would urge you to take an even broader perspective and I would also urge you to think about the impact of the racism that you witnessed in the deep south and how that affects the population centers of African Americans in the United States. In other words, do you think a black man in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania is concerned about a hick Georgian using the "n" word? Or does he care more about whether he can get a good education and a job? Unfortunately, white people are concerned way more with what people in the deep South say, and that's a problem. I mean, just look at your own post. You asked me some questions regarding improving education, among other things. And I expected you to provide some ways yourself; instead you spent multiple words expressing anecdotal examples of people saying racist things. In other words, you appear to be more concerned with racial language than in what actually affects racial disparities.

[thegreekdog]

Is there? I've never made such a statement, but I'll allow you to expand on that notion if you wish.


Just to make things clear - anyone can be a racist. Black people can be racists, white people can be racists, all people can be racists. People of any race or ethnicity can have prejudices about people of any other race or ethnicity.

However, that still doesn't change the fact that white people are in a more privileged position when it comes to racial discrimination. Even if there are situations where a white person can be discriminated against for being white, it still doesn't change the fact that generally, black people face much more racial discrimination than white people. The same is true for other minorities as well.

You never made a statement that there was a black culture, but the non-black individual was adopted by black parents. You didn't provide an example of a white kid with white parents having the same culture as people at an historically black fraternity. Here is that example again:

Would they admit a person who has white or yellow skin who was adopted and raised by a black family and thus identifies as a part of the same culture, and shares the same cultural experience?

Why did you include the phrase "who was adopted and raised by a black family and thus identifies as part of the same culture"? Please expound on that. What does "thus identifies as part of the same culture" mean, exactly, if it does not mean you think there is a black culture that necessitates a white or yellow person living with a black family? I mean, you made the statement - what do you think you meant by that?

white people are in a more privileged position when it comes to racial discrimination. Even if there are situations where a white person can be discriminated against for being white, it still doesn't change the fact that generally, black people face much more racial discrimination than white people. The same is true for other minorities as well.

I think you meant to include the phrase "In the United States" after all three of those sentences.

[john9blue]

i think it would be nice to agree on a definition of racism so we don't get all kinds of stupid accusations of racism and reverse-racism and explicit racism and implicit racism and whatever the hell other kinds of racism you guys think there are.

i looked up a few definitions and none of them were sufficient IMO. here is why:

a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement

counterexample: "race x is dirtier than race y" has nothing to do with "achievement" but is still racism

a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities

one can be a racist without thinking that it is the primarydeterminant of traits and capacities

the belief that inherent different traits in human racial groups justify discrimination

vague with respect to the word "discrimination"; do they mean actions or merely thought? both meanings have their own problems.

getting common definitions is very important in a debate, and is often the cause of unnecessary disagreement.

that being said, would you care to respond to my old post, natty? someone else wanted to hear the answer as well. you are the one in this thread who is most guilty of changing the definition of racism as you see fit just so you aren't proved wrong.

No, and it's racist of you to say that. You're not a racist, are you?

The whole argument about "reverse racism" is pointless, and is just another way for racists to justify and rationalize their prejudice. If there was no racism against blacks in the first place, and the situation regarding white and black people was equal, then yes, affirmative action would be racist against white people. But since the situation is that black people are discriminated against, any attempt to reduce that discrimination by leveling the playing field is simply a way of combating that discrimination.

It's kind of like when racists rave on about how "if you guys are all about tolerance, then you should be tolerant to our intolerance!" It's another "supposedly clever" thing to say that doesn't make any sense in closer scrutiny.

What you're in fact saying is that you, as a white person, are entitled of being in a superior position to black people, and any attempt to remove that privilege from you counts as discrimination towards you. That in itself is a very racist position to take, since it implicitly supports racism and enables racial discrimination to continue.

hey natty, suppose that the US government gives black people free tuition for all public universities in an effort to address past discrimination. is that racist?

suppose they send each black person $1000 per year in an effort to address past discrimination. is that racist?

how about $5000 per year?

[KoolBak]

Racism in any form sucks ;o(

My biggest problem with ANY social class / race / creed, etc, are fooking white trash that are far and away the worst offenders - typically cranksters / tweakers to boot

Being a honky / gringo....does hating my own = racism?

[Neoteny]

That was a great post Neoteny and you have some great examples. That being said a couple of nitpicky items:

- I would be much more concerned with the economic divide than the racial divide (and I am). And, as I demonstrated above, although there is a higher percentage of black people that are poor than white people that are poor, there is a WHOLE lot more white people that are poor. Who cares, may be your response. My response would be that we should find solutions for all of the poor people, not just the black ones or the white ones. And those solutions should (should!) be able to be used across racial lines.

This is good.

- You mention all the racism in the deep south... things like "I don't date blacks" and the Confederate Flag and the "n" word. Honestly? I've heard those things in Pennsylvania too. And that's racism and it sucks. But is it preventing someone who is black in the deep south from doing the things he or she wants to do? I know that question may sound crass, but I don't mean it that way. I mean, people can call me whatever the f*ck they want, but if I can get a good-paying job that's all that matters. Oftentimes, in my limited experience with racial issues (and yes, I've had them), there seems to be too much emphasis on words and less emphasis on actions.

That may be the case, but my point was less about what they said and more about what that implies about how they treat people. Do you really expect that someone who says these types of things will consider a black applicant and white applicant equally? Do you not think what people say reflects on how they feel, especially when they say it in a situation where they think they're safe?

So, I would urge you to take an even broader perspective and I would also urge you to think about the impact of the racism that you witnessed in the deep south and how that affects the population centers of African Americans in the United States. In other words, do you think a black man in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania is concerned about a hick Georgian using the "n" word? Or does he care more about whether he can get a good education and a job? Unfortunately, white people are concerned way more with what people in the deep South say, and that's a problem. I mean, just look at your own post. You asked me some questions regarding improving education, among other things. And I expected you to provide some ways yourself; instead you spent multiple words expressing anecdotal examples of people saying racist things. In other words, you appear to be more concerned with racial language than in what actually affects racial disparities.

The language is, fortunately for me, all I've experienced (that I know of, perhaps I've gotten a job a black person deserved more). Like I said above, I'm more concerned about the implications of this language than the language itself. The language is only the indicator. Plus, not dating blacks is more than just language, but it's also more personal. Someone that rules out, romantically, an entire race right out of hand is going to treat them as equals in other respects?

[Neoteny]

Also, sorry if I was misleading, but I was hoping to get a gotcha moment, but you are too smart for me/I'm to lazy to press you until you slip up. I really don't have any suggestions for education. That's such a clusterfuck...

[thegreekdog]

That may be the case, but my point was less about what they said and more about what that implies about how they treat people. Do you really expect that someone who says these types of things will consider a black applicant and white applicant equally? Do you not think what people say reflects on how they feel, especially when they say it in a situation where they think they're safe?

The language is, fortunately for me, all I've experienced (that I know of, perhaps I've gotten a job a black person deserved more). Like I said above, I'm more concerned about the implications of this language than the language itself. The language is only the indicator. Plus, not dating blacks is more than just language, but it's also more personal. Someone that rules out, romantically, an entire race right out of hand is going to treat them as equals in other respects?

I consolidated for ease of reference.

Of course I expect someone who thinks or says these things will treat black people worse than white people. But those people are not permitted, by law, to discriminate with respect to things like education and employment, for example. So, like I said, my question is whether those thoughts or phrases affect the day-to-day qualify of life of a black person in a meaningful manner (again, I don't mean to be insensitive here... namecalling and hatred negatively affects quality of life).

But let's get to arguably the more important issue... the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964(?). That is 48 years ago. Any black person born after 1964 has been subject to the same "playing field" as people of every other racial background. Further, some states have instituted affirmative action which has effectively guaranteed educational (or sometimes employment) opportunities for only black people in an effort to further swing the playing field in favor of blacks. Other than the argument that these policies need more time to work (i.e. 48 more years), what accounts for the higher percentage of black people who are impoverished or receive poor education or don't have the same opportunities? Is it racism? Or is it something or some things else? I think it's multiple things, but racism is not one of those things. In other words, I think that any African American who is between the age of 0 and 40 has no basis to point to racism as the sole or main factor as to why he or she has not succeeded.

[thegreekdog]

Also, sorry if I was misleading, but I was hoping to get a gotcha moment, but you are too smart for me/I'm to lazy to press you until you slip up. I really don't have any suggestions for education. That's such a clusterfuck...

Honestly? Maybe you couldn't trip me up because I'm not racist.

[pimpdave]

Black guys have names like Carl and white guys have names like Lenny.

[Neoteny]

I don't think you're racist, greek. But if education was one of the things you wanted to go all Libertarian on, I would have pointed out how that fits into the narrative that blacks are being held back, regardless of if that's the case. That was my central point. The anecdote stuff we're talking about now is sort of tangential.

I consolidated for ease of reference.

Of course I expect someone who thinks or says these things will treat black people worse than white people. But those people are not permitted, by law, to discriminate with respect to things like education and employment, for example. So, like I said, my question is whether those thoughts or phrases affect the day-to-day qualify of life of a black person in a meaningful manner (again, I don't mean to be insensitive here... namecalling and hatred negatively affects quality of life).

But let's get to arguably the more important issue... the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964(?). That is 48 years ago. Any black person born after 1964 has been subject to the same "playing field" as people of every other racial background. Further, some states have instituted affirmative action which has effectively guaranteed educational (or sometimes employment) opportunities for only black people in an effort to further swing the playing field in favor of blacks. Other than the argument that these policies need more time to work (i.e. 48 more years), what accounts for the higher percentage of black people who are impoverished or receive poor education or don't have the same opportunities? Is it racism? Or is it something or some things else? I think it's multiple things, but racism is not one of those things. In other words, I think that any African American who is between the age of 0 and 40 has no basis to point to racism as the sole or main factor as to why he or she has not succeeded.

Greek, wtf. 1) you're not allowed to use the government to support your arguments; liberals only 2) it is, of course, unfair to point to one cause as the defining issue, but racism is so permeating that it can seem suffocating. Suppose you get a job, but are passed over for promotions. Your kids are smart, but politicians seem uninterested in giving them a quality opportunity to look good for higher ed. Anyhow, I'm not trying to convince you that racism is "the" problem. There's plenty of sexism and apathy and greed and other issues. But I don't think racism is overblown, and I do think it's easy to see why people are sensitive about it. Again, the disparity is there, and if it looks like racism, and it quacks like racism...

Anecdote time: on the flip side, I've been called racist. When working with one customer, I've heard mutterings if I let someone else stand unhelped for longer than anyone would like, often because I simply didn't see them. I've also been called racist for adhering to a pricing policy, which was weird. Everyone had to pay that price. So, no, I don't think every declaration of racism is legit. But I can't just dismiss it out of hand when I have seen favoritism and outright discrimination. It happens, despite legislation, and it needs to be taken seriously. Actually, it needs to be taken seriously even if it is overblown.

I do avoid people with babies though. I am a babyist.

[thegreekdog]

Education is probably one of the only things where I'm a complete socialist. I believe taxpayers should fund education directly.

As for the rest...

Unlike prior to 1964, there are ways for people who think they've been discriminated against based on their race to get recompense. If someone does not get a promotion and can prove it was based upon his or her race, that person has a way to be compensated. Further, that potential recompensation is a deterrant for the company or individuals within the company to be racist. Even further, many companies impose their own versions of affirmative action (my firm does for example).

Let's take your education example where you say "Your kids are smart, but politicians seem uninterested in giving them a quality opportunity..." That has virtually nothing to do with racism. Philadelphia has an horrendous school system, yet there are numerous black politicians (more black politicians than white) and a lot of money is spent on public education in Philadelphia. Further, nearly every college or university longs for racial diversity and will assist black, Hispanic, and Asian students in attending. Hell, I was in a program that did this very thing.

Your post is better because at least you're providing non-anecdotal examples. Instead you're providing popular examples (e.g. "passed over for promotion because I'm black" or "my school sucks because I'm black"), but, again I think those things fall short (for the reasons above).

I don't recall ever being accused of being racist in real life. I have to think about that.

[natty dread]

We all have some prejudices. Not necessarily racial ones, but some prejudices nonetheless. Things that have just been slipped into our psyche, things we have just never thought to question... I don't think there exists a person who can honestly claim to be free of any and all prejudice.

Personal experiences, anecdotes, confirmation bias all work towards perpetuating these prejudices. It's like our brains are wired towards discriminating against those who we see as different from ourselves in some way...

However, here's the thing: if you constantly claim that you have no prejudices about anything, then you deny the prejudices you have and refuse to see them, thus you are unable to address your prejudices. But if you admit that you're just human, face your flaws and see your own prejudices for what they are, then you can start working towards counteracting those prejudices and trying to change your way of thinking about them.

[thegreekdog]

We all have some prejudices. Not necessarily racial ones, but some prejudices nonetheless. Things that have just been slipped into our psyche, things we have just never thought to question... I don't think there exists a person who can honestly claim to be free of any and all prejudice.

Personal experiences, anecdotes, confirmation bias all work towards perpetuating these prejudices. It's like our brains are wired towards discriminating against those who we see as different from ourselves in some way...

However, here's the thing: if you constantly claim that you have no prejudices about anything, then you deny the prejudices you have and refuse to see them, thus you are unable to address your prejudices. But if you admit that you're just human, face your flaws and see your own prejudices for what they are, then you can start working towards counteracting those prejudices and trying to change your way of thinking about them.

I don't think anyone can disagree with this.

Cue BBS (a/k/a Mr. Devil A. Advocate)

[Woodruff]

Black guys have names like Carl and white guys have names like Lenny.

Squiggy!

[patches70]

We all have some prejudices. Not necessarily racial ones, but some prejudices nonetheless. Things that have just been slipped into our psyche, things we have just never thought to question... I don't think there exists a person who can honestly claim to be free of any and all prejudice.

Personal experiences, anecdotes, confirmation bias all work towards perpetuating these prejudices. It's like our brains are wired towards discriminating against those who we see as different from ourselves in some way...

However, here's the thing: if you constantly claim that you have no prejudices about anything, then you deny the prejudices you have and refuse to see them, thus you are unable to address your prejudices. But if you admit that you're just human, face your flaws and see your own prejudices for what they are, then you can start working towards counteracting those prejudices and trying to change your way of thinking about them.

Prejudice is hard wired into our minds. An evolutionary trait that keeps us safe. For instance, one would be leery, for good reason, of a crack head. Ignore that prejudice and you can find yourself robbed or worse in certain circumstances.

You can no more get rid of your prejudices than you can get rid of your arm. It's built into us. What we can do is not act upon them. Prejudice is not racism and the two should not be interchanged. In some ways prejudice serves individuals well, not so much in other cases.

Racism is a completely different thing. And yes, there is no person who can claim they have no prejudices. Everyone has them. All kinds of prejudices and some of them not even rational.

But prejudice is not racism. It's not even close to the same ballpark. One may be prejudice towards a race but that doesn't mean that individual wishes to enslave, harm or murder said race.

People can make up their own definitions of racism if they want, but treating someone differently because of race isn't necessarily racism or even close to it. We treat different people differently all the time. Like not farting in front of the girl you're on a first date with. Racism is explicitly the belief that one race is not only superior than another, but the former has the right to rule over the latter. A racist views other races as less than human. 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.
Racists are dangerous. That's why not differentiating is so bad.

The example given earlier by a poster saying that a chick who won't date black guys is a racist is ridiculous. Is she a racist? Not from that example, she might be but there isn't enough information. She's obviously prejudice but it's a far leap to a racist. A racist takes prejudice to whole new levels.
If a person is a racist then it is moral to stop their desire to implement their belief. Use the girl for example, since she doesn't want to date black guys, if she is racist then it is moral to stop her from achieving her goal. Would it be moral to force her to date black guys? Of course not, it's her own preference ridiculous as it may seem to another. If she said she was going out to kill those inferior black people you, would it be moral to stop her? Of course it would. From the example given one cannot conclude she is a racist, though she might be there just isn't enough information to make that leap.
In fact, to make that leap without the proper reflection is a prejudice all it's own.
DUCY?

[Neoteny]

Does anyone know of a way I could print that out on toilet paper?

I'll respond to the big kids tomorrow.

Evolutionary trait...

[natty dread]

Does anyone know of a way I could print that out on toilet paper?

Try stuffing some toilet paper in a printer.

Evolutionary trait...

My ass is an evolutionary trait.

[natty dread]

But prejudice is not racism. It's not even close to the same ballpark. One may be prejudice towards a race but that doesn't mean that individual wishes to enslave, harm or murder said race.

What a load of bullshit.

Racial prejudice is racism. If you treat another race different because of their race, if you think of people of other races as being another category of people than you, then you're a racist, plain and simple.

Your straw-definition of a racist is what is dangerous. It gives racists an excuse for their prejudices, an opportunity to validate them - it gives people an excuse to think "well, I may be prejudiced against black people but at least I don't want to enslave or murder them so I'm not a racist".

[patches70]

But prejudice is not racism. It's not even close to the same ballpark. One may be prejudice towards a race but that doesn't mean that individual wishes to enslave, harm or murder said race.

What a load of bullshit.

Racial prejudice is racism. If you treat another race different because of their race, if you think of people of other races as being another category of people than you, then you're a racist, plain and simple.

Your straw-definition of a racist is what is dangerous. It gives racists an excuse for their prejudices, an opportunity to validate them - it gives people an excuse to think "well, I may be prejudiced against black people but at least I don't want to enslave or murder them so I'm not a racist".

Fine, don't take my word for it. Take this guy's, he's a PhD in Ethnic studies-
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... sgGYXpP2gQ

Since you probably won't click on the link or examine anything that may be contrary to your view, here are some spoilers from the PhD in Ethnic studies from the above (emphasis is the author's)-

show

Prejudice is making judgments on situations or people with incomplete information. It's a trait we human beings developed very early on and it kept us alive.

show

The girl in the previous example is not racist because she is making a judgment on her situation (that she'd never date black guys) when she can't possibly know what the future holds for her. Lemme guess, she was a young kid. It's a common prejudice in all ethnicity's to date and marry within one's own race/culture/ethnicity. That in itself doesn't make any of them racist. It's makes them regular old human beings.


The same author also goes into more detail about what racism really is and the difference between a racist and someone who is prejudice.
http://hybridrastamama.blogspot.com/201 ... acist.html

By your definition of racism then this woman Tiffany Ross (an African-American) must also be a racist because she has decided that she will not date or marry outside her race-
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 69nRPHi1mA

Now of course she's not racist. She wants to date exclusively black males then that is her decision and right. No one can force her to do otherwise. Same goes for the white girl.

Was the white girl in the example a racist? Maybe, I don't know. Just because she refuses to date black guys does not mean she is a racist.

You definition of racism should be able to be applied across the board to all races. There is no way you'll say that Tiffany Ross is a racist. Even though she has the exact same attitude as the unnamed white girl in the anecdotal example given previously by another poster.

Prejudice is a natural trait in human beings, a trait we developed very early on in our development. To think it's not is to ignore fact. Unjustified prejudice that is reinforced by others can certainly develop into racism.