Racism as perceived by ViperOverLord

[patches70]

if you think of people of other races as being another category of people than you, then you're a racist, plain and simple.

Oh, and only a Sith-Lord deals in absolutes. Go out and travel the world and get some perspective.

As if a human being has any choice other than to categorize people and things. That's what our brains do all the time and we just can't help it. It's how our minds work.

[Phatscotty]

Like I keep reminding foreigners who are experts on America. Racism is a human problem.
America is just the country best at dealing with it.

[natty dread]

America is just the country best at dealing with it.

Wow Scotty, an image featuring an American Flag that fits in my monitor? Are you... feeling well?

Anywho... check out what I found:

http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/od ... tern-world

And the most prejudiced country? Drumroll please...

Northern Ireland with an estimated 44 percent of its population saying they wouldn't want to live next to one of the above five groups took the top "prize." Breathing down it's neck was Greece with 43.2 percent and at 37.6 percent Italy rounded out the top three.

The least bigoted nations were dominated by Scandinavian countries: Sweden (13.4%), the Netherlands (17.2%), Iceland (18.4%), Canada (21.5%), Denmark (21.9%).

(Germany joins the ranks of the most bigoted nations using an alternative measure based on how strong bigoted feelings were among those who had them, the researchers found.)

The United States was estimated to have a 30.4 percent level of bigotry.

So... it looks like the US is by far not the least racist country in the world. It's not the most either, if that's any consolation.

[Neoteny]

But... we have a basketball team that doesn't match our population percentages... wait...

At any rate, we have awesome basketball teams.

[john9blue]

patches, it sounds like the person you linked to took great care to provide a definition of racism that would exclude instances such as the black girl who would not date outside her own race. just because someone's gut tells them that something that is acceptable in society MUST NOT BE RACIST doesn't mean that they can change the definition of a word to fit their beliefs.

sexism, for example, does not require the sexist to think that their gender ought to "dominate" the other gender. if i think that all women are stupid, then that's sexist regardless of what my political beliefs are. same with racism.

America is just the country best at dealing with it.

Wow Scotty, an image featuring an American Flag that fits in my monitor? Are you... feeling well?

Anywho... check out what I found:

http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/od ... tern-world

i take issue with the questions asked in this poll. it served only to identify the country with the most hatred of jews and muslims, and perhaps the country with the largest immigration problems. it did not serve to identify the most bigoted country.

not to mention the notion that one ethnic group is inherently less racist than another (which the blog seemed to be implying about scandinavian people) is itself racist.

[thegreekdog]

America is just the country best at dealing with it.

Wow Scotty, an image featuring an American Flag that fits in my monitor? Are you... feeling well?

Anywho... check out what I found:

http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/od ... tern-world

And the most prejudiced country? Drumroll please...

Northern Ireland with an estimated 44 percent of its population saying they wouldn't want to live next to one of the above five groups took the top "prize." Breathing down it's neck was Greece with 43.2 percent and at 37.6 percent Italy rounded out the top three.

The least bigoted nations were dominated by Scandinavian countries: Sweden (13.4%), the Netherlands (17.2%), Iceland (18.4%), Canada (21.5%), Denmark (21.9%).

(Germany joins the ranks of the most bigoted nations using an alternative measure based on how strong bigoted feelings were among those who had them, the researchers found.)

The United States was estimated to have a 30.4 percent level of bigotry.

So... it looks like the US is by far not the least racist country in the world. It's not the most either, if that's any consolation.

I don't think this poll has to do with racism.

"which asked respondents how they would feel about living next to: People of different ethnicities, Muslims, Jews, immigrants or foreign workers, and homosexuals."

I don't see the word "race" on that list.

So maybe your concluding sentence should be "So... it looks like the US is by far not the least bigoted country in the world."

Other problems with the poll:

- The survey took place in 1999-2000 (over a decade ago).
- There is no indication of the number of the people living in said countries who have different ethnicities, religions, etc. (I can't imagine there are a lot of foreign workers or Muslims in Sweden, for example, but maybe I'm wrong).
- Greeks don't like Turks and Turks don't like Greeks.
- The poll only includes western nations. Why is that? I feel like I want to see all nations represented just to get a feel for Natty's conclusion that white people racism is worse because white people are in power.

[Neoteny]

Tbh john, your contributions to this thread are the best you've put forward in a while.

I sorta like how patches thinks a possible biological imperative somehow morally justifies a prejudice.

[patches70]

patches, it sounds like the person you linked to took great care to provide a definition of racism that would exclude instances such as the black girl who would not date outside her own race. just because someone's gut tells them that something that is acceptable in society MUST NOT BE RACIST doesn't mean that they can change the definition of a word to fit their beliefs.

The black girl who would not date outside her race (or a white girl for that matter) is not racist.

The definition of racism-

a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

Having a preference for a race or ethnicity in regards to sexual preferences is not racist. Homosexuals prefer members of the same gender, does that make them racist because they won't date members of the opposite sex that happen to be of a different ethnicity? Of course not. It's a preference.

There is nothing racist about the desire to preserve one's cultural and ethnic heritage either. It's prejudice probably, biased certainly, but it isn't racist. There is plenty of room in the world for all ethnicity and cultures. If individuals want to gather and congregate within their own particular ethnic niche then so be it. If others wish to branch out that's fine as well. There is no right or wrong, it just is what it is. Individual choice.

Now if we go around telling the Asian (or black, white, Jew, Yellow, Purple, Green) family that wanting their sons and daughters to marry within the Asian race and call them racist we just foment hatred. The sons and daughters will make their own choices soon enough. It doesn't help much that instead of using calm reason to inform and address preconceived motions but instead bellow "You Racist!" is contrary to productive. That in itself is as hateful as a typical racist.

A racist on the other hand holds no room in the world for other ethnicity or cultures. It is a gross injustice just lumping prejudice into the same realm as racists.

I sorta like how patches thinks a possible biological imperative somehow morally justifies a prejudice.

Then why don't you read why we are like that.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... yJ06bIWteA

Why don't you have a distinction between prejudice and racism?

Why not go through life and completely ignore any and all preconceived notions you have about everything. Like walking out into the street without looking or considering that any driver that might be there just might not see you.

When a big ass pit bull is charging straight at you just go ahead and assume it isn't going to bite the shit out of you and maul your ass and instead think- "Oh, look, the little puppy dog wants to say hi!"

When going through seedy neighborhoods go ahead and let go of all prejudice and flash a bunch of cash around. Surely no one would rob you or worse, right?

That's how prejudice benefits us. That's how it keeps us safe. By making judgments on situations and people based on incomplete information. We do it every god damn day of our lives. Sometimes it's good for us. Sometimes it just isn't rational. Either way, it's part of the human mind and there is nothing you rabid haters can do to change that.

[Neoteny]

I'll keep that in mind the next time I eat 10000 calories in a day. It's a natural thing, so it can't ever be bad or go awry.

[pimpdave]

You're in for a bellyache there buster!

[natty dread]

Patches, you're a racist.

[Neoteny]

Possibly the most racist person in this thread.

[patches70]

Patches, you're a racist.

Possibly the most racist person in this thread.

And therein is the source of the OP and why the cries of racism are so often met with yawns and eye rolls.

Never once have I endorsed one ethnicity over another. Not once have I even implied that one ethnicity is any different from any other. Yet you call me a racist.

You both so surely believe that even though you have zero evidence other than I don't happen to agree with your definitions of racism. That is my only sin in this thread, that I don't quite agree whole heartily with your views.

And I'm the intolerant racist.

You betray yourselves for what you are. Narrow minded and shallow human beings that presume to be able to judge over others based on their thoughts. You deny your own prejudices. You make assumption based on incomplete information and say you are not racists even though your assumptions prove you to be prejudiced and thus, by your own definitions, racist.

Hypocrites.

[Aradhus]

Do you hear what I hear? A baby cry. Where we finding baby there are milk nearby. If we look in baby buggy there could be, plenty milk for you and also some for me.

[john9blue]

gotta love those one-line posts that commit like 3 fallacies at once.

[natty dread]

Hey John, guess what?

You're a racist.

[BigBallinStalin]

Natty, it saddens me to say this, but...

You're a racist.

[Symmetry]

Hmm, just read this piece linking to a Public Policy Polling article survey of Republican Primary voters in SC.

Link

Q23 Do you think that interracial marriage should be
legal or illegal?
Legal............................................................... 66%
Illegal .............................................................. 20%
Not sure .......................................................... 14%

A fifth say no? And a full third are either against or are unsure?

Now I get why conservatives are annoyed by the accusations about racism- it's an easy attack to make from the other side of the partisan divide, and it's a little bit lazy. What I don't get is the kind of mindset that can acknowledge this kind of stuff and say that it's just what needs to be said in order to gain votes for a conservative candidate, or that it doesn't have any real influence, or the weird idea that somehow there's an exactly equal balance of racism on the other side and the word is just thrown around like a ball between the two sides until one drops it.

But yeah, if you don't think racism is a problem in the US, and have voted so in this poll, what's up with South Carolina Republicans?

[patches70]

But yeah, if you don't think racism is a problem in the US, and have voted so in this poll, what's up with South Carolina Republicans?

They picked Newt Gingrich for the Republican candidate for President. 'Nuff said.....

[Symmetry]

But yeah, if you don't think racism is a problem in the US, and have voted so in this poll, what's up with South Carolina Republicans?

They picked Newt Gingrich for the Republican candidate for President. 'Nuff said.....

Fair enough. That poll was still kind of a surprise though. As was finding this-

In 1967, 17 Southern states (all the former slave states plus Oklahoma) still enforced laws prohibiting marriage between whites and non-whites. Maryland repealed its law in response to the start of the proceedings at the Supreme Court. After the ruling of the Supreme Court, the remaining laws were no longer in effect.

Nonetheless, it took South Carolina until 1998 and Alabama until 2000 to officially amend their states' constitutions to remove language prohibiting miscegenation. In the respective referendums, 62% of voters in South Carolina and 59% of voters in Alabama voted to remove these laws.[26]

In 2009, Keith Bardwell, a justice of the peace in Robert, Louisiana, refused to officiate a civil wedding for an interracial couple. A nearby justice of the peace, on Bardwell's referral, officiated the wedding; the interracial couple sued Keith Bardwell and his wife Beth Bardwell in federal court.[27] After facing wide criticism for his actions, including from Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, Bardwell resigned on November 3, 2009.[28] See 2009 Louisiana interracial marriage incident.

Link

These being laws that could not be enforced, but were still in state law. The percentage of voters who voted against taking away that language...

Still a problem.

[patches70]

These being laws that could not be enforced, but were still in state law. The percentage of voters who voted against taking away that language...

Still a problem.

Man, the US has lots of laws still on the books that are never enforced. In my town it is technically illegal to drive your car with the head lights on during the day because it scares the horses. LOL, strange but true.

[Symmetry]

These being laws that could not be enforced, but were still in state law. The percentage of voters who voted against taking away that language...

Still a problem.

Man, the US has lots of laws still on the books that are never enforced. In my town it is technically illegal to drive your car with the head lights on during the day because it scares the horses. LOL, strange but true.

Yeah, but how many people would vote against taking that law off the books? That was kind of my point. It's not the stupidity of the law that's the problem, but that so many people supported it.

[patches70]

These being laws that could not be enforced, but were still in state law. The percentage of voters who voted against taking away that language...

Still a problem.

Man, the US has lots of laws still on the books that are never enforced. In my town it is technically illegal to drive your car with the head lights on during the day because it scares the horses. LOL, strange but true.

Yeah, but how many people would vote against taking that law off the books? That was kind of my point. It's not the stupidity of the law that's the problem, but that so many people supported it.

Consider, voter participation is usually around 30%. So, out of the 100% of people who could have voted, maybe only 30% choose to. Out of those 30%, 66% and 59% respectively voted to get rid of the law in the two aforementioned States. Are you thinking that 38% of the entire state population of SC and 41% of the entire population of Alabama are some sort of racists even though you have no idea of what percentage of the population even voted?

It's just not as many people as you may be thinking based on those numbers is all I'm saying. 100% of the populations of the states didn't vote, sir.

[BigBallinStalin]

But yeah, if you don't think racism is a problem in the US, and have voted so in this poll, what's up with South Carolina Republicans?

They picked Newt Gingrich for the Republican candidate for President. 'Nuff said.....

Fair enough. That poll was still kind of a surprise though. As was finding this-

In 1967, 17 Southern states (all the former slave states plus Oklahoma) still enforced laws prohibiting marriage between whites and non-whites. Maryland repealed its law in response to the start of the proceedings at the Supreme Court. After the ruling of the Supreme Court, the remaining laws were no longer in effect.

Nonetheless, it took South Carolina until 1998 and Alabama until 2000 to officially amend their states' constitutions to remove language prohibiting miscegenation. In the respective referendums, 62% of voters in South Carolina and 59% of voters in Alabama voted to remove these laws.[26]

In 2009, Keith Bardwell, a justice of the peace in Robert, Louisiana, refused to officiate a civil wedding for an interracial couple. A nearby justice of the peace, on Bardwell's referral, officiated the wedding; the interracial couple sued Keith Bardwell and his wife Beth Bardwell in federal court.[27] After facing wide criticism for his actions, including from Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, Bardwell resigned on November 3, 2009.[28] See 2009 Louisiana interracial marriage incident.

Link

These being laws that could not be enforced, but were still in state law. The percentage of voters who voted against taking away that language...

Still a problem.

Do legislators and courts perfectly reflect the people's preferences?

[Symmetry]

These being laws that could not be enforced, but were still in state law. The percentage of voters who voted against taking away that language...

Still a problem.

Man, the US has lots of laws still on the books that are never enforced. In my town it is technically illegal to drive your car with the head lights on during the day because it scares the horses. LOL, strange but true.

Yeah, but how many people would vote against taking that law off the books? That was kind of my point. It's not the stupidity of the law that's the problem, but that so many people supported it.

Consider, voter participation is usually around 30%. So, out of the 100% of people who could have voted, maybe only 30% choose to. Out of those 30%, 66% and 59% respectively voted to get rid of the law in the two aforementioned States. Are you thinking that 38% of the entire state population of SC and 41% of the entire population of Alabama are some sort of racists even though you have no idea of what percentage of the population even voted?

It's just not as many people as you may be thinking based on those numbers is all I'm saying. 100% of the populations of the states didn't vote, sir.

Bit of a surprising response this, but no I do not think that, or indeed say that at all. Nor did the sources that backed up what I did say, say anything like that. Still, I appreciate your incredulity at the point I didn't make.

Can I see your sources now? Or were you simply misrepresenting my point on a whim?