Racism as perceived by ViperOverLord

[ViperOverLord]

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

That's an especially liberal definition of racism. But using that criteria, I would have to say that anyone that denies that affirmative action has caused reverse racism is very racist then.

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.

Applying racism to stamp out racism is counter intuitive and even moronic. Tell a white person that lost a job to less qualified person that affirmative action is not racist. Tell an Asian person that has not been accepted into an educational institution so that less qualified persons could attend it, that affirmative action is not racist.

You presume the worst in Americans. However, most Americans are fair minded and want to hire based on qualifications and not color. So your assumption that affirmative action is needed is quite ignorant.

Furthermore, the prevalence of discrimination suits have made companies/institutions pro actively apply fair standards towards all races else they pay big bucks when they are busted.

Eliminating affirmative action is the last major legal hurdle for us to achieve the most fair system and eliminate systematic racism.

-----

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.

Let me know when you come back to Earth. I have never once said that a person with better qualifications than myself should get a job instead of myself. And this alleged privilege that you claim I have is nothing more than a fairy tale. Due to affirmative action, the black people in my town have more opportunities than I do. It is the attitude of people like yourself that allows for that unfair balance and systematic racism to thrive.

[natty dread]

Applying racism to stamp out racism is counter intuitive and even moronic. Tell a white person that lost a job to less qualified person that affirmative action is not racist. Tell an Asian person that has not been accepted into an educational institution so that less qualified persons could attend it, that affirmative action is not racist.

My my, what fascinating talking points you have. Got any more?

You presume the worst in Americans. However, most Americans are fair minded and want to hire based on qualifications and not color. So your assumption that affirmative action is needed is quite ignorant.

Just because you refuse to see the racism inherent in your society doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In fact by denying the existence of racism you enable it's continuing existence and implicitly support it, which kind of makes you... a RACIST.

Due to affirmative action, the black people in my town have more opportunities than I do.

Of course it probably seems that way to you, seeing as you are a privileged white male. But do you have any evidence for this?

It is the attitude of people like yourself that allows for that unfair balance and systematic racism to thrive.

Right... the only "systematic racism" you see in your society is something that is against White People.

Anything wrong with this picture, folks?

[ViperOverLord]

Applying racism to stamp out racism is counter intuitive and even moronic. Tell a white person that lost a job to less qualified person that affirmative action is not racist. Tell an Asian person that has not been accepted into an educational institution so that less qualified persons could attend it, that affirmative action is not racist.

My my, what fascinating talking points you have. Got any more?

It's not a talking point. There is abundant data showing how affirmative action predictably created racist processes.

You presume the worst in Americans. However, most Americans are fair minded and want to hire based on qualifications and not color. So your assumption that affirmative action is needed is quite ignorant.

Just because you refuse to see the racism inherent in your society doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In fact by denying the existence of racism you enable it's continuing existence and implicitly support it, which kind of makes you... a RACIST.

For the umpteenth time you've restated falsely restated one of my positions. I don't deny that racism exists in America. Do I need to put in caps lock before you'll finally recognize it? Calling me a racist based on your false classification of my position is just sad really.

Due to affirmative action, the black people in my town have more opportunities than I do.

Of course it probably seems that way to you, seeing as you are a privileged white male. But do you have any evidence for this?

If you haven't already examined and acknowledged the abundance of evidence that shows reverse racism from affirmative action policies then you are choosing to ignorantly argue.

[BigBallinStalin]

Are black fraternities racist if they desire to have only black members because they wish to uphold a common culture within their group?

Well, that's a good question and I'd say it depends on their motivations for having such criteria.

How about the motivation to maintain a common culture?

[BigBallinStalin]

[

You presume the worst in Americans. However, most Americans are fair minded and want to hire based on qualifications and not color. So your assumption that affirmative action is needed is quite ignorant.

Furthermore, the prevalence of discrimination suits have made companies/institutions pro actively apply fair standards towards all races else they pay big bucks when they are busted.

Eliminating affirmative action is the last major legal hurdle for us to achieve the most fair system and eliminate systematic racism.

This reminds me:


If a business chooses not to hire a certain group based on their skin color, then that business denies itself access to the skills and knowledge of that particular group. In a competitive environment, the opposition will tend to tap into this group while the prejudiced business loses the value from such opportunities.

An interesting thing about anti-discrimination laws is that they create incentives for business NOT to hire minorities (or protected classes) because if a business fires that protected individual for poor performance, the business stands a good chance of being sued for discrimination. The problem with such cases is that there's a lot of gray area, so it can be difficult (and definitely costly) in defending one's actions in firing someone. The problem with anti-discrimination laws (and affirmative action) is that they can be counter-productive.

[john9blue]

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?

[TheGeneral2112]

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?

THIS!

Motherfucking this.

[thegreekdog]

Are black fraternities racist if they desire to have only black members because they wish to uphold a common culture within their group?

Well, that's a good question and I'd say it depends on their motivations for having such criteria.

I think the answer you're looking for is "yes." Unless of course you are also a racist (in that your definition of racism includes denying that racism exists).

[natty dread]

Are black fraternities racist if they desire to have only black members because they wish to uphold a common culture within their group?

Well, that's a good question and I'd say it depends on their motivations for having such criteria.

I think the answer you're looking for is "yes." Unless of course you are also a racist (in that your definition of racism includes denying that racism exists).

The question is more complex than that.

For example, let's take sexism. Let's say you want to start a strip club that only allows men as patrons. So there would be no women allowed, and that would be sexist.

But then let's say you have a support group for female survivors of domestic abuse, which tries to create a safe environment for women who have had traumatizing experiences of men. And that group has a policy of not allowing men as members or workers. Now, the situation is the same, disallowing entrance from one gender. But since the motivation is different, it's questionable whether you can call it discrimination as such.

See, context matters.

[BigBallinStalin]

Here's context:

The black fraternity wishes to maintain the production of a desired identity within their group. This production process, as they perceive it, only allows for the admittance of blacks because blacks are the only ones who can provide such an identity (reasons may include "shared experiences," or "capability to identify with each other," etc.).

Is that racist?

[thegreekdog]

Are black fraternities racist if they desire to have only black members because they wish to uphold a common culture within their group?

Well, that's a good question and I'd say it depends on their motivations for having such criteria.

I think the answer you're looking for is "yes." Unless of course you are also a racist (in that your definition of racism includes denying that racism exists).

The question is more complex than that.

For example, let's take sexism. Let's say you want to start a strip club that only allows men as patrons. So there would be no women allowed, and that would be sexist.

But then let's say you have a support group for female survivors of domestic abuse, which tries to create a safe environment for women who have had traumatizing experiences of men. And that group has a policy of not allowing men as members or workers. Now, the situation is the same, disallowing entrance from one gender. But since the motivation is different, it's questionable whether you can call it discrimination as such.

See, context matters.

That changes your definition of a couple of pages ago and also puts into context the rest of your posts in this thread. In other words, you're okay with racism as long as it benefits a race that you believe needs to be benefitted. And that means you're also racist. Welcome to the club natty! Or, as you put it, OMG so many racists.

In all seriousness, I truly believe (unlike say yourself or john9blue) that the definition of racism is treating anyone differently because of their race and not limiting the defintion to treating someone worse based upon their race. And I also truly believe that, at least in the United States, a person's opportunities should not be limited solely because of his or her race. I understand that private institutions are constitutionally permitted to discriminate in some instances (for example, an historically black fraternity only allowing black members), but those private institutions are still racist. Is it insidious racism? Probably not.

In sum Natty, I think you're trying to get at the idea that there is both insidious racism and beneficial racism and that you're okay with beneficial racism, but not with insidious racism. And you're accusing others of insidious racism because they don't believe in beneficial racism (like affirmative action). And I think that's a little shitty of you.

[thegreekdog]

Here's context:

The black fraternity wishes to maintain the production of a desired identity within their group. This production process, as they perceive it, only allows for the admittance of blacks because blacks are the only ones who can provide such an identity (reasons may include "shared experiences," or "capability to identify with each other," etc.).

Is that racist?

Yes. The black fraternity is admitting people based entirely upon their skin color. Their "shared experiences" and "capability to identify with each other" are based upon skin color.

[BigBallinStalin]

Are black fraternities racist if they desire to have only black members because they wish to uphold a common culture within their group?

Well, that's a good question and I'd say it depends on their motivations for having such criteria.

I think the answer you're looking for is "yes." Unless of course you are also a racist (in that your definition of racism includes denying that racism exists).

The question is more complex than that.

For example, let's take sexism. Let's say you want to start a strip club that only allows men as patrons. So there would be no women allowed, and that would be sexist.

But then let's say you have a support group for female survivors of domestic abuse, which tries to create a safe environment for women who have had traumatizing experiences of men. And that group has a policy of not allowing men as members or workers. Now, the situation is the same, disallowing entrance from one gender. But since the motivation is different, it's questionable whether you can call it discrimination as such.

See, context matters.

The latter is still discrimination, but the reasons for discrimination would be deemed appropriate by most.

I'd say the former is disagreeable, but that's their decision and their property. If you want to open a can of worms, that club's practices should not be prevented through the state. If you don't like it, don't support it. But at least everyone knows on the block that it's a sexist (and violent) organization.

[BigBallinStalin]

Here's context:

The black fraternity wishes to maintain the production of a desired identity within their group. This production process, as they perceive it, only allows for the admittance of blacks because blacks are the only ones who can provide such an identity (reasons may include "shared experiences," or "capability to identify with each other," etc.).

Is that racist?

Yes. The black fraternity is admitting people based entirely upon their skin color. Their "shared experiences" and "capability to identify with each other" are based upon skin color.

That's what I'm saying.

But I balk at the point where people demand that such racist practices end (by means of state intervention).

I don't presume to know what's best for "society" or for any particular group of people in a particular place and time. That kind of knowledge is even beyond the state's means, so when progressives call for state intervention, they ride on this dangerous road, inundated with presumption. They can't see the road, so they're uncertain as to whether they're still on the road, or even where that road even leads.

[john9blue]

In all seriousness, I truly believe (unlike say yourself or john9blue) that the definition of racism is treating anyone differently because of their race and not limiting the defintion to treating someone worse based upon their race.

when did i ever say this? your posts in this thread are surprising to me; you are usually more rational than this

[natty dread]

Here's context:

The black fraternity wishes to maintain the production of a desired identity within their group. This production process, as they perceive it, only allows for the admittance of blacks because blacks are the only ones who can provide such an identity (reasons may include "shared experiences," or "capability to identify with each other," etc.).

Is that racist?

Well, that depends. 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?

If they would, then it wouldn't be racist.

[thegreekdog]

In all seriousness, I truly believe (unlike say yourself or john9blue) that the definition of racism is treating anyone differently because of their race and not limiting the defintion to treating someone worse based upon their race.

when did i ever say this? your posts in this thread are surprising to me; you are usually more rational than this

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. Finally, there was this:

but individuals should be free to form their own opinions and attitudes about race/gender/ass-hairiness/whatever the hell they want, based on science or anything else that they want to believe.

And I agree that people should be free to form their own opinions and attitudes based on a particular race. But if they do, if they classify an individual based upon whatever scientific evidence or statistical data they find because of that person's race, the classifier is racist.

[thegreekdog]

Here's context:

The black fraternity wishes to maintain the production of a desired identity within their group. This production process, as they perceive it, only allows for the admittance of blacks because blacks are the only ones who can provide such an identity (reasons may include "shared experiences," or "capability to identify with each other," etc.).

Is that racist?

Well, that depends. 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?

If they would, then it wouldn't be racist.

See bold above. So, there is a black culture? I would classify that statement as racist.

[john9blue]

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.

[thegreekdog]

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.

[BigBallinStalin]

Here's context:

The black fraternity wishes to maintain the production of a desired identity within their group. This production process, as they perceive it, only allows for the admittance of blacks because blacks are the only ones who can provide such an identity (reasons may include "shared experiences," or "capability to identify with each other," etc.).

Is that racist?

Well, that depends. 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?

If they would, then it wouldn't be racist.

They might make an exception.

Aside from particular exceptions such as that, is it racist for other cases?

[Woodruff]

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

That's tremendously vague and thus illogical.

[Woodruff]

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

That's an especially liberal definition of racism. But using that criteria, I would have to say that anyone that denies that affirmative action has caused reverse racism is very racist then.

Affirmative action isn't reverse racism. Reverse racism doesn't exist. It is either just plain old racism or it is not.

[Woodruff]

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.

The idea that every white person is in fact in a superior position to every black person is explicitly racism. And irrational.

[Dukasaur]

Are black fraternities racist if they desire to have only black members because they wish to uphold a common culture within their group?

Well, that's a good question and I'd say it depends on their motivations for having such criteria.

I think the answer you're looking for is "yes." Unless of course you are also a racist (in that your definition of racism includes denying that racism exists).

The question is more complex than that.

For example, let's take sexism. Let's say you want to start a strip club that only allows men as patrons. So there would be no women allowed, and that would be sexist.

But then let's say you have a support group for female survivors of domestic abuse, which tries to create a safe environment for women who have had traumatizing experiences of men. And that group has a policy of not allowing men as members or workers. Now, the situation is the same, disallowing entrance from one gender. But since the motivation is different, it's questionable whether you can call it discrimination as such.

See, context matters.

This is hypocrisy, pure and simple. Either it's okay to have boundaries, or it isn't. Either you're allowed to have exclusive clubs, or you're not. Prying into your mind to see if your motivation for having an exclusive club is pure at heart would be totalitarian even if it were possible.