I'm not racist, you're the racist!

Author: Double_R

Posts

Total: 33
Topic's author
#1
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,279
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
In a recent thread I took the side of a known woke culture critic being labeled a racist to say that there was no reason to believe he is in fact a racist. In doing so I was myself labeled a 'probable implicit racist'.

The right loves to complain that this is what the left does - when they can't win the argument they just label the opposition a racist, but the right seems to be no different.

In another thread I criticized an obvious example of bigotry. Joe Biden's recent release of migrants included some who had tested positive for COVID19, this has lead to numerous complaints suggesting that this is dangerous and goes to show how little Biden cares about real Americans. These complaints of course come from the same flock who have spent months railing against mask mandates, social distancing measures, and drawing comparisons to the flu implying that COVID is no different. But suddenly, now that brown people from Mexico are carrying it, we're all of a sudden worried about COVID?

When pointing this out did anyone challenge my presumptions? Did anyone ask me to provide evidence that any of the same people took these same two positions? Did anyone make any real effort to defend holding these two positions simultaneously? No. Instead I was, you guessed it... Labeled a racist.

Is this really all we got? Is there a reason why we cannot have a reasonable conversation about what a racist is and what it takes to qualify as one? Is there a reason both sides of this debate seem to think that calling the other side a racist "wins the argument"?
#2
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Double_R
I say 'racist attitudes' because racism is, in the end, a systemic issue not an individualistic approach issue. An individual can be racist in action when being violent, hiring/firing based on race, bullying so on and so forth but in selectively dating on an individual level one can't truly be racist, they can have racist attitudes.

Too many people are concerned with calling people racist, transphobic, homophobic etc. This can be true if that person has genuine authority and/or capacity to influence others and abuses it with a bigoted agenda. On the other hand, if someone merely has an opinion that somewhat is discriminatory but in action isn't really hurting anyone, we need to use the term 'something-ist attitude(s)' to describe their outlook and mentality. This also helps us find middleground to agree with the person and convince them otherwise.

Whether you have racist attitudes or not, approach the topic with the intent to either find middleground with people or not bother to hash out a long forum discussion with them. Nothing at all positive comes from extended conversations where both are intending to brutalise the other into caving in to their side, especially not on an Internet forum (where there's less motive to reconcile afterwards or have any positive outcome).
#3
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,035
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Is there a reason why we cannot have a reasonable conversation about what a racist is and what it takes to qualify as one?
Since race isn't genetic and is a social construct, everyone is a racist.

#4
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
race isn't genetic
This is not a fair representation of your referenced article's conclusion. Rather, it says:

geneticists haven’t devised a test that can conclusively determine a person’s race.
That demonstrates a lack of ability, and not that race is not genetic at all. The problem is, the gene pool of the world's population is so blended, "race" as a means of identification ought to be completely shelved. I see no purpose in our U.S. decennial census inisistance on race as a quantifiable demographic. I say, "Race? So what? I am a nose. Count it."
#5
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,084
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
Racist is a generic term for recognising and responding to, perceivable differences........ So we are all racist to a  certain degree.


Racism has  come to be, largely associated with perceivability of skin tone and inherent nationalism.

Racism has also become a political agenda, derived of the above.


I am reasonably proud of British diversity.

But I must confess, that though I outwardly embrace British diversity...I am still inwardly aware of certain inherited inconcruities.

I think that my children are less so.......Such is  the slow tick of social evolution.
Topic's author
#6
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,279
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Since race isn't genetic and is a social construct,
So a black person’s skin and a white person’s skin is a result of what exactly?
#7
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
So a black person’s skin and a white person’s skin is a result of what exactly?

Melanin levels. 
#8
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,035
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@coal
Classifying a race based on exact Melanin levels is as arbitrary as classifying a race on exact foot size.

Hence Social Construct. The methodology allows for infinite races and infinite racism.
Topic's author
#9
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,279
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@coal
Melanin levels. 
Which are genetic...
Topic's author
#10
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,279
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Hence Social Construct. The methodology allows for infinite races and infinite racism.
Which is why we don’t count melanin levels, but rather rely on the  differences between us that are so obvious that children barely able to speak can tell.
#11
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,035
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Because melanin levels are as arbitrary as foot size. Tell me why this matters again for a functioning society to divide people like this?
#12
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
You are quite correct about that. 
Topic's author
#13
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,279
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Because melanin levels are as arbitrary as foot size. Tell me why this matters again for a functioning society to divide people like this?
Ask our ancestors who enslaved a portion of the population for 400 years, followed by another 50 or so years of segregation.
#14
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
what do you mean by that?
#15
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,035
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Ask our ancestors who enslaved a portion of the population for 400 years, followed by another 50 or so years of segregation.
I am asking you, not some ghost.

 Tell me why this matters again for a functioning society to divide people like this?
#16
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Double_R
Race isn't genetic - for example - a lot of Hispanic people have very similar melanin levels to white people. Furthermore - genetically speaking people who are "black" have more differences among them than they do compare to white people. There are no specific features of a black person or white person - physically or genetically - which seperates them except for the color of their skin.... which again - is extremely inconsistent with what we classify as "race". For example - Obama is widely considered a black man - however one of his parents were white, despite the fact that if an Asian and a black person had children, they could say they were either without any callback - Obama couldn't call himself a white man without people saying he's not. My point is that while yes, melanin is to a small extent a genetic property, it is much more accurate to say it is an epigenetic one, and a result of the environment. I suppose it would be that we could very easily gain back the melanin levels in our skin - even white people - we call this TANNING. So... in other words, to call race "genetic" is kinda like calling a puddle a pond. I mean... sure you could, and be kinda-technically right if you squint, but not practically no. 

While I often disagree with Greyparrot, it is true that such a thing is fairly arbitrary - what race you are - beyond what the society you live in believes to be associated with what "color". For another example - Spanish colonizers were often referred to as white by the indigenous Africans. You see - it depends on your frame of reference, your paradigm if you will. It is the fact that people have read into these differences and seen these people as lower than others, typically themselves, that racism persists. Its the fact that its seen as something genetic... race - isn't a thing - not practically. For example - whiteness - what is it? A peach or tan skin tone? Well no - before the 1930s (when Americans needed Irish people and other immigrants willing to work for dirt-poor wages for the large infrastructure in development) Irish people weren't considered white. Even though they had roughly the same skin tone, no, historically, being white is the absence of being black. So while you and I can wax philosophy about the melanin levels all day - that has never been the actual cause of race. That would be humans. Now ethnicity that's caused by genetics - you see - there is a difference. 
#17
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Theweakeredge
You have it totally wrong. Race is genetic, ethnicity isn't.

Race in humans is akin to pedigree breeds in dogs.
Ethnicity in humans is akin to pack culture dynamics and behaviours that certain breeds or mutts have developed a tendency for over time.
#18
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
I believe I gave you a trifecta of choices - I see you've failed to listen. Blocked it is then
#19
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
You were only looking for this endgame from the start anyway, whether you knew it consciously or not.

You are looking for a fight everywhere on this website, I'm actually being nice to you by blocking you and giving you a hint.

As for my post right there, the one you just replied to, I don't see an issue with it.

Eminem is/was ethnically closer to black people in his hometown than Caucasians in the nearest vicinity, this is because ethnicity isn't the genetic component in cultural/subcultural formation.


#20
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
 "'Race' and 'ethnicity' have been and continue to be used as ways to describe human diversity," said Nina Jablonski, an anthropologist and palaeobiologist at The Pennsylvania State University, who is known for her research into the evolution of human skin color. "Race is understood by most people as a mixture of physical, behavioral and cultural attributes. Ethnicity recognizes differences between people mostly on the basis of language and shared culture." 

In other words, race is often perceived as something that's inherent in our biology, and therefore inherited across generations. Ethnicity, on the other hand, is typically understood as something we acquire, or self-ascribe, based on factors like where we live or the culture we share with others. 
#21
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,035
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Ratmans article is solid gold so I will quote from Ratman's article:

The idea of "race" originated from anthropologists and philosophers in the 18th century, who used geographical location and phenotypic traits like skin color to place people into different racial groupings. That not only formed the notion that there are separate racial "types" but also fueled the idea that these differences had a biological basis.

That flawed principle laid the groundwork for the belief that some races were superior to others — creating global power imbalances that benefited white Europeans over other groups, in the form of the slave trade and colonialism. "We can't understand race and racism outside of the context of history, and more importantly economics. Because the driver of the triangular trade [which included slavery] was capitalism, and the accumulation of wealth," said Jayne O. Ifekwunigwe, a medical anthropologist at the Center on Genomics, Race, Identity, Difference (GRID) at the Social Science Research Institute (SSRI), Duke University. She is also the associate director of engagement for the Center on Truth, Racial Healing & Transformation (TRHT) at Duke. The center is part of a movement across the United States whose members lead events and discussions with the public to challenge historic and present-day racism.

The effects of this history prevail today — even in current definitions of race, where there's still an underlying assumption that traits like skin color or hair texture have biological, genetic underpinnings that are completely unique to different racial groups. Yet, the scientific basis for that premise simply isn't there.

Topic's author
#22
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,279
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
@coal
Tell me why this matters again for a functioning society to divide people like this?
Our society has already been divided. The plight of the black community for example was not self caused. You don’t just change the rules and expect that the effects of the previous rules suddenly disappear along with them. 
Topic's author
#23
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,279
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
Race isn't genetic
Race is literally defined by genetics. You’re confusing race and ethnicity.

While I often disagree with Greyparrot, it is true that such a thing is fairly arbitrary
I never disagreed with that. What I take issue with is the way he uses this to act as if there is no historical context. As if how we got here is totally random and it’s today’s generation dividing society up for no reason.

#24
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Double_R
Nope, you just don't know what you're talking about - same as most people -

Race - "one of the main groups to which people are often considered to belong, based on physical characteristics that they are perceived to share such as skin color, eye shape, etc.:" 

Do you actually CHECK your terms before you spew them out? 
#25
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,035
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Our society has already been divided. The plight of the black community for example was not self caused. You don’t just change the rules and expect that the effects of the previous rules suddenly disappear along with them. 
Now you are talking about reparations.

Why don't you start a reparations thread then? I seriously doubt anyone reasonable is going to advocate your position about continuing a destructive policy of segregating people based on arbitrary physical phenomes. Just because it was done in the past doesn't mean the destruction needs to continue.
#26
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Double_R
Regarding your second response, I would agree - as my post no doubt makes clear - that an accounting of the historic and cultural impact of perceived differences in race is very necessary. But you can do that without buying into a falsism - no need there. I notice that you leave the vast majority of my claims unchallenged, do you agree with them? If so - why did you see fit to not mention them at all? If you didn't the same question goes, and then it would further ask me if you had conceded the point? Please make an attempt at least addressing each point, even if you are simply saying, "In agreement" or "I'll get back to you on this" it would vastly increase my comprehension regarding your views on my arguments. 
#27
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Double_R
Joe Biden's recent release of migrants included some who had tested positive for COVID19, this has lead to numerous complaints suggesting that this is dangerous and goes to show how little Biden cares about real Americans. These complaints of course come from the same flock who have spent months railing against mask mandates, social distancing measures, and drawing comparisons to the flu implying that COVID is no different. But suddenly, now that brown people from Mexico are carrying it, we're all of a sudden worried about COVID?

Good point.  Either Covid is dangerous or it isn't.
Topic's author
#28
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,279
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
Race - "one of the main groups to which people are often considered to belong, based on physical characteristics that they are perceived to share such as skin color, eye shape, etc.:" 
And where do you think physical characteristics come from?

I notice that you leave the vast majority of my claims unchallenged, do you agree with them? If so - why did you see fit to not mention them at all?
If I don’t respond to a point then I don’t take issue with it. Either that or I’m being bombarded with so much nonsense that I can’t respond to everything, in which case my replies would have been a lot longer.

While the characteristics that separate us may be genetic the classification of them is a human construct and one that should have no place in a civilized society as it is arbitrary and ultimately meaningless. I don’t know why any of this is relevant to the conversation though.
Topic's author
#29
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,279
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Now you are talking about reparations.

Why don't you start a reparations thread then? I seriously doubt anyone reasonable is going to advocate your position about continuing a destructive policy of segregating people based on arbitrary physical phenomes. Just because it was done in the past doesn't mean the destruction needs to continue.
I don’t support reparations, or at least anything that I think could reasonably be called reparations. Try again.

This conversation started with you asking me why it matters for us to be divided by race, implying that myself and others like myself who point out racism when it’s obvious are really the ones doing the dividing. I responded by pointing out that we’re not the ones who divided us. Historical context matters, so I talked about the context and this is your response.
#30
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,035
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
This conversation started with you asking me why it matters for us to be divided by race, implying that myself and others like myself who point out racism when it’s obvious are really the ones doing the dividing. 

I wasn't implying anything I was asking you why it matters to you. If your answer is anything except: "It doesn't," then you are a racist by default. 

There's no logical reason TODAY to separate people in a functioning society by arbitrary physical characteristics, and you have given zero reasons to justify why we should.

I don’t support reparations, or at least anything that I think could reasonably be called reparations.
Then past injustices are irrelevant. Next.