controversial view: there's widespread discrimination but not widespread racism

Author: n8nrgmi

Posts

Total: 27
Topic's author
#1
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
i think white people are open minded towards black people. it's just that there's a lotta baggage with black culture. so, they whites might be less likely to hire blacks or place them in housing, or whatever. i would call that discrimination. not racism. it's discrimination because the factor that is being used to make a decision is skin color, not the content of the person's character. but i dont think it's prejudicial in an unreasonable way. white people are only human and often fear blacks, and it's understandable that whites dont want to associate with much of black culture given there's so much toxicity included often times. 

i think it's reasonable to say if there's discrimination there has to be racism as if they're one and the same. i just dont like to say there's so much racism given how open minded whites are. i can even understand if someone thought my distinction between discrimination and racism was a stupid distinction. 
#2
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@n8nrgmi
First: WHAT exactly is racism?

Racism is defined differently across all society. Me hitting a black man because he was being annoying would definitely be labeled racist by some leftist twitter user, whereas Trump defines himself as non-racist after issuing bills contributing to the systemic racism in America.

Second, WHAT exactly is discrimination?

From what I know of the terms, racism doesn't have to be discrimination. When the scientists create an inherently superior race out of us, admitting that they are better at doing things would technically be racist but not discrimination. We are labeling racism discrimination due to that most of the times it is actually wrong.

That said, saying that the White Europeans are more successful capitalists and liberalists than Black people, or that African Americans are better runners than Asians, is simply not discrimination.
#3
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@n8nrgmi

whites might be less likely to hire blacks or place them in housing, or whatever. i would call that discrimination. not racism
RACISM is "discrimination based upon race or ethnicity."  Since you have agreed it is discrimination based upon race, you have described racism by definition.


#4
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,085
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@n8nrgmi
True.

Everyone discriminates internally, but not everyone externalizes their discrimination unreasonably.

So......We see, internally assess and conclude, that your skin has a darker tone than ours (discrimination).   But we respect your individuality.



In the wider context of the social inequality of self defining sub-groups.... The term "Racism" has become a powerful, political tool....Though  sub-groups have a tendency to somewhat counterintuitively self discriminate  in the process.

I have a darker skin tone than you, therefore I should be treated differently. (Irrespective of my abilities and social responsibilities.)


Nonetheless there is an observable and positive evolution of data, skin tone, and ability.....But not as rapid a process as some would unreasonably expect.


N.B. The above comments are  designed only to represent current and observable Western trends.....But  could be applied globally to represent all instances where  discrimination based upon perceivable difference occurs.
#5
MarkWebberFan
MarkWebberFan's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 291
1
2
6
MarkWebberFan's avatar
MarkWebberFan
1
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
...N.B. The above comments are designed only to represent current and observable Western trends.....But could be applied globally to represent all instances where discrimination based upon perceivable difference occurs.
humans should work on their respective internal prejudices (perceivable differences) as much as they should work on refraining from mentioning racist opinions out loud. 
#6
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,283
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@n8nrgmi
it's discrimination because the factor that is being used to make a decision is skin color, not the content of the person's character. but i dont think it's prejudicial in an unreasonable way.
I actually do agree with the sentiment on this one point. Discrimination really is nothing more than the same induction we use towards everything else in life just applied towards people. If for example a person’s lived experience tells them that renting to or hiring black people will likely be detrimental to their business, I do think it’s reasonable for that person to be concerned about it.

Two problems though. One is that reasonable does not = right. We all at some point in our lives have been treated a certain way because of something that had nothing to do with us. So even in the case where a given stereotype is mostly accurate, if you believe we should all be treated as individuals and held to account based on our actions/decisions then it’s easy to see why the potential reasonableness of a discriminatory attitude must take a back seat. And it might not always be easy, but anyone who cares at all about being a good person should work to try and rid themselves of these attitudes.

The other is that many of these cases are not actual lived experiences, it’s the result of cherry picking that goes on when people share stories of things that happened to them or things they saw on Instagram. No one shares the story of the guy who helped them with their groceries, so if this is where you’re getting your information from of course it’s just going to reinforce whatever stereotype you already accept. Most people are good, it’s just easy for us to accept those negative stereotypes because we often don’t spend enough of our time in the spaces of those we tend to discriminate against.
#7
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,085
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@MarkWebberFan
For sure....It all starts with education....And will evolve slowly.....There's no magic wand solution.
#8
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
RACISM is "discrimination based upon race or ethnicity."  Since you have agreed it is discrimination based upon race, you have described racism by definition.
Since it's impossible to see someone's birthplace or their parent's birthplace, "racism" (as you've defined it) is impossible.

What we call "racism" is more precisely, "discrimination based on skin-tone".

There is only one "race".
#9
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,283
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Since it's impossible to see someone's birthplace or their parent's birthplace, "racism" (as you've defined it) is impossible.
Racism is a mentality. There is nothing about it that requires the person holding discriminatory views to be factually correct.

#10
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
It's actually pretty racist to deny housing or employment due to skin color. 


#11
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Wylted
It's actually pretty racist to deny housing or employment due to skin color. 
Only if you strictly define racism as "skin-tone" (divorced from other implied undetectable "genetic" characteristics).
#12
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
Since it's impossible to see someone's birthplace or their parent's birthplace, "racism" (as you've defined it) is impossible.
Racism is a mentality. There is nothing about it that requires the person holding discriminatory views to be factually correct.
"Racism" pretends to be able to detect "general trustworthiness" and "intelligence" based purely on skin-tone.

This is clearly a BROAD-BRUSH FALLACY.

My question to you is, how is this BROAD-BRUSH FALLACY any more "evil" than any other BROAD-BRUSH FALLACY ??

For example, Pol Pot had people slaughtered for the crime of reading books.
#13
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,283
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Racism is not a fallacy. You're confusing the presumption of what someone's race or ethnicity is with how one feels about it. Racism is the latter.
#14
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@n8nrgmi
i think white people are open minded towards black people. it's just that there's a lotta baggage with black culture. so, they whites might be less likely to hire blacks or place them in housing, or whatever. i would call that discrimination. not racism. it's discrimination because the factor that is being used to make a decision is skin color, not the content of the person's character. but i dont think it's prejudicial in an unreasonable way. white people are only human and often fear blacks, and it's understandable that whites dont want to associate with much of black culture given there's so much toxicity included often times. 

i think it's reasonable to say if there's discrimination there has to be racism as if they're one and the same. i just dont like to say there's so much racism given how open minded whites are. i can even understand if someone thought my distinction between discrimination and racism was a stupid distinction. 
I think we should first disuse the terms "racist" and "racism" because they are nonsense terms Racism is a nonsense, malicious term (debateart.com)

What is logical to discuss is whether it's possible for a person to reject another race, purely on the basis of his/her skin, which could be called 'racial bias' or something along those lines.

I think the distinction you've drawn between 'black culture' and 'black skin color' is somewhat valid, because it is possible to reject someone's culture yet be accepting/neutral of their race. However, I'd argue that someone's culture is somewhat of a product of their biological race (which includes skin color), thus your distinction should be somewhat disagreed with (relative to the correlation between culture and race), but not entirely disagreed with. In other words, you are kinda showing racial bias someone's race when you reject their culture, but not entirely.
#15
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@n8nrgmi
I think that whether discrimination happens is a much less interesting conversation than "is discrimination inherently wrong".
#16
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
Racism is not a fallacy. You're confusing the presumption of what someone's race or ethnicity is with how one feels about it. Racism is the latter.
WHY DOES SOMEONE DISLIKE SOMEONE BECAUSE OF THEIR SKIN COLOR ?

THE ONLY REASON TO DO SO IS BECAUSE OF THE BROAD-BRUSH.
#17
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mesmer
because it is possible to reject someone's culture
CULT(URE) IS NOT UNIFORM
#18
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
Two problems though. One is that reasonable does not = right. We all at some point in our lives have been treated a certain way because of something that had nothing to do with us. So even in the case where a given stereotype is mostly accurate, if you believe we should all be treated as individuals and held to account based on our actions/decisions then it’s easy to see why the potential reasonableness of a discriminatory attitude must take a back seat. And it might not always be easy, but anyone who cares at all about being a good person should work to try and rid themselves of these attitudes.

The other is that many of these cases are not actual lived experiences, it’s the result of cherry picking that goes on when people share stories of things that happened to them or things they saw on Instagram. No one shares the story of the guy who helped them with their groceries, so if this is where you’re getting your information from of course it’s just going to reinforce whatever stereotype you already accept. Most people are good, it’s just easy for us to accept those negative stereotypes because we often don’t spend enough of our time in the spaces of those we tend to discriminate against.
YOU'RE LITERALLY DESCRIBING AND THEN RE-DESCRIBING THE BROAD-BRUSH FALLACY.
#19
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,283
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
WHY DOES SOMEONE DISLIKE SOMEONE BECAUSE OF THEIR SKIN COLOR ?
Because they’re vile human beings, which is why being called a racist is offensive

THE ONLY REASON TO DO SO IS BECAUSE OF THE BROAD-BRUSH.
The broad brush is not a reason, it’s a description of the  process itself. More specifically, it’s a description of the flaw within the process. You are still confusing two totally separate things.

YOU'RE LITERALLY DESCRIBING AND THEN RE-DESCRIBING THE BROAD-BRUSH FALLACY.
Logical fallacies are flaws in logic that, when properly identified, explain why an argument is not valid. We’re not talking about validity, we’re talking about the state of mind by which one cultivates a negative attitude towards people who look different than they do.

A person’s attitude or feelings about someone can be based on a logical fallacy, that does not make said attitudes or feelings… a fallacy.

#20
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
A person’s attitude or feelings about someone can be based on a logical fallacy, that does not make said attitudes or feelings… a fallacy.
IT DOES, HOWEVER, MAKE THAT PERSON'S ATTITUDE OR FEELINGS AN EXAMPLE OF A LOGICAL FALLACY.

just like the fundamental-attribution-error (which is an implicit logical fallacy).
#21
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,283
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
And yet no one who points to someone claiming them to be a racist is talking about logic, so this is all completely irrelevant to racism. What is your point?

#22
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
And yet no one who points to someone claiming them to be a racist is talking about logic, so this is all completely irrelevant to racism. What is your point?
This seems like somewhat of an OVERSTATEMENT.
#23
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
And yet no one who points to someone claiming them to be a racist is talking about logic, so this is all completely irrelevant to racism. What is your point?
HAVE YOU EVER MET SOMEONE, ANYONE WHO OPENLY ADMITS THEY ARE "UNREASONABLE" ?
#24
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,283
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Racism and reasonableness do not go hand in hand. They are entirely separate things and most racists are clearly unreasonable people.

What is your point?

This conversation started because you equate racism (a negative emotional reaction to ones conclusion about another’s race) to a logical fallacy (an error in arriving at a conclusion from a given set of premises). You have yet to explain how these entirely separate things… are the same.
#25
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
This conversation started because you equate racism (a negative emotional reaction to ones conclusion about another’s race) to a logical fallacy (an error in arriving at a conclusion from a given set of premises). You have yet to explain how these entirely separate things… are the same.
It seems, and I'm actually asking you, it seems like you believe that a "logical fallacy" is only, and can only be a "logical fallacy" in some sort of formal setting, like in a debate, or as a specifically formatted claim, like a syllogism.

Is this what you're suggesting ?
#26
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,283
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
It seems, and I'm actually asking you, it seems like you believe that a "logical fallacy" is only, and can only be a "logical fallacy" in some sort of formal setting, like in a debate, or as a specifically formatted claim, like a syllogism.

Is this what you're suggesting ?
No. A logical fallacy is an error occurring during the process of reaching a conclusion from a given set of premises. We point these out during debate and write them out in syllogistic or other forms to communicate them and to more easily identify the errors, but that’s all separate from the errors being made.

Logical fallacies occur before the conclusion. Racism starts after the conclusion. There is no overlap, which is why I have been pointing out that they’re irrelevant to each other.
#27
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
Logical fallacies occur before the conclusion. Racism starts after the conclusion. There is no overlap, which is why I have been pointing out that they’re irrelevant to each other.
BROAD-BRUSH is prerequisite to "RACISM"

Remove the BROAD-BRUSH and there can be no "RACISM"

BROAD-BRUSH is integral to the existence and manifestation of "RACISM"

BROAD-BRUSH is inseparable from "RACISM"

One might even say, the BROAD-BRUSH is the mother of "RACISM"