Definition of a Racist

Author: Barney
race
Racism
social injustice

Posts

Total: 84
Topic's author
#1
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,465
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
I'm curious what are everyone's favorite ways to determine if someone is (or is not) a racist?

This keeps coming up in so many discussions; and while I doubt we'll ever have true consensus, I am interested in seeing the variety of answers.

While it suffers scope limitations, I deeply enjoy a modified Ryan Reynolds quote:
Four or five moments! That’s all it takes to be a [racist].
People think you wake up a [racist]… brush your teeth a [racist]… ejaculate into a soap dispenser a [racist].
But, no, being a [racist] takes only a few moments!
A few moments… doing the ugly stuff no one else will do.
#2
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,265
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Barney
Well my favourite philosopher has a definition of sorts, not concise but complete:

Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.

Racism claims that the content of a man’s mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man’s convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control. This is the caveman’s version of the doctrine of innate ideas—or of inherited knowledge—which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.

Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination.
A racist is someone who believes in racism. Actions are not required but they can be used to infer the belief. Actions are racist when the thought process which motivated them is significantly influenced by racism.

Note the difference here between morality and racism. Morality is a property of the act, people are only moral or immoral insofar as they tend to act moral or immoral. Racism is a belief and thus a property of the mind.
Topic's author
#3
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,465
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Very good Ayn Rand quote.

While she had trouble making a compelling narrative, in snapshot form she's produced some great points.

I remember an ethics professor confusing her with Ethical Egoism, to which I argued Rand's villains are that and there's nuance which separates Objectivism from that. Granted, I don't think people should drink the Rand-aid; merely her work has lasting merit so should not be lightly dismissed in whole.
#4
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
Wikipedia advises:

RACISM is "the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to inherited attributes and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another.  It may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity. Modern variants of racism are often based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples. These views can take the form of social actions, practices or beliefs, or political systems in which different races are ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities.  There have been attempts to legitimize racist beliefs through scientific means, which have been overwhelmingly shown to be unfounded."

Encyclopedia Britannica advises:

RACISM is "the belief that humans may be divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called “races”; that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural and behavioral features; and that some races are innately superior to others. The term is also applied to political, economic, or legal institutions and systems that engage in or perpetuate discrimination on the basis of race or otherwise reinforce racial inequalities in wealth and income, education, health care, civil rights, and other areas.  Since the late 20th century the notion of biological race has been recognized as a cultural invention, entirely without scientific basis.
#5
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,171
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Barney
A Racist is a person that outputs a negative response to a normal internal response relative to a perceivable difference.

Everyone discriminates internally.......Just as you discriminated against Deb, albeit not maliciously.


Though let's be honest, Racism is largely a socio-political weapon these days and more generally defined as a Light and Dark issue, wherein light is the aggressor and dark is the victim......A shame but true......But one of the disadvantages/advantages of our ability to memorise and record the past. 
#6
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,356
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Barney
I think there's three parts to this.

The first is that white people and black people have a very different relationship to the concept of racism so they're not even close when it comes to identifying it.

White people tend to think of racism along with visions of klan hoods and cross burnings. To most white people, racist is perhaps the worst and most insulting words you can call them. All of this makes sense when thought of in context, the only racism most white people ever experience is on TV.

Black people live with it on a daily basis, so to any black person racism is not some big deal of a topic. It's something that because of it's prevalence in their lives is talked about all the time, and like anything that's talked about and thought about frequently they get to knows it well to the point where there are terms to describe and differentiate even the most mundane things (i.e. microaggressions).

So right here we're already on different planets, if a black person tries to point out something racist a white person did the white person is likely to think they're entire character is being questioned. This is a huge reason why we talk past each other.

The second part is the difference between racism towards the individual vs racism towards the group. This is where the "I can't be racist cause I have black friends" thing comes in and has black people rolling their eyes. You can think highly of any individual black person but when most people identify racism it's normally in the form of an attitude about the black (or any minority) community. You can have all the black friends in the world, but if your attitude towards the community at large is that they're lazy, thugs, or whatever stereotype that's going to impact how you act to the black people you don't know. This is far more important because on a large scale this is what impacts their lives.

The third part is the difference between individual racism and systemic racism. To many people including many white people, believe that the system itself is racist (as in built to favor the cultural norms of white people leading to disproportionate treatment). This leads to charges of racism being taken as some kind of personal attack when it's merely the cumulative result of all our actions.

So I guess to summarize, it's complicated. I personally am more in line with racism defined as the second part as an attitude towards the group. I don't think it's helpful to focus on micro aggressions because they are by definition, micro, which means they can be explained in more ways than one, but the whole klan hood wearing n-word using concept also needs to go in the trash. We've come fast as a society so our ideas on these topics should reflect that progress.
#7
Novice
Novice's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 24
0
2
5
Novice's avatar
Novice
0
2
5
A racist is anyone who believes: 
  1. One race is superior to another (not necessarily the culture of the races but the INHERENT quality of them). 

#8
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,171
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Double_R
We all identify it in exactly the same basic data processing way.


You just jumped in with the same old black and white historically motivated, socio-political rhetoric.


No one is black and no one is white.


We were segregated by the virtues of planetary evolution and we learnt to perceive and make distinctions, and we continue to do so.


And until such times as everyone is a clone, we will continue to perceive and make distinctions.
#9
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,356
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@zedvictor4
No one is black and no one is white.
And the civil war was about states rights
#10
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Double_R
 I don't think it's helpful to focus on micro aggressions because they are by definition, micro, which means they can be explained in more ways than one, but the whole klan hood wearing n-word using concept also needs to go in the trash.
What's your definition of a racist?  Is it anyone that is right wing on BLM?
#11
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 3,432
4
5
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
5
10
-->
@Barney
I'm not sure, but here's my stab.

Broadly, I suppose someone identifies a group of people as possessing similar genetics different than some other group.
Acutely someone who identifies an individual with possessing genetics different than some other individual.

Though no one really cares about those racists, enough to call them racists.

So I suppose usually one calls a racist an individual who discriminates against a 'group, defined by their genetics and history, blood and culture.
Topic's author
#12
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,465
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Lemming
I will disagree with you on the broadly part. We can acknowledge differences, without believing one is on balance superior or inferior; or otherwise determine how we should treat people.

That said, your closing paragraph is on point.
#13
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 3,432
4
5
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
5
10
-->
@Barney
If one 'categorizes, or 'evaluates something,
'Sometimes that stance identifies them,
Sometimes not, I suppose.

An individual may acknowledge the existence of Dictatorships, but they need not 'follow such an ideology themself.
Yet if an individual acknowledges a scientific fact, they are attributed that facts name, as it's something they believe to 'be.

I'd suppose racism can be both a 'viewpoint and an ideology?
If one 'acts on their perceived truth, or decides it 'matters to them in X way?
#14
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,255
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The current resurgence of racism in America is a direct result of affirmative action bestowing societal advantage to a person on the basis of genetic traits.

It's the reason why many people strive to become a member of the protected racial classes if they can pass for it such as Rachel Dolezal and Obama.
#15
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,775
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Mary Trump tells the story of growing up in the Trump family with her uncle Donald Trump and grandfather Fred Trump in a new book, "Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World’s Most Dangerous Man." In response to her grandfather's arrest at a 1927 Klu Klux Klan riot in New York, Mary Trump expresses surprise that Fred Trump "would take time away from his business to go do anything," but is not shocked "that he shared the sentiments." Growing up, she recalls Fred Trump held all the power in the family, which was centered around building up his real estate empire. "In my family, being kind was considered being weak," Mary Trump says. "Since my grandfather ran my family as a zero-sum game, and there could only be one winner and everybody else was a loser, Donald was determined to win."
#16
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,255
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
"the World’s Most Dangerous Man"
Lol excellent insight Bobby Fischer
#17
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,047
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Double_R
So right here we're already on different planets,....

Women are from Venus and men are from Mars.

Whites { light skinned } are from Earth and everyone else is not from Earth.

Pathetic sic-n-heads who most likely are also virtual rapist, sticking their repulsive nose into a pregnant womans bodily business without her consent.

End date for humanity, approx. 2231. give or take a few years.



#18
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,171
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Double_R
Civil Wars were commonplace.....Things got sorted......Still do I suppose.
#19
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,993
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Barney
I'm curious what are everyone's favorite ways to determine if someone is (or is not) a racist?

This keeps coming up in so many discussions; and while I doubt we'll ever have true consensus, I am interested in seeing the variety of answers.
Racism is the will to degrade individuals on the basis of ethnicity, by thoughts, actions and societal implementations.




#20
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,356
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
What's your definition of a racist?  Is it anyone that is right wing on BLM?
Add I said in my first post, I think of it in terms of the attitude one has towards other groups. The point of my post however, is that it's far more complicated then a simple definition.
#21
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,171
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Reece101
Everyone thinks and everyone discriminates, so if you include "thoughts" within your analysis, then by definition everyone is racist.

I would suggest that racism is best defined as a negative outward expression of thoughts, relative to a perceivable difference.


Old fashioned Joke:

And Englishman, a Scotsman and an Irishman are sitting in a bar.

None of them is any the wiser until they open their mouths.
#22
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,993
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
Everyone thinks and everyone discriminates, so if you include "thoughts" within your analysis, then by definition everyone is racist.
I would suggest that racism is best defined as a negative outward expression of thoughts, relative to a perceivable difference.
I think there should be a distinction between being actively racist and having moments of racism and acknowledging them as irrational to move past them. Both internally and externally, but mostly internally if we’re genuine. 

Old fashioned Joke:

And Englishman, a Scotsman and an Irishman are sitting in a bar.

None of them is any the wiser until they open their mouths.
Though this is one specific example.



#23
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,171
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Reece101
Data processing and analysis relative to acquired conditioning is simply what we do, so not irrational.

But for sure we can also modify our responses relative to ongoing data acquisition and processing.

That is to say, learn to be more tolerant of others.

Though as my specific example suggests, discrimination is far from a black and white issue relative to historical European colonialism.

We've moved on a few hundred years and several generations since then, to a point where the boot of the black and white issue in terms of racism  is now very much on the the other foot too....If not more so.

The black and white thing is now politically inspired big business for some, so there would certainly be a lot to lose if everyone shook hands and agreed to move on.

Though let's be fair, most moderate people of all skin tones, moved on a long time ago.....Species evolution in progress as it were.

Nonetheless my brief  analysis is perhaps more applicable to current U.K. society.......Maybe in the U.S there is a greater possibility of a more insular and therefore polarized demographic relative to geographic scale.
#24
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,993
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
Data processing and analysis relative to acquired conditioning is simply what we do, so not irrational.

But for sure we can also modify our responses relative to ongoing data acquisition and processing.
Will you admit your first sentence is irrational then? It assumes people don’t have half-baked thoughts. 

That is to say, learn to be more tolerant of others.
Which includes thinking it through some more and asking yourself some challenging questions. 

Though as my specific example suggests, discrimination is far from a black and white issue relative to historical European colonialism
I know racism isn’t just based on skin pigmentation although it’s been one of the larger driving forces in the past several hundred years. Identity and discrimination have morphed and changed throughout history. 

We've moved on a few hundred years and several generations since then, to a point where the boot of the black and white issue in terms of racism  is now very much on the the other foot too....If not more so.
Moved on from a few hundred years of enslavement/colonialism so much so that the shoe is on the other foot even more so? You need to cut back on the right-wing media. 

The black and white thing is now politically inspired big business for some, so there would certainly be a lot to lose if everyone shook hands and agreed to move on.
I wouldn’t say big business. I would say race baiting political shows.

Though let's be fair, most moderate people of all skin tones, moved on a long time ago.....Species evolution in progress as it were.
This is more of a sociological thing.

Nonetheless my brief  analysis is perhaps more applicable to current U.K. society.......Maybe in the U.S there is a greater possibility of a more insular and therefore polarized demographic relative to geographic scale.
I would agree with that. 
#25
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,171
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Reece101
A thought is a thought, relative to an individual.

"Half baked" is a thought relative to you. 

It's a tad arrogant, if we expect everyone to think as we do.

Thoughts are derived from past experiences and will therefore vary relative to conditioning.

Tolerance has to evolve..........Tolerance cannot be forced upon people, otherwise outcomes are more likely to be negative.

Though I'm reasonably confident that more and more people do think things through.


I'm a moderate and do not pander to media, I make my own observations and come to my own conclusions.

And Jaimaica seeking $10 billion in so called reparations is a race baiting political show.   And let's be frank, where would most of that money end up if they got it.

Nope...The perpetuation of the old colonial race game is very good for business.


And "sociological thing" for sure....That was my point......Don't expect to click your fingers and change humanity in an instant.....How many millions of years has it taken to get to this point?

Perhaps you indulge in race baiting political shows more than I do.
#26
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,993
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
A thought is a thought, relative to an individual.

"Half baked" is a thought relative to you. 
As long as you acknowledge people can and do have half-baked thoughts. 
Learn what theory of mind is. For example, If your friend wanted to do something stupid because he was in an emotionally heightened state of mind, you might want to talk him out of it for a multitude of reasons. He’s not thinking straight. 

It's a tad arrogant, if we expect everyone to think as we do.
To be honest I unintentionally do sometimes. I think we all do. I don’t think it’s arrogance, it’s more ignorance than anything. 

Thoughts are derived from past experiences and will therefore vary relative to conditioning.
A truism. 

Tolerance has to evolve..........Tolerance cannot be forced upon people, otherwise outcomes are more likely to be negative.
Is that what you would have told a Jewish person in the holocaust?

To say “tolerance has to evolve” is a meaningless statement. Evolution prioritises what’s convenient, that’s it.

Though I'm reasonably confident that more and more people do think things through.
Alright

I'm a moderate and do not pander to media, I make my own observations and come to my own conclusions.
Like you said, we’re all conditioned in one way or another.

And Jaimaica seeking $10 billion in so called reparations is a race baiting political show.   And let's be frank, where would most of that money end up if they got it.
I don’t know, we would have to do further research to find out. It would have to be conditional I would say.

Nope...The perpetuation of the old colonial race game is very good for business.
If the money went into infrastructure and business startups to have a positive lasting impact, I think it would be good. Also i think Jamaica has a large environmental problem with foreign owned mining companies if I’m correct. 

And "sociological thing" for sure....That was my point......Don't expect to click your fingers and change humanity in an instant.....How many millions of years has it taken to get to this point?
Modern humans have been around for 300,000 years. Though It would be understandable if someone argued humans as shown by just the last century are the most barbaric creatures on Earth. 

Perhaps you indulge in race baiting political shows more than I do.
Probably. You got to understand your opponents arguments. 
#27
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,171
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Reece101
Tolerance has to evolve....Means exactly what it says.

As I suggested, tolerance has certainly evolved in the UK within my lifetime.
#28
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Barney
I'm curious what are everyone's favorite ways to determine if someone is (or is not) a racist?

This keeps coming up in so many discussions; and while I doubt we'll ever have true consensus, I am interested in seeing the variety of answers.
only people who self-identify as "racists" can be called "racists"

in the same exact way that only people who self-identify as "methodists" can be called "methodists"

is it somehow "more evil" to hate someone for the color of their skin ?

or is it somehow "more evil" to hate someone for their religious (or lack of religious) beliefs ?

or is it somehow "more evil" to hate someone for their political (or lack of political) beliefs ?

or is it somehow "more evil" to hate someone because of the clothes they wear ?

or is it somehow "more evil" to hate someone because of the food they eat ?

perhaps we can narrow this down a bit

can we agree on what qualifies as a "good reason" to hate (dehumanize) someone ?

aren't these all examples of ad hominem attacks ?
#29
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
And the civil war was about states rights (to allow slavery for example)

the two are not mutually exclusive
#30
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Here in the US hating someone for their religious or political beliefs is completely okay.