Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kilkrazy wrote:Due to the cognitive psychological mechanism of Categorisation, humans have an innate tendency to form groups and will do so based on completely arbitrary divisions. Skin colour gives an obvious, though totally superficial, point of difference, so it is not surprising that humans form groups based on that.

This is pretty much how I see it.
Here in Ireland, even though everyone* is white, we were still split along religious lines; Protestant Vs Catholic.
And the only reason that it doesn't happen as much anymore, imo, is because younger people are becoming less religious.

And also we were late to the table of becoming a multicultural society, so we saw the negatives of racist in other countries before we ever had to deal with it ourselves.
Though sadly, the innoculation was not entire effective and Ireland has plenty of its own racists as well. :(

*=not EVERYONE but most people.

Frazzled wrote:Its not correct though.

I think if you examine the history of the last few hundred years -- the period of European ascendancy -- you will find it is correct during that period.

For example, apartheid in South Africa.

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:
Rascism exists in part because some people believe that rascists are everywhere.

I've never understood this argument. If someone believes that there are racists everywhere it doesn't having bearing on the actual presence of racism. The belief that racism is everywhere can be a form of prejudice in that it can lead one to presume that every person one might meet to be a racist, but that presumption is not itself racism.

These aren't the droids you're looking for...

I've never actually heard that argument, but it might be due to it usually having several other ideas presented beforehand, by people that have very strange ideas. (reference: not your response; Halanchos' idea.)

I think, very frequently, people will use 'racism' as a catchall to describe any form of discrimination, and that doing so causes a great deal of confusion.

People clump -isms together, and my guess is that is because they are regarded as minority issues in general. Dunno really.

Hope you didn't take the last part of my post (earlier in the thread) the wrong way, I was just suggesting that there are a great deal of issues left to resolve. Discrimination is not something that seems like it will ever be entirely resolved, especially when many of the people fighting against discrimination are so blatantly prejudiced themselves.

Orkeosaurus wrote:There are really two main kinds of racism. There's the belief in genetic/biological determination of intelligence/personality/etc along racial lines, and there's the belief that there are differences in intelligence/personality/etc along racial lines without any further beliefs as to why this is the case. The first doesn't seem very popular any more, because it simply comes down to what neurology/genetics/etc reaches as its conclusion.

The second is the tricky one, because there are differences between races that are readily observable. For instance, on tests whites have are generally observed to have a higher average IQ than blacks, but a lower average IQ than asians. There are also differences in crime rates, physical strength, and just about any other trait. What does this mean? Very little, but people tend to handle these sort of statistics badly, and this isn't limited to statistics; look at any sort of argument that crops up when sources are cited saying that liberals are more educated than conservatives, that conservatives give more to charity than liberals, that left handed people die faster, Americans are fatter than Europeans, etc.

I think that part of the problem is that people don't trust their own judgements enough, both of others and of themselves.

After all, talking with someone for five minutes is going to give you a better picture of them than assumptions made from as broad of a category as race, religion, handedness, or so forth, and while introspection can be difficult, you still almost certainly know enough about yourself to make the "average" of the group you're in irrelevant. People treat statistics with a great deal of authority though (usually too much), and so they become fearful/angry/ecstatic beyond all reason when exposed to them.

Or at least, that's my working theory. I'm not too dedicated to it.

Is the bold bit your hypothesis?

I am not sure I completely follow what you are suggesting. Is it that people generally lack faith in their own judgment, and refer to a more group-based perspective when in doubt?

It would make perfect sense that people would look to their peers, and information that agrees with their opinions. Could you clarify a bit? I'm having a hard time putting all of this together.

Wrexasaur wrote:
Hope you didn't take the last part of my post (earlier in the thread) the wrong way, I was just suggesting that there are a great deal of issues left to resolve. Discrimination is not something that seems like it will ever be entirely resolved, especially when many of the people fighting against discrimination are so blatantly prejudiced themselves.

No worries, that comment wasn't directed at anyone in particular. I understood your post just fine. I also agree that discrimination will never leave us altogether, as its simply far too 'useful' as a shortcut towards the creation of an all-encompassing worldview.

It doesn't.

Wrexasaur wrote:I am not sure I completely follow what you are suggesting. Is it that people generally lack faith in their own judgment, and refer to a more group-based perspective when in doubt?

It would make perfect sense that people would look to their peers, and information that agrees with their opinions. Could you clarify a bit? I'm having a hard time putting all of this together.

Hmm. I suppose what I was trying to say is that some people become overly reliant on making judgements based on simple, objective facts that are consistently applicable, rather than more complex impressions that will probably have to be made each time you interact with someone. Even when when these rules of thumb aren't really much of an indicator. They don't trust their own impressions, because they're too subjective, and so they place undue weight on statistics (which are a far worse predictor than even first impressions) as a result.

As an example, I may be talking to someone, and get the impression that they're a good guy. But they're black, and black people are more likely to be convicted of violent crimes! Well, the impression that the person I'm talking to is a decent guy is almost certainly going to be the better predictor of the person's character; however, there's no way of "proving" that my impressions are valid, while statistics do qualify as "proof". It's often easier to defer to statistics and authority than personal observations, even when you've empirically observed the later to have far more predictive ability. Thus, I think that while racism is often thought of as an excessive desire to make judgements about people, racism is actually tied to a lack of confidence in one's own personal judgements, and instead a confidence in rules of thumb that, while being poor in actual predictive ability, are easy to create and apply, requiring only the simplest of observations to be made (IQ chart stratified by race + race of the person you're talking to = instant revelation!).

I may be approaching this from sort of an intellectual standpoint, though. There are certainly emotional factors that are big contributors to it as well (like Sexiest Hero pointed out, there's the desire to blame others for your own problems, and to take credit for the accomplishments of others who have the same skin color and facial features as you).

There are real racist creeps , im sure like KKK or worse , however... There are also people that plays the "race card" as often as they can to receive benefits.
Which really fuels the tension not to mention discredits many actual victims of racism .

And this whole "N" word is ridiculous , " we can use it all we want , but other race cant."
Its a sense of empowerment and imbalance , how anyone wishes to achieve peace via this attitude is beyond my understanding.

Racism also encompasses fear. The fear of pointing out something a minority wrong just to be accused of been racist. Will also contribute to disgruntled experience.

Im going to agree with luna 100% on this.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:I am not sure I completely follow what you are suggesting. Is it that people generally lack faith in their own judgment, and refer to a more group-based perspective when in doubt?

It would make perfect sense that people would look to their peers, and information that agrees with their opinions. Could you clarify a bit? I'm having a hard time putting all of this together.

Hmm. I suppose what I was trying to say is that some people become overly reliant on making judgements based on simple, objective facts that are consistently applicable, rather than more complex impressions that will probably have to be made each time you interact with someone. Even when when these rules of thumb aren't really much of an indicator. They don't trust their own impressions, because they're too subjective, and so they place undue weight on statistics (which are a far worse predictor than even first impressions) as a result.

Statistics can be very deceptive tools. Personal interaction, and experience with people in general, is the most direct form of establishing a reasonable characterization of a person.

As an example, I may be talking to someone, and get the impression that they're a good guy. But they're black, and black people are more likely to be convicted of violent crimes! Well, the impression that the person I'm talking to is a decent guy is almost certainly going to be the better predictor of the person's character; however, there's no way of "proving" that my impressions are valid, while statistics do qualify as "proof". It's often easier to defer to statistics and authority than personal observations, even when you've empirically observed the later to have far more predictive ability. Thus, I think that while racism is often thought of as an excessive desire to make judgements about people, racism is actually tied to a lack of confidence in one's own personal judgements, and instead a confidence in rules of thumb that, while being poor in actual predictive ability, are easy to create and apply, requiring only the simplest of observations to be made (IQ chart stratified by race + race of the person you're talking to = instant revelation!).

Finding a middle ground in between the two, and using common sense (along with background checks, when considering employment, etc...) is a very substantial compromise. I've found that while my personal interpretations of an individual character may not be entirely accurate, the average works itself out, and I can generally use my own insight as a foundation to create some level of reasonable assumption. There is always a wild card involved with any person you deal with, after all they are people. Instant revelations are like top ramen; cheap and quick, but almost completely lacking in nutrition. People that use a varied set of tools to interpret character, usually make the best of any situation concerning relationships.

I may be approaching this from sort of an intellectual standpoint, though. There are certainly emotional factors that are big contributors to it as well (like Sexiest Hero pointed out, there's the desire to blame others for your own problems, and to take credit for the accomplishments of others who have the same skin color and facial features as you).

There are numerous factors involved, and you need more than one tool to build a house. I agree with your basic premise, while keeping in mind that people are just people.

Part of the issue with statistics is simply that many people do not know how to interpret them. For example, one of the more common errors is to assume that probability is somehow a constitutive variable. In essence, someone will see that 60% of a given population answered a given question in a certain way, and the presume that any given member of that population will answer that question in that way 60% of the time.

Black Blow Fly wrote:I HAET RACISTS !!!

G

I once played an RPG character that had an intolerance to intolerance. Discuss.

I once played an RPG character that had an intolerance to intolerance.

You pretty much just described the modern 1st world. Or America, at least. It's a bunch of people who are zealously intoloerant of intolerance.

Phryxis wrote:

I once played an RPG character that had an intolerance to intolerance.

You pretty much just described the modern 1st world. Or America, at least. It's a bunch of people who are zealously intoloerant of intolerance.

Not really no. The vast majority of american citizens are apathetic to the plight of racial and religious intolerance which isn't a major issue because there is very little of the former remaining in America and the latter is much harder to effect into tangible oppression. The zealous PC police are a creation of the right, they don't actually exist beyond wacky minority groups with realistically little power.

Also europe is hella racist or colorblind depending on which country your in.

The zealous PC police are a creation of the right, they don't actually exist beyond wacky minority groups with realistically little power.

Right, cause nobody has ever lost their job over mildly off color racial comments.

Why are you following me around being wrong? Did you get bored with taking your picture in the mirror and then gazing into your own eyes?

Do you think it is right that people should make off colour racist comments as part of their job?

Phryxis wrote:

The zealous PC police are a creation of the right, they don't actually exist beyond wacky minority groups with realistically little power.

Right, cause nobody has ever lost their job over mildly off color racial comments.

How about you go pull up some actual statistics when making blanket statements about job loss in America that run counter to logical thought and common experience? Also, it would be nice if they weren't nearly a decade old this time.

Why are you following me around being wrong? Did you get bored with taking your picture in the mirror and then gazing into your own eyes?

No. Never. I'm beautiful. I just dislike faux conservatives that draw conclusions out of the air by selectively ignoring reality to suit their pre formed opinions. I follow people that do that around and point out how they are doing it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:Do you think it is right that people should make off colour racist comments as part of their job?

I've made them in most of my jobs commonly. If your in a comfortable setting they are fine, if you're in a setting where the business is worried about its liability it's not. Your are less important than the customers or employee coherence you could cost the company. It's logical that they would let you go rather than risk losing customers or revenue because you don't have a social filter.

Blaming logical business practice on wacky PC police is childish.

Exactly.

Do you think it is right that people should make off colour racist comments as part of their job?

Doesn't especially bother me. I'm more concerned with everyone being able to speak their minds than whether people have to periodically hear things that make them sad frowny.

Also, it would be nice if they weren't nearly a decade old this time.

Ok. Don Imus. He gets pushed out of his job for a single comment. Now, if the people who are applying pressure aren't powerful, how come they can intimidate Imus' owners into cutting him loose?

That said, as I try to imagine how you view the world, the best I can come up with is this: a guy like Jesse Jackson is really nobody, and if the "establishement" decided to ignore him, he'd get steamrolled. He only has power to the extent that the "establishment" tolerates and empowers him.

So, in that respect maybe I can imagine why you say what you do...

But then again, nobody is a superhero. If somebody gets listened to, and they can point and somebody gets fired, they're powerful. Just because everyone COULD stop listening to them, that doesn't mean they will.

I just dislike faux conservatives that draw conclusions out of the air by selectively ignoring reality to suit their pre formed opinions.

And where exactly are all these people who are profiting from spreading racial discrimination?

What "reality" am I missing?

Now, don't get me wrong... I'm not suggesting that black people (for example) are being given a free pass, and the white man is being kept down for the black man's benefit. Not at all.

On the contrary, what I believe is that the "establishment" periodically sacrifices people like Don Imus, to show the black community that they're "on their side." It's much cheaper to demonize some random radio show host than it is to actually help the black community. If you let black people too much into mainstream America, and don't keep them feeling apart and divided, they might not vote as uniformly Democrat as they do now... We can't have that, can we?

And where exactly are all these people who are profiting from spreading racial discrimination?

What "reality" am I missing?

That said, as I try to imagine how you view the world, the best I can come up with is this: a guy like Jesse Jackson is really nobody, and if the "establishement" decided to ignore him, he'd get steamrolled. He only has power to the extent that the "establishment" tolerates and empowers him.

Imus is back on the air you know and as a professional public personality he is most vulnerable to the effects of common perception effecting revenue that I described in the previous post. He had to be suspended as was likely demanded by his own paymasters due to the uncertainty of their own paymasters (the ad space purchasers). Imus made his fortune being a mouthy douche and when you live by the sword you die by the sword. Dying being a pretty weak metaphor though since as I said he's back on the air.

On the contrary, what I believe is that the "establishment" periodically sacrifices people like Don Imus, to show the black community that they're "on their side." It's much cheaper to demonize some random radio show host than it is to actually help the black community.

Thats certainly true. The black community is suffering from it's own form of self actualized endemic oppression stemming from the bizarre american countercultural movement idolizing crime or counterculturalism spawned during the 80's and embraced during the 90's and 00's. The plight of the black american is pretty unique among minority struggles at this point and is almost in it's entirety now self inflicted.

If you let black people too much into mainstream America, and don't keep them feeling apart and divided, they might not vote as uniformly Democrat as they do now... We can't have that, can we?

Oh wait, you were just preparing the 1-2 punch of the establishment psuedo voteslave conspiracy. Should of seen that coming.

Phryxis wrote:

Do you think it is right that people should make off colour racist comments as part of their job?

Doesn't especially bother me. I'm more concerned with everyone being able to speak their minds than whether people have to periodically hear things that make them sad frowny.

Very interesting.

Please answer the question.

Please answer the question.

Please define "right" as it applies to your question.

ShumaGorath wrote:
I've made them in most of my jobs commonly. If your in a comfortable setting they are fine, if you're in a setting where the business is worried about its liability it's not. Your are less important than the customers or employee coherence you could cost the company. It's logical that they would let you go rather than risk losing customers or revenue because you don't have a social filter.

Blaming logical business practice on wacky PC police is childish.

This cannot be emphasized enough. I've run a business for the last 1.5 years and in that time I've fired, at least, 20 people simply because they were pricks. I could care less if they were 'speaking their mind'; once they began to interfere with the profitability of my enterprise they had to go.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phryxis wrote:
Doesn't especially bother me. I'm more concerned with everyone being able to speak their minds than whether people have to periodically hear things that make them sad frowny.

The institution of consequences does not prevent people from speaking their mind, it merely alters the value calculation attached to it.

Any dude is free to drop the N-bomb in any set of circumstances, but he will face the relevant consequences of doing so. Same as any other speech.

Frazzled wrote:Why is it usually white over others? Thats a misnomer. Its usually "us" vs. "them."

There's two different things meant by the term racism. Racism is often used to mean xenophobia, the idea of us vs them, and in that sense you're right.

But there is also racism in power structures. It's pretty clear that across the globe the wealth is concentrated in the hands of white people, and access to that wealth is, in general, dependant on being acceptable to white sensibilities. In this sense racism is very much about the differences between white people and other ethnic groups.

Valhallan42nd wrote:Racism = "fear". Mankind will always fear the unknown.

It's certainly a factor, but so is social status. Racism is more common among the poor, because if they can't look down on other races then they've pretty much got to accept they're the bottom of society, and a lot of people really, really don't want to do that.

Once you get into the middle class you see a lot more class distinction, criticism of the poor, including ironically enough criticism of the poor for being racist.


Interesting condition by the way, I hadn't heard of it before. Thanks for posting that.

Phryxis wrote:We're all very used to thinking of racism as WORST POSSIBLE THING EVAR EVAR. You're forgetting that in the past, it wasn't worst evar, it wasn't even bad, it was just "reality."

True, the idea that judging someone else on their ethnicity is wrong is quite a recent development.

That said, it needs to be understood that racism is a constantly changing thing, and that adapts to fit . Happen to be in a long running fight dominance with France, well then the French are cowardly are weakwilled and decadent. Need to explain why slavery is acceptable, well it's because black people are less than white people.

The racism we've seen in the last couple of hundred years, which includes some notion of black and white, both of which are terms that shift constantly to match economic conditions. It's important to remember Irish is a relatively recent inclusion to what people generally consider 'white'.

Valhallan42nd wrote:I once played an RPG character that had an intolerance to intolerance. Discuss.

That that is a silly word game that people use to try and sidetrack conversation away from actual points of substance?

I could care less if they were 'speaking their mind'; once they began to interfere with the profitability of my enterprise they had to go.

I don't mean to suggest that this isn't a prefectly legitimate mechanism. It just doesn't speak to the issue at hand, which is that certain factions can seriously terrorize with the power of political correctness.

Do we really believe that Don Imus' listeners, who have been listening to his show for years, were surprised and dismayed by his comments? I don't really think so...

So I fully agree that the mechanism here is "cut the guy loose, I don't want to lose money on him" as you guys are saying. But why exactly do people think they're going to lose money if there's not a powerful force being turned against him?

I actually thought more about this issue, because I was trying to figure out where Shuma is coming from, and I realized another assumption I make, which I wasn't describing. That is, Political Correctness is a rhetorical club. Some people actually believe in it and care about it, and they're probably a very small number of not-powerful people, just as Shuma suggests. However, the "American Left" in general has decided that this is an issue they're winning on, and to whatever extent they can accuse the "American Right" of being racist/sexist/bigot/homophobes, they're winning.

So, it's not really that powerful forces are interested in Poltical Correctness. It's that powerful forces are interested in winning politcal battles and demonizing their opposition, and Political Correctness is a set of ideas they believe to be useful weapons in that process.

Any dude is free to drop the N-bomb in any set of circumstances, but he will face the relevant consequences of doing so. Same as any other speech.

Right, and in Saddam's Iraq, people were free to speak their mind. The consequence was that they'd be killed.

It's always a sliding scale. All I'm saying is that people need to err on the side of free speech more often than they do, even in the relatively permissive state we're in now.

That's why I didn't want to answer Kilkrazy's question as he asked it. What does "right" mean? Does it mean "something that should be loudly applauded?" Then no, I don't think racist speech should be applauded. But if something is "not right" does that mean we should act to prevent it? Should we act to silence "not right" speech?

I don't like that sort of attitude. I don't even like to see people sniffing around, asking themselves if they need to start silencing somebody's speech. Don't even give yourself that right in your own mind. If the time comes that you TRULY need to silence somebody, you won't even have to ask. So don't ask.

I'm not saying that's what Kilkrazy's attitude is, but I don't want to endorse it by accident or implication.

Racism will exist for as long as there are different races and as long as humans continue to 'need' something to hate on to make themselves 'feel' better/superior.

Pretty much its here to stay.

...just like us white people...sorry.

I actually thought more about this issue, because I was trying to figure out where Shuma is coming from, and I realized another assumption I make, which I wasn't describing. That is, Political Correctness is a rhetorical club. Some people actually believe in it and care about it, and they're probably a very small number of not-powerful people, just as Shuma suggests. However, the "American Left" in general has decided that this is an issue they're winning on, and to whatever extent they can accuse the "American Right" of being racist/sexist/bigot/homophobes, they're winning.

So, it's not really that powerful forces are interested in Poltical Correctness. It's that powerful forces are interested in winning politcal battles and demonizing their opposition, and Political Correctness is a set of ideas they believe to be useful weapons in that process.

To an extent thats true, but you emphasize the intention of what is very much a natural process. Imus was a political commentator with a history of offensive statements and he made an off color remark that broke his traditional listenership and made it into network news. Suddenly his advertisers were no longer in the primelight within his comfortable and static base, now they risked becoming known for their support of someone who is within the media sphere known most commonly for a racist remark. Modern news and entertainment is cannabalistic, and racism sells very, very, very well. Blame MSNBC or Fox, not the left for Imus' removal. People are censured all the time for off color comments, the FCC will fine you forty thousand dollars per word if you broadcast certain swears during certain hours of the day. There is no powerful collaboration of individuals whose priority is to enforce the ever shifting morass known as "political correctness (beyond the FCC, and they are just as much a creation of the right)" however business moves very fast and the news is always even faster. Imus was damaged goods as a political commentator and it was a very real business decision to let him go and another very real business decision for his remark to spark a massive media "controversy". The forces behind political correctness are business forces, not political entities and that isn't going to change no matter how many times fox covers the war on christmas. News and political coverage is a business, MSNBC and Fox both have shareholders and a mandate for profit over accountability or ethics in newscasting.

It's always a sliding scale. All I'm saying is that people need to err on the side of free speech more often than they do, even in the relatively permissive state we're in now.

I dropped over 20 Nbombs last week. I've been watching a lot of The Boondocks. I am very white. I think you need to recalculate exactly what people need to do or at the very least adjust your perception of what it is that they are doing. You seem to be forming an opinion based on high profile cases rather than a causal relationship between the way people act and the way social taboos work.

That's why I didn't want to answer Kilkrazy's question as he asked it. What does "right" mean? Does it mean "something that should be loudly applauded?" Then no, I don't think racist speech should be applauded. But if something is "not right" does that mean we should act to prevent it? Should we act to silence "not right" speech?

Thats a matter of degrees, most would say no but then espouse doing exactly that in specific situations. Human society isn't monolithic and social taboos are ever shifting and function case by case.

I don't like that sort of attitude. I don't even like to see people sniffing around, asking themselves if they need to start silencing somebody's speech. Don't even give yourself that right in your own mind. If the time comes that you TRULY need to silence somebody, you won't even have to ask. So don't ask.

Should radical clerics that espouse jihad within america be silenced? They are actively silenced and have been for years, however they do little that the westboro baptist church doesn't do. Both espouse violence, racism, extremism, and a whole slew of other taboo concepts. To treat speech as understandably sacred except in situations where it is suddenly "not" isn't a very reasoned or applicable stance on the issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadshane1 wrote:Racism will exist for as long as there are different races and as long as humans continue to 'need' something to hate on to make themselves 'feel' better/superior.

Pretty much its here to stay.

...just like us white people...sorry.

You almost said something reasonable, then you screwed it right up.

You're right, forgot the smiley.

Now its fix'd!

If you're drinking natty lights I think you'e the one that really deserves to be hanged here.

Beerist!!!!

I haven't read the whole thread, but here is my opinion. Let me first point out that while I have occasionally racist thoughts, those are always directed at individuals and never a stereotype. I am also ASTOUNDINGLY Caucasian.


Racism still exists because the "oppressed" want it to. Organizations like the NAACP, events here in Indy like Black Expo PROMOTE racism. Media stereotypes sure as hell don't help for other people such as Middle Eastern folk or any other race. By constantly pointing out their differences and "fighting" for equality or a fair shake, they simply drive a larger wedge between races for hatred to exist.

If you stop bitching about it, stop acting outraged about so-called injustices, it will go away, at least in America to a large degree. There will always be the haters in the world, you cannot make everyone believe one thing, no matter how factual that information is. Suck it up, move along, and don't support stereotypes about your race. Problem solved, eventually.

I am also a realist to know this will never happen.