7 Habits of Highly Affected Racialists

[Nice Squirrel]

Not all Dismals.

Sorry, just had to.

 

[ksen]

no you didn't

 

[dismal]

Nope, we have not. You still need to answer this question that you've been scared to answer perhaps because it reveals your strawman:

I'm saying:

1) It says something about white people
2) You and Davka say it does Not apply to All White People
3) That makes you and Davka Highly Affected racialists, according to Davka, #6.

Please answer the direct clear question.
Do you believe #1 says something about
A) ALL white people? Or
B) a sub group of white people?

Please answer A or B.
Do you believe Athena's OP says something about A) ALL white people or B) a subset of white people?
Please answer A or B.

There are only two choices, either you think it makes a claim about ALL white people or you don't. Which is it?
(and yes, we noticed that you found this easy question too uncomfortable to answer, and yes, we are amused.)

What's your direct answer to this clear question?

I'm fascinated you think this question is relevant. I already stated my argument for you. It has nothing to do with this. It has nothing to do with me and what I think.

It is an argument about you and Davka, not me.

But I am happy to answer: I don't think Athena's comment applies to all White people. I even said in the thread it did not apply to me. I think it was a very sloppy generalization, and I'm glad you and Davka called her on it.

I would also go as far as saying I can't conceive of a comment, outside of definitional statements perhaps, that could be made about White people that would apply to all White people. This is why Davka's rules is so asinine.

The person in the wrong if the person who the sweeping over-generalized statement about a group, not the person who points out the statement isn't accurate.

 

[bigfield]

Throw a rock and all the racialists come scurrying out of the woodwork.

The problem is that the definition is too broad. It catches not only racists but those who don't support the party line that racism is rampant in the US.

More strawmen. it's really the only defense you have, isn't it?

Hint: "rampant" is your word.

You forget your own statement:

This not only demonstrates that racism (in order to be the problem which we all agree racism is) must be endemic among the powerful majority.

There you stated that racism 'must be endemic among the powerful majority'. It's absurd that you would consider that a true statement but reject that racism is 'rampant in the US.'

 

[Rhea]

Nope, we have not. You still need to answer this question that you've been scared to answer perhaps because it reveals your strawman:


Please answer the direct clear question.
Do you believe [Athena's OP] says something about
A) ALL white people? Or
B) a sub group of white people?

I'm fascinated you think this question is relevant. I already stated my argument for you. It has nothing to do with this. It has nothing to do with me and what I think.

It is an argument about you and Davka, not me.

But I am happy to answer: I don't think Athena's comment applies to all White people. I even said in the thread it did not apply to me. I think it was a very sloppy generalization, and I'm glad you and Davka called her on it.

I would also go as far as saying I can't conceive of a comment, outside of definitional statements perhaps, that could be made about White people that would apply to all White people. This is why Davka's rules is so asinine.

The person in the wrong if the person who the sweeping over-generalized statement about a group, not the person who points out the statement isn't accurate.

Thank you for answering. Although you didn't actually. You said you don't think it applies to all white people. But I asked whether you thought it said something about all white people. Which is different and asks whether you think there was an "all White People" claim at all, not whether you thought it was valid.

Cause here's the thing. NO ONE MADE A CLAIM ABOUT ALL WHITE PEOPLE. Not Athena, not me, not Davka. That right there is a textbook strawman. Athena made a statement about the subset of white people who are both: poor/working and vote for policies to diminish public welfare programs. This is obviously not all white people. As we both know.

So compare that to Davka's list where he states:

What I defined in the list was a habit of taking any comment about a group in power - whites, men, the wealthy - and constructing a strawman response. The strawman pretends that the original argument was about ALL of the people in the group (an absurd argument), and then handily knocks over this strawman. Strawmen are easy to defeat, because nobody is standing behind them.

See what you did? You pretended that Athena made a statement about "all white people."
And then you carried on about how that was false.
She dint say that, though. So you did #6 right there. It was textbook. perfect!

You could have argued, "Hey not all poor-whites-who-vote-to-diminish-public-programs-that-they-themselves-rely-on are doing so because of race, and here's why I think that." Instead, you avoided the entire discussion about race-baiting TV commercials by going headlong into #6 avoidance scheme. Not all whites! (when no one ever said all whites, as we have noted)

It was as classic as it could get.

And now, you've dived right into, "Tu Quoque!" (#2) to avoid discussion of the race-baiting commercial problem. "You're saying not all whites, too!" LOL, which can only be true if your Scheme#6 claim that someone said "not all whites!" was true in the first place, which it never was. And that's why we aren't "doing it, too!"

Please proceed, Dismal. Only a few more to demonstrate, and you are on a roll.

 

[fromderinside]

So here we are five pages into this discussion? and we're still dealing "all white people" as if white people are the only ones associated with defining power in culture ... and if 'all' were relevant in any respect.

 [B]Ethnic issues in China[/B]

 [B]Ethnic issues in Japan[/B]

 Ethnic issues in Iran

Davka's OP works just as well with Chineseness, Japan-ness, and Iran-ness, with Catholic-ness, Muslim-ness, Hindu-ness, with etc.

If anyone thinks there is substance to whether all is important to construction of the OP just try to use all white people in any of the places where white people occur. Doing so is laughable.

 

[Rhea]

Sometimes people say things about white people where "Not All White People" is a reasonable and accurate response, so attempting to head off discussion of whether the initial statement was valid by having rules that you can't say things like "Not All White People" is harmful and destructive to the free exchange of ideas.

If people want to make sweeping generalizations about White people (or any group) people should be free to call them on it, not be bullied into silence.

The trick, see, is to wait until someone ACTUALLY SAYS "all white people." Then go on your rampage.


until then,

No, I think we officially established that your "Not All White People" rule is for shit.

we've officially established that it's quite prevalent.

 

[dismal]

The trick, see, is to wait until someone ACTUALLY SAYS "all white people." Then go on your rampage.


until then,

No, I think we officially established that your "Not All White People" rule is for shit.

we've officially established that it's quite prevalent.

It should be quite prevalent as it's virtually impossible to make a statement about white people that applies to All White People. Unless it's definitional or tautological, like "all white people are white people".

Hence the reasonable person might conclude the reasonable rule would be "stop making sweeping over-generalized statements an entire race of people" instead of attempting to call the people who challenge the sweeping over-generalized statements about a race "Racists".

 

[fromderinside]

Hence the reasonable person might conclude the reasonable rule would be "stop making sweeping over-generalized statements an entire race of people" instead of attempting to call the people who challenge the sweeping over-generalized statements about a race "Racists".

There is a race of people? Has anyone informed geneticists?

 

[dismal]

Hence the reasonable person might conclude the reasonable rule would be "stop making sweeping over-generalized statements an entire race of people" instead of attempting to call the people who challenge the sweeping over-generalized statements about a race "Racists".

There is a race of people? Has anyone informed geneticists?

If races of people don't exist there would be even less validity to making sweeping over-generalized statements about them.

And this forum would need to find a new topic.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I love when people switch contexts.

Yes, the political concept of race has little to nothing in common with the genetic concept of race. This whole thread, up until post 149, has been about the term when used politically.

And people say I'm not good at context.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Loren, it's an unusual race card. Davka wants to speak for and on behalf of minorities, and by pointing out that I'm a minority and that I also disagree with his absurd definitions, and that I find his speaking for and on behalf of me to be demeaning and racist, I leave him at a severe disadvantage. He really doesn't know what to do about it. He is ready to say that anyone who dares to disagree with his absurd definitions is a racist, yet at the same time insists that minorities aren't racist. Now he's faced with a minority that disagrees with his absurd definitions. Yet he can't call me racist for disagreeing without calling himself a racist through the tu quoque point he made in which he said if you call a minority a racist that means you are a racist.

So now he wants to call me a racist but can't, because I'm a minority disagreeing with him. I didn't deal the race card from the bottom of the deck, I dealt it as a trump card.

Ok, although that's not the card that's usually referred to as the race card.

 

[connick]

When I read the OP I had a little lolwut moment so I decided to read the rest of the thread. I'm pretty sure Davka meant what was written in the OP but if it's just a joke and I didn't pick up on it please let me know so I don't waste too much time in earnest.

While there have been some parts of the discussion that are worthy of real consideration, I'm surprised nobody complained about the absolutely nonsensical descriptions of an apparently made up class of people called "Highly Affected Racialists". First off, why the qualifier "highly affected"? One might presume that this allows for wiggle room later (i.e. what is the difference between a mild racialist and a highly affected racialist?). For someone who insists on being very specific about how racism is defined (which is fine by me), it seems counterproductive to use this qualifier.

Please tell me, are you defining this class out of thin air like the True Scotsman or have you or someone else really looked at any actual habits of anyone? That is to say, is your list of seven habits based on any kind meaningful observations or are you just generalizing and mind-reading? Considering that you are placing words in the mouths of this supposed class of people and matter-of-factly lacing your descriptions with an air of moral superiority (e.g. "their bankrupt worldview") I'm inclined to believe the latter. It smacks of the same lists you find in Cosmopolitan magazine about the "10 Steamy Habits of Don Juan Lovers" or the "Six Secret Habits of Men Who Cheat". Nobody at that magazine studied any men or categorized them into levels of Don Jaunery or studied their habits; it's a fluff piece. I would be very interested and pleased to learn that your list is instead based on something rather than being mostly made up. If you could explain how you came up with the list I would really appreciate it.

I find spurious reasoning in virtually every item listed..

1. Rejecting and Mocking Accepted Sociological Terminology. Although the study of racism and racial bigotry has been part of the social sciences for decades, Highly Affected Racialists either studiously ignore the accepted terminology, or pretend not to understand it. An example of this is the word “racism” itself, which is defined as power plus racial bigotry. Highly Affected racialists either ignore this definition or call it “ludicrous,” in spite of the fact that, once understood, the concept is self-evident.1 This allows for the strengthening of another habit:

First off, as others have mentioned, your definition of racism is by no means universal. If you want to claim that it is the unanimously accepted definition among all sociologists then you have your work cut out for you. Nevertheless, if that's the definition you want to use in this thread I'll stick to it for the sake of discussion.

Of course, if someone were to disagree with any given definition it would be a false bifurcation to suggest that they are either "studiously ignoring" or "pretending not to understand". They may have found, as is the case, that there are numerous definitions available from a number of sources; sociological, colloquial or otherwise. They also may have a fair reason to object to the assigned meaning of the term. To suggest that they could not have a valid objection is to suggest that words and definitions are immutable which we know is not the case.

2. Accuse Minorities of Racism. This is a classic “tu quoque” argument, known on playgrounds across the nation as “well, you do it too!,” sometimes known as the :he hit me back first!” defense. This ignores the fact that racism cannot be practiced by powerless minorities against powerful minorities.1

As I asked above, where does this assertion come from? What was the population of highly affected racialists studied in determining that they habitually accuse minorities of racism? If we accept your definition (which many would not) then you are right that racism can't be practiced by powerless minorities against powerful minorities. Of course that means that nobody is, by themselves, racist because racism then depends upon the balance of power in a society. A racially bigoted act by a white in a majority white society is racist but a racially bigoted act by a white in a black majority society is not racist. Instead those people are, to quote you, "merely small-minded bigots".

Where many, I would imagine and hope, are interested in ridding the world of racial bigotry in any capacity it seems that you suggest it only matters if the bigots are in power. Why not be against racial bigotry in general regardless of who is in power?

3. Racism Denial. Highly Affected Racialists assert often, loudly, and confidently that racism is no longer a problem, and therefore cannot be at the root of any social ills in America. Whenever anything newsworthy occurs which appears to be steeped in racism, characterize it as an isolated incident. Individual racists may be admitted to exist, but the institution of racism must be assumed to have vanished completely at some vague, indeterminate time between the assassination of MLK Jr. and the election of President Obama.

For all of your accusations of strawman arguments against your position it seems incongruent that you would start by making the same type of argument yourself. Is it really your contention that there is a whole group of people who think that racism disappeared "at some vague, indeterminate time between the assassination of MLK Jr. and the election of President Obama"? They'd be easy to look down on if they existed but, I don't think anyone really espouses that position. I'm positive that some people believe racism in America has declined or disappeared but I think it is unfair of you to caricaturize their position like this.

4. Appeal to (pseudo)Science. The attempt to “prove” scientifically and/or logically that minority races are inherently inferior goes back as far as racism itself. Despite the fact that every single scientific justification for racism has been debunked numerous times, Highly Affected Racialists continue to return to this well, press-ganging genetics, statistics, and anthropology (among others) into the service of their bankrupt worldview.

Again, who are these people? Where is this coming from? I mean, I know generally the type of people you are trying to lambaste but how have you invented this category and decided who fits in it? How did you establish their regular habits? How is it that you know that they all have a bankrupt worldview?

5. Hyperfocus on Minutiae. Whenever a newsworthy race-related atrocity hits the media, Highly Affected Racialists spring into action to deflect the conversation away from the dangerous ground of societal wrongs, and onto the irrelevant “facts of the case.” This allows them to ignore the way that these incidents fit into the larger context of institutionalized racism, thus avoiding any potential learning opportunities. Instead of talking about how White America interacts with the Darker Nation, Highly Affected racialists can argue for hours, even days, about whether the policeman in question has a history of racism; whether the dead or injured black male was acting in a threatening manner; whether the DNA in the lab fits the witness reports, and on and on.

What constitutes being hyperfocused? How are the "facts of the case" ever irrelevant? How is it at all unimportant to know, for example "whether the DNA in the lab fits the witness reports"? Don't you feel you are on the exact opposite end of the spectrum by painting with a broad brush into "White America and "the Darker Nation"? In my opinion it is foolish to make such generalizations and ignore the contribution of individual people to the problem.

6. The “Not All X” Defense. This is another tactic for deflecting the conversation away from the very real problem of racism in America. Any time that widespread racism is brought up, the Highly Affected Racialist can be heard to say “that’s not fair, not all white people are racist,” or “not all police are racist,” or some similar sentiment. This is a strawman argument, since nobody is actually arguing that all of any group are racist. This technique can be found in other arguments by bigots, in forms such as “not all men are rapists.” “not all rich business owners are greedy assholes,” “not all conservatives are misogynists,” and so on.

So if nobody is arguing that all white people are racist then what do you mean when you say "how White America interacts with the Darker Nation". It seems to me that you are suggesting that one group is white and one is black and that one is racist and the other is not. Maybe people are confused by the apparent implication that all white people are racist. Maybe people are confused by bringing up "widespread racism" without mentioning who that does or does not refer to. There's nothing wrong with asking you to clarify that when you say something along the lines of "widespread racism in White America over the Darker Nation" that you don't mean to suggest that all whites in America are racist

7. Redefining Racism. This is an ironic habit, and one which many Highly Affected Racialists no doubt find hilarious. At the same time that the accepted sociological definition of racism is tossed aside as “too narrow” or simply “ludicrous,” Highly Affected racialists will tell you that, since they never ever use the “n-word,” and they don’t “hate” minorities, therefore they cannot be racists. Never mind that they regularly utilize every single one of these 7 habits; never mind that they ‘wouldn’t want their sister to marry one,” they don’t hate, tell racist jokes, or use slurs. All they want is to be left alone.

I'm pretty sure you're just making this up based on sterotypes about racist people. Are you talking about real people or are these all just hypothetical people who may or may not exist? Did you actually talk to or observe a group of people or no? It's one thing to mock an imaginary group of people and pretend that they are all Republican NASCAR fans who love 'Murica and hate O-bummer but it's dishonest to act like they are any more real than lesbian, libtard, granola-eating, bleeding-heart moonbats. Both groups are fabrications. Both are borne from the same rhetorical tactics that underlie lists like these.

1. The sociological definition of racism can be seen most clearly by examining the root of American racism during the days of slavery. Racism involves the following: hatred of or disdain for a minority group; feelings of superiority over a minority group; active participation in a system which harms and diminishes a minority group. While there were no doubt numerous slaves who hated all white people, as well as many who felt themselves superior to white people, these attitudes did not affect the well-being of white people one bit. Slaves could hate all they wanted, but their hatred was not the problem. In fact, their hatred was a direct result of the problem, which was the racism of the white people who made the institution of slavery possible – and later the institutions of sharecropping, Jim Crow, Segregation, and lynching. The hatred of the oppressed for the oppressor does not equal racism. It may well be characterized as racial bigotry, but it is not racism.

That's not a good way to see a definition. I prefer them to be written and agreed upon rather than arising from thoughtful consideration of American history. You say that racism is racial bigotry plus power and seem to place much greater importance on racism than racial bigotry. If we buy your definition then your position seems pretty shitty to me. The message seems to be that "mere" racial bigotry isn't a problem unless it's being conducted by the people in power. Racial bigotry (or any form of bigotry) is shitty no matter who is doing it or how ingrained in a society it may or may not be.

Now for the real question. How does making this list help make anything better or teach anyone anything useful about racism? Even if every word of the OP was true, would it serve as anything more than a rant against people you disagree with?

 

[ksen]

Even if every word of the OP was true, would it serve as anything more than a rant against people you disagree with?

Does it have to?

 

[connick]

Does it have to?

I don't think so but, Davka seems to think that there is an opportunity for learning here and that some are missing out on an important lesson. Do you have an answer to my question that isn't itself a question?

 

[maxparrish]

1. Rejecting and Mocking Accepted Sociological Terminology. Although the study of racism and racial bigotry has been part of the social sciences for decades, Highly Affected Racialists either studiously ignore the accepted terminology, or pretend not to understand it. An example of this is the word “racism” itself, which is defined as power plus racial bigotry. Highly Affected racialists either ignore this definition or call it “ludicrous,” in spite of the fact that, once understood, the concept is self-evident.¹ This allows for the strengthening of another habit:

2. Accuse Minorities of Racism. This is a classic “tu quoque” argument, known on playgrounds across the nation as “well, you do it too!,” sometimes known as the :he hit me back first!” defense. This ignores the fact that racism cannot be practiced by powerless minorities against powerful minorities.¹...

7. Redefining Racism. This is an ironic habit, and one which many Highly Affected Racialists no doubt find hilarious. At the same time that the accepted sociological definition of racism is tossed aside as “too narrow” or simply “ludicrous,” Highly Affected racialists will tell you that, since they never ever use the “n-word,” and they don’t “hate” minorities, therefore they cannot be racists. Never mind that they regularly utilize every single one of these 7 habits; never mind that they ‘wouldn’t want their sister to marry one,” they don’t hate, tell racist jokes, or use slurs. All they want is to be left alone.

1. The sociological definition of racism can be seen most clearly by examining the root of American racism during the days of slavery. Racism involves the following: hatred of or disdain for a minority group; feelings of superiority over a minority group; active participation in a system which harms and diminishes a minority group. While there were no doubt numerous slaves who hated all white people, as well as many who felt themselves superior to white people, these attitudes did not affect the well-being of white people one bit. Slaves could hate all they wanted, but their hatred was not the problem. In fact, their hatred was a direct result of the problem, which was the racism of the white people who made the institution of slavery possible – and later the institutions of sharecropping, Jim Crow, Segregation, and lynching. The hatred of the oppressed for the oppressor does not equal racism. It may well be characterized as racial bigotry, but it is not racism.​

Perhaps when the 7 habits of anti-racist quackery is posted, Item One can start with the pretense that your "post-modern" ploy is the canonical definition. The reason that the "highly affected" hobegoblins tend to ignore such terminology is that it is a strawman, a broader 're-definition' of the original meaning of racism as commonly (and originally) understood. Those of us who still have their sociology texbooks from the later half of the 1960s will note that 'racism' was commonly referred to as a belief one's group racial superiority that supported discrimination (or worse) against others. The arch-typical example being the Nazi ideology and the theory of racial superiority.

Since the 70s, the disappearance of Bull Connor, the KKK, etc. has shrunk the hobegoblin pool, so some academic left axe-grinders created new "critical theory" to find and find new kinds of racism and "heritics"...as some traditional liberals have discovered.

Do a google and up pops the traditional definition:

"prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

Or: OED - American Version...http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/racism

"The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

EXAMPLE SENTENCES
1.1Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior:"

And as Wiki has pointed out (and their footnotes confirm) their are different definitions, of which YOUR VIEW is but one of them:

Racism consists of both prejudice and discrimination based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples. It often takes the form of social actions, practices or beliefs, or political systems that consider different races to be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities. It may also hold that members of different races should be treated differently.[1][2][3]

Among the questions about how to define racism are the question of whether to include forms of discrimination that are unintentional, such as making assumptions about preferences or abilities of others based on racial stereotypes, whether to include symbolic or institutionalized forms of discrimination such as the circulation of ethnic stereotypes through the media, and whether to include the socio-political dynamics of social stratification that sometimes have a racial component.

In sociology and psychology, some definitions only include consciously malignant forms of discrimination.[4][5] Some definitions of racism also include discriminatory behaviors and beliefs based on cultural, national, ethnic, caste, or religious stereotypes.[2][6] One view holds that racism is best understood as 'prejudice plus power' because without the support of political or economic power, prejudice would not be able to manifest as a pervasive cultural, institutional or social phenomenon.[7][8][9]

http://www.andover.edu/About/Newsroom/TheMagazine/Documents/8-PedOfRacismSWJournal.pdf

For someone who complains about 'straw men' its seems you must have job at a scare crow factory.

 

[laughing dog]

Does it have to?

I don't think so but, Davka seems to think that there is an opportunity for learning here and that some are missing out on an important lesson. Do you have an answer to my question that isn't itself a question?

I think Davka is an optimist in that regard.

 

[Derec]

Does it have to?

I don't think so but, Davka seems to think that there is an opportunity for learning here

Why doesn't he take advantage of it then? Maxparrish's post would be an excellent place to start.

 

[Davka]

it's virtually impossible to make a statement about white people that applies to All White People.

And that's why NOBODY ever makes such statements. Which is why the "not all X" argument is a strawman. It's arguing against a positions that NOBODY is actually holding.

If someone were so foolish as to make such a sweeping generalization, you would be perfectly correct to call them on it. And you would not be creating a strawman. But pretty much all you've done on this thread for the last few pages is rant and rave against your little strawman argument. And it is precisely this ranting and raving, this "not all X" strawman, that is, as I have pointed out, a habit of Highly Affected racialists.

 

[Davka]

Davka, you keep saying "if you want to learn" but you have nothing to teach.

All you can teach is begging the question and ad hominem.

Your specialized definition with no relationship to the real world isn't something that I should learn, but something you should unlearn.


Loren, it's an unusual race card. Davka wants to speak for and on behalf of minorities, and by pointing out that I'm a minority and that I also disagree with his absurd definitions, and that I find his speaking for and on behalf of me to be demeaning and racist, I leave him at a severe disadvantage. He really doesn't know what to do about it. He is ready to say that anyone who dares to disagree with his absurd definitions is a racist, yet at the same time insists that minorities aren't racist. Now he's faced with a minority that disagrees with his absurd definitions. Yet he can't call me racist for disagreeing without calling himself a racist through the tu quoque point he made in which he said if you call a minority a racist that means you are a racist.

So now he wants to call me a racist but can't, because I'm a minority disagreeing with him. I didn't deal the race card from the bottom of the deck, I dealt it as a trump card.

I never called you a racist, or any of the other things you have attributed to me. You are certainly engaging regularly in race-bigotry on this board, as well as narrow-minded pigheadedness, but that has nothing to do with your race. You seem to be a racialist, but not a racist. That's not uncommon.