Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 24, 2017 21:04:19 GMT -5
Spellbound454: Of all 20 cases, case (3) is the only case you judge to be racism. What factors in this specific case make it stand out in your mind? Obviously it's an unfavourable generalization based on race, but at least half of the cases involve such generalizations.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 24, 2017 22:49:55 GMT -5
Responses to ... yada yada ... inline, for GEL:
2. No. I've studied thousands of statements from rape victims. The perpetrator being another race than the victim is a defining characteristic - for all races. It stands out. It's not a racist thing - it's just a fact. Therefore, had the perpetrator been a white male with arm sleeve tattoos, she would most likely cross the street when encountering a white male with arm sleeve tattoos. I hope that makes sense. Would it be fair to say that you don't consider prejudices that are circumstantially based on race (i.e. they could just as easily be based on other "defining characteristics") to be racism?
3. No. I'm saying that nobody knows all white cops. Get to know them before you make judgments. Don't make uninformed judgments. While I'm sure it's the case some of the time - nothing is the case all of the time. Generalizations come from those not informed enough to have any other opinion.
You've said that this case doesn't constitute racism, and your stated rationale is that Jill is speaking out of ignorance. If this isn't so, what factor besides Jill's ignorance is responsible for your 'No' verdict?
9. Interesting points. My first knee jerk reaction is that he is here and not in Korea and he will have to understand customers who speak English - unless he doesn't allow them in his shop either. But? I'd have to think on this for a bit.
I'll leave this as 'Yes' unless you say otherwise.
11. Possibly. You did not specify in your post that Roy had a personal traumatic experience. If you would change your opinion, then this should be changed to "Not Enough Info". I'll leave it as an unconditional 'Yes' unless you say otherwise.
12. Yes. That would change my verdict. As written, tho, my opinion stands.
I'll change this to "Not Enough Information".
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 24, 2017 23:09:25 GMT -5
Changed my mind. Here goes. 1. No. Not racist. simply quoting something he read 2. Not racist 3. Not enough information 4. Not racist 5. Not enough information 6. Not racist. Stupid though 7. Not racist 8. Not racist. But needs to listen to the concerns of the black community 9. Not a race. So not racist. Issue of national origin 10. Racist and ignorant 11. Not racist. Jews and Arabs are not a race 12. Not racist 13. Racist 14. Not racist 15. Not racist 16. Need more information 17. Not a racist but an national origin issue 18. Not racist. Her idea will never fly. 19. Not racist but she is grossly ignorant 20. Not racist. National origin issue. I am done. Is it fair to say you're not comfortable using the term "racism" unless it applies to one of the three major races (Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid)? Of all 20 cases, (10) and (13) are the only two you've judged to be racism. If I stipulated that Kim (case 10) didn't attach notions of superiority or inferiority to race, that she believed God desires distinct races for sake of cultural distinctness (i.e. heterogeneity as opposed to homogeneity), would this change your verdict? Re case (13): If I stipulated that Neil's support for racial profiling was based on a study that concluded racial profiling significantly increased police efficiency and reduced the number of false arrests, would this change your verdict? If not, how do you reconcile this with your verdict on case (1)?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 25, 2017 1:43:39 GMT -5
djAdvocate : I forgot to tag you in the OP, but I'm particularly curious about where your views lie. If you have time, I'd be interested. Billis' convention is perfect: yes, no, or "not enough info". i am honored that you considered my opinion worth hearing. none of the statements in the OP are racist, imo. however, i have a very narrow definition for racism. there is bigotry and prejudice throughout the post, however.
|
|
Spellbound454
Senior Member
"In the end, we remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends"
Joined: Sept 9, 2011 17:28:42 GMT -5
Posts: 3,987
|
Post by Spellbound454 on Aug 25, 2017 2:11:40 GMT -5
Spellbound454 : Of all 20 cases, case (3) is the only case you judge to be racism. What factors in this specific case make it stand out in your mind? Obviously it's an unfavourable generalization based on race, but at least half of the cases involve such generalizations. Mary declares at a political rally, "Most white cops--nearly all of them--are racist." I put racist because I thought she was using the term disparagingly based on the generalisation that the cops are white. but if its not a generalisation and it is an accusation based on sound evidence.... ie its true.....then it wouldn't be racist. I thought the comedian was racist too. Its a problem we have historically had in the entertainment industry..... and nowadays Race is a no go area.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,161
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 25, 2017 7:21:18 GMT -5
djAdvocate : I forgot to tag you in the OP, but I'm particularly curious about where your views lie. If you have time, I'd be interested. Billis' convention is perfect: yes, no, or "not enough info". i am honored that you considered my opinion worth hearing. none of the statements in the OP are racist, imo. however, i have a very narrow definition for racism. there is bigotry and prejudice throughout the post, however. I don't consider any of them to be prima facie cases of, or evidence of, racism. Some could, of course, be said or done by a racist person given underlying racist beliefs, though they do not qualify as racist on a stand-alone basis. Along side the bigotry and prejudice that dj notes, I would add ignorance and/or stupidity. Apparently MY opinion was not judged to be that interesting....
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Aug 25, 2017 8:48:46 GMT -5
Responses to ... yada yada ... inline, for GEL:
2. No. I've studied thousands of statements from rape victims. The perpetrator being another race than the victim is a defining characteristic - for all races. It stands out. It's not a racist thing - it's just a fact. Therefore, had the perpetrator been a white male with arm sleeve tattoos, she would most likely cross the street when encountering a white male with arm sleeve tattoos. I hope that makes sense. Would it be fair to say that you don't consider prejudices that are circumstantially based on race (i.e. they could just as easily be based on other "defining characteristics") to be racism? No. I think you could maybe say "prejudice" but not "racism".
3. No. I'm saying that nobody knows all white cops. Get to know them before you make judgments. Don't make uninformed judgments. While I'm sure it's the case some of the time - nothing is the case all of the time. Generalizations come from those not informed enough to have any other opinion.
You've said that this case doesn't constitute racism, and your stated rationale is that Jill is speaking out of ignorance. If this isn't so, what factor besides Jill's ignorance is responsible for your 'No' verdict? It is ignorance, tho. So there are no other factors.
9. Interesting points. My first knee jerk reaction is that he is here and not in Korea and he will have to understand customers who speak English - unless he doesn't allow them in his shop either. But? I'd have to think on this for a bit.
I'll leave this as 'Yes' unless you say otherwise. That's fair.
11. Possibly. You did not specify in your post that Roy had a personal traumatic experience. If you would change your opinion, then this should be changed to "Not Enough Info". I'll leave it as an unconditional 'Yes' unless you say otherwise. As your first statement was written, my answer was a "yes". After you added more information, I would agree that "Not Enough Info" is what I would say. This could be true, however, of all the statements. I suppose all of them could require more information than just a sentence or two in order to answer "yes" or "no".
12. Yes. That would change my verdict. As written, tho, my opinion stands.
I'll change this to "Not Enough Information". Also fair.
These questions are sometimes going to be answered according to the reader's intent. If someone is looking to see racism, they are going to find it. If someone is trying hard not to see it, they aren't going to see it. I tried to answer them with an open mind and not wanting to see or not see anything - according to the info you provided. What you have proven here, I think, is that most of the time, we made assessments without enough information. I certainly did.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,499
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 25, 2017 10:25:32 GMT -5
Changed my mind. Here goes. 1. No. Not racist. simply quoting something he read 2. Not racist 3. Not enough information 4. Not racist 5. Not enough information 6. Not racist. Stupid though 7. Not racist 8. Not racist. But needs to listen to the concerns of the black community 9. Not a race. So not racist. Issue of national origin 10. Racist and ignorant 11. Not racist. Jews and Arabs are not a race 12. Not racist 13. Racist 14. Not racist 15. Not racist 16. Need more information 17. Not a racist but an national origin issue 18. Not racist. Her idea will never fly. 19. Not racist but she is grossly ignorant 20. Not racist. National origin issue. I am done. Is it fair to say you're not comfortable using the term "racism" unless it applies to one of the three major races (Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid)? That is correct.Of all 20 cases, (10) and (13) are the only two you've judged to be racism. If I stipulated that Kim (case 10) didn't attach notions of superiority or inferiority to race, that she believed God desires distinct races for sake of cultural distinctness (i.e. heterogeneity as opposed to homogeneity), would this change your verdict? Sorry, I don't buy it. Without getting too deep in a religious discussion here, isn't it said God does not make mistakes? What would be His rationale for keeping the races separate for cultural distinctness? It really serves no purpose. Re case (13): If I stipulated that Neil's support for racial profiling was based on a study that concluded racial profiling significantly increased police efficiency and reduced the number of false arrests, would this change your verdict? If not, how do you reconcile this with your verdict on case (1)? Just because it might reduce the number of false arrests, the police would still stop someone simply for being Black (for example). Police better have a really good excuse to stop someone because a black man is walking through a white neighborhood. Case ! does not involve stopping someone because of the color of their skin.
I only use racism when the issue solely involves the three major races. Bigotry for other classifications (national origin, religion, age, etc.). I worked for an employer with a very large domestic employee base. These employees came/come from all walks of life and backgrounds. Part of my working career involved conducting internal EEO investigations of unfair workplace treatment because of someone's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. I also investigated claims of sexual harassment, denial of an employees request for religious accommodation, and retaliation for filing a complaint regarding any of the above mentioned issues. In addition to investigating incidents I also opened, approved, and closed other investigations other than my own. In reviewing other internal EEO investigations, I either agreed or disagreed with the findings based upon the report and supporting documentation. If I disagreed I could ask for additional information which might include continuing the investigation. When closing a case, I had to also approve any discipline to be meted out (if appropriate), up to and including termination. I could recommend either increasing the disciple or lowering it based upon the facts. I had to be very careful and sure of what I was approving as these cases often went external to the company and could on occasion end up in civil court. As for the examples you offered, some incidents/example can be as simple as you provided. Others could be more complex than offered. I based my responses solely on what was offered. My opinion could change on a few of them if more information were provided. But this discussion could go on and on if the goal posts (additional information) keep being changed so I will leave my responses as they are.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 10:10:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2017 10:51:34 GMT -5
Which of the following behaviours constitute racism? - At a dinner party, Bob claims "Asians are smarter than whites," citing a 2008 Swedish study on general intelligence that includes statistics categorized by race.
- Jill, a white woman who was once assaulted by a black man, crosses the street whenever she sees a large black man approaching on her side of the sidewalk.
- Mary declares at a political rally, "Most white cops--nearly all of them--are racist."
- Joe keeps a Confederate flag--a keepsake from his childhood--in his bedroom window. He refuses to take it down even after several people insist it's a symbol of racism and makes them uncomfortable.
- Holly claims she would never marry a black man because she finds them loud and unattractive.
- Jim asks Lo, a newcomer to his town of obviously Asian descent, "Are you from China?"
- Peter, a white man, is a firm believer in Affirmative Action and racial quotas. "Black communities need a leg up to compensate for other systemic inequalities," he claims.
- Donna argues online, "All lives matter. White privilege is just and excuse made up by black people."
- Les, a Korean man, refuses to hire anyone except Koreans to work in his shop.
- Kim, a deeply religious woman, disapproves of interracial marriages, sincerely believing that God intended the races be kept separate and distinct.
- Roy, an ethnic Jew, maintains a site "sonsofishmael.com" documenting atrocities committed by Arabs and defending a thesis that Arabs are a violent and factious people by nature.
- Maude, a black professor of sociology, pens an op ed asking readers to eschew citing the research of white sociologists, arguing their research is inherently biased and instrumental in the perpetuation of dangerous stereotypes.
- Neil, an Asian man, is an outspoken proponent of racial profiling for police work, believing that profiling makes policing smarter and more effective.
- John, a man indifferent to race, refuses to stop hanging out with Ellis, his childhood friend and an outspoken white supremacist, simply because of his beliefs on race.
- Gary, a black TV entertainer, frequently pokes fun at whites, mocking their dancing and driving abilities in particular.
- Kate, a white woman, and her friend Katelyn, a black woman, agree in a discussion that "there's a difference between blacks and (N word)s".
- James categorically refuses to hire another aboriginal man after his previous two aboriginal employees suffered problems with alcohol abuse.
- Jeanine, a full-time volunteer for a NGO in the Black Lives Matter movement, argues on her blog that modest taxes should be levied on white Americans to fund a reparations package intended to compensate "people of colour" from past injustices such as slavery.
- Ellie, a white New Englander, reflexively calls white debate opponents racist and bigoted when she perceives she's losing an argument.
- Joseph, a Texan, sincerely believes the influx of Mexican migrants to the US is a threat to the stability and prosperity of the nation.
As a special request from me: if posters wouldn't mind making this thread about issues and ideas rather than specific people, I'd appreciate it. What does racism mean to you? Anything pertaining to race.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,478
|
Post by billisonboard on Aug 25, 2017 10:57:24 GMT -5
... But this discussion could go on and on if the goal posts (additional information) keep being changed so I will leave my responses as they are. My sense of where this is going is we will end up getting a summation from Virgil Showlion . There are some results he likes so he is not addressing those. There are some he wants to have a different result to report so he is manipulating them in hopes of getting the "right" answers.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 25, 2017 11:34:25 GMT -5
Hell I cross the street if I see guys coming my way no matter what color they are. Unless they look like grandpas!! I cross if I see a group of women if they look like crack ho's
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 25, 2017 11:35:15 GMT -5
... But this discussion could go on and on if the goal posts (additional information) keep being changed so I will leave my responses as they are. My sense of where this is going is we will end up getting a summation from Virgil Showlion . There are some results he likes so he is not addressing those. There are some he wants to have a different result to report so he is manipulating them in hopes of getting the "right" answers. I think the questions are vague. Plus everyone has their own idea of racism.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,478
|
Post by billisonboard on Aug 25, 2017 11:43:39 GMT -5
My sense of where this is going is we will end up getting a summation from Virgil Showlion . There are some results he likes so he is not addressing those. There are some he wants to have a different result to report so he is manipulating them in hopes of getting the "right" answers. I think the questions are vague. Plus everyone has their own idea of racism. Reminds me of Sheldon Cooper's attempt to develop a definitive theory of comedy.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 10:10:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2017 12:31:29 GMT -5
... But this discussion could go on and on if the goal posts (additional information) keep being changed so I will leave my responses as they are. My sense of where this is going is we will end up getting a summation from Virgil Showlion . There are some results he likes so he is not addressing those. There are some he wants to have a different result to report so he is manipulating them in hopes of getting the "right" answers. Sounds racist.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Aug 25, 2017 12:32:09 GMT -5
... But this discussion could go on and on if the goal posts (additional information) keep being changed so I will leave my responses as they are. My sense of where this is going is we will end up getting a summation from Virgil Showlion . There are some results he likes so he is not addressing those. There are some he wants to have a different result to report so he is manipulating them in hopes of getting the "right" answers. Perhaps. Perhaps not. As Virgil adds more information to the original statements, it can make a difference. Maybe Virgil is manipulating to get the answer he wants, but I doubt it. I think he more trying to make a point that maybe we jump to judgment without all the necessary information. At least that's what I learned about myself from this.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Aug 25, 2017 12:32:53 GMT -5
Hell I cross the street if I see guys coming my way no matter what color they are. Unless they look like grandpas!! I cross if I see a group of women if they look like crack ho's I wondered why you didn't stop to say "hi"!
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 25, 2017 18:45:23 GMT -5
djAdvocate : I forgot to tag you in the OP, but I'm particularly curious about where your views lie. If you have time, I'd be interested. Billis' convention is perfect: yes, no, or "not enough info". i am honored that you considered my opinion worth hearing. none of the statements in the OP are racist, imo. however, i have a very narrow definition for racism. there is bigotry and prejudice throughout the post, however. What is your definition? I'm curious because, while not everybody considers racism to be bigotry, I know of nobody (possibly excepting you) who doesn't consider bigotry pertaining to race to be racism. You've said you see bigotry throughout the post, hence the question.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 25, 2017 18:54:08 GMT -5
i am honored that you considered my opinion worth hearing. none of the statements in the OP are racist, imo. however, i have a very narrow definition for racism. there is bigotry and prejudice throughout the post, however. I don't consider any of them to be prima facie cases of, or evidence of, racism. Some could, of course, be said or done by a racist person given underlying racist beliefs, though they do not qualify as racist on a stand-alone basis. Along side the bigotry and prejudice that dj notes, I would add ignorance and/or stupidity. Apparently MY opinion was not judged to be that interesting.... Would it be fair to put you down as "Not Enough Information" for all cases? You're certain none of them are a definite 'Yes' or 'No'? I realize there are always variables, but if you'd be comfortable giving a single verdict for what you deem to be "the overwhelming majority" of instances a given case, this is a safe standard for answering a definite 'Yes' or 'No'.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 25, 2017 18:59:47 GMT -5
... But this discussion could go on and on if the goal posts (additional information) keep being changed so I will leave my responses as they are. There are some results he likes so he is not addressing those. There are some he wants to have a different result to report so he is manipulating them in hopes of getting the "right" answers. Not true at all. I neither 'like' nor 'dislike' any answers, and the questions are for clarification, discussion, and to reconcile potential contradictions. The results I don't follow up on are because none of the above apply.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 25, 2017 19:14:16 GMT -5
My sense of where this is going is we will end up getting a summation from Virgil Showlion . There are some results he likes so he is not addressing those. There are some he wants to have a different result to report so he is manipulating them in hopes of getting the "right" answers. Perhaps. Perhaps not. As Virgil adds more information to the original statements, it can make a difference. Maybe Virgil is manipulating to get the answer he wants, but I doubt it. I think he more trying to make a point that maybe we jump to judgment without all the necessary information. At least that's what I learned about myself from this. There are quite a few points to make: - I was curious about how much diversity there is in the way people define racism.
- I was curious if there are any cases that everybody considers racism and any that everybody doesn't consider racism.
- I wanted to challenge posters to examine whether they have self-consistent definitions for racism. My personal experience is that people often fly by the seat of their pants when judging if a behaviour is racist.
- The topic of racism is fascinating, and pertinent given the news of the day. It's also one of the few topics besides He Who Shall Not Be Named that YMAM is routinely willing to discuss.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Aug 25, 2017 19:15:53 GMT -5
Flying by the seat of my pants is exhilarating! It's not the flight that is scary. It's that sudden stop at the end.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 25, 2017 19:27:06 GMT -5
Is it fair to say you're not comfortable using the term "racism" unless it applies to one of the three major races (Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid)? That is correct.Of all 20 cases, (10) and (13) are the only two you've judged to be racism. If I stipulated that Kim (case 10) didn't attach notions of superiority or inferiority to race, that she believed God desires distinct races for sake of cultural distinctness (i.e. heterogeneity as opposed to homogeneity), would this change your verdict? Sorry, I don't buy it. Without getting too deep in a religious discussion here, isn't it said God does not make mistakes? What would be His rationale for keeping the races separate for cultural distinctness? It really serves no purpose. Re case (13): If I stipulated that Neil's support for racial profiling was based on a study that concluded racial profiling significantly increased police efficiency and reduced the number of false arrests, would this change your verdict? If not, how do you reconcile this with your verdict on case (1)? Just because it might reduce the number of false arrests, the police would still stop someone simply for being Black (for example). Police better have a really good excuse to stop someone because a black man is walking through a white neighborhood. Case ! does not involve stopping someone because of the color of their skin.
I only use racism when the issue solely involves the three major races. Bigotry for other classifications (national origin, religion, age, etc.). I worked for an employer with a very large domestic employee base. These employees came/come from all walks of life and backgrounds. Part of my working career involved conducting internal EEO investigations of unfair workplace treatment because of someone's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. I also investigated claims of sexual harassment, denial of an employees request for religious accommodation, and retaliation for filing a complaint regarding any of the above mentioned issues. In addition to investigating incidents I also opened, approved, and closed other investigations other than my own. In reviewing other internal EEO investigations, I either agreed or disagreed with the findings based upon the report and supporting documentation. If I disagreed I could ask for additional information which might include continuing the investigation. When closing a case, I had to also approve any discipline to be meted out (if appropriate), up to and including termination. I could recommend either increasing the disciple or lowering it based upon the facts. I had to be very careful and sure of what I was approving as these cases often went external to the company and could on occasion end up in civil court. As for the examples you offered, some incidents/example can be as simple as you provided. Others could be more complex than offered. I based my responses solely on what was offered. My opinion could change on a few of them if more information were provided. But this discussion could go on and on if the goal posts (additional information) keep being changed so I will leave my responses as they are. As I said to Tall: if you'd be comfortable giving a single verdict for what you deem to be "the overwhelming majority" of instances a given case, this is a safe standard for answering a definite 'Yes' or 'No'. And before Billis jumps on it: no, I am not trying to pressure you into changing your indefinite verdicts. I'm simply pointing out that the above is the "safe" standard for providing definite answers. I understand that many variables are involved and every real-world situation is unique, but I also want to acknowledge a reasonable bit of fudge room for definite answers. I don't expect posters to answer 'Yes' if and only if they can't conceive of any possible circumstances where the answer might be 'No'. Finally, for clarification: the follow-up questions aren't necessarily intended to change your verdict. For example, if you consider the additional stipulations to be sufficiently unlikely, they shouldn't change your verdict given the above standard. If the stipulations do change your verdict, and if you consider them likely enough given the description of the case, then you might consider changing a definite verdict to "Not Enough Information".
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,499
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 25, 2017 19:37:45 GMT -5
My answers wont't change, Virgil. In example #1, the race of the person who read the article is not given. What if the character is white? The articlecstates he is less intelligent than Asians. It sound like he isn't phased by the news. Nor did he take any action. Meh.
Church lady? Still not buying it regardless of her religious beliefs. She may not say racist things but I am pretty surethe hypothetical lady thinks it.
I know first hand living down here some supposed fine Christian women had no problem calling Obama a ni@@er.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,161
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 25, 2017 19:37:57 GMT -5
I don't consider any of them to be prima facie cases of, or evidence of, racism. Some could, of course, be said or done by a racist person given underlying racist beliefs, though they do not qualify as racist on a stand-alone basis. Along side the bigotry and prejudice that dj notes, I would add ignorance and/or stupidity. Apparently MY opinion was not judged to be that interesting.... Would it be fair to put you down as "Not Enough Information" for all cases? You're certain none of them are a definite 'Yes' or 'No'? I realize there are always variables, but if you'd be comfortable giving a single verdict for what you deem to be "the overwhelming majority" of instances a given case, this is a safe standard for answering a definite 'Yes' or 'No'. No, there are several (such as 6, 10, and 19) that I would put as a 'No' under the "Ignorance and stupidity" exception. Others I would put as a 'No' for other reasons. For example, if #17 were in fact racist, he would not have hired the first two. #15 may be a stereotype, but a lot of those are stereotypes for a reason, and if it were not recognizably true in most cases it would not last long in his act. I am not inclined to go through each and give reasons, since that would make for a very long post, but I am comfortable saying that none are definitively racist. If you wish to ask about one or two in particular I'll likely take a shot.
|
|
verrip1
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 2,992
|
Post by verrip1 on Aug 25, 2017 22:16:40 GMT -5
One needs to carefully consider the opening question of the OP in determining how one might answer.
"Which ... behaviours constitute racism?"
Arguably, some of the examples potentially demonstrate racist beliefs. But one should consider more narrowly the defining qualities of "behaviours" and "racism". For either of these terms to be in play, there needs to be a demonstrable act. To simply hold mute opinions that some races are inherently inferior to others does not constitute a behaviour; nor does it constitute racism because for racism to occur, there must an act, not a thought, not a whim, not an internal reaction to an event, but an overt act such as shouting out, physical abuse, active involvement in instituting a racist requirement, making a typed racist statement that others could read, etc.
An overt act is required based upon the letter of the question posed.
Uhh, BTW, I didn't pose the question, I just read and understood it clearly.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 26, 2017 12:03:12 GMT -5
i am honored that you considered my opinion worth hearing. none of the statements in the OP are racist, imo. however, i have a very narrow definition for racism. there is bigotry and prejudice throughout the post, however. What is your definition? I'm curious because, while not everybody considers racism to be bigotry, I know of nobody (possibly excepting you) who doesn't consider bigotry pertaining to race to be racism. You've said you see bigotry throughout the post, hence the question. almost all "isms" assert superiority of the proponent against the "other". racial bigotry that does not assert superiority is not racism. in other words, if i say all white people are jackasses, that is not a racist comment, imo, unless one of two things can be shown: a) i think jackasses are superior to non-jackasses (a strange assertion) b) i am not white, and i think jackasses are inferior to non-jackasses. so, to anticipate your next question, many of those statements APPEAR TO BE racist, but one must make certain assumptions to conclude that they, in fact, are. edit: to speak for myself and probably tallguy, i guess you could say "not enough information". however, i am disinclined to judge something prima face without said information, and therefore, forced to judgment based SOLELY on what is there, i would judge those sentences to be "not racist". i also recognize that most people conflate bigotry and racism, as if they were the same, but that is "another issue".
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 26, 2017 12:32:35 GMT -5
I must confess.....I would hesitate to hire hyper-religious people. We've had major, major issues with them. Muslims who you couldn't find when you needed them because it's one of their many, many prayer times. Demands for prayer spaces and halal food in the cafeteria. Seventh Day Adventists who absolutely refuse to work on Saturdays, their Sabbath. It's health care. Everyone works Saturdays. They kept calling in sick until they had to be let go, and we had to find and train new employees. Ultra-religious evangelicals who delivered sub-par care to AIDS patients because "homosexuality is an abomination." Catholics from the Philippines who I overheard telling patients to eschew their medications, but they should pray instead. Catholics who did not agree with euthanasia, and kept slipping food and water to patients who were not supposed to get anything by mouth, because they were terminal, and it was agreed upon with the families to withhold food and water to ease their passing.
(Withholding all food and water creates feelings of euphoria as a defense mechanism by the brain. When you keep slipping them food and water, that euphoria doesn't happen and they suffer)
So, yeah....I know I'd have no idea of their religiousity when interviewing these people, but if I had my druthers, I wouldn't hire them.
Let the flaming begin.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 26, 2017 13:14:42 GMT -5
Would it be fair to put you down as "Not Enough Information" for all cases? You're certain none of them are a definite 'Yes' or 'No'? I realize there are always variables, but if you'd be comfortable giving a single verdict for what you deem to be "the overwhelming majority" of instances a given case, this is a safe standard for answering a definite 'Yes' or 'No'. No, there are several (such as 6, 10, and 19) that I would put as a 'No' under the "Ignorance and stupidity" exception. Others I would put as a 'No' for other reasons. For example, if #17 were in fact racist, he would not have hired the first two. #15 may be a stereotype, but a lot of those are stereotypes for a reason, and if it were not recognizably true in most cases it would not last long in his act. I am not inclined to go through each and give reasons, since that would make for a very long post, but I am comfortable saying that none are definitively racist. If you wish to ask about one or two in particular I'll likely take a shot. I'd ultimately like to make a table to summarize the data, hence my seeking a verdict in each case. Right now for you I have: 6,10,19 - Not racism. All others - Not Enough Information. If you wouldn't mind amending this if it isn't correct, I'd appreciate it.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 26, 2017 13:20:50 GMT -5
One needs to carefully consider the opening question of the OP in determining how one might answer. "Which ... behaviours constitute racism?" Arguably, some of the examples potentially demonstrate racist beliefs. But one should consider more narrowly the defining qualities of "behaviours" and "racism". For either of these terms to be in play, there needs to be a demonstrable act. To simply hold mute opinions that some races are inherently inferior to others does not constitute a behaviour; nor does it constitute racism because for racism to occur, there must an act, not a thought, not a whim, not an internal reaction to an event, but an overt act such as shouting out, physical abuse, active involvement in instituting a racist requirement, making a typed racist statement that others could read, etc. An overt act is required based upon the letter of the question posed. Uhh, BTW, I didn't pose the question, I just read and understood it clearly. A fair observation. I didn't mean to imply an overt act was required. I considered racist behaviours to include "having racist thoughts/beliefs", "perpetuating racist stereotypes", and generally engaging in racism.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 26, 2017 13:57:56 GMT -5
What is your definition? I'm curious because, while not everybody considers racism to be bigotry, I know of nobody (possibly excepting you) who doesn't consider bigotry pertaining to race to be racism. You've said you see bigotry throughout the post, hence the question. almost all "isms" assert superiority of the proponent against the "other". racial bigotry that does not assert superiority is not racism. in other words, if i say all white people are jackasses, that is not a racist comment, imo, unless one of two things can be shown: a) i think jackasses are superior to non-jackasses (a strange assertion) b) i am not white, and i think jackasses are inferior to non-jackasses. so, to anticipate your next question, many of those statements APPEAR TO BE racist, but one must make certain assumptions to conclude that they, in fact, are. edit: to speak for myself and probably tallguy, i guess you could say "not enough information". however, i am disinclined to judge something prima face without said information, and therefore, forced to judgment based SOLELY on what is there, i would judge those sentences to be "not racist". My definition includes the superiority/inferiority clause as well. Having said this, - The types of prejudice I consider to be bigotry necessarily include a superiority/inferiority clause. "Racial bigotry that does not assert superiority" doesn't exist in my world. Your view apparently differs.
- There are precious few cases where I wouldn't immediately deem a particular distinction/judgment to be superiority-related or not. For example, I believe speakers deem jackasses inferior to non-jackasses in the overwhelming majority of cases the term "jackasses" is used, hence "Whites are jackasses." satisfies the superiority/inferiority clause.
If you haven't read my replies to Tall and Tenn: if, given a case description, you believe a relevant variable (e.g. the actor asserting superiority or not) would be decided a certain way in the "overwhelming majority" (say, 85% or more) of instances, this is a safe and reasonable standard for giving a definite verdict. For example, in case (4), if you believe the overwhelming majority of individuals who'd refuse to take the flag down would do so with the intent of asserting superiority, and the act similarly meets all other criteria, you should answer "Racism."
|
|