Hate Crime Against White People

[rainbow]

The social construct in question would be the one present in Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.

...so a clear admission that the social constructs of "race" differ from region to region. Interestingly, while I was in Chicago, nobody ever referred to me as being from any race. I suspect that they didn't particularly care, and even if they did, they'd not have been able to make any accurate judgement on my origins.

The extreme irony of this is that those hoodlums, if transported to Central Africa, wouldn't be considered "black". They would be called Mzungus, often and inaccurately translated as "white". They would be seen as foreigners, essentially because of their mannerisms, language/accent, dress, and perhaps due to some physical features, like lighter skin tones, hair, and so on.

Clearly then these parochial perceptions of "race" that are held by the ignorant are not based on any real scientific basis. I think it helps those with an inbuilt inferiority complex to cope with their personal failures.

[Brian Peacock]

I'm wondering if those 4 persons with darkly pigmented skin who were beating up that mentally disabled person with a pale pigment to his skin pondered over the nature of this social construct we call "race" as they were shouting "fuck white people" and beating him. Clearly if they only understood the arbitrary nature of the racial classification they invoked they might have settled on a more concrete one like "fuck pale skins." I wonder if it was their shouting of the term "white people" that made them racists and their action a hate crime?

I'm not sure, but lets continue to obliquely impute racism to 42. That seems like a fun deflection of reality.

I'm sure those thugs didn't spare a single thought for the arbitrary constructs they define both themselves and their victim by. It's learned - they've been trained to think that people are fundamentally different according to skin colour, geography, etc. These assumptions run deep in society; so deep that some people think that a race is an actual specific, unique or discrete thing. Let's not impute those who challenge the entire edifice of race for somehow implying others are racists if they think a race is a real thing - that doesn't get us anywhere and only perpetuate the notion 'race' as a social, cultural and/or political battleground.

Those idiots who filmed themselves are bullies plain and simple - singling out a weak victim who they could easily dominate to bolster their own self-esteem. 'Race' is just an excuse for turpitude, as it so often is, not the cause.

[Forty Two]

You can't have racism without different races.

Bullshit.

It is like saying you can't have religion without God/s.

If there were only one race, you could still have racism? Who would a person be racist against if there wasn't a different race?

It's nothing at all like saying you can't have religion without gods. What it is like, is saying that you can't be prejudiced against different religions without there being different religions.

If there were but one god you'd still have people killing each other over which one is best. You've heard of the thirty year war I presume?

that's called having different religions, sects or cults....

[Forty Two]

You said it was a 'racial classification specifier'. I'm interested to know who or what body classifies racial specifiers and by what criteria that's all.

You said it was a "racial divide." I'm interested in what you mean by "race" such that I could be doing my best to perpetuate a "racial divide."

What is 'a race' if not a classification, but where do the specifications of the different classes come from?

You seem to know about these 'racial classification specifiers', so all I'm asking for is some hint as to the specifics of that classification. Can you elaborate?

Can you? You said I was doing my part to perpetuate a racial divide. What racial divide? Can you elaborate?

Racial divides are concieved of, bolstered and perpetuated by those who maintain that a 'race' is a specific or discrete class. You've said that 'white' is a 'racial classification specifier' -- a specific racial class within, one presumes, the set of all races -- so what other race classes exist and on what basis is that determined?

Well, right. In the English language, that's the meaning of the term. That's the dictionary definition.

What is a racial classification specifier and can you link to, list, or explicate the determinants which place individuals into one racial class over another?

What are you suggesting? That there are no races?

I don't know that there is an official criteria for placing individuals in one race over another. However, it's certainly possible to tell the difference in most cases between white people and black people. I doubt if I'd be allowed to get away with checking "black" on an application to college and get affirmative action, would I?

when there are hate crimes against black people, do you run around asking people to identify the determinants for placing individuals into one class over another? Doesn't the entire idea of bias crimes and hate crimes rest upon the idea that people can take actions based on race? And, these races are not mere perecptions of the perpetrator. The victim must fit the class, irrespective of the subjective viewpoint of the perpetrator.

You'll notice I'm basically asking the same question in a few different ways here. Hopefully this will increase the chances of it being answered.

I'm still waiting for my question to be answered. I don't like it when I go ahead and answer some questions, which I have, and then a person interrogating me thinks they can just refuse to answer my questions in return. I tend to shut down at that point. It's not a one way street.

My apolly-logies to Rainbow for misattributing the question. Not sure how or why I did that, but indeed, I was asking Peacock.

[Forty Two]

I'm wondering if those 4 persons with darkly pigmented skin who were beating up that mentally disabled person with a pale pigment to his skin pondered over the nature of this social construct we call "race" as they were shouting "fuck white people" and beating him. Clearly if they only understood the arbitrary nature of the racial classification they invoked they might have settled on a more concrete one like "fuck pale skins." I wonder if it was their shouting of the term "white people" that made them racists and their action a hate crime?

I'm not sure, but lets continue to obliquely impute racism to 42. That seems like a fun deflection of reality.

I'm sure those thugs didn't spare a single thought for the arbitrary constructs they define both themselves and their victim by. It's learned - they've been trained to think that people are fundamentally different according to skin colour, geography, etc. These assumptions run deep in society; so deep that some people think that a race is an actual specific, unique or discrete thing. Let's not impute those who challenge the entire edifice of race for somehow implying others are racists if they think a race is a real thing - that doesn't get us anywhere and only perpetuate the notion 'race' as a social, cultural and/or political battleground.

Those idiots who filmed themselves are bullies plain and simple - singling out a weak victim who they could easily dominate to bolster their own self-esteem. 'Race' is just an excuse for turpitude, as it so often is, not the cause.

Social constructs are real things, aren't they? Gender, they say, is a social construct. Are we to say that a person's gender is not "real?" That people don't really have a gender? They just imagine that they do? So, when a person says they are a woman trapped in a man's body, that's not real?

In the real world, there are black people, and there are white people, and they look different. That's one of the big reasons that people categorize them as different races - these aren't subspecies of humans, obviously, but there are differences among populations of humans that are used to categorize people into races.

If there were no such classifications, you couldn't have race discrimination laws. Our race discrimination laws do not prohibit discrimination against a person who merely "identifies" as a particular race. There is an objective component. that's the same as with people who claim that there are marginalized racial groups. A white guy does not become marginalized or systemically oppressed because he chooses to identify as black. So, there must be some category distinction, no?

[Brian Peacock]

I'm wondering if those 4 persons with darkly pigmented skin who were beating up that mentally disabled person with a pale pigment to his skin pondered over the nature of this social construct we call "race" as they were shouting "fuck white people" and beating him. Clearly if they only understood the arbitrary nature of the racial classification they invoked they might have settled on a more concrete one like "fuck pale skins." I wonder if it was their shouting of the term "white people" that made them racists and their action a hate crime?

I'm not sure, but lets continue to obliquely impute racism to 42. That seems like a fun deflection of reality.

I'm sure those thugs didn't spare a single thought for the arbitrary constructs they define both themselves and their victim by. It's learned - they've been trained to think that people are fundamentally different according to skin colour, geography, etc. These assumptions run deep in society; so deep that some people think that a race is an actual specific, unique or discrete thing. Let's not impute those who challenge the entire edifice of race for somehow implying others are racists if they think a race is a real thing - that doesn't get us anywhere and only perpetuate the notion 'race' as a social, cultural and/or political battleground.

Those idiots who filmed themselves are bullies plain and simple - singling out a weak victim who they could easily dominate to bolster their own self-esteem. 'Race' is just an excuse for turpitude, as it so often is, not the cause.

Social constructs are real things, aren't they? Gender, they say, is a social construct. Are we to say that a person's gender is not "real?" That people don't really have a gender? They just imagine that they do? So, when a person says they are a woman trapped in a man's body, that's not real?

In the real world, there are black people, and there are white people, and they look different. That's one of the big reasons that people categorize them as different races - these aren't subspecies of humans, obviously, but there are differences among populations of humans that are used to categorize people into races.

If there were no such classifications, you couldn't have race discrimination laws. Our race discrimination laws do not prohibit discrimination against a person who merely "identifies" as a particular race. There is an objective component. that's the same as with people who claim that there are marginalized racial groups. A white guy does not become marginalized or systemically oppressed because he chooses to identify as black. So, there must be some category distinction, no?

Hmm. Anti-hate laws do not exist because race is a fact, they exist because hate is. Are we to take it that race classifications in law define discrete groups because otherwise the law couldn't tell if a racist was being a racist or not? If so, please provide the legal definitions of the different races?

Racism is the advocacy and/or promotion of differential treatment and regard based on an arbitrary distinction, usually skin colour. The racist maintains that, as they see it, an individual's race-group membership justifies that differential treatment and regard, the conditions for which are something usually applied by racists to others. Racist very rarely say that they should be treated unfairly, discriminated against, denigrated or abused because of their own race-group membership - that is almost always reserved for others. As the UK law on hate-crimes is framed it makes absolutely no difference if a victim is a member of this or that group, only that the perpetrators think they are and act on that basis. So, no, the existence of anti-hate laws and hate crimes does not depend on race being a real, actual thing formed of discrete, unique, indetifiable classes.

So some think think that 'in the real world' because black and white people have a different skin tone then they can be legitimately classified into different race-groups. Fine, they've noted a difference. Yet is this the only race-group determinant? What about hair or eye colour? What about height or weight? What about musical preferences or whether people drink white or red wine with fish? What about the person who is neither black nor white, neither one nor the other, do they get their own racial category, and then what about the person who is between the intermediate class and the outlier? If skin colour is so informative are we to determine and define which race-group people belong with reference to a colour-chart (perhaps with the aid of an appendix on how manageable one's hair is), and if so how many categories will that eventually amount to?

Yes, with regards to this formulation of 'a race' I'm suggesting there are no races, just people with different skin tones - and in that I am saying that there is no rational or legitimate basis to classify people into discrete racial groups at all, nor to treat them differently on that basis. There are no 'White' boys and no 'Black' boys - just boys. Those who disagree with me merely have to define the absolute boundary between 'Black' and 'White', though I suspect that while most are unable to actually explain the factors which determine who belongs in which of the unspecified number of supposed discrete race-groups most self-proclaimed 'race-realists' will maintain the "But I know one when I see one" position. Bully for them.

And just to iterate a previous point: Racial divides are conceived of, bolstered and perpetuated by those who maintain that a 'race' is a specific or discrete class such that everybody has automatic race-group membership which necessarily excludes them from belonging to any other race-group. In other words, those who define humans into races perpetuate and maintain the racial divide.

[Strontium Dog]

Some people look white. Some people look black. Some you can't tell, so they're Mexicans.

Messicans? I hate Messicans! Well, except for Salma Hyek of course

She's not so much a mex-i-can as a mex-i-definitely-would

[Forty Two]

Let me be properly intersectional feminist about it -- she's a person person identifying as a female of Mexican heritage whom I would definitely politely inquire as to whether she might be interested in getting to know me better and then after I determined that she might be interested in physical contact, I would try to obtain her enthusiastic consent to touching her, and with each continuing escalation of said physical interaction I would again make sure that I had enthusiastic and continuing consent, knowing and honestly obtained, in a comfortable atmosphere in which all effort was made for her to understand that at any time she could withdraw that consent. If at any time she expressed the slightest reticence or discomfort with continuing either a conversation or any physical contact, I would immediately honor that request, politely remove myself to from her vicinity without making her feel the slightest discomfort about having "rejected" me.

[laklak]

That's a lot of work when one little roofie will do the trick.

[rainbow]

What are you suggesting? That there are no races?

Yes. No scientific basis behind this mythology.

Move on, you are just as good a person as the next one, even if they have a darker skin, or a flat nose.

[rainbow]

Social constructs are real things, aren't they?

You really seem to be battling with this despite our best attempts to explain in a way you can understand.

The Hindu religion exists, it is a social construct. It does not follow that an Elephant God called Ganesh is a real thing.

Surely you can get this?

[pErvinalia]

That's a lot of work when one little roofie will do the trick.

[Hermit]

You can't have racism without different races.

Bullshit.

It is like saying you can't have religion without God/s.

If there were only one race, you could still have racism? Who would a person be racist against if there wasn't a different race?

It's nothing at all like saying you can't have religion without gods. What it is like, is saying that you can't be prejudiced against different religions without there being different religions.

If there were but one god you'd still have people killing each other over which one is best. You've heard of the thirty year war I presume?

that's called having different religions, sects or cults....

One God. Same Bible. Different interpretations. Just like with the one human race.

[Forty Two]

I'm wondering if those 4 persons with darkly pigmented skin who were beating up that mentally disabled person with a pale pigment to his skin pondered over the nature of this social construct we call "race" as they were shouting "fuck white people" and beating him. Clearly if they only understood the arbitrary nature of the racial classification they invoked they might have settled on a more concrete one like "fuck pale skins." I wonder if it was their shouting of the term "white people" that made them racists and their action a hate crime?

I'm not sure, but lets continue to obliquely impute racism to 42. That seems like a fun deflection of reality.

I'm sure those thugs didn't spare a single thought for the arbitrary constructs they define both themselves and their victim by. It's learned - they've been trained to think that people are fundamentally different according to skin colour, geography, etc. These assumptions run deep in society; so deep that some people think that a race is an actual specific, unique or discrete thing. Let's not impute those who challenge the entire edifice of race for somehow implying others are racists if they think a race is a real thing - that doesn't get us anywhere and only perpetuate the notion 'race' as a social, cultural and/or political battleground.

Those idiots who filmed themselves are bullies plain and simple - singling out a weak victim who they could easily dominate to bolster their own self-esteem. 'Race' is just an excuse for turpitude, as it so often is, not the cause.

Social constructs are real things, aren't they? Gender, they say, is a social construct. Are we to say that a person's gender is not "real?" That people don't really have a gender? They just imagine that they do? So, when a person says they are a woman trapped in a man's body, that's not real?

In the real world, there are black people, and there are white people, and they look different. That's one of the big reasons that people categorize them as different races - these aren't subspecies of humans, obviously, but there are differences among populations of humans that are used to categorize people into races.

If there were no such classifications, you couldn't have race discrimination laws. Our race discrimination laws do not prohibit discrimination against a person who merely "identifies" as a particular race. There is an objective component. that's the same as with people who claim that there are marginalized racial groups. A white guy does not become marginalized or systemically oppressed because he chooses to identify as black. So, there must be some category distinction, no?

Hmm. Anti-hate laws do not exist because race is a fact, they exist because hate is. Are we to take it that race classifications in law define discrete groups because otherwise the law couldn't tell if a racist was being a racist or not? If so, please provide the legal definitions of the different races?

Well, in order to bring a lawsuit for race discrimination, one must allege and aver that one was discriminated against based on one's race. Therefore, there must be such a thing as race. If there is no such thing as race, then one could not claim to be a member of a race. A race can be viewed as a group of people loosely bound together by historically contingent, socially significant elements of their morphology and/or ancestry. Were there no groups of people loosely bound together by historically contingent, socially significant elements of morphology or ancestry, then there wouldn't be any races to hate. I.e., everyone would have the same historical, social, morphological and ancestral elements.

Racism is the advocacy and/or promotion of differential treatment and regard based on an arbitrary distinction, usually skin colour.

Racism is generally defined as prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. Not all arbitrary distinctions are racism. For example, discrimination based on height or weight or beauty would not generally be racist.

Under legal statutes there is often a separate discrimination based on "color" as distinct from discrimination based on "race."

The racist maintains that, as they see it, an individual's race-group membership justifies that differential treatment and regard, the conditions for which are something usually applied by racists to others. Racist very rarely say that they should be treated unfairly, discriminated against, denigrated or abused because of their own race-group membership - that is almost always reserved for others. As the UK law on hate-crimes is framed it makes absolutely no difference if a victim is a member of this or that group, only that the perpetrators think they are and act on that basis. So, no, the existence of anti-hate laws and hate crimes does not depend on race being a real, actual thing formed of discrete, unique, indetifiable classes.

There are people who belong to different races, distinct from whether any perpetrator thinks they belong to different races. For example, you have colleges and universities today suggesting that it is a "microaggression" to say that there is no such thing as race, or that we are all one race, the human race. That's because they belong to racial groups who have been oppressed, and so they view the suggestion that there are no racial groups as negating their experience.

So some think think that 'in the real world' because black and white people have a different skin tone then they can be legitimately classified into different race-groups.

Legitimacy has nothing to do with it. Black and white people are different races, precisely because they have significant morphological distinctions. That doesn't mean they are different species or subspecies. That just means they're different races.

Fine, they've noted a difference.

Indeed, the differences are the source of the classifications.

Yet is this the only race-group determinant? What about hair or eye colour? What about height or weight? What about musical preferences or whether people drink white or red wine with fish?

Generally - the races would be generally Europid, Mongoloid, African and Australoid. Hispanic, for example, is not a race, but an origin issue, someone with heritage from a spanish speaking country. Latin would be someone with heritage from a Latin country. So, Brazilians are generally Latin but not Hispanic, for example, and their race can be Europid, Mongoloid, African or Austaloid depending on their features and ancestry.

What about the person who is neither black nor white, neither one nor the other, do they get their own racial category, and then what about the person who is between the intermediate class and the outlier?

People can be mixed race.

If skin colour is so informative are we to determine and define which race-group people belong with reference to a colour-chart (perhaps with the aid of an appendix on how manageable one's hair is), and if so how many categories will that eventually amount to?

I don't think it's that complicated. A person is black if they have dark skin and they would be African if ancestrally African, and Australoid if ancestrally from Australia and surrounding islands. That kind of thing. Richard Dawkins is Europid or Caucasian, even though he was born in Africa. We can all see he's white. He's not a black African. He's a white African.

Yes, with regards to this formulation of 'a race' I'm suggesting there are no races, just people with different skin tones -

Sure, but this is just semantics. The racial categories are taking the features such as skin tone and in connection with ancestry fitting people into a category we call a race. It's not only skin tone. For example, we don't call everyone who is dark racially African. An aboriginal Australian could be just as dark, and he'd be Australoid.

and in that I am saying that there is no rational or legitimate basis to classify people into discrete racial groups at all, nor to treat them differently on that basis.

If that's the case, then we better remove all affirmative action laws, since that treats people differently based on race. If there is no such thing as a racial group, then I as a white Europid person should be able to get affirmative action just as easily as another racial group.

There are no 'White' boys and no 'Black' boys - just boys.

Oh, well, when a black guy is shot by a cop, there are certainly enough reports about his race to suggest you may be overstating the case a tad. The four kids in the video torturing the white kid were black.

Those who disagree with me merely have to define the absolute boundary between 'Black' and 'White', though I suspect that while most are unable to actually explain the factors which determine who belongs in which of the unspecified number of supposed discrete race-groups most self-proclaimed 'race-realists' will maintain the "But I know one when I see one" position. Bully for them.

I don't think they have to define an exact boundary. Not everything is mathematical precision. Why don't you ask an applicant for affirmative action how they know they are in a minority group? That's pretty much the same test.

And just to iterate a previous point: Racial divides are conceived of, bolstered and perpetuated by those who maintain that a 'race' is a specific or discrete class such that everybody has automatic race-group membership which necessarily excludes them from belonging to any other race-group. In other words, those who define humans into races perpetuate and maintain the racial divide.

Oh, well, I'm sorry about that. I hope you'll lecture people applying for affirmative action, or claiming to be members of an oppressed group. They must be maintaining the racial divide, then.

[pErvinalia]

Affirmative action doesn't imply there are races. It implies that there are ethnicities.