"Alt-right" Parading Ignorance, Stupidity, Malice, Etc.

[Brian Peacock]

Is there a definition of racism which doesn't require presuming someone's race?

It's a presumption sure, but presuming someone's race isn't racist. What identifies racists are their words and deeds. Noticing someone is Black isn't racist, whereas presuming that a person is worthy of censure, scorn, oppression, or abuse etc because they are Black is. Racism is a power and status game: the racist presumes their own superiority on the same basis they presume the inferiority of others - on the basis of race. Even though nobody can assure me as to what a 'race' actually is, or at least not in a way that doesn't boil down to "I know one when I see one", it's fair to say that the racist has no such intellectual misgivings. The racists is, to an extent, defined by their own concept of race - of it denoting a firm border between people, and how people on one side of the border fare better or worse when compared to the folks on other side.

Something which would identify racists regardless of their skin tone, claimed ancestry or current political alignment?

I think racists are a self-identifying group in the main. Sure they mightn't call themselves racists - they might prefer something else like patriot, or socialist or fascist, or pragmatist, nationalist, conservative, traditionalist, supremacist, or whatever. Of that list probably only supremacist and fascist have 'racist' incorporated within their outlooks, with maybe nationalist coming a close third - there's a lot of cross-fertilisation anyway. But it's pretty clear that the direction of one's political compass (left-leaning, right-leaning, the joyless centrist position) doesn't really defines one as a racist automatically. Same goes for skin colour or claimed ancestry, even if these things are considered important to racists here and there. You knew this already though didn't you? No? What identifies a racists is, well, being a racist, that is; operating to the presumption of race in a certain, you know, racisty way.

[Cunt]

So priority hiring is racist? Affirmative action? How about putting disproportionately large resources into collecting stem cells from certain remote groups of people because only their own closely related humans could be donors for fancy new procedures? How about providing reduced sentences for Canadian indigenous offenders?

Are those racist? Or are only things seen as negative considered racist?

[Brian Peacock]

I wouldn't know. Tell me how those things meet the racist bar and I'll give it a go.

[pErvinalia]

Technically they are racist, but the outcomes are not qualitatively equivalent to negative racism. Negative racism is clearly a serious problem to civilised society. And it's right that we focus on that. Only the privileged conservative white guys get all hung up on affirmative action or the like, because it threatens their socially subsidised positions of comfort. And they probably hate darkies too.

[Cunt]

I wouldn't know. Tell me how those things meet the racist bar and I'll give it a go.

Let's just pick one, for focus.
The Gladue Law in Canada
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladue_report

It requires the court to take into account circumstances facing Aboriginal peoples. Where the crime is relatively anything other than severe, the court should consider Aboriginal-based sentencing principles such as restorative justice.

I don't think 'racist' is a very useful descriptor, because as you have described it, this law/sentencing principle seems to qualify as racist.

I'm trying to find out how YOU define it.

[Brian Peacock]

I wouldn't know. Tell me how those things meet the racist bar and I'll give it a go.

Let's just pick one, for focus.
The Gladue Law in Canada
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladue_report

It requires the court to take into account circumstances facing Aboriginal peoples. Where the crime is relatively anything other than severe, the court should consider Aboriginal-based sentencing principles such as restorative justice.

I don't think 'racist' is a very useful descriptor, because as you have described it, this law/sentencing principle seems to qualify as racist.

I'm trying to find out how YOU define it.

I'm glad you found it useful but I don't quite see how this fits my scant description of racism - as a power game operated on the presumption that 'race' denotes a firm boundary between the righteous and the rest. The selected snippet doesn't define race, or a race - it identifies an particular ethnic group and offers legal guidance in that respect. I've already said that I don't think just noticing automatically denotes the operation of racism, so I can't see how the law acknowledging someone's ethnicity is going to be racist in and of itself - though whether the law should take account for people's circumstances is another matter. I mean, who is being hindered or oppressed here, or subjected to abuse, or treated as a second-class citizen and systematically denied equal protections, rights and/or privileges like everybody else? Who here is even advocating that? As to the policy itself: has it had any positive benefit on arrest, conviction or re-offending rates?

[pErvinalia]

Not to mention that some of the benefactors of "reverse racism" such as affirmative action are going to be more white than indian (or black). So it can hardly be racist.

[JimC]

Some racists are self-admitted, like our very own Tyrannical, and spokesmen for groups whose raison d'être is to pursue racist policies. Membership of such groups would be pretty telling, also.

More generally, if people are advocating that people who they perceive to be a different race to themselves be treated differently (almost always for the worse), then they are probably racist. Clearly there are exceptions, such as stating that people with white skins have a greater need to use sunscreen than others, but they are fairly trivial...

Forgive me, but this seems to make it very easy to call everyone racist.

If everyone fits the description, does that mean you agree with Galaxian and Tryannical?

Whenever I heard the subject raised, it is usually to divide by race, or other language which means the same thing. Diversity quotas, reparations, affrmative action, special hiring status in government jobs. Preferential treatment in awards of government contracts. Not all of these things can easily be called 'good' or 'bad', but they can certainly all be called racist.

Can you see why the term is not the most incisive insult, when you wield it at a target like the ever-vague 'alt right' ? It doesn't really tell me much beyond your opinion.

You've got the cart before the horse - it is the racist that wants to divide people, not those who (correctly) label a particular person or statement racist.

And I have no idea how you think this means that it is easy to call everyone racist. Even if mistermack is correct that many people have a tendency to be racist, if it's not acted on in word or deed, then they're not racist. But if they make clear statements attacking people with different skin colours, or belong to groups with overtly racist policies, or want people of other races not to be in particular places or occupations, then they are racist, clear and simple.

Affirmative action etc. is a red herring in this argument; they involve policies designed to reduce disadvantage to groups because of their social history. It can be argued that they are ineffective, or even unfair, but whether they are useful or not, they are not examples of racism.

[JimC]

Brian Peacock wrote:

...the joyless centrist position...

[Tero]

Have some hot cocoa, Jim. And gin.

[JimC]

Not at the same time, FFS!

[mistermack]

Most of the people on this site who argue against racism hold that view because they've been indoctrinated in a certain way. ... If you'd been born in Germany 100 years ago, you would be far more racist. That's just a fact.

Excellent argument that racism is social rather than genetic.

Oh really? You don't seem to have the faintest clue about human history, do you?

It goes back about 200,000 years, but only in the last 50 at the most has racism declined or become generally frowned on.
If you can't work out what's social and what's genetic from that, there's something wrong with you upstairs.

[pErvinalia]

Most of the people on this site who argue against racism hold that view because they've been indoctrinated in a certain way. ... If you'd been born in Germany 100 years ago, you would be far more racist. That's just a fact.

Excellent argument that racism is social rather than genetic.

Oh really? You don't seem to have the faintest clue about human history, do you?

It goes back about 200,000 years, but only in the last 50 at the most has racism declined or become generally frowned on.
If you can't work out what's social and what's genetic from that, there's something wrong with you upstairs.

It has to have a significant social aspect or else it wouldn't have changed in the last 50 years. The change in 50 years certainly isn't due to genetics.

[Scot Dutchy]

Racism is culture based in my opinion. People tend to racist based on their culture and that is from every side. Blacks born into a culture of hating whites have difficulty to change and the opposite is true. As individuals colour does not matter but when it is a culture group it can play a large part.

[Cunt]

And I have no idea how you think this means that it is easy to call everyone racist. Even if mistermack is correct that many people have a tendency to be racist, if it's not acted on in word or deed, then they're not racist.

So far, I can understand your position is that racism is only present if acted upon (word or deed).

But if they make clear statements attacking people with different skin colours, or belong to groups with overtly racist policies, or want people of other races not to be in particular places or occupations, then they are racist, clear and simple.

From this, I can understand you are adding to your position that if that action (word or deed) is attacking or exclusionary, then it is racist.

Affirmative action etc. is a red herring in this argument; they involve policies designed to reduce disadvantage to groups because of their social history. It can be argued that they are ineffective, or even unfair, but whether they are useful or not, they are not examples of racism.

No, I was trying to tease out whether statements like 'asians are hardworking students' are considered racist, or only negative statements. I think you mean that positive racial statements (such as the Gladue principle and affirmative action) are not, so it would be not racist to say so. It was kind of a red herring, but only in that it doesn't matter whether they are great or terrible, their aim is to improve thriving, so not racist in your opinion.

To be fair to you, from my perspective, I think they ARE racist, but accept it anyway.

Do you think anyone can be a victim of racism? I think you do from your statements.