What is the proper derogatory term to describe people who come out and say, "yeah, blacks don't like gay marriage but they'll still vote for Obama because he's black" ???
I'm pretty sure minorities are voting for him because he's a democrat and while the republicans are not racists, almost all racists are republican. Not to mention policy stance and the like that do not favor minority groups (be it race, culture, creed)
Using Scott's foursquare scenario to further build the allegory, our political system would allow players to pay $1 each for an extra turn, so that the kid with the $100/week allowance could go 100 turns and the kid with $5 a week allowance could only go five turns.
Except that the orders of magnitude really involved in the American wealth gap mean that the kids with the $3 billion per year allowance can have three billion turns and also have the purchasing power to leverage another billion or so, while the kids with the $20,000 per year allowance can only have three or four turns, since they have virtually no discretionary income.
What is the proper derogatory term to describe people who come out and say, "yeah, blacks don't like gay marriage but they'll still vote for Obama because he's black" ???
Mouth-breathing dipshit?
TFW your dad has said, "Obama got the black vote because black people wanted a black president."
My dad's a really smart guy who was the victim of tons of really awful racism when his family immigrated, so I know he's not a racist. Sometimes, people say ignorant shit because they haven't thought over the topic and they're angry, and then their internal filter fails. You shouldn't immediately talk down or ad hominem attack someone who's said something ignorant; rather, point out that the statement sounds racist, and ask why they said it. Then, if they do give a racist argument, you can say, "That logic is inherently racist," and they won't have a leg to stand on.
My dad's a really smart guy who was the victim of tons of really awful racism when his family immigrated, so I know he's not a racist. Sometimes, people say ignorant shit because they haven't thought over the topic and they're angry, and then their internal filter fails. You shouldn't immediately talk down or ad hominem attack someone who's said something ignorant; rather, point out that the statement sounds racist, and ask why they said it. Then, if they do give a racist argument, you can say, "That logic is inherently racist," and they won't have a leg to stand on.
Just because some one has experienced prejudice does not mean that they don't hold prejudiced views against other groups. I remember in Maus, Art Speigelman brought up his Jewish survivor father's distrust of African Americans. It happens all the time. In fact, talking about the demographic of black voters being relatively against gay rights in our political system, I am always taken aback that a population group that has historically been discriminated against does not draw more parallels between the current fight for equal rights and their own struggles.
My dad's a really smart guy who was the victim of tons of really awful racism when his family immigrated, so I know he's not a racist. Sometimes, people say ignorant shit because they haven't thought over the topic and they're angry, and then their internal filter fails. You shouldn't immediately talk down or ad hominem attack someone who's said something ignorant; rather, point out that the statement sounds racist, and ask why they said it. Then, if they do give a racist argument, you can say, "That logic is inherently racist," and they won't have a leg to stand on.
Yep... This goes along with the "never attribute to malice what one can attribute to stupidity" (or the occasional brain fart, if said person isn't usually stupid) idea.
But at the same time, if someone espouses racist ideas, regardless of their personal circumstances, they are racist. If they refuse to recant these ideas when confronted, they're willfully racist.
But at the same time, if someone espouses racist ideas, regardless of their personal circumstances, they are racist. If they refuse to recant these ideas when confronted, they're willfully racist.
Just because some one has experienced prejudice does not mean that they don't hold prejudiced views against other groups.
Very true. Hence the, "He's a really smart guy," part of that sentence. Generally, intelligence and racism don't go hand-in-hand. In the 20 years I've known my father I've never heard him utter a single thing that could be remotely considered racist, aside from that comment above (and perceived racism therein could be explained as political ignorance). I've also once witnessed what could be best described as "righteous fury" when he was told that my brother had used the n-word in the presence of a black kid I once knew (my brother was around five and didn't know the significance of that slur).
My father is many things, but a racist is not one of them. Now, if we're on the subject of homophobia (which goes back to Steve's initial question), I have some stories about that, too. Because despite his tolerance and his gay friends, my dad is almost definitely a homophobe, though to far less an extent than his parents.
My grandparents, in typical Hispanic fashion, tend to refer to members of the LGBT community as "those people," and frequently use the words "blasphemy" and "abomination" when discussing gay marriage. Which is depressing, considering that virtually all of their childrens' marriages would be invalidated by similar laws used against interracial couples 60 years ago--laws that were very much in effect when they came to the states for the first time.
I think you guys are getting racism and racial stereotyping/profiling confused. Forgive me if I word any of this wrong or in a non-pc way since I am not an expert. But it seems to me that stereotyping is the perception that a person thinks or behaves a certain way because of their race. Racism is hating/hurting/belitting/etc. someone because they are of a different race.
Saying black people voted for Obama because he's black seems like a stereotypical statement to me. Sure, it could be said in a way that implies underlying racism, but that's subjective (I guess it all is in the end). Is it okay to have and voice your stereotypical opinions? Obviously not, you will upset some people, plus your stereotype is probably wrong. But to go shouting racism at every little thing is uncalled for. As someone who's grown up in the south, I personally hate how often people shout racism so easily.
I'm not racist, but I am speciesist. Fuck dolphins, and fuck aliens too. When the first alien comes in peace, I'mma make sure he leaves in pieces. Ammuhrica.
I think you guys are getting racism and racial stereotyping/profiling confused. Forgive me if I word any of this wrong or in a non-pc way since I am not an expert. But it seems to me that stereotyping is the perception that a person thinks or behaves a certain way because of their race. Racism is hating/hurting/belitting/etc. someone because they are of a different race.
While hating and hurting others based on their race is the worst shade of racism, stereotyping based on race is also racism. The term "racism" is quite a broad one.
For example, it's probably racist for me to say that dark skin is superior due to the much lower susceptibility to skin cancer, but it's quite a benign statement nonetheless.
Racism is generally understood as either belief that different racial groups are characterized by intrinsic characteristics or abilities and that some such groups are therefore naturally superior to others [...]
(Edit- responding to lackofcheese, I type too slow)
It depends on the context. Unfortunately these days it seems the context will almost always be assumed as the worst meaning one, hence the need to be careful. Also depends on how well the person you are talking to knows you.
The ways I look at your statement: -You could be saying black people as a race are superior because they don't get skin cancer as easily. -You could be saying you wish you had darker skin because skin cancer is a big fear in your life. -Or you could just be displaying ignorance of a health fact.
There are many ways to interpret this. You could say blonde hair is superior to brown hair because your head doesn't heat up as much in the sun. But I doubt anyone would be shouting hair-ism at that, since its not a heated issue these days. :-P
I'm just griping here, I understand that nothing will change. I just wish people would open their minds instead of blindly accusing everyone of racism. It is very hurtful to be accused as a racist when you are definitely not and grew up believing everyone is equal no matter their appearance, type of lifestyle, etc.
Racism is generally understood as either belief that different racial groups are characterized by intrinsic characteristics or abilities and that some such groups are therefore naturally superior to others [...]
If dark skin is superior and all else is equal, then on the whole dark-skinned people are superior, no? Sure, it's a negligible difference when compared to individual variation, but it's there.
The Wikipedia definition assumes moral superiority, not physical.
It's not racist, for example, to point out that diabetes is 60 percent more common in black Americans than their white counterparts. Or that sarciodosis is 16 times more common among blacks than whites. Or that black men are 50 percent more likely to get lung cancer than white men despite studies that show they have a much lower exposure to tobacco use.
These are measurable genetic oddities, not moral judgments.
I'm just griping here, I understand that nothing will change. I just wish people would open their minds instead of blindly accusing everyone of racism. It is very hurtful to be accused as a racist when you are definitely not and grew up believing everyone is equal no matter their appearance, type of lifestyle, etc.
The solution to this issue is for people to do what WindUpBird says:
Sometimes, people say ignorant shit because they haven't thought over the topic and they're angry, and then their internal filter fails. You shouldn't immediately talk down or ad hominem attack someone who's said something ignorant; rather, point out that the statement sounds racist, and ask why they said it. Then, if they do give a racist argument, you can say, "That logic is inherently racist," and they won't have a leg to stand on.
If dark skin is superior and all else is equal, then on the whole dark-skinned people are superior, no? Sure, it's a negligible difference when compared to individual variation, but it's there.
Sure, if you say black people are superior as a race to others because they are less likely to get skin cancer, that would be racist. Saying black skin is superior to other skin because its less likely to get skin cancer is not racist. You are just repeating a health fact/option/whatever the case may be. Like I said, I just wish people could open their minds when they hear these kinds of statements. (Not attacking you at all here, just the general population)
I'm not racist, but I am speciesist. Fuck dolphins, and fuck aliens too. When the first alien comes in peace, I'mma make sure he leaves in pieces. Ammuhrica.
I'm in the opposite camp. I'm actually hoping the first alien comes in war and intends to wipe out the human race like a pest infestation in need of extermination. Yeah... I have a very low opinion of my species these days.
I'm not racist, but I am speciesist. Fuck dolphins, and fuck aliens too. When the first alien comes in peace, I'mma make sure he leaves in pieces. Ammuhrica.
I'm in the opposite camp. I'm actually hoping the first alien comes in war and intends to wipe out the human race like a pest infestation in need of extermination. Yeah... I have a very low opinion of my species these days.
Logic says that, unfortunately, aliens with the technological capability to harness the energy necessary for a method of transit that is local STL/reference FTL will probably already have terraforming technology. Much easier to just turn a cinder like Mercury into a habitable planet then to deal with war.
Unless, of course, the aliens enjoy war. Then we're fucked.
The funny thing is that I hear this from both sides. While Republicans have generally been of the "blacks voted for him because he is black" opinion I find it strange to hear Democrats say essentially the same thing when discussing the gay marriage issue and the impact on minority voting patterns.
The Wikipedia definition assumes moral superiority, not physical.
It's not racist, for example, to point out that diabetes is 60 percent more common in black Americans than their white counterparts. Or that sarciodosis is 16 times more common among blacks than whites. Or that black men are 50 percent more likely to get lung cancer than white men despite studies that show they have a much lower exposure to tobacco use.
These are measurable genetic oddities, not moral judgments.
Sure, but what about people who claim that there are significant differences in intelligence between races? That's not a moral judgement, but it's clearly racist. Is it being non-factual that makes it racist?
The funny thing is that I hear this from both sides. While Republicans have generally been of the "blacks voted for him because he is black" opinion I find it strange to hear Democrats say essentially the same thing when discussing the gay marriage issue and the impact on minority voting patterns.
Could you clarify this? What's this "same thing" that Democrats are saying?
Dimitri: If intelligence is measurably different, then the claim is not racist. It might be in bad taste to point it out, but remember that truth is an ultimate defense. No fact can ever be racist. No fact can ever be prejudiced.
If it's not measurably different it's just a lie, and the motivations for the lie would definitely be racist.
EDIT: Please understand that I don't know whether the claim is true or false. I have no data on it. I'll search a little for credible sources, but I suspect there won't be much in the way of peer-reviewed info.
What? That sentence is predicated on testable, objective, pragmatic observation, not on moral worth.
No dude the key word is superior, which is not pragmatic objective or testable. I think its a decent example cause of how its not super obvious and kind of does the subtle "biotruth" prejudice thing people use statistics and research for every now and then.
Logic says that, unfortunately, aliens with the technological capability to harness the energy necessary for a method of transit that is local STL/reference FTL will probably already have terraforming technology. Much easier to just turn a cinder like Mercury into a habitable planet then to deal with war.
Unless, of course, the aliens enjoy war. Then we're fucked.
Depends on the war technology. Drop a ton of neutron (or similar) bombs on the Earth from deep space. Wipes out life without much fuss, leaves a habitable planet behind for colonization, and it's much quicker and easier than terraforming a lifeless rock that may not even have enough gravity to sustain an atmosphere.
Assuming some other advanced alien race doesn't give Wave Motion technology to the puny Earthlings before you can finish wiping them out, you're set to go.
If dark skin is superior and all else is equal, then on the whole dark-skinned people are superior, no? Sure, it's a negligible difference when compared to individual variation, but it's there.
Sure, if you say black people are superior as a race to others because they are less likely to get skin cancer, that would be racist. Saying black skin is superior to other skin because its less likely to get skin cancer is not racist. You are just repeating a health fact/option/whatever the case may be. Like I said, I just wish people could open their minds when they hear these kinds of statements. (Not attacking you at all here, just the general population)
Maybe I want cancer. Then black skin is not superior. Qualify your assumptions. "If black skin is more resistant to cancer than other colors of skin, then black skin is superior in terms of cancer resistance."
A thing may be superior in one field and inferior in others. For instance, black skin may have resistance to skin cancer, but be harder to see in the dark and thus more susceptible to being hit by cars at night. All other things are NOT equal. Not ever.
Comments
Except that the orders of magnitude really involved in the American wealth gap mean that the kids with the $3 billion per year allowance can have three billion turns and also have the purchasing power to leverage another billion or so, while the kids with the $20,000 per year allowance can only have three or four turns, since they have virtually no discretionary income.
My dad's a really smart guy who was the victim of tons of really awful racism when his family immigrated, so I know he's not a racist. Sometimes, people say ignorant shit because they haven't thought over the topic and they're angry, and then their internal filter fails. You shouldn't immediately talk down or ad hominem attack someone who's said something ignorant; rather, point out that the statement sounds racist, and ask why they said it. Then, if they do give a racist argument, you can say, "That logic is inherently racist," and they won't have a leg to stand on.
My father is many things, but a racist is not one of them. Now, if we're on the subject of homophobia (which goes back to Steve's initial question), I have some stories about that, too. Because despite his tolerance and his gay friends, my dad is almost definitely a homophobe, though to far less an extent than his parents.
My grandparents, in typical Hispanic fashion, tend to refer to members of the LGBT community as "those people," and frequently use the words "blasphemy" and "abomination" when discussing gay marriage. Which is depressing, considering that virtually all of their childrens' marriages would be invalidated by similar laws used against interracial couples 60 years ago--laws that were very much in effect when they came to the states for the first time.
Saying black people voted for Obama because he's black seems like a stereotypical statement to me. Sure, it could be said in a way that implies underlying racism, but that's subjective (I guess it all is in the end). Is it okay to have and voice your stereotypical opinions? Obviously not, you will upset some people, plus your stereotype is probably wrong. But to go shouting racism at every little thing is uncalled for. As someone who's grown up in the south, I personally hate how often people shout racism so easily.
For example, it's probably racist for me to say that dark skin is superior due to the much lower susceptibility to skin cancer, but it's quite a benign statement nonetheless.
It's not racist to point out a demonstrable, objective difference between "races." There just are very few such differences.
It depends on the context. Unfortunately these days it seems the context will almost always be assumed as the worst meaning one, hence the need to be careful. Also depends on how well the person you are talking to knows you.
The ways I look at your statement:
-You could be saying black people as a race are superior because they don't get skin cancer as easily.
-You could be saying you wish you had darker skin because skin cancer is a big fear in your life.
-Or you could just be displaying ignorance of a health fact.
There are many ways to interpret this. You could say blonde hair is superior to brown hair because your head doesn't heat up as much in the sun. But I doubt anyone would be shouting hair-ism at that, since its not a heated issue these days. :-P
I'm just griping here, I understand that nothing will change. I just wish people would open their minds instead of blindly accusing everyone of racism. It is very hurtful to be accused as a racist when you are definitely not and grew up believing everyone is equal no matter their appearance, type of lifestyle, etc.
It's not racist, for example, to point out that diabetes is 60 percent more common in black Americans than their white counterparts. Or that sarciodosis is 16 times more common among blacks than whites. Or that black men are 50 percent more likely to get lung cancer than white men despite studies that show they have a much lower exposure to tobacco use.
These are measurable genetic oddities, not moral judgments.
Unless, of course, the aliens enjoy war. Then we're fucked.
If it's not measurably different it's just a lie, and the motivations for the lie would definitely be racist.
EDIT: Please understand that I don't know whether the claim is true or false. I have no data on it. I'll search a little for credible sources, but I suspect there won't be much in the way of peer-reviewed info.
Assuming some other advanced alien race doesn't give Wave Motion technology to the puny Earthlings before you can finish wiping them out, you're set to go.
A thing may be superior in one field and inferior in others. For instance, black skin may have resistance to skin cancer, but be harder to see in the dark and thus more susceptible to being hit by cars at night. All other things are NOT equal. Not ever.