<p>Look, all I’m trying to say is that these days people only think white people can be racist which is simply not true</p>
<p>The general point of a thread like this one is to highlight the importance of semantics. This kind of discussion might seem boring, pedantic, irrelevant. Yet the livelier conversations carried out everyday, in which semantics are not clarified, are futile and semantically empty shouting matches. I believe 99% of heated arguments (in the general population) are worthless in this way.</p>
<p>The general reason I reject BillyMc’s reasoning is that it entails a deterministic world in which anything goes. Like if I wanted to, I could protest that white people, in their most despicable actions, were acting under the control of social and economic forces too. That larger forces governing all areas of human and natural life were governing their actions. They had no choice but to hold slaves. It was part of the culture, society, their world view. So who’s the victim?</p>
<p>Note: I’m not making claim about the existence or non-existence of determinism, just that if you assume determinism, it makes no sense to assume it for one class of people and assign blame to another class. Hence I reject the line of thinking, but not necessarily its premises.</p>
<p><a href=“%5Burl=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/12149787-post27.html]#27[/url]”>quote</a> …Also I like to avoid scientific explanations of social issues…
[/quote]
</p>
<p><a href=“%5Burl=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/12144346-post1.html]#1[/url]”>quote</a> …I can’t think of a good definition. I’m starting to think there isn’t one.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It appears that your question is then pursuing the [pathos</a>, as opposed to the logos](<a href=“http://courses.durhamtech.edu/perkins/aris.html]pathos”>http://courses.durhamtech.edu/perkins/aris.html), explanation of racism.</p>
<p>You don’t even know what racism is? you must be white.</p>
<p>impetuous, that was funny. gotta love some humor when talking about such things.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What? Suddenly the biological explanation is the logical one?</p>
<p><a href=“%5Burl=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/12157458-post47.html]#47[/url]”>quote</a> What? Suddenly the biological explanation is the logical one?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The biological explanation is the [conditio</a> sine qua non](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_qua_non]conditio”>Sine qua non - Wikipedia); the starting point if you are investigating the roots of racism. Otherwise you’re approaching the issue in an [in</a> media res](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_medias_res]in”>In medias res - Wikipedia) way.</p>
<p>Your use of “in media res,” since it’s a literary technique, is non-standard and highly metaphorized and, therefore, not the “sine qua non” of this discussion. Hence you’re neglecting the “logos” and resorting to mere “pathos”. I shudder that a scholar would stoop to such levels.</p>
<hr>
<p>Anyhow, back on topic, a hard question: are negative attitudes toward a race to be considered “racist” if those attitudes are justified? The term ‘justified’ I’ll leave only vaguely defined. The general idea is negative belief that is supported by empirical facts and solid reasoning. Far from blind/ignorant prejudice.</p>
<p>Another hard question: is it racist to hold negative stereotypes if they are true? What about allowing your actions to be influenced by these stereotypes?</p>
<p>^I would like you to define what you mean by justified, as well as to give a valid example of your last question.</p>
<p>Wouldn’t a “true” stereotype necessarily apply to every member of a particular group (by virtue of its being absolutely true and not usually true or partially true)?</p>
<p>I mean probabilistically. For example, “men are less educated than women” doesn’t mean that every man is less educated than every women. That would be absurd, both to believe and to accuse others of believing. Yet it is true that women attend college at higher rates than men. This would be a true stereotype, a valid generalization of categories of people.</p>
<p>So assuming lower education to be a negative, does holding the stereotype make one sexist, provided that one holds the stereotype for empirically justified reasons (e.g. they read the research report about college attendance differentials)?</p>
<p>Now suppose this person likes to interact with and has had favorable interactions with more highly educated people. He has negative attitudes towards less educated people. It’s societally acceptable to have negative attitudes towards less educated people. Would this person be sexist if his (empirically justified) stereotype led him to have negative attitudes towards men for being less educated? And what about when his behavior towards men is affected by these attitudes, such that, i.e., he is being discriminatory?</p>
<p>Cormy3,Holding a negative attitude towards an entire race just because you arbitrarily think it is justified( whatever you mean by that) is obviously groundless.Stereotypes can never be true or false,worse still justifiable until and unless you take an inventory of every single person in the race and confirm beyond a reasonable doubt that the arguments you are making with regard to that race are true.And of course,that is,(duh),impossible.</p>
<p>Just because you hold negative stereotypes doesn’t necessarily mean you’re racist because at some point or another everyone negatively stereotypes someone of a different race. The difference is you have to realize stereotypes don’t apply to EVERY one in the race. A lot of people who are actually racist believe so deeply in the stereotype that they apply it to EVERYONE whether they actually hold true to whatever negative stereotype is being applied.</p>
<p>Everyone does hold negative stereotypes of other people, but it’s when you act/speak on it that makes it bad. </p>
<p>Let’s go back to kindergarten: “if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.”</p>
<p>Yes. Only some black chicks are lound and obnoxious, not all of them.</p>
<p>Referring to my above post ^</p>
<p>Racism is racial prejudice influencing power.</p>
<p>It was nice, I only said some.</p>
<p>Racism doesnt exist, it’s a word created by apologetic revisionist white liberals who still believe in “white priveledge.” none of these people would ever dare admit that a black guy could be a racist, because, well, that’s racism. people have feelings and prejudices against individual people, not whole groups, even white supremacists are probably willing to make exceptions. Racism is an invented concept and until we acknowledge that it doesnt matter anymore we wont get anywhere (not that there’s anywhere to “get” now that we’ve already compromised the morals of our society with our cowardly rejection of everything that once made this country great) </p>
<p>this is just my two cents though, I realize that it’s a controversial topic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s an easy standard to meet. I don’t think anyone believes EVERYONE of a certain race fits a stereotype. Yet they may still believe that the generalization drawn from the stereotype applies very widely. For example, I bet even a white supremacist would acknowledge that there are very intelligent URMs. He would acknowledge exceptions. Are white supremacists (the majority) therefore not racist? I’m not judging you, by the way, just curious.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So non-racism is a hypocrisy where your words and actions run contrary to your thoughts and beliefs. Being racist, then, is nothing more than a matter of politeness.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay. Many people say this all the time, but they’re labelled as racist. What’s your take on that?</p>
<p>Furthermore, what about someone who believes this and then bases his actions on it. Such as, he refuses to date black women because, probabilistically, they have higher chances of being loud and obnoxious. This person admits that not all are this way, but given the pragmatics of navigating our world – wherein the amount of women he will have the opportunity to meet is finite – the use of generalization is justified in this way just like any sane person would generalize that the College Confidential forum is filled with people interested in college.</p>