6 ms·

Exactly, thank you. I was starting to lose patience with all the esoteric non-arguments. Racism is a dangerous toy to play with. Just because you’re a good per

by dreyfiz 15y ago

Exactly, thank you. I was starting to lose patience with all the esoteric non-arguments. Racism is a dangerous toy to play with. Just because you’re a good person who didn’t become a racist after reading that doesn’t mean it’s a mistake to cry foul against racist caricature. The caricature is still wrong. It communicated nothing but the writer’s lazy prejudice. The (general, de-stupidified) point being made by the caricaturist can be correct, and the racist caricature foul and despicable...all at the same time!

anamax 15y ago
> doesn’t mean it’s wrong to cry foul against racist caricature. It’s still wrong. Throwing around false accusations of racism is also wrong. Of course, not all accusations are false, but most are these days. And then there's the whole "cry wolf" thing.
- jessedhillon 15y ago
  How do you know "most" are false? Who are you to determine whether someone is legitimately offended?
  - JanezStupar 15y ago
    What does legitimately offended mean? Take a look at my hypothetical scenario. If I'm a Foo and Foo's have always owned, sold and even killed Baz's on a whim. And their whole history, culture and law reinforces and even encourages them to do so. And now someone tells me that my progenitors were assholes to do so. Do I have right to be legitimately offended? And if so - does this make racism ok?
    - jessedhillon 15y ago
      I don't know. If this kind of Foo situation is analogous to racial discrimination in your mind, perhaps you haven't studied many situations of actual discrimination. There's no need for hypothetical situations, we have innumerable actual examples to choose from.
      - JanezStupar 15y ago
        It is not just about racial discrimination. It is about balance of power in general and how that impacts what is legitimate, regarding to ones position. There is also a certain point where combating racism transforms into fighting with ghosts. From the original story - the Achmed and his extended family kinda fit - since people from general area of mediterran and middle east tend to pay more attention to their relatives - and so this story could also work with Giuseppe from Sicily or Zorbas the Greek, Jovo from Serbia or someone else. It's main point is hardly that muslims are scoundrels who prey on every opportunity to shaft their fellow human. You could argue that it is racist by proxy (He picked an Arab name - so it has to be racist). To me it is the same case of native American woman trying to ban Brave new World since some people in the book whose race isn't even mentioned, live in low tech reservations. The way I see it it is a caricature. A mild one at that.
      - anamax 15y ago
        > There's no need for hypothetical situations, we have innumerable actual examples to choose from. And yet, we have people crying racism where none exists. Heck, we have people worrying about being exposed to racism in fictional worlds. See Is HBO's Game of Thrones racist? http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/browbeat/archive/2011/04/20/is-game-of-thrones-racist.aspx http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/browbeat/archive/2011/04/20... "They are, in short, barbarians of the most stereotypical, un-PC sort. As I watched, I kept thinking, 'Are they still allowed to do that?'" and "... if it was 'possible to be racist toward a race that does not actually exist.'"
  - anamax 15y ago
    > How do you know "most" are false? Because I look at the "offense". > Who are you to determine whether someone is legitimately offended? In this case, the "offended" party was offended on behalf of someone else. When a supposed "victim" of this "racism" spoke up, he was belittled because he didn't play along. You want to be offended, fine, but don't claim to be doing so on someone else's behalf. You seem offended that I think that most "anti-racism" is a sham. I was being nice. We could get into how most anti-racists are quite tolerant of horrific acts so long as they're performed by the correct people. That pretty much proves that most "anti-racism" is not humanitarian but just crude political posturing. Have a nice day.
    - jessedhillon 15y ago
      So essentially, what you're saying is that this determination is based on your opinion of "anti-racism" and not any objective observations, direct measurements, or first-hand experience dealing with the impacts of racism? And, perhaps conveniently, this determination preserves your existing worldview that claims of racism are false or exaggerated. Most people would call that ignorance.
      - anamax 15y ago
        > So essentially, what you're saying is that this determination is based on your opinion of "anti-racism" and not any objective observations, direct measurements, or first-hand experience dealing with the impacts of racism? Not at all. I said that I looked at incidents of supposed racism such as the above. My observations drove my opinion of "anti-racists". Is there racism - yes. My point is that the anti-racists aren't pointing it out, that they're engaged in political posturing. BTW - I'm familiar with many of the so-called "direct" measurements. The vast majority don't measure racism so they're useful only to identify folks who either can't do science or don't bother in this case. Which category do you find virtuous? (You do know that "he meant well" is an insult, right?)
        jessedhillon 15y ago
        If you make statements about the "vast majority" and "most" situations, I expect more than anecdotes. All you're doing is exhibiting confirmation bias. You're presenting an argument based on biased assimilation of evidence -- accepting only the evidence which supports your positive opinion of yourself and your prior understanding of racism. You just dislike some claims of racism, and you've decided to generalize from there, apparently making no allowance for the possibility that you could be wrong. This isn't some thoughtful or carefully measure approach you're advocating here, it's an emotional reaction.

by dreyfiz 15y ago

anamax 15y ago

> doesn’t mean it’s wrong to cry foul against racist caricature. It’s still wrong. Throwing around false accusations of racism is also wrong. Of course, not all accusations are false, but most are these days. And then there's the whole "cry wolf" thing.

jessedhillon 15y ago
How do you know "most" are false? Who are you to determine whether someone is legitimately offended?
- JanezStupar 15y ago
  What does legitimately offended mean? Take a look at my hypothetical scenario. If I'm a Foo and Foo's have always owned, sold and even killed Baz's on a whim. And their whole history, culture and law reinforces and even encourages them to do so. And now someone tells me that my progenitors were assholes to do so. Do I have right to be legitimately offended? And if so - does this make racism ok?
  - jessedhillon 15y ago
    I don't know. If this kind of Foo situation is analogous to racial discrimination in your mind, perhaps you haven't studied many situations of actual discrimination. There's no need for hypothetical situations, we have innumerable actual examples to choose from.
    - JanezStupar 15y ago
      It is not just about racial discrimination. It is about balance of power in general and how that impacts what is legitimate, regarding to ones position. There is also a certain point where combating racism transforms into fighting with ghosts. From the original story - the Achmed and his extended family kinda fit - since people from general area of mediterran and middle east tend to pay more attention to their relatives - and so this story could also work with Giuseppe from Sicily or Zorbas the Greek, Jovo from Serbia or someone else. It's main point is hardly that muslims are scoundrels who prey on every opportunity to shaft their fellow human. You could argue that it is racist by proxy (He picked an Arab name - so it has to be racist). To me it is the same case of native American woman trying to ban Brave new World since some people in the book whose race isn't even mentioned, live in low tech reservations. The way I see it it is a caricature. A mild one at that.
    - anamax 15y ago
      > There's no need for hypothetical situations, we have innumerable actual examples to choose from. And yet, we have people crying racism where none exists. Heck, we have people worrying about being exposed to racism in fictional worlds. See Is HBO's Game of Thrones racist? http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/browbeat/archive/2011/04/20/is-game-of-thrones-racist.aspx http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/browbeat/archive/2011/04/20... "They are, in short, barbarians of the most stereotypical, un-PC sort. As I watched, I kept thinking, 'Are they still allowed to do that?'" and "... if it was 'possible to be racist toward a race that does not actually exist.'"
- anamax 15y ago
  > How do you know "most" are false? Because I look at the "offense". > Who are you to determine whether someone is legitimately offended? In this case, the "offended" party was offended on behalf of someone else. When a supposed "victim" of this "racism" spoke up, he was belittled because he didn't play along. You want to be offended, fine, but don't claim to be doing so on someone else's behalf. You seem offended that I think that most "anti-racism" is a sham. I was being nice. We could get into how most anti-racists are quite tolerant of horrific acts so long as they're performed by the correct people. That pretty much proves that most "anti-racism" is not humanitarian but just crude political posturing. Have a nice day.
  - jessedhillon 15y ago
    So essentially, what you're saying is that this determination is based on your opinion of "anti-racism" and not any objective observations, direct measurements, or first-hand experience dealing with the impacts of racism? And, perhaps conveniently, this determination preserves your existing worldview that claims of racism are false or exaggerated. Most people would call that ignorance.
    - anamax 15y ago
      > So essentially, what you're saying is that this determination is based on your opinion of "anti-racism" and not any objective observations, direct measurements, or first-hand experience dealing with the impacts of racism? Not at all. I said that I looked at incidents of supposed racism such as the above. My observations drove my opinion of "anti-racists". Is there racism - yes. My point is that the anti-racists aren't pointing it out, that they're engaged in political posturing. BTW - I'm familiar with many of the so-called "direct" measurements. The vast majority don't measure racism so they're useful only to identify folks who either can't do science or don't bother in this case. Which category do you find virtuous? (You do know that "he meant well" is an insult, right?)
      - jessedhillon 15y ago
        If you make statements about the "vast majority" and "most" situations, I expect more than anecdotes. All you're doing is exhibiting confirmation bias. You're presenting an argument based on biased assimilation of evidence -- accepting only the evidence which supports your positive opinion of yourself and your prior understanding of racism. You just dislike some claims of racism, and you've decided to generalize from there, apparently making no allowance for the possibility that you could be wrong. This isn't some thoughtful or carefully measure approach you're advocating here, it's an emotional reaction.