3 ms·

Okay. Let's talk about the bigotry. Is there anything even bigoted in the original post? Would it be racist if an Indian person asked "Why do Americans love gun

Okay. Let's talk about the bigotry. Is there anything even bigoted in the original post? Would it be racist if an Indian person asked "Why do Americans love guns so much?" to the point of requiring a response chastising the questioner? Different cultures manifest themselves in different behaviors among the individuals of the given culture. If it didn't, the concept of culture wouldn't exist. So what exactly is bigoted if one asks why culture X seems to be prone to telling a certain type of story? Is it also racist to say a lot of magical realism comes out of Colombian culture, and wonder why that is the case?

triceratops 6y ago
The original post is flagged, so I can't read it. From the surrounding discussion I surmised that the original post made some sort of negative-sounding sweeping generalization about Indians, or at least phrased it in a bad way. I'm not here to talk about the original post though. I'm specifically objecting to the "X isn't a race hur dur" meme because it derails discussion of the issue at hand without being constructive. Neither of the things you mentioned about Americans or Colombians are negative or positive stereotypes - I see them as neutral. So those questions aren't bigoted by themselves, IMO. But there are ways to phrase those questions that would make you sound bigoted against Americans or Colombians. (No I don't care to try to give an example).
- Ancapistani 6y ago
  The original post asked (paraphrased) “why do Indians like this sort of feel good story so much?” I bought up the pedantic point because in my mind it was further illustration that the poster who used the term “casual racism” was jumping to conclusions. Not only could the original post have been easily interpreted as in good faith, but the criticism of it was both poorly formed and lacking justification. I feel like this sort of reaction reflect poorly on our community and detracts from the conversation.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    What you're saying is fair. The poster who called it "casual racism" may well have been jumping to conclusions. It's totally possible they didn't use the most generous interpretation of OP's words hastily accused them of something that was not intended or even present in OP's statement. If they were alleging bias or bigotry based on nationality, it's not the dictionary definition of racism but it's something equally bad. You and I both know what they were actually alleging, right? So nitpicking the specific term they used is counterproductive to the discussion - especially when there isn't an easy, single word to describe bigotry based on nationality or national origin. I'm objecting to the logic that goes "racism = bad, X group isn't a race but a nationality/ethnicity/religion/<something else immutable whose -phobia word isn't well known>, therefore this != racism, therefore this != bad". I know you mean well and I hope you understand where I'm coming from.

triceratops 6y ago

The original post is flagged, so I can't read it. From the surrounding discussion I surmised that the original post made some sort of negative-sounding sweeping generalization about Indians, or at least phrased it in a bad way. I'm not here to talk about the original post though. I'm specifically objecting to the "X isn't a race hur dur" meme because it derails discussion of the issue at hand without being constructive. Neither of the things you mentioned about Americans or Colombians are negative or positive stereotypes - I see them as neutral. So those questions aren't bigoted by themselves, IMO. But there are ways to phrase those questions that would make you sound bigoted against Americans or Colombians. (No I don't care to try to give an example).

Ancapistani 6y ago
The original post asked (paraphrased) “why do Indians like this sort of feel good story so much?” I bought up the pedantic point because in my mind it was further illustration that the poster who used the term “casual racism” was jumping to conclusions. Not only could the original post have been easily interpreted as in good faith, but the criticism of it was both poorly formed and lacking justification. I feel like this sort of reaction reflect poorly on our community and detracts from the conversation.
- triceratops 6y ago
  What you're saying is fair. The poster who called it "casual racism" may well have been jumping to conclusions. It's totally possible they didn't use the most generous interpretation of OP's words hastily accused them of something that was not intended or even present in OP's statement. If they were alleging bias or bigotry based on nationality, it's not the dictionary definition of racism but it's something equally bad. You and I both know what they were actually alleging, right? So nitpicking the specific term they used is counterproductive to the discussion - especially when there isn't an easy, single word to describe bigotry based on nationality or national origin. I'm objecting to the logic that goes "racism = bad, X group isn't a race but a nationality/ethnicity/religion/<something else immutable whose -phobia word isn't well known>, therefore this != racism, therefore this != bad". I know you mean well and I hope you understand where I'm coming from.