NationStates Jolt Archive

I see this line from time to time on the forum, and it's always bugged me. Seems like the sort of thing one says when being racist, in order to justify it.

But on what basis is it true? How can you possibly assert that I, my buddy, my mother - everyone in the fucking world - prejudges people based on race? Universal telepathy or what?

I mean isn't it a bit like saying, "everyone is a little bit homicidal?" Or "everyone's a little bit of a child-fucker?" Sure, you might look at statistics and point out that very few people are statistically violent criminals or paedophiles. But aha, I can just say you WANT to, because I somehow know your mind! You're all a little bit genocidal mass murdering dictators!

This is just sort of a rant, but I'm interested to hear other people's arguments on it.

I see this line from time to time on the forum, and it's always bugged me. Seems like the sort of thing one says when being racist, in order to justify it.

But on what basis is it true? How can you possibly assert that I, my buddy, my mother - everyone in the fucking world - prejudges people based on race? Universal telepathy or what?

This is just sort of a rant, but I'm interested to hear other people's arguments on it.

Most people are afraid of what they don't know, like different cultures etc. But like most generalizations it's wrong.

Not Stephen Colbert. He doesnt see color. People tell him hes white so he just takes thier word for it.

Everybody has a "pack" just like wolves. And everybody thinks their pack is better than other packs. This isn't necessarily defined by race. And the pack changes through different associations.

You can be in a pack that is in a certain business. that supports a certain sports group, that belongs to a certain club, belongs to a certain church, or is in a certain race. The difference between wolves and humans is humans can choose a pack. Wolves are born into a pack and can't make no choice.

People are generally wary of everything, especially things they don't know personally, so they aren't so much "racist" as they are "cautious about the unknown".

Yea, I think everyone is a little racist, and I think anyone who denies this is a liar and a hypocrite.

I think that most of the people who say things like that are projecting.

....based... on... what?

Well, he's a little racist, so everyone else must be the exact same way! =D

Yea, I think everyone is a little racist, and I think anyone who denies this is a liar and a hypocrite.

I think it's perfectly possible not to be racist. I somehow manage to be entirely free of the desire to discriminate based on race. I don't hate anyone based on their race.. or any other abstract. I don't treat people differently because of their race, or assume any difference in their ability or worth based on it.

Whether you think that makes me a 'liar' or 'hypocrite', I really don't care. I'm not going to lose sleep over your infantile dummy-chucking.

Everybody has a "pack" just like wolves. And everybody thinks their pack is better than other packs. This isn't necessarily defined by race. And the pack changes through different associations.

You can be in a pack that is in a certain business. that supports a certain sports group, that belongs to a certain club, belongs to a certain church, or is in a certain race. The difference between wolves and humans is humans can choose a pack. Wolves are born into a pack and can't make no choice.

My 'pack' is humanity. I think some of my pack are idiots, and others are pretty cool... but it has nothing to do with what colour fur they have.

Yea, I think everyone is a little racist

....based... on... what?

....based... on... what?

It's human nature. From day one we've thought that 'our' tribe was better than the other, that we thought our group of people were superior. It's kinda hard to truly stomp that out.

i dont know about racist but everyone is somewhat prejudiced. its a human trait to group people in various ways and make assumptions about them based on what we have been told about them or how we have interacted with them in the past.

It's human nature. From day one we've thought that 'our' tribe was better than the other, that we thought our group of people were superior. It's kinda hard to truly stomp that out.

Bullshit. I've never thought that "our" tribe was superior, or that "my" tribe was even racially-based. You need to provide evidence, not just flimsy accusations and generalizations.

If we use the definition of racism that says: discrimination on basis of ethnic background or religion and we then take the following definition of discrimination:

treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit

We can then use the following reasoning:

If we posses statistical data that tells us a certain characteristic of a specific type of people (lets say, all people with blue hair are extremely smart) we can then use this data in an profitable way. Say, if we have a the choice between hiring a person with blue hair and hiring a person with green hair, would it then not make sense to hire the person with blue hair if we have no other data about these people? If we would repeat this hiring a large number of times and we would then analyze the effectiveness of the worker we can easily see that the continually hiring of a person with blue hair would provide us with the most desirable situation, which is hiring the most effective worker.

Now back to racism, there are differences between races, these differences are most likely not from genetic origin, but from social origin. Still, statistical studies can easily show that they exist. In a situation where you have a choice between several people, some of which are according to data you posses more profitable to the situation at hand it would be profitable to simply use this data then to lay it aside, because you are afraid to be called a racist.

This of course ignores the fact that it is not nice to the people being judged on their ethnic background or religious beliefs. However completely laying aside data for that reason may not be wise in all situations. People could more successfully accomplish their goals if they use such data.

Now, I have been talking about using statistical studies as information source for such decisions. However, personal experience is frequently just as effective as statistical studies. Obviously taking personal experience as information source leads to all sorts of wrong conclusions, because the data sets are more often then not too small to draw any reliable conclusions. Anyone with some knowledge about statistics will however realize that the chances of drawing a right conclusion are still bigger then the chances of drawing a wrong conclusion and therefore even personal experience can be useful for drawing such conclusions.

The refusal to accept conclusions drawn on learned information, because it is not nice to certain people may lead to undesired situations. For example, in my country, some time ago a study showed that a specific ethnic group was 5x as likely to commit welfare fraud. The response of the people responsible was to increase the control on these people. For which they were sued and lost the case, because it was considered racism.

Obviously, since it is not nice to people to be judged on basis of their race extreme care should be taken to assure that wrong conclusions are not drawn. Calling all discrimination on basis of race or religion dumb, or comparing it to child fucking as you do, completely misses the point that it can be desirable. It may still not be desirable in all situations and that is a topic for some debate, but racism is not just ignorant hate of dumb people, it is merely a part of standard learning behavior.

Well I guess as soon as you group someone, or register that they are different, you are being prejudice. So it's hard not to see someone of different race, as a different race.

However I think it's possible on an individual level (I have to be reminded that two of my friends are indian), therefore with enough effort someone could probably pull off a totally unracist life view. Doubt anyone has though.

Some people say you can see someone as a different race without being racist, but then how do you register that they are different in your mind, without changing the way you behave? Not harmful racism, but still racism. If you can truly comprehend their differences without changing your behaviour in some small way, I congratulate you. Hopefully I'll reach that state soon and we can exchange notes.

I just had a mental image of a world populated entirely by midget Klu Klux Klansmen.

Calling all discrimination on basis of race or religion dumb, or comparing it to child fucking as you do, completely misses the point that it can be desirable.

Irrelevant. My point is that generalizing the entire global population as being discriminatory to others based on race is just as valid as generalizing the entire global population as being sexually attracted to children. The same 'arguments' made in favor of it can be made for the other. For example, I can say that anyone who says they aren't a little bit pedophiliac is lying and a hypocrite. I can't prove this, anymore than I can prove whether you prejudge others based on race.

It's all about the way we perceive other people, particularly strangers. You may say you're not racist, but when you see someone doing this or that, your reaction would be different if the person's race was different than what you had expected. Yes, you have subconscious expectations. We all do. We're all a little racist, but not enough to the point where it's considered offensive.

Imagine waking up and thinking that everyone who wasn't the same colour as you was an enemy. That would be VERY scary and VERY sad.

This would only be true if you unreasonably expanded the defintion of racism.

Even studies investigating racism often fail to find it in people. Sometimes you'll see people making assumptions about people based on racial averages (like black people tend to be poorer than white people), but those are correct assumptions based on solid data, and thus not racist.

Take this study, for example:

The Nature and Extent of Discrimination in the Marketplace: Evidence from the Field (http://www.arec.umd.edu/jlist/JLISTQJEDISC.pdf)(pdf)

The people here treated black people measureably differently, but they are so treated for reasons that were relevant to their interaction (and those reasons were unrelated to race). That's not racism.

I think most people have prejudices (ethnically based, gender based, nationality based, etc.) hidden away that they don't even know are there - not because they are bad people, but because we are all, to some extent, products of our society. I think the problem is when someone will not question those ideas when they are brought to the forefront.

when you see someone doing this or that, your reaction would be different if the person's race was different than what you had expected

Sez what?

I see this line from time to time on the forum, and it's always bugged me. Seems like the sort of thing one says when being racist, in order to justify it.

But on what basis is it true? How can you possibly assert that I, my buddy, my mother - everyone in the fucking world - prejudges people based on race? Universal telepathy or what?

I mean isn't it a bit like saying, "everyone is a little bit homicidal?" Or "everyone's a little bit of a child-fucker?" Sure, you might look at statistics and point out that very few people are statistically violent criminals or paedophiles. But aha, I can just say you WANT to, because I somehow know your mind! You're all a little bit genocidal mass murdering dictators!

This is just sort of a rant, but I'm interested to hear other people's arguments on it.

Depends on how you define racism.

I don't treat people differently because of their race, or assume any difference in their ability or worth based on it.
Even if you did that wouldn't necessarily be racism. Assuming any difference of ability or worth based solely on race would be racism, but race in concert with other data might make such discrimination perfectly reasonable and without animus.

Irrelevant. My point is that generalizing the entire global population as being discriminatory to others based on race is just as valid as generalizing the entire global population as being sexually attracted to children. The same 'arguments' made in favor of it can be made for the other. For example, I can say that anyone who says they aren't a little bit pedophiliac is lying and a hypocrite. I can't prove this, anymore than I can prove whether you prejudge others based on race.

Why can't we prove it?

I understand we can't philosophically or generally. Why not scientifically?

Why not through standard observation of people around you, and then use inductive reasoning to fill in the gap that is unfillable physically (observing everyone).

What about that assuming some people are not at all racist, is in fact as bold a claim as they all are slightly? (since we are dealing with such small behaviour I think this is a fair point.)

On a purely instinct level, yeah probably. You can get over it rationally, but your initial judgment will be colored regardless. There are far better reasons to dislike people than skin color.

It's all about the way we perceive other people, particularly strangers. You may say you're not racist, but when you see someone doing this or that, your reaction would be different if the person's race was different than what you had expected. Yes, you have subconscious expectations. We all do. We're all a little racist, but not enough to the point where it's considered offensive.

If the only black people you ever see are the ones being arrested on Cops you might have this view.

And no, we're not all a little racist. It's impossible to make such a statement and claim it's truthful.

It's all about the way we perceive other people, particularly strangers. You may say you're not racist, but when you see someone doing this or that, your reaction would be different if the person's race was different than what you had expected.

Oh, it would be? Good to know. I'll file that under with how I'm a liar and a hypocrite.

Yes, you have subconscious expectations. We all do. We're all a little racist, but not enough to the point where it's considered offensive.

"Subconscious expectations" translates to "everyone's racist?"

Why can't we prove it?

I understand we can't philosophically and generally. Why not scientifically?

Why not through standard observation of people around you, and then use inductive reasoning to fill in the gap that is unfillable physically (observing everyone).

That's not science. Look, why don't you prove, scientifically, that I am racist. If you can't do that with little old me how the hell can you claim to be able to with 6+ billion people?

What about that assuming some people are not at all racist, is in fact as bold a claim as they all are slightly? (since we are dealing with such small behaviour I think this is a fair point.)

I guess I tend to assume not being racist until given reason to suspect otherwise. Kind of a burden of proof, innocent until proven guilty philosophy.

How about this - assuming some people are not at all attracted sexually to children. Is that as bold a claim as assuming everyone is attracted sexually to children?

Why not through standard observation of people around you, and then use inductive reasoning to fill in the gap that is unfillable physically (observing everyone).
Inductive reasoning never constitutes proof.

Irrelevant. My point is that generalizing the entire global population as being discriminatory to others based on race is just as valid as generalizing the entire global population as being sexually attracted to children. The same 'arguments' made in favor of it can be made for the other. For example, I can say that anyone who says they aren't a little bit pedophiliac is lying and a hypocrite. I can't prove this, anymore than I can prove whether you prejudge others based on race.

I think you are definitely taking that phrase a little too seriously, I seriously doubt you will find anyone who actually thinks every single person on earth is slightly racist.

Everyone is raised differently, and no upbringing contains equal parts of all cultures/whatever, so people are biased due to nurture. As for nature, avoiding foreign objects is a natural defense mechanism.

I think you are definitely taking that phrase a little too seriously, I seriously doubt you will find anyone who actually thinks every single person on earth is slightly racist.

You sure? Seems a couple have posted already...

This would only be true if you unreasonably expanded the defintion of racism.

Sometimes you'll see people making assumptions about people based on racial averages (like black people tend to be poorer than white people), but those are correct assumptions based on solid data, and thus not racist.


I agree.

There is a big difference between prediction and prejudice.

We cannot go through life without prediction. We can't possibly know enough about everyone we interact with to say for sure what is true about the person. So we have to predict what might be true based on past experience and group averages. Example: If an Italian was coming to your house for dinner and you wanted to make something they would like, it would be a good prediction that they might like pasta.

Prejudice is when one thinks a prediction HAS to be true. In the example, your Italian guests tell you they don't like pasta but you make it anyway because an Italian HAS to like pasta. They cannot possibly not like pasta.

You sure? Seems a couple have posted already...

Hmmm... Well it's not really the same sort of racism, GT is talking about prejudging people (thought needs to go into this when you decide something about a certain race), but the other posters seem to be referring more to some sort of natural 'feeling' you get towards other races without any actual thought going into it.

It's all about the way we perceive other people, particularly strangers. You may say you're not racist, but when you see someone doing this or that, your reaction would be different if the person's race was different than what you had expected. Yes, you have subconscious expectations. We all do. We're all a little racist, but not enough to the point where it's considered offensive.

I disagree on several points.

First - that I should have any 'expectations' about what people would do 'based on race'.

Second - that I would be surprised to see someone doing 'a certain thing'.. because of race. I might be surprised to see a man dressed as a priest stealing candy, but not because he was a white or black priest.

Third - I consider it offensive that a large number of people would make such judgements based purely on race... and more offenseive that they would suggest such a thing MUST be true for everyone.

Hmmm... Well it's not really the same sort of racism

Perhaps

but the other posters seem to be referring more to some sort of natural 'feeling' you get towards other races without any actual thought going into it.

and assuming everyone does. How and/or why?

Even if you did that wouldn't necessarily be racism. Assuming any difference of ability or worth based solely on race would be racism, but race in concert with other data might make such discrimination perfectly reasonable and without animus.

I disagree. Making a decision absed on 'race in concert with' some other data is STILL a prejudice. It can only be objective if the 'other data' is independent of the consideration of 'race'.

And I'm slightly appaled that you think allowing race to be any part of 'discrimination' - even in concert with other data - would be in any way acceptable.

On a purely instinct level, yeah probably. You can get over it rationally, but your initial judgment will be colored regardless. There are far better reasons to dislike people than skin color.

Again - I disagree.

Especially in this day and age... where so much communication occurs remotely, abstractly, and even anonymously. In an age of internet dating and relating, it is not entirely impossible that one could discover the colour of one's soon-to-be-spouse's skin... at the Church.

I disagree. Making a decision absed on 'race in concert with' some other data is STILL a prejudice. It can only be objective if the 'other data' is independent of the consideration of 'race'.

And I'm slightly appaled that you think allowing race to be any part of 'discrimination' - even in concert with other data - would be in any way acceptable.

Perhaps not race but rather nationality, as in the average person from Zimbabwe is not going to be the same as the average Swede, for instance. This is based on the fact that poverty generally leads to little or no education, as well as a completely different culture (differing cultures usually implies differing ways of acting or treating one another etc...).

I disagree. Making a decision absed on 'race in concert with' some other data is STILL a prejudice. It can only be objective if the 'other data' is independent of the consideration of 'race'.

And I'm slightly appaled that you think allowing race to be any part of 'discrimination' - even in concert with other data - would be in any way acceptable.
In the study I cited, they found that sportscard dealers treated black buyers and sellers differently than they did white buyers and sellers. But, the difference was based on black buyers and sellers tending to be less affluent than white buyers and sellers (which they were), so race was (correctly) being used as a proxy to determine the acceptable price range of the other party in the exchange.

The dealers were making correct statistical assumptions about the willingness to accept certain prices or the ability to pay based on the race of the people with whom they were dealing, because the people differed appreciably, and that difference conincided pretty closely with a difference in race. So the racial discrimination simply made for a more efficient sportscard market.

This is beyond cases where race might actually be directly relevant to the question at hand (like whether to hire the white guy to wait tables in your authentic vietnamese restaurant). In this case (the sportscard market) the race doesn't strictly matter, but it is indicative of something that does (allfuence), and thus it can be correctly applied.

This is exactly how racial profiling works.

Everyone is raised differently, and no upbringing contains equal parts of all cultures/whatever, so people are biased due to nurture.

That still doesn't translate to racism.

As for nature, avoiding foreign objects is a natural defense mechanism.

That's cute. People of a different race are "foreign objects?"

In the study I cited, they found that sportscard dealers treated black buyers and sellers differently than they did white buyers and sellers. But, the difference was based on black buyers and sellers tending to be less affluent than white buyers and sellers (which they were), so race was (correctly) being used as a proxy to determine the acceptable price range of the other party in the exchange.

"Correctly"? So every single black buyer/seller is less affluent than every single white buyer/seller? If this is not true, then it is not "correct" to assume that a given black buyer/seller is less affluent than a given white buyer/seller.

It actually sounds like a cop-out for unskilled negotiators. They can't read the individual they are negotiating with well enough to bargain well, so they instead make assumptions that may or may not be correct based solely on appearance.

Translating a "tendency" into an absolute is bigotry, no matter how you look at it. It is bigotry when you assume that the black guy standing in front of you is poor. It is bigotry when you assume that the woman standing in front of you is uninterested or unskilled in math or science. It is bigotry when you assume that the man standing in front of you cares about football. And so on...

Society has developed so that there is no way to be entirely free of ethnic stereotypes and prejudices.

Al Sharpton once described an incident where he was walking in a very poor neighborhood, and he heard footsteps rapidly approaching behind him. When he turned around he was relieved to find that it was a middle aged white guy, and not a young black man.

Such prejudices and stereotypes will take a long time to remove, decades, if not generations.

I suppose someone has to post it... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9CSnlb-ymA)

Indeed, everyone is a little bit racist. I, for one, and extremely prejudiced against stupid people.

Wait, stupid people aren't a race? Well, I guess I thought that, you know, since stupid parents so frequently beget stupid children...although I suppose that stupid parents can beget average children, above-average chiuldren, or even smart children in rare cases, that maybe stupid isn't a race, but rather...**head explodes**

I don't suffer from stupid. I suffer from insane. There's a difference.

I'm not racist, I hate everyone equally. Well not equally, there are some I hate less than the rest, but they've given me reason to. Although I am a little bit of a mass murdering genocidal dictator.

That's not science. Look, why don't you prove, scientifically, that I am racist. If you can't do that with little old me how the hell can you claim to be able to with 6+ billion people?

I guess I tend to assume not being racist until given reason to suspect otherwise. Kind of a burden of proof, innocent until proven guilty philosophy.

How about this - assuming some people are not at all attracted sexually to children. Is that as bold a claim as assuming everyone is attracted sexually to children?

It would probably be simple to prove (in a scientific sense) that you are, on some level, racist. Documenting how you behave around people of different race would be a start. Measuring brain activity is another way. You could get it down to the same level of proof as whether or not the average KKK member was racist.

I assume that all sexual men are sexually attracted to female children, not very bold I don't think, as it makes sense. They are physically closer to women than anything else I can think of (alot of men come closer, but I also assume all sexual men are slightly homosexual). As for which is bolder, they are both assumptions, and I highly doubt both, nor does anyone have any evidence either way about what the true level of attraction is (to my current knowledge). Therefore neither is more or less bold than the other.

Inductive reasoning never constitutes proof.

What does then? What sense are we even talking about proof? What reasoning are you using to assume it doesn't? I imagine inductive reasoning is involved somewhere in that process.

"Correctly"? So every single black buyer/seller is less affluent than every single white buyer/seller? If this is not true, then it is not "correct" to assume that a given black buyer/seller is less affluent than a given white buyer/seller.
There's no requirement here that the dealers held that every black buyer/seller was less affluent than every white buyer/seller, only that any given black buyer/seller was likely to be less affluent that any given white buyer/seller, and in asserting this they were correct.

They weren't made lesser offers because they were black. They were made lesser offers because they were likely to be less affluent. The lack of racial animus prevents it from being racism.
It actually sounds like a cop-out for unskilled negotiators. They can't read the individual they are negotiating with well enough to bargain well, so they instead make assumptions that may or may not be correct based solely on appearance.
But they demonstrably are correct more often than not.
Translating a "tendency" into an absolute is bigotry, no matter how you look at it.
Agreed. That's not what was happening, here.
It is bigotry when you assume that the black guy standing in front of you is poor. It is bigotry when you assume that the woman standing in front of you is uninterested or unskilled in math or science. It is bigotry when you assume that the man standing in front of you cares about football. And so on...
Again, I agree. But that's not what was happening, here.

What does then?
Deductive reasoning.
What sense are we even talking about proof?
You brought it up.
What reasoning are you using to assume it doesn't?
Axiomatic.
I imagine inductive reasoning is involved somewhere in that process.
Inductive reasoning is necessarily unsound.

You talk about scientific proof, but science only proves things deductively.

There's no requirement here that the dealers held that every black buyer/seller was less affluent than every white buyer/seller, only that any given black buyer/seller was likely to be less affluent that any given white buyer/seller, and in asserting this they were correct.

Considering the fact that they were dealing with individuals, rather than with all of a given ethnicity, that assertion doesn't matter.

They weren't made lesser offers because they were black. They were made lesser offers because they were likely to be less affluent. The lack of racial animus prevents it from being racism.

No, it doesn't. The difference in treatment was prompted by a difference in ethnicity. *That* makes it racism. It doesn't matter if they were trying to be meanie heads by doing it.

But they demonstrably are correct more often than not.

So?

Agreed. That's not what was happening, here.

Yes, that is exactly what is happening here. Because people of one ethnicity tend to be less affluent than others, these buyers/sellers begin their negotiations under the assumption that the particular individual they are interacting with will meet the trend.

Again, I agree. But that's not what was happening, here.

Yes, that is, once again, exactly what is happening here. These dealers began negotiations under the assumption that the particular individual in front of them would meet a given trend correlating to their gender, age, or ethnicity.

Deductive reasoning.

You brought it up.

Axiomatic.

Inductive reasoning is necessarily unsound.

You talk about scientific proof, but science only proves things deductively.

I don't recall science ever proving anything deductively, never met someone who thinks science proves things absolutely. Always scepticism and doubt around. When data is taken it is done so inductively, then out of the infinite possibilities any piece of data suggests, we choose one or many as it fits the inductive pattern (ignoring the chicken or egg scenarios we choose to ignore aswell) which, allows us to fit a view of reality into our minds.

Deductive is merely prejudice, we assume A=A deductively, but we have no way of knowing aside from the gut (mind w/e) feeling. This can be used against inductive reasoning, but i never said inductive is the only form of proof (for racism). Deductive truth seems only to exist in words and abstract as well (I would explain more, but ontological arguments for god should do it for me) and assume that the meaning given to concepts by the populace has any value, whereas inductive reasoning, seemingly by nature, can be used on anything.

Also you use deductive reasoning as proof, but it's just a logic circle. Deductive reasoning is proof because deductive reasoning says so, or everything else isn't proof because deductive reasoning says so. Any other option supporting deductive thought immediatly brings in inductive reasoning (deductively).

I'm sorry about the structure of this post, my mind is swarming with thoughts and I'm having troubled holding them still.

EDIT: after a bit of thought, I remembered my old opinion on this. Deductive reasoning is the name given to theoretical thought, and inductive to applicational thought. Then qualities are given to each type to try and seperate them but they are infact one and the same, at least in the sense that light red is the same as dark red. Can't back this up right now as it was hard enough remembering just the opinion.

If we use the definition of racism that says: discrimination on basis of ethnic background or religion and we then take the following definition of discrimination:



We can then use the following reasoning:

If we posses statistical data that tells us a certain characteristic of a specific type of people (lets say, all people with blue hair are extremely smart) we can then use this data in an profitable way. Say, if we have a the choice between hiring a person with blue hair and hiring a person with green hair, would it then not make sense to hire the person with blue hair if we have no other data about these people? If we would repeat this hiring a large number of times and we would then analyze the effectiveness of the worker we can easily see that the continually hiring of a person with blue hair would provide us with the most desirable situation, which is hiring the most effective worker.

Now back to racism, there are differences between races, these differences are most likely not from genetic origin, but from social origin. Still, statistical studies can easily show that they exist. In a situation where you have a choice between several people, some of which are according to data you posses more profitable to the situation at hand it would be profitable to simply use this data then to lay it aside, because you are afraid to be called a racist.

This of course ignores the fact that it is not nice to the people being judged on their ethnic background or religious beliefs. However completely laying aside data for that reason may not be wise in all situations. People could more successfully accomplish their goals if they use such data.

Now, I have been talking about using statistical studies as information source for such decisions. However, personal experience is frequently just as effective as statistical studies. Obviously taking personal experience as information source leads to all sorts of wrong conclusions, because the data sets are more often then not too small to draw any reliable conclusions. Anyone with some knowledge about statistics will however realize that the chances of drawing a right conclusion are still bigger then the chances of drawing a wrong conclusion and therefore even personal experience can be useful for drawing such conclusions.

The refusal to accept conclusions drawn on learned information, because it is not nice to certain people may lead to undesired situations. For example, in my country, some time ago a study showed that a specific ethnic group was 5x as likely to commit welfare fraud. The response of the people responsible was to increase the control on these people. For which they were sued and lost the case, because it was considered racism.

Obviously, since it is not nice to people to be judged on basis of their race extreme care should be taken to assure that wrong conclusions are not drawn. Calling all discrimination on basis of race or religion dumb, or comparing it to child fucking as you do, completely misses the point that it can be desirable. It may still not be desirable in all situations and that is a topic for some debate, but racism is not just ignorant hate of dumb people, it is merely a part of standard learning behavior.

Here's the problem:

We know from statistical evidence that race is not the reason. I will provide an example:

Black people in the US were more likely to commit crimes in year X than people of any other skin colour.

To then draw the conclusion: Well, blacks are more likely than anyone else to be criminals would be wrong as a general statement covering eternity. The real cause has to be found and to blame the cause of criminality on ethinicity (sp?) is to be lazy and not want to dig a bit deeper. If you do dig a bit deeper, I'm sure you'll find that blacks are generally socially disadvantaged - they're poorer on average, essentially. If you're poor, you're more likely to commit robbery or burglary or dealing drugs. Doing any of these things, you might end up committing assault, resisting arrest, etc...

So what does that teach us?

Basing things on race is thin and ignores the real reasons. It's lazy, it doesn't give you any answers or provide any solutions. What you want to do is get at the real heart and root of the problems that you are trying to solve and actually do it.

Not this wishy washy "omg, these chinese immigrants are more likely to be welfare frauds!" and then increase control, because that helps nobody - they'll still be trying to commit welfare fraud. You wanna get at the root of the problem as to "why are they committing this fraud?" And only then can you solve it.

"Evlyone's a riddle bit lacist!"

--Avenue Q

Again, I agree. But that's not what was happening, here.

You're wearing a jacket, another man is wearing a suit. You're filthy rich, the man in the suit just spent all his money.

I treat you with disrespect, because I assume you're less affluent, because of a recent statistic showing a tendency that jacket wearers are less affluent (except, naturally, for you) than suit wearers.

Wouldn't you feel the slightest bit pissed when I then treat the guy in the suit cordially, all based on the facts that 1) you wore a jacket and were less likely to be affluent and 2) he wore a suit and was more likely to be affluent.

(I was trying to come up with a pun concerning lawsuit, but it never quite got in there).

I could be racist if I tried really hard. But its much easier and more fun to not be one.

"Evlyone's a riddle bit lacist!"

--Avenue Q

Lacey Chabert is a fucking hottie.

Lacey Chabert is a fucking hottie.

This guy knows what he's talking about.

You're wearing a jacket, another man is wearing a suit. You're filthy rich, the man in the suit just spent all his money.

I treat you with disrespect, because I assume you're less affluent, because of a recent statistic showing a tendency that jacket wearers are less affluent (except, naturally, for you) than suit wearers.

Wouldn't you feel the slightest bit pissed when I then treat the guy in the suit cordially, all based on the facts that 1) you wore a jacket and were less likely to be affluent and 2) he wore a suit and was more likely to be affluent.

(I was trying to come up with a pun concerning lawsuit, but it never quite got in there).

I worked at a restaurant once where a server got screwed over by those sorts of assumptions. It was a busy night and she was given a one-top (only one person at the table). The guy was dressed in shorts, a t-shirt, and flipflops. He didn't look like the "type" to leave a good tip, so she largely ignored him to pay attention to her other tables. What she didn't know was that, while waiting at the bar, this man had tipped the bartender well over 100% on his bar tab. Before leaving the restaurant, he made it clear to both the server and the manager that, had the server provided better service, he would have tipped her similarly.

It's funny how when you're having a conversation with someone, man, woman, gay, straight, black, white, yellow... you are speaking to them as a human being, nothing more. Your differences aren't even considered, unless it's the content of the conversation.
Racism is conscious. Meant.

While I believe I am not prejudice or racist in any way--same goes for sex issues--and I believe that prejudices are among the most ignorant terrible things one can inflict upon themselves, they are, in many cases, justified.
We are only people, and thus subject to inflictions of our environment.

Why yes of course.

It's our genetic imperative to secure more resources than our slightly different genetical variants.

Speaking of Lacey Chabert, ... anyone notice that Party of Five female alumni has something in common,... hint: Owl says what?

Why yes of course.

It's our genetic imperative to secure more resources than our slightly different genetical variants.

Speaking of Lacey Chabert, ... anyone notice that Party of Five female alumni has something in common,... hint: Owl says what?

It's also our genetic imperitive to reproduce, yet many many people chose not to.

I worked at a restaurant once where a server got screwed over by those sorts of assumptions. It was a busy night and she was given a one-top (only one person at the table). The guy was dressed in shorts, a t-shirt, and flipflops. He didn't look like the "type" to leave a good tip, so she largely ignored him to pay attention to her other tables. What she didn't know was that, while waiting at the bar, this man had tipped the bartender well over 100% on his bar tab. Before leaving the restaurant, he made it clear to both the server and the manager that, had the server provided better service, he would have tipped her similarly.

Perfect anecdote to supplement my perceived logic :p

I think that in certain cultures--ours probably among them--racism is so ingrained as to preclude the possibility of many people being truly free from it.

But I don't at all think that it's a necessary human universal.

I think that in certain cultures--ours probably among them--racism is so ingrained as to preclude the possibility of many people being truly free from it.

But I don't at all think that it's a necessary human universal.

I would argue that all modern human cultures exhibit elements of racism, something that evolved socially due to the traditional tribal rivalries and migratory patterns of early humans. I would not argue, though, that it is ingrained in human nature, rather it's a social construct, something whose eradication will take dozens of generations of integration to overcome.

I've also heard the phrase everyone's a little gay. Just something to consider.

As others have said, it depends how you define 'racism'. Sure, people are going to make predictions of people's actions/appearance based on generalisations of different races, but whether they act on this in any way is a different matter. We naturally categorise things, even if doing this can harm the way we perceive it. It's possible we do act subconsciously based on these generalisations, but I think most rational people can control their actions better.

Yes, it is natural to just assume things. No, I think most people realize their automatic assumptions may be wrong as soon as they actually think about it.

When we learn from past experience we establish prejudice about future experiences. If you try to eat a couple different bowls of beetroot soup and all of them taste horrible then you learn a prejudice that beetroot soup tastes bad so you stop trying to eat it. Maybe you where right in that conclusion and save yourself a lot of unpleasantness by not trying anymore. Maybe you where wrong and the ones you tried just happened to be poorly made. Maybe it's great when done right and you are missing the most delicious food on the planet. Siding with your prejudice is the best guess here, it's the only way you'll ever learn anything from past experience.

Individuals are more unique then most things so this way of learning prejudice about individuals you've never met from past experience of other individuals doesn't work very well. If several religious people annoyed you it's not accurate to assume all religious people bug others about it. Chances are you met many who didn't bother you but never knew since they didn't say anything about it. So it's natural to have prejudice and discriminate, it's the way we learn from experience. But it's inaccurate to think about individuals in that way.

BTW. I think the "we are better then them" mentality is the reason aliens are usually the bad guys in movies. If they are even more evil then us humans and wants to conquer or exterminate us as soon as they meet us then that makes humans seem like saints by comparison which makes the plot more appealing to the humans who watch the movie.

Lacey Chabert is a fucking hottie.

I certainly hope so. It'd be a shame for someone that hot not to be fucking.

Yes, that is exactly what is happening here. Because people of one ethnicity tend to be less affluent than others, these buyers/sellers begin their negotiations under the assumption that the particular individual they are interacting with will meet the trend.
No. Because people of one ethnicity tend to me lass affluent than others, these dealers begin their negotiations aware that the particular individual with whom they are interacting is likely to meet the trend, and hedges his bets accordingly.

That's a relevant distinction.

You're wearing a jacket, another man is wearing a suit. You're filthy rich, the man in the suit just spent all his money.

I treat you with disrespect, because I assume you're less affluent, because of a recent statistic showing a tendency that jacket wearers are less affluent (except, naturally, for you) than suit wearers.

Wouldn't you feel the slightest bit pissed when I then treat the guy in the suit cordially, all based on the facts that 1) you wore a jacket and were less likely to be affluent and 2) he wore a suit and was more likely to be affluent.

(I was trying to come up with a pun concerning lawsuit, but it never quite got in there).
I don't see why I would. The service I get is the service I get. Whether I'm happy with the service I get is not influenced by whether someone else gets service with which I would (or wouldn't) be happy. There's a level of service that satisfies me; the behaviour of others doesn't affect that.

Plus, the server would be right more often than not. In choosing to serve me less well the server is betting that a larger reward is available from the other guy. Right or wrong, it's the server's decision. I'll respond appropriately (giving the server the tip I feel appropriate based on the service I got).

In the study I cited, they found that sportscard dealers treated black buyers and sellers differently than they did white buyers and sellers. But, the difference was based on black buyers and sellers tending to be less affluent than white buyers and sellers (which they were), so race was (correctly) being used as a proxy to determine the acceptable price range of the other party in the exchange.

The dealers were making correct statistical assumptions about the willingness to accept certain prices or the ability to pay based on the race of the people with whom they were dealing, because the people differed appreciably, and that difference conincided pretty closely with a difference in race. So the racial discrimination simply made for a more efficient sportscard market.

This is beyond cases where race might actually be directly relevant to the question at hand (like whether to hire the white guy to wait tables in your authentic vietnamese restaurant). In this case (the sportscard market) the race doesn't strictly matter, but it is indicative of something that does (allfuence), and thus it can be correctly applied.

This is exactly how racial profiling works.

I just discovered - I'm not a sportscard dealer... and neither are almost all the other people in the world....

This has to be one of the stupidest pretences at a 'study' I've ever encountered.

I live in a large* English-speaking country south of Canada and north of Panama.** For the most part, people are not racist, and I think it would be a mistake to say everyone is a racist deep down. But, there are many differences between the incomes, homes, and culture of blacks and whites (or African-Americans and Caucasians, I don't favor either term). I think it is the cultural difference, at least nowadays, that continues to separate the different groups more than the actual skin color.






*...compared to El Salvador.
**That's right! Belize!*

No. Because people of one ethnicity tend to me lass affluent than others, these dealers begin their negotiations aware that the particular individual with whom they are interacting is likely to meet the trend, and hedges his bets accordingly.

That's a relevant distinction.

They treat them as if they must meet the trend. That is the same as assuming that they do. And this kind of action - treating someone as a member of their ethnicity, rather than as an individual - is racism, no matter how you spin it.


I don't see why I would. The service I get is the service I get. Whether I'm happy with the service I get is not influenced by whether someone else gets service with which I would (or wouldn't) be happy. There's a level of service that satisfies me; the behaviour of others doesn't affect that.

Plus, the server would be right more often than not. In choosing to serve me less well the server is betting that a larger reward is available from the other guy. Right or wrong, it's the server's decision. I'll respond appropriately (giving the server the tip I feel appropriate based on the service I got).

I don't see why you would deal with such a person at all. Personally, if I saw someone acting in this manner, I would refuse to deal with them altogether, regardless of whether I was in the group being treated better or worse.

Yes, I believe that everyone is a little bit racists. Not to say that everyone goes around muttering curses about people under thier breaths, but if you've ever laughed at or agreed with a racial steryotype, you fall under the 'little bit racist' catagory.

Yes, I believe that everyone is a little bit racists. Not to say that everyone goes around muttering curses about people under thier breaths, but if you've ever laughed at or agreed with a racial steryotype, you fall under the 'little bit racist' catagory.

Humor makes you racist? Interesting.

Humor makes you racist? Interesting.

Some people will tell you than consciously noting someone's race makes you racist.


But then, some people are idiots.

Depends on how you define "everyone is a little bit racist". Are talking thoughts or actions here. If the latter then - no. If the former... I hear anything is possible in the land of nod.

I don't see why I would. The service I get is the service I get. Whether I'm happy with the service I get is not influenced by whether someone else gets service with which I would (or wouldn't) be happy. There's a level of service that satisfies me; the behaviour of others doesn't affect that.

Plus, the server would be right more often than not. In choosing to serve me less well the server is betting that a larger reward is available from the other guy. Right or wrong, it's the server's decision. I'll respond appropriately (giving the server the tip I feel appropriate based on the service I got).

You have to realize, not everywhere has voluntary tipping. Sometimes, it's included in the price (and up to you if you wanna leave more).

Realizing this, would you still want to risk being discriminated against everywhere you go? Since we're taking it to absolutes after all...

I don't see why I would. The service I get is the service I get. Whether I'm happy with the service I get is not influenced by whether someone else gets service with which I would (or wouldn't) be happy. There's a level of service that satisfies me; the behaviour of others doesn't affect that.

Plus, the server would be right more often than not. In choosing to serve me less well the server is betting that a larger reward is available from the other guy. Right or wrong, it's the server's decision. I'll respond appropriately (giving the server the tip I feel appropriate based on the service I got).

You have to realize, not everywhere has voluntary tipping. Sometimes, it's included in the price (and up to you if you wanna leave more).

Realizing this, would you still want to risk being discriminated against everywhere you go? Since we're taking it to absolutes after all...

Edit:
...Also, I wasn't actually necessarily referring to someone performing their job. Let us suppose that poor people were treated poorly (a problem in itself, naturally) and your group happened to be assumed to all be poor and thus, you were all treated poorly (also a problem, because it's not even based in reality anymore), even by your regular guy on the street. But you're not poor!

Or if whenever the cops stopped you, they assumed you were a criminal or a terrorist.

Or if whenever you went into the town hall, they refused you welfare based on "your kind usually defraud us, so you don't get none"

Or any other situation where you have no choice. Are you still going to accept this blatant and incorrect discrimination against you? Police aren't allowed to assume you're a criminal, town hall workers aren't allowed to assume you're a fraud. Those things are not based on race and no amount of study is ever going to prove causation, no matter how much correlation (there'll always be a social factor, an economic factor). To deny that there are underlying reasons for why a race (in particular) or a religion (less so) might be poorer or richer is stupid and leads to more problems and fewer solutions. For example: The jews weren't rich in germany prior to 1933 because they were jews, they were rich because they had a far greater focus on education. The blacks in the US aren't poor because they're blacks, but because poverty is a vicious cycle that must be broken at some stage. You don't solve poverty by eliminating black people. You don't make everyone else rich by eliminating jews.

You catching my drift for why the discrimination based on race is most definitely harmful to society as a whole and to the individual as well?

Yes.

Everyone, quite naturally, is afraid of the 'other'. This is a built-in response, and entirely understandable.

That does not mean it is a good thing, or that it should be acted upon, but it is there. We are animals, and animals that are unknown, different, or potentially a threat make us scared in the back of our monkey minds.

So it goes.

They treat them as if they must meet the trend. That is the same as assuming that they do.
That would be the same, but that's not what they're doing. You're assigning motive or intent to these people without evidence.
And this kind of action - treating someone as a member of their ethnicity, rather than as an individual - is racism, no matter how you spin it.
Individuals have characteristics. Is it sexist to treat women I meet as if they are women (perhaps trying to sell them different things in a retail environment)?
I don't see why you would deal with such a person at all. Personally, if I saw someone acting in this manner, I would refuse to deal with them altogether, regardless of whether I was in the group being treated better or worse.
And I wouldn't. When faced with limited resources to spread around (time spent serving customers), the server needs to decide how to distribute the limited resource. It's not my place to say he's doing to wrong.

and animals that are unknown, different, or potentially a threat

Many white people are "unknown, different, or potentially a threat" to the average racist white.

Many black people are not.

I think everyone on here needs to chill the fuck out. There is no possible way to prove or disprove either position. To say that everyone is racist to a degree IS, in fact, extremely presumptuous. However, if you claim to be free of prejudice entirely, can you really be sure? I mean, I have caught individuals (who would deny they are racist) making comments that would prove otherwise. I don't think they genuinely meant to hurt anyone, but it comes from somewhere-and i've heard worse, trust me. But the point is...there is absolutely no way to know for sure, so everyone should just do the best he/she can, and CTFO!

I just had a mental image of a world populated entirely by midget Klu Klux Klansmen.

Thanks. Now I can't get that out of my head. Even worse, they're ALL the guy who played mini-me (even the woman and children).

Everyone is a bigoted discriminator.

You simply cannot but prefer one color, or shade, to another, be it the color of skin, makeup, clothes or a wall.

Everyone is also an ageist, sexist, weightist, stylist and "worldviewist" as we appreciate different things based on our personal view.

It's the price of being different: There will never be equality among humans as long as we're of different color, shape, wear different things and possess different minds.


I think we should embrace constructively the differences instead of pretending they don't exist.

I sure do think everyone is. Everyone has a little bit of disgust for some group or another and there's nothing wrong with it. There's nothing wrong with being all that racist either. It's an opinion and in free, democratic societies, we pride ourselves on free thought and self opinions and free speech. There is; however, something wrong with taking that too far (i.e. KKK and what not). Sure we like to preach tolerance and people go around and call everything and anything under the sun racist simply because the label of "racism" is like a scarlet letter. Al Sharpton does it all the time but, sadly, he's one of the biggest ones out there and he goes "too far" quite often. If you're racist that's fine. You can hate me or them or whoever for whatever reason you want, I don't even care if it's a good one. To me that's still a freedom they haven't taken from you. Just keep on the proper side of the law alright?

Everyone is a bigoted discriminator.

You simply cannot but prefer one color, or shade, to another, be it the color of skin, makeup, clothes or a wall.

Racism has nothing at all to do with aesthetic preferences. Not for any of the racists that I've encountered, anyway.

I am not racist. This is because I am a product of modern society; a society that despises racism (you may point to racist undercurrents, but kids are more superficial). I have been conditioned to reject race as a means to judge people.

Instead, I reserve my hatred for racists. I don't care if you are a brilliant scientist, or if you volunteer at the local hospital, or if you are a devoted father. If you are a racist, as far as I am concerned, you are scum. You are not worthy of my respect. I am of the opinion that the KKK should be declared a terrorist organization (they've done bombings), and its members should get the same treatment as if they were Al-Qaeda.

Racism has nothing at all to do with aesthetic preferences. Not for any of the racists that I've encountered, anyway.There are shades of racism, from aesthetic values & uncertainty to hate & violence.

Ultimately it boils down to the fact that we are different, which is something we all should have to acknowledge and embrace ie. instead of "there are no differences" it should be "the differences aren't significant in any way" (relative to a person's value as a human). We should also be allowed to ask and answer "what are the differences and why?"...

edit:
In a way I also support the view that it's completely acceptable for a person to be disgusted about other races as long as the person is civilized about his or her view and doesn't let it interfere professionally.

We do say things on a daily basis that does give a possible racist innuendo, but for me a racist is someone that intentionally says things to aggravate the differences between people and this to create conflict. That I am certainly not, although I have had situations of "foot in mouth disease" because I tried too hard not to be offensive.

i used to have a little racist in my pocket. but i stepped on him by mistake.

i think there is a problem which devide and concor, wedge issue politics, exascerbates, and race is one of its more easily exploitable forms.

and i rather highly suspect that is the only reason there has ever been racism.

it isn't a natural condition. oh sure, scepticism of the unfamiliar, distrust that sort of thing, but actually expecting someone to be more likely to cause harm, intrinsicly, because of their complection or other racial charicteristics is the kind of absurdity no one would otherwise ever have even considered if no one had ever thought to exploit its potential as a way of deviding people against each other.

i think we're all susseptable though. i don't think there is any other such thing as human nature besides our desire to express ourselves cratively, AND our gullability.

so of course it seeps into all of us from our surroundings. from being surrounded by the same sets of erronious assumptions day after day, year after year.

but raise some one, or grow up one's self, in an environment where these superficial differences have never been exploited in a negative way, and no, i don't thing there'd even be any such thing.

but i also thing that while we're on the subject of prejudice, and how it gets started and propigated and perpetuated, while race may be one of the most incidius, it is certainly by no means unique in being a subject of it, and all, or nearly all, are almost as extremely destructive and harmful, and i do mean to say, in addition to race, not just belief, but economic and idiological prejudices as well.

=^^=
.../\...

I see this line from time to time on the forum, and it's always bugged me. Seems like the sort of thing one says when being racist, in order to justify it.

But on what basis is it true? How can you possibly assert that I, my buddy, my mother - everyone in the fucking world - prejudges people based on race? Universal telepathy or what?

I think that xenophobia is a natural istinct of humans - and not only of humans, many other animals show aggressivity when confronted with their similars not belonging to their same social group.

While xenophobia played a somewhat positive role in increasing the internal cohesion of social groups ("my" family members deserve my help, "my" town's dwellers are "my" equals etc), it also has helped to fuel social conflicts, racial conflits, excessive nationalism, wars and imperialism.

Istincts are a part of being animals. Listening to istincts ONLY is typical of the less intelligent animal species. Humans should be smarter than that, I think. So, listening to the istinct AND using one's rationality should be the option of choice, generally. Some istincts, like acrophobia - preventing one from risking a dangerous fall - , are good - if they don't become one's masters, so that one cannot even climb a flight of stairs without feeling ill.

When I meet a person that is clearly NOT of my same social group (and, of course, a different skin colour is one of the biggest and easiest markers of that, as has been throughout the ages), yes, I cannot deny I feel a bit of xenophobia - but I also use my rationality to think "hey, this istinctive fear you're feeling is stupid: this is a man like you, only with another skin colour (or facial features etc). Just like you're used to people with eye or hair colour different than yours, you should be used to people with differend skin colour, or facial features, etc.". That is, my rationality helps me pondering whether I should listen to my istincts (like acrophobia when confronted with a precipice 1000 m deep, or ophiophobia when confronted with a cobra) or should not (like xenophobia when confronted with a man from another ethnical group, or ophiophobia when confronted with a coronella - a non-venomous snake).

Racism happens when rationality is used in a twisted way, to increase unjustified xenophobia instead than mitigating it.

So, I'd say that every human is at least a bit xenophobical, but I wouldn't stress that to claim that every human is a bit a racist.


I mean isn't it a bit like saying, "everyone is a little bit homicidal?" Or "everyone's a little bit of a child-fucker?" Sure, you might look at statistics and point out that very few people are statistically violent criminals or paedophiles. But aha, I can just say you WANT to, because I somehow know your mind! You're all a little bit genocidal mass murdering dictators!


Yes, saying "everyone is a little bit racist" is just like saying "everyone is a little bit homicidal". That is, it is an hyperbole. The correct way to say that would be "everyone has a xenophobic istinct, everyone has an aggressivity istinct, everyone has a sexual istinct, everyone has a drive to power".

To make another example, every human has a self-defence istinct: listening only to one's self-defence istinct is paranoid behaviour. In the very same way, having an aggresive istinct doesn't mean that one is an homicide in acto, but merely in potentia. Rationality allows people to choose - when and whether to listen to own istincts.

I'm summing it up: it's rationality and choice that matter, even in the racism issue.

It's also our genetic imperitive to reproduce, yet many many people chose not to.The thing with genetic imperitives in people is that we aren't completely constrained by them the way most species are.

Maybe we could say that racist people are genetically primitive for holding onto primal instincts. This would be a fun idea to turn into a media fad.

The "Everyone is a little racist?" premise is ridiculous in the extreme, and I have zero respect for any racists, if people can't get over silly things like skin color, they speak differently, different culture etc then they themselves should go into the bush and into a primitive tribe, because no one should exist like that in our modern world, we are beyond those petty tribal notions.

I think the OP is mistaking acceptance of difference as subtle racism, which is a mistake.

I think everyone on here needs to chill the fuck out. There is no possible way to prove or disprove either position. To say that everyone is racist to a degree IS, in fact, extremely presumptuous. However, if you claim to be free of prejudice entirely, can you really be sure? I mean, I have caught individuals (who would deny they are racist) making comments that would prove otherwise. I don't think they genuinely meant to hurt anyone, but it comes from somewhere-and i've heard worse, trust me. But the point is...there is absolutely no way to know for sure, so everyone should just do the best he/she can, and CTFO!

You haven't heard me making racist comments, have you?

So - based on you (who has never met me) and me (who HAS met me), who is in the stronger position to decide whether or not I am evidence for or against the 'EVERYONE is racist' argument?

Everyone is a bigoted discriminator.

You simply cannot but prefer one color, or shade, to another, be it the color of skin, makeup, clothes or a wall.

Everyone is also an ageist, sexist, weightist, stylist and "worldviewist" as we appreciate different things based on our personal view.

It's the price of being different: There will never be equality among humans as long as we're of different color, shape, wear different things and possess different minds.


I think we should embrace constructively the differences instead of pretending they don't exist.

Well, since we are describing what we 'think', instead of what is actually reflected in reality, I 'think' you are talking crap.

I don't pretend there are no differences... I just don't see any differences that MATTER, that are based on any concept as arbitrary and abstract as 'race'.

Some people are arseholes. It's nothing to do with being black or white, young or old. It's because they are arseholes.

I think everyone is a little prejudiced. As others have pointed out, I don't think that everyone is going to be prejudiced based on race...a myriad of other factors will give rise to bias. Race might seem the most obvious one...but it sort of devalues the other factors that cause all of us to believe, at one point or another, that someone else is a sack of shit, for no other reason than they are "x".

No one is racist unless raised to be or unless they've had a disproportionate amount of unfortunate encounters with someone of another race. The problem, as I see it, is not with minor cosmetic differences like skin color, but with major differences like culture.

You're wearing a jacket, another man is wearing a suit. You're filthy rich, the man in the suit just spent all his money.

I treat you with disrespect, because I assume you're less affluent, because of a recent statistic showing a tendency that jacket wearers are less affluent (except, naturally, for you) than suit wearers.

Wouldn't you feel the slightest bit pissed when I then treat the guy in the suit cordially, all based on the facts that 1) you wore a jacket and were less likely to be affluent and 2) he wore a suit and was more likely to be affluent.

(I was trying to come up with a pun concerning lawsuit, but it never quite got in there).

This happens a lot in rural areas. That bib-overall wearing, skole spitting, dust covered, hard hand skinned, unshaven, slouched over man with the plain wife in her patched jeans and ripped t-shirt, hair pulled back, no make-up are likely to be multi-millionaires that fly their private plane into Denver or Chicago to eat at the ritziest restaurant and attend the live theater, symphony, or opera on the week-end. I've seen auto salesmen ignore these people and wait on someone well dressed. They missed the opportunity to sell a fully loaded luxury car paid for with the cash the man had in his pocket.

I have a brother-in-law who's grandfather started a major American company. He's never had a job in his life since he lives on stock dividends. If you met him on the street you would not think of him as anything more than another middle class man. He likes it that way and plays the game because when people find out what he's worth they treat him differently and try to rip him off for his money. He gets chuckles out of people ignoring him when he walks into a "high class" store. Then when he wants to he can transform himself into the millionaire and hob-nob with the best and look down on those that looked down on him. For him it's a great game.

So putting people in categories is both costly and necessary. We just can't know everyone well enough to function in life without categorizing and yet we miss a lot when we don't treat all the same.

I am not racist. This is because I am a product of modern society; a society that despises racism (you may point to racist undercurrents, but kids are more superficial). I have been conditioned to reject race as a means to judge people.



I wouldn't buy any land in Florida from someone that could make such a statement with a straight face.

I think most people have prejudices (ethnically based, gender based, nationality based, etc.) hidden away that they don't even know are there - not because they are bad people, but because we are all, to some extent, products of our society. I think the problem is when someone will not question those ideas when they are brought to the forefront.

What she said. :)

That would be the same, but that's not what they're doing. You're assigning motive or intent to these people without evidence.

No, I'm not assigning anything to them that both you and the article didn't already say that they are doing.

Individuals have characteristics.

Yes, they do. Individual characteristics that may or may not meet the "trend" for whatever grouping they happen to be a part of.

Is it sexist to treat women I meet as if they are women (perhaps trying to sell them different things in a retail environment)?

It is sexist to treat women as if they necessarily meet whatever stereotypical viewpoint you may have of women, yes. If a man and a woman walk into a comic book store together, it is sexist to immediately ask the man if he needs any help and virtually ignore the woman, assuming that she is just there with the man (yes, this does happen all the time).

And I wouldn't. When faced with limited resources to spread around (time spent serving customers), the server needs to decide how to distribute the limited resource. It's not my place to say he's doing to wrong.

Yes, actually, it is. You are the customer. You are the person the server is supposed to be, well, serving. If service is inadequate because he assumes that you aren't going to be interested, or that you are poor, or any other assumption that leads him to ignore you for other customers or to offer a lesser service to you than other customers, then that server does not deserve your business. And, while you may not empathize much with others, I would say that a server treating other people that way wouldn't deserve any business at all, and would thus not get mine.

Something that seems just about universal to the juvenile experience is the notion, fervently held, that one is 'different' from everyone else.

This manifests itself in an inflated idea that no one 'knows' the juvenile, and usually an angry reaction when someone claims the opposite.

The tendency to want to appear or to be different, for difference's sake, is an overwhelmingly adolescent thing.

As I've grown up, and as is indicated by my experience, the experience of history, and the experience of great writers, it has come to appear that people really aren't all that different at all.

There is no arguing with the zealotry of adolescent pretension and fantasy, so these "buh buh buh buh YOU DONT KNOW MEEEE" threads aren't really worth a roll in the mud, but they always remind me of the way I used to think about things when I was younger. They always make me look back with a smile at how ridiculous I must have looked - but at the same time, it is hard to be embarrassed, because as we see again and again, just about everyone does the same thing at that age :)

I dont think people are racist so much as xenophobic. People of a different race are, obviously, more different than people of the same race. Different customs, accents, etc.
Hence a white male from Chicago will be more comfortable with another white male from Chicago of roughly the same age than with, say, a Japanese businessman from Kyoto who is twenty years older than him.

We have structures that give humans the capacity to gather and organize certain kinds of knowledge are innate. These structures make it easy to conclude that people have essential, inheritable natures, and these are thought to give rise to other less obvious qualitative differences. Bear in mind that these structures make certain kinds of knowledge possible; they do not in themselves provide us with that knowledge. The cultural environment in which we live is equally important. In some sense we can say that these two things---the mind and the culture in which the mind finds itself---work together and make each other up.

Many people are uncomfortable with this thinking. There is great resistance to imagining that anything but learned culture---social influences---shapes beliefs like race that have political consequences. Indeed, it is widely assumed, despite the lack of evidence that it is the case, that we can go in and "redo" people's thinking simply by changing the cultural environment in which that thought occurs. But this strategy ignores what the mind as an adapted organ brings to the process of making race.

Maybe it's easier to see this if we consider less politicized aspects of common sense. We now know that Euclidean geometry and Newtonian mechanics are not accurate descriptions of the world. Still, our common-sense intuitions are well captured by both Euclidean geometry and Newtonian mechanics. In short, common sense, if not the physical world, is well described by these systems of thought. To be sure, we can learn other systems for describing the physical world, for example Riemannian geometry or quantum physics. But we can't unlearn common sense. Race is like Euclidean geometry in this regard. We can learn that it is an inaccurate description of the world, but that doesn't mean that it disappears from our conceptual arsonal.

This has consequences for what we teach children about race. Telling children that we're all the same inside, that race is unimportant and literally skin deep, may make us feel better about ourselves but probably doesn't do much to shape children's thinking. Nor does telling children that they shouldn't have racialist beliefs---beliefs that people are divided into discrete racial groups---do much more than make them anxious. When adults tell children that something they know to be the case is not the case, it is anxiety-provoking. It is not, however, a very effective way to change belief. Imagine how successful you'd be in getting someone to lose weight by telling them that they weren't hungry.

It is sexist to treat women as if they necessarily meet whatever stereotypical viewpoint you may have of women, yes. If a man and a woman walk into a comic book store together, it is sexist to immediately ask the man if he needs any help and virtually ignore the woman, assuming that she is just there with the man (yes, this does happen all the time).
Imagine two people - a man and a woman - walking through the cosmetics section of a department store. Are the salespeople being sexist by approaching only the female shopper? Or by offering a different selection of products to each based on gender?

Of course not. Chance are they're interested in different things, or there for different reasons.

But if the things you complain about are sexism, then so is this, and you think all salespeople (indeed, all people everywhere) should behave exactly the same to all people in all cases regardless of gender or race.

And that will quickly get absurd.

How can natural grouping instincts explain the assumption of racial inferiority?

I might "root for my team" against the other one... but am I really going to think that other groups are inferior in their capabilities?

And how do you explain the patronizing "benevolence" that often accompanies the justification of racist systems? That seems closer to how we treat children than how we treat outsiders.

I see this line from time to time on the forum, and it's always bugged me.There's a grain of truth in the notion, but people who state it so strongly state the truth itself very badly. The word "racist" is a charged word. What they mean (I shall presume) is rather something more to the effect that everyone living in a racist world internalizes at least some assumptions/presumptions, biases or inclinations premised in racialized thinking.

Seems like the sort of thing one says when being racist, in order to justify it.I could imagine one using the statement in this way, but more commonly I find that critics of a racist culture stress the unconscious internalization of racialized thought in order to inspire the deepest possible degree of self-examination in other people attempting to work for a better world.

I usually explain the situation as follows: in much the same way that a recovering alcoholic is never "not" an alcoholic, liberals and progressives and even revolutionaries in a racist/sexist society are inevitably "recovering racists" and "recovering sexists." We must always be wary against the possibility that we are reinforcing racial and gender categories without realizing it. It is this vigilance that drives our progress.

But on what basis is it true? How can you possibly assert that I, my buddy, my mother - everyone in the fucking world - prejudges people based on race?Ah, you're begging a question here ("what is racism?") as well as implying a false dilemma: "either one prejudges people based on race, or one is not a racist"--that is, one does nothing to reinforce racial categories.

If the definition of racism were simply "to prejudge on the basis of race" and nothing more, then some of us could make some reasonable claim to being free of racist influence.

After all, to "judge" is a conscious activity. While I might still locate some unconscious influences working on my conscious judgment, to a certain extent I can "decide" to avoid judgments related to race. I can claim, rather accurately I think, that I do not prejudge people on the basis of their race.

But there are other aspects of the racialized world, including some rather important aspects. "White privilege" is a big one, in all its various forms, and the vast majority of white people never think about it, never bother to recognize what it is, and therefore never understand how they benefit from it throughout their lives. Most of us have a passive relation to white privilege, and to the extent that we are passive we are unresisting: if we really consider ourselves opponents of racism, however, we must actively resist white privilege rather than silently accepting it.

There are subtle ways in which white people respond differently to minorities, subtle behavioral cues as to the power relations in a situation. We can do our best to resist them, but as long as we live in the system it is probably impossible to claim complete innocence as participants in upholding it.

It's really odd how people define racism.

Mark Twain was considered a raving liberal "N" lover when he was writing. He actually wrote about smart black people.

Now he's considered a racist and his books are banned because he used the language of the times.

I wonder if an author today would be a racist if s/he used the language of the street that blacks use to describe themselves?

Imagine two people - a man and a woman - walking through the cosmetics section of a department store. Are the salespeople being sexist by approaching only the female shopper?

To be fair, it is rude to approach anyone who looks like they're just walking through. But yes, if they approached only one person browsing their counters simply because of that person's sex, that would be sexist.

Or by offering a different selection of products to each based on gender?

If it were simply based on a snap judgment because of sex, yes. However, you have picked a section of retail that is, of necessity, very individualized. If a salesperson working a cosmetics counter is worth what they are paying him, he is going to offer different products to just about anyone who walks up. The products offered will be based on a number of characteristics of the individual. What products is the individual already using? Are the products being used properly? What is this person's skin tone and hair color? Is this person's skin oily or dry? Does this person have facial hair to take care of? And so on. Yes, men will generally be offered different products than women, but this will be based on their own physical characteristics and the preferences they put forth, not based on, "He's a man, so he'll obviously be looking for X."

Of course not. Chance are they're interested in different things, or there for different reasons.

And this can - and should - be determined on an individual basis. Chances are that two women walking up to the same cosmetics counter are going to be interested in different things, or there for different reasons. Chances are that an older customer and a younger customer are going to be interested in different things, or there for different reasons. And those differences are exactly what a salesperson will need to pick up on. Making assumptions about what those differences might be based on stereotypes is more likely to get in the way than to help in that endeavor.

But if the things you complain about are sexism, then so is this, and you think all salespeople (indeed, all people everywhere) should behave exactly the same to all people in all cases regardless of gender or race.

And that will quickly get absurd.

Actually, I haven't said that at all. What I have said is that differences in treatment should be based on individual differences, rather than on stereotypical views on ethnicity, sex, etc.

A salesperson should not treat a man at a cosmetics counter differently because he is a man, but should pick out products that are right for his habits and skin care needs, just as she would for a woman. That same salesperson should also pick out different cosmetics for a customer with a very light skin tone than she would for a customer with a very dark skin tone or different skin care products for someone with oily skin vs. someone with dry skin. However, these differences in treatment are based on actual, observable differences in the individual customers, rather than in snap judgments made based on sex or ethnicity. Every single customer ends up being treated differently, but with the same level of service and attention as another.

Many white people are "unknown, different, or potentially a threat" to the average racist white.

Many black people are not.

Equally:

Many black people are "unknown, different, or potentially a threat" to the average racist black.

Many non-blacks are not.

So what? Your point is...?

So what? Your point is...?

Racism cannot then be understood as simply a manifestation of the fear of the unknown.

Racism cannot then be understood as simply a manifestation of the fear of the unknown.

Ah, but it's certainly a manifestation of the fear and distrust of the 'other', who, even if you do know someone who on the face of it appears to belong to that 'other' category, is 'unknown' because they are 'other'.

For example; the skinhead who has a mate who's black.

To the skinhead, his black mate is 'one of us', and not representative of blacks as a whole, who he loathes and fears because they are 'other', non-white, non-British, etc.

So... yes, it can. :)

I think racism is blamable if it involves harming the person from that race in a way that is considered illegal if done on any person,be it of that race or of your own race;that is if you're white and stab a black,go to jail;but if you're white and insult a black,that shouldn't be a crime,as long as it is not a crime to insult a white because he is white.You should be entitled to dislike whomever you want.And you don't go to jail because you won't date ugly girls or because you tell stupid people they are stupid,and these are groups of people with the same distinct feature,they can feel discriminated or hurt right?Isn't that similar to the mechanism of racism?

For example; the skinhead who has a mate who's black.

To the skinhead, his black mate is 'one of us', and not representative of blacks as a whole, who he loathes and fears because they are 'other', non-white, non-British, etc.

Maybe.

Yet strangely enough racists (like sexists and homophobes) tend to treat even "familiar" members of the supposedly "inferior" groups as less than equals.

The expression of this may not be akin to their attitude towards unfamiliar members--they are unlikely to say "you should be killed"--but they are not likely to treat their opinions, interests, and capabilities as fully worthy either.

That too is a kind of bigotry, and cannot be simply lumped under the category of "unfamiliarity."

Yea, I think everyone is a little racist, and I think anyone who denies this is a liar and a hypocrite.

What an amazingly bigoted statement.

People are naturally more trusting toward more similar-looking people. We tend to trust family as they are the closest to us. And then distrust people more as they look more different.

My 'pack' is humanity.

that just means you're racist against aliens.

Yet strangely enough racists (like sexists and homophobes) tend to treat even "familiar" members of the supposedly "inferior" groups as less than equals.


This hasn't been my experience. Usually a familiar person is "one of the good ones".

This hasn't been my experience. Usually a familiar person is "one of the good ones".

The concept of "good ones" is itself racist and degrading... to both the familiar person and the unfamiliar others.

The concept of "good ones" is itself racist and degrading... to both the familiar person and the unfamiliar others.

I would agree that it's racist but the point was people treat familiar people different than unfamiliar people. And many times the familiar are not aware of the treatment of others.

that just means you're racist against aliens.

That rather depends, doesn't it?

After all - I could argue that 'humanity' would include aliens. (Of course... I could also argue that 'humanity' doesn't actually include ALL the 'human' residents of this world).

Also... I haven't included anything 'beyond' humanity, because there's no reason to assume they exist. It's hard to be racist against imaginary creatures.

People are naturally more trusting toward more similar-looking people. We tend to trust family as they are the closest to us. And then distrust people more as they look more different.

My family looks way different. For one thing, most of the family members are female. They have boobs and everything. At least two are little children. A good number of old wrinkly persons. Therefore, I'm a little bit misogynist, a little bit pedophobic and a little bit agist, right? Because how much I trust people is based on how much they look like me?

Come to think of it, NO ONE is similar-looking to me.

Maybe that's why I distrust, and hate, and feel superior to, everyone.

My family looks way different. For one thing, most of the family members are female. They have boobs and everything. At least two are little children. A good number of old wrinkly persons. Therefore, I'm a little bit misogynist, a little bit pedophobic and a little bit agist, right? Because how much I trust people is based on how much they look like me?

Come to think of it, NO ONE is similar-looking to me.

Maybe that's why I distrust, and hate, and feel superior to, everyone.

you must be the one with the goatee.



...looking back on that, it makes no sense if you haven't gone through my thought process.

you must be the one with the goatee.



...looking back on that, it makes no sense if you haven't gone through my thought process.

No goatee.

Your brain is weird. I like it.

Though I will give no specifics, I will say this.


I do act differently at work than when I'm enjoying my down time, not because I'm a racist, but because I have to profile people for my job. I have to profile everyone, regardless of their race, but race is a factor in my report.


But when I'm at home or whatever, I couldn't give two shakes about someone's race. Like the endearing Stephen Colbert, I too am colorblind. :D

-snip-
Is race or gender not an individual characteristic? Is it impossible that it be relevant?

If I have market reasearch that says black people (or old people, or people who wear plaid) value different features in cars from what white people value, I'm going to highlight different features when I'm trying to sell them cars. That's just smart business.

Is race or gender not an individual characteristic? Is it impossible that it be relevant?

For most things, yes. Neither your genitals nor your ethnic background dictate your preferences, needs, skillset, economic class, etc. Having a Y chromosome does not cause someone to dislike cosmetics. Having an ethnicity that includes African ancestry does not cause someone to be poor. Having two X chromosomes does not mean that you will not be interested in comic books. And so on.

Now, either of these things can be relevant when actual genetic and physical differences cause that relevance. Women's bathrooms don't have urinals because we simply aren't built to pee standing up. Some medications are targeted specifically towards a certain sex or members of a certain ethnicity because the genetics of each group are different enough for the medication to have a different efficacy in those groups. As I pointed out in your cosmetics example, a good cosmetics retailer will offer different products to a dark-skinned customer than to a light-skinned customer because skin tone will affect the choice in cosmetics.

If I have market reasearch that says black people (or old people, or people who wear plaid) value different features in cars from what white people value, I'm going to highlight different features when I'm trying to sell them cars. That's just smart business.

It is impossible to have market research that demonstrates "black people value 'X' more than white people." That is exactly the problem. You might have a study that says "A lot of black people happen to value 'X' and a lot of white people happen to value 'Y'," but unless you find a study demonstrating a causal link between a certain skin tone or genetic background and valuing certain features in cars, it is impossible to have research demonstrating that members of any given race necessarily value any certain features.

Smart business is being able to determine what the particular individual you are catering to is interested in. If you make the assumption from the start that person A who happens to be black will be more interested in a certain feature, and that person is not, you're probably not going to sell him a car. In fact, if he recognizes the stereotype you are using to try to sell him on a car, he's likely to get angry about it and refuse to deal with you altogether - as well as telling friends and family that they shouldn't deal with you. If, instead, you read the customers's reactions to information and what they tend to show interest in and tailor your sales strategy to that, you're likely to get that customer in a car that she really likes - and she's likely to recommend you to others.

I see this line from time to time on the forum, and it's always bugged me. Seems like the sort of thing one says when being racist, in order to justify it.

But on what basis is it true? How can you possibly assert that I, my buddy, my mother - everyone in the fucking world - prejudges people based on race? Universal telepathy or what?
I think everybody is probably "a little bit racist," in the sense that we are all impacted by the prevailing dialogs in our own countries and cultures, and I've never seen a single such dialog that wasn't at least slightly racially biased in one way or another. We probably all carry around some unthinking biases related to race.

However, I don't really categorize this as "racism." I think of racism in terms of people's actions. We all have impulses or feelings that we don't rationally agree with. We'll all have some desires or reactions that we don't act upon specifically because we know that that isn't how we really feel, consciously.

Having a racist feeling or thought doesn't automatically make somebody a racist person, in other words. I have racist feelings or thoughts every now and then. What keeps me from being a racist person is that I notice these thoughts or feelings whenever possible, and I examine them. If I catch myself thinking something unfair or irrational, I make myself confront it, and I try to figure out where it came from and how I can avoid letting my behavior be directed by such impulses.

If anybody is interested in a fun little exercise, check out the Race IAT:
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/Study?tid=-1

You may be surprised by your results. I was.

If anybody is interested in a fun little exercise, check out the Race IAT:
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/Study?tid=-1

You may be surprised by your results. I was.

Interesting test. I'll have to see if I can figure out exactly how it's scored.

My results were what I expected them to be...

Interesting test. I'll have to see if I can figure out exactly how it's scored.

My results were what I expected them to be...

My problem is that when I take it, they always pair the group you're supposed to be prejudiced against with the "bad" side the first time. Then, when I'm used to doing it that way, they switch it on me and I keep trying to make things go to the wrong side. I don't know how they can separate prejudice from the fact that you've trained yourself in the first round to do things a certain way.

As I recall, it also told me that I don't think I should be in my own profession, so I'm a bit skeptical.

My problem is that when I take it, they always pair the group you're supposed to be prejudiced against with the "bad" side the first time. Then, when I'm used to doing it that way, they switch it on me and I keep trying to make things go to the wrong side. I don't know how they can separate prejudice from the fact that you've trained yourself in the first round to do things a certain way.

As I recall, it also told me that I don't think I should be in my own profession, so I'm a bit skeptical.

Actually, it was just the opposite with me - first round the group I was supposed to be prejudiced against was with the "good". I actually did better that round (none wrong, fairly fast) than I did when it was switched (several wrong, same speed as before).

I am going to take the time to read the faq there to see how exactly it is scored. I'm sure I can find a flaw in their methodology ;)

My problem is that when I take it, they always pair the group you're supposed to be prejudiced against with the "bad" side the first time. Then, when I'm used to doing it that way, they switch it on me and I keep trying to make things go to the wrong side. I don't know how they can separate prejudice from the fact that you've trained yourself in the first round to do things a certain way.

As I recall, it also told me that I don't think I should be in my own profession, so I'm a bit skeptical.

My result was "Your data suggest a slight automatic preference for African American compared to European American."

I'm not at all surprised. I think it mainly comes down to getting more 'sure' as the test progressed of what you are doing, and so responding quicker. I only made one 'mistake' so I doubt that influenced it as much as whether or not I hesitated. So - I suspect my slower start skewed the result.

As you say, if anything - the test is designed to skew results towards a 'European American' responses... you are programmed by the first few tests to respon in a certain fashion, and the data is combined in a certain way. So - even as you are learning how to respond to the test, you are being fed an associatin that might or might not reflect any personality trait.

For most things, yes. Neither your genitals nor your ethnic background dictate your preferences, needs, skillset, economic class, etc.
That's actually an assumption you're making. I, however, am not making the opposite assumption. Acting on assumptions just makes people wrong a lot.
It is impossible to have market research that demonstrates "black people value 'X' more than white people."
As a group, black people could well value X more than white people do. That's what my study would show. So, presented with any random black person, that person is more likely than any random white person to exhibit that characteristic of valuing X.

Being aware of this and acting in accordance with that awareness is not racism.
That is exactly the problem. You might have a study that says "A lot of black people happen to value 'X' and a lot of white people happen to value 'Y'," but unless you find a study demonstrating a causal link between a certain skin tone or genetic background and valuing certain features in cars, it is impossible to have research demonstrating that members of any given race necessarily value any certain features.
I didn't say "necessarily". But as a group, they value X more than the other group does. So there is then correlation, even without causation. Correlation is a real thing; acting based on it is not racism.
Smart business is being able to determine what the particular individual you are catering to is interested in. If you make the assumption from the start that person A who happens to be black will be more interested in a certain feature, and that person is not, you're probably not going to sell him a car.
Not him, but I'll be right more often than not. I'd have a statistical advantage over competitors who didn't use this information.

However, I don't really categorize this as "racism." I think of racism in terms of people's actions. We all have impulses or feelings that we don't rationally agree with. We'll all have some desires or reactions that we don't act upon specifically because we know that that isn't how we really feel, consciously.

I agree. Having biases is being human. Thinking these biases are not only acceptable but correct is racism.

That's actually an assumption you're making.
I, however, am not making the opposite assumption. Acting on assumptions just makes people wrong a lot.

Actually, use of assumptions is precisely what you are advocating.

As a group, black people could well value X more than white people do. That's what my study would show. So, presented with any random black person, that person is more likely than any random white person to exhibit that characteristic of valuing X.

You don't deal with black people as a group when dealing with a customer who happens to be black. You deal with that individual, who may or may not meet the trend.

Being aware of this and acting in accordance with that awareness is not racism.

You aren't talking about "being aware of this." You are talking about beginning your dealings with a given customer under the assumption that they will value "X", simply because they happen to be black.


Not him, but I'll be right more often than not. I'd have a statistical advantage over competitors who didn't use this information.

No, you won't. Because competitors who tailor their service to the individual, instead of treating them like a carbon-copy member of their ethnicity or gender, won't lose customers this way. Those competitors will rely on actual individual characteristics, rather than making assumptions up front, and will thus be likely to be right much more often than you (assuming that they are competent salesmen). Instead of starting off thinking that the person in front of them is obviously going to like "X", a competent salesman will draw out what that particular person is interested in, and will thus be much more likely to make a sale that the customer will be satisfied with.

My result was "Your data suggest a slight automatic preference for African American compared to European American."

I'm not at all surprised.
See, and that's what I got. Being a suburban white kid who grew up surrounded mainly by Reform Jews, I assumed I would be leaning the other direction. If only due to the bias in my personal experience.

Odd test, but still interesting to check out.

I see this line from time to time on the forum, and it's always bugged me. Seems like the sort of thing one says when being racist, in order to justify it.

But on what basis is it true? How can you possibly assert that I, my buddy, my mother - everyone in the fucking world - prejudges people based on race? Universal telepathy or what?

I mean isn't it a bit like saying, "everyone is a little bit homicidal?" Or "everyone's a little bit of a child-fucker?" Sure, you might look at statistics and point out that very few people are statistically violent criminals or paedophiles. But aha, I can just say you WANT to, because I somehow know your mind! You're all a little bit genocidal mass murdering dictators!

This is just sort of a rant, but I'm interested to hear other people's arguments on it.

everybody is a little bit xenophpic yep, yep indeed.

No, you won't. Because competitors who tailor their service to the individual, instead of treating them like a carbon-copy member of their ethnicity or gender, won't lose customers this way. Those competitors will rely on actual individual characteristics, rather than making assumptions up front, and will thus be likely to be right much more often than you (assuming that they are competent salesmen). Instead of starting off thinking that the person in front of them is obviously going to like "X", a competent salesman will draw out what that particular person is interested in, and will thus be much more likely to make a sale that the customer will be satisfied with.
/wave

I'm living proof of this.

There are two comic book stores in my area. When I went to the first one, the fellow ringing me up felt the need to comment that my boyfriend was sure to love what I was getting for him. Way to lose a customer, dillhole. Sure, more dudes are into comics than chicks. And sure, he probably sees a lot of chicks come in to buy for their boyfriends/husbands, and fewer who come in to buy for themselves. But because he assumed that my gender determined my interests, he ended up sending my business to his competitor. And I buy a whole helluva lot of comics.

(This has actually happened to me in other stores, too. I have had helpful clerks direct me to "girl comics" so many times I can't believe it. As if having a vagina somehow makes me incapable of appreciating Hellboy or some shit.)

/wave

I'm living proof of this.

There are two comic book stores in my area. When I went to the first one, the fellow ringing me up felt the need to comment that my boyfriend was sure to love what I was getting for him. Way to lose a customer, dillhole. Sure, more dudes are into comics than chicks. And sure, he probably sees a lot of chicks come in to buy for their boyfriends/husbands, and fewer who come in to buy for themselves. But because he assumed that my gender determined my interests, he ended up sending my business to his competitor. And I buy a whole helluva lot of comics.

(This has actually happened to me in other stores, too. I have had helpful clerks direct me to "girl comics" so many times I can't believe it. As if having a vagina somehow makes me incapable of appreciating Hellboy or some shit.)

Have you every thought that the guy was having a joke with you?

I used to be a butcher(many years back) and it is an excepted butchers joke to utter the following when a woman buys a bit of steak 'He'll never leave you darlin'

Myself not knowing the inside and out's of the comic book trade(as a trader I mean) is it not possible that the chap was shareing with you some sort of sarcastic joke? Completely off topic I know, but I'm hugely interested in how we each perchive situations, and so my interest was spiked.

Have you every thought that the guy was having a joke with you?

I used to be a butcher(many years back) and it is an excepted butchers joke to utter the following when a woman buys a bit of steak 'He'll never leave you darlin'

Myself not knowing the inside and out's of the comic book trade(as a trader I mean) is it not possible that the chap was shareing with you some sort of sarcastic joke? Completely off topic I know, but I'm hugely interested in how we each perchive situations, and so my interest was spiked.
I could tell he wasn't joking the same way I can tell if anybody is joking. He wasn't.

Like I said, it's not remotely rare for this to happen. I'm probably a clerk's worst nightmare, because I'm female yet I have so many extremely "male" interests (comics, videogames that aren't The Sims, etc) and I also happen to have enough disposable income that it actually matters when I decide to take my business elsewhere. I simply decline to spend my money at establishments where they respond to my gender and not to me as a customer.

I don't treat the clerks like crap or anything, though, because I've worked retail and know that they probably don't need to be hassled any more than they already are.

I see this line from time to time on the forum, and it's always bugged me. Seems like the sort of thing one says when being racist, in order to justify it.

But on what basis is it true? How can you possibly assert that I, my buddy, my mother - everyone in the fucking world - prejudges people based on race? Universal telepathy or what?

I mean isn't it a bit like saying, "everyone is a little bit homicidal?" Or "everyone's a little bit of a child-fucker?" Sure, you might look at statistics and point out that very few people are statistically violent criminals or paedophiles. But aha, I can just say you WANT to, because I somehow know your mind! You're all a little bit genocidal mass murdering dictators!

This is just sort of a rant, but I'm interested to hear other people's arguments on it.

Define racist firstly, then you'll get your answer.

I used to think I might be racist without knowing it. I grew up in a small white NYC neighborhood, surrounded by small, primarily black and hispanic neighborhoods. There was no interaction between the neighborhoods outside of the schoolyard. Although I had black and hispanic friends in school, we never visited each other's homes. Within my own neighborhood enclave, racism and xenophobia were common - plenty of the old "Greatest Generation" kicking about, making their "jokes," etc.

However, there was a mix of views in the neighborhood. Bigoted jokes were tolerated, even encouraged, but racist political and social views - such as "all blacks are criminals" or "all Jews are greedy" or "only Christians/whites/men can be trusted in public office" - would always be hotly challenged at any block party or family gathering, etc., sometimes by people you thought wouldn't challenge them - the same people making the jokes. Within my own family, I had both bigots and non-bigots, warring with each other.

As I got older and started going out by myself, into other parts of the city, I was extremely wary of strangers, no matter what they looked like -- but this was NYC in the bad old days, from Son of Sam (a white man) through the 90s. There were neighborhoods I stayed out of -- Harlem, Spanish Harlem, Alphabet City - which were primarily non-white, but which also were plagued by rampant violent crime. The reasons cited for staying out of them was typically the gangs, shootings, and drug dealing, not the color of the criminals. Other non-white neighborhoods that did not have high crime statistics, I would hang out in all the time. But still, I wondered.

Then I moved to Vermont.

And the solid sea of white faces all around me made me as paranoid as a bad pot experience. My constant thought was "Where are all the other people?" and "Why are there no other people here?" I actually felt afraid of all those white Vermonters, as if anyone of them might be a white supremacist waiting to heil me. My suspicions only got worse when the people I met asked me what my ethnicity was (and they always asked, right up front) and then, for the rest of the time I lived there, commented on it repeatedly, including saying such things as "Wow, you're really ethnic, aren't you?" and "You know, you really look Italian." :eek: Please, please, don't send me to a camp, oh god oh god!!!

Then I moved to Boston, into a mostly Brazilian neighborhood. Here, in the metro Boston area, I am surrounded by every color, type, culture and social class of person I could hope for; I get to rail against the undercurrent of Bostonian class- and race-based bigotries; and I can't understand 90% of the words I hear spoken around me because they're not in English. And though I despise all these people pretty much universally, I'm not afraid of them.

On the basis of this life experience, I kind of decided that there is a good chance that I'm not racist, regardless of my upbringing. At the very least, I do not show a preference for people who appear to be similar to me. Instead, lack of variety makes me uncomfortable. I think this may be a mix of both nature and nurture in my personality.

Why do Racists have low IQs? (http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/sayar/riqs.htm)

Seriously though, whatever subconscious or instinctive reaction there may or may not be, what matters is how one actually acts. And as human beings we are capable to control how we act.

So, no, I'm not racist. The only people who are are those who act like racists and don't make the effort to use their ability to reason.

The reason I told that long story about myself is to suggest that, if we can show that there are people who do not have a preference for their own race but instead, show a preference for a racially mixed social group, then it cannot be said that all people are racist, even a little bit (is that kind of like being a "little bit pregnant"?).

It is true, that my story is the story of just one individual, but the statement "everyone is a little bit racist" is an absolute statement about ALL people, and as Mark Twain put it (very appropriately to our context), "It takes just one white crow to prove that not all crows are black."

I've read this entire thread, and all the arguments in favor of the "everyone is a little bit racist" premise boil down to defending the habit of acting on assumptions. To point to just one, Lewdor in particular has been adamant in insisting that assumptions are valid because they are more likely than not to be correct - which itself is a mere assumption. It does not matter how many statistics a person might cite -- anything that includes the phrase "more likely" is an assumption.

I would point out that there is a serious risk inherent in living by and acting on assumptions. Basically, it's what allows con artists to make a living.

For instance, in the Lewdor and Dempublicents' example of the car dealer: A con artist, knowing that his mark, the car dealer, makes assumptions about customers based on appearance, will use that habit against the dealer. How does the con artist know the car dealer is a bigot? If he's good, he does not assume. He observes the mark, notes the pattern of behavior, tests it with accomplices, and then sets his trap. By presenting the dealer with a "desirable" customer, possibly with a contrasting "undesirable" one at the same time, the con artist manipulates the dealer into making a sweetheart deal based on poor judgment (no credit check, for instance) -- and he cheats the dealer out of at least one very expensive car.

There's an old saying, "You can't cheat an honest man."

Racists and other bigots are not being entirely honest in their lives. They defend their assumptions as truth, but ignore the fact that they themselves do not question or test those "truths." The real motivation for bigotry is not to be truthful, but to feel superior, regardless of whether you have a factual basis for that feeling or not. The more racist beliefs are examined, the less good they are for supporting feelings of superiority. Racism is a kind of lie that can only be sustained by a kind of cheat. And that makes the racist vulnerable.

Look at con artist type crimes. Every single one of them exploits either the greed or the prejudices, or both, of the victims. That alone should be enough to show that racist thinking has a flaw in it somewhere.

/wave

I'm living proof of this.

There are two comic book stores in my area. When I went to the first one, the fellow ringing me up felt the need to comment that my boyfriend was sure to love what I was getting for him. Way to lose a customer, dillhole. Sure, more dudes are into comics than chicks. And sure, he probably sees a lot of chicks come in to buy for their boyfriends/husbands, and fewer who come in to buy for themselves. But because he assumed that my gender determined my interests, he ended up sending my business to his competitor. And I buy a whole helluva lot of comics.

(This has actually happened to me in other stores, too. I have had helpful clerks direct me to "girl comics" so many times I can't believe it. As if having a vagina somehow makes me incapable of appreciating Hellboy or some shit.)

I actually do pick up comics for my husband when I go shopping for them. There are some we both like to read and some that only one of us really cares much for. But since he's the one with actual subscriptions there, it wouldn't have been surprising if they had assumed I was just buying all of it for him. Instead of doing so, the people at the counter would start up conversations with me about the different comics - which gave them a good idea of where my tastes lie (and they already knew my husband's - from what he actually subscribes to).

When I went in to buy V for Vendetta soon after the movie came out, for instance, they didn't assume I was buying that for my husband. And one of the people working at the store actually suggested that I go ahead and pick up Watchmen as well - increasing the sales they made that day.

By the way, if you're a comic book reader and you haven't picked up Powers, I highly recommend it. =)

I've read this entire thread, and all the arguments in favor of the "everyone is a little bit racist" premise boil down to defending the habit of acting on assumptions. To point to just one, Lewdor in particular has been adamant in insisting that assumptions are valid because they are more likely than not to be correct - which itself is a mere assumption. It does not matter how many statistics a person might cite -- anything that includes the phrase "more likely" is an assumption.

I would point out that there is a serious risk inherent in living by and acting on assumptions. Basically, it's what allows con artists to make a living.

For instance, in the Lewdor and Dempublicents' example of the car dealer: A con artist, knowing that his mark, the car dealer, makes assumptions about customers based on appearance, will use that habit against the dealer. How does the con artist know the car dealer is a bigot? If he's good, he does not assume. He observes the mark, notes the pattern of behavior, tests it with accomplices, and then sets his trap. By presenting the dealer with a "desirable" customer, possibly with a contrasting "undesirable" one at the same time, the con artist manipulates the dealer into making a sweetheart deal based on poor judgment (no credit check, for instance) -- and he cheats the dealer out of at least one very expensive car.

There's an old saying, "You can't cheat an honest man."

Racists and other bigots are not being entirely honest in their lives. They defend their assumptions as truth, but ignore the fact that they themselves do not question or test those "truths." The real motivation for bigotry is not to be truthful, but to feel superior, regardless of whether you have a factual basis for that feeling or not. The more racist beliefs are examined, the less good they are for supporting feelings of superiority. Racism is a kind of lie that can only be sustained by a kind of cheat. And that makes the racist vulnerable.

Look at con artist type crimes. Every single one of them exploits either the greed or the prejudices, or both, of the victims. That alone should be enough to show that racist thinking has a flaw in it somewhere.Everyone makes certain assumptions - it is incredibly difficult to live a life without making an assumption. Perhaps the definition of prejudiced person should depend upon how someone reacts when they come across information that conflicts with their assumption. A prejudiced person will ignore the conflicting information, whereas a poorly informed person with a bad assumption will reassess their assumption when they come across conflicting data.

Let's examine the assumptions that the con artist makes
a) buildings with signs that say they sell cars sell cars
b) a buildings with a sign that says it sells flowers does not sell cars
c) that he will be able to sell the stolen car
d) that he is not buying a car from a car dealership that is part of a sting operation
e) that the car dealer will act in a predictable manner - if he is racially prejudiced against 100 people of one ethnicity then he will be racially prejudiced against the 101st person of that ethnicity.
f) the car dealer will not randomly attack him.
g) that the car dealer will be upset that the car is stolen from him
h) a god will not strike him down dead as soon as he steals this car
i) that he will remember how to drive when the time comes to drive the car away.
etc...

Making any prediction about the future is to act upon an assumption. It's just that some assumptions are good assumptions and others are not.

By the way, if you're a comic book reader and you haven't picked up Powers, I highly recommend it. =)
Amg yes.

Runaways is also good. And Planet Hulk and World War Hulk are quality kaboom.

And anybody who doesn't own Joss Whedon's Fray is seriously missing out.

I'll stop now.

But to get back at the topic, I really think people are all-around more successful when they don't worry so much about finding the Golden Generalization that they can neatly apply to all members of a given group.

Especially not when the group in question is defined by completely un-chosen qualities. If you want to judge my taste in music based on what band t-shirt I'm wearing then you might be lead to some false assumptions, but at least you'd probably hit closer to the mark than if you try to predict my favorite artists based on the color of my skin or the shape of my genitals.

/wave

I'm living proof of this.

There are two comic book stores in my area. When I went to the first one, the fellow ringing me up felt the need to comment that my boyfriend was sure to love what I was getting for him. Way to lose a customer, dillhole. Sure, more dudes are into comics than chicks. And sure, he probably sees a lot of chicks come in to buy for their boyfriends/husbands, and fewer who come in to buy for themselves. But because he assumed that my gender determined my interests, he ended up sending my business to his competitor. And I buy a whole helluva lot of comics.

(This has actually happened to me in other stores, too. I have had helpful clerks direct me to "girl comics" so many times I can't believe it. As if having a vagina somehow makes me incapable of appreciating Hellboy or some shit.)
You're an anecdote. You are not representative of the broader population.

Anecdotal evidence shouldn't persuade anyone of anything.

You're an anecdote. You are not representative of the broader population.

Anecdotal evidence shouldn't persuade anyone of anything.

It depends on how much anecdotal evidence you have. You see, I've heard lots of stories like this. I've been a part of some of them. I've seen plenty of people decide to take their business elsewhere when treated in this manner.

I've never heard anyone say, "Yeah, that salesman was so great. He knew I was a girl, so he knew I couldn't possibly want to read any comics that weren't about girls. He pulled me away from the main comic shelves, took the copy of Deadpool I was looking at right out of my hands, and pointed me to the girlie ones he knew I might like. Wow! What a great salesman!"

I've heard lots of people recommend dealers who gave personal attention. I've never heard a single one say, "Yeah, go to this guy, he knows what black people like!"


Bottle is just as much a representative of the broader population as anyone is. She is an individual with her own tastes - tastes that aren't dictated by her genitalia or the color of her skin. Sounds pretty much like the broader population to me.

I've read this entire thread, and all the arguments in favor of the "everyone is a little bit racist" premise boil down to defending the habit of acting on assumptions.ALL???

Go back and read mine.

It depends on how much anecdotal evidence you have. You see, I've heard lots of stories like this. I've been a part of some of them. I've seen plenty of people decide to take their business elsewhere when treated in this manner.

I've never heard anyone say, "Yeah, that salesman was so great. He knew I was a girl, so he knew I couldn't possibly want to read any comics that weren't about girls. He pulled me away from the main comic shelves, took the copy of Deadpool I was looking at right out of my hands, and pointed me to the girlie ones he knew I might like. Wow! What a great salesman!"

I've heard lots of people recommend dealers who gave personal attention. I've never heard a single one say, "Yeah, go to this guy, he knows what black people like!"


Bottle is just as much a representative of the broader population as anyone is. She is an individual with her own tastes - tastes that aren't dictated by her genitalia or the color of her skin. Sounds pretty much like the broader population to me.
The point of rejecting anecdotes is that no one is representative of the broader population. Not one person.

And when you have more anecdotes, that ceases to be anecdotal data as soon as you have a statistically significant sample.

Regardless of what tools you use to judge your customers, you're going to be wrong some of the time. Using statistical averages is no more or less offensive than judging someone based on demeanour or attire or even responses to questions. But, at some point, the salesman needs to make a decision. On what he bases that decision doesn't really matter, from an ethical standpoint.

I don't like it when salespeople greet me when I enter a store, or even approach me at all. I also don't like it when I have to seek them out to ask questions, so the ideal salesperson for me simply follows me around and hangs 12 feet off my shoulder waiting for me to wave him over. If he had data that said I like that, I'd want him to use it. But such data doesn't exist, so expecting him to behave like that is unreasonable.

You're an anecdote. You are not representative of the broader population.

Actually, yes, I am a representative of the broader population. We all are. Seeing as how the "broader population" is made up of us.


Anecdotal evidence shouldn't persuade anyone of anything.
Sure it should. My anecdote was a personal example of exactly what Demi was talking about. It was intended to persuade people that what she was talking about does, in fact, occur.

I never claimed it always occurred. Indeed, I specifically and clearly stated in my post that I've gone to stores that DID NOT treat me in that manner. That's where I buy my comics!

The point of rejecting anecdotes is that no one is representative of the broader population. Not one person.

You've got it backwards. Every single person is a representative of the broader population.

You don't assume that every person's anecdotes can be generalized to apply to everybody. But you also don't discard every person's anecdotes simply because they don't apply to everybody.

The key in sales is to find the approach that pleases the most people while actively bothering the fewest. Most people will be neutral, in my experience, so the main concern is really to avoid running customers off. Most people shop based on convenience, and they're only going to stop coming to your store if you genuinely piss them off.

Being sexist or racist is a great way to piss people off. That's what my example is about. I'm somebody who really likes comics. I really want to spend my money on them. Somebody has to actively piss me off to get me to not enter their comic book store. That's the mistake that salesperson made. He wouldn't have lost anything by refraining from being sexist. He wouldn't have run off any customers by not being sexist. But he ran me off because he was sexist.

Tell you what, let's make it really easy. I won't ask you to find me any data supporting the belief that treating your customers in racist or sexist ways is good for business. Instead, just provide me with a single example of a person whose desire to shop at a store INCREASED because they were treated in a negative sexist or racist manner.


And when you have more anecdotes, that ceases to be anecdotal data as soon as you have a statistically significant sample.

Regardless of what tools you use to judge your customers, you're going to be wrong some of the time. Using statistical averages is no more or less offensive than judging someone based on demeanour or attire or even responses to questions. But, at some point, the salesman needs to make a decision. On what he bases that decision doesn't really matter, from an ethical standpoint.

I don't like it when salespeople greet me when I enter a store, or even approach me at all. I also don't like it when I have to seek them out to ask questions, so the ideal salesperson for me simply follows me around and hangs 12 feet off my shoulder waiting for me to wave him over. If he had data that said I like that, I'd want him to use it. But such data doesn't exist, so expecting him to behave like that is unreasonable.
I'm not going to do your homework for you. If you want data on this subject, go read up on it. In the mean time, I'm going to continue sharing personal experiences and speaking about how poor customer service is a bad idea.

But, by all means, if you think there's evidence that a salesperson will do better by treating customers in a racist or sexist manner, please do take your theory to the field. It would be helpful for me, you see, because then I would be able to easily identify which companies to stop funding. Any company dumb enough to believe in that line of crap could not be trusted to provide a quality product!

Rejecting any real-world evidence that disagrees with his preconcieved notions while relying on imaginary evidence for support.

This would only be true if you unreasonably expanded the defintion of racism.

Even studies investigating racism often fail to find it in people. Sometimes you'll see people making assumptions about people based on racial averages (like black people tend to be poorer than white people), but those are correct assumptions based on solid data, and thus not racist.

Take this study, for example:

The Nature and Extent of Discrimination in the Marketplace: Evidence from the Field (http://www.arec.umd.edu/jlist/JLISTQJEDISC.pdf)(pdf)

The people here treated black people measureably differently, but they are so treated for reasons that were relevant to their interaction (and those reasons were unrelated to race). That's not racism.

1. Even if it said what you assert, the one study that you rely on is hardly evidence that studies regarding the existence of racism often fail to find racism.

2. Even if it said what you assert, the study you cite does not support the assertion that people making racial assumptions are always relying on "solid data" as opposed to racism.

3. The study you cite clearly concludes: "Combining insights from the perception experiment with results from the previous experiments provides a persuasive case that dealers knowingly practice statistical discrimination in this marketplace." (emphasis added). I know you don't perceive anything wrong with statistical discrimination, but that is different from the study saying there was no racism. Statistical discrimination harms minorities and is wrong.

4. The study you cite is very limited in its claims. For example, it is carefully hedged to admit that it doesn't consider whether the underlying market structure is inherently biased.


Inductive reasoning never constitutes proof.

Convenient.

But regardless of Hume, we rely on inductive reasoning every day.

Ironically, you are advocating the use of inductive reasoning in your defense of statistical discrimination.

In the study I cited, they found that sportscard dealers treated black buyers and sellers differently than they did white buyers and sellers. But, the difference was based on black buyers and sellers tending to be less affluent than white buyers and sellers (which they were), so race was (correctly) being used as a proxy to determine the acceptable price range of the other party in the exchange.

The dealers were making correct statistical assumptions about the willingness to accept certain prices or the ability to pay based on the race of the people with whom they were dealing, because the people differed appreciably, and that difference conincided pretty closely with a difference in race. So the racial discrimination simply made for a more efficient sportscard market.

This is beyond cases where race might actually be directly relevant to the question at hand (like whether to hire the white guy to wait tables in your authentic vietnamese restaurant). In this case (the sportscard market) the race doesn't strictly matter, but it is indicative of something that does (allfuence), and thus it can be correctly applied.

This is exactly how racial profiling works.

See above. This is your erroneous spin on a single study. The study does not conclude that the racial profiling was justified -- that is just your take on it.

You know full well there are copious studies out there that document the existence of racism in the marketplace.

Here are just a few examples:
Race at work (http://www.princeton.edu/~pager/race_at_work.pdf) (pdf)
Discrimination against racial/ethnic minorities in access to employment in the United States: Empirical findings from situation testing (http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/migrant/papers/usempir/)
Discrimination in Low-Wage Labor Markets: Evidence from an Experimental Audit Study in New York City (http://paa2005.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=50874) (pdf)

That would be the same, but that's not what they're doing. You're assigning motive or intent to these people without evidence.

Individuals have characteristics. Is it sexist to treat women I meet as if they are women (perhaps trying to sell them different things in a retail environment)?

And I wouldn't. When faced with limited resources to spread around (time spent serving customers), the server needs to decide how to distribute the limited resource. It's not my place to say he's doing to wrong.

Imagine two people - a man and a woman - walking through the cosmetics section of a department store. Are the salespeople being sexist by approaching only the female shopper? Or by offering a different selection of products to each based on gender?

Of course not. Chance are they're interested in different things, or there for different reasons.

But if the things you complain about are sexism, then so is this, and you think all salespeople (indeed, all people everywhere) should behave exactly the same to all people in all cases regardless of gender or race.

And that will quickly get absurd.

Your assumption that people must be treated differently based on surface characteristics is just that -- an assumption without any evidence.

Without that assumption, it is your position that quickly gets absurd.

Is race or gender not an individual characteristic? Is it impossible that it be relevant?

If I have market reasearch that says black people (or old people, or people who wear plaid) value different features in cars from what white people value, I'm going to highlight different features when I'm trying to sell them cars. That's just smart business.

If frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their asses a hoppin'.

Not having any actual evidence, you are no relying on purely imaginary evidence.


That's actually an assumption you're making. I, however, am not making the opposite assumption. Acting on assumptions just makes people wrong a lot.

As a group, black people could well value X more than white people do. That's what my study would show. So, presented with any random black person, that person is more likely than any random white person to exhibit that characteristic of valuing X.

Being aware of this and acting in accordance with that awareness is not racism.

I didn't say "necessarily". But as a group, they value X more than the other group does. So there is then correlation, even without causation. Correlation is a real thing; acting based on it is not racism.

Not him, but I'll be right more often than not. I'd have a statistical advantage over competitors who didn't use this information.

Again, your imaginary study.

And even in your imagination, there is at best a weak correlation.

You're an anecdote. You are not representative of the broader population.

Anecdotal evidence shouldn't persuade anyone of anything.

You don't know if she is representative of the broader population or not. That is the true problem with anecdotes.

Anecdotes are not the best evidence, but that is not the same as anecdotes not being evidence at all.

But it is convenient for you to deny evidence that disagrees with you.

The point of rejecting anecdotes is that no one is representative of the broader population. Not one person.

And when you have more anecdotes, that ceases to be anecdotal data as soon as you have a statistically significant sample.

Regardless of what tools you use to judge your customers, you're going to be wrong some of the time. Using statistical averages is no more or less offensive than judging someone based on demeanour or attire or even responses to questions. But, at some point, the salesman needs to make a decision. On what he bases that decision doesn't really matter, from an ethical standpoint.

I don't like it when salespeople greet me when I enter a store, or even approach me at all. I also don't like it when I have to seek them out to ask questions, so the ideal salesperson for me simply follows me around and hangs 12 feet off my shoulder waiting for me to wave him over. If he had data that said I like that, I'd want him to use it. But such data doesn't exist, so expecting him to behave like that is unreasonable.

1. Again, you are basing your entire argument on an unsupported premise.

2. Contrary to your other assumption, statistical discrimination is harmful and wrong. You have yet to explain otherwise.

3. Now you've gone from relying on imaginary data to relying on data that you admit doesn't exist.

Just admit it, Llewdor: racism exists and is harmful and wrong.

Race is not the best thing to discriminate against. There are plenty of things which you can hate that make a lot more sense, violent crime, drug users, you can even hate racists. Everyone discriminates against something.

Race is not the best thing to discriminate against. There are plenty of things which you can hate that make a lot more sense, violent crime, drug users, you can even hate racists. Everyone discriminates against something.

That I agree with. People who demand to proclaim as truth that *everyone* is racist are just projecting their own racism onto others, out of guilt perhaps or maybe just ignorance.

Everyone discriminates. Discriminating in and of itself is not a bad thing. For example, I discriminate against heroin addicts. I would not hire one unless he or she got clean first. I also discriminate against racists.

You're an anecdote. You are not representative of the broader population.

Anecdotal evidence shouldn't persuade anyone of anything.

I don't necessarily think you are right, here. This generation is the generation of the girlgeek. Girls with computers. Girls that play video games. Girls that roleplay. Girls that tabletop wargame. Girls who talk tech.

When they put up the posters at the theatre for Stardust, my wife is caught in a discussion with the theatre-owner about whether it will be true to the original graphic novel, and whether it is the best Neil Gaiman material, and what it would take to bring the Sandman comics to the screen. (The end result of that discussion, says my wife, is that Sandman is never going to be a movie).:(

My wife isn't that unusual in my circle of friends. The girlgeeks are here.

I don't necessarily think you are right, here. This generation is the generation of the girlgeek. Girls with computers. Girls that play video games. Girls that roleplay. Girls that tabletop wargame. Girls who talk tech.

What, seriously? Why are they all hiding from me, then?

What, seriously? Why are they all hiding from me, then?

No idea. I hardly think anyone can claim Bottle or Dempublicents are 'in the closet' as girlgeeks... and that's just in this thread.

What, seriously? Why are they all hiding from me, then?
For a nice window into the mind of a "girl geek," I recommend reading the blog, "Girls Read Comics (And They're Pissed)."

You're an anecdote. You are not representative of the broader population.

Anecdotal evidence shouldn't persuade anyone of anything.I believe witness testimony is a form of anecdotal evidence.

I believe witness testimony is a form of anecdotal evidence.Actually, only certain kinds of testimony in the law are considered "anecdotal," usually descriptions of individual incidents in a class action lawsuit, as regarding harassment or discrimination.

When the question is "what happened on the night of October 3rd," testimony as to that night is not anecdote, at least not in the technical sense of the law.

When the question is, "what kind of person is my boss," testimony as to what happened the night of the office party is anecdote: my boss's behavior that night may have been extraordinary rather than typical.

Instead, just provide me with a single example of a person whose desire to shop at a store INCREASED because they were treated in a negative sexist or racist manner.
Why does the example have to be negative? What do you mean by negative, here, anyway?

Plus, being aware that your black customers tend to be poorer (like in the study) isn't a negative association. Wealth is value-neutral.

1. Even if it said what you assert, the one study that you rely on is hardly evidence that studies regarding the existence of racism often fail to find racism.
Perhaps a poor choice of words. Sometimes, then, rather than often. I'd need more data to support the often claim.
2. Even if it said what you assert, the study you cite does not support the assertion that people making racial assumptions are always relying on "solid data" as opposed to racism.
All this study shows is that the racial assumptions in that particular sportscard trading venue were consistent with reality. Why the dealers were making those assumptions isn't knowable.
3. The study you cite clearly concludes: "Combining insights from the perception experiment with results from the previous experiments provides a persuasive case that dealers knowingly practice statistical discrimination in this marketplace." (emphasis added). I know you don't perceive anything wrong with statistical discrimination, but that is different from the study saying there was no racism. Statistical discrimination harms minorities and is wrong.
You're exactly right about what the study finds. Dealers do knowingly practice statistical discrimination in the marketplace. But your last sentence is you assigning values unnecessarily. Statistical discrimination may well harm minorities some of the time, but that doesn't necessarily make it wrong. The dealers might be acting in such a way that they harm minorities, but as long as they're not doing it in order to harm minorities (even relatively), I don't see how what they're doing is wrong.
Convenient.
And correct.
But regardless of Hume, we rely on inductive reasoning every day.
You might, but it makes you be wrong a lot. Inevitably, inductive reasoning will eventually lead to an inaccurate result. Why would you base important decisions on that?
Ironically, you are advocating the use of inductive reasoning in your defense of statistical discrimination.
That's effectively what Dempublicents was accuming me of, but it's just not true. You don't need to accept the generalisation as true in order to behave in accordaince with your awareness that it is likely to be true.

I feel like I'm arguing with someone who doesn't like statistics because they don't tell you with any certainty what the next instance will do. Statistics only tell you (with considerable and measureable certainty) what the next instance is likely to do.

Field managers in baseball do this all the time. They make decisions regarding individual players based on what players like them generally do. Like handedness. A left-handed player may be added to or removed from a game based on the expected performance of left-handed players, generally, even if there is little or no data to tell the manager whether this particualr left-handed hitter conforms to the general trend. Is he being biased toward or against left-handed players? Yes he is. But there's nothing wrong with that.
See above. This is your erroneous spin on a single study. The study does not conclude that the racial profiling was justified -- that is just your take on it.
Nor does it conclude it was not. That's your take on it.
You know full well there are copious studies out there that document the existence of racism in the marketplace.

Here are just a few examples:
Race at work (http://www.princeton.edu/~pager/race_at_work.pdf) (pdf)
Discrimination against racial/ethnic minorities in access to employment in the United States: Empirical findings from situation testing (http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/migrant/papers/usempir/)
Discrimination in Low-Wage Labor Markets: Evidence from an Experimental Audit Study in New York City (http://paa2005.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=50874) (pdf)
I remember those studies. Even the study I used here I originally got from you. And I chose it because it shows that sometimes statistical discrimination makes sense and is sometimes associated with a complete lack of animus.
Your assumption that people must be treated differently based on surface characteristics is just that -- an assumption without any evidence.

Without that assumption, it is your position that quickly gets absurd.
If those cosmetics salespeople could explain why they pitched different products to differently-gendered customers without referring to the gender of those customers, I would accept that. But I doubt it. Few salespeople will offer eyeshadow to a conservatively dressed male customer, but they may well offer it to a conservatively dressed female customer.

I'd be interested in that study.
If frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their asses a hoppin'.

Not having any actual evidence, you are no relying on purely imaginary evidence.
Good thing I didn't present it as evidence. It was the antecedent in a conditional statement; no truth value was offered.
Anecdotes are not the best evidence, but that is not the same as anecdotes not being evidence at all.
Anecdotes are exceedingly poor evidence, and should be weighted as such.
1. Again, you are basing your entire argument on an unsupported premise.
Statistical evidence exists. That's hardly unsupported.
2. Contrary to your other assumption, statistical discrimination is harmful and wrong. You have yet to explain otherwise.
You're the one making the assertion. You think statistical disrimination is wrong. You haven't supported that at all.

Wrongness is an extra characteristic whose existence needs to be shown. That hasn't been done here. I'm just sticking with the rational default position of not believing things that haven't been shown to be true.
Just admit it, Llewdor: racism exists and is harmful and wrong.
But this isn't racism. Statistical discrimination isn't racism because its not based on animus.

If you want racism to be so braodly defined as to include statistical discrimination, then fine, but then not all racism is wrong unless you can demonstrate that statistical discrimination is wrong.

Why does the example have to be negative? What do you mean by negative, here, anyway?

Plus, being aware that your black customers tend to be poorer (like in the study) isn't a negative association. Wealth is value-neutral.

ROTFLASTC

But, on the serious side, your inability to see the absurdity and injustice you are advocating is more sad than funny.

Because of racial discrimination, blacks have a higher poverty rate in the US than whites.

Under your reasoning, it is therefore justifiable to assume (i.e., "rely on hard data") that any black person is likely poor and to treat them accordingly.

It does not matter if the way you treat black people is harmful to black people, because your reason for treating them differently is based on "hard data."

So, it's okay to discriminate against black people. That this may make black people have a higher rate of poverty is merely affirmation of your "hard data."

What a cruel and evil circle of logic.

.. but I'll continue the tit for tat as well.

Perhaps a poor choice of words. Sometimes, then, rather than often. I'd need more data to support the often claim.

Perhaps?

As I explained you have one single study that concludes that statistical discrimination was rampant in the studied market, but, given the limitations of the study, the discrimination was not necessarily do to animus.

That is a long, loing, long way from saying studies of racism "often" fail to find evidence of racism.

Although technically accurate, you are being misleading in saying that studies of racism "sometimes" fail to find evidence of racism because of one study found discrimination but failed to find evidence of animus .

All this study shows is that the racial assumptions in that particular sportscard trading venue were consistent with reality.

Given the limitations of the study, which you failed to respond to, yes, that is what the study showed. Care to explain how that one study of that one particular market justifies your broad assertions that racial discrimination is generally based on "hard data" and is not due to animus.

Why the dealers were making those assumptions isn't knowable.

Go back and re-read that sentence until you realize that it undermines your whole position.

The dealers assumptions may well have been due to animus, we just don't know. The lack of evidence of animus in this one study is not evidence that animus is not usually the cause of discrimination.

You're exactly right about what the study finds. Dealers do knowingly practice statistical discrimination in the marketplace. But your last sentence is you assigning values unnecessarily. Statistical discrimination may well harm minorities some of the time, but that doesn't necessarily make it wrong. The dealers might be acting in such a way that they harm minorities, but as long as they're not doing it in order to harm minorities (even relatively), I don't see how what they're doing is wrong.

Again, you don't know if the dealers were doing it in order to harm minorities, you just know that one study failed to find evidence of animus.

But, pardon me for assuming that deliberate discrimination against minorities that harms minorities is bad.

Care to explain why it isn't?

And correct.

You might, but it makes you be wrong a lot. Inevitably, inductive reasoning will eventually lead to an inaccurate result. Why would you base important decisions on that?

That's effectively what Dempublicents was accuming me of, but it's just not true. You don't need to accept the generalisation as true in order to behave in accordaince with your awareness that it is likely to be true.

I feel like I'm arguing with someone who doesn't like statistics because they don't tell you with any certainty what the next instance will do. Statistics only tell you (with considerable and measureable certainty) what the next instance is likely to do.

Field managers in baseball do this all the time. They make decisions regarding individual players based on what players like them generally do. Like handedness. A left-handed player may be added to or removed from a game based on the expected performance of left-handed players, generally, even if there is little or no data to tell the manager whether this particualr left-handed hitter conforms to the general trend. Is he being biased toward or against left-handed players? Yes he is. But there's nothing wrong with that.

You've rather lost the plot here. What the field managers you discuss are doing is using inductive logic. Yet, when faced with inductive logic, you claimed it was invalid.

The truth of the matter is that we do rely on inductive logic all the time.

Nor does it conclude it was not. That's your take on it.

Again, you are using the study to support an assertion that you admit is not actually proven by the study.

I remember those studies. Even the study I used here I originally got from you. And I chose it because it shows that sometimes statistical discrimination makes sense and is sometimes associated with a complete lack of animus.

Yet again you fail to deal with the multiple studies that directly contradict your premises. Instead, you want to talk about the one study that (because it only indirectly contradicts your premises) you erroneously claim doesn't contradict your premises.

If those cosmetics salespeople could explain why they pitched different products to differently-gendered customers without referring to the gender of those customers, I would accept that. But I doubt it. Few salespeople will offer eyeshadow to a conservatively dressed male customer, but they may well offer it to a conservatively dressed female customer.

I'd be interested in that study.

I sincerely doubt you would be interested in such a study, given that you are completely willing to ignore the multiple other studies I have cited.

But again, it is more convenient for you to muse about hypotheticals than it is to deal with reality.

Good thing I didn't present it as evidence. It was the antecedent in a conditional statement; no truth value was offered.

See my last statement.

Anecdotes are exceedingly poor evidence, and should be weighted as such.

But here we have statistical evidence that is consistent with the anecdotes (re: discrimination) and the anecdotes are not rebutted by any other evidence.

Regardless, an anecdote may be weak evidence but it is stronger evidence that the merely hypothetical -- which is what you rely on.

Statistical evidence exists. That's hardly unsupported.

Statistical evidence exists of what? That people must (or should)
treat each other in the marketplace differently based on surface characteristics? Where is this evidence?

You're the one making the assertion. You think statistical disrimination is wrong. You haven't supported that at all.

Wrongness is an extra characteristic whose existence needs to be shown. That hasn't been done here. I'm just sticking with the rational default position of not believing things that haven't been shown to be true.

But this isn't racism. Statistical discrimination isn't racism because its not based on animus.

If you want racism to be so braodly defined as to include statistical discrimination, then fine, but then not all racism is wrong unless you can demonstrate that statistical discrimination is wrong.

You conveniently forget that, in addition, to the one study showing statistical discrimination, I have presented copious evidence of (what even you must concede is) racism.

Again, discrimination against minorities on the basis of characteristics such as skin color are prima facie wrong. Saying otherwise is not the "rational default position."

Moreover, you admit that statistical discrimination harms minorities. Regardless of whether produced by animus, practices that systematically harm minorities are prima facie wrong. Saying otherwise is not the "rational default position."

Finally, you once again confuse a lack of evidence of animus with evidence of a lack of animus. You admitted yourself that even in the study you rely on we can't know the motivations of the dealers.

Under your reasoning, it is therefore justifiable to assume (i.e., "rely on hard data") that any black person is likely poor and to treat them accordingly.
We don't need to assume it. We know that any given black person is likely poor. This is true; there is no need to assume it.
It does not matter if the way you treat black people is harmful to black people, because your reason for treating them differently is based on "hard data."
While I don't dispute that, I don't see how the black people are being harmed. The services are being tailored to their likely preferences and levels of wealth. In general, they should be benefitting from this treatment.
So, it's okay to discriminate against black people. That this may make black people have a higher rate of poverty is merely affirmation of your "hard data."

What a cruel and evil circle of logic.
Think about this for a second. If race doesn't matter, and people of all races should be treated equally all the time as a result, what does it matter if society eventually ends up being evenly divided between the races, or if some of the races cease to exist? If there's nothing about white people that makes them more or less valuable than black people, then we should be indifferent regarding whether any given person is black or white. So then, if eventually all of the people are black (or white), that shouldn't be meaningfully different from an even distribution.

Unless you're arguing that diversity has value in and of itself, but if you are arguing that you'd need to support it.

I see this line from time to time on the forum, and it's always bugged me. Seems like the sort of thing one says when being racist, in order to justify it.

But on what basis is it true? How can you possibly assert that I, my buddy, my mother - everyone in the fucking world - prejudges people based on race? Universal telepathy or what?

I mean isn't it a bit like saying, "everyone is a little bit homicidal?" Or "everyone's a little bit of a child-fucker?" Sure, you might look at statistics and point out that very few people are statistically violent criminals or paedophiles. But aha, I can just say you WANT to, because I somehow know your mind! You're all a little bit genocidal mass murdering dictators!

This is just sort of a rant, but I'm interested to hear other people's arguments on it.

To say everyone is "a bit racist" is absurd. I suppose everyone is also "a bit gay". :rolleyes:

For a nice window into the mind of a "girl geek," I recommend reading the blog, "Girls Read Comics (And They're Pissed)."

Actually, I could do without another one of those....

Perhaps?

As I explained you have one single study that concludes that statistical discrimination was rampant in the studied market, but, given the limitations of the study, the discrimination was not necessarily do to animus.
A study which was presented (even by itself) as evidence of racism. I'm just pointing out that it doesn't actually show what it claims to show (indeed, when you first presented it months ago you bundled it with the other studies as if it offered evidence of racism - but it doesn't).

That studies like this are done and have their findings repeatedly misrepresented casts doubt on the entire equality movement. I just want some recognition that this study does not demostrate the existence of racism.
Although technically accurate, you are being misleading in saying that studies of racism "sometimes" fail to find evidence of racism because of one study found discrimination but failed to find evidence of animus .
Accurate statements cannot be misleading. That's not how language works.
Given the limitations of the study, which you failed to respond to, yes, that is what the study showed. Care to explain how that one study of that one particular market justifies your broad assertions that racial discrimination is generally based on "hard data" and is not due to animus.
My point is that racial discrimination isn't always based on animus, and is not always evidence of racism. Doctors prescribing specific drugs to black patients because they work better for black patients is racial discrimination. But not necessarily racism.
Go back and re-read that sentence until you realize that it undermines your whole position.
Ouch.

Okay, but let's back that up, then. The motives of the dealers aren't known, and are shown to be consistent with an incentive that isn't based on animus. The whole point of this study is to find racism, and it utterly fails to do so.
But, pardon me for assuming that deliberate discrimination against minorities that harms minorities is bad.
No, I won't. That's a completely unreasonable assumption without some sort of support.

That almost everyone you ever meet agrees with you is not evidence that you are right.
Care to explain why it isn't?
I'm afraid that's not possible, and you know it. Asking me to prove something unprovable might be an effective debating technique when you're 15, but it won't persuade any rational observer.
You've rather lost the plot here. What the field managers you discuss are doing is using inductive logic. Yet, when faced with inductive logic, you claimed it was invalid.
It is. But the point here is that you should think what the field managers are doing is somehow unethical because they're defining individuals based on their existence within groups. Failing to do so is inconsistent with your complaints about groups assumptions, generally.
The truth of the matter is that we do rely on inductive logic all the time.
That still doesn't make it a good idea, but this is rather beside the point.
Again, you are using the study to support an assertion that you admit is not actually proven by the study.
The study doesn't prove anything. That's my point.
Yet again you fail to deal with the multiple studies that directly contradict your premises. Instead, you want to talk about the one study that (because it only indirectly contradicts your premises) you erroneously claim doesn't contradict your premises.
Those other studies don't concern me. This one study is evidence that the racial equality movement is being intellectually dishonest.
I sincerely doubt you would be interested in such a study, given that you are completely willing to ignore the multiple other studies I have cited.

But again, it is more convenient for you to muse about hypotheticals than it is to deal with reality.

See my last statement.
The truth of some things can be known (with certainty) relative to the truth of other things. It's classic Wittgenstein. Even if we can't know whether either of them is in fact true, they may have a necessary truth relationship. That's what I keep trying to point out.
Statistical evidence exists of what?
That groups of people of different races sometimes exhibit different characteristics.
That people must (or should) treat each other in the marketplace differently based on surface characteristics?
Why is everything normative, with you? You think I'm trying to makie some sort of normative (or even prescriptive) claim, when in fact I'm trying to argue against such a thing.

I don't need to hold a contrary position to see yours as flawed.
You conveniently forget that, in addition, to the one study showing statistical discrimination, I have presented copious evidence of (what even you must concede is) racism.
I don't forget it. It simply isn't relevant.

Some racial discrimination isn't racism. If you want to argue that there's something wrong with all racial discrimination (regardless of whether its based on animus), that's a claim you'll have to support.

Here, let me help. Why do you think all racial discrimination is bad? That should provide a good start.
Again, discrimination against minorities on the basis of characteristics such as skin color are prima facie wrong. Saying otherwise is not the "rational default position."

Moreover, you admit that statistical discrimination harms minorities. Regardless of whether produced by animus, practices that systematically harm minorities are prima facie wrong. Saying otherwise is not the "rational default position."
Nothing is prima facie wrong. Wrongness isn't that sort of attribute (Unless you're a moral realist who believes that we have some sort of moral sixth sense we all intuitively use to detect moral truth. Are you?) - as such, the rational default position of complete uncertainty absolutely applies.
Finally, you once again confuse a lack of evidence of animus with evidence of a lack of animus. You admitted yourself that even in the study you rely on we can't know the motivations of the dealers.
You accuse me of assuming an excluded middle. Good for you. That's not something that normally bothers people.

There is no evidence of animus in the study. I'm so glad you accept that.

Now, are you actually going to try to defend your ethical intuitionism?

ROTFLASTC

But, on the serious side, your inability to see the absurdity and injustice you are advocating is more sad than funny.

Because of racial discrimination, blacks have a higher poverty rate in the US than whites.

Under your reasoning, it is therefore justifiable to assume (i.e., "rely on hard data") that any black person is likely poor and to treat them accordingly.

It does not matter if the way you treat black people is harmful to black people, because your reason for treating them differently is based on "hard data."

So, it's okay to discriminate against black people. That this may make black people have a higher rate of poverty is merely affirmation of your "hard data."

What a cruel and evil circle of logic.

Black people generally are poorer. That's still no excuse to assume one is poor, or even if they were, treat them worse for it.

I assume all people are stupid. I still don't think right-off-the-bat someone I'm conversing with is dumb, unless they display such attribute. I also treat people with respect, even though most are completely selfish morons.



I may have been racist at one time. I may not have cured it, but at least now I'm equally racist against all races, including my own.

We don't need to assume it. We know that any given black person is likely poor. This is true; there is no need to assume it.

Um. It isn't true.

As I said (and you didn't dispute), because of racial discrimination, blacks have a higher poverty rate in the US than whites. Nearly 25 percent of blacks live below the poverty line, three times the percentage of whites. Thus, any given black person in the US is more likely to be poor than any given white person.

But this clearly doesn't mean that any given black person is likely poor. To the contrary, only one out of four black people are poor.

So, from the beginning your racist assumption is not based on "hard data" but rather on unfair discrimination.

While I don't dispute that, I don't see how the black people are being harmed. The services are being tailored to their likely preferences and levels of wealth. In general, they should be benefitting from this treatment.

You admit you don't care if black people are harmed or not, so perhaps it isn't surprising that you are oblivious to the fact that being treated as if you were poor merely because of the color of your skin could be harmful.

Think about this for a second. If race doesn't matter, and people of all races should be treated equally all the time as a result, what does it matter if society eventually ends up being evenly divided between the races, or if some of the races cease to exist? If there's nothing about white people that makes them more or less valuable than black people, then we should be indifferent regarding whether any given person is black or white. So then, if eventually all of the people are black (or white), that shouldn't be meaningfully different from an even distribution.

Unless you're arguing that diversity has value in and of itself, but if you are arguing that you'd need to support it.

Um. What answer did you expect here?

No, race doesn't matter. Yes, people of all races should be treated equally all the time. Other than the value of diversity (about which we can agree to disagree) it doesn't matter if society is eventually divided evenly among the races. There is nothing about white people that makes them more or less valuable than black people. We should be indifferent regarding whether any given person is black or white.

Do you really disagree with any of the above statements? Shame on you.

As I said, your circular logic is cruel and evil. Thanks for confirming that.

Black people generally are poorer. That's still no excuse to assume one is poor,

Glad you recognize that.

or even if they were, treat them worse for it.

Even better. Try explaining this to Llewdor.

I assume all people are stupid. I still don't think right-off-the-bat someone I'm conversing with is dumb, unless they display such attribute. I also treat people with respect, even though most are completely selfish morons.

Good for you.

I may have been racist at one time. I may not have cured it, but at least now I'm equally racist against all races, including my own.

At least you are working on improving.

A study which was presented (even by itself) as evidence of racism. I'm just pointing out that it doesn't actually show what it claims to show (indeed, when you first presented it months ago you bundled it with the other studies as if it offered evidence of racism - but it doesn't).

That studies like this are done and have their findings repeatedly misrepresented casts doubt on the entire equality movement. I just want some recognition that this study does not demostrate the existence of racism.

Um. I'm not sure where to begin.

How has this study had it's findings misrepresented? By whom? When & where?

Regardless, how is this single study representative of "the entire equality movement"?

As to whether this single study demonstrates the existence of racism, you have rather plainly made clear it depends on how you define racism. You seem to think that racial discrimination motivated by animus is wrong and that racial discrimination not necessarily motivated by animus is okay (even if it harms minorities). You've yet to justify that distinction.

Instead, you want to play Socratic mind-games.


No, I won't. That's a completely unreasonable assumption without some sort of support.

That almost everyone you ever meet agrees with you is not evidence that you are right.

I'm afraid that's not possible, and you know it. Asking me to prove something unprovable might be an effective debating technique when you're 15, but it won't persuade any rational observer.

Sorry, Socrates, but I'm not debating first principles.

Deliberate discrimination against minorities that harms minorities is bad. Period. No need to support it.

Why is it not only possible but required for me to prove that, but it is "impossible" for you to prove the contrary?


Those other studies don't concern me.

Yes. Those other multiple studies which do show racism and you can't manipulate. They are darn inconvenient.

This one study is evidence that the racial equality movement is being intellectually dishonest.


If you were accusing just me of intellectual dishonesty for my original citation of the study, your point would be flawed but would at least make sense.

As is, you are just babbling. How, pray tell, is the mere existence of this one study evidence that the entire "racial equality movement" (whatever the hell that is) is being intellectually dishonest?


Why is everything normative, with you? You think I'm trying to makie some sort of normative (or even prescriptive) claim, when in fact I'm trying to argue against such a thing.

I don't need to hold a contrary position to see yours as flawed.

*sigh*

Again with the games.

As I've pointed out several times, you assume that people must be treated differently based on surface characteristics. Multiple times now you have refused to justify that assumption and have instead tried to change the subject.

And it is you who have made a claim that treating people differently based on skin color is not wrong. Playing Socrates merely avoids justifying that assertion.

I don't forget it. It simply isn't relevant.

Some racial discrimination isn't racism. If you want to argue that there's something wrong with all racial discrimination (regardless of whether its based on animus), that's a claim you'll have to support.

Here, let me help. Why do you think all racial discrimination is bad? That should provide a good start.

I don't wish to play this game.

But if you do, let me help. Why is there ever something wrong with racial discrimination? Why is racial discrimination based on animus wrong? If racial discrimination based on animus is wrong, why is racial discrimination that is not necessarily based on animus not wrong (regardless of whether it is deliberate and/or harms minorities)?

Nothing is prima facie wrong. Wrongness isn't that sort of attribute (Unless you're a moral realist who believes that we have some sort of moral sixth sense we all intuitively use to detect moral truth. Are you?) - as such, the rational default position of complete uncertainty absolutely applies.

Now, are you actually going to try to defend your ethical intuitionism?

Nope. I see no need to defend my assertions. They speak for themselves.

Of course, if you want to play games where everything is completely and absolutely uncertain, it is impossible to have a meaningful dialogue.

Um. It isn't true.

As I said (and you didn't dispute), because of racial discrimination, blacks have a higher poverty rate in the US than whites. Nearly 25 percent of blacks live below the poverty line, three times the percentage of whites. Thus, any given black person in the US is more likely to be poor than any given white person.

But this clearly doesn't mean that any given black person is likely poor. To the contrary, only one out of four black people are poor.
One out of four is below the poverty line. "Poor", however, isn't an absolute measure. It's a relative measure, and since black people, on average, are poorer that that the white majority, then black people, as a group, are poor (relative to the majority). Any given black person is likely to be poor (relative to the majority).

I'm sorry I expected you to understand the meaning of the word.
You admit you don't care if black people are harmed or not, so perhaps it isn't surprising that you are oblivious to the fact that being treated as if you were poor merely because of the color of your skin could be harmful.
Good thing it isn't relevant.
Um. What answer did you expect here?

No, race doesn't matter. Yes, people of all races should be treated equally all the time. Other than the value of diversity (about which we can agree to disagree) it doesn't matter if society is eventually divided evenly among the races. There is nothing about white people that makes them more or less valuable than black people. We should be indifferent regarding whether any given person is black or white.
Great. Then racial inequality is completely unimportant. Since there's no difference between the races, it doesn't matter whether any given poor person is black or white. Having all the poor people be black (or all the black people be poor) is not meaningfully different from the reverse, or an even distribution of wealth between the races, because the race of the people in question doesn't matter.

Well, that went well.

As to whether this single study demonstrates the existence of racism, you have rather plainly made clear it depends on how you define racism. You seem to think that racial discrimination motivated by animus is wrong and that racial discrimination not necessarily motivated by animus is okay (even if it harms minorities). You've yet to justify that distinction.
I try farther down but you won't help me.

You're effectively making two assertions. First, that racial discrimination based on animus is wrong, and second that racial discrimination not based on animus is wrong. I'm conceding the first point (mostly because I don't think discussing animus is terribly interesting). But the second point I'm asking for justification, and you're refusing even to discuss it.
Instead, you want to play Socratic mind-games.
Easily the greatest of the ancient philosophers. Thanks for the compliment.
Sorry, Socrates, but I'm not debating first principles.
But that's clearly where your mistake lies.

My goal, here, upon spotting your errant conclusion, was to take you back through your own reasoning until you found where you made the mistake. I think we've done that now. Here it is:
Deliberate discrimination against minorities that harms minorities is bad. Period. No need to support it.
There's a need to support everything. Only supporters of Perfectionism could consistently hold your positions.
Why is it not only possible but required for me to prove that, but it is "impossible" for you to prove the contrary?
Because my assertion is negative. Bertrand Russell: There is not a rhinocerous in the room.
Yes. Those other multiple studies which do show racism and you can't manipulate. They are darn inconvenient.
Not really. I'm not arguing that no one is ever racist. Some people are, and some studies can isolate that.
*sigh*

Again with the games.

As I've pointed out several times, you assume that people must be treated differently based on surface characteristics. Multiple times now you have refused to justify that assumption and have instead tried to change the subject.
Because I'm not making that assumption. I can't recall the last time I made such a sweeping prescriptive claim like "people must be treated differently based on surface characteristics". I'm saying that I don't see why there's anything necessarily wrong with doing that.

But you insist there is prima facie. Res ipsa loquitur. I cannot accept that.
And it is you who have made a claim that treating people differently based on skin color is not wrong. Playing Socrates merely avoids justifying that assertion.
What if I did try to justify that assertion (even though I don't think I made it)? Sometimes skin colour is a relevant characteristic - like in the medical example I presented earlier. I note you ignored that one.
I don't wish to play this game.

But if you do, let me help. Why is there ever something wrong with racial discrimination? Why is racial discrimination based on animus wrong?
Because then you're intentionally causing harm while providing no benefit to anyone. It's sadistic - causing harm for thesake of causing harm. That's evil behaviour.

Now, I do recognise that that relies on a definition of evil. But I'm making that definition fairly explicit, and I'm willing to discuss it. You haven't made your definition clear at all, so we can't actually know what we're discussing.
If racial discrimination based on animus is wrong, why is racial discrimination that is not necessarily based on animus not wrong (regardless of whether it is deliberate and/or harms minorities)?
I'm not saying it isn't wrong. But it is meanginfully different from the animus-based discrimination is that it provides measureable benefits to some people. Possibly even those against whom the discrimination is being levied. Those black buyers might get more efficient service from the dealers correctly identifying their relative levels of wealth. They certainly should, more often than not.
Nope. I see no need to defend my assertions. They speak for themselves.
There you go again. Res ipsa loquitur. Who actually thinks that's a credible point you just made?
Of course, if you want to play games where everything is completely and absolutely uncertain, it is impossible to have a meaningful dialogue.
Every position you hold you hold for a reason. But I think your set of positions is incoherent, so I'm trying to investigate the root causes of your positions. Uncertainty is a great tool for getting there.

One out of four is below the poverty line. "Poor", however, isn't an absolute measure. It's a relative measure, and since black people, on average, are poorer that that the white majority, then black people, as a group, are poor (relative to the majority). Any given black person is likely to be poor (relative to the majority).

I'm sorry I expected you to understand the meaning of the word.

Do you really expect anyone to buy this equivocation?

As amusing as it is, I am truly disappointed by your intellectual dishonesty.

You never once used the terms "poorer" or "poor (relative to the majority)." You said the any given black person is likely to be poor.

Yes, I understand the meaning of the word "poor" and the Oxford English Dictionary happens to agree with my understanding (relevant part quoted only, emphasis added):

A. adj.

1. a. Of a person or people: having few, or no, material possessions; lacking the means to procure the comforts or necessities of life, or to live at a standard considered comfortable or normal in society; needy, necessitous, indigent, destitute. Sometimes: spec. so destitute as to be dependent upon gifts or allowances for subsistence. Opposed to rich.

b. Of things, places, conditions, etc.: afflicted or characterized by poverty. Also: indicative of poverty, as by being worn or shabby.

I will note there are other definitions of the word (I'm not quoting the entire definition), but none of them are merely "having less than the majority," "having less relative to X," or some such thing. You would not describe a multi-millionaire as "poor" even though you could describe a multi-millionaire as poorer than Bill Gates. "Poorer" and "poor" are simply not the same term.

Admit. You got caught up in a racist and untrue assumption. I tried to point out to you that this assumption was erroneous, but you insisted it was a "fact" based on "hard data."


Good thing it isn't relevant.

You don't deny being treated as if you were poor based solely on your skin color could be harmful. Yet you insist that such racial treatment is not wrong.

Thanks for admitting that to you whether a action is wrong does not depend on whether it hurts people.

Great. Then racial inequality is completely unimportant. Since there's no difference between the races, it doesn't matter whether any given poor person is black or white. Having all the poor people be black (or all the black people be poor) is not meaningfully different from the reverse, or an even distribution of wealth between the races, because the race of the people in question doesn't matter.

Well, that went well.

Nice try, but you are clearly quibbling. Your conclusions simply do not follow from my statements.

People of all races should be treated equally all the time, but they are not -- that is unjust and unfair. There is nothing about white people that makes them more or less valuable than black people, but we live in a society that treats white people as more valuable -- again, that is unjust and unfair.

Do you really expect anyone to buy this equivocation?
Persuasiveness has never been my strong suit. Accuracy concerns me more.
As amusing as it is, I am truly disappointed by your intellectual dishonesty.
Because my refined point doesn't fit your preconceived notions about my position, you accuse me of dishonesty?
You never once used the terms "poorer" or "poor (relative to the majority)." You said the any given black person is likely to be poor.
Yes. Poor. It's a relative term.
Yes, I understand the meaning of the word "poor" and the Oxford English Dictionary happens to agree with my understanding
Oh, good. I prefer the OED over other dictionaries.
1. a. Of a person or people: having few, or no, material possessions; lacking the means to procure the comforts or necessities of life, or to live at a standard considered comfortable or normal in society; needy, necessitous, indigent, destitute. Sometimes: spec. so destitute as to be dependent upon gifts or allowances for subsistence. Opposed to rich.
You seem to be using an abridged OED. Mine reads (emboldening added):

I. 1. Having few, or no, material possessions ; wanting means to procure the comforts, or the necessaries, of life ; needy, indigent, destitute ; spec. (esp. in legal use) so destitute as to be dependent upon gifts or allowances for subsistence. In common use expressing varying degrees, from absolute want to straitened circumstances or limited means relatively to station, as 'a poor gentleman', 'a poor professional man, clergyman, scholar, clerk', etc. The opposite of rich, or wealthy.

Here, we're specifically talking about poor sportscard buyers. These people are in the market for the tools of a sometimes expensive hobby. In the group of sportscard buyers, they are poor.
Admit. You got caught up in a racist and untrue assumption. I tried to point out to you that this assumption was erroneous, but you insisted it was a "fact" based on "hard data."
No. I was applying the word literally, and you got caught up in connotation.
You don't deny being treated as if you were poor based solely on your skin color could be harmful. Yet you insist that such racial treatment is not wrong.

Thanks for admitting that to you whether a action is wrong does not depend on whether it hurts people.
It's not a sufficient condition. It may be a necessary condition (I'm not sure that it is, but I'm not closing that door yet).
Nice try, but you are clearly quibbling. Your conclusions simply do not follow from my statements.
Fine semantic distinctions are still distinctions, and they matter.
People of all races should be treated equally all the time, but they are not -- that is unjust and unfair.
This statement is flatly incompatible with your earlier assertion that "race doesn't matter".

Persuasiveness has never been my strong suit. Accuracy concerns me more.

Because my refined point doesn't fit your preconceived notions about my position, you accuse me of dishonesty?

Yes. Poor. It's a relative term.

Oh, good. I prefer the OED over other dictionaries.

You seem to be using an abridged OED. Mine reads (emboldening added):

I. 1. Having few, or no, material possessions ; wanting means to procure the comforts, or the necessaries, of life ; needy, indigent, destitute ; spec. (esp. in legal use) so destitute as to be dependent upon gifts or allowances for subsistence. In common use expressing varying degrees, from absolute want to straitened circumstances or limited means relatively to station, as 'a poor gentleman', 'a poor professional man, clergyman, scholar, clerk', etc. The opposite of rich, or wealthy.

Here, we're specifically talking about poor sportscard buyers. These people are in the market for the tools of a sometimes expensive hobby. In the group of sportscard buyers, they are poor.

No. I was applying the word literally, and you got caught up in connotation.

FYI, I was using the OED Online. It appears to differ slightly from the edition you are using. The definitions are similar enough for me to accept yours.

1. Are you really going to claim that evertime you said "a black person is likely poor" you meant "a black person is likely a poor sportscard buyer"? (If so, why didn't you say this the first time around?) Not all of our conversation has been limited to the group discussed in that one study. Your usage of the term in your posts flatly contradicts such a limited meaning. You are simply being dishonest.

2. You didn't use the term "as a poor ____" (gentleman, professional man, clergyman, scholar, clerk) in the way described by the OED. Thus, that usage doesn't apply to your posts.

It's not a sufficient condition. It may be a necessary condition (I'm not sure that it is, but I'm not closing that door yet).

*sigh*

You yourself defined evil as "intentionally causing harm while providing no benefit to anyone" or "causing harm for the sake of causing harm."

So it is relevant that treating people as poor based on their skin color is harmful. The only thing that might keep it from being evil is if you could show it caused offsetting benefit to someone.

(I'm not agreeing that your definition of evil is the only definition of wrongdoing. I'm just applying your own definition to your argument.)

Fine semantic distinctions are still distinctions, and they matter.

As I said, my statements do not support your conclusions. That isn't a matter of "fine semantic distinction." It is a matter of simple fact and logic.

This statement is flatly incompatible with your earlier assertion that "race doesn't matter".

No. It is not.

Race shouldn't matter. Race doesn't matter in the way you implied. Race, however, does -- unjustly and unfairly -- impact people in our society. You are merely playing games here and it is getting tiresome.

FYI, I was using the OED Online. It appears to differ slightly from the edition you are using. The definitions are similar enough for me to accept yours.

1. Are you really going to claim that evertime you said "a black person is likely poor" you meant "a black person is likely a poor sportscard buyer"? (If so, why didn't you say this the first time around?) Not all of our conversation has been limited to the group discussed in that one study. Your usage of the term in your posts flatly contradicts such a limited meaning. You are simply being dishonest.

2. You didn't use the term "as a poor ____" (gentleman, professional man, clergyman, scholar, clerk) in the way described by the OED. Thus, that usage doesn't apply to your posts.
Poor, like big, or expensive, or bright, or slow, is a relative term. I didn't need to spell that out each time.

Or does "big" need to be "bigger" to be a relative term? Is there some objective standard of "bright" of which I'm unaware? The words all follow the same pattern - they describe a characteristic that is meaningless without a frame of reference. There is no meaningful difference in form between "poor" and "fast". To both words, a reasonable response would be "Compared to what?"
*sigh*

You yourself defined evil as "intentionally causing harm while providing no benefit to anyone" or "causing harm for the sake of causing harm."

So it is relevant that treating people as poor based on their skin color is harmful. The only thing that might keep it from being evil is if you could show it caused offsetting benefit to someone.
We need to be careful about how we define benefit, here. No one is going to engage in behaviour they don't think benefits them, because they have free will and thus only do things they want to do.

If I cause harm simply because I want to or I enjoy it, I'm not going to count that good feeling I get from doing it as a benefit because that would render my definition of evil meaningless. I need some objective or material benefit to avoid the evil descriptor.

So, if I'm treating buyers differently based on race, it's either to treat them more efficiently (by being right about their means) or to get a better deal for me. Or even both.

Without evidence of animus, claiming that the sportscard dealers were not seeking benefits is either to accuse them unduly of animus, or to accuse them of being irrational.
(I'm not agreeing that your definition of evil is the only definition of wrongdoing. I'm just applying your own definition to your argument.)
It's a good idea. I did that to you, earlier.
No. It is not.

Race shouldn't matter.
That's very different from "race doesn't matter". But even the statement "race shouldn't matter" might put a kink in your normative claims about how one should treat people of various races.
Race doesn't matter in the way you implied.
I don't imply. I don't think I can.

You're effectively making two assertions. First, that racial discrimination based on animus is wrong, and second that racial discrimination not based on animus is wrong. I'm conceding the first point (mostly because I don't think discussing animus is terribly interesting). But the second point I'm asking for justification, and you're refusing even to discuss it.

Easily the greatest of the ancient philosophers. Thanks for the compliment.

Meh.

What is "wrong"? What is "negative"? What is "harmful"? What is "animus"? Why is "animus" wrong?

It is easy to play at Socrates and merely ask questions rather than engage in dialogue. It's no compliment to say that someone is simply playing Socratic mind-games.

BTW, I'm glad you have abandoned your bizarre claim that that one study proved the entire "racial equality movement" was intellectually dishonest.

But that's clearly where your mistake lies.

My goal, here, upon spotting your errant conclusion, was to take you back through your own reasoning until you found where you made the mistake. I think we've done that now. Here it is:
Deliberate discrimination against minorities that harms minorities is bad. Period. No need to support it.

There's a need to support everything. Only supporters of Perfectionism could consistently hold your positions.

Again, we can play games.

But look again at my statement: (1) deliberate discrimination against minorities that (2) harms minorities is bad.

Why is it bad? Among other things it is "deliberate discrimination" AND it "harms minorities."

Under your own definition of "evil," such discrimination is evil unless offset by a benefit to someone. I'm simply not buying the assertion that so long as discrimination benefits the discriminator it isn't wrong.

Because my assertion is negative. Bertrand Russell: There is not a rhinocerous in the room.

Your assertion is only negative when you put it in the form of a negative. You haven't always done that, nor is your position necessarily negative. You just want to pretend it is because that may relieve you from justifying your assertions.

Not really. I'm not arguing that no one is ever racist. Some people are, and some studies can isolate that.

Good. Glad you will admit that much. Earlier you were making sweeping claims that racial discrimination was based on "hard data."

Because I'm not making that assumption. I can't recall the last time I made such a sweeping prescriptive claim like "people must be treated differently based on surface characteristics". I'm saying that I don't see why there's anything necessarily wrong with doing that.

Do I really have to go back through the thread to were you were insisting a salesperson had to treat people differently based on surface characteristics?

What if I did try to justify that assertion (even though I don't think I made it)? Sometimes skin colour is a relevant characteristic - like in the medical example I presented earlier. I note you ignored that one.

You have made that assertion and you should try to justify it rather than pretending you are merely exploring a negative position.

I note that the treatment of blacks with sometimes different medication is (a) not based on skin color alone and, more importantly, (b) does not fit my definition of discrimination that harms minorities.

Because then you're intentionally causing harm while providing no benefit to anyone. It's sadistic - causing harm for thesake of causing harm. That's evil behaviour.

Now, I do recognise that that relies on a definition of evil. But I'm making that definition fairly explicit, and I'm willing to discuss it. You haven't made your definition clear at all, so we can't actually know what we're discussing.

Yes. I'm not defining terms like "wrong" and "evil" because that will take us down a long and meaningless side-track.

Reasonable adults can have a conversation in which the term "wrong" is not expressly defined and yet has meaning.

I'm not saying it isn't wrong. But it is meanginfully different from the animus-based discrimination is that it provides measureable benefits to some people. Possibly even those against whom the discrimination is being levied. Those black buyers might get more efficient service from the dealers correctly identifying their relative levels of wealth. They certainly should, more often than not.

I like how you switch back and forth between (a) talking about that one study and only that one study and (b) talking about society as a whole.

Even in the study you cite, there is no evidence that black sports card buyers or dealers benefited from the statistical discrimination. You are simply making that up.

And, as I have pointed out several times, there are limitations to the study you rely on. It is a single study with limitations and flaws.

But, let's take your position head-on:

You claim that animus-based discrimination is meaningfully different from statistical discrimination because it causes no measurable benefits to anyone. Really? Can you prove that just because discrimination is based on animus, it has no benefit to the discriminator?

Can you prove that statistical discrimination provides a measurable benefit that is greater than the measurable harm it may cause? If it causes more harm than benefit, why isn't it wrong?


There you go again. Res ipsa loquitur. Who actually thinks that's a credible point you just made?

Every position you hold you hold for a reason. But I think your set of positions is incoherent, so I'm trying to investigate the root causes of your positions. Uncertainty is a great tool for getting there.

Again, you are relying on a debating tool rather than an intelligent discussion.

Answer the "uncertainty" that I have raised above.

Poor, like big, or expensive, or bright, or slow, is a relative term. I didn't need to spell that out each time.

Or does "big" need to be "bigger" to be a relative term? Is there some objective standard of "bright" of which I'm unaware? The words all follow the same pattern - they describe a characteristic that is meaningless without a frame of reference. There is no meaningful difference in form between "poor" and "fast". To both words, a reasonable response would be "Compared to what?"

"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'" -- Through the Looking Glass.

As I pointed out, you never "spell[ed] out" that you were using the term poor to mean merely relatively poor sportscard buyers. To the contrary, you used the term poor outside the context of meaning merely relatively poor sportscard buyers.

Nor does your rant about relative terms mean anything. Words have context. The context in which you used the term poor does not fit with what you now insist you meant by the term.

And for those listening at home, care to point out where, even in the context of the study regarding sportscard buyers, there is any evidence that the minority buyers were poorer than the other buyers? Good luck. You won't find it. There went that excuse.

Obviously you are just not going to admit your error here, so there is no point belaboring it.

We need to be careful about how we define benefit, here. No one is going to engage in behaviour they don't think benefits them, because they have free will and thus only do things they want to do.

If I cause harm simply because I want to or I enjoy it, I'm not going to count that good feeling I get from doing it as a benefit because that would render my definition of evil meaningless. I need some objective or material benefit to avoid the evil descriptor.

Ah, backing away from our definition of evil already. See how easy it is to make positive claims seem erroneous?

So, if I'm treating buyers differently based on race, it's either to treat them more efficiently (by being right about their means) or to get a better deal for me. Or even both.

Without evidence of animus, claiming that the sportscard dealers were not seeking benefits is either to accuse them unduly of animus, or to accuse them of being irrational.

Are you talking about the study or are you talking about the rest of society?

You can make these very limited claims about the particular sportscard venue in which the study occurred, but even there you are stretching the facts to fit your construct. From Page 14 of the study:
Result 3: Among experienced nondealer buyers, final offers are similar across minorities and majorities, but minorities commit greater temporal resources to arrive at the final offer.

So, contrary to your assertion, for experienced minority nondealer buyers the sportscard transactions were actually less efficient. This supports my theory that the statistical discrimination harms the minority participants.


That's very different from "race doesn't matter".

Not in context, it isn't.

But even the statement "race shouldn't matter" might put a kink in your normative claims about how one should treat people of various races.

No it doesn't. But feel free to try to explain why it does.

I don't imply. I don't think I can.
And just to head off any objection to that remark:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=481918

I already started that discussion once.

Ah, backing away from our definition of evil already.
I'm only backing away if you assigned some sort of implicit definition of the word benefit in my previous description of evil, and am now amending it.

But, of course, I didn't do that.

I'll get to the rest of this tomorrow.

<snip>

Making any prediction about the future is to act upon an assumption. It's just that some assumptions are good assumptions and others are not.
The bolded sentence is the key to the whole issue. You cannot know if an asumption is good or not unless you test it, and once you test it, you start to shift it away from "assumption" and toward "fact." The more factual basis for an assumption -- i.e. if there is more fact than speculation behind it -- the better the assumption is.

I put it to you that I have never seen an argument claiming to prove racist theories that actually did any such thing. Racist beliefs have no foundation in fact and, therefore, they make very poor assumptions upon which to base one's choices and actions in life.

You're an anecdote. You are not representative of the broader population.

Anecdotal evidence shouldn't persuade anyone of anything.

So far, no one in this thread has provided any studies or other evidence showing any data that would suggest that, indeed, "everyone is a little bit racist." All the arguments here have been personal opinions, and all the back up has been anecdotal.

ALL???

Go back and read mine.

Sorry, when I read your posts, they did not strike me as supporting the OP premise.

However, I believe that most people prefer the company of their own religious/ethnic group.What makes you believe thus?

No, most people are not racists. It is a very old fashioned belief that one race is superior to another.
However, I believe that most people prefer the company of their own religious/ethnic group.

However, I believe that most people prefer the company of their own religious/ethnic group.

Sounds rather boring to me.

Heilegenberg's right. May seem boring but that's the way it is. Check out your local university's international students. Mainly they party with their countrymen. More in common.

So far, no one in this thread has provided any studies or other evidence showing any data that would suggest that, indeed, "everyone is a little bit racist." All the arguments here have been personal opinions, and all the back up has been anecdotal.

Allow me then. Most people are indeed racist, at least on a subconscious level:

Psychological studies:


....
Something like 79 or 80 percent of white Americans who take the test, show a preference for white over black.
....
Of the African-Americans the professor has tested, 42 percent show a preference for white. It’s a large number—especially when you consider that only 17 percent of whites show a preference for blacks.
....
In fact, this experiment has passed scientific scrutiny and the results of the professor’s experiments have been published in leading psychological journals. This test has now become even more widely accepted and is available in 19 other countries and 16 different languages.


Direct Polls:

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/2936/racismma5.jpg

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_113_en.pdf

And:


Hidden race bias 'drains brain'

The effort of trying not to appear racist can be mentally draining - even for people who are not consciously prejudiced, say scientists.

A team from Dartmouth College in the US found white people performed less well on mental tasks after an interaction with a black person.

They suggest the test subjects expended mental energy - often subconsciously - trying to control racial bias.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3268315.stm

These have multiple consequences, such as:


PEOPLE ARE POOR AT CROSS-RACE FACIAL RECOGNITION BECAUSE THEY CONCENTRATE ON RACIAL FEATURES RATHER THAN INDIVIDUAL FEATURES, ACCORDING TO NEW STUDY
....

http://www.apa.org/releases/facerecog.html

I think the word 'racist' is used to describe many behavioral attributes that are innate to humans, and simply instinct. Hence, the word falls increasingly on deaf ears to many.

Allow me then. Most people are indeed racist, at least on a subconscious level:

Psychological studies:



Direct Polls:

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/2936/racismma5.jpg

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_113_en.pdf

And:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3268315.stm

These have multiple consequences, such as:


http://www.apa.org/releases/facerecog.html
Thank you for this data. However, the studies you show indicate that MANY people are a little bit racist. The proposed premise is that EVERYONE is a little bit racist. They are not the same thing, and that is integral to my point.

I put it to you and to the thread in general that the statement "everyone is a little bit racist" is absurd on its face. As a postive assertion, it cannot be proven, and conversely, the opposite assertion by individuals that they, themselves, are NOT racist cannot be disproven. In this I agree with the OP poster's opinion about it.

In fact, even the data you presented in response to my remark can be used to challenge the assertion that "everyone is a little bit racist" because they clearly show a segment of the human population expressing no racism.

Now to the broader question of why some people try to defend such a ridiculous premise, my personal opinion about that is that they are racists attempting to lessen the pejorative sting of the label "racist" by somehow attributing it to everyone and trying to apply it to even the most innocuous personal preferences or tastes. In such arguments, if a person prefers the Alps over Africa for ski vacations, they could be labeled racist. Such arguments are as ridiculous as the premise upon which they are based.

The fact is that everyone is a little bit prejudiced, to the extent that everyone is capable of forming personal likes and dislikes and that some of those can be quite strong. However, racism is a specific set of beliefs and NOT everyone shares them, not even a little, and I know of no successful argument that says otherwise.

I think the word 'racist' is used to describe many behavioral attributes that are innate to humans, and simply instinct. Hence, the word falls increasingly on deaf ears to many.

Then let's clarify it. From Merriam-Webster (emphasis added):

Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

Thus I say that racism is a specific set of beliefs. It is not a behavioral attribute of human beings. It has been my experience that people who muddy up the word to be so over-broad are people who have a social and/or political agenda to promote. Either they are racists trying to deflect criticism for their beliefs, or they are extremist anti-racism activists trying to gain a higher profile for their cause/themselves (and running the risk of doing more harm than good, in my opinion).

I see this line from time to time on the forum, and it's always bugged me. Seems like the sort of thing one says when being racist, in order to justify it.

But on what basis is it true? How can you possibly assert that I, my buddy, my mother - everyone in the fucking world - prejudges people based on race? Universal telepathy or what?

I mean isn't it a bit like saying, "everyone is a little bit homicidal?" Or "everyone's a little bit of a child-fucker?" Sure, you might look at statistics and point out that very few people are statistically violent criminals or paedophiles. But aha, I can just say you WANT to, because I somehow know your mind! You're all a little bit genocidal mass murdering dictators!

This is just sort of a rant, but I'm interested to hear other people's arguments on it.

I don't care for language used here... speaking your mind is one thing. Doing it in front of how many minors? Bad role model here.:headbang:

To the issue... racists... I belong to the human race. If you can't live with that... go live by yourself and preach. I have no tolerance for people whom only care about themselves and no one else. If we can't live together and work towards the common good... there is a BIG problem. The common good would be (short list, no order) no poverty, health care for all, no hunger, clean environment, preserving your past.:fluffle:

I don't care for language used here... speaking your mind is one thing. Doing it in front of how many minors? Bad role model here.:headbang:

*snickers uncharitably*

No, most people are not racists. It is a very old fashioned belief that one race is superior to another.
However, I believe that most people prefer the company of their own religious/ethnic group.
I'm a New Yorker. I like to hear New York accents. I like to talk with other New Yorkers about our common experiences of life in New York City. I like the way things are done -- or at least, used to be done -- in New York City.

But I do not think New Yorkers are better people because they are from New York. I know perfectly well that a New Yorker is just as likely to be a bastard as anyone else. I do not segregate myself from non-New Yorkers, seeking out only the company of other New Yorkers. I live in Boston and know hardly any New Yorkers in this town. I am not lonely.

Ethnically, I am Italian (both north and south), German, Russian, and Alsation/French. If I associated only with my own ethnic group, I'd be hanging out at the UN all the time.

As to my religious group, it's an army of one. I'm the only one of "my kind" that I know, so there goes that support group.

Heilegenberg's right. May seem boring but that's the way it is. Check out your local university's international students. Mainly they party with their countrymen. More in common.

And of course, merely seeking the comforting company of people who can speak your language and who have personal experiences in common with you, when you are away from your family and friends in a strange place has nothing to do with it. It's racism --EDIT: correction: it's prejudice. :rolleyes:

My point in responding to both of you is that we can speculate all we like about broad motivations for certain kinds of common behaviors, but when we apply those premises to real life examples, we quickly see that there are so many different sets of circumstances, so many differences in personal motivation, and so many nuances of individual behavior, that such generalizations become practically useless.

<snip>
preserving your past.
What does this mean? Just curious. If it's way off topic, skip it.

I don't care for language used here... speaking your mind is one thing. Doing it in front of how many minors? Bad role model here.:headbang:
I'm sure minors will recover from reading the word fuck. :rolleyes:

To the issue... racists... I belong to the human race. If you can't live with that... go live by yourself and preach. I have no tolerance for people whom only care about themselves and no one else. If we can't live together and work towards the common good... there is a BIG problem. The common good would be (short list, no order) no poverty, health care for all, no hunger, clean environment, preserving your past.:fluffle:

Preserving your past? Wuh?

Preserving your past.:eek:

Off topic sort of...and not really.... that reference that I didn't want to go into too much is from this (I plagiarize sometimes) to better explain it -

===

Several years ago, a national historic preservation organization held its annual conference in a major Midwest city. At the plenary session, several speakers came to the podium and declared, "I am a preservationist." As the speakers followed one another, the session began to resemble a spiritual revival where true believers declared their faith and allegiance to an over-arching value, in this case, historic preservation. By the end of the session, the audience acknowledged that anyone who believed in the preservation of historic places and other aspects of cultural heritage could wear the "preservationist" label.

What is a preservationist? At heart, nearly every human is a "preservationist." Everyone works to retain a sense of history, tradition, and memory of one's family history, one's community heritage, and national identity. All of us are attracted to historic places throughout our nation and in countries around the world. (How many of us would travel to places that have "no history" and no sense of place?) All of us thrill when we hear the national anthem that recalls the struggles of early nationhood. All of us cherish memories of visits to the homes of relatives where historic memorabilia was examined and discussed. All of us share in the shame of the nation's history of slavery, the relocation of Japanese Americans during World War II, and anti-Chinese riots. All of us are "preservationists."

Some preservation efforts are highly personal journeys through the past where individual and family landmarks and memory are paramount. Some individuals seek out historic residences as a matter of personal choice and psychic comfort. Other endeavors are community-oriented, where individuals and groups organize to maintain or enhance the livability of neighborhoods and enclaves. Still other tasks are aimed at national icons and rituals that bind us together in nationhood.

Many of the preservation pioneers of the pre-1960s era represented the social and intellectual elite of American society, or at least, that is how they are portrayed. They were the ones who could afford to restore historic buildings and influence the course of real estate development projects. Once government regulatory and incentive programs multiplied in the last quarter of the 20th century, preservation became less dependent on monied interests. Preservation efforts became "democratized." Not only could anyone become involved in preservation work, the range of what was considered "historic" also grew exponentially, from buildings and American antiquity to the cultural practices of living societies and other intangible expressions of culture. Within the past decade, the preservation establishment discovered that many cultural groups have been preserving their cultural heritage for a long time—centuries sometimes—but their efforts had not been folded into the national effort.

Why doesn't this broad interpretation of "preservationist" apply to preservation activities that are played out in countless cities, towns, and rural areas throughout the country? Too often, the press regards preservationists as an elite band of architectural connoisseurs who guard the nation's heritage from unknowing property owners and real estate developers. Thus, breeding, degreed-education, and rarified backgrounds may appear to be requirements for membership in a selective fraternity of preservationists. Many preservationists perpetuate this image by insisting that preservation efforts should be directed at "pretty buildings," which only they can define.

In actuality, preservation is potentially one of the broadest-based of all citizen-driven "movements." It contains a wide spectrum of professional expertise and experience and citizen activism. Some preservationists work in the field full-time, as historical architects, historians, archeologists, ethnographers, and historic landscape architects. Other preservationists work as lawyers, community planners, and legislators, whose work may strengthen preservation laws and policies.

The backbone of preservation was and remains the many citizen activists and property owners, who on a daily basis work to ensure the stability of their communities and maintain their historic properties. The preamble to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 underscored the central role of citizens and property owners in preservation. This legislation recognized that the major burdens of historic preservation had been borne by private agencies and individuals and that both "should continue to play a vital role." The purpose of government preservation programs was to "give maximum encouragement to agencies and individuals undertaking preservation by private means."

Thus, most preservationists are the ones who lead community associations, write neighborhood newsletters, attend planning and zoning commission meetings, join in community improvement activities, maintain their houses and commercial buildings, and vote for preservation-supporting politicians. They may not be educated in the nuances of the Colonial Revival architectural style, but they are the ones who support government preservation-assistance programs and pay the taxes that fund the salaries of the full-time preservation professionals. They are the ones who support legislation that expands the safety net for irreplaceable heritage.

Preservationists come in all ethnicities, orientations, and ages. They may be drawn to the "movement" through a love of Victorian residences, steam power, Art Deco design, Gothic churches, cast iron architecture, retro-1950s furniture, or regional folklore. They may own and live in a historic house. They may work in a historic commercial enclave. However they arrive at the preservation destination makes little difference. They share a common appreciation for and participate in the preservation of the nation's past.

The next time that your friends or neighbors ask about becoming "preservationists," welcome them. Their inclusion will help expand the political base for future preservation successes. This broad base must exist in order for preservation to become truly an essential building block for the nation of the future. The rising generation of national leaders will want to see that preservation is rich in diversity, is shaped by a myriad of views about the past, and is supported by the multicultural nation. Let us envision the day when all Americans will join hands and each will say, "I am a preservationist."



Antoinette J. Lee is a preservationist who lives in Arlington, Virginia.

===

Hence preserving your past. The tie with racistism is, IMHO, racistist don't seem to care that we all come from the same place. Which makes them seperatists. Which shows a lack of perserving your past (a bit of a stretch). :mp5:

There is more info on preserving your past that would fit better in another topic than here.:(

Still awake?:rolleyes:

Peace :cool:

Preserving your past.:eek:

Off topic sort of...and not really.... that reference that I didn't want to go into too much is from this (I plagiarize sometimes) to better explain it -

===

Several years ago, a national historic preservation organization held its annual conference in a major Midwest city. <snip for length>

Peace :cool:
Oohhhh, I see. Cool. Yeah, me too. I try not to be morbid about it, reasoning that time grinds all to dust, but yeah I'm pretty much a preservationist as well, in that sense.

I agree with the Dalai Lama whose response to the Taliban destroying those ancient Buddhist statues in Afghanistan was a big shrug and a "They're only objects. It might have been smarter to use them for tourism, but oh, well, so what?" But it also does really bother me a lot that those statues were destroyed, even though what is done to people is far more important than what is done to things. If it came down to it, I would destroy every monument on the planet to save one life, but if I could save the life and keep the history, I would choose that way first.

Back to topic. :)

I'm sure minors will recover from reading the word fuck. :rolleyes:


It burns! It freezes!

You have warped mah fragile little mind!


Preserving your past? Wuh?

Sounds suspiciously like the start of some 'culture in stasis' agenda...

What is a preservationist? At heart, nearly every human is a "preservationist." Everyone works to retain a sense of history, tradition, and memory of one's family history, one's community heritage, and national identity.


No they don't.


All of us are attracted to historic places throughout our nation and in countries around the world. (How many of us would travel to places that have "no history" and no sense of place?)


Lots of people would travel to places that have 'no history'... if the venue/area was attractive in some way. If the Grand Canyon suddenly appeared tomorrow (and thus, had no history) people would still go to see it. Infact - it's very LACK of history would bring people running.

As for nebulous terminology like 'no sense of place', it's meaningless.


All of us thrill when we hear the national anthem that recalls the struggles of early nationhood.


No we don't. I, for one, sure as hell don't.


All of us cherish memories of visits to the homes of relatives where historic memorabilia was examined and discussed.


No we don't.


All of us share in the shame of the nation's history of slavery, the relocation of Japanese Americans during World War II, and anti-Chinese riots.


No, we really don't.


All of us are "preservationists."


Based on the qualifiers listed? No - we aren't.

I went to the website you drew your essay from, (I assume), the "Friends of 1800". They seem dedicated to preserving anything old. Indeed - one of their talking points starts: "Despite being the oldest remaining building on its block...". Who cares? Simply being old is not a badge of honour or something worth preserving. Maybe if we were talking about a structure with some greater historical or aesthetic significance, I might agree... but we have a whole load of old ugly buildings. We can't do without mothballing EVERY structure we build that manages to last a generation.

And anything that talks about 'preserving' something as nebulous as 'culture' strikes me as suspect anyway. 'Culture' is not static. It evolves. I certainly see no benfit in deliberately retarding it's growth. Record it by all means. Allow groups that want to adhere to a static culture to do so. But do not isolate and exempt others from your venue or locale to do so.

Allow me then. Most people are indeed racist, at least on a subconscious level:

Har. "Something like 79 or 80 percent of white Americans who take the test."

79 or 80 isn't 100, is it? My math might be off. I'm sure you can help.

No they don't.



Lots of people would travel to places that have 'no history'... if the venue/area was attractive in some way. If the Grand Canyon suddenly appeared tomorrow (and thus, had no history) people would still go to see it. Infact - it's very LACK of history would bring people running.

As for nebulous terminology like 'no sense of place', it's meaningless.



No we don't. I, for one, sure as hell don't.



No we don't.



No, we really don't.



Based on the qualifiers listed? No - we aren't.

I went to the website you drew your essay from, (I assume), the "Friends of 1800". They seem dedicated to preserving anything old. Indeed - one of their talking points starts: "Despite being the oldest remaining building on its block...". Who cares? Simply being old is not a badge of honour or something worth preserving. Maybe if we were talking about a structure with some greater historical or aesthetic significance, I might agree... but we have a whole load of old ugly buildings. We can't do without mothballing EVERY structure we build that manages to last a generation.

And anything that talks about 'preserving' something as nebulous as 'culture' strikes me as suspect anyway. 'Culture' is not static. It evolves. I certainly see no benfit in deliberately retarding it's growth. Record it by all means. Allow groups that want to adhere to a static culture to do so. But do not isolate and exempt others from your venue or locale to do so.
Oh, I don't know about that. I think it is important to look at the motives of the speaker, rather than just say "preservation" is bad. Preservationism is really a quite limited thing and, if it is understood properly, to dismiss it just because someone tries to misuse it, would be to throw the baby out with the bathwater, imo.

I read that article as being written in the usual tone of people part of whose jobs is to raise money from liberal arts academics -- you know, museum people. They say romanticized shit like that all the time, but it means nothing. Mere window dressing, in Eleanor Roosevelt tradition. The bottom line is to get a bunch of rich history dilletants to open up their checkbooks by dazzling them with the starry-eyed nonsense they remember from when they wanted a Red Rider BB gun for Christmas.

I happen to support efforts to preserve material history -- architecture, documents, cultural artifacts -- very much. I think it is vital to understand where and what we used to be in order to understand where and what we are now and what we might like to do next. Preserving the physical trappings of a culture's past in no way necessarily implies a desire to stifle present or future change.

For instance, my apartment is in a house that is on the Somerville, MA, historic register. This is a major pain for my landlady, who has to get special permits for every repair to the exterior, but considering the history of the neighborhood, the past changes it has gone through (mostly negative) and the current changes it is going through (potentially positive), I think it is important to keep reminders of what this place is, how it got this way, and why it is important to future communities. In this particular case, it is important because the problematical relationship of my neighborhood to the City and State at large is still being played out. The history of who used to live there does matter to those who are moving in now. To get back to topic, I would point out that this neighborhood, like much of metro Boston, is changing from primarily white to primarily black and hispanic. That change is neither postive nor negative, in my opinion, but how the City and State treat the area could go either way. Traditionally, this area was a working class district, and was treated very poorly by the City and State due to class-based discrimination. Now, will we allow them to continue to abuse this area (first they slammed highways through it, now they are letting those highways deteriorate dangerously), either because the new residents are not rich enough or not white enough? EDIT: In other words, the neighborhood is the way it is because of discrimination. Eliminating the signs and proofs of that past discrimination and its effects, by destroying the old buildings that show the progression of the area from what it was to what it is, would deny current residents the proofs they may need of a past pattern of discrimination as well as evidence of the falsity of discriminatory tales told about this neighborhood.

Another example would be the city of Prague, Czech Republic. Almost the entire place is a UNESCO World Heritage site, and the city government has similar problems as my landlady. But that doesn't stop the city from putting in new structures and repurposing ancient ones, even as they work hard to preserve them in their original structural condition as much as possible. I agree with the folks in Prague and at UNESCO that the world would lose something very valuable to the education of future generations if Prague were to be entirely done over by Donald Trump, in his style.

By the way, historic preservation in Prague does not stop Prague from being an open city, an international, multicultural city in which people of all races, religions and ethnicities live and work freely. And by the way, Prague has been such an open, international, multicultural city for nigh on 700 or more years. So cultural preservation, in and of itself, does not imply a desire to exclude others or certain groups from a place or society. It is my opinon that when racists and/or xenophobes cite "cultural preservation" in support of their agendas, they are just lying. All they are doing is trying to keep swarthy people from moving into their cul de sac. They themselves are doing nothing to preserve any actual cultural heritage.

Now, that all said, if an earthquake were to swallow Prague tomorrow, I'd be like, "Oh, well, them's the breaks. Is Donald Trump busy?"

Oh, I don't know about that. I think it is important to look at the motives of the speaker, rather than just say "preservation" is bad. Preservationism is really a quite limited thing and, if it is understood properly, to dismiss it just because someone tries to misuse it, would be to throw the baby out with the bathwater, imo.

I read that article as being written in the usual tone of people part of whose jobs is to raise money from liberal arts academics -- you know, museum people. They say romanticized shit like that all the time, but it means nothing. Mere window dressing, in Eleanor Roosevelt tradition. The bottom line is to get a bunch of rich history dilletants to open up their checkbooks by dazzling them with the starry-eyed nonsense they remember from when they wanted a Red Rider BB gun for Christmas.

I happen to support efforts to preserve material history -- architecture, documents, cultural artifacts -- very much. I think it is vital to understand where and what we used to be in order to understand where and what we are now and what we might like to do next. Preserving the physical trappings of a culture's past in no way necessarily implies a desire to stifle present or future change.

For instance, my apartment is in a house that is on the Somerville, MA, historic register. This is a major pain for my landlady, who has to get special permits for every repair to the exterior, but considering the history of the neighborhood, the past changes it has gone through (mostly negative) and the current changes it is going through (potentially positive), I think it is important to keep reminders of what this place is, how it got this way, and why it is important to future communities. In this particular case, it is important because the problematical relationship of my neighborhood to the City and State at large is still being played out. The history of who used to live there does matter to those who are moving in now. To get back to topic, I would point out that this neighborhood, like much of metro Boston, is changing from primarily white to primarily black and hispanic. That change is neither postive nor negative, in my opinion, but how the City and State treat the area could go either way. Traditionally, this area was a working class district, and was treated very poorly by the City and State due to class-based discrimination. Now, will we allow them to continue to abuse this area (first they slammed highways through it, now they are letting those highways deteriorate dangerously), either because the new residents are not rich enough or not white enough? EDIT: In other words, the neighborhood is the way it is because of discrimination. Eliminating the signs and proofs of that past discrimination and its effects, by destroying the old buildings that show the progression of the area from what it was to what it is, would deny current residents the proofs they may need of a past pattern of discrimination as well as evidence of the falsity of discriminatory tales told about this neighborhood.

Another example would be the city of Prague, Czech Republic. Almost the entire place is a UNESCO World Heritage site, and the city government has similar problems as my landlady. But that doesn't stop the city from putting in new structures and repurposing ancient ones, even as they work hard to preserve them in their original structural condition as much as possible. I agree with the folks in Prague and at UNESCO that the world would lose something very valuable to the education of future generations if Prague were to be entirely done over by Donald Trump, in his style.

By the way, historic preservation in Prague does not stop Prague from being an open city, an international, multicultural city in which people of all races, religions and ethnicities live and work freely. And by the way, Prague has been such an open, international, multicultural city for nigh on 700 or more years. So cultural preservation, in and of itself, does not imply a desire to exclude others or certain groups from a place or society. It is my opinon that when racists and/or xenophobes cite "cultural preservation" in support of their agendas, they are just lying. All they are doing is trying to keep swarthy people from moving into their cul de sac. They themselves are doing nothing to preserve any actual cultural heritage.

Now, that all said, if an earthquake were to swallow Prague tomorrow, I'd be like, "Oh, well, them's the breaks. Is Donald Trump busy?"

I think we basically agree. Preserving a city like Prague (or Tbilisi) in toto is preserving something important, something significant. I can see a good argument for maintaining something significant - Cambridge (the 'real' one, in England) has a city centre which is very strictly controlled... (and there is nothing quite like a McDonalds restaurant with oak front and 'golden arches' that are really golden), but with (arguably) good reason.

On the other hand, the town where I work, in which they are funnelling hundreds of thousands of dollars into 'restoring' the old courthouse, because it's 'almost a hundred years old'... not so much. Especially when the town is not buying essential infrastructure because it is basically bankrupt. Maybe if the courthouse was significant? If something really important had happened there?

I don't know... I find this idea of preserving a house just because it's old kind of bizarre - especially when age is ALL it has going for it. Important past? Significant architecture? Maybe... but when it's just the same as 15,000 other houses in other places?

Thank you for this data. However, the studies you show indicate that MANY people are a little bit racist. The proposed premise is that EVERYONE is a little bit racist. They are not the same thing, and that is integral to my point.


The studies show that MOST people are racist and that was my conclusion.


I put it to you and to the thread in general that the statement "everyone is a little bit racist" is absurd on its face.


I agree. And some people are racist on behalf of races other than their own, such as African Americans showing preferences for White Americans.


As a postive assertion, it cannot be proven, and conversely, the opposite assertion by individuals that they, themselves, are NOT racist cannot be disproven. In this I agree with the OP poster's opinion about it.


Proving and disproving are big words. However, there are some data that may suggest that some people arent racist, ie hidden bias studies.



In fact, even the data you presented in response to my remark can be used to challenge the assertion that "everyone is a little bit racist" because they clearly show a segment of the human population expressing no racism.

Now to the broader question of why some people try to defend such a ridiculous premise, my personal opinion about that is that they are racists attempting to lessen the pejorative sting of the label "racist" by somehow attributing it to everyone and trying to apply it to even the most innocuous personal preferences or tastes. In such arguments, if a person prefers the Alps over Africa for ski vacations, they could be labeled racist. Such arguments are as ridiculous as the premise upon which they are based.....


This isnt just done by racists tho. Some people, especially on the left side of the political spectrum also widen the meaning of racism. Eg: http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2007/09/the_hidden_impact_of_political.html

Har. "Something like 79 or 80 percent of white Americans who take the test."

79 or 80 isn't 100, is it? My math might be off. I'm sure you can help.

You need my help in understanding most =/= all ?

The studies show that MOST people are racist and that was my conclusion.



I agree. And some people are racist on behalf of races other than their own, such as African Americans showing preferences for White Americans.



Proving and disproving are big words. However, there are some data that may suggest that some people arent racist, ie hidden bias studies.




This isnt just done by racists tho. Some people, especially on the left side of the political spectrum also widen the meaning of racism. Eg: http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2007/09/the_hidden_impact_of_political.html
Adorable. I love the way you ignored more than 50% of the words in my post in order to simply repeat your original statement and pretend that it is a response to me.

Once more, just for the laughs:

1) As I said in my post to you, most =/= everyone (as you yourself agree in another post; see, I actually read them). Since the proposed premise is everyone, your most argument is irrelevant -- unless of course you are trying to disprove the proposed premise, which your studies do very nicely, thanks. So, since the topic is 'is everyone a little bit racist," no one really cares whether you think most people are."

2) Making up speculations about data that might exist even though they are not in the studies and then labeling those speculations as evidence of racism does not make a good argument. Neither does labeling as "hidden bias" in the study any results or lack of results that in one way or another fail to support your preferred assertions.

3) No shit, Sherlock. You know where you also heard that bit of info from, the one about non-racists misusing the term racism? You heard it from me. I just finished saying that. The fact that you didn't know that indicates that you did not read my posts.

I really do wish people would stop wasting other people's time. If you are not going to respond to what I actually say, then don't quote my posts. And also, if you are going to make an argument with someone, or attack someone's argument, you should try to figure out what their argument is. Read more than one their posts.

I think we basically agree. Preserving a city like Prague (or Tbilisi) in toto is preserving something important, something significant. I can see a good argument for maintaining something significant - Cambridge (the 'real' one, in England) has a city centre which is very strictly controlled... (and there is nothing quite like a McDonalds restaurant with oak front and 'golden arches' that are really golden), but with (arguably) good reason.

On the other hand, the town where I work, in which they are funnelling hundreds of thousands of dollars into 'restoring' the old courthouse, because it's 'almost a hundred years old'... not so much. Especially when the town is not buying essential infrastructure because it is basically bankrupt. Maybe if the courthouse was significant? If something really important had happened there?

I don't know... I find this idea of preserving a house just because it's old kind of bizarre - especially when age is ALL it has going for it. Important past? Significant architecture? Maybe... but when it's just the same as 15,000 other houses in other places?
Well, I have more to say on this subject, but since it's so off topic, I won't. But I'll save these posts, in case someone wants to start a preservationism thread someday. :)

It is easy to play at Socrates and merely ask questions rather than engage in dialogue.[/ quote]
What I'm doing is asking you questions about your own positions - questions you seem unable to answer.

You must understand your own position in order to hold it. Therefore, either you're simply unwilling to discuss the basis for your position (which defeats the purpose of either of us being here), or you don't yourself understand it.
[quote]BTW, I'm glad you have abandoned your bizarre claim that that one study proved the entire "racial equality movement" was intellectually dishonest.
I made no such claim. Allow me to quote myself:
This one study is evidence that the racial equality movement is being intellectually dishonest.
There's no claim of proof, there. Just evidence.
But look again at my statement: (1) deliberate discrimination against minorities that (2) harms minorities is bad.

Why is it bad? Among other things it is "deliberate discrimination" AND it "harms minorities."

Under your own definition of "evil," such discrimination is evil unless offset by a benefit to someone. I'm simply not buying the assertion that so long as discrimination benefits the discriminator it isn't wrong.
Regardless of how you feel about my definition of evil, you haven't offered any support for yours beyond the bold claim that it's prima facie true. Allow me to rephrase my question yet again... What is it about something that both "is deliberate discrimination" and "harms minorities" that makes it bad? When you come across new behaviour you've never before witnessed, what standard do you use to determine whether it's bad?

If you don't know that, you can never make judgements about things you haven't seen before without those judgements being completely arbitrary.
Good. Glad you will admit that much. Earlier you were making sweeping claims that racial discrimination was based on "hard data."
Some is. Never did I claim all discrimination was so based. You're very keen to generalise.
Do I really have to go back through the thread to were you were insisting a salesperson had to treat people differently based on surface characteristics?
If you want to insist I was making a normative claim, yes.
I note that the treatment of blacks with sometimes different medication is (a) not based on skin color alone and, more importantly, (b) does not fit my definition of discrimination that harms minorities.
A definition you presented after being presented with non-harmful discrimination.
Yes. I'm not defining terms like "wrong" and "evil" because that will take us down a long and meaningless side-track.
Yes, apparently your defintions are secret.

If you won't define terms, then we cannot meaningfully discuss your use of those terms, and that's what we're discussing. Do you simply not care to examine your own positions? What if you're in error? You'd never know.
Reasonable adults can have a conversation in which the term "wrong" is not expressly defined and yet has meaning.
But not a discussion about what one of them means by "wrong".
Even in the study you cite, there is no evidence that black sports card buyers or dealers benefited from the statistical discrimination. You are simply making that up.
It looks like I did. I'm sorry I thought that salesman correctly identifying relative levels of wealth among their customers might benefit them.

You do know how buying and selling works, right?
But, let's take your position head-on:

You claim that animus-based discrimination is meaningfully different from statistical discrimination because it causes no measurable benefits to anyone. Really?
No. The benefits aren't relevant to behaviour motivated by animus - that's the relevant point. Behaviour based on animus is intended to cause harm, regardless of whether if provides benefits. The point of the behaviour is to cause harm. As I said, it's sadistic.

My most relevant point on the issue was my repeated description of racial discrimination not based on animus as "not racism".
Can you prove that just because discrimination is based on animus, it has no benefit to the discriminator?
No, but the nature of animus is such that the harm it causes is the point of the behaviour.

The only necessary benefit would be the joy it gives the discriminator, and if we're counting that then everything causes benefits all of the time - it would be a necessary concequence of free will.
Can you prove that statistical discrimination provides a measurable benefit that is greater than the measurable harm it may cause?
Of course not. I haven't even required that be the case.
If it causes more harm than benefit, why isn't it wrong?
Why would it be wrong? Again, you'r asking me to support a negative claim.

Simply put, I wouldn't count it as wrong because it doesn't fit my definition of evil, which I've made available for you to criticise. We could apply it to your definition if you'd like, but it would have to stop being a secret first.
Again, you are relying on a debating tool rather than an intelligent discussion.
Asking questions about your positions is "a debating tool"? Does that make it somehow invalid? And if so, what about it makes it a debating tool? I'll try to find some way to ask the question that isn't.

As I pointed out, you never "spell[ed] out" that you were using the term poor to mean merely relatively poor sportscard buyers. To the contrary, you used the term poor outside the context of meaning merely relatively poor sportscard buyers.
Yes it was an imprecise term throughout, as the word "poor" (or any other relative term) will always be when used on its own.

Your objection seems not based on my assertion that the word means whatever I want it to mean, but my objection to your insistence that my words mean whatever YOU think they mean. And they don't.

Imprecise words are imprecise. That doesn't mean you get to assign them values of your own choosing and force me to explain why you're wrong.
Nor does your rant about relative terms mean anything. Words have context. The context in which you used the term poor does not fit with what you now insist you meant by the term.
Words have denotative meaning. Nothing more.
And for those listening at home, care to point out where, even in the context of the study regarding sportscard buyers, there is any evidence that the minority buyers were poorer than the other buyers? Good luck. You won't find it. There went that excuse.
Yes there is. The sportscard dealers' assumptions of relative poverty were correct when applied to the general buyer population. That is in the study.
This supports my theory that the statistical discrimination harms the minority participants.
Unless you show that harm to be relevant, it doesn't matter.
Not in context, it isn't.

No it doesn't. But feel free to try to explain why it does.
You hold that race doesn't matter. So, if I treat two groups of people differently based on race, from your point of view the only difference between the two groups is that I treat them differently, because their race doesn't matter. From your point of view, the racial breakdown of each group is completely irrelevant - whether I'm treating poorly a group that is 100% black, 100% white, 50% each, or mirrors the broader US population (12% black), from your point of view my actions are morally equal, because the race of the group members doesn't matter.

Similarly, if there comes to be an oppressed underclass, who is in the class (racially speaking) won't be relevant, because race doesn't matter.

You said it yourself. Race doesn't matter.

Llelleydor, it is pointless debating brainwashed fools like Cat-Tribes. They have rejected the Lord's word. Let them rot.

You need my help in understanding most =/= all ?

Why yes, I do. The thread topic - do you need a link? - is about the phrase EVERYONE is a little racist. A thesis you, being a racist yourself, are supporting. The fact that you used a qualifier once doesn't change that, unless you are now saying that NO, not everyone is racist. Are you? I don't think you are. Doesn't fall within your kind's worldview.