7 Habits of Highly Affected Racialists

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I'm stunned.

 

[maxparrish]

I define racism on an individual level - a moral belief that some races (or ethnic groups) are, because of their genes, morally superior and/or inferior to other races. Unwarranted, unfair, and unreasonable actions taken to harm other individuals based on those beliefs are racist actions.

I do not define racism in one of the broader quasi-Marxist sociological context, one as a phenomenon that exists without conscious belief in either an individual or institution. Racism is in the hearts of individuals, it is not a “structural” or “institutional” flaw of "the system".

Finally, I differentiate between racism, bigotry, and simple prejudice. Bigotry is little more than a gut feeling, a dislike or hostility to certain "kinds" of persons. Simple prejudice is more akin to the common actions of many whites in the 1950s, people who upheld mundane customs because they did not wish to be seen as socially "indecent" (e.g. a white boy inviting his black playmate to supper with the white boy's family).

I have no definition for racialism. It used to be identical to the term "racism", but some use it in other manners. For the sake of discussion, I will assume it means racism.

I have no idea what "racism denial" means. It may refer to an individuals denial of there own racists beliefs, denial of others individual racism or denial of racism as a pervasive and unconscious social structure.

I would define "pseudo" Science as any racial claims that it is a part of science but which has not been represented in the academic or expert literature.

Is that sufficient for discussion, or do you have objections?

How about we define "racism denial" as the denial of the existence of harmful racist actions.
Other than that, sure, sounds fine. We've got a racist, who performs racist actions.

As racist actions are dependent upon actions motivated by racist beliefs (as I previously defined) then that seems workable.

Sounds like you do not wish to discuss the existence of the possible multiplier effect of racists doing racist actions in concert, or as a group or from a position of using regular institutions as tools of their racist actions, especially in larger numbers.

I have no problem including individuals acting in concert. As I defined it, all it requires are one or more individuals acting consciously.

So take the individual. How do you think they react when someone opens a discussion with them about a racist action being racist (and harmful)? Do you think they always say, "yeah, I do that based on their race and I'm proud of it and I'm not stopping," or do some of them react differently than owning it?

Although my definitions were for discussing the seven alleged "habits", as you seem to be referring to Davkas demand that others "own up" to their racialism (racism) I have no problem's starting there.

Most true racists would, absent threats of punishment for "owning" up, admit their beliefs. However, some accused of being racists (and I) may "own up" to their beliefs but not agree with that label because they believe that actions alone, based on race, is NOT in and of itself racist. Recall that our working definition of racism is dependent upon a moral belief that some races are superior, and that "Unwarranted, unfair, and unreasonable actions taken to harm other individuals based on those beliefs are racist actions."

For example, if a taxi driver refuses to pickup blacks is he being racist? Well, not if the reason he refuses is because blacks are far more likely to mug him than whites. His motive is one of fear for his safety, not out of a motive for retribution and harm to another based on their "inferior" race. He won't "own up" to someone else's imposed characterization, but he would own up to his beliefs and fears.

I don't mind using myself as another example. Davka has accused me of being a racist, and you might have noted that I have neither agree nor disagreed with that label. Why? Because by my definition I am probably not BUT, given some other people's definition I am. However, I really don't care because I have no interest in arguing over word meanings when I can "own up" to my actual beliefs. In summary:

- Racial groups have slightly different genetic distributions of certain physical attributes. These differences create different averages for IQ (g), average physical abilities, life span, "social" IQ, etc.
- Racial groups have slightly different genetic distributions of certain kinds of talents.
- Racial groups likely have slightly different genetic contributions to behavior.

While I don't believe any race is innately "better" in a moral sense, I also believe that in matters of personal and social interaction it is only the individual (not the group identity) that earns moral worth. Those I respect, admire, and love are those who I consider to be good folk...period. And those I admire, who I do not know, I also consider good people.

 

[Sarpedon]

What is the cause of Garner's death? Medical issues.
What is the cause of his being stressed to the point that the medical issues became fatal? Being subdued, including a choke hold which, in the opinion of many, was excessive.
What is the cause of his being subdued? Resisting arrest.
What is the cause of his resisting arrest? Being arrested.
What is the cause of his being arrested? Suspicion of selling loosies. (Isn't that a serious crime!)
What is the cause of his selling loosies? Cigarette tax policies in NY.
What is the cause of cigarette tax policies? NY legislators.
What is the cause of NY legislators? Elections.

Damn you King John! You should never have signed that Magna Carta!

 

[arkirk]

How about we define "racism denial" as the denial of the existence of harmful racist actions.
Other than that, sure, sounds fine. We've got a racist, who performs racist actions.

As racist actions are dependent upon actions motivated by racist beliefs (as I previously defined) then that seems workable.

Sounds like you do not wish to discuss the existence of the possible multiplier effect of racists doing racist actions in concert, or as a group or from a position of using regular institutions as tools of their racist actions, especially in larger numbers.

I have no problem including individuals acting in concert. As I defined it, all it requires are one or more individuals acting consciously.

So take the individual. How do you think they react when someone opens a discussion with them about a racist action being racist (and harmful)? Do you think they always say, "yeah, I do that based on their race and I'm proud of it and I'm not stopping," or do some of them react differently than owning it?

Although my definitions were for discussing the seven alleged "habits", as you seem to be referring to Davkas demand that others "own up" to their racialism (racism) I have no problem's starting there.

Most true racists would, absent threats of punishment for "owning" up, admit their beliefs. However, some accused of being racists (and I) may "own up" to their beliefs but not agree with that label because they believe that actions alone, based on race, is NOT in and of itself racist. Recall that our working definition of racism is dependent upon a moral belief that some races are superior, and that "Unwarranted, unfair, and unreasonable actions taken to harm other individuals based on those beliefs are racist actions."

For example, if a taxi driver refuses to pickup blacks is he being racist? Well, not if the reason he refuses is because blacks are far more likely to mug him than whites. His motive is one of fear for his safety, not out of a motive for retribution and harm to another based on their "inferior" race. He won't "own up" to someone else's imposed characterization, but he would own up to his beliefs and fears.

I don't mind using myself as another example. Davka has accused me of being a racist, and you might have noted that I have neither agree nor disagreed with that label. Why? Because by my definition I am probably not BUT, given some other people's definition I am. However, I really don't care because I have no interest in arguing over word meanings when I can "own up" to my actual beliefs. In summary:

- Racial groups have slightly different genetic distributions of certain physical attributes. These differences create different averages for IQ (g), average physical abilities, life span, "social" IQ, etc.
- Racial groups have slightly different genetic distributions of certain kinds of talents.
- Racial groups likely have slightly different genetic contributions to behavior.

While I don't believe any race is innately "better" in a moral sense, I also believe that in matters of personal and social interaction it is only the individual (not the group identity) that earns moral worth. Those I respect, admire, and love are those who I consider to be good folk...period. And those I admire, who I do not know, I also consider good people.

I took the liberty of highlighting comments of yours in the above post for a reason. You made typical racialist assumptions...and like I said earlier, you attempt to circumscribe all discussion of racism with a tailored DEFINITION that excludes you from being called a racist. You put a lot into this definition but I must say it in itself is bristling with racial prejudice. The purpose of the highlighting was NOT TO SHOW YOU YOU ARE A RACIST but to show you where you leave room to indulge in speculation about possible inferior traits, such as mugging white cab drivers. You are always just a step away from taking the plunge into racist invective. Your definitions always seem to lay the groundwork for racist comments.

 

[connick]

I'm working on a comprehensive reply but I probably won't finish until sometime tomorrow.

 

[maxparrish]

Most true racists would, absent threats of punishment for "owning" up, admit their beliefs. However, some accused of being racists (and I) may "own up" to their beliefs but not agree with that label because they believe that actions alone, based on race, is NOT in and of itself racist. Recall that our working definition of racism is dependent upon a moral belief that some races are superior, and that "Unwarranted, unfair, and unreasonable actions taken to harm other individuals based on those beliefs are racist actions."

For example, if a taxi driver refuses to pickup blacks is he being racist? Well, not if the reason he refuses is because blacks are far more likely to mug him than whites. His motive is one of fear for his safety, not out of a motive for retribution and harm to another based on their "inferior" race. He won't "own up" to someone else's imposed characterization, but he would own up to his beliefs and fears.

I don't mind using myself as another example. Davka has accused me of being a racist, and you might have noted that I have neither agree nor disagreed with that label. Why? Because by my definition I am probably not BUT, given some other people's definition I am. However, I really don't care because I have no interest in arguing over word meanings when I can "own up" to my actual beliefs. In summary:

- Racial groups have slightly different genetic distributions of certain physical attributes. These differences create different averages for IQ (g), average physical abilities, life span, "social" IQ, etc.
- Racial groups have slightly different genetic distributions of certain kinds of talents.
- Racial groups likely have slightly different genetic contributions to behavior.

While I don't believe any race is innately "better" in a moral sense, I also believe that in matters of personal and social interaction it is only the individual (not the group identity) that earns moral worth. Those I respect, admire, and love are those who I consider to be good folk...period. And those I admire, who I do not know, I also consider good people.

I took the liberty of highlighting comments of yours in the above post for a reason. You made typical racialist assumptions...and like I said earlier, you attempt to circumscribe all discussion of racism with a tailored DEFINITION that excludes you from being called a racist. You put a lot into this definition but I must say it in itself is bristling with racial prejudice. The purpose of the highlighting was NOT TO SHOW YOU YOU ARE A RACIST but to show you where you leave room to indulge in speculation about possible inferior traits, such as mugging white cab drivers. You are always just a step away from taking the plunge into racist invective. Your definitions always seem to lay the groundwork for racist comments.

I "made typical racialist assumptions"? If you mean I am agreement on some scientific points with some people (such as some at storm front) you (and I) consider "racist" - you are correct. I am also in agreement with several experts and and academics on the importance of culture, as well as in agreement with MLK on the centrality of character in moral judgement. That does not mean I must be a racist, or a cultural determinist, or a 60s black liberal.

Moreover I don't put "a lot" into a tailored definition to exclude myself BECAUSE I am not vested in labels as important to me - they are only important to those hung up on black rage and in mortal fear of being thought of as a white racist. And it seems that you finding my intellectually based beliefs uncomfortable, so you call it "prejudice" and "a step away" from racist invective. So what fear do you have - might it be that if you allowed yourself to admit certain racial realities it would compel you to do evil?

I have no such fears - nor do my Jewish, Latino and black friends.

 

[Davka]

I have no such fears - nor do my Jewish, Latino and black friends.

You should talk to your Jewish, Latino and Black friends about the genetic component predisposing some of them to crime. I'm sure they'll understand.

 

[laughing dog]

It well could have been chest compression. The reason doen's matter too much if the reason he couldn't breathe was that he was being attacked by the cops. I once was attacked by people in a Navy barracks. About six thugs threw a mattress over me and held me down by sitting on me. It was terrifying...just terrifying enough I produced enough adrenaline to throw the bastards off. I was scared I was going to die...so heavy was the weight on my chest. Garner wasn't in the best of shape. What the cops did to him was a crime. Quit nit picking on this case...you'll come up a loser.

What is the cause of Garner's death? Medical issues.
What is the cause of his being stressed to the point that the medical issues became fatal? Being subdued, including a choke hold which, in the opinion of many, was excessive.
What is the cause of his being subdued? Resisting arrest.
What is the cause of his resisting arrest? Being arrested.
What is the cause of his being arrested? Suspicion of selling loosies. (Isn't that a serious crime!)
What is the cause of his selling loosies? Cigarette tax policies in NY.
What is the cause of cigarette tax policies? NY legislators.
What is the cause of NY legislators? Elections.

What is a cause? That but for which the event would not have occurred.

You didn't carry the causal chain far enough.

What is the cause of outcomes of those elections? Voters
What is the cause of voters? Human procreation.

Clearly the problem is human procreation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What is the cause of Garner's death? Medical issues.
What is the cause of his being stressed to the point that the medical issues became fatal? Being subdued, including a choke hold which, in the opinion of many, was excessive.
What is the cause of his being subdued? Resisting arrest.
What is the cause of his resisting arrest? Being arrested.
What is the cause of his being arrested? Suspicion of selling loosies. (Isn't that a serious crime!)
What is the cause of his selling loosies? Cigarette tax policies in NY.
What is the cause of cigarette tax policies? NY legislators.
What is the cause of NY legislators? Elections.

What is a cause? That but for which the event would not have occurred.

Aha! Arrest God. For creating tobacco.

 

[Davka]

Yes, let's all ignore the racial component of poverty and laugh it off. Those silly black people, why don't they just get a good education and a decent job?

 

[WAB]

I'm stunned.

Seconded.

 

[Rhea]

I'm stunned.

At which thing?

 

[Rhea]

How about we define "racism denial" as the denial of the existence of harmful racist actions.
Other than that, sure, sounds fine. We've got a racist, who performs racist actions.

As racist actions are dependent upon actions motivated by racist beliefs (as I previously defined) then that seems workable.

Sounds like you do not wish to discuss the existence of the possible multiplier effect of racists doing racist actions in concert, or as a group or from a position of using regular institutions as tools of their racist actions, especially in larger numbers.

I have no problem including individuals acting in concert. As I defined it, all it requires are one or more individuals acting consciously.

So take the individual. How do you think they react when someone opens a discussion with them about a racist action being racist (and harmful)? Do you think they always say, "yeah, I do that based on their race and I'm proud of it and I'm not stopping," or do some of them react differently than owning it?

Although my definitions were for discussing the seven alleged "habits", as you seem to be referring to Davkas demand that others "own up" to their racialism (racism) I have no problem's starting there.

Most true racists would, absent threats of punishment for "owning" up, admit their beliefs. However, some accused of being racists (and I) may "own up" to their beliefs but not agree with that label because they believe that actions alone, based on race, is NOT in and of itself racist. Recall that our working definition of racism is dependent upon a moral belief that some races are superior, and that "Unwarranted, unfair, and unreasonable actions taken to harm other individuals based on those beliefs are racist actions."

For example, if a taxi driver refuses to pickup blacks is he being racist? Well, not if the reason he refuses is because blacks are far more likely to mug him than whites. His motive is one of fear for his safety, not out of a motive for retribution and harm to another based on their "inferior" race. He won't "own up" to someone else's imposed characterization, but he would own up to his beliefs and fears.

I don't mind using myself as another example. Davka has accused me of being a racist, and you might have noted that I have neither agree nor disagreed with that label. Why? Because by my definition I am probably not BUT, given some other people's definition I am. However, I really don't care because I have no interest in arguing over word meanings when I can "own up" to my actual beliefs. In summary:

- Racial groups have slightly different genetic distributions of certain physical attributes. These differences create different averages for IQ (g), average physical abilities, life span, "social" IQ, etc.
- Racial groups have slightly different genetic distributions of certain kinds of talents.
- Racial groups likely have slightly different genetic contributions to behavior.

While I don't believe any race is innately "better" in a moral sense, I also believe that in matters of personal and social interaction it is only the individual (not the group identity) that earns moral worth. Those I respect, admire, and love are those who I consider to be good folk...period. And those I admire, who I do not know, I also consider good people.

I think I follow your way of thinking (do not agree, just follow), yet I can’t help but notice some things that seem to contradict themselves.

For example, you say the taxi driver is not being racist (which we defined as doing harm based on race) if he refuses service because he believes that black people are inhertently likely to commit crimes. In other words, that the taxi driver does NOT look at individual character, but refuses service to a whole race. And you say this is not racist.

You seem to be saying, if one blankets a race of people with an inferior characteristic (lawlessness) that makes one fear them, and then one acts on this fear to harm that race (denial of service), this cannot be racist by definition. Because it is fear and not derision that is being acted out?

Then you say you do not think one race is morally superior to another, and at the same time claim that there is genetic (i.e. racially inherent) inferiority (gently introduced as “differences”) toward intelligence, behavior and social interaction. You claim to look past these “different distributions” to the individual character, and still at the same time think it is not racist to use this generalization to make a blanket denial of service to all people who are black.

So I am having trouble with the apparent contradiction between it not being racist to refuse business with people who are black, but it being important to gauge individual character to avoid doing something racist.

Moreover when you say, "[I do] not agree with that label [racist] because believe that actions alone, based on race, is NOT in and of itself racist. " I am confused by what, other than actions because of race assumptions, is needed to harm people? If race-based actions harm someone, what more is needed in order to meet the "racist" threshold?

Can you elaborate?

 

[thebeave]

I'm stunned.

At which thing?

Davka called Jason a racist (or a racialist...whatever), but later discovered he was thinking of someone else. Fortunately, he owned up to it and apologized for slandering him. It was a pretty direct and self flagellating apology, though he has a long way to go before he can match Jimmy Swaggart's classic:

 

[Davka]

Hey, just because you couldn't see me doesn't mean I wasn't weeping copiously!

I swear I never meant to snort coke off that hookers ass while getting a blowjob from a preadolescent boy. Sometimes, strange things just happen - I don't know how that ISIS membership card with my name on it got into my wallet!

 

[Rhea]

At which thing?

Fortunately, he owned up to it and apologized for slandering him.

Oh, I saw that, I just wasn't sure it was the specific thing that stunned Jason.
But yeah, that was a good thing to do when he realized.

 

[connick]

I think he was clear that the size of the group that can be called "Highly Affected Racialist " equals the number of people with these behaviors. If you don't have these behaviors, perhaps you can stop worrying that he's talking about you? Perhaps you can conclude, "wow, those Highly Affected Racialists are a tiny group and I'm glad I'm not one of them!"

Instead, several people have made great pains to say, "hey! Stop calling me that!" which is rather baffling since the OP did not call out names, only behaviors. So if no one does those behaviors, what's the big deal?


Right?

Davka made no indication as to the size of the group he was talking about. It's tautological and useless to me to tell me that the number of people in a group is the number of people who are in the group.

I have no worries about being included on Davka's list and I find it extremely troublesome that you would suggest that. Why would you suggest that people who don't understand or accept the list prima facie are worried about being on the list? How does, "Show me how your list isn't just pulled out of thin air," come across to you as, "I'm worried that you're talking about me in your list"? Suggesting that fear is a motivator for disagreement here seems to be a disingenuous rhetorical tactic. There's no reason to believe anyone participating in this thread is afraid of the list.

Your suggested conclusion above doesn't make any sense to me. In the initial responses to this thread there wasn't anybody saying "stop calling me that" or even anything that could be reasonably equated with that. All I saw were some reasonable objections and questions relating to the list. I didn't see any of those questions or objections answered by Davaka except for clarifying their definition of racialism and a trivial explanation of the title. Instead of substantive answers to people's posts I've seen Davka imply that people are on the list. Davka's first response to Loren Petchel's questions ended like this: "Yes, that's exactly what racialists say when they want to deny the problem. Thank you for the example." That implies that Loren is a racialist and denying the problem of racism. That was on page two of this thread and it has continued since then.

Implying that those who question or disagree with Davka's list percieve it as a "big deal" is in the same rhetorical vein as suggesting that they are afraid. The issue, which I wouldn't call a big deal, is that Davka put up a list and won't explain the reasoning behind it.

It's a spoof on "7 habits of highly effective people." It could easily have been three, or five, or fifteen. I thought about the behavior I've seen from people who defend racist attacks or deny racism in the media(social and otherwise), and came up with 7 commonly-used tactics. I'm not trying to say that every racialist person indulges in all 7 habits, or that anyone who indulges in any of these habits is a hardcore racialist asshole. These are simply 7 of the tactics I've seen used.

When you say it is a spoof do you mean it should not be taken seriously or that the content is meant in jest? The statements made in the list seem very matter-of-fact to me. If you meant this whole thing as a joke or purely for entertainment then that's fine by me.

"Tactics that I've seen used" is not the same thing as "commonly-used tactics" and that is one of my primary objections to your list. You're extrapolating your personal experience into statements about some group of people. The other main objection is the false dichotomies/strawmen about said group.

That's because you're not looking at this as a list of things I've seen people do, you're looking at it as some sort of list of rules, or checklist for determining whether someone is racialist.

I am looking at it for what it claims to be; a list of common habits of a group of people. You didn't say, "here is a list of some things I've seen people do". You have unequivocally said "in situation X this group will invariably do Y".

I appreciate that.

Oddly enough, although it would be nearly impossible to demonstrate that this definition works as shorthand for the sociologically-accepted definition(s) of racism, it would be incredibly easy to demonstrate that it does not. All you would have to do is find a couple of examples that do NOT fit under this umbrella shorthand.

It would be nearly impossible to prove the universality of the definition which is why I don't think you are justified in confining the discussion to one. For the sake of argument I will accept this confinement (it is your thread after all) but, that doesn't mean I agree with it in principle. One reason for that is that it means that a racist can be transformed into a "mere racial bigot" by moving to a region where they are a racial minority.

In any case, as others have already mentioned, simple searches for definitions of racism show that it is anything but univerally defined. Even the wikipedia page suggests at least a half dozen variations of exactly what racism means (even from a sociological standpoint). Regardless of all that, I'm willing to use whatever definition you want for the purposes of this discussion.

Of course it would. And that's not what I'm doing. I'm not saying "everyone who disagrees is a racist," I'm saying "dismissing and mocking this definition is one of the things I've seen racialists do."

Maybe that's not what you are trying to say but, that is what you said. Again, you wrote, "Highly Affected Racialists either studiously ignore the accepted terminology, or pretend not to understand it." There are only two options in that sentence but I know that there are others being left out like genuine ignorance or legitimate reasons for rejecting what you consider to be the standard terminology. Even if you were saying that you saw or heard of one person like this who disagreed with your definition it's still wrong to say that those are the only two possibilities behind their disagreement.

Let me clarify:

Most Birds Fly. We know this. We've seen it. Not all birds fly, but most do.
Bats fly. This does not say anything at all about whether bats are birds, or whether most birds fly.

It does not follow that, since most birds fly, therefore anything that flies must be a bird.

Similarly, it does not follow that since many racialists dispute the sociological definition of racism, therefore anyone who disputes the sociological definition of racism is a racialist.

Clear?

As far as I can tell, all the rest of your questions are based on this same fundamental misunderstanding of the intent of the OP. If I'm wrong, please let me know where and why.

Thank you for the clarification. I believe then that there is not a fundamental misunderstanding on my part but, instead that your OP did not communicate your meaning clearly. Again, if you said something like "this is an example of something I've seen that I consider racist/racialist" my complaints would be fewer. As I read the OP you appear to be saying there is a defined group and this is what they always do. It looks, to me at least, that in the OP you are committing the fallacy of composition as you illustrate above with bats and birds.

Since you seem to have cleared up a substantial misunderstanding I will try to omit any further questions in that vein. To be clear though, the list is purely based on your personal experience and is only a list of examples of the behavior you have observed. There was no group study or measurement of the frequency with which anyone employed these habits, right? To use fast and loose terms, it's not exactly "scientific" in any stretch of the imagination, true? I ask this because I want to be sure I know what kind of animal I'm dealing with.

the institution of racism must be assumed to have vanished completely at some vague, indeterminate time between the assassination of MLK Jr. and the election of President Obama.

So, did you really observe an example of this? Not just that people believe racism is gone - because there are definitely people who espouse that view - but also that the disappearance was vague and the timing indeterminant? I imagine that, if pressed, someone who believes racism is gone that they could at least give a ballpark answer about when and by what mechanism. I guess what I'm asking is if you are taking liberties with explaining a what you percieve as the position of a Highly Affected Racialist's and maybe putting some words in their mouths?

5. Hyperfocus on Minutiae. Whenever a newsworthy race-related atrocity hits the media, Highly Affected Racialists spring into action to deflect the conversation away from the dangerous ground of societal wrongs, and onto the irrelevant “facts of the case.”

I asked earlier what it meant to be hyperfocused on minutiae because it seems like way too loose of a term. What is the threshhold between focus and hyperfocus? Likewise, what is the threshhold between minutiae and facts worth consideration? Your suggestion that the "facts of the case" are irrelevant seems wrong on its face. It could be that you mean inconsequential facts of a case (such as a person's zodiac sign) but, at least one of your examples ("whether the DNA in the lab fits the witness reports") seems to preclude that possibility.

I look forward to reading your response.

 

[thebeave]

Hey, just because you couldn't see me doesn't mean I wasn't weeping copiously!

I swear I never meant to snort coke off that hookers ass while getting a blowjob from a preadolescent boy. Sometimes, strange things just happen - I don't know how that ISIS membership card with my name on it got into my wallet!

LOL. Some people may not be swayed by just your typed words though. I think it best that you post an apology video from your webcam on this thread to show you really mean it.

P.S. No fair chopping onions, watching Old Yellar get killed or thinking about your puppy that got ran over when you were 5 prior to hitting Record.

 

[Davka]

Implying that those who question or disagree with Davka's list percieve it as a "big deal" is in the same rhetorical vein as suggesting that they are afraid. The issue, which I wouldn't call a big deal, is that Davka put up a list and won't explain the reasoning behind it.

I honestly thought it was self-explanatory.

It's a spoof on "7 habits of highly effective people." It could easily have been three, or five, or fifteen. I thought about the behavior I've seen from people who defend racist attacks or deny racism in the media(social and otherwise), and came up with 7 commonly-used tactics. I'm not trying to say that every racialist person indulges in all 7 habits, or that anyone who indulges in any of these habits is a hardcore racialist asshole. These are simply 7 of the tactics I've seen used.

When you say it is a spoof do you mean it should not be taken seriously or that the content is meant in jest? The statements made in the list seem very matter-of-fact to me. If you meant this whole thing as a joke or purely for entertainment then that's fine by me.

The OP is intended as satire. It was my hope that the title would indicate this. Satire is the application of hyperbole to reality; taking real-world things to an extreme. Satire works because it is based on reality, and although the satire is clearly over-the-top, it also references something that is very real. Satire is a barbed form of humor (or at least it's intended as humor) which contains a very real sting. In this case, I was satirizing the "X habits of {successful, persuasive, sexy, you name it} people" lists, which often contain trite-yet-true observations. I was using this format to further satirize racism-apologists.

One of my favorite examples of satire applied to racism is a headline that The Onion ran right after Obama's election in 2008: "Black Man Given Nation's Worst Job."

"Tactics that I've seen used" is not the same thing as "commonly-used tactics" and that is one of my primary objections to your list. You're extrapolating your personal experience into statements about some group of people. The other main objection is the false dichotomies/strawmen about said group.

I hope I've addressed the first objection. I'll deal with the second below.

That's because you're not looking at this as a list of things I've seen people do, you're looking at it as some sort of list of rules, or checklist for determining whether someone is racialist.

I am looking at it for what it claims to be; a list of common habits of a group of people. You didn't say, "here is a list of some things I've seen people do". You have unequivocally said "in situation X this group will invariably do Y".

I've listed 7 habits of a group of people. People belonging to that group will invariably indulge in these habits. If you want to believe that the group is limited to three people, that's fine. If you think the group is empty, that's fine too. It really doesn't matter.

Oddly enough, although it would be nearly impossible to demonstrate that this definition works as shorthand for the sociologically-accepted definition(s) of racism, it would be incredibly easy to demonstrate that it does not. All you would have to do is find a couple of examples that do NOT fit under this umbrella shorthand.

It would be nearly impossible to prove the universality of the definition which is why I don't think you are justified in confining the discussion to one.

Of course I am! Its my OP, I can draw whatever parameters I want.

For the sake of argument I will accept this confinement (it is your thread after all) but, that doesn't mean I agree with it in principle. One reason for that is that it means that a racist can be transformed into a "mere racial bigot" by moving to a region where they are a racial minority.

Not quite. They would need to move to a region - a country, actually - in which they were part of the group that has little or no power. For example, the British in colonial England were the minority, but they were also the group in power. Racism among the British rulers was quite common, as is illustrated in any number of literary works from the period.

Similarly, the White South Africans held all the power in that country until fairly recently, and still hold the majority of the economic power. Yet they make up less than 10% of the country's population. This is why the definition of "racial bigotry + power = racism" is important, even if you disagree with it.

In any case, as others have already mentioned, simple searches for definitions of racism show that it is anything but univerally defined.

Lots of people have mentioned this, but nobody has seen fit to post an example of a sociological definition of racism which does not conform to this simple shorthand.

Of course it would. And that's not what I'm doing. I'm not saying "everyone who disagrees is a racist," I'm saying "dismissing and mocking this definition is one of the things I've seen racialists do."

Maybe that's not what you are trying to say but, that is what you said. Again, you wrote, "Highly Affected Racialists either studiously ignore the accepted terminology, or pretend not to understand it." There are only two options in that sentence but I know that there are others being left out like genuine ignorance or legitimate reasons for rejecting what you consider to be the standard terminology.

This is a category error.

If I say "Blue Meanies believe that the word 'blue' means 'superior,' either studiously ignoring the accepted definition or pretending not to understand it," that does NOT limit the possible reasons for people other than Blue Meanies to contest the definition of the word "blue." There could be any number of other reasons for rejecting a particular definition of the word "blue." Rejecting a particular definition of the word "blue" does NOT automatically make you a Blue Meanie.

What's more, it does not preclude some Blue Meanies from simply being ignorant of the definition of the word 'blue.'

Even if you were saying that you saw or heard of one person like this who disagreed with your definition it's still wrong to say that those are the only two possibilities behind their disagreement.

Not if it's true. If I knew only two people who disagreed with my definition, and I had determined through searching conversations that one of them was studiously ignoring the definition and the other was pretending not to understand it, my statement would be completely accurate.

If I say "the set of cars in my driveway which are made by General Motors are all Dodge Stratuses," I am merely pointing out a specific quality of one set.

Thank you for the clarification. I believe then that there is not a fundamental misunderstanding on my part but, instead that your OP did not communicate your meaning clearly. Again, if you said something like "this is an example of something I've seen that I consider racist/racialist" my complaints would be fewer. As I read the OP you appear to be saying there is a defined group and this is what they always do. It looks, to me at least, that in the OP you are committing the fallacy of composition as you illustrate above with bats and birds.

Nope. Not even close.

In fact, I'm saying that those who belong to set X indulge in habits A through G. Even if you believe set X to be an empty set, the statement is not a fallacy. Just as the statement "all purple wombats named Leroy live in my left armpit" is logically sound, no matter how absurd it may appear.

There was no group study or measurement of the frequency with which anyone employed these habits, right? To use fast and loose terms, it's not exactly "scientific" in any stretch of the imagination, true? I ask this because I want to be sure I know what kind of animal I'm dealing with.

It's a satire. It's based on long years of personal observation, nothing more.

the institution of racism must be assumed to have vanished completely at some vague, indeterminate time between the assassination of MLK Jr. and the election of President Obama.

So, did you really observe an example of this? Not just that people believe racism is gone - because there are definitely people who espouse that view - but also that the disappearance was vague and the timing indeterminant? I imagine that, if pressed, someone who believes racism is gone that they could at least give a ballpark answer about when and by what mechanism. I guess what I'm asking is if you are taking liberties with explaining a what you percieve as the position of a Highly Affected Racialist's and maybe putting some words in their mouths?

If you accept the existence of a set of people accurately characterized as Highly Affected Racialists, then yes, I've observed precisely this belief, numerous times.

5. Hyperfocus on Minutiae. Whenever a newsworthy race-related atrocity hits the media, Highly Affected Racialists spring into action to deflect the conversation away from the dangerous ground of societal wrongs, and onto the irrelevant “facts of the case.”

I asked earlier what it meant to be hyperfocused on minutiae because it seems like way too loose of a term. What is the threshhold between focus and hyperfocus? Likewise, what is the threshhold between minutiae and facts worth consideration? Your suggestion that the "facts of the case" are irrelevant seems wrong on its face. It could be that you mean inconsequential facts of a case (such as a person's zodiac sign) but, at least one of your examples ("whether the DNA in the lab fits the witness reports") seems to preclude that possibility.

The reason that I characterize these minutiae as irrelevant is that they tell us nothing about the state of race relations in America, and add nothing to the conversation. When there is a long string of similar incidents which seem to fall into a particular category, Occam's Razor tells us that they are most likely related, and part of a bigger picture. Focusing on the individual cases one at a time in order to claim that they are simply isolated incidents, and that there is no bigger picture to see, strains credulity beyond the breaking point.

If I see one rabbit hung by its ears on a telephone pole, I will think "that's odd." I won't conclude that there must be some crazy person with a rabbit fetish abusing the poor animals, or that there is an anti-rabbit cult. There are any number of explanation as to how this might have happened, from the mundane to the bizarre. However, if there is a rash of rabbits being hung by their ears on telephone polls all across the country, it becomes absurd to pretend that they are not connected. Logically, there is a pattern here, which suggests that the motive for most - if not all - of these incidents is similar, if not identical. To attempt to deny the pattern and the concept of a singular motive for the pattern by examining the details of each incident in order to arrive at an alternative explanation becomes not only absurd, but borderline obsessive.

The string of black males being killed by police across the country goes back over 150 years now. It cannot be dismissed as a series of isolated incidents. Those who obsessively examine each individual case for evidence that it had nothing to do with racism are deliberately ignoring the bigger picture. That's why I call these details "irrelevant." Even if it can be shown that Michael Brown's killing had nothing whatsoever to do with racism, there is still the bigger picture. These attempts to take each case and dissect it in order to 'prove' that this case was an isolated incident begin to look a lot like desperation when the exact same attempt is made every single time the pattern is repeated. "Nothing to see here folks, just another isolated incident" is the automatic go-to for the Highly Affected Racialist.

Whether you accept that s/he exists or not.

 

[Rhea]

Davka made no indication as to the size of the group he was talking about. It's tautological and useless to me to tell me that the number of people in a group is the number of people who are in the group.

Okay, I see that you read it differently. It seemed really unequivocal to me that the list about racialists' habits would describe racialists. I also took it as obvious that not every racialist will exhibit every behavior nor that anyone exhibiting a behavior is therefore a racialist. I suppose that comes from having a lot of experience with symptom-defined medical diagnoses; here is a list of symptoms, if you have one or two you don't necessarily have this disease, and if you have this disease you may not necessarily show these symptoms as given, but if you see this group of symptoms or some large number of them, its more likely that the thing underlying those symptoms is this disease.

So it seems like a perfect ordinary way of connecting a personality "diagnosis" with behavioral "signs and symptoms." To me. YMMV.

Davka's first response to Loren Petchel's questions ended like this: "Yes, that's exactly what racialists say when they want to deny the problem. Thank you for the example." That implies that Loren is a racialist and denying the problem of racism. That was on page two of this thread and it has continued since then.

Loren's opinions on race and racism are not first encountered in this thread. There is a decade-long history that is rich and illuminating. ...FYI.

5. Hyperfocus on Minutiae. Whenever a newsworthy race-related atrocity hits the media, Highly Affected Racialists spring into action to deflect the conversation away from the dangerous ground of societal wrongs, and onto the irrelevant “facts of the case.”

I asked earlier what it meant to be hyperfocused on minutiae because it seems like way too loose of a term. What is the threshhold between focus and hyperfocus? Likewise, what is the threshhold between minutiae and facts worth consideration? Your suggestion that the "facts of the case" are irrelevant seems wrong on its face. It could be that you mean inconsequential facts of a case (such as a person's zodiac sign) but, at least one of your examples ("whether the DNA in the lab fits the witness reports") seems to preclude that possibility.

.

I took this to mean the refusal to talk about the larger problems of racism or institutionalized racism by using this tactic to talk about anything but the actual racism. The words "deflect the conversation" are operative here. The refusal to discuss a societal racism problem by hyperfocusing on the minutiae of the examples. You can't see societal racism in a single example. So if you refuse to group any two incidents together by focusing on the minute differences, you can avoid ever discussing institutional racism.