7 Habits of Highly Affected Racialists

[fromderinside]

Satire is not my friend.

 

[Davka]

Satire is not my friend.

He's your annoying neighbor, the one with the little dog that yaps incessantly.

 

[maxparrish]

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?

For the taxi driver to be a racist in thought and then in action he must consciously believe in inherent morally superior and inferior races AND he must take unwarranted, unfair, and unreasonable actions based on those beliefs. To put a finer point on it, through examples:

Ranja the taxi driver believes black people are a morally inferior race and hates them, but he still picks them up. He is a racist in thought, but not action.

Ranja the taxi driver believes black people are a morally inferior race and hates them, so he always refuses to pick them up because he thinks it is indecent. He is a racist in thought and action.

Ranja the taxi driver has no opinion on moral worth of any race but he refuses to pick them up because he knows that statistically he is far more likely to be mugged. His motivation is not based on his racial moral beliefs (because he has none), it is based on statistics and natural fear. He is not a racist in thought or action.

IF, of course, a person defines racism and a racist as any discriminatory act based on a consideration of race (regardless of a persons motivations or conscious beliefs about race) then that changes the examples. But my examples conform to my definition.

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.

I think I see the source of your confusion. The characterization of my view that "it being important to gauge individual character to avoid doing something racist" is a misunderstanding. For me it is NOT important to gauge individual character merely to avoid doing something racist BECAUSE, even without an evaluation of an individual character, you cannot be RACIST merely because you took an action involving consideration of, or harmful to, a race. To do something racist requires a moral conviction of racial inferiority AND a conscious act based on that belief.

And, when opportunity permits, one should always take individual character as the sole criteria for a moral judgement of a person. In the case of our Taxi driver, Ranja may not pickup a category of people due to his fears and the crime statistics against Taxi drivers, but he may elect to pickup many of those individuals in that racial category because he personally knows them to be good (or at least safe) clients.

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?

At this point in the post, you likely don't need further explanation. However, a breakdown of viewpoints might help:

My View:

Racist thought requires a conscious moral conviction of racial inferiority.
Racist action requires someone acting on that belief, in order to harm persons in that racial category.

Some other Views:

Racist thoughts can also be unconscious hate and hostility to another race.
Racist actions can be any action that use a racial consideration in making a harmful choice, even if not motivated by conscious moral conviction and/or hate.
Racist actions can be any action that ignores race, is not consciously racist, but has a harmful impact on a race.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

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:

That's it.

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!

I've already given you positive rep for owning up to it, no need to overdo it.

 

[ksen]

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?

For the taxi driver to be a racist in thought and then in action he must consciously believe in inherent morally superior and inferior races AND he must take unwarranted, unfair, and unreasonable actions based on those beliefs. To put a finer point on it, through examples:

Ranja the taxi driver believes black people are a morally inferior race and hates them, but he still picks them up. He is a racist in thought, but not action.

Ranja the taxi driver believes black people are a morally inferior race and hates them, so he always refuses to pick them up because he thinks it is indecent. He is a racist in thought and action.

Ranja the taxi driver has no opinion on moral worth of any race but he refuses to pick them up because he knows that statistically he is far more likely to be mugged. His motivation is not based on his racial moral beliefs (because he has none), it is based on statistics and natural fear. He is not a racist in thought or action.

IF, of course, a person defines racism and a racist as any discriminatory act based on a consideration of race (regardless of a persons motivations or conscious beliefs about race) then that changes the examples. But my examples conform to my definition.

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.

I think I see the source of your confusion. The characterization of my view that "it being important to gauge individual character to avoid doing something racist" is a misunderstanding. For me it is NOT important to gauge individual character merely to avoid doing something racist BECAUSE, even without an evaluation of an individual character, you cannot be RACIST merely because you took an action involving consideration of, or harmful to, a race. To do something racist requires a moral conviction of racial inferiority AND a conscious act based on that belief.

And, when opportunity permits, one should always take individual character as the sole criteria for a moral judgement of a person. In the case of our Taxi driver, Ranja may not pickup a category of people due to his fears and the crime statistics against Taxi drivers, but he may elect to pickup many of those individuals in that racial category because he personally knows them to be good (or at least safe) clients.

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?

At this point in the post, you likely don't need further explanation. However, a breakdown of viewpoints might help:

My View:

Racist thought requires a conscious moral conviction of racial inferiority.
Racist action requires someone acting on that belief, in order to harm persons in that racial category.

Some other Views:

Racist thoughts can also be unconscious hate and hostility to another race.
Racist actions can be any action that use a racial consideration in making a harmful choice, even if not motivated by conscious moral conviction and/or hate.
Racist actions can be any action that ignores race, is not consciously racist, but has a harmful impact on a race.

Thanks for finally seeing that Affirmative Action is not racist.

 

[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!

I've already given you positive rep for owning up to it, no need to overdo it.

I have a genetic predisposition towards smartassery.

 

[maxparrish]

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?

For the taxi driver to be a racist in thought and then in action he must consciously believe in inherent morally superior and inferior races AND he must take unwarranted, unfair, and unreasonable actions based on those beliefs. To put a finer point on it, through examples:

Ranja the taxi driver believes black people are a morally inferior race and hates them, but he still picks them up. He is a racist in thought, but not action.

Ranja the taxi driver believes black people are a morally inferior race and hates them, so he always refuses to pick them up because he thinks it is indecent. He is a racist in thought and action.

Ranja the taxi driver has no opinion on moral worth of any race but he refuses to pick them up because he knows that statistically he is far more likely to be mugged. His motivation is not based on his racial moral beliefs (because he has none), it is based on statistics and natural fear. He is not a racist in thought or action.

IF, of course, a person defines racism and a racist as any discriminatory act based on a consideration of race (regardless of a persons motivations or conscious beliefs about race) then that changes the examples. But my examples conform to my definition.

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.

I think I see the source of your confusion. The characterization of my view that "it being important to gauge individual character to avoid doing something racist" is a misunderstanding. For me it is NOT important to gauge individual character merely to avoid doing something racist BECAUSE, even without an evaluation of an individual character, you cannot be RACIST merely because you took an action involving consideration of, or harmful to, a race. To do something racist requires a moral conviction of racial inferiority AND a conscious act based on that belief.

And, when opportunity permits, one should always take individual character as the sole criteria for a moral judgement of a person. In the case of our Taxi driver, Ranja may not pickup a category of people due to his fears and the crime statistics against Taxi drivers, but he may elect to pickup many of those individuals in that racial category because he personally knows them to be good (or at least safe) clients.

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?

At this point in the post, you likely don't need further explanation. However, a breakdown of viewpoints might help:

My View:

Racist thought requires a conscious moral conviction of racial inferiority.
Racist action requires someone acting on that belief, in order to harm persons in that racial category.

Some other Views:

Racist thoughts can also be unconscious hate and hostility to another race.
Racist actions can be any action that use a racial consideration in making a harmful choice, even if not motivated by conscious moral conviction and/or hate.
Racist actions can be any action that ignores race, is not consciously racist, but has a harmful impact on a race.

Thanks for finally seeing that Affirmative Action is not racist.

It's not, but it is unjust racial discrimination. It is only racist if one uses the left of center definitions of racism.

 

[fromderinside]

Satire is not my friend.

He's your annoying neighbor, the one with the little dog that yaps incessantly.

No he's not satire at all. That would be the one who tried to put a man's dog at fault for my hatred of my neighbor.

 

[fromderinside]

It's not, but it is unjust racial discrimination. It is only racist if one uses the left of center definitions of racism.

maxparrish drags another rotting fish across the topic.

 

[Bronzeage]

I've already given you positive rep for owning up to it, no need to overdo it.

I have a genetic predisposition towards smartassery.

It's a dominant gene.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

When did you stop beating your wife?

 

[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?

When did you stop beating your wife?

non sequitur.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

When did you stop beating your wife?

non sequitur.

Pretty sure that's his point.

 

[Davka]

non sequitur.

Pretty sure that's his point.

Doubtful. he posted the archetypal leading question, as if it was somehow relevant. As if i had asked a leading question. Which i had not.

 

[laughing dog]

non sequitur.

Pretty sure that's his point.

I doubt LP's point was that he is posting non-sequitur's (even if it is accurate).

 

[Davka]

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.”

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.

...and on that note:

 

[connick]

Davka, thank you for your response. It is exactly what I was hoping for.

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

I understand. Please carry on and forgive me for the interruption.

 

[Davka]

Of course, the musings of individuals based solely on personal experience can and should be completely ignored. Like Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, Leo Tolstoy, and all those other flakes who wrote about their observations and opinions without presenting any stats to back them up. Completely useless, and of no cultural value whatsoever.

 

[Bronzeage]

Of course, the musings of individuals based solely on personal experience can and should be completely ignored. Like Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, Leo Tolstoy, and all those other flakes who wrote about their observations and opinions without presenting any stats to back them up. Completely useless, and of no cultural value whatsoever.

Can you really trust someone who publishes a book and doesn't use his real name?

Personal experience would indicate not.

 

[bigfield]

Of course, the musings of individuals based solely on personal experience can and should be completely ignored. Like Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, Leo Tolstoy, and all those other flakes who wrote about their observations and opinions without presenting any stats to back them up. Completely useless, and of no cultural value whatsoever.

Can you really trust someone who publishes a book and doesn't use his real name?

Personal experience would indicate not.

Says Mr Zeage.