7 Habits of Highly Affected Racialists

[Davka]

Nope. I was asking a question. One which you appear to be afraid to answer.

You're still not getting it. You asked a wife-beater question, I called you on it.

No, I didn't. I asked no leading question. I asked an open-ended question, one with a pretty obvious answer that you're afraid to touch.

 

[SimpleDon]

So if I hyper focus on the minutiae, "Our problem is with poverty, not racism." will magickally transform itself into "Our problem is with poverty, not racism."

It was the "not" that tricked me into thinking it was a #3, I think.

Some times I wonder why I bother. I write 730 words about a subject and invariably someone ignores oh, say the ideas behind 724 of them and willfully misconstrues the remaining six.

Where is Loren or boneyard or max? At least they think about and try to answer my points. At least they have the guts to put something of themselves out there. They demonstrate the ability to think, to reason.

You are one of the semantic warriors. Unable to risk any of yourself by laying claim to anything resembling your own ideas you are happy to nip at the heels of anyone here whose posts offend your sense of yourself. A sense that you don't share with us. Rather you argue about the meaning of words, you purposely misunderstand the points that are made and you hone in on minutiae picking at them hoping that we don't notice your complete lack of original thought. By parts you probably think that you are being clever. The whole is only sad.

There must be something that you believe in with enough certainty to put out here and to defend.

 

[Davka]

Are you or are you not taking the position that "So many minorities are poor because their parents and grandparents were forced into poverty by this legal, institutional racism. And it is very hard to work oneself out of poverty. Not impossible but very hard to do." has no bearing whatsoever on what you ripped bleeding from it's context?

Because if you are pretending that the placement of this quote directly prior to the one which you tore in half and isolated as if it was a standalone quote makes no difference whatsoever to the meaning of the entire quote, you are a motherfucking lying douchebag, and I would gladly rip your goddamned head off and shove it down your neck if you were standing in front of me playing these kinds of games. Because those are the kinds of games that are played by sociopathic racist cunts that the world would be far better off without.

The parents and grandparents thing is classic #3. It's like the problem of racism disappeared sometime between Martin Luther King and the election of Obama.

No, dismal dearheart, because we are still dealing with the consequences today. Like with assholes who troll Internet forums with thinly-veiled racist taunts. People who desperately need to have a little sense beaten into them with a large, ugly stick.
Edited

 

[Mumbles]

1. Rejecting and Mocking Accepted Sociological Terminology. Although the study of racism and racial bigotry has been part of the social sciences for decades, Highly Affected Racialists either studiously ignore the accepted terminology, or pretend not to understand it. An example of this is the word “racism” itself, which is defined as power plus racial bigotry. Highly Affected racialists either ignore this definition or call it “ludicrous,” in spite of the fact that, once understood, the concept is self-evident.¹ This allows for the strengthening of another habit:

Haven't read the entire thread, but I'll push back on this one a bit. The problem isn't that the problem is wrong - but we have a word for when people in a particular field use words in a less-accepted way than everyone else, or a word that nobody outside of the field would use anyway. It's "jargon", and this is jargon. An example - the RF Engineer's definition of "phase noise" versus the digital engineer's view on "jitter". But in this case, we often work together, so we all know it's really the same in the end.

This is one of those cases. I recognize the sociological definition, but really, most people will simply pull up Webster.com or whatever, and say "no, you're changing the definition, black people can be racist. I once got called a cracker!" Best to spell out what you're really saying here, IMO. THis is also why I don't use the term "white privilege" much. People hear it and freak out. Not worth it.

 

[arkirk]

Are you or are you not taking the position that "So many minorities are poor because their parents and grandparents were forced into poverty by this legal, institutional racism. And it is very hard to work oneself out of poverty. Not impossible but very hard to do." has no bearing whatsoever on what you ripped bleeding from it's context?

Because if you are pretending that the placement of this quote directly prior to the one which you tore in half and isolated as if it was a standalone quote makes no difference whatsoever to the meaning of the entire quote, Edited. Because those are the kinds of games that are played by sociopathic racist cunts that the world would be far better off without.

The parents and grandparents thing is classic #3. It's like the problem of racism disappeared sometime between Martin Luther King and the election of Obama.

Is that what you believe?

I do part company with Davka on Edited section...just feel you are unfair to yourself as much as others in this matter. You are the morose "it's not up to us to solve this unsolvable problem" person here. Maybe it is up to us...you included.

 

[dismal]

The parents and grandparents thing is classic #3. It's like the problem of racism disappeared sometime between Martin Luther King and the election of Obama.

Is that what you believe?

I do part company with Davka on Edited section...just feel you are unfair to yourself as much as others in this matter. You are the morose "it's not up to us to solve this unsolvable problem" person here. Maybe it is up to us...you included.

I'm not the one who said it.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Explain to me how it makes the "not" go away.

How interesting. First you waste an entire two pages pretending that you don't understand what a strawman is, only to finally expose the fact that you knew all along. Now you deliberately remove all context from a post, and claim to be incapable of understanding how the context might affect the meaning of the words you ripped bleeding from the post and verbally raped in order to play a juvenile game of "gotcha." Your continued use of weaselly word-games strikes me as the sort of thing that a useless dickwad troll might do in order to attempt to elicit flames. You would never troll for flames, would you?

Wow. Davka meet mirror. You could be talking about 90% of your own posts.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Nope. I was asking a question. One which you appear to be afraid to answer.

Loren doesn't answer questions, post sources, or confront his demons. He makes statements born of his faith in the status quo, and his worship of authority, and then he runs from any truth not his own.

Quoted for truth. I have to try to remember this in the future, as this trait is disturbingly common in the human genome.

Are you or are you not taking the position that "So many minorities are poor because their parents and grandparents were forced into poverty by this legal, institutional racism. And it is very hard to work oneself out of poverty. Not impossible but very hard to do." has no bearing whatsoever on what you ripped bleeding from it's context?

Because if you are pretending that the placement of this quote directly prior to the one which you tore in half and isolated as if it was a standalone quote makes no difference whatsoever to the meaning of the entire quote, Edited Because those are the kinds of games that are played by sociopathic racist cunts that the world would be far better off without.

The parents and grandparents thing is classic #3. It's like the problem of racism disappeared sometime between Martin Luther King and the election of Obama.

Reading comprehension fail.

As Don put it pretty intelligently, racism is not the source of the socioeconomic problems we are currently grappling with in the inner cities. POVERTY is the source of those problems. That institutional racism is the CAUSE of that poverty doesn't change the fact that it is poverty, NOT racism, that is the cause of the current problem (which Don ALSO explained very clearly).

The bumbling agitator that was Jim Crow already started the fire that left huge swaths of the black community a withered, burned-out husk of its former self. America finally got off its ass and banished Jim Crow and eventually put out (most of) the flames. But the damage has already been done, and shaking our collective fists at old Jim Crow isn't going to rebuild what was lost. The house has sustained SERIOUS damage and it's going to take a long time to bring it back up to code.

You can no more eliminate racism from America than you can cure the Common Cold. But institutional racism has been contained to the point that it isn't actually the biggest problem facing minorities right now. It isn't "denying" racism to seriously demote it to its proper place in the scheme of things.

 

[NobleSavage]

arkirk, I surmised you to be a pacifist. Now you are joining Davka in ripping off heads and bashing in teeth because someone sees things differently. Your insults and threats of violence only serve to exacerbate the problem.

 

[Davka]

How interesting. First you waste an entire two pages pretending that you don't understand what a strawman is, only to finally expose the fact that you knew all along. Now you deliberately remove all context from a post, and claim to be incapable of understanding how the context might affect the meaning of the words you ripped bleeding from the post and verbally raped in order to play a juvenile game of "gotcha." Your continued use of weaselly word-games strikes me as the sort of thing that a useless dickwad troll might do in order to attempt to elicit flames. You would never troll for flames, would you?

Wow. Davka meet mirror. You could be talking about 90% of your own posts.

No, J.P. - only a blind fool would think that.

 

[Davka]

1. Rejecting and Mocking Accepted Sociological Terminology. Although the study of racism and racial bigotry has been part of the social sciences for decades, Highly Affected Racialists either studiously ignore the accepted terminology, or pretend not to understand it. An example of this is the word “racism” itself, which is defined as power plus racial bigotry. Highly Affected racialists either ignore this definition or call it “ludicrous,” in spite of the fact that, once understood, the concept is self-evident.¹ This allows for the strengthening of another habit:

Haven't read the entire thread, but I'll push back on this one a bit. The problem isn't that the problem is wrong - but we have a word for when people in a particular field use words in a less-accepted way than everyone else, or a word that nobody outside of the field would use anyway. It's "jargon", and this is jargon. An example - the RF Engineer's definition of "phase noise" versus the digital engineer's view on "jitter". But in this case, we often work together, so we all know it's really the same in the end.

This is one of those cases. I recognize the sociological definition, but really, most people will simply pull up Webster.com or whatever, and say "no, you're changing the definition, black people can be racist. I once got called a cracker!" Best to spell out what you're really saying here, IMO. THis is also why I don't use the term "white privilege" much. People hear it and freak out. Not worth it.

Oh, I agree completely. Using sociological jargon is far more likely to cause confusion than education, unless you're the prof in a sociology class. It's unfortunate but true.

That's why this isn't a list of "ways to identify a racialist," it's just a list of 7 habits that racialists tend to have. Just like the "7 habits of highly effective people," where sharing one or more of these habits doesn't necessarily make you highly effective. Racialists tend to do all these things (and more) automatically, but all that really means is that if you find yourself adopting these habits and you're not a racialist, you might want to do some self-examination and reflection.

I put that one first because it's the most controversial. My sociology-minor uber-feminist daughter and I had many heated discussions about this definition (among others) before I saw her point. Even now I think there should be a new term coined for racism + power, so we can get past the whole "you're re-defining words!" nonsense. I kind of like "wannabe crackerism," but it's a bit clumsy.

- - - Updated - - -

Is that what you believe?

I do part company with Davka on Edited...just feel you are unfair to yourself as much as others in this matter. You are the morose "it's not up to us to solve this unsolvable problem" person here. Maybe it is up to us...you included.

I'm not the one who said it.

Only a Edited fool would answer this way.

- - - Updated - - -

arkirk, I surmised you to be a pacifist. Now you are joining Davka in ripping off heads and bashing in teeth because someone sees things differently. Your insults and threats of violence only serve to exacerbate the problem.

Huh? How does "I do part company with Davka on ripping your head off..." amount to agreement? He's declaring himself to be a pacifist.

 

[EPresence2]

...racism is not the source of the socioeconomic problems we are currently grappling with in the inner cities. POVERTY is the source of those problems. That institutional racism is the CAUSE of that poverty doesn't change the fact that it is poverty, NOT racism, that is the cause of the current problem (which Don ALSO explained very clearly).

The bumbling agitator that was Jim Crow already started the fire that left huge swaths of the black community a withered, burned-out husk of its former self. America finally got off its ass and banished Jim Crow and eventually put out (most of) the flames. But the damage has already been done, and shaking our collective fists at old Jim Crow isn't going to rebuild what was lost. The house has sustained SERIOUS damage and it's going to take a long time to bring it back up to code.

You can no more eliminate racism from America than you can cure the Common Cold. But institutional racism has been contained to the point that it isn't actually the biggest problem facing minorities right now. It isn't "denying" racism to seriously demote it to its proper place in the scheme of things.

That sounds about right. Are dismal et al. claiming that racism is being denied if it gets demoted to below poverty?

 

[Davka]

...racism is not the source of the socioeconomic problems we are currently grappling with in the inner cities. POVERTY is the source of those problems. That institutional racism is the CAUSE of that poverty doesn't change the fact that it is poverty, NOT racism, that is the cause of the current problem (which Don ALSO explained very clearly).

The bumbling agitator that was Jim Crow already started the fire that left huge swaths of the black community a withered, burned-out husk of its former self. America finally got off its ass and banished Jim Crow and eventually put out (most of) the flames. But the damage has already been done, and shaking our collective fists at old Jim Crow isn't going to rebuild what was lost. The house has sustained SERIOUS damage and it's going to take a long time to bring it back up to code.

You can no more eliminate racism from America than you can cure the Common Cold. But institutional racism has been contained to the point that it isn't actually the biggest problem facing minorities right now. It isn't "denying" racism to seriously demote it to its proper place in the scheme of things.

That sounds about right. Are dismal et al. claiming that racism is being denied if it gets demoted to below poverty?

Pretty much.

And even saying "poverty is the problem" needs to be very closely followed by "racism is the cause of the poverty," as crazy eddie does here.

dismal et al are simply playing gotcha, trying to pretend that 1) anyone who even approaches engaging in one of the 7 Habits must be a racist (an absurd claim refuted numerous times in this thread), and that therefore 2) if they can "catch" me or anyone else approaching any of these habits even obliquely, they "win." They seem desperate to debunk the OP, for some odd reason. It's almost as if they themselves share all or most of these habits with Highly Affected Racialists, and are embarrassed by the fact and angry that it has been exposed.

 

[NobleSavage]

Haven't read the entire thread, but I'll push back on this one a bit. The problem isn't that the problem is wrong - but we have a word for when people in a particular field use words in a less-accepted way than everyone else, or a word that nobody outside of the field would use anyway. It's "jargon", and this is jargon. An example - the RF Engineer's definition of "phase noise" versus the digital engineer's view on "jitter". But in this case, we often work together, so we all know it's really the same in the end.

This is one of those cases. I recognize the sociological definition, but really, most people will simply pull up Webster.com or whatever, and say "no, you're changing the definition, black people can be racist. I once got called a cracker!" Best to spell out what you're really saying here, IMO. THis is also why I don't use the term "white privilege" much. People hear it and freak out. Not worth it.

Oh, I agree completely. Using sociological jargon is far more likely to cause confusion than education, unless you're the prof in a sociology class. It's unfortunate but true.

That's why this isn't a list of "ways to identify a racialist," it's just a list of 7 habits that racialists tend to have. Just like the "7 habits of highly effective people," where sharing one or more of these habits doesn't necessarily make you highly effective. Racialists tend to do all these things (and more) automatically, but all that really means is that if you find yourself adopting these habits and you're not a racialist, you might want to do some self-examination and reflection.

I put that one first because it's the most controversial. My sociology-minor uber-feminist daughter and I had many heated discussions about this definition (among others) before I saw her point. Even now I think there should be a new term coined for racism + power, so we can get past the whole "you're re-defining words!" nonsense. I kind of like "wannabe crackerism," but it's a bit clumsy.

- - - Updated - - -

Is that what you believe?

I do part company with Davka on Edited section...just feel you are unfair to yourself as much as others in this matter. You are the morose "it's not up to us to solve this unsolvable problem" person here. Maybe it is up to us...you included.

I'm not the one who said it.

Only a dismally moronic fool would answer this way.

- - - Updated - - -

arkirk, I surmised you to be a pacifist. Now you are joining Davka in Edited section because someone sees things differently. Your insults and threats of violence only serve to exacerbate the problem.

Huh? How does "I do part company with Davka on Edited section..." amount to agreement? He's declaring himself to be a pacifist.

It was 4:17am. I read it wrong. Apologies to arkirk.

 

[George S]

That sounds about right. Are dismal et al. claiming that racism is being denied if it gets demoted to below poverty?

Pretty much.

And even saying "poverty is the problem" needs to be very closely followed by "racism is the cause of the poverty," as crazy eddie does here.

dismal et al are simply playing gotcha, trying to pretend that 1) anyone who even approaches engaging in one of the 7 Habits must be a racist (an absurd claim refuted numerous times in this thread), and that therefore 2) if they can "catch" me or anyone else approaching any of these habits even obliquely, they "win." They seem desperate to debunk the OP, for some odd reason. It's almost as if they themselves share all or most of these habits with Highly Affected Racialists, and are embarrassed by the fact and angry that it has been exposed.

I finally get your point, Davka. There are behaviors common to a group (you listed 7, there are more). You name this group Racialists. There is no racism in this name. Whites, blacks, Asians, Jews, Arabs, and, well, people can all be racialists, right?

Minority races with power over majorities of a different race is racism. Majority races with power over minorities of a different race is the same.

I would like the world to stop grouping by race. I would like each person to be judged by the content of their character and not their race. I would like each person to be judged by registrars at colleges by the content of their ability to benefit from the education that school offers and not their race.

In an ideal world the answer to "How many of your doctors are women?" would be "About half." "How many of your students are Black or Hispanic, or Asian?" would be "About the same as their percent of general population."

We are all of the human race. Just one race. Grouping by this race is fine and dandy. I am prejudiced in favor of my race over other races. We humans eat other races. We keep them in pens and treat some inhumanely.

My ancestors and yours were successful at being ancestors. Our race, the human race, is not yet extinct. But I worry.

 

[Davka]

It was 4:17am. I read it wrong. Apologies to arkirk.

I thought that was probably the case. Akirk is too polite to ask

 

[Davka]

Pretty much.

And even saying "poverty is the problem" needs to be very closely followed by "racism is the cause of the poverty," as crazy eddie does here.

dismal et al are simply playing gotcha, trying to pretend that 1) anyone who even approaches engaging in one of the 7 Habits must be a racist (an absurd claim refuted numerous times in this thread), and that therefore 2) if they can "catch" me or anyone else approaching any of these habits even obliquely, they "win." They seem desperate to debunk the OP, for some odd reason. It's almost as if they themselves share all or most of these habits with Highly Affected Racialists, and are embarrassed by the fact and angry that it has been exposed.

I finally get your point, Davka. There are behaviors common to a group (you listed 7, there are more). You name this group Racialists. There is no racism in this name. Whites, blacks, Asians, Jews, Arabs, and, well, people can all be racialists, right?

If you accept the limited sociological definition of racism as "racial bigotry + power," then yes, this is accurate.

Minority races with power over majorities of a different race is racism. Majority races with power over minorities of a different race is the same.

By the OP definition of racism, again correct.

I would like the world to stop grouping by race. I would like each person to be judged by the content of their character and not their race.

That's the ideal, and the goal.

I would like each person to be judged by registrars at colleges by the content of their ability to benefit from the education that school offers and not their race.

Agreed. However, the fact that most Blacks and a significant number of Hispanics are currently experiencing substandard grade-school education, it is difficult to determine applicant's actual abilities by using a single testing protocol. That's why weighting by race is done, in order to attempt to correct for this problem. Frankly, I believe that weighting by SES would accomplish much the same thing, and would defuse the racialists' objections to Affirmative Action.

Unfortunately, the continuing pervasiveness of both racism and racialism makes it difficult for minorities to trust that shifting to weighting by SES would not give racists a loophole for going back - at least in part - to the Bad Old Days.

In an ideal world the answer to "How many of your doctors are women?" would be "About half." "How many of your students are Black or Hispanic, or Asian?" would be "About the same as their percent of general population."

Yep. And SES would not affect the quality of primary education, infrastructure, policing, etc.

We are all of the human race. Just one race. Grouping by this race is fine and dandy. I am prejudiced in favor of my race over other races. We humans eat other races. We keep them in pens and treat some inhumanely.

My ancestors and yours were successful at being ancestors. Our race, the human race, is not yet extinct. But I worry.

Well said. I worry as well. Racism & racialism are only a couple of factors which worry me. Secularism, nationalism, xenophobia, extremism of any stripe - all of these serve to reinforce the fact that Homo Sapiens comprise the biggest single threat to the success of the Human Race.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

That's why weighting by race is done, in order to attempt to correct for this problem.

It takes a shotgun approach that doesn't care about collateral damage. And it is in itself explicitly racist.

Frankly, I believe that weighting by SES would accomplish much the same thing, and would defuse the racialists' objections to Affirmative Action.

Indeed.

Unfortunately, the continuing pervasiveness of both racism and racialism makes it difficult for minorities to trust that shifting to weighting by SES would not give racists a loophole for going back - at least in part - to the Bad Old Days.

That is a nonsense excuse.

Secularism

Secularism?

 

[bigfield]

I would like each person to be judged by registrars at colleges by the content of their ability to benefit from the education that school offers and not their race.

Agreed. However, the fact that most Blacks and a significant number of Hispanics are currently experiencing substandard grade-school education, it is difficult to determine applicant's actual abilities by using a single testing protocol. That's why weighting by race is done, in order to attempt to correct for this problem. Frankly, I believe that weighting by SES would accomplish much the same thing, and would defuse the racialists' objections to Affirmative Action.

I understand your reasoning, but the claim that weighting by race provides a more accurate gauge of a group's abilities is not borne out by the evidence.

Providing preferential admissions for blacks and Hispanics actually causes the academic performance of that group of students to drop well below that of Asian and white students.

Source:
http://www.ceousa.org/attachments/article/548/UM_UGRAD_final.pdf

If you were to provide preference to applicants based on SES, then you would get the same result, except that the drop in college performance would be among the low-SES students instead of among the black and Hispanic students.

Providing slightly easier entry into university does not correct for the problem of a substandard school education. Lack of money, living in a gang-infested neighbourhood, and attending a poorly-funded, overcrowded school are (some of) the problems that need to be addressed by the state and federal governments in order to ensure that more students graduate from high school with the ability to get a college degree.

 

[Davka]

It takes a shotgun approach that doesn't care about collateral damage. And it is in itself explicitly racist.

It's not "racist" by any definition. It is racially discriminatory, but it's not done out of hatred, or a belief in racial superiority/inferiority, or anything else that rational people equate with racism.

Frankly, I believe that weighting by SES would accomplish much the same thing, and would defuse the racialists' objections to Affirmative Action.

Indeed.

Unfortunately, the continuing pervasiveness of both racism and racialism makes it difficult for minorities to trust that shifting to weighting by SES would not give racists a loophole for going back - at least in part - to the Bad Old Days.

That is a nonsense excuse.

It's not an excuse, it's a reason.

Secularism

Secularism?

Brain fart - meant to write "sectarianism."