How do you define racism?

[seayakin]

If one accepts IQ as a measure of intelligence, then it's pretty well established. The only question is about whether and to what extent genetics are involved.

I think defining intelligence is very tricky and therefore measuring it can be difficult. Obviously, IQ is a well established measure but does it really only measure one kind of intelligence. (See WebMD)

I'm not sure to what extent saying that the genetic differences are small is helpful. The genetic differences between humans and chimps are pretty small. The genetic differences between men and women are tiny. The question is what those differences are.

A can grant that it may not be helpful. I'm going by memory because I can't find a copy of an article on race in Scientific American I read several years ago. In any case, I thought the finding of the research indicated there was even less genetic distinction between people of different races than species closely related to homo sapiens.

 

[shuttlt]

I think defining intelligence is very tricky and therefore measuring it can be difficult. Obviously, IQ is a well established measure but does it really only measure one kind of intelligence. (See WebMD)

I understand the limitations of IQ. Inevitably you end up with a certain degree of arbitrariness in the elements of the tests and the weighting. Intelligence is just not sufficiently well defined for it to be possible to say, without reference to a specific way of measuring it, whether one race is more intelligent, less intelligent or of equal intelligence. Manifestly there are measures of intelligence though where all races don't come out the same.

A can grant that it may not be helpful. I'm going by memory because I can't find a copy of an article on race in Scientific American I read several years ago. In any case, I thought the finding of the research indicated there was even less genetic distinction between people of different races than species closely related to homo sapiens.

It would be kind of strange if that wasn't the case. Is anybody explicitly arguing that there is more of a difference between human races than modern humans and Neanderthals? I've seen arguments against this claim, such as the one you are making, I don't recall ever having seen the claim asserted though. Even if one believes that the different races derive from the different children of Noah (I know there are other religious positions on this), Neanderthals have presumably got to be pre-flood.

 

[Nessie]

It's not that simple.

Obviously, a racial slur is racist. But the person saying it can be more complex. It could very well be that the person saying the slur is a racist who is saying these things out of his dislike or prejudice against Asians. That's the simple answer.

The more complex one is illustrated by arguments between family members. Teenagers yelling "I hate you!" at their moms or in anger bringing up that one thing that your spouse is most sensitive to. When we are angry and in an argument, the objective is often to make the other person hurt (emotionally) by whatever means available. We grab hold of whatever we can use (fat/ugly/stupid) etc. and throw that at them. It's not rational, and sometimes what is said is not true. (I've seen smart, attractive, skinny people called stupid fat and ugly.)

Sometimes in anger people say things that they don't mean or even believe. With strangers, race and appearance are easy targets, because you don't know them well enough to find the stuff that will REALLY hurt them.

So, yes, racial slurs in anger are racist statements. It doesn't necessarily follow that the person who said them in anger actually holds those opinions or is actually really racist, though.

Not an excuse, of course. Bad behavior due to emotional reactions is still bad behavior.

I agree with everything you have said and have concluded that I would not call someone who uses a racist term in the heat of the moment a racist.

 

[Belz...]

Maybe if you asked yourself why there is a thread asking 'How do you define 'racism'?' and no thread asking 'How do you define 'cow'?' you wouldn't be tempted to write such absurdities.

Is it absurd to answer that question with "I use the definition that is in the dictionary (the one commonly used), as should we all so that we understand each other"? I've been pretty consistent on the issue of language over the years in my opinion that we shouldn't use personalised definitions except for very specific contexts.

 

[baron]

Is it absurd to answer that question with "I use the definition that is in the dictionary (the one commonly used), as should we all so that we understand each other"? I've been pretty consistent on the issue of language over the years in my opinion that we shouldn't use personalised definitions except for very specific contexts.

The topic of conversation is how do people define 'racism', not how should people define 'racism.'

 

[Belz...]

The topic of conversation is how do people define 'racism', not how should people define 'racism.'

Addressed and qualified in the post you quoted. Could you answer my question?

 

[baron]

Addressed and qualified in the post you quoted. Could you answer my question?

Your question isn't relevant because it's unrelated to what you said.

I said

I don't much care what the official version of racism is...

You replied

It's not "official". It's the one in use. A small minority wants to make it mean something different...

which, aside from being ridiculous, is not even vaguely the same as

"I use the definition that is in the dictionary (the one commonly used), as should we all so that we understand each other."

Why not just admit you were wrong?

 

[Belz...]

which, aside from being ridiculous

Why is it ridiculous? There is no "official", government-sanctioned definition of any word.

is not even vaguely the same as

Yes, because you're talking about two answers to two statements. Please do keep up.

Why not just admit you were wrong?

About what? You just saying I'm absurd or ridiculous is neither an argument nor a demonstration of why I'm being absurd or ridiculous.

 

[baron]

Why is it ridiculous? There is no "official", government-sanctioned definition of any word.

It is ridiculous to state that the word 'racism' is homogeneously interpreted by the vast majority of the population when this blatantly is not the case.

Yes, because you're talking about two answers to two statements. Please do keep up.

Maybe you should concentrate on the topic rather than attempting - with marked lack of success - to score points.

About what? You just saying I'm absurd or ridiculous is neither an argument nor a demonstration of why I'm being absurd or ridiculous.

See my first line in this post.

 

[Belz...]

It is ridiculous to state that the word 'racism' is homogeneously interpreted by the vast majority of the population when this blatantly is not the case.

And where have I stated this?

Maybe you should concentrate on the topic rather than attempting - with marked lack of success - to score points.

Says the poster who only answered my posts by calling them absurd and ridiculous without further comment, and who is now strawmanning me. Perhaps you should check that huge beam in your eye.

 

[baron]

And where have I stated this?

Maybe the statement I've now requoted three times?

It's not "official". It's the one in use. A small minority wants to make it mean something different...

Do you want it again? Here we go

It's not "official". It's the one in use. A small minority wants to make it mean something different...

What point is there arguing that you did not say something that you blatantly did? If someone said fire is hot you'd find some way to disagree.

 

[Belz...]

Maybe the statement I've now requoted three times?

Nope. Those statements are different; they do not mean the same thing. I never said or implied anything about the "vast" majority of anything.

Do you want it again?

No, we've already confirmed that you're not reading what I actually write.

If someone said fire is hot you'd find some way to disagree.

Sample bias. The point of this website is discussion, and there's little point in discussing what you already agree on.

 

[baron]

As you're unable to give an account of your own posts, maybe some else can step in and explain how what you said doesn't match my interpretation. Anybody? Anybody at all?

 

[Belz...]

As you're unable to give an account of your own posts, maybe some else can step in and explain how what you said doesn't match my interpretation.

Are you able to carry on a conversation without turning it into a personal fight with the other poster?

I said, and I quote:

It's not "official". It's the one in use. A small minority wants to make it mean something different...

Again, there is no mention or implication of a word:

homogeneously interpreted by the vast majority of the population when this blatantly is not the case.

No, those are NOT the same thing at all.

Furthermore, I challenge your claim that "racism" is such a contentious word. Most people would understand it to mean beliefs or acts that unjustifiably favour one race over another, or some variation of it, hence the "in use" definition found in the dictionary. You have made no attempt to address this and have instead elected to focus on personal attacks and other irrelevancies.

Do you want, now, to actually discuss the issue, or do you plan on continuing to act the fool here?

 

[baron]

Are you able to carry on a conversation without turning it into a personal fight with the other poster?

I said, and I quote:



Again, there is no mention or implication of a word:



No, those are NOT the same thing at all.

Yes, they are the same thing, and until you admit it I can't see any point in discussing anything else. I don't see any merit in automatically disagreeing with everything anybody else says. I'm not the only one who's noted your approach, in this very thread, nor who noted your assertion means what I said it means.

A definition being in use does not mean no other definitions are.

Trying to assert any given one as 'the' definition is going to go exactly nowhere.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, they are the same thing, and until you admit it I can't see any point in discussing anything else.

Well, if you say so, I guess baron determines reality.

Meanwhile, in not-fantasy-land, they are not the same, and until you admit it I can't see any point in discussing anything else.

 

[shuttlt]

Furthermore, I challenge your claim that "racism" is such a contentious word. Most people would understand it to mean beliefs or acts that unjustifiably favour one race over another, or some variation of it, hence the "in use" definition found in the dictionary. You have made no attempt to address this and have instead elected to focus on personal attacks and other irrelevancies.

My experience is that that definition works fine and everybody generally agrees until you pick at it and try to get people to speak unambiguously and precisely, at which point the definition and the consensus falls apart.... as evidenced by this thread. I suspect that that is partly because it's such a useful word to emotively win an argument, and hence the tendency will be to broaden the definition. One aspect of that would be a tendency to either assume, or drop all together the "unjustifiably" part. It looks like affirmative action would not be racist in your definition, but clearly many people regard it as such. Another aspect that I suspect some people would take issue would be that people might be justified, but wrong. It seems clear to me that many people who supported apartheid felt justified by the fear that the country would descend into chaos, violence, and corruption... does that make them not racist?

 

[shuttlt]

Well, if you say so, I guess baron determines reality.

Meanwhile, in not-fantasy-land, they are not the same, and until you admit it I can't see any point in discussing anything else.

Do you mean that the definition you propose is the one in general use, but that the way that definition is used varies significantly between people? That is the only interpretation other than Baron's that I can think of.

 

[Belz...]

My experience is that that definition works fine and everybody generally agrees until you pick at it and try to get people to speak unambiguously and precisely, at which point the definition and the consensus falls apart.... as evidenced by this thread.

I think that's true of most definitions, mind you.

I suspect that that is partly because it's such a useful word to emotively win an argument

There are quite a few words that have this effect, but I can't think of many with as much power to do so as this one, at least in the west.

Do you mean that the definition you propose is the one in general use, but that the way that definition is used varies significantly between people?

That sounds about right. My point was also that it's the definition largely in use, but made no claim about how large of a majority are using it, neither would I dare try to guess. That's where baron went wrong. Of course, his insistence of making this discussion personal sure didn't help get my cooperation in clarifying the matter.

 

[Belz...]

It seems clear to me that many people who supported apartheid felt justified by the fear that the country would descend into chaos, violence, and corruption... does that make them not racist?

I'm not aware of any commonly used version of the definition that distinguishes between this situation and another. Treating another race as an inferior fits the definition, as I understand it.