• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How Racist are Internet Users?

I don't think, Freddy, that the issue should be "is the person racist?"

Racism is more about a dominant group, in this case whites, having undue power and influence (THE In-Group) over minority groups (The Out-Groups).

When your group, whatever its composition, is the minority out-group, you very clearly feel the lack of power your group has. I mean, obviously, if you had the power, your group wouldn't be the out-group! It is natural in that case to want to wrest power, of whatever sort, wherever you can take it. If you discover it is permissible for your out-group to mock the powerful and influential In-Group, then isn't it wholly understandable when you do so?

Fat comedians make fun of thin people, but doing so doesn't suddenly make being thin socially unacceptable. In fact, the mockery doesn't really harm the higher social status of thin people in any way.

It doesn't even have to be a case of majority in-group vs. minority out-group. Depending on the nature of the power wielded, a minority can be the dominant In-Group, and discriminate against a majority out-group.

Going back to weight, let's say, for instance, that fat, unhealthy people far outnumber thin, fit people. That they are the majority doesn't appear to give them status or power, does it? In fact, if most of the people in the HR department are thin and fit, you might find that tends to be the kind of person who gets hired, or promoted, at that company, right?

So it's not about whether a person is racist, but rather, whether the person belongs to a group that has power over or dominates other groups.

Even when white TV shows make fun of white out-groups (ignorant rednecks), the out-groups still remain part of the dominant in-group, and still share the power of that in-group over the other out-groups.

In other words, the redneck, no matter how much you make fun of him, will always be white.
The black person, no matter what, will never be white, will never be part of the white in-group.

We know this, because we still use the words to make the color distinction.

So if a person makes a remark that they don't mean to be racist, but it's the sort of remark that just reinforces negative racial stereotypes, and shows clearly there's a power-imbalance, yah, it's pretty much a racist remark. But no, that doesn't mean the person is necessarily racist. If the remark causes harm, though, does it really matter if your intent was consciously racist or not? It has a racial power-imbalance effect, and I'd say that's what actually matters.
 
I don't think, Freddy, that the issue should be "is the person racist?"

Racism is more about a dominant group, in this case whites, having undue power and influence (THE In-Group) over minority groups (The Out-Groups).

When your group, whatever its composition, is the minority out-group, you very clearly feel the lack of power your group has. I mean, obviously, if you had the power, your group wouldn't be the out-group! It is natural in that case to want to wrest power, of whatever sort, wherever you can take it. If you discover it is permissible for your out-group to mock the powerful and influential In-Group, then isn't it wholly understandable when you do so?

Fat comedians make fun of thin people, but doing so doesn't suddenly make being thin socially unacceptable. In fact, the mockery doesn't really harm the higher social status of thin people in any way.

It doesn't even have to be a case of majority in-group vs. minority out-group. Depending on the nature of the power wielded, a minority can be the dominant In-Group, and discriminate against a majority out-group.

Going back to weight, let's say, for instance, that fat, unhealthy people far outnumber thin, fit people. That they are the majority doesn't appear to give them status or power, does it? In fact, if most of the people in the HR department are thin and fit, you might find that tends to be the kind of person who gets hired, or promoted, at that company, right?

So it's not about whether a person is racist, but rather, whether the person belongs to a group that has power over or dominates other groups.

Even when white TV shows make fun of white out-groups (ignorant rednecks), the out-groups still remain part of the dominant in-group, and still share the power of that in-group over the other out-groups.

In other words, the redneck, no matter how much you make fun of him, will always be white.
The black person, no matter what, will never be white, will never be part of the white in-group.

We know this, because we still use the words to make the color distinction.

So if a person makes a remark that they don't mean to be racist, but it's the sort of remark that just reinforces negative racial stereotypes, and shows clearly there's a power-imbalance, yah, it's pretty much a racist remark. But no, that doesn't mean the person is necessarily racist. If the remark causes harm, though, does it really matter if your intent was consciously racist or not? It has a racial power-imbalance effect, and I'd say that's what actually matters.

Point taken. This is part of what I meant when I said it depends on how racism is defined, though I should have been more clear in acknowledging that differences in definition also entail differences in focus, i.e., whether it matters more whether a person is racist vs. whether a comment reinforces racism or gives "cover" to racists. I don't condone either, although the trolling explanation allows me to lose less faith in humanity.
 
Last edited:
I would say the phenomena is really no different from people being more of a jerk online than usual.

There's little real life consequence for being mean, racist, sexist, etc.

Youtube girls get all kinds of desperate "be my girlfriend" type messages or lewd comments on their body parts.

Any forum will have people be more hotheaded than if that same conversation happened sitting around a table.

And people will be racist just cause they can get away with it.
 
So, do racists just spend disproportionate time posting on boards? Is it just a crafty use of proxy servers to bump up ratings? Or are more people racist than they would admit in public?
I think the white nationalists like to recruit on the internet because it is easier to find useful idiots on wooish sites. It also allows them to overcome their shame at their own lack of manliness to strut about and spew their swill without the risk of taste-testing a baseball bat.
 
To be honest, I think we ,and the world at large, would be a lot better off if we just ignored most racist groups altogether. Just treat them like SHC and let them sit in their shacks writing goofy literature. Any publicity or attention for them is too much. (just as the more we talk about what makes us different takes us further away from what makes us alike)
 
The vast majority of posts I've ever seen on the internet being stupid and/or racist were using black text.

Just sayin'.
 
Any forum will have people be more hotheaded than if that same conversation happened sitting around a table.
The great advantage of an Internet forum is that you don't risk getting a punch in the nose for saying something offensive.

However, that doesn't necessarily mean that people are more likely to make racist comments on an internet forum. I have been in many 'real world' situations where people were letting their racism show, and all I could do about it was bite my tongue. These same people wouldn't have the courage to publish their tirades on the net for all to see.

The good thing about racism on the net is that in most forums you are likely to get called on it. Offensive posts may be removed, and if you persist then you may even get banned from the site. As a result, inveterate racists have to find forums which tolerate their behavior. Thus the bigots tend to collect together in places that nobody else wants to visit.

LogicFail said:
To be honest, I think we ,and the world at large, would be a lot better off if we just ignored most racist groups altogether.
'Out of sight, out of mind' might be a good way to deal with fringe groups who are trying to promote their cause, but racism isn't confined to just those few nutcases. Unfortunately a large proportion of the 'world at large' also hold residual racist feelings. We need to call it out whenever we see it, and let everybody know that it is unacceptable!
 
I think that the basic underpinnings of racism are instinctive tribalism that may be next to impossible to remove (like say how people will help those most like them during a time of stress, or tend to merge into like cliques when in groups). I feel these are basic survival and genetic protectionistic strategies.

That's much different than what I am referring to though. The klans and skinheads, black power groups...etc That want to use our differences as a wedge between us. Those people are the one's I think need to be given no attention, except maybe by the ATF.
 
Kind of hard for some of us to ignore low lifes who try to kill people for being different.
 
Something I've wondered for a while - how representative (or unrepresentative) are message board contributors? Previously in the old days (ie about 10 years ago....) message boards seemed disproportionately populated by angry young men, but with the spread of the internet is that generalisation still true?

For example, the Daily Mail (the world's most read newspaper) often has a strong racist following contributing to the message boards. The Daily Telegraph's boards resemble a StormFront rally. But where are these people coming from? How prevalent is racism when people can hide behind internet anonymity? Or are racist people (for some reason) simply more likely to post on the internet than other people?

Discuss :)

Internet message boards can bring out the worst in some people. Kind of like the Jeckyll and Hyde personalities seen when some people get behind the wheel of a car.
 

Back
Top Bottom