[Pseudo] Intellectual Racism

Lol! Yes, for sufficiently small groups of people. I bet it would be a serious challenge to find any group larger than 100 people who are all nice, short of creating your own group by hand-picking each person for niceness.
 
Lithrael said:
Lol! Yes, for sufficiently small groups of people. I bet it would be a serious challenge to find any group larger than 100 people who are all nice, short of creating your own group by hand-picking each person for niceness.
Click to expand...

But when I say that.... I make the assumption most people aren't idiots. And they are not. Most people get it.

When someone says pit bulls are cross dogs, it's understood they are not talking about every single pit bull that ever existed.

When posters on this thread talked about Natives have a problem with alcohol, I understood that they didn't mean, every single Native that ever existed had a problem with alcohol. They meant as a group, the trait to have a problem with alcohol showed up more.

So when someone says... men are pigs... or Chinese people are hard working or African Americans are excellent sprinters.... I know what they mean or how to take it.

You don't.
 
There are cultural and socio-economic reasons why minorities tend to be less well off than white people. Some of their plight today does indeed stem from historical prejudice, discrimination and oppression. Let's not fool ourselves, racism is alive and well.

We also know that genetics has a lot to do with human behavior and it stands to reason that people with certain genotypes (forgive any lapses in terminology) would share certain behaviors. I would find a statement (if proven true) "people with genotype X tend toward violence," to be no more racist than, "people with genotype Y tend toward diabetes." If it's true it's true.

So I don't find it to be "Psuedointellectual Racism," to examine the root causes of human behavior, be they social, cultural or genetic if the goal is to solve the problem. If the goal is simply to write off an entire genotype as somehow lesser, than that would be Actual Racism.
 
xjx388 said:
There are cultural and socio-economic reasons why minorities tend to be less well off than white people. Some of their plight today does indeed stem from historical prejudice, discrimination and oppression. Let's not fool ourselves, racism is alive and well.

We also know that genetics has a lot to do with human behavior and it stands to reason that people with certain genotypes (forgive any lapses in terminology) would share certain behaviors. I would find a statement (if proven true) "people with genotype X tend toward violence," to be no more racist than, "people with genotype Y tend toward diabetes." If it's true it's true.

So I don't find it to be "Psuedointellectual Racism," to examine the root causes of human behavior, be they social, cultural or genetic if the goal is to solve the problem. If the goal is simply to write off an entire genotype as somehow lesser, than that would be Actual Racism.
Click to expand...

What if you just wanted to avoid certain types of people because they're more likely to be associated with, for example, crime? Is that racism, to you?

Cpl Ferro
 
The Atheist said:
Do you really want to keep on this track?

Do you disbelieve that genocide, racism, murder, rape and colonialisation of black and brown people by white men had no lasting effect on the conquered people?

Do you disbelieve that every single one of your forebears being uprooted from their home and enslaved, then many of whom were tortured, raped or maimed by white owners for over ten generations might not leave some scars that persist as festering sores for a century or more?

You seem to want to deny that white treatment of other people over a thousand years has left no lasting issues, so please offer an alternative, because the numbers are a disgrace.

But not just for black people.

You think black on black crime is caused by ................

(please fill in the blanks)



Are you sure that isn't being done in a satirical way?

I do use it myself, strictly as parody, to prove that white men are crooks.

We've recently had a long list of white bankers and financiers jailed for fraud. Every single one of them was white. Bernie Madoff? (Oh god, a Jew, even worse!) Not one brown face among the whole lot.

The point is to show that statistics are easy to use dishonestly.
Click to expand...
And this is the point that I was going to make. From Brainster's numbers, the actual incidence of "murderer" among a (2010) black population of around 39,000,000 is something like 0.014%; for whites, in a population of about 223,000,000, the incidence was about 0.002%. I've seen "Color Of Crime"-style advocates use these stats to "prove" that black people, as a class, are therefore seven times more likely to murder than white people; there's also the comparison to the respective proportions of each to their share in the whole U.S. population. But, to me, this is just the sort of "lies, damn lies, and statistics" trick that amounts to superficial and pseudo-intellectual racism. (TBF to Brainster, he never said this- the reason for my questions is that I dislike putting words in someone's mouth.)

"Murderer," as a class, is an anomalistic exception to the general rule for the U.S. population; from the numbers above, the same is true of "black murderers," as well as white ones, for their respective parent categories. It's deliberately mismatching contexts to compare an anomalistic class with the class it's an exception to- black murderers to general black population- to come up with a predictive conclusion like "are seven times more likely to murder" for the general class; you simply cannot make such a general finding about a whole class from such a tiny- effectively zero- portion of it. Even comparing proportions doesn't help, since seven times what's effectively zero is still effectively zero.

Since "murderers" are in that class of their own, they need to be judged as such- instead of asking the contrived question "are black people more likely to be murderers than white people?" the question should be more properly framed as "are murderers more likely to be black people than white people?" This preserves the proper contexts; the only reason I can see to frame it the other way round is to force the answer wanted, by statistical mismatching of categories whose only link is that one is definitionally an anomaly of the other. And, asked properly, Brainster's own numbers show the difference in numbers to be statistically insignificant, at least as far as defining racial characteristics go- of the total number of murderers known by race, black people committed around 52%, and white around 45% ("other" making up the balance). I don't think that 7% difference is enough by which to make any defining conclusions, involving basic characteristics of either race, as to their "likelihood" of inclusion in an anomalistic class.

And your point about "anti-racists" using the same reasoning against white serial killers (etc) is a sound one- every time I've seen it used (and I've done it myself) is to point out the flaw in it, not to use it seriously as a valid method. (I can't speak to the uses Ammonitida has seen- I'm sure there are folks who will bend numbers for their own purposes on any side of any question.)
 
CplFerro said:
What if you just wanted to avoid certain types of people because they're more likely to be associated with, for example, crime? Is that racism, to you?

Cpl Ferro
Click to expand...

I wouldn't consider that outright racism, maybe an irrational fear. I define racism as "hatred or denigration of a race of people based on that race's perceived inferiority." If one thinks a black person is inferior simply because they are black -that's racism.

We all have irrational fears and biases against other people for a whole host of reasons. My wife was born and raised in a small Texas town where there were no other races except white and hispanic. When we moved to a larger city for school, she was kind of uncomfortable with the wide range of ethnicities she was suddenly exposed to. She didn't hate anyone, she just didn't know how to relate to people with totally different cultures. She overcame that irrational fear and doesn't have that issue anymore.

So I would be careful to differentiate normal if irrational fears and biases from racism.
 
xjx388 said:
I wouldn't consider that outright racism, maybe an irrational fear. I define racism as "hatred or denigration of a race of people based on that race's perceived inferiority." If one thinks a black person is inferior simply because they are black -that's racism.

We all have irrational fears and biases against other people for a whole host of reasons. My wife was born and raised in a small Texas town where there were no other races except white and hispanic. When we moved to a larger city for school, she was kind of uncomfortable with the wide range of ethnicities she was suddenly exposed to. She didn't hate anyone, she just didn't know how to relate to people with totally different cultures. She overcame that irrational fear and doesn't have that issue anymore.

So I would be careful to differentiate normal if irrational fears and biases from racism.
Click to expand...



I'd say that being uncomfortable about how to relate to members of a different culture is different to fearing people in that culture*.

The second one is literally xenophobia, and if it is based on skin colour, I'd class it as racism - TBH I don't really care whether racists say this doesn't fit with the nuances of racist ideology and am not going into a "no true racist" discussion.




*for example, someone could know that a lot of Japanese culture is very formal, and someone could worry about committing a faux pas. That is perfectly reasonable.
 
turingtest said:
And this is the point that I was going to make...
Click to expand...

Not sure I follow your post. Are you using the word "anomaly" just to mean an exception or a small percentage, or is there some technical use with which I am unfamiliar.

The statistics you quoted are often described as showing that there are a disproportionate number of murders committed by blacks. Are you saying this is not the case?
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
Not sure I follow your post. Are you using the word "anomaly" just to mean an exception or a small percentage, or is there some technical use with which I am unfamiliar.

The statistics you quoted are often described as showing that there are a disproportionate number of murders committed by blacks. Are you saying this is not the case?
Click to expand...

My understanding of Turingtest's post is that the vast majority of people are not murderers, and it is probably better to look what other common features murders have, rather than pick up on one (race) that has a predictive value of about one in a thousand.
 
CplFerro said:
What if you just wanted to avoid certain types of people because they're more likely to be associated with, for example, crime? Is that racism, to you?

Cpl Ferro
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, and to put it into the topic at hand, this person is judging someone, based on their skin color?

Yes, that is racism, by definition.
 
xjx388 said:
I wouldn't consider that outright racism, maybe an irrational fear. I define racism as "hatred or denigration of a race of people based on that race's perceived inferiority." If one thinks a black person is inferior simply because they are black -that's racism.

We all have irrational fears and biases against other people for a whole host of reasons. My wife was born and raised in a small Texas town where there were no other races except white and hispanic. When we moved to a larger city for school, she was kind of uncomfortable with the wide range of ethnicities she was suddenly exposed to. She didn't hate anyone, she just didn't know how to relate to people with totally different cultures. She overcame that irrational fear and doesn't have that issue anymore.

So I would be careful to differentiate normal if irrational fears and biases from racism.
Click to expand...

What about irrational revulsion? Would considering a different race as exhibiting inferior pulchritude or sexual attractiveness be racism?

Cpl Ferro
 
The Atheist said:
Nope. Not me, anyway.

I judge people by their actions.
Click to expand...

Really? You're watching the 100m dash at the Olympics, you see the 1 white guy lining up and you can't figure out he's an auto toss? I can... just by looking at the color of his skin.

I can tell you who has the higher cancer risk of all the different types and probably be right... just by skin color.


Put a white guy next to a white guy.... I'll tell you who is most likely to get followed in a store... or go to college... and will probably be right.

It's a pretty helpful tool.
 
Caper said:
Really? You're watching the 100m dash at the Olympics, you see the 1 white guy lining up and you can't figure out he's an auto toss? I can... just by looking at the color of his skin.

I can tell you who has the higher cancer risk of all the different types and probably be right... just by skin color.


Put a white guy next to a white guy.... I'll tell you who is most likely to get followed in a store... or go to college... and will probably be right.

It's a pretty helpful tool.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should apply for Randi's mio before he leaves the planet - sounds like an amazing skill you have.

In terms of the Olympic 100m races, I tend to look at times and results rather than the colour of the runners.

Cancer? People with darker skin have a higher incidence of some skin cancers than people with lighter skins so if you can tell who's a higher risk based on skin colour you have a special talent indeed.
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
Not sure I follow your post. Are you using the word "anomaly" just to mean an exception or a small percentage, or is there some technical use with which I am unfamiliar.

The statistics you quoted are often described as showing that there are a disproportionate number of murders committed by blacks. Are you saying this is not the case?
Click to expand...

jimbob said:
My understanding of Turingtest's post is that the vast majority of people are not murderers, and it is probably better to look what other common features murders have, rather than pick up on one (race) that has a predictive value of about one in a thousand.
Click to expand...

I do tend to ramble on, don't I? But, yes, jimbob has the essence of it. An "anomaly" is (to me) anything that is so far outside the normal expectation for a general class that no prediction for that general class can be made from it. "Murderer," for the general U.S. population as well as its subsets of "black population" and "white population," seems to fit here by the numbers (BTW, "about one in a thousand" is too high; the incidences I quoted were as percentages, so, for white people, the actual number was 0.0000212; for black people, 0.00014; feel free to check my math).

The only point I was making was to folks who use those proportions to make predictive conclusions (ala "The Color Of Crime") about the general class of "black people" like "Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder." I don't disagree with the numbers; I just doubt the ability to make such sweeping generalizations about the behavior of an entire race from them, since they're based on comparing numbers that are effectively zero, no matter what the proportions, and comparing PawPaws (murderers) to apples (any general population the murderers are an exception to).
 
Last edited:
The Atheist said:
Maybe you should apply for Randi's mio before he leaves the planet - sounds like an amazing skill you have.

In terms of the Olympic 100m races, I tend to look at times and results rather than the colour of the runners.

Cancer? People with darker skin have a higher incidence of some skin cancers than people with lighter skins so if you can tell who's a higher risk based on skin colour you have a special talent indeed.
Click to expand...

No. But I can make good educated guesses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom