Colin Kaepernick protests the Anthem

[KLB]

So If I said I wouldn't vote for a white Republican that wouldn't be racist?

Nope. Prejudiced, yes. Racist, no.

 

[jamil]

So If I said I wouldn't vote for a white Republican that wouldn't be racist?

Why are you not voting for the White Republican? Answer that and I can answe your question. You’ve not provided sufficient detail to answer.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Why are you not voting for the White Republican? Answer that and I can answe your question. You’ve not provided sufficient detail to answer.

Because white Republicans do a poor job, and I think the public would think a another race would do better.

 

[Kutnupe14]

x

 

[Kutnupe14]

Nope. Prejudiced, yes. Racist, no.

No, it's racist. One hold the opinion that one's ability is tied to race.

 

[JettaKnight]

No, it's racist. One hold the opinion that one's ability is tied to race.

I think INGO is so allergic to the word "racist" that they can't admit that that an explicit preference based solely on a faction of a percent of DNA encoding is racist, even though it's a clear dictionary definition.

 

[Libertarian01]

To my thinking ANY decision based upon race is racist. Once race enters the equation then racism exists. That said, racism is not necessarily based upon evil intent, but it is still racism. For example, if I am looking to hire a Burmese person to sell insurance within the Burmese community here in Fort Wayne, that is racist and I am using racism. Am I also being pragmatic, in that I believe a Burmese person will be able to bond more with Burmese people? Yes, but it is still racist. If I turn down a Latino person who also speaks Burmese then perhaps(?) my racism is crossing the line into unfair bias, definitely if the Latino has a proven track record of insurance sales.

As to voting, I especially believe that if race enters the equation then racism is involved. Who I vote for is based upon ideology - PERIOD! I don't care about their skin tone one whit. I don't care if they pee standing or sitting. I care that they believe what I do. In politics I don't believe there are too many places where basing a vote upon race does not equal racism. If a person is so worried about skin tone then that is crossing the line. When President Obama was elected I stated yyyy back then that I was going to disagree with about half of what he wanted to do, almost exclusively economic, I was going to agree with about 20% - 30% of what he wanted, mostly social, and I wasn't going to care about 20% - 30% of what he wanted to do. It turns out that I agreed with him much less than I thought I would, but his skin tone did not factor in at all.

Same goes for sex. Can the person do the job? That should be the sole, singular question. If politics, what is their ideology? If a woman is capable of doing the job then she should neither be denied because she is a woman OR preferred because she is a woman. I have always supported women in the military, so long as they can do the job and pass the same standards as men. Caveat: those standards MUST be based upon actual need and not designed to favor men over women.

The problem I see is that we have all come from tribes, going way back. It has always been a zero sum game. Us or them. Them or us. It is very hard for us to break out of this mindset. It is who we sympathize with.

Say a buddy goes for a job interview. He is unemployed and desperately needs the job. He would be a good fit for it. If he doesn't get it then you feel bad for his situation. You sympathize with his loss. If he does get it then you are happy for him. You care nothing for whomever he beat, EVEN IF they may have been a better fit, you're just happy for your buddy. But what if two (2) buddies apply for exactly the same job and one gets it? How then do you feel? What if the winner was, in your opinion, the less qualified? It is much harder emotionally because we're happy for the winner and sad for the loser, because we know both of them.

The point I'm getting at is that it is far easier for us to sympathize with our own tribe than the other guys tribe. It isn't fair, but that's the way it is.

Now, stand up for the flag, damnit! That is OUR tribe.

Regards,

Doug

 

[jamil]

Because white Republicans do a poor job, and I think the public would think a another race would do better.

Irrational. Prejudiced. But not racist.

 

[jamil]

No, it's racist. One hold the opinion that one's ability is tied to race.

That's not racism. that's prejudice. If I'm black, and in my experience every white Republican does things I think hurt me, or, in my experience my peers have interpreted their own experiences that way, it's only prejudice. They actually used to teach the difference in high school social studies classes in the 70's. Apparently they only teach critical theory in social studies classes now.

 

[jamil]

To my thinking ANY decision based upon race is racist. Once race enters the equation then racism exists. That said, racism is not necessarily based upon evil intent, but it is still racism. For example, if I am looking to hire a Burmese person to sell insurance within the Burmese community here in Fort Wayne, that is racist and I am using racism. Am I also being pragmatic, in that I believe a Burmese person will be able to bond more with Burmese people? Yes, but it is still racist. If I turn down a Latino person who also speaks Burmese then perhaps(?) my racism is crossing the line into unfair bias, definitely if the Latino has a proven track record of insurance sales.

As to voting, I especially believe that if race enters the equation then racism is involved. Who I vote for is based upon ideology - PERIOD! I don't care about their skin tone one whit. I don't care if they pee standing or sitting. I care that they believe what I do. In politics I don't believe there are too many places where basing a vote upon race does not equal racism. If a person is so worried about skin tone then that is crossing the line. When President Obama was elected I stated yyyy back then that I was going to disagree with about half of what he wanted to do, almost exclusively economic, I was going to agree with about 20% - 30% of what he wanted, mostly social, and I wasn't going to care about 20% - 30% of what he wanted to do. It turns out that I agreed with him much less than I thought I would, but his skin tone did not factor in at all.

Same goes for sex. Can the person do the job? That should be the sole, singular question. If politics, what is their ideology? If a woman is capable of doing the job then she should neither be denied because she is a woman OR preferred because she is a woman. I have always supported women in the military, so long as they can do the job and pass the same standards as men. Caveat: those standards MUST be based upon actual need and not designed to favor men over women.

The problem I see is that we have all come from tribes, going way back. It has always been a zero sum game. Us or them. Them or us. It is very hard for us to break out of this mindset. It is who we sympathize with.

Say a buddy goes for a job interview. He is unemployed and desperately needs the job. He would be a good fit for it. If he doesn't get it then you feel bad for his situation. You sympathize with his loss. If he does get it then you are happy for him. You care nothing for whomever he beat, EVEN IF they may have been a better fit, you're just happy for your buddy. But what if two (2) buddies apply for exactly the same job and one gets it? How then do you feel? What if the winner was, in your opinion, the less qualified? It is much harder emotionally because we're happy for the winner and sad for the loser, because we know both of them.

The point I'm getting at is that it is far easier for us to sympathize with our own tribe than the other guys tribe. It isn't fair, but that's the way it is.

Now, stand up for the flag, damnit! That is OUR tribe.

Regards,

Doug

Doug, that closer fits my own definition of racism, but I think you're missing the component of necessity. It's reasonable and not racist to describe a person's race to a police officer after you've been robbed, for example. That's often a necessary part of a description. And many decisions are reasonably based on that. If it was a Messican male assailant, the police aren't gonna be looking for a white or black guy. There are other contexts as well where race is relevant. It's when race is brought into the picture unnecessarily, and decisions based on race unnecessarily, that make something racist the way I think about it. And as I said, the way I define it makes most people racist, at least a little.

 

[JettaKnight]

That's not racism. that's prejudice. If I'm black, and in my experience every white Republican does things I think hurt me, or, in my experience my peers have interpreted their own experiences that way, it's only prejudice. They actually used to teach the difference in high school social studies classes in the 70's. Apparently they only teach critical theory in social studies classes now.

Then perhaps it'd help if you define when prejudice becomes racism? If your threshold isn't where Kut's (and Doug, and mine) is, then where is it?

 

[JettaKnight]

Doug, that closer fits my own definition of racism, but I think you're missing the component of necessity. It's reasonable and not racist to describe a person's race to a police officer after you've been robbed, for example. That's often a necessary part of a description. And many decisions are reasonably based on that. If it was a Messican male assailant, the police aren't gonna be looking for a white or black guy. There are other contexts as well where race is relevant. It's when race is brought into the picture unnecessarily, and decisions based on race unnecessarily, that make something racist the way I think about it. And as I said, the way I define it makes most people racist, at least a little.

This sounds like your trying to say that stating, "I won't vote for a black president" is the same as stating, "I won't vote for a president about 5'11" & about 180 pounds.".

 

[jamil]

Then perhaps it'd help if you define when prejudice becomes racism? If your threshold isn't where Kut's (and Doug, and mine) is, then where is it?

Did you read how I personally define racism? It's pretty broad. I'm going by the dictionary definition here though.

So, according to the dictionary definition, and the way social studies had addressed it back when I was in high school, it becomes racist when you think race alone makes one superior to another, or you hate someone based on their race. Prejudice and stereotyping are similar things, but neither are necessarily, or inherently racist. You can presume behavior, or some other outcome based on group identity, and apply it to the entire group, but that isn't by itself racist without adding in hate or superiority/inferiority.

To answer where the line is, is, it becomes racist when you think race alone makes one superior or inferior. The criteria given to me was simply, not voting for a white Republican candidate. That's not enough information to judge reasoning, which matters. In the scenario, would he vote for a white democrat? If so, it's not just race involved in that decision. Why is a white democrat acceptible but not a white republican? And, would he vote for a black republican? It matters.

 

[jamil]

This sounds like your trying to say that stating, "I won't vote for a black president" is the same as stating, "I won't vote for a president about 5'11" & about 180 pounds.".

First, your comparison isn't really accurate. He said white republican. You didn't say 5'11/180lb Republican. But I see where you're going.

So no. If someone states that he won't vote for a black president, if you're going to say that's racist, it absolutely matters why the person won't vote for a black president. Does the person think that black people are inherently inferior to white people--because of their race, or he or she simply hates black people? If that's the case, yes. That's racist.

Or are they simply assuming that a black candidates tend to favor various policies that the person doesn't like. That's not racist. That's not much different from classical conditioning. The person assumes a behavior or culture based on physical traits. That's not racism. That's more related to prejudice and stereotypes.

 

[JettaKnight]

First, your comparison isn't really accurate. He said white republican. You didn't say 5'11/180lb Republican. But I see where you're going.

So no. If someone states that he won't vote for a black president, if you're going to say that's racist, it absolutely matters why the person won't vote for a black president. Does the person think that black people are inherently inferior to white people--because of their race, or he or she simply hates black people? If that's the case, yes. That's racist.

Or are they simply assuming that a black candidates tend to favor various policies that the person doesn't like. That's not racist. That's not much different from classical conditioning. The person assumes a behavior or culture based on physical traits. That's not racism. That's more related to prejudice and stereotypes.

Sure it matters why. But when you simply state, "I won't vote a black president." That's where it's hard to not look at that as racist.

Even so, "I won't vote a white democrat president," doesn't make it any better.


The only possible escape from racism to prejudice is if you can convince me that you said it because you're sure that every black has a fixed set of beliefs because they come from a community. Then it's just a really, really bad stereotypical prejudice.

For instance, "I won't vote for a black president because he'll always be on CP Time." I'd say not racist, but incredibly stupid.

And for the other end of common ground, let's all agree that, "I won't vote for a black president because a black can't do the job as good as a white," is unequivocally racist.

 

[BugI02]

I kind of see where jamil is coming from, Jetta

What passes for racism today, as well as what passes for sexism etc are all proper subsets of prejudice (which is the formation of preconceived opinions about someone/something without facts or data to back it up)

Real racism, IMO, is more like Hitler's attitude toward the Jews or that embodied in "The White Man's Burden" - the belief in the inate superiority of one race over other races, a gulf that cannot be crossed

 

[jamil]

Sure it matters why. But when you simply state, "I won't vote a black president." That's where it's hard to not look at that as racist.

Even so, "I won't vote a white democrat president," doesn't make it any better.


The only possible escape from racism to prejudice is if you can convince me that you said it because you're sure that every black has a fixed set of beliefs because they come from a community. Then it's just a really, really bad stereotypical prejudice.

For instance, "I won't vote for a black president because he'll always be on CP Time." I'd say not racist, but incredibly stupid.

And for the other end of common ground, let's all agree that, "I won't vote for a black president because a black can't do the job as good as a white," is unequivocally racist.

I get what you're saying, but whose job is it to make sure the right meaning is inferred? It's just as incumbent on the listener as much as the speaker to understand what's being said. And, especially today, people are too willing to latch onto something said, because it's possible and politically advantageous to infer all kinds of nasty things from what people say, when they say something awkwardly.

It may sound racist, especially if you, yourself have prejudiced presumptions about the person saying it. But there are very realistic scenarios where someone might say, "I won't vote for a white president". As I said. If you're black, and you think a white person, maybe because you're projecting an assumed prejudice on white people, you think a white president won't or can't possibly act in your favor, that is not, in itself, racism. And of course if you add in the qualifier of "republican", that especially implies there's something else at work there other than race. It implies that you can vote for a white Democrat. So it's not specifically whiteness that you object to. It's probably a more cultural and world-view reason why someone would say that.

So don't just take the words people speak to infer a motive. Take their words and actions and history into account. I think listeners should weigh our ability to get inside a person's head to determine if the motive is actually racism, against the consequences of getting it wrong. Do you want to get it right? Or, is the speaker sufficiently in the other tribe so much you feel justified in calling him a racist, regardless of his actual motives?

And for the other end of common ground, let's all agree that, "I won't vote for a black president because a black can't do the job as good as a white," is unequivocally racist.

There's still some ambiguity even in that statement. Personally, I'd probably assume the person who says it like that is a racist. But if I could ask a follow-up question, it'd be, "why can't a black president do as good a job?" If your answer is that you think a black person would show favoritism to other blacks, and be biased against whites, it may be an awkwardly racist sounding way to say it, but that sentiment itself is not. It is prejudicial.

 

[JettaKnight]

Bug, Jamil ... I get what you're saying.

I would agree that shouting racism should be a last resort and only when certain.


The gain on people's reaction amp is set way, way too high.

There's still some ambiguity even in that statement. Personally, I'd probably assume the person who says it like that is a racist. But if I could ask a follow-up question, it'd be, "why can't a black president do as good a job?" If your answer is that you think a black person would show favoritism to other blacks, and be biased against whites, it may be an awkwardly racist sounding way to say it, but that sentiment itself is not. It is prejudicial.

Agreed. Unfortunately, Trump won't answer the follow up question for the Tweet - we only have the original statement, so maybe both you and Kut is right, kind of a Schrodinger's Box sort of thing.

 

[jamil]

I kind of see where jamil is coming from, Jetta

What passes for racism today, as well as what passes for sexism etc are all proper subsets of prejudice (which is the formation of preconceived opinions about someone/something without facts or data to back it up)

Real racism, IMO, is more like Hitler's attitude toward the Jews or that embodied in "The White Man's Burden" - the belief in the inate superiority of one race over other races, a gulf that cannot be crossed

Where I'm coming from is long established definitions, versus the way people speak actually speak to each other. You can't always rely on interpreting something by the way you would understand it if you said it. That's just been my experience having lived in 8 different states.

 

[printcraft]

We need quantum mechanics to figure this out....... we observed Trumps tweet and it has clearly changed to racist statement as a result.
Would the tweet not have had the same meaning had we not looked at it? Something to think about.