• Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

Frank Hovis

Racism - a question of semantics

Recommended Posts

In my opinion everybody, as soon as they become old enough to be aware of competition between people, is racist.

The Guardian and Owen Jones would immediately tag onto the word "racist" connotations of white supremacism, hatred and Hitler / Corbyn.  So conflating many things into that one word which don't belong there.

I am racist, I freely admit it, I am also classist, intellectualist etc.

What this means is that I judge people by their appearance as this gives me clues as to how likely they are to share my values.

To take a hypothetical example if there are two remaining seats in a railway carriage, one next to a white man in scruffy clothes and unshaven and the other next to a black man in a business suit, then I will sit next to the black man as classism/ intellectualism trumps racism in that case.

Whilst I also apply racism / classism / intellectualism as a prejudgment of somebody once I know them those prejudgements aren't necessary so aren't an issue.  I have actually had two black friends; whilst this is the sort of thing people trot out to "prove" that they're most definitely not racist I maintain that I am racist as that is part of the way in which I prejudge people.

 

I genuinely do not belive that anybody isn't racist in the sense in which I define it above, everybody does prejudge everybody else and that is partly upon their race, maybe it's time to reclaim the language from the "progressives".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with all of that... apart from the point that I don't think I'm a racist because of it.

By your definition you are not either IMO based on your train example. For me if you were a racist (or any sort of ist) it would trump any other prejudice, it can't work on a hierarchical scale in that way.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, gilf said:

I agree with all of that... apart from the point that I don't think I'm a racist because of it.

By your definition you are not either IMO based on your train example. For me if you were a racist (or any sort of ist) it would trump any other prejudice, it can't work on a hierarchical scale in that way.

 

My point is that it doesn't trump all other kind of prejudice; it is merely one amongst several.

Here you go; two empty seats on the train.  Do you sit next to:

 

cross-tattoo-on-finger-skinhead-6960.jpg

 

Or:

Douglas.jpg

 

 

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I don't really see anything racist here, using a persons appearance and the situation/location to quickly determine whether they're likely to mug/rape/stab you, isn't racist, it's survival instinct. Ignoring that instinct is stupidity, being unwilling to change your mind about that person after that initial cautionary judgement, that's where racism comes in.
Same applies if I was on a boat approaching the sentinel islands, seeing natives waving spears and firing arrows all over the shop,  this would make me turn around. Fear of being called racist is no good when your dead.........

If i'm walking through a dimly lit subway (not the sandwich shop :p ) and I see gang of youths in hoodies (regardless of colour), i'm going to turn around and find another way, simple as that. Now if we factor in the clear fact that young black men are pretty much exclusively wearing gang related attire at the moment (fashion apparently), yeah in all likelihood said group would be of that ethnic origin.

Edited by Snark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Frank Hovis said:

My point is that it doesn't trump all other kind of prejudice; it is merely one amongst several.

Here you go; two empty seats on the train.  Do you sit next to:

 

cross-tattoo-on-finger-skinhead-6960.jpg

 

Or:

Douglas.jpg

 

 

Exactly.

I totally get you point, I'm just saying that because it doesn't trump all then it can't (on that alone) make you a racist, again my opinion.

We obviously disagree, for me that's an extreme example, what if it was a white person and black person both dressed in the same manner as the second image. The colour of the persons skin wouldn't come in to my head at all, I'd look at the seats and decide which one was likely to be the most comfortable, have the most space and so on.

Having said that I've lived most of my life in inner city London,  it's just never been a consideration for me. I'd certainly be looking at demeanour, attitude , potential danger or so on, but out side of that just something I woudn't be thinking about.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, gilf said:

I totally get you point, I'm just saying that because it doesn't trump all then it can't (on that alone) make you a racist, again my opinion.

We obviously disagree, for me that's an extreme example, what if it was a white person and black person both dressed in the same manner as the second image. The colour of the persons skin wouldn't come in to my head at all, I'd look at the seats and decide which one was likely to be the most comfortable, have the most space and so on.

Having said that I've lived most of my life in inner city London,  it's just never been a consideration for me. I'd certainly be looking at demeanour, attitude , potential danger or so on, but out side of that just something I woudn't be thinking about.

 

Which returns me to the point of this thread: semantics.

In my opinion everybody is racist because race is one of the bases upon which they judge people.

This is how I define racism: judging a person based upon their race.  I would regard that as the proper definition.

You are saying that you define somebody as racist only if race is their primary method of judging people.  That's another definition; I'd probably take my definition and expand to say that your definition is of somebody who is "predominantly racist" as opposed to merely "racist".  Semantics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Frank Hovis said:

In my opinion everybody, as soon as they become old enough to be aware of competition between people, is racist.

The Guardian and Owen Jones would immediately tag onto the word "racist" connotations of white supremacism, hatred and Hitler / Corbyn.  So conflating many things into that one word which don't belong there.

I am racist, I freely admit it, I am also classist, intellectualist etc.

What this means is that I judge people by their appearance as this gives me clues as to how likely they are to share my values.

To take a hypothetical example if there are two remaining seats in a railway carriage, one next to a white man in scruffy clothes and unshaven and the other next to a black man in a business suit, then I will sit next to the black man as classism/ intellectualism trumps racism in that case.

Whilst I also apply racism / classism / intellectualism as a prejudgment of somebody once I know them those prejudgements aren't necessary so aren't an issue.  I have actually had two black friends; whilst this is the sort of thing people trot out to "prove" that they're most definitely not racist I maintain that I am racist as that is part of the way in which I prejudge people.

 

I genuinely do not belive that anybody isn't racist in the sense in which I define it above, everybody does prejudge everybody else and that is partly upon their race, maybe it's time to reclaim the language from the "progressives".

What you describe is the nuance that is avoided at all cost by those that weoponise racism.

 

They take all those natural human responses and attribute nefarious motivations to them.

Racism is simple to me:

Do yo believe someone is less worthy of something purely due to their ethnicity?

Do you think that someone is inherently less intelligent because of their ethnicity?

Answer yes to either of those questions and you are a racist.

Sorry Frank but you are not racist, you make reasoned decisions where race is a criterion but not the fundamental reason for your choice.

The problem with this for those that weaponise racism is that these are thoughts, in someone's head, and cannot be policed as, even if they illicit actions, those actions can be reasoned away.

Hurty words are the easy target as they can be pointed at as proof that racism is massively widespread where it is in fact very rare.

This "faux racism", if you like, has reasons to be promoted primarily it give the accusers a sense of being needed and worthy. Secondly it keeps ethnic minorities in a constant state of victimhood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, GBDamo said:

What you describe is the nuance that is avoided at all cost by those that weoponise racism.

 

They take all those natural human responses and attribute nefarious motivations to them.

Racism is simple to me:

Do yo believe someone is less worthy of something purely due to their ethnicity?

Do you think that someone is inherently less intelligent because of their ethnicity?

Answer yes to either of those questions and you are a racist.

Sorry Frank but you are not racist, you make reasoned decisions where race is a criterion but not the fundamental reason for your choice.

The problem with this for those that weaponise racism is that these are thoughts, in someone's head, and cannot be policed as, even if they illicit actions, those actions can be reasoned away.

Hurty words are the easy target as they can be pointed at as proof that racism is massively widespread where it is in fact very rare.

This "faux racism", if you like, has reasons to be promoted primarily it give the accusers a sense of being needed and worthy. Secondly it keeps ethnic minorities in a constant state of victimhood.

In my opinion, only the first of your criteria is deterministic

With regard to the second, What is intelligence ?

Edited by Hopeful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about culturism. 

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with any race but being forced to adapt to an individual's culture as a result of friendship and not wanting to.   That would likely be called racism in Britain today - unfairly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's worth remembering that the term 'racist' was originally a term used by communists to identify people who resisted communism in favour of their own tribal, cultural and religious practices. For example, it was applied to Hungarian and Ukrainian people and used as a justification for their slaughter.

Any parallels with the modern day multicultural paradises we inhabit today are purely coincidental.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Frank Hovis said:

 

What this means is that I judge people by their appearance as this gives me clues as to how likely they are to share my values.

To take a hypothetical example if there are two remaining seats in a railway carriage, one next to a white man in scruffy clothes and unshaven and the other next to a black man in a business suit, then I will sit next to the black man as classism/ intellectualism trumps racism in that case.

Whilst I also apply racism / classism / intellectualism as a prejudgment of somebody once I know them those prejudgements aren't necessary so aren't an issue.  I have actually had two black friends; whilst this is the sort of thing people trot out to "prove" that they're most definitely not racist I maintain that I am racist as that is part of the way in which I prejudge people.

 

You're not describing racism. You may be guilty of stereotyping and being prejudicial but its not racism.

The term racist now is very much over used and rather meaningless, as we all know. Racism is to believe in the superiority of your race over other races. Its rather like trying to determine which animal is superior to the others. They are simply different, some are more suited to their environment than others which gives them an advantage in certain situations.

The term has become demeaned and used whenever someone states there is a difference between races. Much as feminists insist that there is no difference between men and women. There is a clear and distinct biological difference that cannot be denied no matter how much anyone wishes to deny or claim that sex/gender is artificial construct. 

There is no denying there are cultural differences and some races prefer or have evolved with different cultural ranges of behaviour, to recognise those differences is not the same as believing that your culture or race is superior in every way. 

Dictionary definitions make this quite clear: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/racism

 

Edited by sleepwello'nights
Proof reading

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that discriminating between races on non factual things is racism.

i.e. Black people are closer to animals than white people.

To discriminate between races on factual things,

i.e. The majority of Black people have black hair,

is Racialist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, sleepwello'nights said:

You're not describing racism. You may be guilty of stereotyping and being prejudicial but its not racism.

The term racist now is very much over used and rather meaningless, as we all know. Racism is to believe in the superiority of your race over other races. Its rather like trying to determine which animal is superior to the others. They are simply different, some are more suited to their environment than others which gives them an advantage in certain situations.

The term has become demeaned and used whenever someone states there is a difference between races. Much as feminists insist that there is no difference between men and women. There is a clear and distinct biological difference that cannot be denied no matter how much anyone wishes to deny or claim that sex/gender is artificial construct. 

There is no denying there are cultural differences and some races prefer or have evolved with different cultural ranges of behaviour, to recognise those differences is not the same as believing that your culture or race is superior in every way. 

Dictionary definitions make this quite clear: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/racism

 

There are many dictionary definitions; I prefer (and it is my making a choice):

1. the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/racism

I think that is true; as I have said before races from highly seasonal climates with agriculture have been subjected to natural selection based on ability to plan and co-operate; people who were bad at this died with each severe winter.  This is natural selection operating over a very short timescale - 10,000 - 6,000 years. 

A similar short scale would be slaves in Jamaica where they were selectively bred for physical fitness in order to work better in the fields; five hundred years of that and you have Usain Bolt.

Racial differences are not merely skin deep; they are the product of their extended history.

Though clearly I am talking about the average here.  I will be a faster runner than some Jamaicans and some Jamaicans will be better planners and co-operators than me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hopeful said:

In my opinion, only the first of your criteria is deterministic

With regard to the second, What is intelligence ?

Good point.

One example would be the ability to derive meaning from context.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, GBDamo said:

Good point.

One example would be the ability to derive meaning from context.

 

And anyway, why do we so often focus upon intelligence as a criterion?

Why do we choose a mental trait over a physical trait as a determinant of prowess ? Is it because physical differences exist and can be seen (unhelpful for the cause of equality) while mental differences are far harder to discern (helpful to the cause of equality)?

In my book, it is fine to accept there are differences between subpopulations. It's a likely outcome of allopatric isolation and consequential inbreeding, selection and genetic drift.

For example, we know that certain drugs are inappropriate for certain ethnic groups and so it would be unhelpful to not take that knowledge into consideration when prescribing.

 

Edited by Hopeful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I raised an eyebrow when I saw this from the local neighbourhood watch today

Reported at 8.45pm on 28th Feb that a house in xxx was attacked by forcing glass in rear window. All rooms searched. Not known what if anything was stolen. Neighbour disturbed 5 males described as being of Eastern European appearance who fled the scene in a Rover 75 reg no. CF54UVM which may have been on false plates but if it is seen please contact the Police via 999 and report it. Inc. No.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

5 males seems unusual for a simple burglary.  Is that cultural. 

In the main British burglars operate singly or now and then in pairs - don't they - from what you see normally reported.

Edited by twocents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hopeful said:

And anyway, why do we so often focus upon intelligence as a criterion?

Why do we choose a mental trait over a physical trait as a determinant of prowess ? Is it because physical differences exist and can be seen (unhelpful for the cause of equality) while mental differences are far harder to discern (helpful to the cause of equality)?

In my book, it is fine to accept there are differences between subpopulations.

For example, we know that certain drugs are inappropriate for certain ethnic groups and so it would be unhelpful to not take that knowledge into consideration when prescribing.

 

Without falling foul of the 'Nobel savage' trap, we cannot apply the limitations of an ethnicities development to the potential of the individual.

Cultures have come and gone leaving a mixed bag of achievements.

Sub-Saharan Africa is a bit of an anomaly as there are very few examples of outstanding historical achievement.

I've often wondered if it's the case that those that left the rift valley millennia ago were those that carried some innate need, or ability, to advance through discovery. What does this say of those that stayed?

It's quite a challenginging path to ponder as one answer is that the best left and the rest basically lived the same existence until their 'rediscovery' by the West.

Another way of looking at it is that those that left had to adapt and discover new ways to live to survive in the intemperate and often seasonal lands to which they went. So not an innate behaviour but one learnt through necessity, it's just that that need led to a developmental leap that those left behind did not make.

Now I'm starting to sound racist by my own definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The British definition in 2019 as defined by genocidal SJWs Trip You Up definition handbook and taken up by government seems to be - don't say anything about anything - then you can't go wrong - and stay indoors to be doubly sure.

Just saying ;)

Edited by twocents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, GBDamo said:

Without falling foul of the 'Nobel savage' trap, we cannot apply the limitations of an ethnicities development to the potential of the individual.

Cultures have come and gone leaving a mixed bag of achievements.

Sub-Saharan Africa is a bit of an anomaly as there are very few examples of outstanding historical achievement.

I've often wondered if it's the case that those that left the rift valley millennia ago were those that carried some innate need, or ability, to advance through discovery. What does this say of those that stayed?

It's quite a challenginging path to ponder as one answer is that the best left and the rest basically lived the same existence until their 'rediscovery' by the West.

Another way of looking at it is that those that left had to adapt and discover new ways to live to survive in the intemperate and often seasonal lands to which they went. So not an innate behaviour but one learnt through necessity, it's just that that need led to a developmental leap that those left behind did not make.

Now I'm starting to sound racist by my own definition.

What do you mean by adapt, do you mean adapt or acclimate ?

Adaptation involves a genetic change due to selection, and so the new population would become different to the ancestral population over time and so the populations have diverged, unless the ancestral drifted in the same direction, which is highly unlikely.

Acclimation is change within the scope of your current genotype and phenotype and does not involve genetic change, and so any observed changes would also be within the scope of those left behind, the populations haven't diverged.

And then, of course were those that left a particular subset of the gene pool.

But to return to adapt vs acclimate, if it's the former then the populations will end up different and that could be for any aspect of the genotype/phenotype.

 

 

Edited by Hopeful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, GBDamo said:

Without falling foul of the 'Nobel savage' trap, we cannot apply the limitations of an ethnicities development to the potential of the individual.

Cultures have come and gone leaving a mixed bag of achievements.

Sub-Saharan Africa is a bit of an anomaly as there are very few examples of outstanding historical achievement.

I've often wondered if it's the case that those that left the rift valley millennia ago were those that carried some innate need, or ability, to advance through discovery. What does this say of those that stayed?

It's quite a challenginging path to ponder as one answer is that the best left and the rest basically lived the same existence until their 'rediscovery' by the West.

Another way of looking at it is that those that left had to adapt and discover new ways to live to survive in the intemperate and often seasonal lands to which they went. So not an innate behaviour but one learnt through necessity, it's just that that need led to a developmental leap that those left behind did not make.

Now I'm starting to sound racist by my own definition.

Maybe the endemic diseases and parasites of sub-Saharan Africa precluded the population density required for urbanisation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, ashestoashes said:

I raised an eyebrow when I saw this from the local neighbourhood watch today

Reported at 8.45pm on 28th Feb that a house in xxx was attacked by forcing glass in rear window. All rooms searched. Not known what if anything was stolen. Neighbour disturbed 5 males described as being of Eastern European appearance who fled the scene in a Rover 75 reg no. CF54UVM which may have been on false plates but if it is seen please contact the Police via 999 and report it. Inc. No.

 

Jesus, five Bulgarians in a Rover 75 isn't exactly something you see every day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.