A definition of Racism.

EGarrett · 29th August 2007, 10:07 PM

While trying to explain this extremely difficult topic to people elsewhere, I happened upon a definition that I think is pretty damned good...though the phrasing might need some work. Whadaya think?

Racism: A specific form of the causation-correlation logical fallacy, where a person looks at different tendencies that happen to align among people of different ethnicities and assumes incorrectly that the ethnicity or genetic aspects of the ethnicity are the CAUSE of those differences. The person then usually acts, speaks, or governs in a damaging and incorrect way based on that mistaken assumption.

Examples: 1. I waved hello to a sleeping Asian person once, and he did not respond. This taught me that Asian people are rude, and I have never said hello to one since!

2. Those blue people who we forced to work for 300 years with no families and education are performing less than average in their normal jobs and schools. Obviously, Blue people are mentally inferior and are damaging the country.

athon · 29th August 2007, 10:35 PM

Part of the problem with racism is the assumption of a link between cultural conflict and physiology and/or birthplace. The first part of the problem is the conflict - associating a behaviour with something that conflicts with my values; to use your example, a person not waving is interpreted to be rude. Not working might be seen as lazy and therefore socially irresponsible, when viewed with my values. Not saying 'thank you' might be ingratious.

The second part is the association with a physiology or birthplace with that culture. If you have epicanthic folds you're not only physiologically described as Asian, but the cultural and value conflicts are assumed as well.

A thin line exists between racism and generalisation, which also relies on making hasty assumptions. The former demonstrates little room to allow for variation in correlation between physiology and culture, or the subjectiveness of values.

Athon

Marquis de Carabas · 29th August 2007, 11:28 PM

I think racism exists primarily in the last sentence of your definition, the part dealing with the way people act. One does not need to believe differences to be genetic to be racist. Further, one can believe differences are genetic and not be racist. (For instance, I believe blacks are more prone to certain conditions, such as sickle-cell anemia. I believe this is genetic. It does not make me feel superior or treat them as if I did.)

Racism is all about treating individuals in a certain way because of assumptions (correct or incorrect) about racial traits (genetically or otherwise determined) of the group they happen to belong to.

Clippy · 14th September 2009, 09:24 AM

West Africans, on average, are faster sprinters than are Japanese. Is this an example of racism?

bpesta22 · 14th September 2009, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by Clippy

West Africans, on average, are faster sprinters than are Japanese. Is this an example of racism?

If a white male claims that asians as a group are smarter than whites as a group, would that be racism?

I often wonder how many here think I am david duke given my posts on race (and IQ).

I agree with MC, that it's not so much a belief that races differ, but acting on that belief. But, wouldn't we also have to consider the type of action? Using the belief to promote hate / deny someone an opportunity = racism. Using the belief to motivate one to scientifically study the issue, or to support affirmative action= racism?

Unless we can claim with 100% certainty that race is purely a social / cultural distinction, just holding a belief that races differ doesn't seem to me to be racist. How one acts on that belief is where racism may come into play.

just my opinion.

(I don't wanna get into a "define race" debate; I do think the OPs question on what constitutes racism is interesting and can be discussed without the "what is race" sidetrack)

themusicteacher · 14th September 2009, 10:16 AM

Racism seems to also include the superiority assumption; that one race is superior to the other based on achievement in realms that the racist person believes to be important. So, it's a double-batch of racism: I'm superior because I'm of this race while you are also inferior because you're of that race. I win twice, you lose twice.

The arguments about blacks and sickle-cell anemia being some sort of race-based judgment is silly. That's entirely different than saying something like "Whites are inherently more trustworthy, smarter, kinder, less violent and more attractive than every other race." Those types of statements are laden with all sorts of biases, stereotypes and gross overgeneralizations designed to make the speaker look "better," especially compared to the other groups listed as inferior. Any statements about medical issues, OTOH, are based on copious amounts of hard evidence and have nothing to say about race outside of medical likelihoods. Any sane and reasonable person recognizes the difference between both issues.

Careyp74 · 14th September 2009, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by Clippy

West Africans, on average, are faster sprinters than are Japanese. Is this an example of racism?

Since you didn't quote anyone I am going to assume you are comment on the OP.

The definition given is:A specific form of the causation-correlation logical fallacy, where a person looks at different tendencies that happen to align among people of different ethnicities and assumes incorrectly that the ethnicity or genetic aspects of the ethnicity are the CAUSE of those differences. The person then usually acts, speaks, or governs in a damaging and incorrect way based on that mistaken assumption.

I can't think of a damaging or incorrect action based on your statement, so I will answer for the OP.

No.

Here is an example of racism as explained by the OP:
I checked my back pocket to see if my wallet was still there after passing a group of black people.

The assumption is that since there are more blacks in prison than whites, it must be genetic, therefore, my actions based on that assumption is that I will treat any black person with untrust.

bpesta22 · 14th September 2009, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by Careyp74

The assumption is that since there are more blacks in prison than whites, it must be genetic, therefore, my actions based on that assumption is that I will treat any black person with untrust.

I agree that's probably racist but what if the person defends it by claiming that because of racism and relatively poor environments, blacks commit more crimes than whites? Still racist?

Eyeron · 14th September 2009, 11:07 AM

Quote:

West Africans, on average, are faster sprinters than are Japanese. Is this an example of racism?

It probably would be, unless there was actualy empirical evidence to back it up.

Redtail · 14th September 2009, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by bpesta22

I agree that's probably racist but what if the person defends it by claiming that because of racism and relatively poor environments, blacks commit more crimes than whites? Still racist?

I would say yes based on that is still going by the color of the people's they passed skin.

ETA: I should point out that doesn't make the person racist. They just had a racist reaction.

Clippy · 14th September 2009, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by bpesta22

I agree with MC, that it's not so much a belief that races differ, but acting on that belief. But, wouldn't we also have to consider the type of action? Using the belief to promote hate / deny someone an opportunity = racism. Using the belief to motivate one to scientifically study the issue, or to support affirmative action= racism?

I agree; it's the type of action that's important. Why shouldn't people be allowed to act based on their beliefs, especially when they're based on data and don't harm anyone? Sounds tyrannical. "Yes, the presence of black clouds in the sky signifies an increased likelihood of rain, but you can't bring your umbrella with you". If I choose not to live in a black neighbourhood because I fear being the victim of crime, how is that any different? Yes, it might hurt the feelings of many blacks to know I feel this way, but calling me a racist or bigot for having that opinion is an attempt to hurt my feelings.

Redtail · 14th September 2009, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by Clippy

I agree; it's the type of action that's important. Why shouldn't people be allowed to act based on their beliefs, especially when they're based on data and don't harm anyone? Sounds tyrannical. "Yes, the presence of black clouds in the sky signifies an increased likelihood of rain, but you can't bring your umbrella with you". If I choose not to live in a black neighbourhood because I fear being the victim of crime, how is that any different? Yes, it might hurt the feelings of many blacks to know I feel this way, but calling me a racist or bigot for having that opinion is an attempt to hurt my feelings.

Depends on if that Black neighborhood has a history of crime.

Careyp74 · 14th September 2009, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by Redtail

I would say yes based on that is still going by the color of the people's they passed skin.

ETA: I should point out that doesn't make the person racist. They just had a racist reaction.

What is the difference between being racist and having a racist reaction?

Is it like when you tell kids they are acting bad instead of saying they are bad?

bpesta22 · 14th September 2009, 11:20 AM

You're in a strange part of town; not the best area. A group of white men walk by. Would it be sexist to check your wallet (assuming that were it a group of women, you would not)?

Clippy · 14th September 2009, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by Careyp74

The definition given is:A specific form of the causation-correlation logical fallacy, where a person looks at different tendencies that happen to align among people of different ethnicities and assumes incorrectly that the ethnicity or genetic aspects of the ethnicity are the CAUSE of those differences. The person then usually acts, speaks, or governs in a damaging and incorrect way based on that mistaken assumption.

And who decides whether it's incorrect? To take IQ as an example, if something (black-white IQ gap) is observed since these tests were admistered, is found in different environments, displays regression to the mean, is supported by twin studies, why shouldn't I assume that there is some genetic component. Not the only cause, but at least part of the answer. The 100% environmentalist position is faith-based, which is why I'm surprised to see it defended by so many posters on a skeptics forum.

Careyp74 · 14th September 2009, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by Clippy

I agree; it's the type of action that's important. Why shouldn't people be allowed to act based on their beliefs, especially when they're based on data and don't harm anyone? Sounds tyrannical. "Yes, the presence of black clouds in the sky signifies an increased likelihood of rain, but you can't bring your umbrella with you". If I choose not to live in a black neighbourhood because I fear being the victim of crime, how is that any different? Yes, it might hurt the feelings of many blacks to know I feel this way, but calling me a racist or bigot for having that opinion is an attempt to hurt my feelings.

This paragraph also doesn't fit the OP's definition of racism. You admit it yourself, highlighted for your ease of reading.

Clippy · 14th September 2009, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by Redtail

Depends on if that Black neighborhood has a history of crime.

So I would have to wait for crime statistics? Based on how many years? Why can't I base my decision on the crime rates in other black neighbourhoods?

Redtail · 14th September 2009, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by Careyp74

What is the difference between being racist and having a racist reaction?

Is it like when you tell kids they are acting bad instead of saying they are bad?

Pretty much.

Careyp74 · 14th September 2009, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by Clippy

And who decides whether it's incorrect? To take IQ as an example, if something (black-white IQ gap) is observed since these tests were admistered, is found in different environments, displays regression to the mean, is supported by twin studies, why shouldn't I assume that there is some genetic component. Not the only cause, but at least part of the answer. The 100% environmentalist position is faith-based, which is why I'm surprised to see it defended by so many posters on a skeptics forum.

nobody DECIDES if it is incorrect, the assumption itself is incorrect if it isn't actually caused by race or genetics in general, but attributed to that.

I will play along.... What exactly have you found, backed by twin studies, that is attributed to race, and considered incorrect when attributed to race?

jakesteele · 14th September 2009, 11:32 AM

Wiki - Racism is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.[1] In the case of institutional racism, certain racial groups may be denied rights or benefits, or get preferential treatment, while Reverse discrimination favours members of a historically disadvantaged group at the expense of those of a historically advantaged group.

First thing to remember is that if a statement about race is true, then it can't be racist. Why, you ask...because it's the truth, duh!

Example; statistically, young black males commit a disproportionate of violent crimes like robberies, murders, etc. Sound inflammatory and racists? Then try this one on; the overwhelming majority of serial killers are 30ish white males.

Certain things are more prevalent with one group as opposed to another. Blacks overall make for faster short distance runners. There are more white swimmers than blacks (please don't try to go all gushy on me and say, "Dude, the blacks are socially disenfranchised and whitey not be givin' e'm access to the country club swimming pools.")

Why is it that Hollywood can make a movie entitled "White Men can't jump" (playing to a stereotype) but no one would dare make a movie entitled "Black Men can't swim", Again, playing to a stereotype?

Redtail · 14th September 2009, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by Clippy

So I would have to wait for crime statistics?

Not really since the realtor should have them.

Quote:

Based on how many years?

I'd say 20 would be a good indication.

Quote:

Why can't I base my decision on the crime rates in other black neighbourhoods?

So you base your decision on the crime rates in other White neighborhoods?

Clippy · 14th September 2009, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by Careyp74

This paragraph also doesn't fit the OP's definition of racism. You admit it yourself, highlighted for your ease of reading.

Depends I guess on how we define harm. If I say that I believe that blacks are genetically predisposed to violence and criminality, and choose not to live in neighbourhoods where they live in any number, is that racist?

Quote:

Racism: A specific form of the causation-correlation logical fallacy, where a person looks at different tendencies that happen to align among people of different ethnicities and assumes incorrectly that the ethnicity or genetic aspects of the ethnicity are the CAUSE of those differences. The person then usually acts, speaks, or governs in a damaging and incorrect way based on that mistaken assumption.

Is believing that it's only a cause enough to make it not racist? Who arbitrates what's 'incorrect' or 'damaging'?

Cainkane1 · 14th September 2009, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

While trying to explain this extremely difficult topic to people elsewhere, I happened upon a definition that I think is pretty damned good...though the phrasing might need some work. Whadaya think?

Racism: A specific form of the causation-correlation logical fallacy, where a person looks at different tendencies that happen to align among people of different ethnicities and assumes incorrectly that the ethnicity or genetic aspects of the ethnicity are the CAUSE of those differences. The person then usually acts, speaks, or governs in a damaging and incorrect way based on that mistaken assumption.

Examples: 1. I waved hello to a sleeping Asian person once, and he did not respond. This taught me that Asian people are rude, and I have never said hello to one since!

2. Those blue people who we forced to work for 300 years with no families and education are performing less than average in their normal jobs and schools. Obviously, Blue people are mentally inferior and are damaging the country.

Why is it that blue people born, raised and educated in poorer countries where they were enslaved do better than the blue people born raised and educated in the USA?

I think the entire citizenry of the USA could do better than they're doing and we need to stop making excuses. I'm a good example. I graduated from a not that well thought of college with a 2.8 average. My major was liberal arts. I should have and could have done better. Hey it was the hippy era. A lot of people blew it in my day.

GreNME · 14th September 2009, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by Clippy

Depends I guess on how we define harm. If I say that I believe that blacks are genetically predisposed to violence and criminality, and choose not to live in neighbourhoods where they live in any number, is that racist?

Yes, that is a racist argument, as has already been pointed out to you more than once. It has no empirical support and is the bailiwick of judging an entire group based on the flawed correlation-causation fallacy.

Cainkane1 · 14th September 2009, 11:54 AM

Rabbi Kahane once said that everybody is a biggot to a degree. This to him was true even when a strong effort not to be biggotted was made. To him this was a fact even if you married a person outside your race. Somewhere deep down there was a small measure of etnic or racial prejudice somewhere.

GreNME · 14th September 2009, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

Why is it that blue people born, raised and educated in poorer countries where they were enslaved do better than the blue people born raised and educated in the USA?

Because you're engaging in a correlation-causation fallacy. The answer for why one group performs poorly has nothing to do with their color.

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

I think the entire citizenry of the USA could do better than they're doing and we need to stop making excuses. I'm a good example. I graduated from a not that well thought of college with a 2.8 average. My major was liberal arts. I should have and could have done better. Hey it was the hippy era. A lot of people blew it in my day.

Okay, then let's stop making excuses. What do you think was your problem, as you describe it?

Clippy · 14th September 2009, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by GreNME

Yes, that is a racist argument, as has already been pointed out to you more than once. It has no empirical support and is the bailiwick of judging an entire group based on the flawed correlation-causation fallacy.

The black crime rate is higher than the White crime rate, even when controlling for socio-economic status. There's your empirical support.

Gord_in_Toronto · 14th September 2009, 12:02 PM

Racism is the failure to treat every individual as an individual.

Cainkane1 · 14th September 2009, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

While trying to explain this extremely difficult topic to people elsewhere, I happened upon a definition that I think is pretty damned good...though the phrasing might need some work. Whadaya think?

Racism: A specific form of the causation-correlation logical fallacy, where a person looks at different tendencies that happen to align among people of different ethnicities and assumes incorrectly that the ethnicity or genetic aspects of the ethnicity are the CAUSE of those differences. The person then usually acts, speaks, or governs in a damaging and incorrect way based on that mistaken assumption.

Examples: 1. I waved hello to a sleeping Asian person once, and he did not respond. This taught me that Asian people are rude, and I have never said hello to one since!

2. Those blue people who we forced to work for 300 years with no families and education are performing less than average in their normal jobs and schools. Obviously, Blue people are mentally inferior and are damaging the country.

Also whose racist and whose not will often surprise you. I have a Jamaican friend who doesn't get along well with black people born and raised in the states. In college I knew a south african who had problems with American blacks because his hair was "nappier" and his skin was darker. He had things to say about black folks born in the USA I'd just as soon not repeat. I was friends with him and I tried to argue with him but his mind was made up. I still see him once in a blue moon and I avoid racial discussions with him at all costs.

There have been cases of lighter skinned african ancestried people being prejudices against darker skinned african ancestried peoples.

The Japanese didn't like Chinese and so on.

GreNME · 14th September 2009, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by Clippy

The black crime rate is higher than the White crime rate, even when controlling for socio-economic status. There's your empirical support.

Which refers back to the original post and the correlation-causation fallacy you've built. As long as you continue to put forth that ethnicity is the determining factor, you're committing the fallacy.

Clippy · 14th September 2009, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

Rabbi Kahane once said that everybody is a biggot to a degree. This to him was true even when a strong effort not to be biggotted was made. To him this was a fact even if you married a person outside your race. Somewhere deep down there was a small measure of etnic or racial prejudice somewhere.

It's hard-wired.

http://www.psych.nyu.edu/phelpslab/p...DPS_V17No2.pdf

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

GreNME · 14th September 2009, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

Racism is the failure to treat every individual as an individual.

So racism is the failure to live the Libertarian "every man is an island" utopian dream?

Clippy · 14th September 2009, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by GreNME

Which refers back to the original post and the correlation-causation fallacy you've built. As long as you continue to put forth that ethnicity is the determining factor, you're committing the fallacy.

No, I'm saying that it is likely to be a factor. I have data. Who decides that I'm incorrect?

Redtail · 14th September 2009, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

There have been cases of lighter skinned african ancestried people being prejudices against darker skinned african ancestried peoples.

Just for the record that goes both ways believe me.

GreNME · 14th September 2009, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by Clippy

It's hard-wired.

http://www.psych.nyu.edu/phelpslab/p...DPS_V17No2.pdf

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

You really don't understand what the result of Project Implicit implies, do you? Now that's some classic irony for you.

For the record: every time I've taken the PI test I seem to come out favoring no group or gender. Is that hard-wired as well?

GreNME · 14th September 2009, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by Clippy

No, I'm saying that it is likely to be a factor. I have data. Who decides that I'm incorrect?

Using white power resources-- which build backwards from a conclusion and fudge the math to fit-- is not sufficient data.

Clippy · 14th September 2009, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by GreNME

Using white power resources-- which build backwards from a conclusion and fudge the math to fit-- is not sufficient data.

The data comes from DOJ databases. Show that the math is fudged.

Clippy · 14th September 2009, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by GreNME

You really don't understand what the result of Project Implicit implies, do you? Now that's some classic irony for you.

For the record: every time I've taken the PI test I seem to come out favoring no group or gender. Is that hard-wired as well?

What do you think it implies?

GreNME · 14th September 2009, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by Clippy

The data comes from DOJ databases. Show that the math is fudged.

The raw data does not suggest likelihood. You do.

Clippy · 14th September 2009, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by GreNME

The raw data does not suggest likelihood. You do.

What does this have to do with fudging numbers? Yes, the choice of data summaries was guided by an interest in racial crime profiles. So what?

29th August 2007, 10:07 PM	#1
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	A definition of Racism. While trying to explain this extremely difficult topic to people elsewhere, I happened upon a definition that I think is pretty damned good...though the phrasing might need some work. Whadaya think? Racism: A specific form of the causation-correlation logical fallacy, where a person looks at different tendencies that happen to align among people of different ethnicities and assumes incorrectly that the ethnicity or genetic aspects of the ethnicity are the CAUSE of those differences. The person then usually acts, speaks, or governs in a damaging and incorrect way based on that mistaken assumption. Examples: 1. I waved hello to a sleeping Asian person once, and he did not respond. This taught me that Asian people are rude, and I have never said hello to one since! 2. Those blue people who we forced to work for 300 years with no families and education are performing less than average in their normal jobs and schools. Obviously, Blue people are mentally inferior and are damaging the country.
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	__________________ EG

29th August 2007, 11:28 PM	#3
Marquis de Carabas Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: vuori Posts: 27,106	I think racism exists primarily in the last sentence of your definition, the part dealing with the way people act. One does not need to believe differences to be genetic to be racist. Further, one can believe differences are genetic and not be racist. (For instance, I believe blacks are more prone to certain conditions, such as sickle-cell anemia. I believe this is genetic. It does not make me feel superior or treat them as if I did.) Racism is all about treating individuals in a certain way because of assumptions (correct or incorrect) about racial traits (genetically or otherwise determined) of the group they happen to belong to.
	__________________ Jesus ... wasn't he the bloke who turned fish into wine and made the lepers multiply? -KateHL Violence is more acceptable than incest. I have been told to keep this in mind.

14th September 2009, 09:24 AM	#4
Clippy Muse Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Hyperborea Posts: 608	West Africans, on average, are faster sprinters than are Japanese. Is this an example of racism?
	__________________ Fas est ab hoste doceri

14th September 2009, 09:57 AM	#5
bpesta22 Cereal Killer Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 4,648	Originally Posted by Clippy West Africans, on average, are faster sprinters than are Japanese. Is this an example of racism? If a white male claims that asians as a group are smarter than whites as a group, would that be racism? I often wonder how many here think I am david duke given my posts on race (and IQ). I agree with MC, that it's not so much a belief that races differ, but acting on that belief. But, wouldn't we also have to consider the type of action? Using the belief to promote hate / deny someone an opportunity = racism. Using the belief to motivate one to scientifically study the issue, or to support affirmative action= racism? Unless we can claim with 100% certainty that race is purely a social / cultural distinction, just holding a belief that races differ doesn't seem to me to be racist. How one acts on that belief is where racism may come into play. just my opinion. (I don't wanna get into a "define race" debate; I do think the OPs question on what constitutes racism is interesting and can be discussed without the "what is race" sidetrack)
bpesta22 Cereal Killer Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 4,648	__________________ Manifest thy bosoms or decamp.

14th September 2009, 10:57 AM	#8
bpesta22 Cereal Killer Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 4,648	Originally Posted by Careyp74 The assumption is that since there are more blacks in prison than whites, it must be genetic, therefore, my actions based on that assumption is that I will treat any black person with untrust. I agree that's probably racist but what if the person defends it by claiming that because of racism and relatively poor environments, blacks commit more crimes than whites? Still racist?
bpesta22 Cereal Killer Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 4,648	__________________ Manifest thy bosoms or decamp.

29th August 2007, 10:35 PM	#2
athon Kowalski Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: gone Posts: 9,286	Part of the problem with racism is the assumption of a link between cultural conflict and physiology and/or birthplace. The first part of the problem is the conflict - associating a behaviour with something that conflicts with my values; to use your example, a person not waving is interpreted to be rude. Not working might be seen as lazy and therefore socially irresponsible, when viewed with my values. Not saying 'thank you' might be ingratious. The second part is the association with a physiology or birthplace with that culture. If you have epicanthic folds you're not only physiologically described as Asian, but the cultural and value conflicts are assumed as well. A thin line exists between racism and generalisation, which also relies on making hasty assumptions. The former demonstrates little room to allow for variation in correlation between physiology and culture, or the subjectiveness of values. Athon

14th September 2009, 10:16 AM	#6
themusicteacher Muse Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Burque, NM Posts: 708	Racism seems to also include the superiority assumption; that one race is superior to the other based on achievement in realms that the racist person believes to be important. So, it's a double-batch of racism: I'm superior because I'm of this race while you are also inferior because you're of that race. I win twice, you lose twice. The arguments about blacks and sickle-cell anemia being some sort of race-based judgment is silly. That's entirely different than saying something like "Whites are inherently more trustworthy, smarter, kinder, less violent and more attractive than every other race." Those types of statements are laden with all sorts of biases, stereotypes and gross overgeneralizations designed to make the speaker look "better," especially compared to the other groups listed as inferior. Any statements about medical issues, OTOH, are based on copious amounts of hard evidence and have nothing to say about race outside of medical likelihoods. Any sane and reasonable person recognizes the difference between both issues.

14th September 2009, 10:40 AM	#7
Careyp74 Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Trevose, PA Posts: 3,407	Originally Posted by Clippy West Africans, on average, are faster sprinters than are Japanese. Is this an example of racism? Since you didn't quote anyone I am going to assume you are comment on the OP. The definition given is:A specific form of the causation-correlation logical fallacy, where a person looks at different tendencies that happen to align among people of different ethnicities and assumes incorrectly that the ethnicity or genetic aspects of the ethnicity are the CAUSE of those differences. The person then usually acts, speaks, or governs in a damaging and incorrect way based on that mistaken assumption. I can't think of a damaging or incorrect action based on your statement, so I will answer for the OP. No. Here is an example of racism as explained by the OP: I checked my back pocket to see if my wallet was still there after passing a group of black people. The assumption is that since there are more blacks in prison than whites, it must be genetic, therefore, my actions based on that assumption is that I will treat any black person with untrust.

14th September 2009, 11:07 AM	#9
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774	Quote: West Africans, on average, are faster sprinters than are Japanese. Is this an example of racism? It probably would be, unless there was actualy empirical evidence to back it up.
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774

14th September 2009, 11:13 AM	#10
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,304	Originally Posted by bpesta22 I agree that's probably racist but what if the person defends it by claiming that because of racism and relatively poor environments, blacks commit more crimes than whites? Still racist? I would say yes based on that is still going by the color of the people's they passed skin. ETA: I should point out that doesn't make the person racist. They just had a racist reaction.
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,304	__________________ AVENGERS!!!.. Turn off the dark!

14th September 2009, 11:15 AM	#11
Clippy Muse Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Hyperborea Posts: 608	Originally Posted by bpesta22 I agree with MC, that it's not so much a belief that races differ, but acting on that belief. But, wouldn't we also have to consider the type of action? Using the belief to promote hate / deny someone an opportunity = racism. Using the belief to motivate one to scientifically study the issue, or to support affirmative action= racism? I agree; it's the type of action that's important. Why shouldn't people be allowed to act based on their beliefs, especially when they're based on data and don't harm anyone? Sounds tyrannical. "Yes, the presence of black clouds in the sky signifies an increased likelihood of rain, but you can't bring your umbrella with you". If I choose not to live in a black neighbourhood because I fear being the victim of crime, how is that any different? Yes, it might hurt the feelings of many blacks to know I feel this way, but calling me a racist or bigot for having that opinion is an attempt to hurt my feelings.
	__________________ Fas est ab hoste doceri

14th September 2009, 11:18 AM	#12
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,304	Originally Posted by Clippy I agree; it's the type of action that's important. Why shouldn't people be allowed to act based on their beliefs, especially when they're based on data and don't harm anyone? Sounds tyrannical. "Yes, the presence of black clouds in the sky signifies an increased likelihood of rain, but you can't bring your umbrella with you". If I choose not to live in a black neighbourhood because I fear being the victim of crime, how is that any different? Yes, it might hurt the feelings of many blacks to know I feel this way, but calling me a racist or bigot for having that opinion is an attempt to hurt my feelings. Depends on if that Black neighborhood has a history of crime.
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,304	__________________ AVENGERS!!!.. Turn off the dark!

14th September 2009, 11:20 AM	#13
Careyp74 Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Trevose, PA Posts: 3,407	Originally Posted by Redtail I would say yes based on that is still going by the color of the people's they passed skin. ETA: I should point out that doesn't make the person racist. They just had a racist reaction. What is the difference between being racist and having a racist reaction? Is it like when you tell kids they are acting bad instead of saying they are bad?

14th September 2009, 11:20 AM	#15
Clippy Muse Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Hyperborea Posts: 608	Originally Posted by Careyp74 The definition given is:A specific form of the causation-correlation logical fallacy, where a person looks at different tendencies that happen to align among people of different ethnicities and assumes incorrectly that the ethnicity or genetic aspects of the ethnicity are the CAUSE of those differences. The person then usually acts, speaks, or governs in a damaging and incorrect way based on that mistaken assumption. And who decides whether it's incorrect? To take IQ as an example, if something (black-white IQ gap) is observed since these tests were admistered, is found in different environments, displays regression to the mean, is supported by twin studies, why shouldn't I assume that there is some genetic component. Not the only cause, but at least part of the answer. The 100% environmentalist position is faith-based, which is why I'm surprised to see it defended by so many posters on a skeptics forum.
	__________________ Fas est ab hoste doceri

14th September 2009, 11:22 AM	#16
Careyp74 Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Trevose, PA Posts: 3,407	Originally Posted by Clippy I agree; it's the type of action that's important. Why shouldn't people be allowed to act based on their beliefs, especially when they're based on data and don't harm anyone? Sounds tyrannical. "Yes, the presence of black clouds in the sky signifies an increased likelihood of rain, but you can't bring your umbrella with you". If I choose not to live in a black neighbourhood because I fear being the victim of crime, how is that any different? Yes, it might hurt the feelings of many blacks to know I feel this way, but calling me a racist or bigot for having that opinion is an attempt to hurt my feelings. This paragraph also doesn't fit the OP's definition of racism. You admit it yourself, highlighted for your ease of reading.

14th September 2009, 11:24 AM	#17
Clippy Muse Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Hyperborea Posts: 608	Originally Posted by Redtail Depends on if that Black neighborhood has a history of crime. So I would have to wait for crime statistics? Based on how many years? Why can't I base my decision on the crime rates in other black neighbourhoods?
	__________________ Fas est ab hoste doceri

14th September 2009, 11:25 AM	#18
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,304	Originally Posted by Careyp74 What is the difference between being racist and having a racist reaction? Is it like when you tell kids they are acting bad instead of saying they are bad? Pretty much.
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,304	__________________ AVENGERS!!!.. Turn off the dark!

14th September 2009, 11:26 AM	#19
Careyp74 Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Trevose, PA Posts: 3,407	Originally Posted by Clippy And who decides whether it's incorrect? To take IQ as an example, if something (black-white IQ gap) is observed since these tests were admistered, is found in different environments, displays regression to the mean, is supported by twin studies, why shouldn't I assume that there is some genetic component. Not the only cause, but at least part of the answer. The 100% environmentalist position is faith-based, which is why I'm surprised to see it defended by so many posters on a skeptics forum. nobody DECIDES if it is incorrect, the assumption itself is incorrect if it isn't actually caused by race or genetics in general, but attributed to that. I will play along.... What exactly have you found, backed by twin studies, that is attributed to race, and considered incorrect when attributed to race?

14th September 2009, 11:32 AM	#20
jakesteele Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 1,223	Wiki - Racism is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.[1] In the case of institutional racism, certain racial groups may be denied rights or benefits, or get preferential treatment, while Reverse discrimination favours members of a historically disadvantaged group at the expense of those of a historically advantaged group. First thing to remember is that if a statement about race is true, then it can't be racist. Why, you ask...because it's the truth, duh! Example; statistically, young black males commit a disproportionate of violent crimes like robberies, murders, etc. Sound inflammatory and racists? Then try this one on; the overwhelming majority of serial killers are 30ish white males. Certain things are more prevalent with one group as opposed to another. Blacks overall make for faster short distance runners. There are more white swimmers than blacks (please don't try to go all gushy on me and say, "Dude, the blacks are socially disenfranchised and whitey not be givin' e'm access to the country club swimming pools.") Why is it that Hollywood can make a movie entitled "White Men can't jump" (playing to a stereotype) but no one would dare make a movie entitled "Black Men can't swim", Again, playing to a stereotype?
	__________________ Occam’s Beard – The simplest solution isn’t always the best

14th September 2009, 11:32 AM	#21
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,304	Originally Posted by Clippy So I would have to wait for crime statistics? Not really since the realtor should have them. Quote: Based on how many years? I'd say 20 would be a good indication. Quote: Why can't I base my decision on the crime rates in other black neighbourhoods? So you base your decision on the crime rates in other White neighborhoods?
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,304	__________________ AVENGERS!!!.. Turn off the dark!

14th September 2009, 11:32 AM	#22
Clippy Muse Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Hyperborea Posts: 608	Originally Posted by Careyp74 This paragraph also doesn't fit the OP's definition of racism. You admit it yourself, highlighted for your ease of reading. Depends I guess on how we define harm. If I say that I believe that blacks are genetically predisposed to violence and criminality, and choose not to live in neighbourhoods where they live in any number, is that racist? Quote: Racism: A specific form of the causation-correlation logical fallacy, where a person looks at different tendencies that happen to align among people of different ethnicities and assumes incorrectly that the ethnicity or genetic aspects of the ethnicity are the CAUSE of those differences. The person then usually acts, speaks, or governs in a damaging and incorrect way based on that mistaken assumption. Is believing that it's only a cause enough to make it not racist? Who arbitrates what's 'incorrect' or 'damaging'?
	__________________ Fas est ab hoste doceri

14th September 2009, 11:49 AM	#23
Cainkane1 Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: The great American southeast Posts: 7,192	Originally Posted by EGarrett While trying to explain this extremely difficult topic to people elsewhere, I happened upon a definition that I think is pretty damned good...though the phrasing might need some work. Whadaya think? Racism: A specific form of the causation-correlation logical fallacy, where a person looks at different tendencies that happen to align among people of different ethnicities and assumes incorrectly that the ethnicity or genetic aspects of the ethnicity are the CAUSE of those differences. The person then usually acts, speaks, or governs in a damaging and incorrect way based on that mistaken assumption. Examples: 1. I waved hello to a sleeping Asian person once, and he did not respond. This taught me that Asian people are rude, and I have never said hello to one since! 2. Those blue people who we forced to work for 300 years with no families and education are performing less than average in their normal jobs and schools. Obviously, Blue people are mentally inferior and are damaging the country. Why is it that blue people born, raised and educated in poorer countries where they were enslaved do better than the blue people born raised and educated in the USA? I think the entire citizenry of the USA could do better than they're doing and we need to stop making excuses. I'm a good example. I graduated from a not that well thought of college with a 2.8 average. My major was liberal arts. I should have and could have done better. Hey it was the hippy era. A lot of people blew it in my day.
	__________________ If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else.

14th September 2009, 11:54 AM	#24
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 8,283	Originally Posted by Clippy Depends I guess on how we define harm. If I say that I believe that blacks are genetically predisposed to violence and criminality, and choose not to live in neighbourhoods where they live in any number, is that racist? Yes, that is a racist argument, as has already been pointed out to you more than once. It has no empirical support and is the bailiwick of judging an entire group based on the flawed correlation-causation fallacy.
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

14th September 2009, 11:58 AM	#26
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 8,283	Originally Posted by Cainkane1 Why is it that blue people born, raised and educated in poorer countries where they were enslaved do better than the blue people born raised and educated in the USA? Because you're engaging in a correlation-causation fallacy. The answer for why one group performs poorly has nothing to do with their color. Originally Posted by Cainkane1 I think the entire citizenry of the USA could do better than they're doing and we need to stop making excuses. I'm a good example. I graduated from a not that well thought of college with a 2.8 average. My major was liberal arts. I should have and could have done better. Hey it was the hippy era. A lot of people blew it in my day. Okay, then let's stop making excuses. What do you think was your problem, as you describe it?
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

14th September 2009, 12:00 PM	#27
Clippy Muse Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Hyperborea Posts: 608	Originally Posted by GreNME Yes, that is a racist argument, as has already been pointed out to you more than once. It has no empirical support and is the bailiwick of judging an entire group based on the flawed correlation-causation fallacy. The black crime rate is higher than the White crime rate, even when controlling for socio-economic status. There's your empirical support.
	__________________ Fas est ab hoste doceri

14th September 2009, 12:02 PM	#28
Gord_in_Toronto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 13,415	Racism is the failure to treat every individual as an individual.
	__________________ "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

14th September 2009, 12:03 PM	#29
Cainkane1 Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: The great American southeast Posts: 7,192	Originally Posted by EGarrett While trying to explain this extremely difficult topic to people elsewhere, I happened upon a definition that I think is pretty damned good...though the phrasing might need some work. Whadaya think? Racism: A specific form of the causation-correlation logical fallacy, where a person looks at different tendencies that happen to align among people of different ethnicities and assumes incorrectly that the ethnicity or genetic aspects of the ethnicity are the CAUSE of those differences. The person then usually acts, speaks, or governs in a damaging and incorrect way based on that mistaken assumption. Examples: 1. I waved hello to a sleeping Asian person once, and he did not respond. This taught me that Asian people are rude, and I have never said hello to one since! 2. Those blue people who we forced to work for 300 years with no families and education are performing less than average in their normal jobs and schools. Obviously, Blue people are mentally inferior and are damaging the country. Also whose racist and whose not will often surprise you. I have a Jamaican friend who doesn't get along well with black people born and raised in the states. In college I knew a south african who had problems with American blacks because his hair was "nappier" and his skin was darker. He had things to say about black folks born in the USA I'd just as soon not repeat. I was friends with him and I tried to argue with him but his mind was made up. I still see him once in a blue moon and I avoid racial discussions with him at all costs. There have been cases of lighter skinned african ancestried people being prejudices against darker skinned african ancestried peoples. The Japanese didn't like Chinese and so on.
	__________________ If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else.

14th September 2009, 12:03 PM	#30
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 8,283	Originally Posted by Clippy The black crime rate is higher than the White crime rate, even when controlling for socio-economic status. There's your empirical support. Which refers back to the original post and the correlation-causation fallacy you've built. As long as you continue to put forth that ethnicity is the determining factor, you're committing the fallacy.
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

14th September 2009, 12:04 PM	#31
Clippy Muse Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Hyperborea Posts: 608	Originally Posted by Cainkane1 Rabbi Kahane once said that everybody is a biggot to a degree. This to him was true even when a strong effort not to be biggotted was made. To him this was a fact even if you married a person outside your race. Somewhere deep down there was a small measure of etnic or racial prejudice somewhere. It's hard-wired. http://www.psych.nyu.edu/phelpslab/p...DPS_V17No2.pdf https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/
	__________________ Fas est ab hoste doceri

14th September 2009, 12:06 PM	#33
Clippy Muse Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Hyperborea Posts: 608	Originally Posted by GreNME Which refers back to the original post and the correlation-causation fallacy you've built. As long as you continue to put forth that ethnicity is the determining factor, you're committing the fallacy. No, I'm saying that it is likely to be a factor. I have data. Who decides that I'm incorrect?
	__________________ Fas est ab hoste doceri

14th September 2009, 12:06 PM	#34
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,304	Originally Posted by Cainkane1 There have been cases of lighter skinned african ancestried people being prejudices against darker skinned african ancestried peoples. Just for the record that goes both ways believe me.
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,304	__________________ AVENGERS!!!.. Turn off the dark!

14th September 2009, 12:06 PM	#35
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 8,283	Originally Posted by Clippy It's hard-wired. http://www.psych.nyu.edu/phelpslab/p...DPS_V17No2.pdf https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/ You really don't understand what the result of Project Implicit implies, do you? Now that's some classic irony for you. For the record: every time I've taken the PI test I seem to come out favoring no group or gender. Is that hard-wired as well?
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

14th September 2009, 12:08 PM	#36
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 8,283	Originally Posted by Clippy No, I'm saying that it is likely to be a factor. I have data. Who decides that I'm incorrect? Using white power resources-- which build backwards from a conclusion and fudge the math to fit-- is not sufficient data.
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

14th September 2009, 12:13 PM	#37
Clippy Muse Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Hyperborea Posts: 608	Originally Posted by GreNME Using white power resources-- which build backwards from a conclusion and fudge the math to fit-- is not sufficient data. The data comes from DOJ databases. Show that the math is fudged.
	__________________ Fas est ab hoste doceri

14th September 2009, 12:15 PM	#38
Clippy Muse Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Hyperborea Posts: 608	Originally Posted by GreNME You really don't understand what the result of Project Implicit implies, do you? Now that's some classic irony for you. For the record: every time I've taken the PI test I seem to come out favoring no group or gender. Is that hard-wired as well? What do you think it implies?
	__________________ Fas est ab hoste doceri