Nice first post in the thread, rainjack! Now all someone has to do is rename this thread to something like “rainjack is a racist retard” so you actually have a legitimate reason for PMS’ing on everyone.
Learn how to masturbate, okay? It’ll relieve all that tension. Trust me.
Rainjack,
Do you notice anything about the quote above, of yours?
Or, perhaps, your attempt to characterize me as someone that knows nothing about a certain group of people?
Are you saying that people are not, in fact, just people?
Are some people so very different that having a wide variety of experience with different types of people, regardless of skin color, won’t prepare one to have an opinion about those people, only because of their skin color?
If people are people, then maybe, just maybe, anyone, no matter of skin color, put through the experiences of another group, has a strong likelihood of developing the same attitudes and viewpoints as those in that other group.
You will notice I haven’t placed colors on groups or even behaviors on groups, anything popping into your mind is your own invention, not mine.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
And now we come to the part of the article that energized the good Professor. ANd rightly so.
However, this is simply an example of a logical fallacy that gets applied much too often, both around here and in general - race is just a specific example.
It’s the “part to whole” logical fallacy – assuming that one part of a whole is representative of the whole.
Not to single out Prof. X., but he does the same thing when he pulls something out of one person’s posts and then attributes that to “conservatives on this site.”
And on the Bob Sapp thread that he referenced above, Bodyguard did it to him - expected his post to speak for “all black people.”
The fallacy actually goes both ways – it’s also “whole to part,” a particular example of which is stereotyping – assuming an individual member of a group will have a particular set of characteristics simply because he is a member of such group.
This isn’t correct, and it isn’t smart – but it’s also not a logical fallacy that’s solely – or even largely, in my view – associated with racism.
and of course, the author would never do such a thing as to assume something outlandish about all the readers of a certain race who disagreed with him or anything…
[/quote]
I can only focus on this because my time is limited and my name was mentioned.
Stereotyping indeed goes both ways. However, when was the last time a criminal act by a white man was used to stereotype an entire race as being more criminal? Do you deny that this happened in New Orleans? You’re a lawyer. However, I get to play word games in my profession as well.
A statement about conservatives can be drawn because the “conservative stance” is blatantly exclaimed for the world to see. Morals and values are shouted from the highest mountains. Big business is placed in murals and songs are written about Shell oil in praise. I mean, shit, that has nothing to do with race and everything to do with what is visible from a political stance. Stereotype? Yes. Racist? Hell no.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Blind? That is debateable. Nearsighted? Yes. Is this article groundbreaking? I would sure as hell hope not considering this has been stated for too many years for that to be the case. The fact that it still occurs is what is baffling. Again, we just had an example of this on this site in the Bob Sapp thread. It doesn’t need to be explained more than that. There are those who equate the actions of individuals with race. It was seen during the “looting” in New Orleans. To act as if this did not occur is ridiculous…but then, that is exactly what the article is discussing. Denial.
First off, I assume the “looting” in New Orleans to which you are referring is identical to the “looting” to which Kanye West was referring. For my part, admittedly, I knew looting was going on in New Orleans, but the discrepancy didn’t occur to me until Kanye West said something.
In your estimation, Prof., were the cameramen in New Orleans deliberately looking for black looters or were they just looking for the nearest picture of looting and the perps just happened to be black either through criminal intent or just local population bias? The former is very plausible (even likely in LA), but if it was the latter what should be done? Should the cameramen only shoot footage of white looters? Should they only shoot footage of looting in neighborhoods with no population bias or a bias towards non-ethnic people?
I agree that the situation(s) above eschews the problem of racist cameramen/reporting (it also eschews the problem of Kanye West’s fair and unbiased reporting in my situation), but my point is that racism (in either direction) is a slippery slope, and if I’m wrong and it’s not, why not?[/quote]
Where did I write anything about Kenye West? I have no idea what Kenye West had to say specifically about looters. You obviously followed his opinion much more than I did. What I wrote above had to do with many of the discussions we had on this very forum (along with society in general). Do a search on the topic. There was a very strong vibe as if the crimes committed were related to race. We even had one guy attempt to present studies in an effort to make similar claims. It is amazing how fast some of you forget this shit. The point is, when has this been done for whites in regards to a crime someone committed? The boys who shot up Columbine High school…were people suddenly afraid of young white boys? No. You think the same emotion towards race (or lack thereof) would have occured if they had been black?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Do you want honesty, or some white-assed apologist telling you that you are right, and that the white man really is as evil as you think?
Honesty means just what it says. Getting apologists that know absolutely nothing about race relations to side with you is accomplishing nothing other than feeding yet another stereotype.
[/quote]
There you go again, labeling another group of people by the color of their skin.
Slow down man, I can barely keep up with your conflicting statements.
Rainjack, honestly, though you profess to hate me and have stated your goal is to drive me from the boards, I do think you are generally an alright guy.
I don’t think anyone is racist because they are part of a majority or because they simply use language that is commonly used around them all the time. However, that doesn’t mean that the language or thinking in use isn’t in fact from the point of view of the dominant group.
It isn’t an attack against anyone to point it out.
It is very similar to what feminists were saying several decades ago – that language expressed things from the viewpoint of men all the time. Well, it did. It didn’t make men evil or anything like that, but it certainly did conflict with the viewpoint of women as equal members of society.
Attack me all you want if it will let you discharge your anger at whatever it is you are angry at, I care not, but don’t imagine that minorities haven’t been stepped on since the dawn of time, no matter how the dividing lines have been drawn.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Attack me all you want if it will let you discharge your anger at whatever it is you are angry at, I care not, but don’t imagine that minorities haven’t been stepped on since the dawn of time, no matter how the dividing lines have been drawn.[/quote]
And you don’t have a clue about the issue beyond what you have read, or watched on TV. I cannot respect your position in this debate because it is based in utter ignorance of reality.
When you start down this street on this subject with your ignoarnce blaring louder than a lime-green leisure suit, you should be ignored. Nothing personal - but nothing you have to say on this subject that I can ever respect.
I’ll ask you nicely to find another subject to act all smart about. This one is far far too personal to me to have someone like you shit all over it with the “knowledge”. It means dick to me unless you have actually lived it.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
And now we come to the part of the article that energized the good Professor. ANd rightly so.
However, this is simply an example of a logical fallacy that gets applied much too often, both around here and in general - race is just a specific example.
It’s the “part to whole” logical fallacy – assuming that one part of a whole is representative of the whole.
Not to single out Prof. X., but he does the same thing when he pulls something out of one person’s posts and then attributes that to “conservatives on this site.”
And on the Bob Sapp thread that he referenced above, Bodyguard did it to him - expected his post to speak for “all black people.”
The fallacy actually goes both ways – it’s also “whole to part,” a particular example of which is stereotyping – assuming an individual member of a group will have a particular set of characteristics simply because he is a member of such group.
This isn’t correct, and it isn’t smart – but it’s also not a logical fallacy that’s solely – or even largely, in my view – associated with racism.
and of course, the author would never do such a thing as to assume something outlandish about all the readers of a certain race who disagreed with him or anything…
Professor X wrote:
I can only focus on this because my time is limited and my name was mentioned.
Stereotyping indeed goes both ways. However, when was the last time a criminal act by a white man was used to stereotype an entire race as being more criminal? [/quote]
How about a lot of times when people use individual examples of racism by white people to show “society is racist”?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Do you deny that this happened in New Orleans? You’re a lawyer. However, I get to play word games in my profession as well.[/quote]
No, not at all. Some people were engaging in racial stereotyping. There were a whole lot of factors that led to NO’s problems - race wasn’t among them. Culture is another matter, but that’s separate from race. Hell, the biggest problem for NO was that it’s in Louisiana (as in, a state with notoriously corrupt government at state and local levels).
[quote]Professor X wrote:
A statement about conservatives can be drawn because the “conservative stance” is blatantly exclaimed for the world to see. Morals and values are shouted from the highest mountains. Big business is placed in murals and songs are written about Shell oil in praise. I mean, shit, that has nothing to do with race and everything to do with what is visible from a political stance. Stereotype? Yes. Racist? Hell no.[/quote]
Just two different subtypes of the same logical fallacy my friend.
I have a few questions.
Why is it that when a white person points out things that his/her own race that they feel is wrong and is furthering the cause of racism, they are called an “apologist”? Additionaly, Why is it assumed that they know absolutely nothing about race relations and that they are just making issues where there are none?
Also, why is it when a minority does these exact same things, white people don’t give them derogatory names and it is not assumed that they know nothing about race relations? In fact these people are applauded by the white majority. It’s funny how the view changes when the focus shifts.
[quote]And you don’t have a clue about the issue beyond what you have read, or watched on TV. I cannot respect your position in this debate because it is based in utter ignorance of reality.
When you start down this street on this subject with your ignoarnce blaring louder than a lime-green leisure suit, you should be ignored. Nothing personal - but nothing you have to say on this subject that I can ever respect.
I’ll ask you nicely to find another subject to act all smart about. This one is far far too personal to me to have someone like you shit all over it with the “knowledge”. It means dick to me unless you have actually lived it. [/quote]
Rainjack,
Honestly, you have absolutely no fucking clue what I’ve seen in my life.
Sure, we have differing opinions on a lot of things, and this is certainly a hot topic for you, but it wouldn’t kill you to learn how to deal with the opinions of other people.
If you have so much damned knowledge on the topic of race relations, beyond the deep anger that you obviously carry around with you still, then perhaps you should simply demonstrate it.
I’m certainly not against learning from your experience if you have something worthwhile to say other than vitriolic attacks.
Perhaps you should simply look at my statements as I make them, and judge them on their own merits, instead of prejudging them based on your opinion of me. It might be a good fucking experience for you to figure out how to do that.
By the way, it’s a little too late to start asking nicely anyway.
Because I’m breaking the fucking rules… 
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
I have a few questions.
Why is it that when a white person points out things that his/her own race that they feel is wrong and is furthering the cause of racism, they are called an “apologist”? Additionaly, Why is it assumed that they know absolutely nothing about race relations and that they are just making issues where there are none?
Also, why is it when a minority does these exact same things, white people don’t give them derogatory names and it is not assumed that they know nothing about race relations? In fact these people are applauded by the white majority. It’s funny how the view changes when the focus shifts.[/quote]
I don’t know. Probably for the same reason that Lt. Governor Michael Steele gets Oreo cookies thrown at him. Or Condi Rice or Colin Powell get portrayed as “Uncle Tom” stereotypes in cartoons.
Sometimes people would rather attack the messenger than deal with the argument.
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
I have a few questions.
Why is it that when a white person points out things that his/her own race that they feel is wrong and is furthering the cause of racism, they are called an “apologist”? Additionaly, Why is it assumed that they know absolutely nothing about race relations and that they are just making issues where there are none?
Also, why is it when a minority does these exact same things, white people don’t give them derogatory names and it is not assumed that they know nothing about race relations? In fact these people are applauded by the white majority. It’s funny how the view changes when the focus shifts.[/quote]
Why do black people that espouse traditional white ideas, i.e. Clarence Thomas, or Walter Williams, labeled as Uncle Toms? But if a white guy that has never seen a black person in real life starts supporting black idealism, he is welcomed with open arms. It’s a two way street.
My problem with the author is not that he is white, but that he is all to quick to play the same game of stereo-typing that he accuses the lesser white culture of playing.
I have a gi-normous dislike for such things - especially when they know nothing about this stuff beyond what they read or watch, color be damned.
It is like someone telling you how to train and the closest they have ever gotten to a weight was reading M&F. But they read it voraciously, and know all the right words, and terminology - they still know dick about it in real life.
Maybe he presents your side of the argument well, but I still have no respect for the guy if his experience is limited to what he has written about it.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Rainjack,
Honestly, you have absolutely no fucking clue what I’ve seen in my life. [/quote]
I have told you mine - I’m all ears if you have anything beyond anecdotal experience.
When the opinions of other people are more than them just thinking out loud, then I agree. But until you can tell me what experience you have in the subject matter, I have no reason to respect/listen to what you have to say. And before anyone says anything, this subject is extremely sensitive to me, so this is beyond a theoretical dialogue.
When you ask a pertinent question, I will. It is obvious that you have spent you life being the name caller, and never the recipient by this cowardly attempt at calling me out.
Once again - this subject is hardly something that elicits vitriolic anything. I am more passionate about this than anyother subject we discuss, my earlier protests about your usage of racial slurs is proof of this. You not respecting me wrt your racial slurs is part and parcel to my thinking that you should just set this one out. You don’t seem to see the seriousness of the issue.
[quote]Perhaps you should simply look at my statements as I make them, and judge them on their own merits, instead of prejudging them based on your opinion of me. It might be a good fucking experience for you to figure out how to do that.
By the way, it’s a little too late to start asking nicely anyway.[/quote]
Prove my opinion wrong, vroom. This is one area in which you are completely over your head. Condescending to me at this time is not going to get you any more respect.
Honestly vroom - you have absolutely no place in this discussion. At the very least, please keep your comments directed at someone besides me. I take this far too seriously to have to deal with your banter.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
How about a lot of times when people use individual examples of racism by white people to show “society is racist”?[/quote]
If whites are the majority, and this action is seen in the majority, and society is based on the rules of the majority, how is it racist to then apply this concept to society? That would be called truth, not racism. Are you saying that society does not hold issues up as race specific in terms of crimes and minorities? Please. Who are you kidding?
[quote]
No, not at all. Some people were engaging in racial stereotyping. There were a whole lot of factors that led to NO’s problems - race wasn’t among them. Culture is another matter, but that’s separate from race. Hell, the biggest problem for NO was that it’s in Louisiana (as in, a state with notoriously corrupt government at state and local levels).[/quote]
But the bottom line is, race was applied as a factor of crime. Nothing you say changes this fact. So then, when a black makes the claim that he feels it is his duty to live his life as if he is a constant representation of his race, you don’t see this is a wrong doing of this society? How is that? Please, explain this one to me.
[quote]
Just two different subtypes of the same logical fallacy my friend.[/quote]
Hardly. You have several on this forum who didn’t even know the definition of racism until someone else posted it.
So, is it going to piss you off if I ask you for some examples to illustrate this?
I don’t see the author making any negative claims with respect to white culture. He’s trying to point out the existance of something that can be very hard to see – such as a clear glass marble in a swimming pool.
Flame at will.
[quote]vroom wrote:
So, is it going to piss you off if I ask you for some examples to illustrate this?
I don’t see the author making any negative claims with respect to white culture. He’s trying to point out the existance of something that can be very hard to see – such as a clear glass marble in a swimming pool.
Flame at will.
[/quote]
[i]Whites pay no price, in other words, for dismissing the claims of racism so regularly launched by persons of color, seeing as how the latter have no power to punish such disbelievers at the polls, or in the office suites, or in the schools in most cases.
On the other hand, people of color who refuse to buy into white reality – the “reality” of the U.S. as a “shining city on a hill,” or the “reality” of never-ending progress, or the “reality” of advancement by merit – often pay a heavy toll: they are marginalized, called “professional victims,” or accused of playing the race card.[/i]
And then at the end of the article:
To even say that our group status is irrelevant or should be is to suggest that one has enjoyed the privilege of experiencing the world that way (or rather, believing that one was). In other words, it is the result of a particular social arrangement, whereby some and not others have been seen as individuals no matter the actions of others within their group. There is, of course a phrase for this arrangement.
Perhaps I can flip things upside down a little bit?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Whites pay no price, in other words, for dismissing the claims of racism so regularly launched by persons of color, seeing as how the latter have no power to punish such disbelievers at the polls, or in the office suites, or in the schools in most cases.
On the other hand, people of color who refuse to buy into white reality – the “reality” of the U.S. as a “shining city on a hill,” or the “reality” of never-ending progress, or the “reality” of advancement by merit – often pay a heavy toll: they are marginalized, called “professional victims,” or accused of playing the race card.[/quote]
Okay, I have no problem with the idea that you don’t buy into what the author is saying. I’m not sure I see the stereotyping that concerns you.
We are talking about group dynamics, where one group is dominant and all others are not.
However, it’s entirely possible for someone who is in the majority on a national scale to end up in the minority on a local scale, and find things reversed.
For example, when I lived in Texas and dated a woman who’s father built railroad cars, there was a lot of concern that the immigrant workers would only hire other immigrants, so that is was becoming difficult to get a manufacturing job.
Perhaps the author hasn’t had to run into those issues, localized areas of reverse reality. I’m betting that people running into them are pretty damned pissed off about it.
Are you saying that only some people in the majority perform this activity, and the author is stereotyping it across the entire majority?
If you are a business owner and 80% of your customers are white who want a certain product, but your other customers who are non-white want something else, what do you sell?
You sell what the majority wants.
So what this article calls “privilege” is really a system designed for the statistical majority. Not designed to cut others out, just designed to support and cater to the majority. If it ever occurs in the US where another racial group is the statistical majority that “privilege” will shift to that group. The majority sets the rules my friends.
This is not a racist position, but one of design. You can’t please all races all of the time, so you please the largest group most of the time.
Not understanding this would be like a white person (that speaks no Spanish) going to Mexico a demanding that they change the official language to English. Then, when they don’t stating that the Mexicans have special privileges that other races don’t have.
It’s just the system designed to cater to the majority.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
How about a lot of times when people use individual examples of racism by white people to show “society is racist”?
Professor X wrote:
If whites are the majority, and this action is seen in the majority, and society is based on the rules of the majority, how is it racist to then apply this concept to society? That would be called truth, not racism. Are you saying that society does not hold issues up as race specific in terms of crimes and minorities? Please. Who are you kidding? [/quote]
This dodges the point. You specifically asked when a group of white people would be assigned the characteristics of a small group of actors. I didn’t say it was racism, though I guess you could, depending on your definition. There’s your answer – and your explanation simply brings out the truth of that answer.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
No, not at all. Some people were engaging in racial stereotyping. There were a whole lot of factors that led to NO’s problems - race wasn’t among them. Culture is another matter, but that’s separate from race. Hell, the biggest problem for NO was that it’s in Louisiana (as in, a state with notoriously corrupt government at state and local levels).
Professor X wrote:
But the bottom line is, race was applied as a factor of crime. Nothing you say changes this fact. So then, when a black makes the claim that he feels it is his duty to live his life as if he is a constant representation of his race, you don’t see this is a wrong doing of this society? How is that? Please, explain this one to me.[/quote]
Yes, it was. See my first two sentences in the quote directly above yours.
To answer your hypothetical, no. That’s a choice this hypothetical black person makes, just as a hypothetical white person could feel choose to feel that its his duty to live his life as if he is a constant representation of his race, or how someone poor could choose to live his life as if he’s a constant representative of his social class, or some cowboy from Montana could choose to live his life as if he is the representative of all Montana cowboys.
Or each could choose not to. That’s a self-shouldered burden, irrespective of how you think “society” is viewing you. If I travel in France, I could choose to focus on how the French view me as the embodiment of all things and people American, or I could ignore the fact that they might do just that.
They don’t have to know how they’re wrong in order to be wrong.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Where did I write anything about Kenye West?[/quote]
I didn’t say you wrote anything about Kanye West, read the post (and it’s Kanye not Kenye).
I paid attention to Kanye as he asserted that there was some racial bias to the media coverage and policy making going on in New Orleans on national television. You paid attention to a non-descript forumite (and society in general) who was trying to show that the crimes committed were related to race. Sounds like selective blindness to me, whose was worse?
Um, ask Marylin Manson what the backlash was, ask KMFDM (who, humorously enough, had to admit to being German, but not Nazis)what the backlash was, ask the NAIS what the backlash was, ask the security guards of every suburban school what the backlash was, why don’t we analyze the reasons behind ‘zero tolerance’. Yeah, people were afraid of disgruntled white kids. Just because you ignored it and it wasn’t posted on the forums doesn’t mean it wasn’t there. But then, this could be construed as overreaction. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. What are your feelings about Native Americans?