tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276315370764506657.post8095918115199931372..comments2023-05-30T11:00:42.216-04:00Comments on Curtis Knows Nothing: Is the Tea Party Racist?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06428011965171090537noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276315370764506657.post-50927193347759560602011-03-13T18:38:00.666-04:002011-03-13T18:38:00.666-04:00I am against censorship. But #1 this is my blog. #...I am against censorship. But #1 this is my blog. #2 I won't tolerate blatantly racist comments. So if you'd like to make such comments, feel free to start your own blog.<br /><br />This is NOT directed at John. :)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06428011965171090537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276315370764506657.post-68302242896768045602011-03-10T16:24:47.917-05:002011-03-10T16:24:47.917-05:00"in fact"? How can you say someone is &q..."in fact"? How can you say someone is "in fact" a racist or not a racist? Like I said, you seem to have an idea of a trial by jury or something in order to prove someone/thing a racist or not. That simply isn't how it works. I think, again, you're viewing racism as far too concrete an obvious a phenomenon and not giving it credit as a stealthy, insidious problem. This is also why you place so much emphasis on intent. You can't have intent when something is unconscious. I think you're thinking is a bit too black/white on this issue. You need more slippery gooey gray stuff seeping into the nooks and crannies of conscious thought.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06428011965171090537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276315370764506657.post-28032822960934902222011-03-10T08:58:23.363-05:002011-03-10T08:58:23.363-05:00I do believe that being racist is unjust, but so i...I do believe that being racist is unjust, but so is labeling someone as racist when in fact they are not. I focused on the latter because it seems to be the case with your blog post. I would love to answer all your questions, but it may have to wait until another day. Perhaps I'll write a blog post on it soon.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03560477246248417263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276315370764506657.post-25305282771228646392011-03-09T20:51:08.396-05:002011-03-09T20:51:08.396-05:00" The act of discrimination is conscious in n..." The act of discrimination is conscious in nature."<br /><br />How? I think that's an untenable position. We now have data that toddlers choose light skinned dolls over dark skinned dolls regardless of the race of the child. Are you saying that is a conscious decision even though toddlers have no conceptualization of race?<br /><br />"But with your definition, almost anyone can be called a racist without recourse."<br /><br />If they're racist, then they should be called racist, no? And what recourse would there be? I don't get that part. It seems you have an idea of trying someone in court to determine if they're racist or not. I might be reading too much into it though.<br /><br />There's been a couple times now that you've mentioned "unjust" or "injustice" in regards to labeling something racist. That seems awfully backwards to me. What is unjust is racism -- not labeling someone/thing racist. <br /><br />Using your system, a law could be passed that benefits whites and hurts minorities and when that law is labeled racist, you view the LABELING as unjust. That's just wrong. The law itself is unjust.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06428011965171090537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276315370764506657.post-86068247280430915122011-03-09T20:33:10.890-05:002011-03-09T20:33:10.890-05:00Well, by my definition of racism as a type of disc...Well, by my definition of racism as a type of discrimination, I'm not sure I could agree that it is something un/sub conscious. The act of discrimination is conscious in nature. I differentiate that from prejudice, which is a conscious or subconscious bias toward somebody, group, or class of things without knowing all the facts. You seem to favor prejudice by race as the definition of racism. I favor discrimination by race as the definition of racism. <br /><br />The reason I favor the latter definition is that the former seems to overly broad and not all that useful. Certainly people have prejudices and they should be careful to eliminate them the best they can. But with your definition, almost anyone can be called a racist without recourse. I could say (and I don't believe this) "Curtis is racist but he doesn't even realize it". I think it cheapens the concept racist to include honest but real prejudices with insidious racial discrimination. Basically, it tries to lump simple biases that may not be consciously chosen with wicked mob lynchings, classifying all under an "evil" tag of racism. That does an injustice to those who may not want their bias and an injustice to those who deserve the label of "evil" but have it watered down.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03560477246248417263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276315370764506657.post-46719842019635154722011-03-09T18:56:00.517-05:002011-03-09T18:56:00.517-05:00Dammit. "That would make racist intent IMposs...Dammit. "That would make racist intent IMpossible."Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06428011965171090537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276315370764506657.post-26536714123144894582011-03-09T18:55:11.023-05:002011-03-09T18:55:11.023-05:00The part you're still missing, though, is the ...The part you're still missing, though, is the stealthy nature of racism. If you're making racist intent a sine qua non for racism, we'll never identify ANYTHING (outside of the most blatant examples) as racist. That wouldn't be accurate.<br /><br />As an example, remember the almost identical photos after Katrina of the white couple taking food from a store and a black couple "looting"? Do you think it was the captioners intent to be racist? Or do you think that racism was insidious to the point of not even being noticed? Are you saying that racism is impossible to exist un/sub-consciously? If so, I think that is very wrong.<br /><br />Racism is slippery and inconspicuous enough to the point of affecting our decisions without our even realizing it. That would make racist intent possible. How can we intend something we aren't even aware of? Yet that is exactly how racism works the majority of the time.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06428011965171090537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276315370764506657.post-31817577243414069642011-03-09T18:40:54.908-05:002011-03-09T18:40:54.908-05:00I would agree that proving intent is very difficul...I would agree that proving intent is very difficult and that's one reason why I am very hesitant to label anyone racist without clear evidence. But I believe it can be done and have done so myself. You can identify intent by the person's words and deeds, the same way you can ascertain any idea in another mind. The act of discrimination is conceptual. And we can only judge concepts in others by carefully examining what they say and why they say it (intent). Anything less would be unjust.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03560477246248417263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276315370764506657.post-81560790404445554932011-03-09T16:42:57.109-05:002011-03-09T16:42:57.109-05:00"But here's an important differentiation ..."But here's an important differentiation - its not just "negative impact" that defines racism, its legislation that is "designed" to "negatively impact" other races. There must be intent."<br /><br />I disagree. Among other reasons, how are you going to "prove" intent? <br /><br />You weren't the only one to bring about this blog post, you were just the only one with the chutzpah to post publicly. The others were "insidious." :) I like that word.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06428011965171090537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276315370764506657.post-61695436193340095862011-03-09T16:05:02.916-05:002011-03-09T16:05:02.916-05:00I feel honored to receive a whole blog post based ...I feel honored to receive a whole blog post based on my comment.<br /><br />So you admit you have no "evidence" that the Tea Party is racist. Sounds almost like a religious belief, but I digress.<br /><br />I think we can define racism simply as a type of discrimination based on race. Discrimination is not in and of itself a bad thing. For example, I am very discriminating on who are my friends and who I trust to care for my kids. It is a stupid thing to discriminate based on inessentials, like race. It is an evil thing to promote discrimination of inessentials as law. That's why most racism discussions center on laws and regulations that are designed to negatively impact certain races.<br /><br />But here's an important differentiation - its not just "negative impact" that defines racism, its legislation that is "designed" to "negatively impact" other races. There must be intent. Without intent, you merely have a law. Perhaps a bad law for other reasons, but not a racists law. So the poll tax and Jim Crow laws can be considered racist because history shows us that the intention for creating the laws were to keep blacks downtrodden. <br /><br />If you want to show that the Tea Party is racist, you need to likewise show that their intent is discriminate based on race.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03560477246248417263noreply@blogger.com