[NT] Are you racist?

[1010830]

Simple straighfoward question to NTs. If you are not an NT, do not reply to the poll. Results will be anonymous.

 

[Hawthorne]

Aren't we all? teehee

 

[great_bay]

Eh What the point? You ask can this on any board and most people will say no.

 

[ceecee]

Yes of course, we all are.

 

[1010830]

Eh What the point? You ask can this on any board and most people will say no.

The point is the fact I'm thinking that being not racist relates to empathy and being tolerable, friendly to others, and so on, while being racist relates to having a logical approach to the issue (ie coldy look at crime statistics, IQ distribution, historical accomplishments, genetic compabilities, eugenics, etc). Most people I know are not NTs and they aren't racist as well.

 

[great_bay]

The point is the fact I'm thinking that being not racist relates to empathy and being tolerable, friendly to others, and so on, while being racist relates to having a logical approach to the issue (ie coldy look at crime statistics, IQ distribution, historical accomplishments, genetic compabilities, eugenics, etc). Most people I know are not NTs and they aren't racist as well.

I'm not sure if there's a coloration between NT's and racism.

 

[1010830]

I'm not sure if there's a coloration between NT's and racism.

Bingo. That's why I'm making this poll.

 

[Rasofy]

I believe in studies that demonstrate race playing a quite strong role on IQ and testosterone levels, which makes me racist for nowadays' mainstream parameters. Sadly, shitlibs took control of science, which means any evidence that goes against their values is quickly disregarded.

 

[Dyslexxie]

I was definitely raised in a racist environment (hello closed off eastern Europe!) but moving while young gives you a really good perspective on how stupid and closed off some homogenous cultures can become, and how hard you have to fight that programming. Racism (as well as homophobia and misogyny) has been a huge factor in my alienation from my actual culture, and I'm okay with that. I'd rather be an open minded but country-less individual than a proud xenophobe.

 

[/DG/]

Aren't we all? teehee

Yes of course, we all are.

So is there an inherent problem in the way the question is being asked? Surely there is a difference between someone who berates anyone Arabic-looking as a "terrorist sand-nigger" and someone who makes a mildly racist joke about "three Mexicans that walk into a bar?"

 

[Hawthorne]

So is there an inherent problem in the way the question is being asked? Surely there is a difference between someone who berates anyone Arabic-looking as a "terrorist sand-nigger" and someone who makes a mildly racist joke about "three Mexicans that walk into a bar?"

First seems malicious and second simply uncouth. Theme underlying both is race-based generalization.
[MENTION=26692]1010830[/MENTION], you'll probably need to define racism. Else you run the risk of people bringing extra baggage into your poll. Likely to happen regardless but you get the point...

 

[/DG/]

First seems malicious and second simply uncouth.

Theme underlying both is race-based generalization. @1010830, you'll probably need to define racism.

The thing is that most people exhibit some degree of black (not the race) humor. At the end of the day, it's often rather harmless, whereas the first can be extremely damaging.

Right, but my point is that, while on a scale, surely it's important to have some sort of threshold for "racism." If not, then for clarity's and utility's sake we need a new definition.

 

[Hawthorne]

The thing is that most people exhibit some degree of black (not the race) humor. At the end of the day, it's often rather harmless, whereas the first can be extremely damaging.

Right, but my point is that, while on a scale, surely it's important to have some sort of threshold for "racism." If not, then for clarity's and utility's sake we need a new definition.

Don't think the problem is clarity or utility. Think the problem is sensitivity to the connotations of being ID'd as racist.

Making a new word might serve to detach that baggage...or it may serve to simply give people a cognitively permissible "pass" at soft racism. Probably both?

 

[/DG/]

Don't think the problem is clarity or utility. Think the problem is sensitivity to the connotations of being ID'd as racist.

Making a new word might serve to detach that baggage...or it may serve to simply give people a cognitively permissible "pass" at soft racism. Probably both?

My point is that if literally everyone is racist to some degree, how is the word even meaningful anymore? Sometimes it's useful to have subcategories under a head word. For example, with anger, we differentiate between annoyance and rage, etc. How is this not the similar?

 

[+ patch]

I sometimes make racial jokes in a mock-Archie Bunker mood. Everybody actually seems to get it.In this post-MLK, post-apartheid type world real racists seem like they're in the 19th century or somewhere.

 

[Chrysanthe]

Hm... friendly racism in the form of harmless jokes is easily something I can sympathize with. What I also can understand, especially with the heated climate regarding terrorist attacks, is racism against Muslims. To me, it is a relatively reasonable reaction, as one's safety is at stake in these times. To be racist is to simply create a magical formula which puts your mind at ease, as you no longer have to worry about which Muslim is going to kill you when you can just consider them all as potential threats. Not that I do this, but I don't dislike those who do hold these sentiments, as it is just based off a desire for comfort.

 

[+ patch]

In college I had a Muslim friend. Not a student, but he sold gyro sandwiches on campus. I heard he was an unofficial pastor to the Saudi Arabian students, not being an official Muslim preacher. I got along well with him, I didn't touch anything about religion or politics with a ten foot pole, fearing I might offend him out of my ignorance of Islam.(I still dont understand it)

 

[Anonymous]

I have internalized prejudices but I wouldn't call myself racist, no.

 

[Hawthorne]

My point is that if literally everyone is racist to some degree, how is the word even meaningful anymore? Sometimes it's useful to have subcategories under a head word. For example, with anger, we differentiate between annoyance and rage, etc. How is this not the similar?

I mean...it's just a general term that includes all race-based prejudices independent of degree. It's already frequently modified with words like "soft/casual", "violent/malicious", "institutional", etc, as the situation requires.

If someone is "annoyed" or "full of rage", I don't think it would be erroneous to call them "angry" or "agitated". Less specific, sure, but not false. And I certainly wouldn't consider the words anger or agitation less useful because of the existence of the words annoyance and rage.

edit: So I guess the point I'm trying to make is, if you're suggesting creating subcategories, I would say they already exist. If you're suggesting a replacement for the general term itself, then see my previous post.

 

[Coriolis]

My point is that if literally everyone is racist to some degree, how is the word even meaningful anymore? Sometimes it's useful to have subcategories under a head word. For example, with anger, we differentiate between annoyance and rage, etc. How is this not the similar?

It is all how one defines "racist". Everyone has biases. It's just part of being human. Many of these biases involve characteristics like race, gender, religion, nationality, or even disability. I suppose I would reserve the racist (or sexist or homophobic) label for those who are unapologetic about their biases, and make no effort to understand and correct them as they come up.