Culture

Sat May 17, 2014, 02:50 PM

Is it possible to be a racist and still be civil?

By racist, I mean the classic definition of one that believes there are difference in intelligence and other attributes among the races (if you accept the notion of races). I do not mean the hate spewing, vile, obnoxious persons that are trying to get attention and prove a point.

Can a quiet, in the closet, so to speak, racist be civil?

57 replies, 6552 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 57 replies Author Time Post
Reply Is it possible to be a racist and still be civil? (Original post)
fools_gold May 2014 OP
john262 May 2014 #1
MercATC May 2014 #2
CTA102 May 2014 #3
fools_gold May 2014 #14
tanklvhi May 2014 #31
JasonTaverner May 2014 #4
fools_gold May 2014 #15
JasonTaverner May 2014 #19
fools_gold May 2014 #20
JasonTaverner May 2014 #22
Hypothesis May 2014 #27
Blagofan May 2014 #39
JasonTaverner May 2014 #41
liberalguy May 2014 #5
orson May 2014 #10
Fiyero May 2014 #6
fools_gold May 2014 #16
The Doctor May 2014 #7
fools_gold May 2014 #17
Troll2 May 2014 #8
orson May 2014 #12
Troll2 May 2014 #13
Hypothesis May 2014 #18
Troll2 May 2014 #25
Hypothesis May 2014 #28
Listener May 2014 #9
FORD May 2014 #23
Listener May 2014 #40
LBoythorn May 2014 #11
FORD May 2014 #21
Hypothesis May 2014 #24
iffley May 2014 #26
fools_gold May 2014 #36
iffley May 2014 #38
Immacolata May 2014 #29
ReTooled May 2014 #30
fools_gold May 2014 #37
HerasHeaddress May 2014 #42
ReTooled May 2014 #43
Banshee 3 Actual May 2014 #44
ReTooled May 2014 #45
Mr Happy May 2014 #32
Squeek May 2014 #33
Strange Luck May 2014 #34
Gidget May 2014 #46
unbridled May 2014 #35
Gidget May 2014 #47
galileosghost May 2014 #48
JoePolitics May 2014 #49
Blurt May 2014 #50
fools_gold May 2014 #52
Blurt May 2014 #54
fools_gold May 2014 #56
Lefty May 2014 #51
fools_gold May 2014 #53
Lefty May 2014 #55
Sushihammer May 2014 #57

Response to fools_gold (Original post)

Sat May 17, 2014, 02:53 PM

1. You can probably make a case that by definition racism itself is uncivil.

But I think it is quite possible to practice subtle racism and be civil. We see that all the time. And then there are those who find racism under every rock. That isn't helpful either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fools_gold (Original post)

Sat May 17, 2014, 02:59 PM

2. Absolutely

Hopefully, that's part of the premise here.

All are welcome. Come and discuss. Just be civil.

In our case, civility HAS to be about execution, not content.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fools_gold (Original post)

Sat May 17, 2014, 03:25 PM

3. Who wants to be civil with a racist?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTA102 (Reply #3)

Sat May 17, 2014, 06:16 PM

14. Well, that wasn't the question

but it seems to reveal a bit of how you think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fools_gold (Reply #14)

Sat May 17, 2014, 09:32 PM

31. And that's a good thing - right - how CTA102 thinks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fools_gold (Original post)

Sat May 17, 2014, 03:35 PM

4. Racism out of ignorance or racism out of hatred

There is a difference

The former is just a matter of education and exposure

The latter, well, does the name Adolf Hitler mean anything to you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JasonTaverner (Reply #4)

Sat May 17, 2014, 06:18 PM

15. Does it have to be from one of those two things

or could there be another root cause in a belief in racism? Did you ever read "The Bell Curve?" (Wait for it.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fools_gold (Reply #15)

Sat May 17, 2014, 06:22 PM

19. Bell Curve? Um - - let me take a sip so I can spit it back to you

Seriously?

That book/theory/racist excuse isso unscientific...

I'm not going there...

I don't argue with the insane

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JasonTaverner (Reply #19)

Sat May 17, 2014, 06:26 PM

20. Exactly as expected

Did you read it?

And your response borders on the uncivil in my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fools_gold (Reply #20)

Sat May 17, 2014, 06:36 PM

22. I am sorry. Cherry picking data is one thing. The bell curve...

Which distorts data through sample size manipulation, AND uses confirmation bias in oh so many ways...


Sorry, that's not science.

That's bias confirmed.

And if you think I*'m uncivil now?

You don't know me very well, do you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JasonTaverner (Reply #22)

Sat May 17, 2014, 08:21 PM

27. Your points are valid

as they are supported by experts who critique that work. (I don't read that book myself because I have no interest in the subject, I only read the reviews).

That said, a piece of scientific work (as opposed to science as a discipline) can be erroneous, but it can be corrected and improved to converge toward the truth (science is intrinsically self-correcting).

But I understand your points. It is totally irrelevant how to treat a person, based on whatever population statistics about that person's ancestry haplogroup profile (OK, I'm trying to avoid the word "race" here). But it is also wrong if a person treats another unethically just because the other person holds certain view about his/her ancestry population characteristics, while taking no action that harms that person to begin with.

Instead of race, think of the analogy of political belief. Dems and Repubs don't have to be friends and can hate each other, but neither side may take any unethical action against the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JasonTaverner (Reply #19)

Sat May 17, 2014, 10:36 PM

39. What parts of that book was objectionable?

IIRc, the central thesis was that there were racial differences in IQ, that IQ is highly heritable, Iq is highly correllated to life outcome and since IQ is resistant to intervention affirmative action and the ilk is useless.

The IQ stuff is completely non controversial in the field. It is settled science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blagofan (Reply #39)

Sun May 18, 2014, 12:42 PM

41. Hmmm, the cherry picked data, the use of highly biased "IQ" tests....

...and the fact that it was hardly science, unless you draw a conclusion first, and then choose data to support that conclusion

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fools_gold (Original post)

Sat May 17, 2014, 03:51 PM

5. Sure. Which calls into question the inherent value of civility as an overriding imperative.

 

Civility is a useful communication skill. Nothing more. It's a path that ends at the shoreline of the ocean known as "the right thing to do".

Malcom X wasn't civil. I try to be conscientious, but I hope "civil" doesn't figure prominently on my obituary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalguy (Reply #5)

Sat May 17, 2014, 04:15 PM

10. Civility is what keeps us from pulling pistols

If your car breaks down and someone stops to help, do you quiz them on their racial views before accepting?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fools_gold (Original post)

Sat May 17, 2014, 03:58 PM

6. One could argue

That Japan is a textbook example of the ability of racism and extreme civility to coexist on a large scale.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fiyero (Reply #6)

Sat May 17, 2014, 06:19 PM

16. Excellent observation. nt

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fools_gold (Original post)

Sat May 17, 2014, 04:00 PM

7. I could never be civil to a racist.

 

Race is a cultural construct and it has no basis in biology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor (Reply #7)

Sat May 17, 2014, 06:20 PM

17. Well, that says something about your mindset

but doesn't answer the question posed in the OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fools_gold (Original post)

Sat May 17, 2014, 04:08 PM

8. Yes, and the discourse among scientists unraveling the genetic influences is generally civil

There are a large number of studies of ancient and current DNA that is shedding light on global population histories, genetic differences, and the influence of genetics on intelligence and other phenotype attributes.

The hypothesis that all populations are essentially similar is pretty untenable. Native Americans have been isolated for about 500 generations. Europeans have been mostly isolated from East Asians for 1200 generations. Melanesians and Australians have been mostly isolated for 1500 generations. Eurasians have been mostly isolated from Africans for about 2000 generations. In the absence of gene flow between populations, divergent evolution happens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Troll2 (Reply #8)

Sat May 17, 2014, 04:19 PM

12. The Willendorf Venus had kinky hair

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Reply #12)

Sat May 17, 2014, 04:45 PM

13. That's from around 30,000 ybp or 900 generations ago.

It may be kinky or curly hair, but the straight hair genes for Europeans are probably younger than that. Light skin is even more recent, and may have been associated with agriculture and a lack of vitamin D from the more plant-based diet.

The oldest populations out of Africa would have had kinky hair, as do the South Asian tribals, Andamanese, Melanesians, and Australians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Troll2 (Reply #8)

Sat May 17, 2014, 06:22 PM

18. A very good recent article in TIME...

about some scientific background for the race concept by Nicholas Wade
http://time.com/91081/what-science-says-about-race-and-genetics/

and a book review on his work:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/16/books/nicholas-wades-a-troublesome-inheritance.html

This of course, is not rigorous scientific work - as science doesn't define race as a distinctive biological trait. Wade is science writer but not a scientist like Spencer Wells. Unencumbered by science principles and protocol, Wade attempts to link our common-sense perception of race with known biological basis of human genetics. Thus, based on certain genetic markers, a person can be said to have ancestry of certain population with a high frequency of some haplogroup associated with a population dwelling in certain region in the world for 10,000's of years, be that Europe, West Africa, Australia, or East or South Asia,...

This is what Nat Geo project: https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/human-journey/ is about.

You got a point, we just can't ignore the biological fact that different human population groups have evolved a bit from each other, and the frequency distribution of haplotypes for various populations are different. Call that whatever, race or another word, it is a fact. Of course, that doesn't say anything about a single individual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hypothesis (Reply #18)

Sat May 17, 2014, 07:29 PM

25. Untangling genetic and cultural factors can be quite difficult though

The 2 Cultures of China

According to conventional wisdom, Westerners and Asians see themselves, and the world, in fundamentally different ways. Americans are individualistic, independent, and analytical, while the Chinese take a more holistic view of life, emphasizing interdependence and context.

But of course, different regions of the U.S. have very different cultural norms. And according to provocative new research, the same is true of China.

Writing in the journal Science, a team led by University of Virginia psychologist Thomas Talhelm provides evidence that China can be divided into two regions with distinct mindsets: the area south of the Yangtze River, which conforms to the aforementioned stereotypes, and the area north of the river, where residents’ attitudes are much closer to those of Westerners.

The researchers refer to these as the “rice provinces” (those in the south) and the “wheat provinces” (the north). And they provide evidence their different agricultural traditions are the keys to these divergent cultural traditions.

http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/two-cultures-china-western-interdependence-individualistic-independent-81078/

Cultural differences between populations can be great, and they are almost as resistant to change as genetic differences. In fact, with progress in genetic engineering, it may be easier to change genes than memes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Troll2 (Reply #25)

Sat May 17, 2014, 08:41 PM

28. It's the work by a "budding" psychologist who gained that insight from his few years..

in China. I would wait for more rigorous work, or more scientific scrutiny.

China has a big human genetic research center (they try to find the gene of genius), give it another 5 or 10 years, they will know much more about themselves on rigorous genome data rather than some speculation by this guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fools_gold (Original post)

Sat May 17, 2014, 04:11 PM

9. Yes

Many a racist will be civil to the people they are racist against. A sexist may be very gallant to women. Traditionally, this was the reward for staying in your place.

There was a thread about "female privilege" - about all those little things men to do protect women, which was the payoff for them staying in their place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Listener (Reply #9)

Sat May 17, 2014, 06:36 PM

23. Donald Sterling comes to mind

 

He was "civil" enough to the black guys who were making him money, and to the racially mixed woman he was having an affair with. Not so much to her other friends, apparently. Or to the tenants of other ethnicities when he was a slumlord.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FORD (Reply #23)

Sat May 17, 2014, 10:40 PM

40. Exactly.

They think someone inferior due to race, but it doesn't follow they won't be polite to them. At least, until they go "too far" according to the racist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fools_gold (Original post)

Sat May 17, 2014, 04:15 PM

11. Archie Bunker comes to mind. Yes he was loud but as his community became diverse

his type of bigotry became less main stream and more civil.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LBoythorn (Reply #11)

Sat May 17, 2014, 06:33 PM

21. Well, except Archie Bunker was a fictional character

 

And both the guy who created the character (Norman Lear) and the man who portrayed him (Carroll O'Connor) were Liberals, so they were making a point with Archie's bigotry.

Real bigots don't have a road map like that.... except for the ones that have a deliberate agenda to roll the entire country back to before the 60s. And yes, I mean the 1860s.

But even those guys are probably in the minority, compared to those who are motivated by nothing more than blind ignorance. If they have never known a Black person, a Jewish person, an Asian person, a gay person, or whomever it is they are bigoted against, then they are more likely to believe whatever bullshit they have been fed about that group of people from some other bigot, more than likely passed down from their own parents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fools_gold (Original post)

Sat May 17, 2014, 07:05 PM

24. Yes

I believe in human morality, and the most fundamental tenet is not to do harm or inflict unnecessary pain on anyone. I also believe the second most fundamental tenet is to have sympathy and compassion for other human beings.

That said, personal belief is not intrinsically evil, even if wrong, as long as the person does not do any harm to anyone based on his/her belief. Thus, a person might think wrongly about my race out of ignorance or rightly based on proven scientific facts. But he/she is not evil as long as he/she does not take any action that harms me, such as discriminate me for a job opportunity, etc.

On the other hand, I do not see anything evil if someone does not want to be friendly with me because of my race. It is no different than two people of the same race choosing not be friends with each other because of personality.

So, if someone doesn't want to sit next to me because he/she is not comfortable of my race, that's perfectly fine with me. If a member of the opposite gender doesn't want to date with me because of my race, is he/she racist? Of course not, he/she only exercises natural biological preference which drives human evolution and is no different than any of us choosing a mate of certain height, weight, appearance that appeals to us the most. Skin color, or other physical characteristics - whether classified as a part of race or not- are just like height and weight,...

Finally, a personal perspective on race in America as a foreign immigrant: I have lived in the US over 40 yrs, and have witnessed tremendous social progress with respect to race. It comes to a point where I think a person's quality, character, personality, and personal conduct are far more crucial in determining how that person is treated in this society than his/her race alone. That said, this is not to deny that prejudice still exists and creates some unfair advantage (inflicting harm). But the prejudice is not just about race, it can be a person body shape (e. g. tall/short, athletic/obesity), appearance (pleasant or unpleasant countenance), voice tone, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fools_gold (Original post)

Sat May 17, 2014, 07:31 PM

26. Yes, but the racism would still be disruptive. Polite bigotry is still bigotry. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iffley (Reply #26)

Sat May 17, 2014, 10:19 PM

36. If a racist keeps his racism to himself

an inner belief, so to speak, and never exhibits it in any way, is it still bigotry under the normal dictionary definition of bigotry? IOW, is the mere inner belief, even if never manifested, bigotry?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fools_gold (Reply #36)

Sat May 17, 2014, 10:36 PM

38. If you want the dictionary definition, consult a dictionary.

I'd say it's still bigotry, but if it's not manifested, who's to know?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fools_gold (Original post)

Sat May 17, 2014, 08:51 PM

29. I don't know. What I DO know

is that I cannot be civil to a racist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fools_gold (Original post)

Sat May 17, 2014, 08:52 PM

30. Racists should die

Is that uncivil?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReTooled (Reply #30)

Sat May 17, 2014, 10:20 PM

37. I would consider it so

if I were a juror.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReTooled (Reply #30)

Sun May 18, 2014, 01:08 PM

42. Which ones?

Only those of a certain ethnic makeup? Who decides?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HerasHeaddress (Reply #42)

Sun May 18, 2014, 07:03 PM

43. I'll grant myself as being impartial

I don't like racism I don't care where it's coming from

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReTooled (Reply #30)

Sun May 18, 2014, 07:06 PM

44. Poor Rev. Al then- N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #44)

Sun May 18, 2014, 08:23 PM

45. I would have to agree

I hate racists

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fools_gold (Original post)

Sat May 17, 2014, 09:41 PM

32. of course, especially in situations that don't involve race. In situations that -

involve race...maybe.
racist is a fairly broad definition. In what ways does this person think their race is above others, or think other races are below others. If it is a racism that just requires some education and perhaps experience, if the person is open minded, I suspect, yes. But I have put some premises on that that may be rare.
It is hard to say exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fools_gold (Original post)

Sat May 17, 2014, 09:52 PM

33. Of course this also

Begs the question of whether a non-racist can be UNcivil.


Oh yes, they certainly can be uncivil

Some of them can even be quite nasty


So if non racists can be uncivil, then it's probably fair to say that some racists can be civil

See how easy that was?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fools_gold (Original post)

Sat May 17, 2014, 10:01 PM

34. Most racists just claim they are looking for Kyle when you ask them about it:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Strange Luck (Reply #34)

Mon May 19, 2014, 01:35 AM

46. SeenKyle ... just wait ... that will be a User Name on here before long.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fools_gold (Original post)

Sat May 17, 2014, 10:17 PM

35. Racism is not civil.

"I'm better than you" or "my kind is better than your kind" is an arrogance that makes genuine civility impossible. There may be a thin coat of whitewash, and I don't use that term idly, splashed over the top to give the appearance of civility, but that's not the real thing.

To acknowledge that there are differences among the races? Okay. There are physical differences, and there may be cultural differences that are tied to race and ethnicity that are also tied to geography and social class. I've met many people who have no problem with physical differences, but tend to bigotry when it comes to cultural differences that they attribute to race.

It seems like there is a deep-seated need in human beings to "belong" to a superior group that can pump themselves up by putting others down. When it becomes politically incorrect to hate the "other" or put them down for one reason, others come to the fore. Whether it's racial, cultural, political, religious, or social bigotry, it's not civil.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fools_gold (Original post)

Mon May 19, 2014, 01:39 AM

47. Outwardly they might give the appearance of civility (think how we conduct

Capital Punishment)

but, in their heart of hearts, I think No.

They are not civil.

Passive Aggressive behavior works in this manner. All, so very civilized on the surface but, the simmering is just below.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fools_gold (Original post)

Mon May 19, 2014, 09:11 AM

48. sure. the entire HBD realm is very civil. it doesnt care about whether you agree with science

 

or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fools_gold (Original post)

Mon May 19, 2014, 09:46 AM

49. No, because it doesn't stay in the closet.

Closet racism does its damage behind the scenes.

The closet racist gets a resume from a minority, throws it in the trash without reading it, no one knows, but the damage is the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fools_gold (Original post)

Mon May 19, 2014, 11:19 AM

50. Sure, just like an ax murder can be civil between killing sprees

So many pointless threads...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blurt (Reply #50)

Mon May 19, 2014, 11:31 AM

52. So, is that a "No?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fools_gold (Reply #52)

Mon May 19, 2014, 11:43 AM

54. It's a maybe

What's the reason for your question?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blurt (Reply #54)

Mon May 19, 2014, 12:28 PM

56. Curiosity

I could elucidate on the specific origin of this particular OP, but it would require a bit of explanation and energy to type out, and somehow I suspect that you really wouldn't be interested. That's OK, I understand that everybody cannot be interested in everything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fools_gold (Original post)

Mon May 19, 2014, 11:24 AM

51. American racists are anti American ...period!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lefty (Reply #51)

Mon May 19, 2014, 11:33 AM

53. OK, but did you mean

to address the question in the OP, or were you meaning to start a new topic of discussion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fools_gold (Reply #53)

Mon May 19, 2014, 11:52 AM

55. No point in being civil with an American who is anti American.

No respect for how this country came together ...all peoples welcomed ...a melting pot ...etc. What are you going to do ...force them to accept and agree with the actions taken against racism in our history?


...and to give answer to your op ...the actions of a racist will affected. They don't have to say anything for their racism to affect and hurt people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fools_gold (Original post)

Mon May 19, 2014, 01:29 PM

57. I'm a racist...

I mean, come on, Humans and Elves have completely different stat lines!
That's not d20, that's genetic!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Culture