TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Why was |MIlK banned?
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by Essential1 stereotype is an uneducated idea u have against a person/group of people. Prejudice is hatred towards a person/group of people because of thier beliefs/cultures. Racism is basically a combination of both. Stereotypes are not too bad IMO b/c it often helps prove how ignorant some people can be. But I am agianst prejudice and racism.

Adding to your last point, I'll claim that stereotyping is an integral part of getting through life:

If a big tonsured bloke is bumping into me in a bar twice, I will immediately stereotype him as a bully and take precautions, although he could easily have been bumping into me on accident. Had he been a small skinny guy with freckles and glasses I wouldn't expect anything violent, eventhough he might as well be carrying a knife.

The point is, if I weren't stereotyping I might have told the big guy to stop bumbing into me, but somehow I would expect a different reaction from him than an excuse.

Similarly I tend to classify people on the fly, as "likes me", "looking bored" etc., which often might be misclassification, but - I think - most often helps me subconsciously navigate my way through a conversation towards my goal.

That is, I think that stereotyping is something we all do, the difference is when you start applying stereotyping beyond personal experience (e.g. DarkTrance's comment in that other thread) and common sense.

And now for something completely different: I would like to know which, if any, of the following statements you would classify as racism (and why):
"Asians are generally more polite than other ethnic groups",
"White people are generally more tolerant than other ethnic groups", and
"Africans are generally better dancers than other ethnic groups".
???

What irony the intolerance of intolerance is.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic And now for something completely different: I would like to know which, if any, of the following statements you would classify as racism (and why): "Asians are generally more polite than other ethnic groups", "White people are generally more tolerant than other ethnic groups", and "Africans are generally better dancers than other ethnic groups". ???

I honestly don't think any of these statements are racist, because they are just statements not directed to anyone in particular. if u said "asians are more tolerant than white people", "white people are more tolerant than black people", or "africans are better dancers than white people" then i would consider them racist.

quote:

Originally posted by Essential1 What's next, banning someone for saying "All italians eat pasta"? I'm not promoting racism, but using a well known stereotype in a joke that's not directed to an individual is not racism IMO.

Good point.

Whats next? immigrants owning convience stores? black people rapping? kids going to raves and popping pills?

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Adding to your last point, I'll claim that stereotyping is an integral part of getting through life: If a big tonsured bloke is bumping into me in a bar twice, I will immediately stereotype him as a bully and take precautions, although he could easily have been bumping into me on accident. Had he been a small skinny guy with freckles and glasses I wouldn't expect anything violent, eventhough he might as well be carrying a knife. The point is, if I weren't stereotyping I might have told the big guy to stop bumbing into me, but somehow I would expect a different reaction from him than an excuse. Similarly I tend to classify people on the fly, as "likes me", "looking bored" etc., which often might be misclassification, but - I think - most often helps me subconsciously navigate my way through a conversation towards my goal. That is, I think that stereotyping is something we all do, the difference is when you start applying stereotyping beyond personal experience (e.g. DarkTrance's comment in that other thread) and common sense. And now for something completely different: I would like to know which, if any, of the following statements you would classify as racism (and why): "Asians are generally more polite than other ethnic groups", "White people are generally more tolerant than other ethnic groups", and "Africans are generally better dancers than other ethnic groups". ???

Good point. Also tall vs. short, goodlooking vs. ugly, majority vs. minority, blond vs. brunette, all play apart in peoples opinions and ideas which lead to a stereotype. Why dont we consider a stereotype as a majority thinking rather than a classification for an entire group of people.

quote:

And now for something completely different: I would like to know which, if any, of the following statements you would classify as racism (and why): "Asians are generally more polite than other ethnic groups", "White people are generally more tolerant than other ethnic groups", and "Africans are generally better dancers than other ethnic groups". ???

Obviously it depends on the definition of "racism".

I think racism, most broadly, would be the application of a universal statement (I'm sure you're familiar with syllogicstic logic?) to a particular race. Therefore, to say "all Asians are more polite than any other ethnic groups" would be racist in this sense, because you are - almost a priori - attributing, universally, a quality to the entire poluation of a particular set. If the statement were particular (as opposed to universal) on the other hand (i.e. "many Asians are more polite") then it would not be racist, as there is no sweeping, universal statement based on the "race" of a particular population.

The statement "Asians are generally more polite" however, seems to be somewhere in between. Strictly sepaking, it would be more particular than universal, as it does not say that all Asians are more polite, but it still seems to be attributing a particular quality to a population. However, technically, these statements would not be considered "racist" via our first definition, simply because they are not making a universal statement under the pretense of race.

The next definition of racism, runs something akin to what could be described as "racial chauvanism". This definition of racism would say that universal statements based on race would be okay, so long as they neither attempted to promote the superiority of one race, nor the inferiority of another. The statements you made, if you removed the word "generally" would still be considered racist by this definition (as with the above definition) as not only would the statement be universal on the basis of "race" it would attempt to promote the superiority of a certain race (if only in a specific facet of behaviour). Therefore, a universal statement such as "All Asians like apples" would be racist under the first definition but probably not under the second, as it is neutral in terms of either promoting or demoting the superiority of a given race.

However, given that your statements are "particular" rather than "universal" (due to the addition of the word "generally") it would be hard to label them chauvanistic as chauvanism would (in my mind) require stating the superiority/inferiority of an entire population bound by some common trait. You can't be chauvanistic if you say "Many Asians are polite" or even if you say "All Asians are polite and so are all Black People" because in the first case, the statement is particular and in the second, as there is no attempt to imply the superiority of a population against another, there does not seem to be any hint of chauvanism involved (unless you want to argue that the statement was made to assert the superiority of Asian people and black people over white people).

The last definition of racism I can think of is the "PC Definition" which, so far as I'm concerned, misses the point.

It's hard to define, as there is no real logical consistency to it, but it appears to rely on the "balance of societal power" to ascertain whether a statement is racist or not. That is, for an Asian to say "I think all white people are impolite" in a society that is "white", or where white people hold the majority of the power anyway, would be more acceptable by this definition, than for a white person of the same society to say "I think all Asians are impolite" - or rather than the first statement being more acceptable, I should say that the second statement is less acceptable. Of course, the other way around (i.e. a white man in an Asian society) we would expect the opposite to be true (i.e. it would be less acceptable for an Asian to make negative universal statements about a white people in an Asian society, than for a white person to make the same statement about Asians in the same society). Though of course, on a global level, in a world where the balance of power seems heavily skewed in the favour of white western societies, white people, regardless of which society they live in, have to be very careful about what they choose to say about another race.

Anyway, the main qualities of this "PC Racism" seem to be that the statement must be negative towards a particular race and does not really need to be universal in order to be considered "racist". Therefore, to say "all black people are good dancers" would be technically racist via our previous definitions, but not under the PC one (so long as we assume a non-black person is saying) as it is a "positive" universal generalisation. Similarly, saying "many black people are criminals" - while it is not universal, but rather particular to some members of a given population - would probably be enough to get the PC Police out of the woodwork and be condemned as "racist".

I don't really know where I stand, having said all that, it's a very grey issue. For me, for something to be considered racist, I suppose it must be a universal statement based on race, and there must be an element of "untruth" or "ignorance" to it (so it would be racist to say "all Asian people are impolite" but not "all Asian people, naturally, have black hair"). If its intended to incite hatred against a certain race as well (regardless of how it is phrased) then that's usually enough for me to label it as being racist as well.

Anyway, I think that's enough for now. Hope you all found it illuminating.

Great post Renegade. As with all condeming adjectives we should be really cautious with the use of the word "racist" / "racism". Coninidentally I just read a very interesting article dealing with the infaltionary use of "hitler" and "nazi" when absolutely rejecting/condeming something. Hitler is the modern substitution of "Devil" as the latter doesn't work to well in today's secular society's. Moreover the historical truth gives the "hitler" word even more power...but unfortunately nowadays its use indicates almost always argumentative weakness since once u grab the Nazi or even the discussed "racist" weapon u virtually put and end to every discussion, a nice way to sneak out of tricky issues. Such words are KO punches and as I said should remain the resort in every discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Anyway, I think that's enough for now. Hope you all found it illuminating.

stimulating as always renegade, great post

good, he was SUSPENDED and dark trance is on his way.

quote:

Originally posted by inatrance lmilk was suspended for a reason, davinox was too... if you want more details PM mods..

quote:

Originally posted by Busy Child good, he was banned and dark trance is on his way.

try to read the whole thread

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.