humanrefutation wrote:sneakerdust wrote:The reason I lied is that the rest of your tone of the alternative argument not understanding or assuming you have a higher moral ground because you feel impacted by the behavior of others has nothing to do with the argument. It is a technique to stifle debate which I find insidious - yet understandable because the technique is ingrained by our education system from a young age.
You're right, it does stifle debate. But that's because unless you're a member of a targeted group, claiming that you can disagree about whether your statement was racist towards that group makes as much sense as my decision to debate with an oncologist about her cancer diagnosis. It's not your field of experience or expertise. The whole idea of "walking a mile in my shoes" comes into mind here.
That would allow anyone to claim they were offended by anything and that it is "racist" and they can tell the "offender" what to do. The seeds of authoritarianism. I prefer thicker skin, humor, economic interaction, and just plain getting along and ostracizing aholes as a better, more sustainable solution.Racism is pretty easy to understand. I gave the definition before. All those jokes are not racist by definition. Thus they have no impact as you wish to ascribe to them.
And yet, at least three or four people vocally stated their objection to those statements. But, I guess they had no impact, huh?But as the different social/cultural mores of Continental Europeans v. Latin American Europeans, Caribbean blacks vs. American blacks, or between various Native Tribes illustrate - those idiosyncrasies that make us interesting as individuals and groups are not based on race. And the humor/hate/behavior based on them is not racist.
Absolutely agree that the differences which define our respective cultures are worth celebrating. But, it's certainly racist when attitudes towards those groups are based on hate. And it still becomes racist when you attempt to push someone into a box and identify them solely based on their stereotypes regarding their cultural heritage. So, when someone calls me a camel jockey because I'm of Middle Eastern descent, or says that someone's who's Black must love eating watermelon and fried chicken, it's racist not because riding camels or enjoying chicken is a bad thing, but because they're ascribing a stereotype about my ethnic identity to my personal identity. They're looking at me as a member of a certain ethnic or racial group first and foremost, and judging me based upon that stereotype. And that can have tremendous implications in social dynamics.
That's cool. I just point out ethnicity is not race. Segregation leads to this confusion. That's the crux of 84.5634% of this juxtaposition of views. Race is genetic based. Ethnicity is behavior based. You cannot ascribe the illogical nature of racism to different views people have on behavior. Good debate. Gnight!