- Joined
- May 3, 2019
Can A Statement Be Racist If It's True?
- Thread starter BILLY MAYS
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2018
My autism makes it hard enough to make friends, I can’t afford to have many reasons to not become friends with somebody, especially one as superficial as melanin level
- Joined
- May 3, 2019
I don't endorse it, I just don't know that it matters as much as some people think it does.
Yes, I am an autistic faggot, why do you ask?
Corbin Dallas Multipass
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2018
In answer to the OP's question: Yes, and very easily.
For example: Suppose someone who really hated jamaicans said "I fucking hate jamaicans". Well they just made a true, and racist, statement.
But to be less pedantic, if racism is about intent, then still yes. Selectively quoting facts can be done to serve a racist agenda. Let's say I went on stage and listed every crime ever committed by a black person, along with a picture of the person who committed it. Obviously I want my audience to come to a race based conclusion, and it's true that I'm showing them criminals. I'm just picking which criminals I show to serve racism.
It's the difference between "17 year old armed with toy gun tragically mistakenly killed by police officer in fear of his life" vs "White cop shoots unarmed black child".
But, and I imagine this is your point, people like to claim a statement is racist when they don't like either the statement or the person saying it just because the issue has a racial component. Yeah, the mayor of baltimore is black. So you could imagine the only reason someone criticizes him is because he's black. But that's obviously not the only reason.
For example: Suppose someone who really hated jamaicans said "I fucking hate jamaicans". Well they just made a true, and racist, statement.
But to be less pedantic, if racism is about intent, then still yes. Selectively quoting facts can be done to serve a racist agenda. Let's say I went on stage and listed every crime ever committed by a black person, along with a picture of the person who committed it. Obviously I want my audience to come to a race based conclusion, and it's true that I'm showing them criminals. I'm just picking which criminals I show to serve racism.
It's the difference between "17 year old armed with toy gun tragically mistakenly killed by police officer in fear of his life" vs "White cop shoots unarmed black child".
But, and I imagine this is your point, people like to claim a statement is racist when they don't like either the statement or the person saying it just because the issue has a racial component. Yeah, the mayor of baltimore is black. So you could imagine the only reason someone criticizes him is because he's black. But that's obviously not the only reason.
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2018
That's fair. At the end of the day, racist thoughts are just thoughts, and while not commendable we shouldn't have thought police over it either. It's when those thoughts become actions that it's an issue.
Or, put another way, if you're a cunt to a black cashier because you're a racist or you're a cunt to him because you're a Karen type, the fact that it's racially motivated doesn't make the behavior more or less cunty (to an extent, if you go full /pol/tard and start calling him a nigger and ranting 13/50 lines at him might be worse than just demanding a manager because he didn't bag your groceries the right way or whatever).
- Joined
- May 3, 2019
That's more or less where I'm at with racism. Not a great way to be but as long as nobody's getting hurt what can we do?
It's also a handy way to gauge somebody's intelligence; if they're unironically racist they're probably pretty subnormal.
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2015
I just want someone to tell me why niggers talk to themselves so much, that's all
- Joined
- May 3, 2019
Over-compensation for the lack of a father coupled with emulating their chickenheaded mothers?
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2015
I'm nominating you for an NAACP Jane Goodall award
- Joined
- May 3, 2019
Corbin Dallas Multipass
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2018
I do it because why wouldn't I talk to the only person in the room as smart as me? Or less flippantly to help maintain concentration.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2019
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2018
So now you're saying POCs don't think?
Because we all know POCs can't be racist, and by saying thinking is racist, you're implying that POCs never think.
@Fagatron, I officially dub thee CANCELLED.
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2015
og_eras
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2018
Dumb ass question.
What's true to you might not be actually true.
What's racist to you might not be considered racist by the majority of people, and viceversa.
Something might be "true" to you precisely because you're racist and so you see it that way.
Something else might sound racist because of what it implies but be actually true.
For example, saying 13% of the population commit 50% of the crime is true but might be considered racist because of implications, but as long as you're not saying anything more than that, it's a statement that can be true while considered racist, because you're playing with abstract terms here.
On the other hand, thinking black people commit more crimes because their skin color is literally what racist means. And if you're a racist, then that statement is true to you, black people commit crimes because black. That's an example of an statement that is "true" if you're a racist.
So, yes, two abstract terms applying to the same statement can happen, it happens a lot. The two problem that arise on this case are:
1) Thinking facts are racist is dumb and some kind of discrimination.
If a black man says "blacks are poor" people are going to think he says this because he has a problem with that and wants things to change. If a white man says "blacks are poor" people will think he says this as if black people are destined to be poor. There's a bias there, the statement and it's truthfulness haven't changed but how racist it is did.
2) Thinking it can't be racist because it's true to you leads to being a blind tool.
Racist people don't think they are racist, and thus feel attacked when called out. I know this because I was that impressionable teen that read too much pol shit. You think people are too sensitive and call everyone racist, then you realize, most people don't get called racist all the time because most people don't debate race all the time.
So maybe you shouldn't care about abstract terms. Specially truth. Truth is so dumb and debatable that there's been real debates about things becoming retroactively false, for example, earth being round, earth not being the center of the solar system. Those things are true now and there's a real debate if they were true or not at the time. If you go by factually, yeah, then it's true but people didn't know that, so it doesn't really matter. At least those are the two core arguments completely compressed. Another good point of reference is celebs, in this case, since we're on KiwiFarms, e-celebs.
What matters more and is more true to who you are? They way 10 people close to you (friends, family) perceive you? Or the way 10 million people (fans) perceive you? Truth is dumb. Someone will probably reply and say "of course X's opinion is more important than Y's" but that's the thing, it's not of course, there's no consensus on what's true.
And thus, you shouldn't worry about that.
Racism is another concept that's complex, because racism is no longer discrimination by race, since culture is now super mixed into it and discrimination isn't the relevant part now, but offensiveness. And, again, what's offensive to you might not be to someone else. What hurts you doesn't hurt someone else.
And then the question becomes, what is "really racist"? The thing that 100 people find kind of offensive, or the thing this particular person finds extremely offensive? The answer to that one seems obvious, you should agree with the 100 people, that one person is personally hurt by something but it's not about race.
But appealing to the majority to get to a consensus on what's racist then implies that if a bunch of people call you racist then you're one.
And that's the point I'm trying to get across. Abstract concepts are dumb things to worry.
What's true to you might not be actually true.
What's racist to you might not be considered racist by the majority of people, and viceversa.
Something might be "true" to you precisely because you're racist and so you see it that way.
Something else might sound racist because of what it implies but be actually true.
For example, saying 13% of the population commit 50% of the crime is true but might be considered racist because of implications, but as long as you're not saying anything more than that, it's a statement that can be true while considered racist, because you're playing with abstract terms here.
On the other hand, thinking black people commit more crimes because their skin color is literally what racist means. And if you're a racist, then that statement is true to you, black people commit crimes because black. That's an example of an statement that is "true" if you're a racist.
So, yes, two abstract terms applying to the same statement can happen, it happens a lot. The two problem that arise on this case are:
1) Thinking facts are racist is dumb and some kind of discrimination.
If a black man says "blacks are poor" people are going to think he says this because he has a problem with that and wants things to change. If a white man says "blacks are poor" people will think he says this as if black people are destined to be poor. There's a bias there, the statement and it's truthfulness haven't changed but how racist it is did.
2) Thinking it can't be racist because it's true to you leads to being a blind tool.
Racist people don't think they are racist, and thus feel attacked when called out. I know this because I was that impressionable teen that read too much pol shit. You think people are too sensitive and call everyone racist, then you realize, most people don't get called racist all the time because most people don't debate race all the time.
So maybe you shouldn't care about abstract terms. Specially truth. Truth is so dumb and debatable that there's been real debates about things becoming retroactively false, for example, earth being round, earth not being the center of the solar system. Those things are true now and there's a real debate if they were true or not at the time. If you go by factually, yeah, then it's true but people didn't know that, so it doesn't really matter. At least those are the two core arguments completely compressed. Another good point of reference is celebs, in this case, since we're on KiwiFarms, e-celebs.
What matters more and is more true to who you are? They way 10 people close to you (friends, family) perceive you? Or the way 10 million people (fans) perceive you? Truth is dumb. Someone will probably reply and say "of course X's opinion is more important than Y's" but that's the thing, it's not of course, there's no consensus on what's true.
And thus, you shouldn't worry about that.
Racism is another concept that's complex, because racism is no longer discrimination by race, since culture is now super mixed into it and discrimination isn't the relevant part now, but offensiveness. And, again, what's offensive to you might not be to someone else. What hurts you doesn't hurt someone else.
And then the question becomes, what is "really racist"? The thing that 100 people find kind of offensive, or the thing this particular person finds extremely offensive? The answer to that one seems obvious, you should agree with the 100 people, that one person is personally hurt by something but it's not about race.
But appealing to the majority to get to a consensus on what's racist then implies that if a bunch of people call you racist then you're one.
And that's the point I'm trying to get across. Abstract concepts are dumb things to worry.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
I enjoy joining in in these conversations. Every now and then I get to assist those involved with helpful hints such as how their speaker-phone function works, and why some people prefer turning it off when in public places.
Corbin Dallas Multipass
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2018
Hahaha, I gotcha. I usually do it at work, and there have been a couple times I caught myself doing it a bit too much, and I'm like "Holy shit if I heard me I'd think I was insane". But I don't do it in public, usually. Unless I'm badly sleep deprived, but in that case I actually am somewhat insane.
OMFG this. I don't see it as much anymore, but holy fucking shit, when nokia had that goddamn stupid push to talk walkie talkie feature everyone was loudly shouting conversations in the fucking grocery story. Holy shit, I don't need to hear both sides of the conversation you fucking dipshit, don't you have any goddamn shame?
It should be legal to slap the phone out of someone's hand if they're on speaker without a good reason. Although I guess one could also say weird shit to the person on the other end to try to embarrass the speakerphone idiot, although that does depend on them having shame, in which case they probably wouldn't be on the goddamn speakerphone in public in the first place...
I don't talk nearly as profanely as I type here. I don't know what (the fuck) it is about this (fucking) place...