Acknowledging Tribalism and Making Statistically Valid Statements is NOT Bigotry

I've noticed that the definition of racism and bigotry keeps expanding to include all sorts of things that aren't historically associated with either.

What do these new definitions have in common? They all include acknowledging group differences or actions, based on either sex, race, or religion. Harboring hatred and pursuing discriminatory policies are no longer necessary to be called a racist or bigot. All you have to do is say that apples and oranges are different and you will be called a racist. If a person's race, religion, or sex ever come up in any conversation, you are labeled a bigot. You also aren't permitted to even identify patterns associated with any given group, or you are a racist, no matter how objectively true those patterns might be.

Those of you who think this is okay need to defend your irrational beliefs. Those of you who realize how silly this is are alright with me.

 

If you point out Jewish, Black, Muslim, or Hispanic crimes you're a racist.

If you don't point out White crimes, like slavery, or the Holocaust, you're a racist.

A clear anti-White agenda.

The hypocrisy is stunning

 

I'm not sure I agree ricky. Saying someone is inferior, or that he can't do his job because of race or ethnicity is certainly bigoted, as Trump said about Curiel. His implications that Mexicans are rapists and drug dealers is also bigoted.

Give an example of what you mean.

 

Racism is about context. Lot of people on this forum think they can escape being called a racist by not saying the N word or not saying direct racial comments like they hate blacks or something. When their motive is clear. If you're talking about socioeconomic issues or policy changes to fix problems and list crime statistics that is one thing, if you're simply listing the statistics to show your disliking of blacks, the motive is clear to the rest of us. You guys aren't fooling anyone.

 

Agreed. It also doesn't even have to be negative. If I say something positive about a certain group, I am not allowed to posit a biological explanation for the difference. Apparently, the only thing determining human behavior is the environment.

The more I learn, the more I sympathize with elites who seek to oppress and delude the masses--most people really are too stupid to participate in the political process and have to be forced to do the sensible thing.

 

What about someone who talks about White terrorists?

Are they an anti-White racist?

- - - Updated - - -

We need eugenics, to support people who are smart enough in this society.

 

Liberals have been pushing white guilt for so long it is now becoming part of our culture. This is why when a minority is even pulled over we see protests across the nation.

 

Depends on the context.

 

What about people who harp on the Holocaust as being a German, or "laughs" Polish crime
while
cry about mentioning say a Jewish criminal like Julius Popper who lead the genocide of Selknam Natives.

Are they racists?

 

Depends on the context.

 

You shouldn't ever say that someone can't do something because they are a certain race or sex, but you can point out that certain levels of performance or certain kinds of behavior are more common in some groups than in others.

For example, it has become fairly obvious in recent years that people of East Asian descent have higher than average nonverbal IQ's. The research conclusively shows that this cognitive split occurs even after adjusting for environment. If I were to suggest that East Asians were dominating in math and science because of this, and that other groups were failing to measure up because of this, then I would be a racist, even though it is a true statement.

If I say that a group of people is engaging in tribalism, that is now considered racist. Take, for instance, the way different groups in the country identify with one another in opposition to some other group. Blacks do it, Hispanics do it, and whites do it. Now, pointing out tribalism when you see it, as it objectively exists, has become a racist thing to do. There is no question that people do this--none. If pointing things like this out is racist, then we have now come to a point in society where certain truths, by their very nature, are racist and taboo. Are you prepared to go there?

 

More excuses for bigotry and racism?

Really?

 

There is a very serious problem with this method. You are basically saying that, if someone says something that is ambiguous and can go either way, that you will make a judgement about their motives and proceed accordingly. This is a horrible way to engage people in debate. In fact, I think this should be the subject of another thread, because it is at the heart of why we have so many problems on this site.

 

Agree with your post, but I don't know of anyone calling racist because of it. Anyone that does is no different than actual racists. From the right, Democrats are called communists. Same mindset.

 

You need serious help. Your ability to have constructive conversations with people is nonexistent.

Have you ever just addressed someone's argument? Has it ever happened?

 

I talk about those things day in and day out, and the only guys calling me a bigot, are the right. Constantly.

If your goal is to disparage whole groups, then your tude will be judged differently than if you are detached.

 

Lesh gets wrecked beyond belief.

 

Well, I just got called one by Lesh, if you want an example. Another poster has also admitted that his perception of motive is what determines whether or not something is racism, but the motive is irrelevant to a fact or an argument. People are just trying to avoid addressing issues by blackballing those of us who bring these things up.

 

Since when was recognizing innate differences racist or bigoted? Here I thought it had only to do with hatred based on race or religion or sex, like in the dictionary. I also don't understand the overuse of terms like misogyny, I would have thought it would be miso(hate)gyne(women) as the root words. Recognizing biological differences is hatred?

 

I think that an argument should be addressed honestly regardless of what someone thinks of the person making the argument. For me, it is completely irrelevant. I don't have to like someone to give them an honest debate.

No one who knows anything about group differences would ever say that all of any group always does X. I think that is a strawman I don't know of any people who talk honestly about these issues who are saying that.

I know LOL. If we had a W/L column on this forum, he'd probably be dead last.

 

Dude, you're partisan. When you go partisan, you loose all credibility.

 

That's what I thought, but apparently we were wrong lol.

 

Unless you bow to minorities and give them a blank check, you're a racist.

It's sickening what we've become.

 

Is it racist when Blacks thought OJ Simpson was not guilty just because he was Black?

 

Context= blank check for accusations of racism.