Crybullies abusing words like Racism, Sexism, Homophobia, are diluting the meaning and impact.
~ Aristotle Sabouni
Created: 1997-05-26 |
The more you dilute/expand and abuse a word, the weaker the meaning becomes. And the crybullies are abusing words like Racism, Sexism, Homophobia, Islamophobia, and so on, by either not understanding the meaning, or putting their agenda above the truth.
Most things they call "racism" (like insults and insensitivity) are just attacks against folks making valid statistical observations (that may have involved race/gender) in order to try and shut discussions that they're losing down, or they're people being assholes back to people that were assholes to them first (they're personal attacks) and thus are not real racism/sexism/etc.
For there to be real racism, there needs to be a belief in the superiority of a race, the intent to harm a race, the power to impact (and not help) that group, and generally, for whatever stereotype being applied, to actually be wrong. Thus most of the cry-bully rebuts to counter-factuals are more bigoted than the source of the complaints.
| Left | Right |
|---|---|
| Any cause the left disagrees with on race, gender, sexual preference, is because the other side is just racist/sexist/homophobic bigots. | Bigotry ('isms) is judging entire groups superior/inferior, not personal attacks on individuals or disagreements on policies that might favor one group over the others. |
Details[edit | edit source]
The parable of the Boy who cried wolf, tries to teach us that overusing or misusing something (like a word, or cry), dilutes it's meaning and power. This is something the race or gender-hucksters (and their constituents) either don't understand, or care about. But we're starting to see the seeds of backlash and abject apathy.
What is not racism?[edit source]
So what we know is:
- Generalizations and statistics aren't racism - Statistics and Generalizations aren't necessarily racist, even if they are offensive. Racism is about intent.Many people will presume that any statistic that includes racial/cultural component, is "racist", if it doesn't paint them (or a minority) in a positive light. It is likely just a fact. It is only racist if the intent for sharing it is to hold someone up/down, and not to sincerely address a problem. Thus presuming racism is assuming intent before evidence -- and that's bigoted.
- Racial Slurs - Racial Slurs might be racist, or they might be personal attacks. Assuming before knowing is as bigoted as the attack is.Many people will say if someone says something racially insensitive that it's racist. No, it's racially insensitive personal attack (usually in response to something). To know if it's racist, you need to know that the person (a) believes it of all people (not just you) (b) wouldn't say something equally offensive to anyone else.
If you want to know what racism looks like, it is presuming that a group is so inferior that they need special protections and lowered qualifications to succeed at life. It's ignoring things we have in common (struggles with health, self, self-doubt, situations, and so on), and pretending that our race is the cause of all our problems. And if you just give some politicians or thugs more power, they'll fix it.
Sometimes a slur is just a slur![edit source]
While many people assume that a racial slur is "racism", it's actually a verbal attack first -- the racial part was just the weapon. They likely would have used gender, size, looks, or any other obious tool for the attack as well. So to know if racism was the cause, we need to know intent. Why did they attack? Do they truly believe all people of race X (or all other races) are inferior? Or was it just someone with anger issues, pushing they first button they could find?
Assuming racism in everything is as likely to be pyschological projection by the finger-pointer, as it is to be real racism. In fact, I'd say more so -- as real fundamental racism is extremely rare, while virtue signaling and a lack of introspection (blaming others for responding to our actions) is far more common.
Generalizations and statistics aren't usually racism[edit | edit source]
When talking about gun control in the U.S., I often point out the truth about black and latino versus white and asian crime rates in the U.S.:
- 3/4ths of our murders are by blacks/latinos (with most being related to gang crime)
- Whites have higher gun ownership and lower murder rates
- Americas white crime and murder rates are significantly lower than most European countries.
- When you look geographically, most of the U.S.'s murders happen in a few democrat controlled cities (and only a subset of them).
Thus there's not a gun crime issue: it's not a widespread problem, and it doesn't cross geographic and demographic boundaries very much. America has a very specific problem with black and latino gang crime that drags our averages up, and that fools the gullible into somehow thinking they're less safe, just because two rival gangs are having shootout in a city, somewhere far far away.
The common reply of the small-minded is, "Oh, you're a racist". And then they mock and distract, without ever thinking deeper, and certainly not without asking to try to understand the key to understanding racism or any 'ism" -- which is intent. And that reflects on their bigotry more than mine.
I don't believe in race[edit source]
I do NOT believe in race. It is a human construct.
For there to be racism, you need to believe that:
- (a) there is such a thing as race (and you can define it, and test for it)
- (b) that it is biologically significant
- (c) that some races are objectively superior to others.
But individuals and as a culture, we should and do reject all of that. The furthest racial diversity (genetically) among humans is less than those among the two closest dog breeds -- there just isn't that much diversity in our gene pool. Superficial coloring and facial features just really don't matter much. And the lines are so fuzzy as to what's "racial grouping", that I think it is all bullshit.
There's some superficial differences in our genetics (diseases we tend to catch), but to me, almost all significant differences are either individual genetic differences (which has far more variability than race) or cultural differences (which are opt-in and not racial at all).
What we get down it is that Crips and Bloods fight. Irish and British don't always get along. Asians don't like each other just because because they have similar eyes. Most crime/violence/friction is intra-racial not inter-racial. And thus in the pecking order of things to care about -- race is way, way, way down the list. Thus race as a construct is silly, as it means nothing. It is used by bigots and partisans to divide us. But the divisions are arbitrary, meaningless, and mostly irrelevant.
Most of all, racism is about intent.[edit | edit source]
Very important to understanding racism, is intent (and power). If someone is pointing statistically realities between group behaviors, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Even if it is a negative reality of the group. That's just called math, logic or reality. Where it's a problem is if you're doing it to hurt people (belittle the group), if it has no balance (you don't also see the good), or where you'll use that over-generalization to apply to units in the group (and use your power against them or the group).
We flipped the burden of proof, and responsibility. It's not about how butt hurt perpetual victims can be, but the guilt of a crime is based on the intent/actions of the perpetrator. One might be an accident or a misperception on the receivers side (and thus no guilt on the perps part), and the other was malice (and thus the recipients concerns were valid). We've bought into the politically-correct dumb-fuckery that we assume guilt based on unfounded (or weak founded) accusation, instead of using our brains and words (questions) to figure out if the complain is valid.
If I observe that asians are good at math, that's not racism (though it might hint at it). (Actually Oriental is more accurate term, since me/Iranian and Indian kids are also asians, and not usually who they're talking about when we say Asian -- but political-correctness has driven that common sense differentiation into the closet). Still, if my belief/comment hurts no one, and there doesn't appear to be malicious intent, assuming the worst, is a reflection on you more than intent. Use your words.
Q: Why do I think that?
A: Because of average test scores reflect it.
That's not racism, that's statistics.
Q: Why do I think things are that way?
A: I think that's because tiger-Mom stereotypes exist (to a point), and their culture values education and opportunities, so they drive their kids to excel. On top of that, a writing system that requires a lot of memorization, may help stimulate other parts of the brain, and you tend to get better scores on average out of Asian kids than whites, blacks, or latinos. (E.g it can't be racism, because it's not about race -- as a white/brown kid raised in the same culture, will likely have similar results, with some individual variability). And I don't think "Asians" are superior or inferior overall, I just think it's math testing is a cultural anomaly, based mostly on effort. They also get pressured more often to play instruments (like the Piano or Stringed instruments), and buy a lot of white Toyota cars and gold iPhones. These are just mathematical observations.
None of that is racist. What matters more is intent and action.
If I'm a hiring manager, and are start hiring Asians more or less, because of that generalization, well then I'm a biased idiot (a bigot). As I mentioned above, the differences in individuals far, far outweighs any similarities in culture/race/tribe/etc., so I'd be dumb to do so. But if I have no power/influence, then there's no real harm, and any soft racism is something benign, hard to prove, and not something that society should worry about (or get butt-hurt over).
If the only reason I'm observing a mathematical/statistical variances of groups, is to help, then it probably isn't an 'ism. Or continuing my example, if the point of the observation is to help the other kids come up to the level of Asian (or figure out what we can learn/do better), and there's only positive intent, then this isn't butt-hurt-worthy. The same with saying we have a problem with black/latino gang crime, and we need to address that problem to save more of their lives (and increase their opportunities). This is not condescending, belittling, or denigrating (or racist), it is about the reality that I want black and latino kids to have, and take advantage of, the same opportunities that white and asian kids have.
Homophobia[edit source]
 |
Conclusion[edit | edit source]
Thus anyone accusing anyone of racism, is reading a lot into situations. They're saying they know what the other person means (usually without asking enough to find out), that they believe race matters more than a myriad of other factors, that they know why they're saying it, that their words have the intent and ability to cause direct harm (not just butt-hurt). That's a lot of assumptions -- and 99 out of 100 times, when I see someone making those assumptions, they have absolutely nowhere near the evidence they should have to jump to those conclusions. Thus, they're being a bigot by making them: making assumptions based on biases, partial information and stereotypes.
The same thing for sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, and so on. Blocking all Muslims because of Islamic terrorism is wrong, but it's not xenophobia unless they have problems with cultures/races that aren't trying to kill them. So they might be mis-weighing the risks, or picking the wrong solutions (broad brushing), but words mean things, and xenophobia or even islamophobia isn't the right word. Disagreeing on abortion, birth control, or what the root cause and degree of salary imbalances are, isn't sexism -- it's disagreements over politics, religious beliefs or math. Get over yourselves, not every attack on a problem is an attack against a group or individual -- it's just disagreement on the cause and solution.
More often than not, the purpose of using crying "ism's" is to shut conversations down. What they're really saying, is that I don't like what you're saying, and I want to change the topic. And the subculture known as SJW's (social justice warriors), are usually the biggest crybullies of all; my experiences are, they have such a vested interest in seeing the entire world as groups of battling factions of injustice (that needs their condescending guiding-hand to steer it, or things won't be fair), thus they see and claim racism (or sexism, etc.) in nearly everything. Those discussions often collapse into Kafkatrapping[1], where all cries of innocence prove your guilt even more. "I suppose you're going to claim you can't be racist because you have 'black friends', or you can't be a homophobe because you have a 'gay cousin'".
Life can be fucking hard, but it's a lot harder, if you're ignorant enough to believe that everyone does everything because of racism/sexism (and denials are just proof of guilt, because they know more the authors on their intent, and they're too dumb to see how racist/sexist/condescending that world view is).
There is real racism in this country (and all countries): less here than almost anywhere else in the word. But we can't address the problems if we don't identify the real problems and keep calling everything racism. If we allow these bullshit racism charges to continue (or oversimplify everything) it only dilutes the real racism and will DESENSITIZE people to the terms and problem (and learn to ignore them). So let's care enough about the terms and the real problems to not abuse them. OK?
🔗 More
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
🔗 Links
Tags: Me Racism Terms Left Lies Sexism Institutional Racism Inequality LGBTQ Homophobia Isms
