I was really surprised that this was not posted here at least a dozen times. So these dudes who do the whole dine/dash thing without paying uploaded a video to twitter claiming that they were victims of racism.
Of course they are filming the video so they leave out the what transpires before where she tells they have walked out before without paying.
But the brotha isn't too smart. He never bothered with going back and deleting his tweets where he admits to dining and dashing.
So they offered to give her back her job. But I am not sure if she accepted the offer. She has a gofundme, if you guys want to chip in. So Ali and his crew have been blacklisted at restaurants in and around St. Paul. He has not posted on his twitter since the incident and won't respond to any of the posts or request for interviews. Oh no anonymous opinions! Poor little blue anons, what will you do?
They were not arrested for trying to use the bathroom. They were arrested because the manager was too chicken to tell them his policy. Why couldn't just say, "you can't stay here without buying something?"
I studied for my Cisco certification almost exclusively at Starbucks and Panera.
It doesn't help the racism. All it takes is a selectively cutting the video like they did, and bam, it's proof of racism for liberals. Give the whole story to white supremacists and bam, it's justification for discriminating because they ALL must do crap like this...
What I hate most is that the business fired her in the first place.
I don't understand what do you mean by "it doesn't help the racism".
I posted this because I read about it in the "liberal" media almost two weeks ago. I was surprised that the supposed anti-PC crowd here at GaG did not talk about this. Since this kind of story would bring out literally hundreds of posters here.
But to your point, I think just like with metoo, there needs to be a process. People should stop jumping to conclusions either way.
It doesn't help the racism because as I pointed out, both sides can get ammunition from it and it only perpetuates the cycle. (At least that's my opinion of how I see it possibly being used)
I agree that Chipotle's actions were absolutely wrong. But I will certainly not support the claim that this makes for more racism. Racists are racist without any prompting. I mean, that's the whole point of standing against racism. You treat everyone as an individual. And every situation is unique.
If that isn't what we should be doing, then why do people around here pretend that racism is some great wrong?
This is where we disagree, I don't believe people are naturally racist. I believe we have to be taught to be racist (because like you said, you are supposed to treat everyone as an individual and we pretty much do from ages 1-9). Whether the teaching comes from parents, society, or from personal experience, we have to learn to assume something about a person from a group.
Lets say every workday you go to a Mexican food truck for lunch. If a story came out that 5/10 Mexican food trucks had dangerous amounts of lead in their food, how willing are you to take the chance and continue getting lunch there? Are you just going to hope for the best? Are you going to treat "every situation as unique" and spend the time and energy testing their food for lead? Or are you just going to go up the street and take your business elsewhere? Only 50% were guilty, but now they all suffer, but you never would have doubted/changed if that story hadn't aired.
Oh, we can disagree. That's fine. I didn't say people are naturally racist. Racism is taught. It is learned. And it is extremely hard to unlearn because you have to change the way you fundamentally look at the human race. Most racists shun actual scientific knowledge about human beings. They claim to understand human beings through a sort of warped kind of common sense.
So I think until a racist actually becomes an open person who can listen and learn factual information, they will stay in that racist cocoon. But that's the whole key about racism. Racists don't do that. That whole learning about each other thing.
As for your example about a Mexican food truck. I don't see how it applies. My friend is Puerto Rican. And was nearly arrested by police because the officer thought he was Mexican. And if his wife wasn't with him at the time, he probably would have been.
Understand, you have to figure out what you want to believe about different groups of people. Here is the thing I will never ever understand.
If you wish to engage in stereotyping other groups. Or in not extending individuality to everyone you see, why would you whine when people stereotyped you or your group and did the exact same thing to you?
So we really need to figure out what the goal is. Because if the argument is that we are not all individuals, then we need one of the people in the anti-pc group to explain who gets to be treated as an individual and who does not get that privilege? And of course, why?
You can be both an individual AND part of a group right (multiple groups too)? Some groups you don't get to choose. If you were born in a poor neighborhood, chances are you're poor through no fault of your own!
Lets look at something less hostile than the article. I'm a libertarian-conservative Christian male in a STEM major who is looking for a similar woman to date. How many women are in a STEM field? How many of those women are black? How many of those black women are right-leaning politically? How many of those right-leaning black women are Christian? How many of those right-leaning Christian black women are of a denomination of Christianity that share my values? The answer, if it's not apparent, is very few are. Therefore, when I look at a black woman I do not think "That is someone who I might want to date." Even when I've met female black scientists. Am I racist for thinking that or being realistic about my options and the world around me? At what point does it BECOME racist?
I am certain that people can hold a number of group identities. That was never in question. How do you know how a person group identifies if you don't talk to them individually?
As for being a libertarian, I don't know why that matters. Most libertarians I have met in the past were heavily into individualism. I have never met one obsessed with the classifications that you believe in. And I don't know how the groups matter if you don't ask the people in your surveys how they group identify.
Sufficed to say, I am not trying to convince you. I merely put forward a simple logical rational question.
If you are going to stereotype or classify people and ignore their individual uniqueness, why would you complain when those people do the same to you?
That's all I am asking. And if the creation and the ranking of these groupings are not racist, then exactly what is racism? And what should be the goal for American society as a whole?
I'm enjoying this as well! It's interesting the two viewpoints that we have.
Libertarianism is heavily focused on individualism, making laws to support that. Conservatism is heavily focused on establishing a base, absolute morality, making laws based off of them.
Libertarianism has the issue that Chipotle had every right to fire her, because it's part of their civil liberty and independent business. Conservatism has the issue of trying to figure out that base, absolute morality. Currently we use the Constitution, but even then, interpretations. Chipotle was either right or wrong in their actions; you and I agree that what they did was wrong, what about others?
As such, I believe there needs to be a base morality that everyone follows, and once you can obey those morals you are free to be individualistic. So to answer your question, I believe that some people are not following the base morals so they shouldn't be free to be individualistic.
I can very much see how I would be in an elitist view. I am basically saying that people aren't meeting a certain standard need to rise to that standard before they get to complain about anything.
Let's draw some parallels though with the politically correct community. What is the point of being politically correct? To meet a standard, that some believe is morally/ethically needed. Unless you meet that standard you don't get to complain about anything and get shouted out of colleges, get called a racist, bigot, asshole, insensitive, etc. How is that different from my standpoint except what we perceive to be a moral/ethical baseline? (And try telling a PC person they're elitist)
So we are arguing moral/ethical baselines, each side claiming to be better than the other for society as a whole. As such, the goal of American society should be to find a baseline and stick to it and enforce it. Basically do what humanity has always done whenever we have formed litigated societies.
Yeah, I understand the need for a lot of young folks to use a matrix to help them make decisions about their beliefs.
I'm old.
I am long past the need to worry about the political categories, classifying economic systems, etc. There is no way for me to classify my beliefs under one heading and I simply don't care to figure out which beliefs are Republican, Conservative, Libertarian, etc.
I have views on the economy, education, science, politics, culture, empowerment, etc. And throughout my life on this earth they have been classified under one heading one year, then another the next.
As for your definition of individualism, it is heavily subjective and unusable for me. It just seems to be a way to deny individualism based upon your political or cultural concerns. If individualism exists, then it exists for all.
I don't know if that matters. It only matters that you are honest. Honesty matters much more than an attempt to be PC. I don't understand PC or how it is really defined. I use the term anti-PC, because people proudly claim that group identity. So I can use it without offending anyone here at GaG. No one wants to be PC. Not even the people who are accused of being so.
But my take isn't about that at all. People will choose a group identity, but still wish to be seen as unique people. No single person possesses the authority to decide whehter or not they are entitled that. A person can only control what their beliefs are. And I don't have to accept another's view of me or of others, "Black" women included. I can choose to reject them.
When it comes to a situation where my life is at stake, my job, my property, etc. I will do what I must to keep that denial of my individuality from harming me and the people I care about, "Black", "White" or purple.
I won't be held to account for "Black" criminals, drug dealers, rap artists, flat earth believers or any of the above. And I won't hold all "White" people responsible for the kids who chased me with golf clubs and bats.
Sorry for not responding, work and life take precedence :P
"If individualism exists, then it exists for all." Yes it exists, and each person is unique. However, how far into individualism are you going to go to discover a person? The biggest issue with this is communication and honesty. We have to figure out a persons individuality based on what they say, what they ACTUALLY meant to say, and their actions. There is much that gets "lost in translation."
One of the favorite studies that diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) people love to bring up is when they sent out a bunch of identical resumes except for the names which they changed to be black or white. White names got more callbacks and interviews. Proof of racism? Well, maybe a little. A counter study to this was done and found that the names they used for white people were middle economic class names, and the black names were from more lower economic class. cont'd.
Sorry, minor type in the previous one. It is "responses and interviews" not "callback rate and interviews." Had some studies mixed up in my noggin'.
They then continued the counter study, by instead of using first names that are perceived to be black, they used last names that are perceived to be black (they also expanded the study to include Hispanic last names). Then the response rate for white, black, and Hispanic came quite close to one another, with whites still receiving the most, blacks in the middle, Hispanics coming in last (with white women specifically receiving the highest). So now the previous study looks more like classism than racism.
Why does this matter? Well how far does the hiring manager need to get to know a person's individuality before making a decision? Obviously if you know the person, have interacted with them before, and have a positive relationship with them, you're going to have a higher chance of getting the job. cont'd.
Dangit, I even misspelled typo in my typo correction...
Anyway, this "getting to know a person's individuality" and having a previous relationship with a hiring manager, really proves the "it's not what you know it's who you know." If hiring managers were everybody's friend, there would be less to no racism. Instead, they are just human, they can only take in so much data before having to generalize. Just like doctors see "common cases" of patients, and give treatments based on it
As for why I think going too far into individualism is too much. Why aren't companies allowed to ask certain questions? Why can't a business ask if a woman is pregnant or has children? It sounds mean, but a business owner doesn't want to rely on a worker that might have to decide between family and work. (And with the massive rise in single mothers, that's happening quite often and we are seeing negative consequences across the board) Why can't a business ask someone who they voted for in the past election?
I am going to "go". . . all the way. If I understand a person's individual uniquess, I will understand how they group identify. If I label a person, I will never understand their group identity nor will I understand their individual uniqueness.
I would think my views on this would be clearly understood by now.
I asked the people who appear to be phenotypically "Black" in my race/culture discussion group about how they grup identified, I received answers such as "Black", Kenyan, Senegalese, Mixed, etc. Of course my group contains many different ethnicities, I just wanted to use one phenotypical grouping as an example.
I guess I am not understanding what your example means in terms of individualism. We as a society have agreed that discrimination is wrong. Of course, it happens all the time. But I think it is understood that if blatant and unjustified, a person can seek redress. So I disagree with the examples you have listed.
By the way, I am not asking you to change how you view people. I think it is healthy for you to be honest, even if I disagree with how you view and engage others. I wouldn't worry about becoming your friend or anything, because we do not have compatible worldviews.
But my question remains, if you wish to engage in this behavior, then you would have to be okay with someone doing the same to you.
I'm just trying to give my viewpoint as well. Sorry if I ever seem pushy about it, I just like to argue these kinds of topics :D
"then you would have to be okay with someone doing the same to you" This is the honesty and communication part. It's only okay if it's true and people understand what you meant. So if you say something true about me, I don't like that fact and return a lie about you to counter, then you have every right to complain and I don't. That's the base morality I discussed.
"If I label a person, I will never understand their group identity nor will I understand their individual uniqueness." I labelled black women "not dating material" based on what I'm looking for in a woman, and comparing it to the reality of the world. The very few women that my label isn't true for them can complain. cont'd
Time, effort, and cost of opportunity all play into this. My ability to get to know someone is finite, and is shared across many people. You and I are getting to know each other by discussion, you're taking up some of my finite time and effort. I'm having a lot of fun with it, so I'm spending time and effort trying to be honest and communicate my viewpoint as best I can. However, if I have something to do like work and Bible study like yesterday, it means the opportunity cost of discussing with you is too high.
Let's say you're getting to know someone. They live in a neighborhood that has lots of street violence (let's assume that it's true). Then it's a fact that they live in a violent neighborhood. You haven't discussed yet with the person what provokes that violence and whether if you are safe or not to go there. They invite you over to their house, do you feel safe going without discussing it first? If you refuse on that basis should they have a right to complain?
You are making a stipulation of something being "true" about you. What is truth when I categorize you in a way you do not wish, to draw assumptions about you that are not valid?
I mean, you can do it. But I think you have to admit, you are not operating in the realm of truth or fact when you do that. You are operating in the realm of your subjective bias.
I would rather not talk about your dating preferences. Racial preferences in dating are too weird. Something much simpler would suffice. Like sitting next to a "Black" woman on an airplane and thinking you would have nothing in common with her to talk about on the flight.
Such a conclusion is one of simple subjective bias. And not reflective of any understanding of the different cultures, religions, or politics practiced by people who have darker skin. Nor is it based upon any truth of her individual uniqueness. You have switched off. And that was your decision devoid of any fact or truth.
I don't understand why you would proceed to be the best advocate against your stated position?
Yes, we are getting to know each other. That does not supprt your point.
I don't understand your point again. I go into violent neighborhoods all the time. I used to work in a very poor neighborhood for my friend who was a dentist. I worked there after hours and on weekends. We even went into business together.
It like you are trying to claim something is common sense. But you don't want to actually follow the rules for common sense. I have traveled all over the U. S., most of Europe, the Caribbean, and Canada. I have been in many a hairy situation.
I never left my common sense at home.
Can you relate this to what we are discussing about individualism?
"What is truth when I categorize you in a way you do not wish, to draw assumptions about you that are not valid?" Let's go back to the Mexican food truck. The truth was that 50% of the food trucks had dangerous amounts of lead in them. You don't know how the food truck you normally go to for lunch prepares their food. You don't know if the assumption is valid or not, but again, like I asked before, how willing are you to take that risk? What would be your common sense actions/response to it?
"Yes, we are getting to know each other. That does not support your point." Again, I am sacrificing time and effort getting to know you instead of a myriad of other things I could be doing. I CAN'T get to know everyone personally, so I have to group people. I don't know many Asian people. Those that I do know, I use as representatives of their culture (Japanese as representative of Japanese culture and so on). If I treated each Japanese man like I'd never met one before, they'd think I was slow!
"And not reflective of any understanding of the different cultures, religions, or politics practiced by people who have darker skin" Now you are arguing my point. There IS a difference between culture, religion, and politics practiced by people who have a darker skin. I don't like some of the differences between the culture, religion, and politics practiced by them. - Can I treat them like a human? Yes! (going back to the base morality I talk about) - Do I want to work with them? Maybe, depends on how big the difference is. - Do I want to date them? Probably not
Okay, if race in dating preferences is weird to you, I'm sitting next to a black woman on a plane. I don't think we have nothing in common, due to all the possible subjects we're bound to have something in common, but how much time and effort do I want to expend trying to find that common ground? Almost every black woman I've met on public transportation (that I didn't already know) has been wearing headphones/earbuds and those that haven't didn't want to talk to me save one. So based on past experience, it is highly probable that a black woman doesn't want to talk to me, so I already assume a black woman on public transportation doesn't want to talk to me. It's not an objective bias, because there are way too many variables that were different in each situation, so yes, it's a subjective bias.
But lets say I'm being my normal self and I try to strike up a conversation. Sure there's small talk, but small talk is just that, small. You barely get to know the other person at all, generally small talk is something where you talk about OTHER things than the person and their opinion. At most, you might get to know how knowledgeable they are on a subject, but unless you or they break the small talk by offering an opinion or viewpoint, nothing will progress. However, it is still the first step in talking to someone, so let's continue Lets say I want to break the small talk by offering an opinion or viewpoint. - What are the chances she has a viewpoint/opinion - How well formulated is that viewpoint/opinion - Will she want to talk about it? - Will it be something that I want to talk about
A feeler question that I put out is normally "What's your major/line of work?" Let's say her reply is "I'm majoring in women's studies" at which point my mind says "HELL NO." From past experience, what the media reports, and TedxTalks, any woman (black, white, or purple) majoring in women's studies is probably not someone I want to talk to, let alone be in the same room, I would rather go back to the blissful ignorance of not knowing what she was majoring in. Why? Because I perceive there to be a good chance that if we talk about anything serious, if I don't agree with her opinion then I'll be "attacking" her. If she files a complaint and makes a big enough stink about how I was "harassing" her, intruding into her "safe space," and how she felt "threatened," then an investigation happens. So now I don't care about her individuality, I'm worried about her possible actions against me. I don't want to get to know her, and this is still a subjective bias.
Instead, let's say her answer was that she works in nursing. I pretty much have no frame of reference for a black woman in nursing, so I have no bias for or against talking to her on that. Another bias I have is on appearance. A black woman with straightened hair? I haven't found one that I've like talking to or getting to know, so I'm less likely to want to get into any serious conversation with her. Black woman with corn rows, dreads, braids, or other "traditional" black hairstyles? I've generally had pretty good experiences with them. While they normally differ in opinion from me, I generally tend to have polite, well-informed conversations with them. Is she wearing super tight fitting clothing to the point she looks like a sausage bursting out from both ends? Nope, don't want to talk to her. Haven't had any good experiences with them, and as such I'm not inclined to try and make any more experiences.
Part of what I do is assume that there is something tying together the actions, thoughts, and opinions of the black woman with straightened hair. I don't know what that something is, and I would argue it is most likely MANY somethings. Those many somethings make up part of the individuality of a person, they make the person unique, and those many somethings manifest themselves in her life by her straightening her hair. I associate both "me not having a good experience with her" and "her having straightened hair" to those many somethings. Now before you accuse me of a logical fallacy, that being guilt by association, I am not saying "All black women with straightened hair are women I won't have a good experience with." However, I AM recognizing that there is an overlap, and that overlap is large enough (subjectively, yes I know) that I don't want to try.
So overall, yes, I form subjective opinions about people, I am not a machine that forms bland objective opinions about someone. However, there are truths in those opinions as well. A truth about me and you - You have thus far been willing to talk to me Subjective opinion about me and you - It's great talking to you! - I think you'll continue talking to me - I think you're enjoying the discussion as well
dangit, this one is a short one being the next piece is long again :/ cont'd.
My subjective opinion about black women with straightened hair and the truths. Truths - People have lost their jobs, livelihood, and credibility for holding an opinion - I can be punished with legal implications if the other party feels victimized - Blacks are a minority by current definitions Subjective opinion - People who have lost their jobs, livelihood, and credibility have been people like me trying to talk to people who easily feel victimized - I think there are many somethings that happened in their life, that prompted them to straighten their hair. - I think some of those same somethings contribute to me not having a good experience with them - Based on the media and personal experience, I feel that those who most easily feel victimized are minorities - As such, I don't want to take the risk that my life, job, or credibility gets ruined because I tried to talk with her on a plane. - Even if she doesn't flip out completely, do I want to bother trying given past experience?
Now to tie it back to my previous points Base morality: I don't find in any way shape or form that ruining someone's livelihood because they hold an opinion to be morally righteous in any way. Your influence on their life should stop at ignoring/ceasing interaction with them. For the people who do this crap they shouldn't be allowed to complain, but here we come back to the problem that we don't have a universal base morality established, and some of what we thought we had established is currently being attacked today.
Individualism and stereotyping: Yes, everyone is unique. However, no-one is so unique that they share nothing with the rest of humanity. Groups happen, trends happen, shared likes and dislikes happen from genetics, culture, upbringing, and the other many somethings. As such, stereotypes form. (Although we can probably agree how long the stereotype lasts needs to change)
"Because if the argument is that we are not all individuals, then we need one of the people in the anti-pc group to explain who gets to be treated as an individual and who does not get that privilege?" We are all individuals, my belief is you don't get the privilege of an individual when you fall below the base morality.
"If you are going to stereotype or classify people and ignore their individual uniqueness, why would you complain when those people do the same to you?" I would argue no-one should be complaining about something that is objective. It is an objective truth that the Catholic church is currently having issues with pedophiles in the priesthood. There has been a stereotype for a while as well. Should people not rightly be afraid that a priest might be a pedophile? Here's the honesty part, if every priest came out and gave an honest to God account of everything they had done, we wouldn't have to generalize, because we would know exactly who to be afraid of and who not to be
You continue to conflate two different things. If I knew that food from a Mexican truck was likely to be contaminated, I would not abstain from buying the food because it was Mexican. Right? It is not even asking the right question.
Using your logic, you should have concluded by now that I am a person with darker skin and that there are beliefs that I am likely to hold therefore you would not have to talk to me to conclude specific beliefs. You only need to know an approximation. That's your argument. Or am I wrong?
Oh, you don't have to group people. No one is forcing you, that's a choice. You feel that time is a factor in making your choice. I deal with the whole time issue very well. As for your example of Japanese people, I have to pause.
Why are we talking about Japanese people? You have claimed that phenotypical differences can lead you to a successful analysis of beliefs/behaviors. So let's just either refer to them as being "yellow" or Asian/East Asian.
No, you misunderstood me. I am not saying that people practice different religions, culture, or politics based upon their skin color.
I am saying you cannot conclude that based upon their skin color. I am actually saying the complete opposite of what you are saying. So I think we need to really understand and acknowledge what our positions are.
As for working with people who have different beliefs, well, for me a person who concludes everything about me based upon my phenotype is a non-starter. Why would I engage such a person? It would be pointless, right?
I want to be clear. I think most people who do the racial preferences thing in dating are weird people. Because most talk about the beliefs, the personality, the behavior of the people they are dating. And to me, its like, you claim to have racial preferences, just stick to racial preferences and stop pretending they have anything to do with how a person acts or how they behave. But that doesn't happen. They switch back and forth between talking about racial preferences and behavior just like I should know why/when they are switching back and forth and that I should be able to do that with them seamlessly.
So I would rather just stay away from it. Its gets too messy and too emotional.
As for what you are talking about with your decision to talk to a "Black" woman that you are on a plane with, it just does not support your point. . . in anyway that I can see that matters.
You just went on for several posts basing your argument upon what you have learned in talking to and in observing a "Black" woman traveling with you.
It is not based upon your assessment of her phenotype. It uses your assessment of her phenotype as a condition for talking to her and getting to know her. You are telling me details about her possible beliefs, personality, and/or behaviors. But all of it is under the heading "Black" woman. It is if as though, if she were phenotypically "White" (did you note how I did that?) then she could be a Woman's studies major, wear tight fitting clothes, she could wear cornrows or straightened hair, she could be in the nursing field. . . then you could jump to your next set of criteria in your assessment.
Now for your summation. I guess I still don't understand the tie back to talking to a "Black" woman traveling with you on a plane. But I am going to try to respond. But because I am genuinely not clear about anything you are saying with respect to why you won't talk to her, you must understand I may not get some things right. So you are going to have to jump in.
So this is all over just approaching people. I am not here to criticize you. But it just really sounds "complicated". I don't go through such complexity. And there are literally "Black" people who have lost their lives in places I have been to on this planet simply because a person disliked them based upon their race.
But I guess it comes with the territory. I was in Moscow while African (I will go back to using my cultural terms for my summation) immigrants were literally being killed there. I have literally been chased, beaten up, had rocks thrown at me, etc. for just being darker skinned in America.
These are not subjective opinions I pick up from the media. Unlike perhaps some people you have been exposed to. These are actual truthful experiences I have had. I don't operate in the fear of this happening. I know it can happen because it has happened to me on multiple occasions.
But that information cannot factor into my assessment of "White" people. And I will expand this to include all people who fit that phenotype including my soon to be wife.
It can't for a number of reasons.
1. Its just does not comport with how I want to live my life.
2. As an African-American and being decidedly non-"White" in a society dominated by "White" people and they consider to be cultural norms, I have to find a way to see past those experiences if I want to be successful. Non-"Whites" have to bend to cultural norms more than "White" people, right?
3. From what I understand it is against what we as a society have concluded as being base morality. Namely claiming that someone holds certain beliefs simply because they have a certain skin color.
As for the base morality point, I don't find ruining someone's livelihood based upon your assessment of their phenotype morally righteous either.
I find that much more reprehensible than actually getting to know someone first, then making that assessment after you have had a chance to understand their beliefs.
We should go over this again, because sincerely to me it seems like you have actually said the opposite.
"I don't find in any way shape or form that ruining someone's livelihood because they hold an opinion to be morally righteous in any way."
So you can make assumptions, hire/fire, dismiss or engage based upon your subject analysis of race. But not a subjective analysis of talking to someone and understanding their views?
As for the Catholic Church, of course everyone can read a headline. But that is not analogous to race is it? Are you saying we can generalize based upon an assessment of beliefs or an assessment of phenotype?
That of course is the rub. Anytime you talk about a person's beliefs, you are not really providing a good argument. Because you have to find out if a person is Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, etc.
"If I knew that food from a Mexican truck was likely to be contaminated, I would not abstain from buying the food because it was Mexican" Did the study talk about Black, Asian, or Indian fast food trucks? No! It talked about Mexican food trucks. So are telling me is that you would continue to eat there knowing full well you have a 50% chance of lead poisoning?
"You only need to know an approximation. That's your argument. Or am I wrong?" I don't need to know the rest of you to determine that you and I would not be anything more than acquaintances or debate friends. No, I don't know your specific beliefs, culture, religion, or upbringing. Do I have to know all about you to make a decision? I don't even know if you're black or actually 46. However, the thoughts and opinions you are giving me are inline with my perception of black people, so I'm guessing you are black. If you are not, then the next thing I would guess you are is a sociology professor.
"Why are we talking about Japanese people? You have claimed that phenotypical differences can lead you to a successful analysis of beliefs/behaviors." Okay, let's talk about Asians in general? How many Asian cultures operate on an honor based system? If my work hires an Asian man, he begins to do something wrong, my correction of his actions will be different than if a white person did it. Why? Because I haven't gotten to know the person, I'm assuming his cultural norm is different, and that in that culture, strict reprimand is very harsh. Let's talk about Asian women while were at it. When China had it's population control initiative in place, a LOT of Chinese women were adopted by US couples (mainly white). As such, there's a pretty good chance that when I meet an Asian woman, she knows little about Asian culture or ancestry. Basically, unless she has an accent I assume that she will likely have a white culture. Will ALL? No! But will likely.
"who concludes everything about me based upon my phenotype is a non-starter" If they conclude EVERYTHING about you based on phenotype, then no, you shouldn't engage them. However, that is not what I'm arguing and if I've presented it as that, I'm sorry. I don't know EVERYTHING based on a person's phenotype. I get a vague idea of each person by their phenotype, what they're wearing, current actions, attitude, etc. If I'm not immediately repulsed by the idea, sure, I'll try and get to know them more until I no longer want to try. What is it based on? Facts as best I know, news I've heard, and past experience. Similarly, I don't know EVERYTHING about you based on our discussion. Again, the thoughts and opinions you have given me are inline with my perception of black people, so I think you're black. Some of your opinions are also inline with my perception of sociology teachers, you could be that, you could be both! It's not a one-to-one relationship, it's a many-to-many.
"It is if as though, if she were phenotypically "White" (did you note how I did that?)... set of criteria in your assessment." I see where you're trying to go, but I feel you are missing my point. Like I said before, it's a many to many relationship. By bringing in the other labels, my point was to try and show you the connections that the "black" label has to other labels in my experience.
Let me instead start out with the label "tight fitting clothing." I generally don't find them to be of a Christian denomination that I agree with (another label). Of those that I've talked to, I've had good experiences and bad, overall I would say about a 50/50 split. Now lets add the label of race in. "Tight fitting clothing" and - "White"? I've had some pretty good experiences with them - "Asian"? Haven't met one who is both labels yet, no experience, no bias - "Native American"? About 50/50 good/bad - "Black"? Very few good experiences, mostly bad
"But it just really sounds "complicated". I don't go through such complexity." People are complex, relationships are complex, decisions are complex. Congratulations on your soon to be marriage! If I may, let me try and make a point from it as well. I hope you did go through some complexity in choosing to marry her. Given our discussion, I'm guessing that you're not marrying her for a single/few attributes that she has. In your decision to marry her, did physical characteristics not come up AT ALL? Race includes many physical characteristics, were any of the physical characteristics also racial?
"I have literally been chased, beaten up, had rocks thrown at me, etc. for just being darker skinned in America." "But that information cannot factor into my assessment of "White" people." How you have stated this, you've already associated the label of "White" with being chased, beaten up, etc. (not all whites, but there IS a connection). However you are actively choosing to ignore this information in your decisions.
This is the same issue that I have with women wearing skimpy clothing and then complaining about unwanted attention. Men like women's bodies. That's a stereotype in America, and much of the world. Women have been told this and hopefully know it by now. However, some women have decided they should be able to wear whatever clothing (or lack thereof) that they want and that no one else should care because as long as THEY feel pretty, it's okay. Then they complain when they receive unwanted attention. They are not factoring in that information with their assessment of men
First, let us move back to the defining issue, that phenotypical assessments can lead to an understanding of a person's beliefs/behaviors.
1. I cannot through phenotypical analysis conclude if a person identifies as Mexican, American, Puerto Rican, etc. If you can, then great.
2. Upon learning that a person is Mexican, I am no longer in the realm of pheonotypical assessments.
3. So after understanding the study and then reaching a conclusion about the people I am going to buy food from, I automatically wonder why I would buy food from any food truck. Because I have only purchased from non-Mexican food trucks in the past.
That is my practical application of your hypothetical. As for this study, I don't think this is a real thing, right? Why would Mexican food trucks have more issues? Again, I don't understand.
" I have to find a way to see past those experiences if I want to be successful." I would argue you need to look at all of the data. As with any data set, if you are looking for a norm, you ignore the outliers. With what you have stated, it doesn't sound like outlying data, otherwise why would you bring it up in the first place? However, you have also stated that you are choosing to ignore that data.
"From what I understand it is against what we as a society have concluded as being base morality. Namely claiming that someone holds certain beliefs simply because they have a certain skin color." Let me change it ever so slightly "I claim that there is a strong likelihood that someone holds a certain belief based on their race, attitude, and chosen appearance" Yes there is more to a person than their race, but I am not going to ignore their race. People already tried the colorblind approach and it failed.
As for your analysis of me, again, I don't understand. If you know I am "Black", that's it. There is no need to delve into my beliefs. And something remarkable just happened.
You told me that my belief fall in line with your subjective perception of "Black" people. That's is an important point, because we are going to revisit this.
But more importantly, my analysis of your beliefs and views do not fall in line with my perception of the people who fit the phenotypical description of "Whiteness", in America. In fact, I would dare say your belief/views are a anomaly.
Oh that whole thing of treating people differently based upon assumptions, I get it, that's what you would do. As a person who has employed "Whites", "Blacks", Latinos, Polish, Italians, Asians, Females, etc. I would not do that. I find that totally counterproductive.
Okay, the Asian thing. Again, you are talking about beliefs and cultures, then you go back to race.
I am going to tell you again, I can't keep up with you. I don't even know how.
Most of the Asians I know male or female, are Korean. I can't tell the difference between a Korean, an Asian-American, Vietnamese, Japanese, or Chinese person. So using your analysis, I would be wrong almost all the time when talking to or approaching an "Asian" person. I would just prefer to call them "yellow" if we are talking about race.
So that whole thing of "likely" works totally different for me. Maybe you have to consider where that person was born? But then does not support your point either.
"So you can make assumptions, hire/fire, dismiss or engage based upon your subjective analysis of race. But not a subjective analysis of talking to someone and understanding their views?" My subjective analysis in talking to you and trying to understand your views has led me to the conclusion that you have a strong chance of being black. This does not mean all black people hold your view, however I will take this interaction and associate it with the "Black" label. Our interaction is also associated with other labels such as "Male," "Online Conversation," and "Older than me." That's just what comes to mind, it's not a conscious list I've made, and that's just the thing too, it's not something that I've forced myself to do consciously. My mind has simply taken the information available, made connections (associations), and, given our means of communication, I am spitting out labels in English to try and convey the thoughts in my head.
Well, I would say that if my "race" was a precondition in getting to know me that would be a non-starter also. I mean, it just doesn't make any sense for me to engage a person like that. It reminds me of a Dave Chappelle joke about black people eating chicken. He describes a scene where some "White" men are looking at a black dude eating chicken, and it is depicted as though they are zoologists. It is absolutely hilarious!
I can't speak to your subjective experience. I just know the precondition is race. I have had experiences too. But I use culture and for me to get to culture, I have to understand that person. . . so it is a non-starter again.
Like there is no way this conversation will have any bearing on what I think of phenotypically "White" people I work with, love, meet, hangout with, etc. Because I am certain that a dive into them as people will yield fascinating and profound differences in worldviews and beliefs.
Oh, of course people are complex. Do you not consider yourself a complex individual? Getting to know someone is not complex however. You just have to talk to them. But your decision making process for making that simple decision is for me, overly complex.
And I don't think your situation applies to me. Or even to the majority in American society. Your rules clearly dictate that I should never had even considered the woman destined to be my wife.
So this whole post is confusing to me. And I honestly and sincerely mean that.
Again, I will give you the chance to respond. But please when you do, explain how an analysis of my wife's race would lead me to some truth about what kind of person she is.
I don't find in any way shape or form that ruining someone's livelihood because they hold an opinion, to be morally righteous in any way. Hopefully my interaction with you is not ruining your livelihood. If it is, let me know and I'll stop. Interaction is an opt-in program. Forcing someone to interact with you is the equivalent of a child going to their parent and saying "Sally isn't playing with me!" This is where I find things like Affirmative Action to be conceptually broken. Was it needed though? I would argue yes, because people weren't accepting any new input and had no incentive. I think where the problem lies is that people stop finding an incentive to interact. Going back to why I wouldn't interact with the black lady on the plane. I don't currently have an incentive to interact, partly because of fear of retribution, but also because I believe past experience with the many labels associated with her will indicate a potential good/bad current experience. cont'd.
From my perspective you say contradictory hypocritical things and you pretend they are logical abstractions. I don't find anything common sense about saying that an analysis of my views give you the impression I am darker skinned. Given my analysis of your views, I would tend to think you are not African-American or "Black". Please note how I did that.
Outside of that, your skin color could be much, much darker than mine. In Eastern Europe, I met people who didn't believe I was considered to be "Black" in America. That is just fact. Culturally, I would say you are not African-American or you could be a dark skinned American who does not acknowledge the existence of African-American Culture.
And I think you must acknowledge the basis for your thought process is not rooted in some logical objective process.
It is rooted in how you were raised and in the beliefs you choose to hold.
You don't have to be disingenuous sir. If this conversation is causing you discomfort you can stop.
I don't do you. I listen to people no matter where they come from or what their backgrounds. Even when their views are distasteful to me. There are people here at GaG who claim my race is filled with backwards apes of a difference species. I deal with it. I don't block anyone. I feel as a "Black" person that just comes with the territory.
No one is forcing you to talk to me and AA has nothing to do with this conversation.
As a principle, you think it is much better to make assumptions on someone's race than to actually get to know them, their culture and their beliefs.
That is what I have gathered from this conversation. And I am just showing nothing is logical or objective about that conclusion.
I am not saying that past experience is indicative of future results as if it will always be the case. I am saying that past experience helps me PREDICT whether or not the interaction will be good or bad, I will never be able to say that my experience WILL be good or bad. However, things change, cultures shift, people change, I change. I will in the future try to interact again with a "straightened hair" "black" "woman." Old data points are just that, old. If my interactions with them produces a different experience, maybe the old data points are instead obsolete. However, in the mean time, I have little incentive to interact with them. Yes, they are people, yes, they are individuals. Do I think everyone is worth the same amount of time and effort to interact with? No.
As for hiring managers, if the past three Jewish people (race not culture) people didn't work well with the rest of the team, they're filling his/her spot, why can't race be a single data point in the decision?
My fiancee was definitely worth it. You understand that I am not disputing your right to believe whatever you wish. I am just establishing these are not universal truths nor should they be.
And making race a data point in decision making is racist. The issue is whether or not you believe racism to be good or bad.
I think it is bad and that is my view.
But the thing that is most confusing to me is that you often switch over to culture. You can't assess culture through phenotype, which you seem to admit to at certain times but in other posts you state something supporting the opposite.
Just so you know I reside in the realm of culture. I don't switch back and forth.
Okay... I think I see the stepping stone in the conversation we missed and why we're both confused. These questions should help
Is how a person learns based on genetics, culture, or a mix of both? Is a persons preferences based on genetics, culture, or a mix of both? Is how someone experiences a situation based on genetics, culture, or a mix of both? Are peoples immediate reactions to stimuli based on genetics, culture, or a mix of both?
So that would be through culture, social conditioning, etc. Remember this is "how" a person learns.
As for preferences I would say the same exact thing.
The third question does not seem to make sense. Experiences are experiences. There is nothing genetic about them.
And immediate reaction to stimuli? I would think that would be both genetic and cultural. Pain is a stimuli. I would think universally people would claim, it hurts. But some cultures might interpret external stimuli differently. Also gender can matter, etc.
For instance, do you know that different cultures define colors differently?
So this is where we have a base disagreement I believe all of those are a mix of genetics and culture.
As far as scientists understand it, psychopaths are born not made. Sociopaths are made. There are genetic differences that create psychopaths, but a traumatic culture can create a sociopath. Studies between identical twins and fraternal twins when learning a new topic indicate that genetics matter. And we both agree that culture matters in learning as well. However, if genetics play ANY part in learning, will they not also affect your preferences, experiences, and perception? How you experience a situation with the faculties that genetics have given you is going to be different than someone who cannot hear will it not?
People's genetics are obviously different. Some men can't see colors like women can. That's genetic not cultural. That is why I go back and forth between race and culture, because both affect a person. Are they interchangeable? No. Is it a factor? Yes
I am certain we have disagreements, but we are not making them clear, are we?
I thought you were going to post a different conclusion, but you went into genetics. I am perfectly willing to engage in discussion about genetics. But up until now, we have not discussed a single thing about genetics.
I dated a geneticist. She was totally convinced people were genetically different. She just disagreed that race or phenotypical descriptions gave her sufficient information on genetic commonality.
You see, you don't go back and forth between genetics and culture.
Sorry, last time I discussed this genetic similarities across races was assumed, and I assumed when you mentioned phenotypes you were on a similar page.
"She just disagreed that race or phenotypical descriptions gave her sufficient information on genetic commonality." As a race, and by genetics, Native Americans easily get drunk. How is that not a genetic commonality? Genetics: They easily get drunk Culture: Many are in a troubled spot right now, alcohol provides an escape Opinion: Any Native American I meet has a higher chance of having an alcohol addiction Shouldn't bartenders keep this into account when determining when to cut someone off? I actually did a quick search for this, and wasn't disappointed. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3603686/
Studies are also finding a link between genetics and politics. Unfortunately I don't recall any studies done about race, however the difference between men and women was quite apparent.
"You see, you don't go back and forth between genetics and culture. You go back and forth between race and culture. Those are two totally different statements. Do you understand my point yet?"
If you would rather call it genetic ancestry instead of race, it makes little difference to me. Now it's, the woman with genetic ancestry that results in darker skin and curly, wiry hair that she has straightened. (Heck of a lot easier to just say black) I'm guessing you're standpoint is one that race is a social construct. I agree, it's a social construct we use for communication to depict the phenotypes that a persons genotypes manifest themselves in a given environment. So race is the socially accepted construct for communication when talking about a persons genetics that make them look a certain way. Or do we just disagree about that?
"Your rules clearly dictate that I should never had even considered the woman destined to be my wife." My rules are for a decision making process about interaction. If you did not have overly negative experiences with the race/genetic ancestry of that woman, nor her attitude, nor her job, nor ruled that it was too risky an interaction, then my rules would state go ahead. I argue that this is subconsciously done. Anyway, you interacted and are now sealing the deal. (Again congratulations! I mean that honestly and truly)
"Again, I will give you the chance to respond. But please when you do, explain how an analysis of my wife's race would lead me to some truth about what kind of person she is" As I've argued, race is not the sole property you should be looking at. If she is a white woman you met at a bar, you've had good experiences with white women at bars being able to hold their liquor, and you like drinking, is there not a vague notion that you'll likely enjoy drinking together?
Oh, but that is a very bad assumption. Phenotype is roughly defined to be the part of your genetic code responsible for how you look. American Indians getting drunk easily is probably not a kind of study should would have conducted. I don't think there has been anything proven conclusively. Since both she and I know American Indians and she has some Lumbee heritage, I think she would have talked about it, if it were proven to be true. But she never did.
As for cutting off American Indians from drinking alcohol. I find that hilarious.
So at what point is a person an American Indian? I have some heritage. My old girlfriend does. Elizabeth Warren. . .
What objective test are you using to prove heritage? Your subjective assessment of phenotype?
Oh, I am so sorry. I accidentally responded to your post about American Indians and alcoholism without reading the entire thing. You posted a study. I am not certain how that has lead you to believe this is something proven conclusively. Since the reasons behind alcohol or drug addiction are rather complex. I would advise talking to some geneticists about these singular studies before drawing conclusions based upon a layperson's interpretation. Studying race/culture over the years, I have learned to consult resources from around the internet, academia, and the government. I have talked to scientists, FBI agents, other experts, etc. for help in gathering and interpreting information.
So I would caution you, if we are going down the road of discussing science, I am going to quote from what has been agreed to by the majority of the scientific community.
Phenotype are the physical appearances of genotypes based on a given environment. Genotypes control more than just physical appearance.
Theoretical very basic example Vitamin D has been linked to depression because a lack of it affects your mind Melanin (a pigment that makes skin darker, also how you get a tan) reduces vitamin D production in the skin Therefore, if 1000 black people and 1000 white people lived in a community, nobody cared about race in their decision making, everyone started on equal ground, and if both groups only spent 30 minutes outside in direct sunlight, the black people are more likely to be depressed than the whites. Basically, their culture, which you seem to be arguing is the only factor that matters in a persons behavior, beliefs, and opinions, starts out the same for everyone. Depression is a mental state that affects a persons behavior, beliefs, and opinions. Will there not be a difference? Is stating the difference racist?
Of course that makes a difference. For instance, tell me my genetic makeup.
I like using the term darker skin. I don't accept universal definitions for human beings. I mean, we just did this. Some people who much darker than I would never claim to "Black" because to them, "Black" means African-American Culture. Sammy Sosa would never make that claim, no matter how dark he looked. He told the press, "I am not "Black."" I hope you would understand that statement. Please if you do not understand, let's discuss that.
So when we are talking about race. . . well, I don't accept it. You should know that by now. So when a person talks about race, I just assume culture. Because throughout this conversation you have substituted one for the other.
So how do we get agree to the same terminology to have a discussion?
I have fully explained my experience. I have had many bad experiences with "White" people. I have met some who claim my "race" is basically full of apes who can barely talk. I have met some who simply refuse to see my individual uniqueness. People who have claimed I was prone to steal or commit violence simply because of my skin color.
I can go on and on.
So again, using your rules, it is much too risky to interact with "White" people.
Again. I am not here to criticize your process. You have the right to do whatever you wish. I am just showing that it is not based upon something objective or factual. It is your subjective process that you and some other people can relate to and use.
So back to the concept of "sole property", it simply does not make sense to me. I only know that race is a factor in whom you feel commonality with. And I will never understand why it makes sense to you. It would be easier for me to understand why most Hutu and Tutsi do not get along.
Okay, let's go with your article "To make matters worse, severe stress doesn’t just affect one generation: it is passed down, both socially — affecting parenting — and physiologically, by actually changing how children’s genes are read, which can alter both brain and body, a phenomenon known as epigenetics. Research on children of Holocaust survivors, for example, shows changes in reading instructions for genes related to stress." So now instead it's culture affecting genetics that affect a person that will affect their thoughts, opinions, beliefs. Genetics still come into play. Interesting article though! Certainly a good read for a discussion like this. The article later goes on to discuss how to "cure" it (can't think of a better term right now, sorry), so yes, there is the cultural part of the mix between genetics and culture.
I am not arguing that culture would be the only factor. Please understand me. I don't think race is a factor. That's my point. People are genetically different. That is a fundamental truth. But when you talk to me about race you are telling me about what category you think someone goes into based upon your subjective assessment of their looks. Dependent upon the social context, the very category of race is defined differently.
As your conclusions, again genetics is a factor. And perhaps there is some genetic common ground among folks who have certain skin complexions. But I am just talking about scientific fact. We already know that people with similar skin complexions still have great genetic diversity.
But you know this already. You understand genetics right?
So now instead it's culture affecting genetics that affect a person that will affect their thoughts, opinions, beliefs. Genetics still come into play. Interesting article though! Certainly a good read for a discussion like this. The article later goes on to discuss how to "cure" it (can't think of a better term right now, sorry), so yes, there is the cultural part of the mix between genetics and culture.
I did not post this to rebut your study. I posted this because it is obviously a complex issue needing a lot more study.
There is a fascinating paper by William Harms that talks about the relationship or culture to genetics.
But not race, when you keep throwing into our conversation.
Please stop doing that.
If you are going to argue race, please stop substituting them for one or the other.
Don't realize you have argued that race is a set of of cultural behaviors and genetic commonality?
"I have had many bad experiences with "White" people. I have met some who claim my "race" is basically full of apes who can barely talk." You seem to be focusing only on your negative experiences. Did you have no good experiences with white people before meeting your wife?
"I like using the term darker skin" Race is not just skin color. It includes all physical characteristics of a person that another person can see.
"Sammy Sosa would never make that claim, no matter how dark he looked" When I say "black," yes, I do mean the "African American" culture. I would not call Sammy Sosa black either. Just at first glance I can see that his ears and lips are not "black." Nor is a dark skinned Indian black, nor are dark Hispanics black.
"Please if you do not understand, let's discuss that." If we don't agree that race is more than skin color, then yes, I think we need to discuss this.
"We already know that people with similar skin complexions still have great genetic diversity. But you know this already. You understand genetics right?" Yup! (and again, it's not just skin color) And new races will be added and removed based on certain trends that express themselves through genetics and environment (culture) that allows easier communication. The term "mulatto" was once used for offspring between black and white. Given its history, I can understand why people would not liked to be called it, nor will I, but I still consider them to be a race. However "mixed" race to me is too vague, in that case the "white" race is "mixed" as well, yet it is implied to be those who have European ancestry. If anything, I argue the social construct of race needs to "get with the times" not go away.
1. I am not the one arguing that a person’s "race" should be factored into any type of assessment of their beliefs? I thought I was the one arguing the opposite. 2. Obviously, I am using my wife as an example since she is Austrian. And if we are applying your logic in a “race” neutral way, it begs the question would we even be together? 3. Race is not just a skin color? Do you have a definition of it that is static and not one that you modify depending upon the particular argument you are making at the time? 4. So since you have a definition of who is “Black” and who is not, can you tell me the physical characteristics that make for a “Black” person and for a person who is just dark skinned? 5. I believe that race is just a subjective weird way or categorizing people. But people generally use race to represent culture. Because when they talk about race, they usually talk about it to note similar beliefs and behaviors of those in a group.
Well, you can consider them one. It is just important to note this is not based upon anything objective or scientific. It is just a subjective way of categorizing based upon how you were raised or the beliefs you choose to hold about human differences.
For me, Mixed people are simply who or what they claim to be. Some choose to be “Black”. Some choose to be “White”. Some choose other definitions that give them meaning.
The construct of race is simply people’s way of talking about culture. You know that this conversation is weird.
How can you in one post talk about race being about physical differences?
In another, claim it represents beliefs/behavior or cultural common ground?
Then in a third claim it represents genetic groupings?
1. You are arguing the opposite, how am I telling you you're not? 2. You completely avoided the question. "Did you have no good experiences with white people before meeting your wife?" 3. I think https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/race has a pretty good definition "a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits" 4. Okay, in general they have dark skin, smaller laid back ears, wider nose/nostrils, black wiry hair, black eyes, and thicker lips. For men, if they aren't overly fat, I generally see a more pronounced muscle mass in the arms. For women, again if they aren't fat, I tend to see either hourglass or pear-shaped body types. That's all that's coming to mind right now. 5. will be on the next one
"How can you in one post talk about race being about physical differences? In another, claim it represents beliefs/behavior or cultural common ground? Then in a third claim it represents genetic groupings? You don’t find your own reasoning contradictory?"
Genotypes + environment = phenotypes. Phenotypes = someone's physical characteristics Similar physical characteristics in a group of people = social construct of race Genotypes (or epigenetics now) + environment = behavior. Therefore, genotypes (genetics) and environment (culture) both affect a person's race and behavior. If there is a positive correlation between a person's race and behavior and I point it out, I get called a racist. UNLESS, the positive correlation gets pointed out by a minority or an oppressed group, at which point it's systematic oppression and white people are to blame. (Okay, that's over generalizing, but crap like that happens and is also what we were talking about to begin with)
1. Because you claimed that I had no positive experiences with “White” people. Why would I make an extended argument over days about race versus beliefs only to arrive at the conclusion that I should consider my bad experiences with “White” people when meeting a member of that “racial” group? 2. Avoid the question? Why is the question even relevant? If I had nothing but bad experiences, it would not matter. 3. But what would those “traits” be? And why would shared traits mean shared beliefs/behaviors? 4. So you know that this analysis is not rooted in anything objective or scientific, right?
But that isn’t correct. Only a certain portion of the genotype is reflected in phenotype. You knew that before you posted.
And right phenotype is represented in someone’s physical characteristics.
Yep genotype can affect someone’s behavior. And yep, environment/culture can also. Note you just switched out phenotype and genotype as though they are the same thing.
But I don’t think you do this by accident. Am I wrong?
I don’t know when/where you get called racist. I am only pointing out that your analysis is not grounded in science or fact. Perhaps if you concerned yourself with the science behind human difference rather than projecting your cultural or political beliefs onto science that could be avoided.
"Yep genotype can affect someone’s behavior. And yep, environment/culture can also. Note you just switched out phenotype and genotype as though they are the same thing." Yes, we both understand that not all genotypes will be expressed in phenotypes Okay, my mistake was thinking you wouldn't assume genotypes that become phenotypes to be ALL genotypes. Alright, for clarification Genotypes + environment = phenotypes … nothing different here … plays into social construct of race (Genotypes affected by environment that become phenotypes) + (the rest of your genotypes) = behavior
To be included in the behavior equation is epigenetics (which I believe is just helping my point even more). A bunch of Mexicans are scared right now with Trump in office. Supposedly this will change how the current and next generation of Mexicans' genes are read, which affects behavior.
Maybe what I'm arguing IS more epigenetics instead of genetics, I'll have to look into it more. Any less racist if it is?
The two mean totally different things. A phenotype is usually a combination of genes. Right? And it does not stop there. Because phenotypical expression is derived from how those specific set of genes interact with the environment.
Then people interpret that phenotype in a way heavily influenced by their beliefs, their cultural backgrounds, the society they are in, etc.
The latest news in the genetic field reveals that there is no such thing as a 1 to 1 relationship of genotype to phenotype. A trait such as eye color can have over a dozen associated genes.
We have no idea how genes would be affected. There is no scientific study supporting any such conclusion.
How does epigenetics even remotely support your point about race? And the troubling thing is, race means something different to you depending upon the argument you are making.
And you don't think this complicating things a little bit, when considering talking to a "Black" woman on a plane?
I just want to get this list out. When we are talking about race, we are talking about how it was defined in the 20th century with these specific groupings. Correct?
The mid 20th century racial classification by American anthropologist Carleton S. Coon, divided humanity into five races:
"The latest news in the genetic field reveals that there is no such thing as a 1 to 1 relationship of genotype to phenotype" Right... a many-to-many relationship... some of which also influence behavior
"How does epigenetics even remotely support your point about race? And the troubling thing is, race means something different to you depending upon the argument you are making" Race is a social construct for groups. If a race of people are afraid of cops, are born into that, and taught that, the epigenetics of that race will supposedly change. Which influences behavior. My definition of race has not changed. You're the one who, instead of calling them Japanese, are calling them yellow. That is not part of my definition of race. I've given you my definition of race. I argue race is a data point in determining a persons behavior. I argue that this is done subconsciously.
Your stance seems to be assuming nothing about a person. Great, you are open to all opportunities. Which also means that you have more opportunities to fail. Correct me if I'm wrong on this.
I am trying to narrow my opportunities. Obviously I'm trying to narrow them to eliminate those that will fail and find those that will most likely succeed. Based on information I see, hear about, and experience otherwise, both physical and behavioral, I determine whether or not I want to pursue that opportunity.
"And you don't think this complicating things a little bit, when considering talking to a "Black" woman on a plane?" Trying to explain subconscious behavior always gets complicated.
We already agreed on race being a social construct. But we don’t agree on some basic fundamentals and I don’t know why you don’t admit to the obvious.
You have played around with the definition of race in every post.
You talk about Mexicans, knowing full well there are Mexicans who are considered to be African or of African origin. You have used terms like Japanese, knowing full well that the Japanese are considered to be a culture or nationality.
These are not “races” in your established definition. Yet you throw these terms around as though I know when you are switching your definition to mean something else.
Do you consider “Americans” to be a race? Of course not. So if you can’t consistently group people, even if we disagree on the groupings what is the point? I can never catch up to figure out what race means in one post versus another.
No, that is not my stance. Please read my position.
Of course there are genetic groupings in the human race.
Of course the are cultural groupings in the human race.
None of those methods for grouping people correspond to race. As I have shown by the way you modify your definition.
Your view simply makes everything equivalent. Race is equivalent to genetic difference which is equivalent to cultural differences. That has been proven wrong scientifically in the genetic and cultural anthropology fields. That is not my personal assessment, that is one based in science and in fact.
My view is that people are culturally different. So I should concern myself with what a person believes and how they behave, rather than be obsessed over how they look.
And I get no data on a person’s individual uniqueness, nor their cultural identity if I refuse to talk to them.
Your racial groups go from "Black" people to Mexicans to "White" people to Japanese.
Would it help if I split it between "Japanese people" and "Japanese culture"? Have you never heard someone say "They look Japanese" (or more likely, "They look Chinese")? There is the "race," that is, people who look like they have Japanese ancestry, and then there is the Japanese culture. It is used in both ways. - If I see a guy that looks like he is from Japan. "They look Japanese" means his physical attributes are typical of someone who is from Japan. - If a woman dresses up in a way that she looks like she is wearing a kimono. "They look Japanese" is talking about the cultural aspects of Japanese culture.
As to your video. They found out where they came from by their ancestry, and they are imitating the culture they once had. "Afro" being that of African descent, their genetics, and "Mexican" being that of their current environment. They are grouping themselves BASED ON heritage, and changing their culture based on a previous group's culture.
No sir. I was playing poker with a group of Asians. They all conversed in English and I could not tell who was a member of what ethnic group or. . . your definition of race. And they told me one by one, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Korean, and Chinese. They thought it was funny. But I could not tell.
And in the racial dynamic of America, they are considered to be all Asians by a standard. Hence, the grouping Asian Americans.
You are talking as though you are using universally accepted definitions and you know by definition they not. If something is socially constructed, then that is dependent how people in a given social context view it.
One of the most famous racist incidents in Asian-American history is Vincent Chin. A Chinese-American killed because people were angry with the impact of Japanese made cars on the American auto industry. No one was using your definition of race when they mistook him for being Japanese.
I guess you do not understand the history of Latin America. Far more African slaves were sent to Middle/South America than North America. Between the 16th and 19th centuries, about 10.5 million African slaves went to Latin America.
That culture has been there for centuries and so has that identity. And those people can fit a variety of different phenotypes. None of which you can consistently classify in your model. Some actually look more like indigenous. Some may actually have more of a "White" phenotype others may be look starkly African.
What they call themselves or what culture they may claim may be a totally different designation.
And the most important thing in understanding a person's beliefs/behaviors is accessing what they think their cultural identity is.
Their journey is no different than African-Americans, many of whom rediscovered a cultural connection to African.
Okay, we progressed from current racial terms, to how I see darker skin as only part of a persons race, to explaining my personal grouping/labeling terms based on peoples phenotypes. I argued that the social construct of "race" needs to catch up. I explained my personal definition of race, and I accept that there is a current view of race that is outdated. If you thought I was only ever talking about the current view of race, I'm sorry, that's on me, I only have so many words to choose from. Recently I have been asking you if, given my explanation of race which includes genetics and culture, whether it is still racist. Does that help clear anything up?
"1. I cannot through phenotypical analysis conclude if a person identifies as Mexican, American, Puerto Rican, etc. If you can, then great." "My view is that people are culturally different. So I should concern myself with what a person believes and how they behave, rather than be obsessed over how they look." "And they told me one by one, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Korean, and Chinese. They thought it was funny. But I could not tell." If you can't see the difference, then I guess both our decisions are valid. The hair that Afro-Mexicans have is the most immediate difference I see from the list I defined for you of what I call "black." (Personal racial definition)
I feel we escalated our conversation needlessly and we are both confused.
Lets try to go back a few steps? To the original post and your response. I don't believe it helps the racism, because I believe people will associate him and his actions with being black (current racial terms). I believe there are some people that do discriminate solely against a persons skin color because of past experience or being taught to and that such a shallow decision is below a certain moral threshold. However, such people do exist, and by associating the action to skin color, they are applying it to too vague of a population group, and not to the culture that would produce/allow/provoke such actions. Still, some of those people have power or are in power that would be able to punish the skin color as a whole, instead of focusing on the culture that would produce/allow/provoke people who would do such actions. I believe there are other aspects about his person including his skin color, that could lead an investigative agency to help determine his culture and locale.
You really don't see the issue? You keep saying that race is a social construct. Which I have agreed to, but then somehow you don't understand what that implies. That does not mean you can tell me your own personal view of race and expect that to matter in this conversation. Either you believe that this society we live in has views on race or you don't.
If you claim race is a social construct, then you have to understand what society defines as race. You can't make up your own "races" and then tell me what how you decide on differences, etc.
Now if you want to talk about your own personal views on race, then great. But then you have to understand that does not matter much to me. We don't even know each other. I am not concerned about your personal views. But vital to my livelihood and in some situations my life, I need to be aware of what most in society thinks in terms of race and the racial stereotypes go with those in my group.
As for whether or not you are racist, well, let's just create a hypothetical. Let's say I create a race of people in American society. I create the hairlip race. So I talk about how hairlip people have some genetic common ground and how they act the same way and have similar beliefs.
How many people would say I am racist versus how many people would claim I am crazy?
The point is, I have created a "race" not based upon any social construct. It is based upon my own personal beliefs about what constitutes a race. Since we said race is social, how can I be racist? I have defined a group the vast majority within my society don't even acknowledge the existence of. If race is social, then it must follow that racism is social.
I would say that people would simply look at me and laugh because most people in a given society know what societal standards are.
I don't think it matters. Racism has never made any sense or logic. It doesn't even make sense in the groupings it defines. So to pretend there is some way to reason with a person who can't even understand the way I even see myself is simple folly.
There is always going to be dark skinned people making false charges of racism. Many because they are evil people, some might see financial gain, some may actually do it to get back at "White" people, and others might simply be making honest mistakes.
That's why it is important for folks who think they are falsely accused of being racist to stand up and defend themselves. They should do it honestly and earnestly. So we can have real discussion and make real progress.
But I don't believe people discriminate because of past experiences. I have met far too many "White" people willing to beat me up or end my life simply because of my skin color. Those bad experiences did not teach me to hate "Whites".
"I don't know why we went down this path? Do you? How did we get from talking about social constructs to talking about your personal beliefs? You do know that society does not know or care about your personal beliefs, right?" You further questioned my personal labels, so I went into how I thought about people. Yeah, I know society as a whole doesn't, but I thought that's what you and I had started talking about.
"But I don't believe people discriminate because of past experiences. I have met far too many "White" people willing to beat me up or end my life simply because of my skin color. Those bad experiences did not teach me to hate "Whites". They taught me to hate racism." Perfect, your bad experiences taught you to hate racism. We've agreed that people who are racist had to be taught to be racist. Your bad experiences taught you to hate racism, other peoples bad experiences taught them to hate black people. You both learned something, but different takeaways.
You repeatedly referred to groupings that were not accepted as being a race, in American society or in any society. But again, you knew this.
So own up to your beliefs. If you hate someone because bad experiences with their supposed "race", just lay claim to being a racist and go on with your life. And understand when people dismiss you as just being a backwards racist, what they are doing.
Not many will think you can blame anyone for your bad experiences, given the mythology of race and racism. You can't even define what race is consistently much less understand the complexity of human identity. And even many of those who believe in that mythology would not accept that you can hold innocent people accountable for the actions of others in a grouping that is either a subjective social construct or some figment of your imagination.
So I think we understand each other clearly now.
But that was a lot of work to reach an obvious conclusion.
"If you hate someone because bad experiences with their supposed "race", just lay claim to being a racist and go on with your life. And understand when people dismiss you as just being a backwards racist, what they are doing." Hate and choosing not to interact with someone are two different things. I am explaining how some people choose to hate others. I thought I had explained clearly simply choose not to interact with some people based on past experiences. You claim my groupings don't exist, fine, I can't make you see what you cannot. Go ask your Asian poker friends why they chuckled.
"You can't even define what race is consistently much less understand the complexity of human identity" Now I'm curious as to how far you would let a person self identify. For you, is there any point where how someone chooses to identify themselves wrong?
Well, like I said, they have not figured out a consistent policy. Many sites try to go the road of banning personal attacks. But they think racial ones are okay. I always point that out every forum that has that silly rule.
Of course your posts are racist, why would you claim otherwise? You are in Hungary man. And you are complaining about the U. S. Do I complain about Hungary? All I can do is thank God I don’t live there. I live in a nation that had a ugly past. I don’t want to be in a nation rushing headlong back into that ugliness.
Racial tensions exists because to you, I am responsible for my supposed race. I can’t date someone of your race. You need to own your beliefs. Stop making other people responsible for the nonsense you have accepted. You accept mythology about human differences. You think these racial differences account for differences in genetics and in culture.
None of that is true. And you prove it every post.
The funny thing is. . . you are in Hungary. You don’t live in America. You don’t have a say in how we conduct ourselves. You don’t have a say in what we decide to do as a nation. Our goals are fundamentally different than yours. We don’t have unity because of Hungarian culture. We don’t have one based upon a single national identity. The only thing holding this country together is our embrace of freedom and the idea that there are certain rights granted to every individual human being.
You don’t live in a nation that has made that pledge. You are a “White” nationalist/supremacist that oddly enough chooses to live in Hungary.
As for the science of genetics, there is no scientific discipline that supports your mythology of race. Genetics is genetics. You do no genetic testing to figure out who you will be racist against or who you will claim to be on your “side”. You make that assessment by looking at a person's phenotype.
Of course it doesn’t invalidate all claims of racism... unfortunately there still is racism. I just wish when these types of things happen and innocent people are punished, those who caused the harm aren’t so how prosecuted, fined, something. Because it dies cloudy the waters for true racism claims.
Its crazy that in the world of instant reaction that something like this would happen! *dripping with sarcasm* This doesn't invalidate racism, but if this keeps happening it will be label as PR stunt or that its fake, which will suck for the times when it isn't fake.
For me personally, which is all I can do, I don't let them spread it. If I see a post by someone clearly saying something false, I call them out. If I hear someone saying something racist, I call them out. I support all humans and don't like to hear others degrade them simply because they haven't taken the time to educate themselves.
Of course it doesn't invalidate all claims of racism. What it invalidates is corporate knee jerk responses made to please the manufactured outrage crowd without even bothering to collect all the facts first. Chipotle corporate fired this lady before even knowing what the circumstances were because they were afraid of the social media outrage. What happened instead is the relevant circumstances came out afterwards, and then Chipotle was on the receiving end of even more outrage because they chose their own hides over their loyal, hard working employees.
Even the Starbuck's incident was a knee jerk response to an incident presented without nuance. Starbuck's has had the "no loitering" rule for a decade. They don't want people who aren't paying customers just chilling in their stores. If you wanna sit there you gotta buy something. That is nothing new. But as soon as a black person is offended by that rule, boom, racism.
Nah, I have used Starbucks for years to study for tests, organize my meetup discussion groups, etc.
And I have never been approached about buy something. So if a manager calls the police on me, I am going to assume he does not want me around. And I am definitely going to tell friends/family to not patronize that place.
In this incident, they were not even asked to leave. They were denied the use of the bathroom and the manager asked if he could help them. The next thing they know, the police showed up. I could perhaps understand if the manager told them, they can't stay. But that didn't happen. The police told them to leave.
I don't know if that "cat" was just terrified or what.
They were warned more than once that they have to purchase something or leave, which they declined to do. What else do you do when you ask someone to leave the store and they won't do it? Take matters into your own hands and try to throw them out or call the police? Starbuck's called the police. I've never been warned that I need to buy something either, but that's because I make it a point to buy something. If I'm using their space I should patronize them. The two guys that had the police called on them were either oblivious or willfully ignorant of their surroundings and I have no sympathy for them.
They were warned by the police. Never by the manager. The manager denied them access to the bathroom and asked them could he help them. That's all. They said the next thing they knew the police were there. And they told the police they had did nothing wrong and the police told them repeatedly they had to leave. Please do more research before telling me what the manager did.
To me this is about truth. It's fairly ease to put up (on social media or wherever) your version of a truth but scroll down and boom! It's a lie. The same is true of politicians and big business. We live in a world where people are not authontic. We put out a story which we know to be false or a story because we can't admit we are wrong. We need a new truth template.
Yeah, it was a good thing someone dug into his past. I don't think he will be posting to social networks anytime soon. Dude looks like he has gone underground.
It's really amasing she would be fired in the first place. Leaves the impression the company is run by trigger happy idiots who have little to no critical thinking capabilities.
Is this where we're at now? Cry "racism" the first chance you get? Well, you know what happened to the boy that cried wolf, hmm?
Do you really think there are no "Black" people with bad intentions and whom are willing to use anything including charges of false racism to break the law, steal, or hurt people?
I posted this incident because it is a case where that was obviously wrong. They heard the charge, they didn't investigate, they took the word of folks who were obviously horrible people over their own employee.
And I posted this. No one else did by the way. I'm "Black".
Around here false accusation would end very poorly for the offender. This kid is so young and stupid thinking his actions have no consequences. I hate, H. A. T. E, seeing something like this happen. May he rot in the meanest circles of hell with all the rest of his idiotic kind.
Well, he has not been back on twitter or anywhere. It is kind of like he disappeared. But the police have no said they made an arrest. I wonder what happened.
does a false rape accusation invalidate all claims of rape? No, but the idiots who come up with these false accusations ruin it for the rest of us because when real stuff does happen people don't believe us, and I can't blame them.
Nah, if a woman makes a false rape claim, she should be prosecuted, just like the folks who make false charges of racism. The punishment for false charges should be at least as harsh as the punishment for the crime or offense.
You are a woman, you cannot control the actions of other women who are immoral and wish to use false charges as a way to gain financially or to get someone in trouble.
You can only be responsible for what you do as an individual.
I agree, but I think that each case should be treated/judged differently (like any other crime). I don't think that everything is black and white when it comes to this type of stuff.
I does seem like many racism claims in this day and age are fabricated.
Example: Voter suppression. The laws to vote are the same for all races and there are no "whites only" voting booths.
Additionally, the total number of poor whites is higher than any other race so if someone is making voting hard for the poor then they are disenfranchising more whites than anyone else.
Uhm, nah. . . I don't think that is right. Think about North Dakota. The legislature invalidated all ids that did not have a street address. Most American Indians have PO boxes on their IDs if they live on a reservation. Because on the rez, there are no street names.
read the article again. they outlined a process for people on reservations without a street address so they can vote. By the way, this is a instance that seems like a "one off" to find that effects a fraction of a percentage of the USA population and it was resolved per the article
"In a letter to tribal leaders, the secretary of state’s office wrote that any voter without a residential address could contact their county’s 911 coordinator, describe the location of their home and, quickly and at no cost, be assigned an address that the coordinator could confirm in an official letter. The voter could then either use that letter to obtain new identification or present it at the polls alongside an ID card that would not have been sufficient on its own.
But I do think that minorities who cry wolf like this should be as ostracized as women who make false rape claims. That's like a serious charge to make against a person.
Yeah, they should have been prosecuted for their prior thefts. Well, that is if they can find the other restaurants they ripped off. Their confessions are on twitter.
Because it got people riled up and rallied against that poor woman, then to find out she wasn't in the wrong. I guess it makes people skeptical and hesitant to potentially ruin someone's life again, since there is proof of other claims being false.
I think that people would question it yes. Especially strangers since they don't know me.
I don't know many women who would think that just because some woman was screwed up in the head, that people can make the same assumptions about her. There is nothing you could have done to prevent Asia Argento from sexually harassing a child.
And there is nothing I can do to stop other "Black" people from filing false claims of racism. I can only do what I did here.
Well look at the woman In your question, she lost her job on mere accusations of racism, it was only the guy's previous tweet about dining and dashing that exonerated her. Look at this Starbucks video, the woman just gave him free coffee without question because she knows she could be blown up on Twitter next. https://youtu.be/OzDs5GpGb5o
I went to high school where racist kids chased me with golf clubs and bats. I am thinking the consequences I faced for doing the right thing was at least as much as the lady from Chipotle or the woman in your Starbucks video.
You don't appease evil by giving in to it. If a person is wrong, it doesn't matter if they are "Black" or "White".
@tertater But calling certain people racist here at GaG is really hurtful to them. I don't understand why.
Besides, I have been called racist to my face. I mean, it is hilarious, but folks think they can control the conversation that way. By the way, I lead race and culture discussions twice a month on the weekends. Let me know if you want to join the group.
But back to my main point, if you think you are not racist. . . why would it matter what people called you?
It's like some people actually want to say something, but they get to a point where they don't want to have a real conversation.
Being called racist on gag is one thing but in real life another. As the woman in your story demonstrates a false accusation of racism is enough to end a career.
It didn't matter to her employer that she stood up for herself, she still got fired. It was only her accuser got caught in his own web of bullshit after she had been fired. Being falsely accused of being racist on a site like GAG doesn't matter but in the real world it has real world consequences such as losing your job, future employment, your home, friends, maybe family and certainly a lot of money if you need to pursue legal means of clearing your name. All together better just to avoid the risk of accusation all together.
It did matter. If she did not, how would she get her job back? Her employees vouched for her, as well as her family and friends.
Look, I am not trying to convince you to fight back if you are ever accused of racism. That's on you. But some people want to fight for what is right. And if you are not a racist, then I can't think of anything more honorable not just for yourself but for this society as a whole than fighting back with facts and truth.
You talk about the consequences. Madam, there are consequences for protesting police brutality, there are consequences for making false claims of racism, there are consequences for supporting asylum seekers, etc.
And some of these people have paid with more than just their jobs.
They have paid with their lives.
I couldn't even post in this forum today without people sacrificing in the past for my rights today.
It didn't matter because she was fired with barely an investigation, just a mere accusation of racism. How many people are not so lucky to have their accuser leave such obvious breadcrumbs? Fighting back isn't enough when you lose anyway.
Again, "losers" made it possible for me to have the life I have today.
But I won't argue with you. If you are hit with a fake charge of racism in the future, perhaps you should just lay down and give up. I am just glad that other people will fight back and try to make things right.
Do you.
I have confirmed she was rehired. I know she got cash through gofundme, but I can't verify the settlement from Chipotle.
You can't lay down and give up. But most people don't access to the resources needed to clear their name. Again you can fight back as hard as you want but it doesn't mean you will win or you won't lose your job, your friends, family, savings and your future. This woman was very lucky, she would have been better staying in her lane rather than risk a doxing accusation of racism blowing up on social media.
Madam, you have to make up your mind. I can't do it for you. But whatever decision you make, please know that was your choice and not someone else's.
I didn't get where I am today because I got mad because someone called me the n-word or claimed my race was unintelligent. I didn't give up. And I don't why I would counsel anyone else to.
I only know this, you will never win if you do not try. And if you are not prepared to lose, then you are certainly not prepared to win.
I hope that anyone hit with false charges of racism would fight back with everything they have. And become an example that we all could learn to follow.
But that's an individual choice. There she is, front and center.
Most Helpful Opinions