[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Actually, it is. Well, that’s overstating it a touch, but if racism is your motivation for a crime, you get a worse penalty under hate crime laws, so that’s close enough in my book.
Professor X wrote:
Dude, I don’t have to be a lawyer to show you stretch you just made on that one. Hate Crime and racism are not one in the same. Not only that, but hate crimes can be against gender and sexual preference, so again, it has nothing to do with any specific race in majority.[/quote]
I know they’re not one in the same. But if you are adding a penalty for the presence of racism (or sexism, or whatever), you’re effectively criminalizing it in the context in which the penalty is applied. Thus, in certain contexts, racism has been criminalized.
The fact you can have other types of hate crimes doesn’t affect the analysis w/r/t racism - especially as racism is sufficient to get the hate-crime designation.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
We can agree to disagree on my analogy, but I think that, given people are quick to say the majority controls society, and society in the U.S. is majority white, when people say, “society is racist” that is shorthand that at least implicates whites above and beyond any other race/ethnicity what have you.
Professor X wrote:
Who said “society is racist”? We are talking about white priviledge which is something you don’t even consider because it is normal to you and thus would not initially feel is “racist” until shown to you. That is a huge difference from “racist society”. It is normal for a crime to be committed by a white person and have NO ONE relate that action to an entire race. It is normal for a crime to be committed by a black minority and for there to be an added stigma attached that affects the race of the criminal in many instances. That is the issue, not what you just stated.[/quote]
You asked for a specific example of something. You didn’t ask for an example of something stated on this thread.
This is what you typed:
Stereotyping indeed goes both ways. However, when was the last time a criminal act by a white man was used to stereotype an entire race as being more criminal?
Not getting carried away with the criminal part, which is minutia – I gave you an example of a white people all being accused of being racist because some white folks are racist – it happens all the time. I chose “society” because you hear that often, but you also hear, specifically, “white society”, “the majority,” or, just plain “white people.”
“White privilege” is apparently short hand for being a member of the majority – is that fair? So your basically saying that if you’re in the majority, only those in the minority will apply bad logic to you and make assumptions based on the characteristic that you share with the majority? The only thing that saves purveyors of bad logic who share the majority characteristic is that even people who use such bad logic generally don’t apply the assumptions to themselves (or if they do, they figure out how to “unapply” them via making other distinctions).
People look at other people, or learn a few facts about them, and make assumptions based on generalities they have in their minds – both true and false information. This is bad logic. Racial stereotypes are a subset of this bad logic. The fact that it’s more difficult to avoid a racial stereotype doesn’t change the logic. Which segues us to the next topic:
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
But this is all getting caught up in the weeds. My main point is that racial stereotyping isn’t special - it’s just a form of stereotyping, which is a logical fallacy when applied to any particular individual. How you choose to react to a given stereotype is a choice - if the son of a West VA coal miner puts pressure on himself because he knows people generally hear his accent and immediately think he is lazy and stupid, and he has to represent all people with such accents, that’s his decision to take on that burden.
Professor X wrote:
There is a huge difference between speach patterns (which can often be hidden, changed, or perfected) and skin color which can not be changed. Nice analogy, but no one relates “southern accents” to any specific race and that is the issue.[/quote]
Yes, there is a difference. But focusing on that difference is causing you to dismiss the point, which is invalid. People have biases against Southerners. People have biases against black people. It’s the biases part that is central to the reasoning.
And to restate the point, the point is that you can choose how you react to someone’s bias (real or perceived). You don’t have to take on the burden of being the representative of anything - even if some people are going to view you that way.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
I applaud you for your diligence. But irrespective of whether you’re right or wrong about any particular individual’s belief about what you represent (and each person will make his own choice on that, right or wrong though it may be), you choose to take on the burden of holding yourself in a manner to prove the belief wrong. Nothing wrong with that – in fact, I’d say it’s admirable. But it’s still a choice.
Professor X wrote:
It becomes less of a choice if the rules of society dictate that success is based much on perception. Sure, I could choose other avenues of reaching a certain level of success, but does it really make sense that I should have to just to avoid the stigma? [/quote]
No – different point. You could choose to behave in a way to maximize your own probability of success without deciding to take on the responsibility for how other people will look at other black doctors who come after you.
Also, a small point of philosophy (very small, because I am not a philosopher, nor do I play one on TV) - assuming such a burden must not only be individually draining, but to the extent you assume a person will view you as representative of “your race” you rob him of his ability to make that decision for himself. It’s a projection of reality in each individual case until you know what the actual view of the person is.