"I have black friends" now a valid defense

[Athena]

Recently, in another thread, we joked about the "I have (enter race here) friends" defense against charges of racism. I consider us all to be quite reasonable human beings, and there seems to be a consensus among those of us who've discussed the issue that such a defense is absolutely ridiculous.

Thanks to hate crime legislation, however, people are being asked to “prove” that they aren’t racist. Courtesy of CATO, here is actual testimony from a hate crime prosecution in Ohio.

The case involved an interracial altercation at a campground and here is how the prosecutor questioned the white person accused of a hate crime:

Q. And you lived next door ... for nine years and you don't even know her first name?
A. No
Q. Never had dinner with her?
A. No
Q. Never gone out and had a beer with her?
A. No. ...
Q. You don't even associate with her, do you?
A. I talk to her when I can, whenever I see her out.
Q. All these black people that you have described as your friends, I want you to give me one person, just one who was a really good friend of yours.

Source

--------

Aside from this ridiculousness, however, I would like to take the opportunity to state the fact that hate crime legislation is bullshit. There should not be a set of increased penalties to be applied simply because the perpetrator targeted a protected class. If all people are equal under the law, there should be no protected class.

[dop]

Well wile its not a definitive make or break kinda thing it does make some sence, of course a guy that has a bunch of real X minority friends even if somewhat biggoted against em is not likley an X hater that would go and bash em(or whatever) simply due race or sex... Even less definitive but still fairliy valid is someone acused of HC that lives in a fairly populated X minority area and has no X friends migth not be particularly font of them Xs.

That said I too belive Hate Crime is a load of bull manure.

[aspartame]

I agree, how do you prove that some one is your really good friend? I have people that I know alot about, and you asked me a personal question about them I would know the answer...but that does not make them one of my good friends.

[dop]

I think the easiest and most acurate way to prove someone is really your friend is for the defence atourney to ask the people you are quoting as your friends if they feel like they are.

Do you consider X person your friend?

...few questins about the nature of the friendship, how much they hang out, any favours he migth have done to you..

Did he ever had any derrogatory things to say about your race/sexual preference?

Do you belive he would comit said crime out of hate to yours and mr bashedhead race/sexual preference?

then the district atourney does his set of questions to try to prove you aint really that good friends.

Its not really complex at all, if you were asked this things in court about someone you knew wouldnt you answer truthfully? You simply would tell the court if said person is your friend and to what extent amongst other things to help determine his animosity if any to your race or sex....

[CPL CHUD]

Fuck, I need some black friends.

Seriously though, all this ultra politically correct garbage does is make the differences between people of different skin pigmentation more pronounced. It works against their self proclaimed goal of treating everyone equal. It makes decent people look like flukes; like smart monkeys, the exception to the rule instread of the rule. I'm not naive and don't assume that people are equal in skills and certain qualities, but I do think that the law should be applied as equally as humanly possible, negating natural prejudice as much as can be expected.

[swivel]

This would be my testimony:

Q: Son, let me get this straight: Do you really expect me to believe that you thought the defendent's real name was "Coon", and that is why you were yelling this, while you were kicking him on the ground?

A: That's right, your honor.

Q: Tell me, son, how many black friends do you have?

A: Well, your honor, I don't really have any friends.

Q: But you know people, right?

A: Some, your honor.

Q: Do you know any black people?

A: Just my wife, your honor.

Q: Wait a minute. Your WIFE is black?

A: Yes, your honor, but that nigger gets on my nerves, too.

[Rotten Apple]

Has it really come to this?

I live in a predominantly white neighborhood, I have never been intimate with anything but white men, I married a white man, I have a white child, the majority of my friends are white BUT I still carry my prejudices and stereotypes of white people in general.

But according to this defense, I would be innocent of being a racist. Even though I've said and done some pretty racist shit in my life.

[Athena]

Has it really come to this?

I live in a predominantly white neighborhood, I have never been intimate with anything but white men, I married a white man, I have a white child, the majority of my friends are white BUT I still carry my prejudices and stereotypes of white people in general.

But according to this defense, I would be innocent of being a racist. Even though I've said and done some pretty racist shit in my life.

That's exactly it. Racism is the belief that you and your race are superior to individuals of other races. I think I'm superior to all sorts of people. I'm still friends with them, though. Having whatever type of friends, realistically, does little to substantiate the absence of prejudice.

About hate crime legislation -

The argument FOR hate crime legislation is clear - the effects of hate crimes reach beyond the victim, negatively impacting entire communities and creating a greater potential for backlash.

But is this justification for increased sentencing? I would argue that many crimes impact communities in such a way. Increased penalties for crimes motivated in part or wholly by a bias against protected classes is simply an attempt to appease the feeling of entitlement that has been created by naming protected classes to begin with.

In the Jena Six case, the defendants acted, presumably, out of dissatisfaction with the punishment doled out to other students over a noose-hanging incident. Would their mind frame have been so extreme if society and government did not hold the view that racially-motivated acts deserve harsher punishment than those motivated by, say, greed or anger? I think the belief that bias-motivated crimes be dealt with more harshly actually opens society up to MORE vigilantism, effectively negating the purpose for stiffer penalties and, as CPL mentioned, magnifying the difference between factions of our society.

Racism is just another form of collectivism. To combat this, we employ diversity measures - just another form of collectivism. It's like trading heroin for methadone. Our attempts to level the playing field do nothing more than breed resentment. Until we view people as individuals and not as part of a group, those groups we "protect" will be perpetually stunted.

[swivel]

That's exactly it. Racism is the belief that you and your race are superior to individuals of other races.

I loved your post. However, does it have to be a question of "superiority" to qualify as racism? I think that any generalization directed at an individual, due to real or perceived differences due to race, qualifies as racism.

If I see a black person, and assume that they would beat me in a game of one-on-one basketball, I'm actually putting myself BELOW them, but I am still being racist. Same goes with asking an Asian for help with some math.

There may even be statistical evidence to back up your prejudice, like the fact that blacks are more likely to suffer from sickle-cell anemia. But, picking out a single black, and saying that THEY must have SCA, is racism.

I probably split hairs with these distinctions, but I think it is important to be able to talk about differences between groups, but to not generalize these differences to individuals. The former is allowing us to develop race-specific drugs that will save lives. The latter just breeds resentment.

[Athena]

I loved your post. However, does it have to be a question of "superiority" to qualify as racism? I think that any generalization directed at an individual, due to real or perceived differences due to race, qualifies as racism.

If I see a black person, and assume that they would beat me in a game of one-on-one basketball, I'm actually putting myself BELOW them, but I am still being racist. Same goes with asking an Asian for help with some math.

There may even be statistical evidence to back up your prejudice, like the fact that blacks are more likely to suffer from sickle-cell anemia. But, picking out a single black, and saying that THEY must have SCA, is racism.

I probably split hairs with these distinctions, but I think it is important to be able to talk about differences between groups, but to not generalize these differences to individuals. The former is allowing us to develop race-specific drugs that will save lives. The latter just breeds resentment.

I'm glad you've revisited this. I was going to touch on your use of the term "racism" in the open borders thread, but we were already so far off topic, I felt it an inappropriate venue.

It really is a matter of semantics.

rac·ism
–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

I really feel as though the first definition is the most accurate. In my opinion, which is somewhat substantiated by the definition, legitimate racism involves the notion of racial superiority. Of course, the third definition suggests some tolerance regarding the use of the word.

prej·u·dice
–noun
1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.

I believe prejudice is the more accurate term for the type of belief you listed as example. The terms "racism" and "prejudice" are not always interchangeable, which makes it absolutely important to differentiate. Why? Because of the stigma surrounding the term "racism". When someone calls me a racist, they are associating me with a very extreme form of thinking. I am suddenly different from them and more like a Nazi or KKK member. Racism is specifically characterised by hatred, whereas prejudice is not. Generally speaking, being labeled a racist gives the accuser reason to hate and discredit me, because my opinions are characterised by hate.

Realistically, this is not at all the case. I am able to identify differences between racial groups without hate playing into it, as you did with your example. Everyone holds prejudice, whether it's thinking that Asians can't drive or white folks can't dance or any number of standard stereotypes. If I make a statement like that, we should all recognise it for what it is, which is prejudice. This doesn't allow for the disconnect that the "racist" label creates; the accuser is able to identify with prejudice, and recognising this creates the opportunity for honest consideration and understanding. Like you said, sometimes, these stereotypes ARE rooted in fact. I should not be punished with a "racist" label for recognising this and choosing to articulate it.

Using the words interchangeably dilutes the true meaning of racism and it also discourages open discourse regarding prejudice.

[swivel]

I see the first definition as supporting MY argument, not yours. It only mentions the noticing of "differences" and requires the designation of "usually" for superiority, which only means in cases of at least 51%. This is natural since most people are pessimists, anyway.

Prejudice is a general term. Racism is just prejudice based on race. I prefer using the most specific term possible in any situation. It conveys the most information.

[Athena]

I see the first definition as supporting MY argument, not yours. It only mentions the noticing of "differences" and requires the designation of "usually" for superiority, which only means in cases of at least 51%. This is natural since most people are pessimists, anyway.

Prejudice is a general term. Racism is just prejudice based on race. I prefer using the most specific term possible in any situation. It conveys the most information.

I think it is a mistake to neglect to account for connotation. The most widely accepted and specific definitions of racism qualify the term as being characterised by the notion of superiority and discriminatory or abusive behavior based on that premise. Using the term "racism" to describe common prejudice (which carries a definition that accommodates race-specific usage) is like using a sledgehammer on a finishing nail. I don't find that to be specific at all.

That being said, it is a matter of semantics. We interpret things differently, and neither can be proven correct without some sort of ruling body.

*shrugs*

[swivel]

I think it is a mistake to neglect to account for connotation. The most widely accepted and specific definitions of racism qualify the term as being characterised by the notion of superiority and discriminatory or abusive behavior based on that premise. Using the term "racism" to describe common prejudice (which carries a definition that accommodates race-specific usage) is like using a sledgehammer on a finishing nail. I don't find that to be specific at all.

That being said, it is a matter of semantics. We interpret things differently, and neither can be proven correct without some sort of ruling body.

*shrugs*

I hereby appoint myself to be the "ruling body" of Dreaming Demon. From now on, it will be up to me, and me alone to determine who is winning any argument, and to specify the exact definition of any word used.

I will confer with myself on this issue and get back to you. I have to say, from early indications, it doesn't look very good for you.

[Athena]

I hereby appoint myself to be the "ruling body" of Dreaming Demon. From now on, it will be up to me, and me alone to determine who is winning any argument, and to specify the exact definition of any word used.

I will confer with myself on this issue and get back to you. I have to say, from early indications, it doesn't look very good for you.

I don't recognise any self-appointed ruling body. Unless you've got a copy of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised in your bookcase, I'm going to have to give you a vote of No Confidence. No ruling body is official without a copy of that book...and a gavel. Incidentally, I have both. I suppose I could let you borrow them...

[swivel]

I don't recognise any self-appointed ruling body. Unless you've got a copy of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised in your bookcase, I'm going to have to give you a vote of No Confidence. No ruling body is official without a copy of that book...and a gavel. Incidentally, I have both. I suppose I could let you borrow them...

I have Robert's Rules, but no gavel. Where does that leave us?

Fuck, can you imagine trying to use Robert's Rules on a forum? That would be hilarious.


Oh, and the ruling didn't go your way. Racism is defined as applying any generalization based on race, onto an individual. It is a particular form of prejudice, just like sexism.

Is it sexist to say that women make better cooks? Yes, even though that is an admission of superiority.

[Athena]

I have Robert's Rules, but no gavel. Where does that leave us?

Fuck, can you imagine trying to use Robert's Rules on a forum? That would be hilarious.

Do you really? Why the hell would you have a copy of that book? I have an excuse...I was FBLA chapter Parliamentarian for multiple years in high school. The gavel is because I judge debate tournaments in my off time. I don't actually use it, though. It was a joke gift.

Morbid mentioned an interest in having a formal debate to me the other day. My eyes got wide. But in comparison to the thought of using parliamentary procedure in an internet forum, a formal debate would be cake. @_@

As for the sexism thing, I maintain that sexism and racism are not the most accurate nor most advantageous terms that can be used, as both have connotations of superiority. It's like tampons - I use the least amount of absorbency necessary to accommodate the issue. "Bias", "prejudice" and "racism" are similar terms with varying degrees of severity. I'll use the "lightest" term possible based on what I'm attempting to describe.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, using the term "racism" to qualify the use of common and generally innocent stereotypes, especially those that classify the object of the stereotype as the superior one, might give me Toxic Shock Syndrome.

[TXChris]

It's like tampons - I use the least amount of absorbency necessary to accommodate the issue.

Ummmm...Wow.

[TXChris]

Is it sexist to say that women make better cooks? Yes, even though that is an admission of superiority.

Hey, now, I think Ramsay, Bourdain, Brown, Lagasse, Flay, and Florence, just to name a few, would have issue with your assertion that women are better cooks. :D

[Athena]

Ummmm...Wow.

What? It's what the directions tell you to do.

[TXChris]

What? It's what the directions tell you to do.

And that is precisely why I don't like debating with women. ;)

[Athena]

Um...because we follow directions?

[TXChris]

Because there really is no comeback to using tampons, for us males.

[Athena]

A small price to pay for not requiring tampons, I'd say. @_@

[Rotten Apple]

A small price to pay for not requiring tampons, I'd say. @_@

Ah-HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

[TXChris]

I definitely never complained about not needing tampons. :D

[swivel]

Do you really? Why the hell would you have a copy of that book?

I wrote the Constitution for our High School Student Council, served as Pres and V.P., went to Model United Nations 3 times (Senegal, Iran, Israel), served on Security Council twice. Paged for NC State Senate one year, for D.C. Senate one year (Sen. Jesse Helms). And I recently formed the DreaminDemon oversight committee and arbitration council.

But, I would probably have a Robert's Rules regardless. It is one of those books you are supposed to have in your library, like the Merk Manual, Gray's Anatomy, "How Things Work", and a "Complete Shakespeare".

[Athena]

Ewwwwe. Student Council. Glad to see you went on to do more reputable things. :p

I'm not familiar with the Merk Manual. There should be a "c" in there, yeah? Not criticising your typing, as I know you know better...Just making sure there's not a "must-have" book that I've never even heard of. Stranger things have happened.