What makes someone a racist?

[ApeAttack]

As most of you know, Michael Richards (Kramer from Seinfeld) recently went on a tirade at a LA comedy club in which he repeatedly called hecklers in the audience 'n**gers' (I used asterisks because I don't know if it will censored). (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sEUIZsmTOE) He later apologized on Letterman and said that he was not a racist.

Let's assume for a second that Richards does not believe that any race is inferior and normally gets along quite well with people of all races. But if he uses the word 'n**ger' to get an African-American heckler angry, is he a racist?

[keith123]

no, not a racist if he really doesn't believe the things he says.

[moneyfaucet]

Deleted by Rduke55

[vhawk01]

Deleted by Rduke55, because the posts this was responding to were also deleted

[holyfield5]

he stole that from a comedy stand up

people dont seem to realize, saying the word didnt make him a racist, he was a racist long before this in his mind and most likely in some of his actions. Its impossible for people to say though that racism was definitely his motivations for what he has done in his past so he can get away with it ad nausea with just denial or people overlooking/not assuming the worst etc. When he said the comments though he told on himself and its that simple. people are trying their best to make what he did ok though it seems.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
I call white people nig**rs all the time. Where I live nig**r is a term used to describe people who have no dignity and don't live by a moral code. A nig**r is someone who acts like an animal. A nig**r's only purpose in life is to satisfy his urges. In this sense of the word I hate nig**rs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I call my television set "the toaster". I confused my wife last night when I told her that I couldn't find the toaster's remote. She is starting to think that I have a brain tumor.

Making up new definitions for words is fun.

[moneyfaucet]

Deleted by Rduke55

[vhawk01]

Not to sound like a relativist but you seem kind of like an [censored].

[moneyfaucet]

Post deleted and user banned

[bkholdem]

Not 'what' but 'who': their parents

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]

Not many black people live in Humboldt County.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that place still a major weed factory?

[moneyfaucet]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Not many black people live in Humboldt County.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that place still a major weed factory?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. There are many towns in Humboldt that wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the marijuana economy.

[Prodigy54321]

no

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
I call white people nig**rs all the time. Where I live nig**r is a term used to describe people who have no dignity and don't live by a moral code. A nig**r is someone who acts like an animal. A nig**r's only purpose in life is to satisfy his urges. In this sense of the word I hate nig**rs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this a reference to the ethics of free-market Darwinism?

[Speedlimits]

[ QUOTE ]
As most of you know, Michael Richards (Kramer from Seinfeld) recently went on a tirade at a LA comedy club in which he repeatedly called hecklers in the audience 'n**gers' (I used asterisks because I don't know if it will censored). (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sEUIZsmTOE) He later apologized on Letterman and said that he was not a racist.

Let's assume for a second that Richards does not believe that any race is inferior and normally gets along quite well with people of all races. But if he uses the word 'n**ger' to get an African-American heckler angry, is he a racist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone is racist when they have ill-will towards a person of a race without a reason. Generaly classifying a whole race of people by observing certain individuals that belong to that race.

Michael Richards is NOT a racist. He was heckled, he responded with strong language. The motive was not a racist motive but rather a personal attack on the assailant. He used race here as a MEANS to an END. Race was not the end but many people fail to see that. I'm guilty of this as well (I say n***er around some of my friends and we call people n***ers when angry/upset). It is a personal attack that you know is taboo so that is why you say it.Although I do not have ill will towards African Americans, it is situational and circumstantial. For instance, in the ghetto I would be more likely to call someone a n****er than in my hometown because I am more likely to encounter hostile people in the ghetto. Therefore my using of the term n***er is based more on empirical evidence, that is I am more likely to encounter a hostile black person in one area over another.

Also the word racist has degrees, labels like racist,killer,[censored] fail to take into consideration the degree that the adjective is describing. You can't call Kramer a racist and then go and call the KKK president a racist, that is where language fails us.

[vhawk01]

I agree that its hard to label someone as a racist, whatever that means, based on a single incident, especially when all that incident revolved around was him shouting some obscenity. But I don't see how you can say he ISNT a racist. If there is some probability that he is a racist, going off on a crowd full of black people and screaming n**ger twenty times sure has to increase that probability, right?

[Speedlimits]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that its hard to label someone as a racist, whatever that means, based on a single incident, especially when all that incident revolved around was him shouting some obscenity. But I don't see how you can say he ISNT a racist. If there is some probability that he is a racist, going off on a crowd full of black people and screaming n**ger twenty times sure has to increase that probability, right?

[/ QUOTE ]




I should amend the statement about Kramer and say, their is insufficient evidence either way to confirm whether he is a racist.

[vhawk01]

Right, but its a heck of a lot more likely now than before right?

[madnak]

Eh. It's not an either-or thing. Everyone's insular to a degree, hostile towards those different from himself to a degree, etc. That applies to racism as well.

[vhawk01]

Ok, thats a much better point than the one I am making. So, pretending I care for one second about Kramer's worldview, I would be correct in sliding him down the spectrum towards vehement racist, correct?

[madnak]

Perhaps. If he were toward the very bottom of the scale to begin with, such actions probably shouldn't affect your expectation. But assuming he started in a more neutral range, then you expectation changes.

[moneyfaucet]

We are all racists to some extent whether we admit it or not.

[Speedlimits]

[ QUOTE ]
We are all racists to some extent whether we admit it or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

With this line of thinking, words will begin to lose their meaning.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We are all racists to some extent whether we admit it or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

With this line of thinking, words will begin to lose their meaning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. The word racist definitely doesn't have one, specific meaning or one specific behavior associated with it. But it definitely is a bracketed region along the aforementioned spectrum.

[Speedlimits]

[ QUOTE ]
Right, but its a heck of a lot more likely now than before right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree that it is "a heck of a lot more likely now." because it was one incident. It is slightly more likely that he is racist after his outburst but a pattern has to emerge before it is considered "much more likely."

Just like in poker if you play one session and win are you much more likely to be a winning player? Not at all. You are only slightly more likely to be a winning player than a losing player. The sample size is to small to make any decisive conclusions. Kramer shares the same fate.

[Speedlimits]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, thats a much better point than the one I am making. So, pretending I care for one second about Kramer's worldview, I would be correct in sliding him down the spectrum towards vehement racist, correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. But not beyond a reasonable doubt.

[BPA234]

If you look up the definition, Kramer's tirade appears to satisfy the requirements. At the same time, I am always willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt, and chalk this up to rage and frustration. He has been struggling and his career is in the toilet. I think that he just got extremely pissed and then used the most harmful language he could shout.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
If you look up the definition, Kramer's tirade appears to satisfy the requirements. At the same time, I am always willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt, and chalk this up to rage and frustration. He has been struggling and his career is in the toilet. I think that he just got extremely pissed and then used the most harmful language he could shout.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I get that. There are times when I get really mad at someone and I quickly think of what is the most hurtful possible thing I could say to them, as a means getting back at them for embarassing me, angering me, whatever. Under a stressful situation I'm sure I would actually shout them.

I guess my first thought was just that, because THESE were the things that came to his mind to be most hurtful, it implies something about his background and beliefs. But just because he is aware of racism and obscene language doesn't necessarily mean he believes any of it.

I don't know what to make of this. Is it really any worse than if he had just screamed [censored] or moron at them? I think it is but I dont know for sure why.

[Green Kool Aid]

[ QUOTE ]
We are all racists to some extent whether we admit it or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is a lot truer than we think.

theres a semi-common study that i read about in psych in college, and it was also featured in blink by malcolm gladwell:

it basically involves matchiing the word "good" with a white persons face, and "bad" with a black persons face, and when it's done the other way round (good with black, and bad with white), it takes longer for the human brain to process.

gladwell himself did it (as an african-canadian), and was found to be "racist" himself.

of course this is a lot different than our rational, thought out sentiments to people of different races, but it's still something to think about.

[BPA234]

I think calling an African-American a nig ger is a lot like calling your girlfriend/wife a c u n t. The words have such strong connatations, veracity and baggage that when used, you cross the line from simple offense to aggravated assault.

[holyfield5]

having the tirade didnt make him a racist, it just let us all know that he was one all along.

society has decided saying this word in mixed company makes you a racist, he is guilty. his disdain override his tact.

[Speedlimits]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We are all racists to some extent whether we admit it or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is a lot truer than we think.

theres a semi-common study that i read about in psych in college, and it was also featured in blink by malcolm gladwell:

it basically involves matchiing the word "good" with a white persons face, and "bad" with a black persons face, and when it's done the other way round (good with black, and bad with white), it takes longer for the human brain to process.

gladwell himself did it (as an african-canadian), and was found to be "racist" himself.

of course this is a lot different than our rational, thought out sentiments to people of different races, but it's still something to think about.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's just familiarity. Someone that is white is going to associate with another white face more quickly than one of ANY different race. Biologically there is no such thing as race, it is society's influence that creates the illusion of this.

[Speedlimits]

[ QUOTE ]
having the tirade didnt make him a racist, it just let us all know that he was one all along.

society has decided saying this word in mixed company makes you a racist, he is guilty. his disdain override his tact.

[/ QUOTE ]

So whatever society says is truth? According to you if a person knows words like ni**er and other personal attacks on a group of people, and if he EVER uses those words, he is a racist. That is flawed thinking. We don't know his intent, if his intent was to attack specifically that person because they were heckling him it would be a personal attack. The attack was made not because he was black but because he was heckling him.The fact that he was of a certain color makes him more susceptible to more personal attacks(when attacking someone of a different color), race is used as a vehicle with the intent to attack the person. Not vice versa.

His motives are what matter, in fact if I conditioned someone to say ni**er but in their mind it meant friend. Would he be a racist? He would just be ignorant of the definition of the word, and because his intention was friend he would not be racist.

The same argument CAN (it is not conclusive whether he is racist or not) be made for Kramer. His remarks could have been ad hominem, the heckler just so happened to be black.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I think calling an African-American a nig ger is a lot like calling your girlfriend/wife a c u n t. The words have such strong connatations, veracity and baggage that when used, you cross the line from simple offense to aggravated assault.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont know. If I called my wife the c-word would you say I was obviously a misogynist? I agree about the offensiveness of the two words but I dont think that is the whole difference.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We are all racists to some extent whether we admit it or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is a lot truer than we think.

theres a semi-common study that i read about in psych in college, and it was also featured in blink by malcolm gladwell:

it basically involves matchiing the word "good" with a white persons face, and "bad" with a black persons face, and when it's done the other way round (good with black, and bad with white), it takes longer for the human brain to process.

gladwell himself did it (as an african-canadian), and was found to be "racist" himself.

of course this is a lot different than our rational, thought out sentiments to people of different races, but it's still something to think about.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's just familiarity. Someone that is white is going to associate with another white face more quickly than one of ANY different race. Biologically there is no such thing as race, it is society's influence that creates the illusion of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. The majority of black people were quicker to associate good with white as well. Gladwell, the author of the book, is black. This is, I think, a Harvard study, and the typical results extrapolated is that our society does a fantastic job of brainwashing EVERYONE into thinking white means good and black means bad.

EDIT: I remembered the website. Feel free to try it. (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/) Its pretty interesting to see what your own results are. Go ahead and practice and try to bias it, its designed to prevent it. There are also tests to show implicit bias wrt old people, women, etc.

[BPA234]

I think that is my point, I don't think you can qualify someone as a racist (in an active sense) just for uttering racist words in a moment of rage. Definitely qualifies as horrible etc. But, I would not necessarily condemn someone as racist.

[holyfield5]

i wrote a whole post about this but it made me just think of how pointless it would be. Im making a poll in OOT feel free to come take it .

[Speedlimits]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We are all racists to some extent whether we admit it or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is a lot truer than we think.

theres a semi-common study that i read about in psych in college, and it was also featured in blink by malcolm gladwell:

it basically involves matchiing the word "good" with a white persons face, and "bad" with a black persons face, and when it's done the other way round (good with black, and bad with white), it takes longer for the human brain to process.

gladwell himself did it (as an african-canadian), and was found to be "racist" himself.

of course this is a lot different than our rational, thought out sentiments to people of different races, but it's still something to think about.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's just familiarity. Someone that is white is going to associate with another white face more quickly than one of ANY different race. Biologically there is no such thing as race, it is society's influence that creates the illusion of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. The majority of black people were quicker to associate good with white as well. Gladwell, the author of the book, is black. This is, I think, a Harvard study, and the typical results extrapolated is that our society does a fantastic job of brainwashing EVERYONE into thinking white means good and black means bad.

EDIT: I remembered the website. Feel free to try it. (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/) Its pretty interesting to see what your own results are. Go ahead and practice and try to bias it, its designed to prevent it. There are also tests to show implicit bias wrt old people, women, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, pretty interesting. Looks like social conditioning is even more powerful than I thought.

[vhawk01]

Yeah I thought it was interesting when I read it. A little off topic, Blink was a pretty good book, and since it would only take you about a day to read it, I'd recommend it. Its not really about what this thread is about in any way, there was just one small chapter about the Harvard study.

[BPA234]

Took your poll. FWIW, I thought it was a good poll. Racism is a very complicated issue and I resist the tendency to break it down to an either you are or you aren't concept.

One disitnction that I believe you have to make make is the definition of racist. I think we are all prejudice to one degree or another. But, for me, racist is a term that has cannotations of "active" promotion of one's own race or the defamation of another's.

Is Kramer prejudice, I would assume he is. Is he racist, I would need more evidence to convict him on that charge; disgusting public spectacle not withstanding.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I call white people nig**rs all the time. Where I live nig**r is a term used to describe people who have no dignity and don't live by a moral code. A nig**r is someone who acts like an animal. A nig**r's only purpose in life is to satisfy his urges. In this sense of the word I hate nig**rs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I call my television set "the toaster". I confused my wife last night when I told her that I couldn't find the toaster's remote. She is starting to think that I have a brain tumor.

Making up new definitions for words is fun.

[/ QUOTE ]Actually, the late, great Lenny Bruce tried to show us the way to defuse words from the heavy meaning we sometimes assign to them (and, thus, become entrapped by them). The way to defuse an offensive word is to render it trivial and/or to assign multiple meanings to it, until it becomes just another word. Forbidding it is certainly not the way. But we did not pay attention.

We didn't listen then, perhaps we never will.

Mickey Brausch

PS Of course Richards behaved like a racist moron. link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sEUIZsmTOE) He's no Lenny Bruce.

[govman6767]

I cannot say what Richards really meant because I'm not him.

But one question.

Why was nothing done to eject the hecklers from the comedy club.

Would they cry foul ??
Would they cry race ??

They were disrupting the show that a majority of the people there paid for and wanted to enjoy.

If I paid 30 bucks to see a comedian I want to hear him I paid for the right to hear him.

If two dudes start ruining the show they should be ejected irregardless of race, color, creed blah blah.

If management or security did their job this whole thing would not have happened

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
I cannot say what Richards really meant because I'm not him.

[/ QUOTE ] But you heard what he said on the video. It's rather unambiguous.

[ QUOTE ]
Why was nothing done to eject the hecklers from the comedy club?

[/ QUOTE ]Eject hecklers from a comedy club?? Next thing you know, they'll be ejecting peeping toms from strip clubs. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I used to think professional comedians were supposed to handle hecklers, loudmouths, wise-asses, drunkards and other club fauna and still be funny. You're saying they now need the bouncers to help them out.

[ QUOTE ]
If I paid 30 bucks to see a comedian I want to hear him I paid for the right to hear him. If two dudes start ruining the show they should be ejected irregardless of race, color, creed blah blah.

[/ QUOTE ]Beyond a certain, but undefined, line, yes, such patrons are usually ejected. The fact that they were not, indicates that it was probably not a serious disruption and that Richards should have handled the situation like a professional.

[ QUOTE ]
If management or security did their job this whole thing would not have happened.

[/ QUOTE ] If Richards had not snapped, this whole thing would not have happened.

In his subsequent appearance on Letterman to apologize (link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5SkRdrAbzQ&mode=related&search=)), Richards offered the excuse that, during his act, he's reaching deep inside his self, and possibly his unconscious (I'm paraphrasing) and sometimes "bad things" come out. I find this to be a legitimate explanation for his outburst. (Which is still moronic.)

Mickey Brausch