Plan9

Yeah, if I was a genius, I would figure out what the social studies lesson was...

Walking on eggshells about something as petty and hurtful as racism is foolish. It doesn't deserve the respect. It should be talked about openly by those who don't perpetuate it through silence or quiet acceptance.

Granted, you won't catch me dropping the n-bomb on here, but I'm not afraid to talk about the use of it.

...

OP: If the use of the term ("it") offends him, then it is probably offensive. The nice part about being an adult is that we can be offended in a constructive manner. Most of the time it's pretty amusing afterwards.

Racism, sexism, ageism, religion... all hilarious in the right light.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Reese

First off, I have no idea what term we're talking about and would probably be different on a case by case basis. I would assume if it was in fact a condition targeting a specific race there would be no harm in it's name to include that race to specify it from other similar or related conditions. Of course, the name should use the acceptable term referring to those people and not a word that is a racist slur by itself.

__________________
“It is better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick” - Dave Barry

casual user

if it is white trash, it's perfectly legitimate because those people are scum bags

also, this topic is pointless without knowing the actual term because there are so many variables involved

Strange Famous

There's no such thing as "race" - and i believe that anyone who labels humans as belonging to a "race" has by definition some racist opinions.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Frosstbyte

I know you're trying to ask a question without using the specific term to avoid any aspersions it would cast on you to bring it up and to get a general answer, but I really think the whole discussion is pointless without it.

analog

I'm not concerned about posting it. I have specifically said, at least twice, that the reason I've not said what it is, is because it's not about the specific words. My question is broader and more important than simply playing judge and jury on one term. I know you all want to have something concrete so you can judge it and move on, but I think I've done well enough in causing some discussion, or at least getting people to put in their two cents (which means I made some people think) for this thread to already be a success.

I think there's plenty to discuss, and already IS being discussed. Just because I won't give you the term so you can pick it apart doesn't mean the larger question is without merit.

You're also all projecting a lot of heavy feelings onto me that I don't have for this topic. I'm not mentally deficient- I don't need anyone else, let alone a message board, to help me determine if I find something personally acceptable to say, or not. I just think a lot of you are putting WAY too much into this, simply because I won't give you the term... so you are grinding your gears in other directions, instead.

If nothing else, and it was not intended to be so, this has been a great social experiment. If I'd planned it to be one, I'm not sure I could have made it better. You're all getting very uppity with me about this in all kinds of different ways because you don't have the term to pick apart and judge. The broad question was about how we, as people, use labels and stereotypes... and if a label is still racist/sexist/whatever if it's actually true.

Keep the comments coming, this is going well.

Oh, no... I don't think anyone here would ever cry racist on me. I'm not worried about how it'd be perceived.

I wish I'd just asked the broader question by itself, and not even used the term's existence as an example... because now apparently people are confused that

1. it actually offends me
2. it contains a racial slur in itself, which I might somehow (?) be on the fence about
3. this thread is actually about the term, itself.

None of the above are true. I just find its usage a little unnecessary, and that's all.

Also: in my field, a lot of seemingly callous behavior is totally normal because that's the coping mechanism. Being on the outside, I'm afraid you'd all see it as horrible and the discussion would be over before it began. Everyone might just say "oh that's terrible" and that's not a discussion.

I think what we have going so far is a nice start.

I noticed that as well, and commented on it above.

No, no one has been even remotely close, and it's not "white trash". I doubt anyone outside a medical field would ever have heard it. It's not really a normal term.

Strange Famous

Well, to stick strictly to the point, in my opinion: yes, what you describe would be racist.

In the same sense as the term "mongolism" (which was certainly a medical term used until recently) was racist.

Please be certain that I am not saying that what you are talking about is the same in every way to, for example, the use of the term "mongolism" for Down's Syndrome - I bring up just as a general point.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

canuckguy

would you want your mom hearing you use this term?

would your management team be calling you to the carpet if they heard you use it?

would the patient be offended?

I though you medical people were smart, use the medical term and not slang!!! (joke)

Since i can only guess on the word/phrase your referring to i say don't use it. Better safe than sorry.

ring

Gomers and FOBs and Gorks oh my....

flstf

Since you are reluctant to post the term even it is true then it is probably racist. If you are being overly politically correct then it is probably just reality.

jewels

Maybe the OP's point is exactly that. Where's the line? Who defines it?

__________________
We are always more anxious to be distinguished for a talent which we do not possess, than to be praised for the fifteen which we do possess.
Mark Twain

ticket

Would a person of the same race, but different gender....that was also considered to be a scholarly type and/or a politician use the same term you are referring to?

If so, I would think it is not a racist term.
If not, and they use a more PC term to describe it, it likely is.

MSD

Both popular models of human evolution acknowledge differences in race, with the older 4-race model of the multi-regional model losing ground. It is logical that minor differences would evolve over tens of thousands of generations in widely varying areas of the world. To deny clear differences between these groups is absurd. Acknowledging differences is not racist, thinking differently of people because of it is.

flstf

I agree. That must be the reason the OP is taking a rather niggardly approach to providing information on the term in question.

mixedmedia

I don't think the use of a race-based colloquialism in itself denotes racism (ie, racially motivated hatred).

It can quite possibly denote insensitivity, smarminess and a smug sense of superiority.

But not necessarily. It all depends on the motivation and sentiment of the user.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

1010011010

There are differences between groups, but only because the groups are classified based on those differences. If you look at non-classification criteria there are no clear boundaries showing class cohesion. The grouping is arbitrary and, biologically, meaningless.

It's sociologically significant, of course, but that's a whole 'nother field.

__________________
Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions

Reese

I had a longer post typed up but I crashed and lost it. I have to disagree though. While Race isn't the scientifically correct term, I don't think it is racist. There are population genetics and people ARE inherently physically, possibly mentally and definitely culturally different from each other. It's not racist to acknowledge that there are differences and that certain conditions occur more often within certain groups. Example, Black males are at a higher risk of prostate cancer, Fair Skinned red heads like myself are at higher risk of skin cancer. It's useful knowledge, It's not racist to know or to point it out. It's only racist when people use those differences as justification for their prejudice. When our(or at least my) ancestors ran into less advanced cultures we confused our "cumulative" knowledge with being a superior "race" when in fact we showed how primitive we were by treating equal beings as harshly as we did.

__________________
“It is better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick” - Dave Barry

jewels

I used to think it was that simple, but I don't anymore. Labeling and categorizing has become such a mundane practice that attempting to see everyone as one race is going to be a long and tedious task for this planet as a whole.

No matter how much one believes they are without racism or prejudice, It still exists to some degree in all. The evolution of man has a long way to go before we can truly become one people.

Maybe the day when each race takes the time to truly understand one another's ethnic backgrounds (and we ain't just talkin' food here) , including history and cultures that have been handed down for generations, then we will have a chance of a world without prejudice or racism.

__________________
We are always more anxious to be distinguished for a talent which we do not possess, than to be praised for the fifteen which we do possess.
Mark Twain

World's King

This conversation is utterly useless.

__________________
heavy is the head that wears the crown

uncle phil

my original question in post #29 still stands...

__________________
"We were wrong, terribly wrong. (We) should not have tried to fight a guerrilla war with conventional military tactics against a foe willing to absorb enormous casualties...in a country lacking the fundamental political stability necessary to conduct effective military and pacification operations. It could not be done and it was not done."
- Robert S. McNamara
-----------------------------------------
"We will take our napalm and flame throwers out of the land that scarcely knows the use of matches...
We will leave you your small joys and smaller troubles."
- Eugene McCarthy in "Vietnam Message"
-----------------------------------------
never wrestle with a pig.
you both get dirty;
the pig likes it.

JumpinJesus

After reading the original poster contradict himself when the thread didn't go the way he wanted, I agree.

This seems more of an exercise in the OP engaging in manipulative and condescending verbiage simply for his own pleasure.

This would have made a better journal entry.

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

analog

Provoked thought... several different takes are being given, all causing discussion.

60 posts in... most of them constructive in some way (the only people really complaining are the ones not participating- I'm looking at you, phil, king, and JJ). At least others who were confused or uncertain took a crack at it, and used their brains to think a little and come up with something. What's that old saying about having nothing good to say and hitting the back button?

This thread will only be a failure when the negativity of a few, creeps in and strangles out the thought and conversation already in progress.

Ustwo

Oh god, I already had this discussion in the philosophy section, apparently race is being pced out because it causes hurt feelings. Trust me you don't want to go there. Just smile at them and say 'oh of course there is only the human race, how silly of me!' back away slowly and don't show your teeth.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

savmesom11

I would first like to say that this forum has been a gift to me, so many of you have a vat of knowledge I feel privileged to be part of even when I don't agree with you..with that being said.....

Cybermike we can not make decisions on a case by case basis, I believe that is what would make it racist. I also believe that is what is wrong with the US but that is for another thread. Even if a term does not contain an epithet, if it is generalized toward a specific group it is RACIST. PERIOD. I believe the very fact that the question needs to be asked, which in turn made the speaker uncomfortable, answers the question that the term need not be used. I applaud you all for talking about a very sensitive subject matter as only ignorance breads hate.

__________________
* I do not believe that struggles are a sign of life falling apart, but rather a step of life falling into place. *

World's King

I'm sorry but I get the feeling not even you know what you're talking about.


At least give us a few example of what the 'term' could be. The only think people are talking about is what the hell the 'term' is. Not what you asked for.

__________________
heavy is the head that wears the crown

ScottKuma

Racism is a null concept in the absence of intent.

As an example, consider the n-word: NIGGER, to be clear...not that there is likely to be any confusion. The term has apparently morphed to take on qualities of friendship, comradery and pride when used among two blacks. However, it is undeniably racist when being used by a non-black (and especially a white) towards a black.

I think that it's ridiculous, however, that the term is now practically un-utterable. We have become like the Wizards and Witches in the Harry Potter universe, afraid to speak a simple word, and in doing so have made ourselves look just as foolish. In banning a term or concept from our language, WE HAVE NOT FIXED THE UNDERLYING PROBLEM. We have just made it harder to solve, by making it harder to talk about.

Is the WORD racist in and of itself? Despite its origins, I would argue "No," unless someone can tell me how I have used it in a racist sense in this post.

Racism is about belief - is about intent. It has to be! Otherwise, even the IDENTIFICATION of a race is somehow racist. Hell, we might as well not even identify hair color...or body shape....or name....because ALL of those can be used, either individually or in aggregate, to identify someone's race.

So to answer the OP: In the case you have outlined, where a particular race/group of humans solely exhibits a disease or malady, and a term is coined that links the two together, I would argue that this is NOT racist if it is used in a clinical setting as a pure identifer of that condition. I would furthermore aruge that using it MIGHT be racist if the utterer has ill intent when using the term.

__________________
A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take from you everything you have.

GoogleMap Me

bmadison

I take issue with this statement. I too have no clue what the 900 Pound Gorilla is, but I do know that whether public opinion is, or is not, ok with a term or an act, does not automatically make, or not make, it racist.

FOR EXAMPLE (since that is scarce today)... When I was in the Marine Corps, we had a guy (who happened to be black) who was the spitting image of Curious George (No kidding... He looked just like him!... We'll call him Corporal D). In his barracks room, he had an unreal amount of Curious George paraphernalia that he had been given over the years, because he looked just like Curious George. One day, Curious George was on TV and I called everyone into my room to see Corporal D on TV. It was funny to all, including Corporal D. However, a Lenient who was new to the unit heard it and came in to see what the commotion was. When he heard that I had referred to Corporal D as a Monkey, he commenced to screaming at me, calling me a racist and and saying that he was going to personally remove my stripes. Corporal D smoothed it out with him, explaining the situation to him, but I had never been told that monkey or gorilla could be used as a racial slur, so I was clueless while he was screaming at me. It was that day that I learned that people referred to black people as monkeys or gorillas, as a racial slur.

What I am trying to illustrate is that simply because public opinion views something as racist, or not racist, does not mean it is, or isn't. I tend to agree with others that racism is in the heart and that it is the intentions behind what is said and done that makes something racist. It used to be socially acceptable to own slaves, which was obviously a racist act, but back then, it was a societal norm. They had a War to decide whether it was racist or not.

Society doesn't necessarily consider racism towards a white male to be racist currently (i.e. Affirmative Action), but if it is treating someone unfairly due to something they cannot change, then it is racist. I understand that the original thought behind it was to help minorities be able to obtain employment in companies that might or might not use racist practices to hire employees, but it creates an environment where its not the best man or woman for the job, but the best man or woman for the job in the racial percentage that is most lacking at the time. It is intended to deny a certain race a fair chance in order to give a less represented race a chance to perform the job, even if the person of the less represented race is less qualified. So even though the idea was noble, the intended purpose is to deny access based on the color of your skin.

Remember that if Rosa Parks would have subscribed to the "don't make anyone in the room uncomfortable" rule, black people may still be sitting in the back of the bus.

casual user

well, i think it does vary depending on the term. for example, i don't think using a term such as "afro" is racist while "slant eye" certainly is despite both being terms that apply to certain physical features people of a certain race have

also, even more important than the term itself is how you use it

analog

Now I wish I'd planned this as a social psychology experiment. Not having the term is making some of you angry at me, questioning my reasoning or intelligence, and focusing on that which you don't know- the term- rather than the concept it represents. You're ascribing all sorts of extremely negative properties to it- like assuming that if the term actually contained a racial slur, I might still be on the fence as to whether or not it's racist. Like if it was "Guinea pigs" for fat italians, I would somehow think that the slur embedded in it didn't automatically make it racist. Of course it would! lol

Very interesting all around. Keep it up, the nay-sayers have been the most entertaining responses, given that everyone else is taking it seriously and being constructive.

biznatch

Maybe there is no term after all, and you just wanted to see the way this would go. A nice experiment, analog, with some productive responses and arguments, although I don't believe everyone here likes being a rat lab.

__________________
Check it out: The Open Source/Freeware/Gratis Software Thread

analog

Oh, no, I'm being serious- I wish I had come up with this as an experiment, because it's become something really interesting... but I can't take any credit for that, because my intentions were exactly what the thread was about.

EDIT: And there really is a term, I'll break it out when the time is right. Right now, there is already a healthy bit of interesting opinion going on.

MSD

Are you really saying that the blatant physical differences between Whites, Blacks, Asians (via Bering straits land bridge, this also includes everyone descended from indigenous North and South Americans,) and Aborigines are cultural constructs? It's miniscule number of genes that define them, but there are biological differences that can't be swept under the rug because it isn't PC to classify people.

I digress. I think unity should come from realizing that ethnic backgrounds and cultural differences are meaningless and that we should stop looking over our shoulders trying to be so damn unique. I don't feel that the fact that my ancestors happened to be born in certain places matters to who I am, it's what they did with their lives and where we've gotten that makes the difference. Cultural pride makes me roll my eyes, all I've seen come from it is conflict.

petre

unlike medical conditions, racial behavior changes over time. So, i think the creation of racially attached term to categorize behavior may seem kinda okay at present time ( when a race actually shows a unified behavioral trait) but over time, as the behavioral trait start to dissipate, the already embossed term might be seen as racially-stereotyping and derogatory. As such, we all should always have a good thought before shouting out terms.

__________________
With great power, comes the great temptation to break stuff.

GonadWarrior

Original post is a beautiful example of political correctness at its finest, i.e. it makes no sense. Other people have pointed this out.

This take on political correctness is horrible for the "I am offended" faction. Which makes it a great one for the rest of the country.