"Race realism"? It's toxic racist crap. Let's discuss why.


Wait, you think that stating various ethnicities have different abilities is somehow not racist? What abilities do you think specific ethniticies have and don’t have that you can say that doesn’t involve some sort of racist stereotypical garbage?



NO. I do not believe that, and did not say that.



He said that with his opening line, long before using the words race realism in the same post you quoted. How you can take what he says about imbalance seriously when he follows up with some blatant racist and sexist shit like that?




I explained all that in my initial post. I’m sorry if I didn’t communicate it well.



Just from a personal point of view, I actually find the detailed posts in threads like this that slap down racism and sexism to be very useful, because I’m surrounded by people who say varying degrees of racist and sexist things all the time here in Kansas City. It’s tough when you’re the only person in a room objecting to that kind of thing. So on the rare occasions when I do speak up, it really helps to have the language and the framing that I’ve internalized from reading posts here in a thread like this one, in trying to express myself to others, to try to explain why I’m not comfortable with what they said.



The community here is pretty great but every now and then a miasmic fart bubbles up that leaves me shaking my head.



Yeah, like the thread title…



Eh, I think it kind of is, although in perhaps a roundabout way. Let’s take this statement:

If we look at this statement, it’s making what might appear to be a somewhat reasonable statement, pointing out “Hey, there’s no proof that this statistical anomaly is caused by oppression or systematic factors!”

But that forces us to go one step further. If that statement is true, then what does that mean?

If it were true, then what it means is that some genders are just better than others. Some races are just better than others. Their representation in various professions is based upon some intrinsic quality linked to those factors.

I think that this idea is, pretty fundamentally, racist/sexist. And when stated this way, it becomes somewhat obvious.

And ultimately, this is linked to Darth’s question here:

“Race Realism” is a term that racists use, to try and suggest that they aren’t racist in their beliefs that certain races are inferior to others. They are simply “realists”.

I.e., “Hey, I’m not a racist for thinking black people are dumber than white people, that’s just the way it is!”

I forget who the guy is who is the super racist asshole… Some bald dude on the internet… His name is Mollyneux or something? Not the dude who made Fable and Black and white. Some other dude. But he said the same thing (using the exact same term) recently.

The thing is, there’s no actual scientific basis for such beliefs. There’s no inherent physiological difference which results in such discrepancies, that anyone has found. There’s no rational, scientific explanation which would suggest that a man would be better at writing a movie review than a woman.

This notion of “race realism” is largely intended as a justification of racism, flipping the evidence of systematic racism on its head, and using it as a justification for racist beliefs. “Hey, there sure are a lot of black people in jail, that must mean that black people are genetically predisposed to being criminals!”

These suggestions are, fairly obviously to me at least, incorrect in their underlying beliefs. Certainly, there COULD be some sort of inherent genetic predisposition to certain things… There are very few dogs that are doctors (zero, I believe), and this is no doubt related to the fact that dogs are genetically very poorly adapted to being doctors.

But no such genetic aberration exists with humans. And based on everything we know about things like cognitive function and how abstract thought is represented in our physical brains, the idea that you could be pre-disposed, on a genetic level, for something like writing movie reviews? That’s nonsensical. That just isn’t how humans work.



Sorry. I have to jump in here.

Do you think quotes around “race realism” followed by “uhh…” and a warning about possible toxic content denote endorsement?



Do you think if I did this

“Nigger Hos” Uhhh… Would be acceptable?

You can’t just put quotes around something and assume it’s okay. Race Realism is hugely toxic just by writing it.



It may not denote endorsement, but it does seem to mean that it is tolerated. “Tolerate”, where have I seen that word lately?



I hesitate to respond because as I said, gurugeorge has poisoned this thread and I’d be fine with it all just being locked and forgotten anyway, but while we’re here and since you responded…

No, nothing in the narrow portion of what we’ve quoted from gurugeorge says anything about gender or race, and certainly not anything about the superiority of any group.

So we start from your paraphrasing of “Hey, there’s no proof that this statistical anomaly is caused by oppression or systematic factors!”, I think it’s reasonable to dig into why there’s this imbalance on a case by case basis before assuming that it’s there because of an injustice or oppression. I’m not suggesting the imbalance is based on any kind of merit or superiority of some members of the group either—that would be the racist/sexist/whatever-ist angle depending on our example. I don’t think those two views are exclusive.



I disagree. “Nigger hos” is obviously a big no-go for a ton of reasons that should be self-evident to most westerners. “Race realism” is a fairly new term that has not percolated into popular culture as being verboten.

The subject is worthy of discussion because a lot of people don’t even know what it means, or how it’s used by racists as coded bullshit.



So because some people aren’t forcefully exposed to it and don’t know what it means, it’s okay. If others had the unfortunate experience of running into it and those who use it years ago, doesn’t matter.

Just so those who don’t know what this means knows, this is not a brand new term. It wasn’t created yesterday or anything. It’s been used for years. They don’t use scientific racism because people, unsurprisingly, understand racism pretty well, whether they are for or against it.



“race realism”…

I have never been a big NASCAR fan. Too many left turns.



I admit I had no idea what it meant until gurugey McRacist spouted it. I’m not sure if I feel better or worse for knowing what it is now.

That said this thread is gross and it should be shut down and deleted.



This thread taught me a lot. I would be more ignorant had it never existed. The discussion taking place here has been valuable. But what the hell, I got mine, screw the uninitiated that dare come late. Do with it what you will.



I’m not sure we needed a whole thread to shine a light on it. I’d love to have it buried and forgotten where it began so we all could go back to talking about a movie, but it’s not my house…



And I too admit to never hearing the term until this thread. I find that with lots of terms brought up on the internet. Daily life for many of us isn’t full of political or social “dog whistles” and phrases.



Of course as soon as I typed this, this is all I could think of: