Re-post of my own Comment

This is similar to an earlier post I wrote on here, but I think it bears repeating:

I’m seeing a pattern here [on Mr. Wright’s post] of “This person seems to think X group lacks, on average, quality Y. That’s racist.”

But that’s not racist; it’s just either right or wrong. Racist is when, while dealing with them as individuals, you don’t judge them based on the individual characteristics as you see them when you meet.

For example, it is not racist, in this day and age in America, to avoid communities populated mostly by minorities. This is because, statistically, the odds are simply higher that such communities will be more dangerous than white communities. Forget the “why” for a moment. That’s just the truth.

It’s only racist when you meet an individual black man, learn quickly that he’s a pretty nice guy no more dangerous than a fly, and still hate him or believe him to be a dangerous criminal. Then you are judging the individual based on race, and not on their individual qualities. Only then is that racism.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Re-post of my own Comment

  1. Jeffrey S. says:

    Malcolm,

    We have our differences, but I’ve followed this latest argument you had with Mr. Wright and I just don’t understand the passion and craziness that you have uncovered from Wright and his fans. Why can’t they just have a civil conversation about these issues and DISAGREE with you about X, Y, or Z and explain why they disagree — everything turns into “but, but, that’s racist!!!” I expect such behavior from the Left, not from our erstwhile conservative allies.

    Anyway, speaking of disagreements, I would modify this statement slightly:

    “For example, it is not racist, in this day and age in America, to avoid communities populated mostly by minorities. This is because, statistically, the odds are simply higher that such communities will be more dangerous than white communities.”

    I think it depends on which minority communities you are talking about! If you avoided the local Chinatown because you thought it would be “more dangerous” than I don’t think you’d be correct (although some Chinatowns are located in big cities so there might be inner-city crime spill-over effects…) Still, the idea is that Asian majority communities have a different demographic profile than black or Hispanic communities. I suppose you still might have a good reason to avoid a majority Asian community (maybe you don’t like the smell? maybe it is a southeast Asian community made up of Muslims and you feel out of place among niqibs and chadors?)

    Just a small nit to pick but I thought I’d throw my two cents in anyway.

    “Always Forward”

  2. Zippy says:

    Jeff’s nitpick is legit.

    I haven’t been to Tokyo in decades. But the last time I was there my sense of it was like this:

    Suppose you accidentally dropped your wallet in Shinjuku Station (the equivalent of New York’s Grand Central). I would not be in the least surprised to come back hours later to find a homeless man with a cardboard sign in his hand, with your name printed on the sign, waiting for you to show up so he can give you back your wallet with all of its contents intact.

    I’m not even kidding.

    Suppose you have to walk through a crowd of asians, blacks, or whites, and you have no other option or information. Asians are the safest bet. Whites are probably OK, but be careful. And unless you have more information (maybe they are dressed up and pouring out of a Church) than the scenario stipulates, you really ought to just avoid the crowd of blacks.

    This advice applies equally no matter what your own race happens to be.

  3. Crude says:

    Part of the issue is that SJWs have many ‘conservatives’ well-tamed and well-trained. SJWs scream ‘racist’ and conservatives fight back by proving they’re even less tolerant of so-called ‘racists’ than SJWs are – because, despite what they say, approval is what they seek. If not approval from SJWs, at least approval on SJW terms.

    So Wright has made ‘not being racist, and indeed fighting any phantom of racism perceived’ into the core of his being. If common sense or evidence indicates a conclusion deemed racism, then it must be denied and attacked.

    Putting it in terms he and his may appreciate: they put on a ring of power, and they’re turning into ringwraiths. And it’s not even a powerful ring!

    • So Wright has made ‘not being racist, and indeed fighting any phantom of racism perceived’ into the core of his being.

      I’m not so sure that’s a fair statement; his response to me:

      I myself do not regard it as racist, nor indeed as anything other than common sense, to notice different groups of people, including racial groups, having certain tendencies or provoking certain stereotypes. To me it seems so obvious both that stereotypes are earned rather than arbitrary, and that not every member of the group adheres to the stereotype, that it is not even worth saying. I am annoyed, for example, both when someone says that no Muslims are terrorists as when someone says all Muslims are terrorists.

      Hence, it is not racism to notice black crime rates far exceed white crime rates. It is not racism to notice that every immigrant group in America has roughly the same crime rates as their counterparts in the Old World.
      It is racism to conclude, from the correlation between crime rates and race, that there is a crime gene, or a violence gene, or a slave-race gene, and that races with the crime gene cannot integrate peacefully into American society, and (despite any historical evidence to the contrary) have never done so in the past.

      • (To which I said this:

        Well, I know nothing at all about gene science and find it extraordinarily unlikely that things would be black and white enough for a “violence” gene or something like that, and find the idea of a “slave-race” gene to be nonsensical altogether (as I’d imagine you do).

        But I also don’t necessarily see a problem with denying entrance via immigration to certain races or cultures because of known characteristics about their race, creed, or what have you. That they might or even will assimilate one day is of course a very real possibility, maybe even probability, but each country has a right to judge whether or not that period of non-assimilation beforehand will be worth it or not – such as Italians forming a powerful mafia. That mafia is all but gone now, at best a shadow of its former self, but it’s fair to ask whether or not it was worth admitting entrance to Italians.

        That’s not to say that the conclusion might not very well be “Yes, it was ultimately worth it.” Just that the question is not unfair.

        As Scott Adams (author/cartoonist/slimy but smart individual) put it, the question one day becomes “How many American lives is permitting X group’s entrance to the country worth?”)

      • Crude says:

        It is racism to conclude, from the correlation between crime rates and race, that there is a crime gene, or a violence gene, or a slave-race gene, and that races with the crime gene cannot integrate peacefully into American society, and (despite any historical evidence to the contrary) have never done so in the past.

        Wright’s appealing to absolutes here, which is a tricky game.

        ‘It is racism to conclude, from the correlation between crime rates and race, that there is a crime gene, or […]’

        ‘both when someone says that no Muslims are terrorists as when someone says all Muslims are terrorists.’

        ‘Must be.’ and ‘All.’

        Alright. But what if we get rid of the ‘must’ and replace it with a ‘might’? What if we get rid of the all and take notice of the ‘most’?

  4. Cane Caldo says:

    I went to Tokyo in 2008, and wholeheartedly agree with Zippy’s scenario. When I asked a man (by dress he was of the artist/tech class) to confirm my reading of the subway directions he took me by the arm and walked me all the way to the proper platform. I suspect there was some gentle racism on his part; I was like a child to him.

    On Wright: Some people don’t argue in good faith. His mischaracterizations of others’ comments are so frequent, and so gross, that I am convinced that he can’t. Perhaps that deficiency gives an earnestness to the characters in his books.

    • I’ve long realized the ability of people – myself included – to believe six impossible things before breakfast. I think Mr. Wright is quite honest, and quite smart. Smart people are very, very good at rationalization.

      So he argues extremely well in favor of things extremely wrong.

      • Cane Caldo says:

        There is a point along the line of rationalization where thoughts cease to be rooted in what was said by an opponent and begin to emanate from a caricature which bears little resemblance to the opponent. We can say such a person is honest like we can say one honestly sticks pins in voodoo dolls.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s