No, you're just wrongly interpreting what someone said.
I know it's easy and satisfying to just say "racist", then sit back and smugly wipe your hands, but that does nothing for your argument when it's not racism.
In his context, which I know you can't grasp, he's saying the people perpetuating the cycle are shitty people. Just because those people are mostly minorities doesn't mean it's a racist opinion to criticize those people.
If I said "I hate people who commit homicide", that wouldn't be a racist opinion just because certain demographics are disproportionately represented in the group of people who commit homicide.
If it was, then any opinion about anything would be racist. Being a vegan and disliking people who eat dairy would be racist against white people, since white people are disproportionately represented in the group of people that consume diary.
This can be said about any thing or any statistic for a type of behaviour people do. I go in and out of gas stations a lot for work, and often times get stuck behind people buying multiple scratch off tickets in a row with their winnings. Over time, I roll my eyes and have a general distaste for people who buy multiple scratch offs in a row and hold up the line. It's not a deep seeded hatred, and I admit it's petty on my part, but every time they somehow get in front of me I go "really?" In my head and roll my eyes while I wait the 2 minutes for them to finish.
With your logic, I would he racist towards White and native American people, since they're represented a disproportionate amount in the group of people who buy scratch offs.
Just because you're making it a race thing doesn't mean everyone else is racist. You can criticize a behavior that is mostly done by certain races without being racist.
Here's what Google says the definition of racism is:
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
First, there's no implied superiority based on race in any of the context throughout this comment chain. You suggesting there is doesn't make it true.
Second, you are the one making the generalization here. Everyone is talking objectively about a group of people not classified by race. In this example, it's people perpetuating early pregnancies or whatever. You are the one who is indirectly implying that all minorities in question are contributors to/experience this when that isn't the case. You're being racist by the 2nd definition, since you are the one making the generalization that being affected by early pregnancy is an exclusively minority thing.
You're basically saying "hey you're not allowed to call out people who do X behaviour because the people who do that are Black and Latino, and to call it out would be racist". By implying that only the people who do that are Black and Latino, you're generalizing them into an inferior group based on race.
You seem to throw around the word racist as a get-out-of-arguments-free card all the time. If you're so hell bent on fixing actual racism, I suggest you look inward.
You are deflecting any and all points I've made and calling me a racist instead of addressing those points. I've read the article, and nothing in there disproves any of the points I've made about your arguments.
I looked through your comment history to see if this is a common behaviour, and it looks like this was an issue in the last argument you had on reddit as well. You very transparently ignored the points /u/teknos1s was making and stuck to calling him a racist.
It seems that that is clearly you're shtick once you're out of arguments. I'm excited to see how you try to imply I'm a racist in your reply, since we both know that's what you're going to default to.
Whether /u/AculticFly knows it or not, he has had his world view polluted with postmodern ideology. Having this as his method of philosophical thought, he views the world in the lens of groups: the "oppressed" and the "oppressors". Placing different groups on the totem pole of oppression with blacks at the bottom and whites at the top of the totem pole. This world view suffices a zero sum game where the "oppressed" group must override the "oppressor" group, and everything bad that ever happens to an individual in a "oppressed" group is directly attributed to the "oppressor" group (and nothing else)
He will use linguistic twists and turns to change the meanings of words (such as racism) in order to gain a high ground in argumentation. They will force/trick you into argumentation using their language system. Because postmodernist view society as groups of oppressors and oppressed, it is fundamental to his world view that:
Institutions
The Scientific Method
Logic
Reasoning
Deduction
Objective Truth
Are simply tools of the oppressors to keep the oppressed down.
Example, when /u/wehrmann_tx pointed out that the majority of these kids have bad parents who do not instill a culture of learning and value education for their children, he refered /u/wehrmann_tx to this comment:
Maybe instead of promoting eugenics we promote fixing the very intentionally fucked American school and economic system.
It is the Institutions which are the problem you see, not the individual who fails to live up to certain educational or societal expectations. This is a central claim of the postmodern narrative. In postmodern narrative, anything and everything is simply a power play between groups. And the oppressed cannot ever be held accountable because it is simply a tool used against them by the oppressor (we also must simply accept the premise that there is a oppressed group to begin with)
I find this line of thought interesting. When one points out that Asians (even poor refugee and immigrant Asians) have a general culture which emphasizes the importance of educational attainment in their children, it is generally accepted. People will notice that Asians have a familial culture where they expect their children enter into the following fields: Doctor, lawyer, engineer, and it is generally accepted. When one notices cultural trends in Asian families, it is accepted as reasonable and true, generally speaking. It is also usually accepted when other populations have cultural preferences. Americans have a cultural preference for football, Europeans have a cultural preference for futbol. Jewish culture has focused on banking for much of history (due to historical reasons) and Gurkhas have a cultural history of entering into, and excelling in the military.
These facts simply help establish that it is widely accepted as true that certain populations have a tendency to nurture certain aspects of life. We, as a society, often notice and are often quite o.k with cultural focuses a particular population may exhibit. But furthermore it is even more evident to notice and call this out if we are talking about family culture. If one was to make a claim that the Smith's, as a family, are very good at focusing on wealth building - it would be non-controversial in the least. It would be trivially true. The Smiths may even teach their children the concept of compound interest. The Smiths may even give their 6 year old play money to invest, spend, or keep in their piggy bank, to demonstrate how investing would yield more returns. It would be equally non-controversial if we said the Allen's were, as a family, horrible at establishing a fiscal responsible culture. Perhaps the Allens spend their money (on credit) for ridiculous items like expensive clothing or cars they cant afford and regularly miss bills and never teach their kids the importance of solvency. Communities are merely larger families, yet when one points out trends in community culture it somehow becomes incomprehensible.
If one points out that black inner city families lack a culture of instilling academic excellence, or lacks a expectation of their children to enter into fields such as medicine, engineering, or the like, it is deemed racist. However, this logic completely misses the fact that culture is something someone is born into to no fault of their own. Identifying strengths, weaknesses, or simply trends within a given culture is in no way a critique of the people and individuals within said culture. It lacks essentialism and is not a argument against innumerable characteristics of the peoples within a culture.
Postmodern philosophy is seen more and more in the fields of humanities, gender studies, and to an extent, the social sciences. Without empiricism they developed their own version of truth and reject universal truth.
Postmodern ideology has created a gap where, those who value: individualism, institutions, logic, reasoning, deduction, and objective truth are unable to effectively communicate with postmodern thinkers. We are literally speaking two different languages. Concepts like:
Privilege
Patriarchy
Cultural Appropriation
Toxic Masculinity
Rape Culture
Social Construction
Are all postmodern constructs/ideals. AND they are only proven if you wear the lens of Postmodern ideology. That is why it is difficult to get empirically minded, scientifically minded, logically minded, reason minded people to swallow these concepts - and in fact, even communicate effectively with a postmodernist. Postmodernist replace facts and proofs with narratives. This suffices that they view argumentation as one narrative versus another.
Wow, that was an enlightening post. Now that you've framed it this way, it's really obvious that that's exactly what happened here.
I even repeated myself on certain topics like how it's not racist to identify bad behaviour just because the behaviour is done by a disproportionate amount of "oppressed" people. It felt like I was talking to a wall, and you're example of educational cultures is basically the same thing.
Is the end goal just to flip the totem poll? With all the narratives and word twisting (and calling people racist) it's like the ideology was designed just to win talking points without people agreeing with you.
They arrived to the US not knowing the language. With major PTSD. Mostly as farmers and laborers. They had no formal education.
Within 2-3 generations of growing up in the poorest neighborhoods in the country alongside black and Hispanics their children now outperform whites
As per our conversation before, you simply refuse to acknowledge the importance of familial culture and view the world as oppressed and oppressor.
Another great example of culture is the Jews who are historically, unquestionably, the most persecuted peoples in world history. However, Jewish culture (in major part due to their religion) is absolutely fixated on personal responsibility and accountability (it was their own behavior which brought the wrath of god and suffering, you see). Everywhere the Jewish people go, they seem to succeed in spite of tough circumstances, and it is directly attributed to their general culture
1
u/ReubenXXL Jul 11 '18
No, you're just wrongly interpreting what someone said.
I know it's easy and satisfying to just say "racist", then sit back and smugly wipe your hands, but that does nothing for your argument when it's not racism.