Is it really racism if it is true

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
6,190
#21
If you take action that makes the individual responsible for the collective, then that's racist.

If there's a 90% chance of a purple person stealing, then it's inaccurate to say that "all purple people are thieves". You should take the time to establish if you're dealing with someone in the 10%. You may be dealing with that purple person who has an even better grasp of ethics than most green people.
Well here is where it gets tricky I think. For instance when you run a business and wish to minimize risk you will likely take heed of the stats and your gut feel which will impact your decisions on an individual basis. There is no such thing as "taking the time" when it comes to hiring strangers because its just 3 interviews and you must make a decision - and the law as far as I'm aware is somewhat against you in turning back on that. Obviously more variables than that to consider but just something that I'm wondering.
 

3WA

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
5,363
#22
Well here is where it gets tricky I think. For instance when you run a business and wish to minimize risk you will likely take heed of the stats and your gut feel which will impact your decisions on an individual basis. There is no such thing as "taking the time" when it comes to hiring strangers because its just 3 interviews and you must make a decision - and the law as far as I'm aware is somewhat against you in turning back on that. Obviously more variables than that to consider but just something that I'm wondering.

Of course, the more detailed your statistical analysis, the better.

90% of purple people steal.

I want to hire someone from Living Standard Measure 1 for a job (an unskilled laborer, if you like).

80% of purple people are in LSM 1, and 15% of green people.

It would be better to look at how many people from LSM 1 steal, and whether there's a difference between purple and green, specifically in LSM 1.

My point is that statistics can take you part of the way, but you have to think about what they mean.

Personally, I believe there's always a better proxy than race, when you're looking at statistics.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
3,473
#26
"Purple people are thieves 90% of the time" - not racist
"Purple people are thieves 90% of the time and thus they are inferior to my race and their lives are inherently worth less than mine and they deserve any oppression we inflict on them" - racist
 

SauRoNZA

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
32,456
#27
Suppose we have a statement like "All purple people are thieves" and have official stats to back it up (e.g. there is a 90% chance of a purple person stealing at least once in his life).

Is it racist?
90% still doesn't equal all.

And if purple people are the majority that would make them more prevalent as a statistic but it doesn't mean that 90% of purple people steal, just that they are the 90%. If only 10% of total theft is by pink people, doesn't mean it isn't 95% of pink people in the wrong.
 

SauRoNZA

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
32,456
#29
Majority of men cant live without their sports on TV - Not sexism if its true

Same with watered down topics like racism
Majority of men can't live without their sports on TV - Reasonable statement, possibly supported by stats but definitely supported by perception.

Men can't live without their sports on TV - Completely false and unsupported if even one man doesn't care for sports on TV.
 

Corelli

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
728
#30
The study from Stellenbosch is a difficult case. First it's generalizing, which isn't really the case. But then sadly that's how marketing works. But to point out that they are inferior, well that's pretty much Nazi-Propoganda, but then if you're not Ayrian, well then you're screwed. If you have Netflix, have a look at the series Auschwitz, and remember that it was only 70 years ago. It came by the Jews being the scapegoats to be blamed for all of Germany's problems, yet it was the 800 billion dollars equivalent they had to pay for damages from WW1. And then Germany got sliced up after WW1. So the invasion of Czech and Poland was to reclaim their territories. Afterwards it just went mad. When Poland was split up half half, there still wasn't a war as Poland was part of the Weimar republic. Anyway watch it, and you will discover how statements publically like these can inflame tensions and can lead to an almost extinction of a race.
 

jouda

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2010
Messages
3,502
#31
I find it problematic when people try and link one characteristic (negative or positive) to a group of people based on a completely unrelated characteristic. All purple people are similar but not the same.

If we really have to label people, lets label people based on facts.
 

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
34,837
#32
1) If 10% of them aren't thieves, then it's factually not true to say 'purple people are thieves'.
2) More to the point, statistics are deceptive and dangerous when used in isolation. And more so because you get to insist that it's not really racism because it's true.
 

R13...

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
29,195
#33
Mainly depends on the motivations and what SB said. It's also people too lazy to think who need to rely on such absurd generalisations
 

Johnatan56

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
24,248
#37
1558082925668.png
https://brainstats.com/average-iq-by-country.html (2002-2006)
I can now argue that South African's are moderately below average in intelligence:
1558083139285.png
Or I could dig up some older classifications that we no longer use:
1558083175528.png
And we can state that at least half the South African population fall in borderline defective intelligence levels.

Can I now make a statement that all South Africans are borderline mentally defective? No, because that would be false, only half fall under it, and then that's due to the outdated table I used to compare it to, with newer ones just stating that at least half the population is moderately below average instead of defective.

Plus, no knowledge of how the test was conducted, did they go out in the Karoo, find some bushmen that have barely got a grasp of English and then normalized it for all South Africans? Did they go to a township and ask them? In China (since it scored 105, 3rd place), did they only go to Beijing that attracts the most intelligent people and ignore everyone from the country side, so now I can call Chinese as super smart meanwhile half their population is probably low average (exaggeration, not fact)?

Generalizations only work if you're trying to plan something based on those stats, e.g. 90% of purple are thieves based on stats one would need to check why, is it that they live in squalor and it's the only way to make a living? So we can then make a generalization that people living in squalor steal, then another that most purple's are living in squalor, therefore most purple's are thieves, not all purples are thieves.
 

Neuk_

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2018
Messages
1,050
#39
Suppose we have a statement like "All purple people are thieves" and have official stats to back it up (e.g. there is a 90% chance of a purple person stealing at least once in his life).

Is it racist?
No, it is not racist, it is a false generalization based on your 'stats' and how you have worded your statement.
 
Top