PC-to-English dictionary: racism, racist
Dec 28th, 2011 by Unamused
racism (noun)
An undetectable (but unquestionably real) “systemic, societal, institutional, omnipresent, and epistemologically embedded phenomenon that pervades every vestige of our reality” (in the words of Negro scholar Omowale Akintunde), forcing brown-skinned people to fail out of school, smoke crack, not get a job, abandon their kids, contract AIDS, commit every crime at a staggering rate, underperform on culturally unbiased tests of highly heritable cognitive abilities, and generally act like a bunch of goddamn jungle savages, thus making them seem inferior to whites in every way outside of certain sports, or at least certain positions in certain sports (and to which Asians are somehow, mysteriously immune). Usually rendered blatant racism. In minorities, the leading cause of depression, death, animal and child abuse, tears, impotence, low self-esteem, persistent whining, and congestive heart failure. Literally the worst thing in the entire world.
racist (adjective)
- Expressing, suggesting, or hinting at discomforting truths about race.
- Failing to sufficiently denigrate and discriminate against whites.
- Directed at a white person by a non-white person: causing the speaker, or some (actual or hypothetical) like-race individual, to feel (or suspect that he may feel) unwanted, uncared for, unlikeable, uneasy, uncomfortable, upset, angry, guilty, hurt, cross, inferior, or stupid in some way, usually by the offending party being racist (def. 1), being racist (def. 2), or saying something like “I hate all the niggers, they look just like chimpanzees, why won’t they go back to Africa and keep their chimpanzee paws off my big-screen TV.” Derogatory. Punishable by death in most jurisdictions. Often rendered raciss, as in you raciss and das raciss.
racism (noun)
The notion that white people should be allowed to consume oxygen
racist (adjective)
Any white person consuming oxygen
Disagreeing in any way with a black person, especially (but not limited to) Barack Obama.
As Peter Brimelow describes it:
“The modern definition of a racist is one who is winning an argument against a liberal.”
…or something to that effect.
anti-racist means “anti-white,” therefore racist means “white”:)
Slate editorial on Bad Ass (Hollywood riff on Epic Beard Man)
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2011/12/28/bad_ass_movie_a_troubling_rip_off_of_the_epic_beard_man_video.html
I like the racism definition but it could use some NAM insertions since Asians don’t suffer the socioeconomic problems that other minorities do from racism. They seem to even thrive while being horribly immersed in white racism. Maybe racism feeds their economic achievements.
Isn’t there a new, expanded definition of rape? Which, coincidentally, feeds the interests of two protected groups: feminists and blacks – because it has the following two politically desirable benefits: first, it will expand the total number of “rapists,” and second it will obscure the disparity of black-white rape statistics. Even, as the definition stands now, we know that if there was a category of “stranger rape,” the disparity would be even greater. Go into Google news and do a search for “rape” and “suspect”. You don’t even need to read the articles, just look at the pictures associated with them in the returns.
Discomforting truth. So John Entine saying a black athlete can be expected to be 3.4% quicker in sprints is ok but the same book pointing out that blacks can be expected to be more likely to be obese is racist because it is a “discomforting” truth.
Don’t be a racist, please (LOL).
The following statement is erroneous:
“thus making them seem inferior to whites in every way outside of certain sports”
should read:
thus making them seem inferior to Europeans, Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, and basically every other human subspecies or, if you prefer it, race, in every way outside of certain sports
Why is it always white vs. black?
Do you think Asian people love the quota system which discriminates against them even more than against white folk?
That is correct, Willowfield.
americangoy: The statement is, at worst, incompletely true. More often than not, inferiority to whites implies inferiority to [East] Asians (in, e.g., intelligence and criminality). Anyway I put the Asians in there somewhere.
and an average white person can be expected to be 1 StDv more intelligent.
Where’s the problem?
Oh, an average [black] can’t possibly be a retard.
But they are, and the only way to fix that is to breed intelligence out. First Europe and America get raped to half breeds, then Japan, Korea and China are next!!!!
Crack cocaine world-wide empire.
commit every crime at a staggering rate
Whitey leads the charge in white collar crime, computer crime, embezzling, etc. It’s the violent stuff that the peckerwoods fall flat on.
Blacks are over-represented in so-called “white collar” crime, including embezzlement and fraud, meaning they commit those crimes at a higher rate than whites (though not as much higher as for most violent crimes).
To be precise: in 2009, blacks committed forgery and counterfeiting at (approximately) 3.8 times the white rate, fraud at 2.4 times the white rate, and embezzlement at 4.4 times the white rate (FBI UCR 2009).
I have to admit, I did exaggerate a little: blacks appear to commit liquor law violations at the same rate as whites. It seems to be the only crime in which they are not over-represented. (Liquor law violations do not include, e.g., drunkenness or drunk driving.)
Blacks are also over-represented among known serial killers. I haven’t seen the stats on child molestation–accurate stats would be hard to come by given the nature of the crime and chaotic, lawless environment in many ghetto homes–but I would bet blacks are over-represented there as well. I once challenged Tim Wise to provide me with a statistic or study to back up the oft-cited claim that whites are somehow more prone to sex crimes against children–a claim he made to me in an email–but, surprise, he chose this point to end the correspondence to me at this point. He also refused to provide a theory explaining why he thought this would be true.
Racist:
involving human evolution, offensive, and [at least partially] correct.
[Unamused: I’m obliged to note that we’ve got several semi-regular commenters named “Aaron,” notably the blogger Aaron, whom this commenter is not.]
Quite right, Jake Barnes: blacks are about twice as likely as whites to be (known) serial killers, according to the Society for Police and Criminal Psychology (other sources agree and are available on request), and they are twice as likely as whites to be child abusers (of some sort) according to Child Protective Services. As you point out, it would be extremely difficult (not to mention depressing) to obtain accurate statistics on race and child abuse.
outside of certain sports
I would also include music, where blacks are at least equal to white (and if IQ-adjusted, astoundingly gifted), and acting.
I don’t like black music.
:P
Rap? Sure. But I defy you to dislike Kind of Blue. Or more generally, jazz. Or rock and roll. Rap is evidence for the ability of culture to suppress the genius of a people — but we knew that: look at China’s GNP compared to her people’s average IQ.
Alright, let us delve into it.
I despise rap and hip-hop, obviously, which is what black music has become since blacks have been given free rein to create it. (Do I need to explain why this sort of music is generally mindless garbage? I could, if you like.)
I tolerate and sometimes enjoy blues (e.g., Buddy Guy, Howlin’ Wolf — I don’t know, J.B. Hutto?), but I like what white people did with it much better, and that includes most rock & roll.
Personally, I don’t enjoy jazz, but I recognize the talent (musical and improvisational) it requires.
So that’s why I say “I don’t like black music” — that, and because I know it offends my friends.
I don’t think there can be any doubt that overall — historically, or even just in the present day — black music is inferior (if you want to put it that way) to white music; this becomes clear when one does not focus exclusively on mid-twentieth century jazz and blues/early rock & roll.
Joe Queenan used to write a monthly column called “Admit It, It Sucks” for the satirical magazine Spy about 20 years back. It was pure iconoclasm focusing on the various sacred cows of the SWPLy crowd. I didn’t always agree with him (for example, I liked Ken Burns’ Civil War documentary) but when he took aim at Jazz, I was right on board with the general sentiment. I think the early critics who dismissed jazz were more right than wrong. Most of it bores the shit out of me. And most of the people who claim to like it, don’t listen to it. Just to clarify, I think it’s much better than most of the black music being made today, by leaps and bounds.
Oh there can be doubt. But that’s not what is at issue here. The question is: are blacks “musically inferior” (certainly a difficult thing to define) to whites? I take the question to mean a discussion of genetic giftedness, not cultural factors. Obviously, if one includes cultural factors as such, then blacks lose because they’ve never created a culture comparably rich to the West; thus, they simply don’t have the wealth in any black society to support lots of artists (of any kind). So it is no surprise that when Europe was producing Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, black societies weren’t. They had no organs, no pianos, no orchestras, no mass audience. How could they? Africa probably did produce some musical geniuses during that time — but without musical notation, nothing was written down.
This is why blacks in the USA have been so fecund musically: they are imbedded in a high-functioning white culture which has plenty of excess wealth to spend on entertainment, including recording their work. (Although I note that in the 20th century Africa was rich enough to kick off “world music”, and Jamaica invented reggae.) The high water mark for blacks was when their sub-society peaked, in say 1950 or so, when they still had the Christian culture that whites had imposed on them, and whites were still keeping order in their ghettos. After that they have degenerated both socially and musically; the causation is obvious to me at least. A society that rewards criminals, assholes, and players deserves rap, and it gets it — good and hard.
I guess the thing here is show your work. What would convince you that blacks are musically gifted? I mean, besides the obvious proof (which you seem to want to discard), namely looking at any sort of “greatest artist” list of rock and roll, or jazz, or the blues?
Those are good points, mostly, and they stand even if — as I submit — their cultural deficiency is ultimately mostly genetic in origin.
Regarding your “obvious proof”: assuming you mean musical giftedness relative to whites (as I have no idea what musical giftedness means in an absolute sense), you have admitted that it is not a proof at all if we’re talking about overall black musical accomplishment. To be precise, you’ve chosen the only two real genres of music (jazz and blues) for which it is obviously true, and thrown in rock & roll even though, in my opinion, blacks did not (and do not) dominate there.
I grant that, after controlling for IQ, blacks are [probably, likely] gifted in musical ability, on average, relative to whites, on an individual (as opposed to cultural) level. Without controlling for IQ, they are [probably, likely] gifted in rhythm and improvisation (obviously rap more than jazz, these days — ugh) on an individual level anyway, and perhaps even on a cultural level.
Yes I mean relative to whites. If whites average 100 for a “Music Quotient” (MQ), then my proposition is that blacks average higher. 105, perhaps. This seems to me to be very surprising since I expect MQ to be strongly correlated with IQ, which seems to be the case for non-African-descended people. I.e. Jews are overrepresented in music as they are everywhere else that is IQ-gated.
I am glad to see you largely conceding the point. But let’s try harder, shall we? I assert black MQ > 100, and even in rock and roll. Proof? Let’s ask Mr Goog, eh? (I am going to do so now.) Googling for “greatest rock songs”, and voila, a top 100 list shows up as #1. It is here: http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_songsddd.html. OK, top 100 songs means, if blacks have MQ=100 and we ignore other races’ contributions, we expect to see ~13 of the songs by blacks, and the other 87 by whites.
What do we see? I count 24 blacks; there may be a few more playing in mostly-white groups. And actually thinking about it, I think that using 13% is too high, since obviously the British have written a great many great songs, and there were very few blacks in Britain during the heyday of rock. Britain has roughly 1/4 the population of the US and practically all white during the period of interest; as such the black fraction was about 11%.
Googling for “greatest rock bands”, I find another top 100 list as #3. (Here: http://www.avrev.com/top-100-bands-of-all-time/top-10-rock-bands/index.php.) Looking at this list, I count 11 that are all black, plus the odd black player in other mostly-white bands of varying importance (i.e. Slash in Guns and Roses was important, or Morello in Rage Against the Machine; that black dude in the E Street Band, not.) So overall, in the zone.
Could their over-representation in a “greatest rock songs” list be partly accounted for by rock & roll’s origins in the blues? Black domination of blues implies massive over-representation in the formative years of rock & roll, and the formative years of any genre will be over-represented in a “greatest hits” list, through a combination of innovativeness (which obviously becomes more difficult to achieve over time), historical significance (ditto), and nostalgia (that too), if nothing else. Might explain why, when we look at the “greatest rock bands” — their entire careers — blacks are slightly under-represented.
In any case: do the “greatest” blues, jazz, and rock & roll songs/bands constitute “obvious proof” that blacks are musically gifted, compared to whites? What, then, would a list of the “greatest” classical or modern composers constitute? And who invented all those instruments, anyway?
How much of a boost did “high-functioning white culture” provide?
This is separate from my previous concessions, of course. And none of this is going to make me change my definition of “racism,” because it’s satirical.
Generally agree w/ your first para. I ha-ha at your last. As for the second, the question is worth discussing more.
I think if you are looking for evidence of ability (of any sort), you should look for kinds of evidence that are not polluted by data of other sorts. In this case, there are obvious social and IQ factors that relate to being a great modern composer — although I also note the rather glaring omission of Ellington on your list, so it’s hard to take serious in any case. Similarly, a culture that invents, say, the violin (and its many derived forms), or electric amplification, is a widespread testament to IQ, wealth, and inventiveness, not so much musical ability. OTOH, any savage can make a drum, and Africans (like everyone else) did.
That is why I think that a list of, say, top 100 songs is better for quantifying MQ than a list of bands (many more social factors in play). Similarly, a list of Nobel prize winners is cleaner evidence for IQ than, say, a listing of professors at Harvard. Both are IQ gated, but there are more social factors surrounding Harvard. Or another example: if trying to quantify “athleticism”, a list of MVPs is going to be cleaner than a list of championship teams. A sport like running is going to be a better test than, say, football, since anyone can run, even African peasants, but football require social organization of many kinds, and a certain level of wealth.
[…] Earth. Scientifically invalid. Along with ignorance and general stupidity, provides the basis for racism, sexism, homophobia, welfare reform, and all the other awful things conservatives believe […]