Is it racist if it's true?

Sponge25

If I were to say blacks commit farrr more homocides per whites would that be racist?

CeilingFly

Yes, because you would need to show that it is the colour of their skin that causes the statistic rather than socio-demographic reasons.

Sponge25

CeilingFly wrote: »

Yes, because you would need to show that it is the colour of their skin that causes the statistic rather than socio-demographic reasons.

Race goes far beyond skin colour.

Serial killers are usually white males.... ?

Hitler........

(discussion killer)

(as well as actual killer)

alchemist33

If this is backed up by the statistics, no. But your interptetation of the reasons may be racist

relax carry on

Sponge25 wrote: »

If I were to say blacks commit farrr more homocides per whites would that be racist?

The statement would need to be backed up by sending peer reviewed data and expanded to show exactly what you mean. For example is it worldwide? What countries? How was the data collected? What are the reasons etc? How was the data interpreted etc.

On the face of it without anything else the one liner appears to target one group over another without any substance.

Huexotzingo

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Hitler........

(discussion killer)

(as well as actual killer)

I did Nazi that coming.

Red_Wake

As long as you state clearly that being black correlates perfectly with incidences of homicide, but doesn't prove any causal relationship it's perfectly ok by me.

the beer revolu

Thinking that the reason for this is because they are black is racist.

Stating it as a standalone fact (assuming that it is true) is not.

It's all about context.

DEFTLEFTHAND

I think the OP is referring to the FBI homicide statistics in the USA.

OldGoat

alchemist33 wrote: »

If this is backed up by the statistics, no. But your interptetation of the reasons may be racist

Facts aren't racist.
Statistics aren't facts.
Opinions utilising poor interpretation of statistics can be racist.
Opinions are not facts.

Sin City

In what context

In Nigeria yes
In Italy no


In what socio econmoic standing ?

Do rich black people kill more than rich white people?

JMNolan

CeilingFly wrote: »

Yes, because you would need to show that it is the colour of their skin that causes the statistic rather than socio-demographic reasons.

Why would he need to show that? There is no claim that the colour of skin caused the statistic.

Apiarist

Sponge25 wrote: »

If I were to say blacks commit farrr more homocides per whites would that be racist?

Were do you take your statistics from? Republic of Ireland? Republic of Congo?

Regardless of that, yes, something that lumps people into a derogatory category based purely on their skin colour would be considered racist.

JMNolan

victor8600 wrote: »

Regardless of that, yes, something that lumps people into a derogatory category based purely on their skin colour would be considered racist.

Is this true for gender also?

Captain Obvious

CeilingFly wrote: »

Yes, because you would need to show that it is the colour of their skin that causes the statistic rather than socio-demographic reasons.

No he wouldn't. He didn't say they committed more crime because they are black, he simply stated a fact. While it is important that facts are given their context such as the one you highlight, it's not racist to simply state a fact in complete isolation.

_Brian

Sponge25 wrote: »

If I were to say blacks commit farrr more homocides per whites would that be racist?

It’s an interesting moral question really.

I would say it’s racist if you believe they are murderers because of their race, but if you understand that race isn’t the driver for the statistics then no.

So for example historical actions in America cause many black families to be forced to live in particular socio economic situations that cause crime and often murder. White or Hispanic populations forced to live under the same conditions would fall foul of the same statistic.

But if you think it’s because they are black, it’s definitely racism.

_Brian

Captain Obvious wrote: »

No he wouldn't. He didn't say they committed more crime because they are black, he simply stated a fact. While it is important that facts are given their context such as the one you highlight, it's not racist to simply state a fact in complete isolation.

But they are not committing the crime because they are black, it’s as if you are saying it’s the only factor in an individual that drives them to murder. Racial profiling in thin manner is blatant racism.

I suppose if it were being qualified by some other specific it would be acceptable

Eg

“It happens tuat more murders are committed by black people because of x, y or z “

But blatantly stating that skin colour is the only fact worth considering demonstrates racism and racial profiling.

_Brian, facts aren't racist. You don't need to explain why a fact isn't racist. The onus is on the accuser to explain why or how the person used it in a racist manner.

“That was racist because of x, y or z “

corner of hells

OP , ya there ? OP ?

Tzardine

Saying that black people are convicted of committing more murders than white people in the USA is factually correct, and not racist.

Saying that N*****s (censored by me) are convicted of more murders than white people in the USA would be racist.

My 2c

Captain Obvious

_Brian wrote: »

But they are not committing the crime because they are black, it’s as if you are saying it’s the only factor in an individual that drives them to murder. Racial profiling in thin manner is blatant racism.

Nobody said they were committing the crime because they were black. You are implying a motive in a simple isolated presentation of fact.

_Brian wrote: »

I suppose if it were being qualified by some other specific it would be acceptable

If a simple fact on it's own with no surrounding argument is unacceptable to you then that is your issue to deal with.

_Brian wrote: »

Eg

“It happens tuat more murders are committed by black people because of x, y or z “

Why would a person presenting a simple statistic be obliged to investigate the reasons behind it?

_Brian wrote: »

But blatantly stating that skin colour is the only fact worth considering demonstrates racism and racial profiling.

Nobody mentioned it being the only factor worth considering.

Apiarist

JMNolan wrote: »

Is this true for gender also?

Yes. If one says "all women are weak" that is a wrong generalisation because it lumps all women into a derogatory category. But one can correctly say that among weightlifting athletes men have achieved better results and that on average, a man is physically stronger. So do we restrict jobs that require lifting weights, like bricklaying, to men only? No, because a particular woman can be as strong as anyone qualified to do the job.

Back to the original topic, if one says "most solved murders in the USA are committed by black men" and can back this up with statistics, then this is a fact and not racist. But if one says, that "blacks" are more likely to commit murder -- that is racist, because being black by itself does not lead to commit more crimes. Growing in a depressed neighborhood with little prospects of advancement in life does.

JMNolan

So the statement "blacks commit far more homicides than whites" is racist and the statement "men commit far more homicides than women" is sexist?

JMNolan

JMNolan wrote: »

So the statement "blacks commit far more homicides than whites" is racist and the statement "men commit far more homicides than women" is sexist?

"White people listen to far more country music." is racial profiling because I didn't explain the socio-economic reasons for that.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Cordell

Tzardine wrote: »

Saying that N*****s (censored by me) are convicted of more murders than white people in the USA would be racist.

No, this will be racist because of the racial slur, not because of the statement of facts. However, it will be racist to judge or discriminate against a black person because of that said fact.

Tzardine

Cordell wrote: »

No, this will be racist because of the racial slur, not because of the statement of facts. However, it will be racist to judge or discriminate against a black person because of that said fact.

I understand your point but its a weird situation. I dont think it is racist to discriminate if based on fact.

For example, it is not ageist to discriminate based on fact. e.g insurance companies charge more for young drivers as they are statistically (and therefore factually) more likely to be involved in an accident.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This ghetto gangbanger culture accounts for a lot of it.

Young black man gunning down other black men. Look at the murder rate for somewhere like Chicago on any given week, it's insane.

And Chicago is a place with tight gun control.

Captain Obvious

Tzardine wrote: »

I understand your point but its a weird situation. I dont think it is racist to discriminate if based on fact.

For example, it is not ageist to discriminate based on fact. e.g insurance companies charge more for young drivers as they are statistically (and therefore factually) more likely to be involved in an accident.

It could be illegal though. When the same rule for gender was challenged it was deemed discriminatory despite being based on fact. I don't think the age one has been challenged yet though.

Cordell

Tzardine wrote: »

I understand your point but its a weird situation. I dont think it is racist to discriminate if based on fact.

I think that is the actual definition of racial discrimination to discriminate based on a fact that applies to the group which that person belongs to, but not necessarily to the individual.

Tzardine wrote: »

For example, it is not ageist to discriminate based on fact. e.g insurance companies charge more for young drivers as they are statistically (and therefore factually) more likely to be involved in an accident.

I think that insurance companies get a free pass on this one because reasons, they do ageism, sexism, and even classism if you want to, but I don't think even them dare to discriminate on race.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

desbrook

If I said that black people commit more murders to some extent purely because they are black I would be labelled a racist by most. However if I say that men are more violent than women to some extent purely because of their sex I probably wouldn't be labelled as sexist.

Sexism comes into play if lets say a man can't get a job as a childminder because he's more likely to abuse the child or a woman as driver because she's more likely to need maternity leave. Racism should be treated in the same way - it needs to be accepted that there are differences between races and genders. Those differences don't validate discrimation however . In fact discrimination itself strengthens those differences and leaves us all the poorer.

riffmongous

It doesn't really matter whether a sentence itself is racist/sexist/discrimaatory though does it? It's all about the person saying it, and they might or might not be, depending on the context they say it in

Snickers Man

relax carry on wrote: »

The statement would need to be backed up by sending peer reviewed data and expanded properly spelled and grammatically correctto show exactly what you mean.

Otherwise you're just a troll able to trot out the "But I didn't say that.." line to anybody who interprets negatively what they thought you were trying to say.

Because you didn't say anything, really.

Taytoland

Don't know why people keep using the word, it holds no power now because it get's used so often, no one listens anymore to the accusation. You might as well call someone an apple, that's how much sway it has.

Captain Obvious

Taytoland wrote: »

Don't know why people keep using the word, it holds no power now because it get's used so often, no one listens anymore to the accusation. You might as well call someone an apple, that's how much sway it has.

A common argument made by people who are often called racist. I suppose it helps justify your own beliefs if you pretend the word means nothing.

Taytoland

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Don't know why people keep using the word, it holds no power now because it get's used so often, no one listens anymore to the accusation. You might as well call someone an apple, that's how much sway it has.

A common argument made by people who are often called racist. I suppose it helps justify your own beliefs if you pretend the word means nothing.

You hear it all the time towards people who merely advocate strong immigration controls. Less power as the years go by.

Yer Da sells Avon

You can cherry pick a perfectly true statement, and use it because you're a racist. For example, if you were to say, apropos of nothing, that black people commit more murders [in some other country] on an Irish discussion board, people might justifiably wonder if you're dispensing that fact because you have some kind of issue with black people.