JV's post is a very good post but I think he is being too hard on Cuban. I will give Cuban credit for being honest and recognizing his bias. He is also saying that it something he is trying to change and doesn't want to teach that to his kids.
Is that your definition of racist -- negative judgment on race? Suppose people of a certain race were statistically much more likely to commit theft and/or assault in a particular neighborhood. Is a person wrong to take preventative measures (like crossing the street, being more mentally aware of his position, etc.) when encountering a stranger of that race late at night? That's racist, to you?
It is when the majority of the people of that race don't commit those crimes. Even if the rates are greater (of course there could be many other factors for that besides a direct causal one of race), but the majority of a race don't commit those crimes, it is negative and racist to believe that someone because of their race will assault someone.
Majority? So, hypothetically, if there's a 33% chance a person of a particular race at a certain street corner will try to mug you or assault you, its wrong to steer away from when you see a stranger there of that race? If you're walking through that corner with your kid, you think its wise to not take a preventative measure, lest your "racism" rubs off on him? I'm sorry, something is off to me with this reasoning.
By definition that is "Racism". Yes if race is primarily one of the main factors that you are basing your opinion on. This is part of the problem that racism is the worst possible thing that you can be. I'm not going to say that there might not ever be sound reasoning to be racist. I mean a Jew in 1940 Europe had good reason to feel racist towards Germans. That is what my point was earlier the discussion is so loaded that it is impossible to have an honest discussion since both the reaction and the counter reaction are so hard. On one side people are quick to completely condemn someone as the worst person in the world for holding a racist view while on the other hand people are so averse that they go through rationalizations for why that isn't racist. If you are going to make a snap judgement on someone negatively primarily on race. That is racist. This goes to something I've been saying for awhile. People have all sorts of prejudices and biases that aren't rational. Living in a pluralistic society there is going to be tension between those views. To some extent we're going to have to accept the possibility that someone can hold a view that we don't agree with on something and still not make that person the worst person in the world. Particularly in this case. Cuban himself recognizes that he has a bias and that it isn't good. He is justifying himself so much as he is recognizing a weakness.
Not if 25% of your own race is likely to do the same thing. See, fake statistics about one group don't make your argument any more compelling, particularly when you've got another 88% percent of the population to consider.
The probability is far less than that, and of limited relevance: especially if your only factor for considering it is momentarily being in the same physical location as one out of a group of 20 million.
Sometimes such snap judgments are justified as a security measure. But the term "racist" would seemingly imply that it is necessarily wrong. So there's a conflict here. If we say its "racist", then we generally mean that one shouldn't do it or behave in that way. However, if one has a good reason to be particularly risk-averse (e.g. carrying a lot of money on them, or are with a child, or are themselves physically vulnerable) -- then prejudging as a preventative measure could very well be warranted. Is it hypothetically possible for an action to be simultaneously racist and correct, in your view?
Sorry, I don't understand this. I am, of course, using a hypothetical argument. FranchiseBlade spoke of "majority". And the statistics as far as crime rates between races go obviously are surely not uniform across all of America. Are you arguing that there are no places in this country where this is a significant disparity in terms of crime rates between races?
You didn't allude to specific parts of the country. Now you're just parsing your blanket assumptions about black behavior because you can't validate them numerically. And you can't demonstrate that a majority or even large plurality of blacks in this country are committing crimes, or that non-blacks aren't. You're betting that they do to rationalize your own bias, and furthering that assertion to rationalize all the other crap non-blacks have been doing to marginalize and exclude blacks in every walk of life for decades.
It's a very difficult hypothetical to discuss given such broad parameters. Even if a race is more likely to attack someone (again if that was based on race alone) then you'd also need to look at if those were attacks on random people. Is there a greater chance of them attacking people of the same race, or people of a different race? Were the attacks provoked by anything? Were the attacks usually against people they knew? Is it the race that causes the higher incidents of attacks? Is it poverty that the race faces disproportionately? Is it that the stats on attacks are off because of a flawed criminal justice system? There are really just too many factors in play to just toss out a statistic and ask that question. I was trying to simplify it to match the question. I just applied the odds as they were presented.
Why only on race and not all risk factors in life? What is special about 50% that makes risk for you untenable?
Racism is a vague term. Its a catch all insult that is often used in a straw mans argument. There is a difference between racism and stereotyping. If a specific race is predominately known for doing a certain activity, such as robbing people, that is stereotyping. We all stereotype. We all do. Its built into us. Stereotyping doesn't necessarily make you a bigot. But somehow racism can be either or, and depending on the discussion, one tends to loosely throw the definitions around to suit their needs. In other words, just because I live in a high crime rate area that is predominately black doesn't mean I hate them if I am leary of them.
You can use it for more factors in life as well. The question was about race though. I said that it is probably racism if a person assumes people will act a certain way based on their race, when the majority of that race don't in fact act that way. You can apply the majority of an incident occurring to any other factor in life you'd like to. If you assume something is going to happen when the majority of time it will not actually happen, then it isn't rational.
I agree if people could have instant knowledge of what was actually happening in that neighborhood. For instance if you knew all of the factors of when and why the high crime rate in that neighborhood was happening then you could make that judgement. But to only factor in race as the reason for it, then that would be a problem.
