I want to offend you.

[Argus]

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

How so ? Both of these definitions mean that generalizing or discriminating based on race is racism.

Yes, but that's not what you're calling racism. You're calling criticism of the Muslim world racism, but Muslims are not a race.

People aren't made by machines, though, so there is a danger in assessing the wrong factors when determining how successful they are.

Doesn't matter how people are 'made'. I'm speaking of statistical analyses here. Nothing more nor less. No moral judgements. A simple, logical assessment of success ratios of immigrants based upon a given factor, which, in this case, is place of origin.

That would be both unfair and impractical to Canada if, say, we assessed what religion or hair colour an immigrant had instead of things like criminal record, education and so on.

I think fairness to a potential Canadian is secondary to doing what is logically best for Canada in the sense of screening potential immigrants based upon any known factors which suggest failure or success.

Explain to me, then, why racism based on biology is wrong when racism [as I call it] based on cultural practices is not wrong.

Well, to begin with, you don't get to invent a use for a word which isn't in the dictionary.

But there is a big difference between making a poor judgement of a group based on something as silly as their race (given there is no valid basis to the judgement) and judging the group based upon its observed behaviour. We judge individuals, good or bad, based upon their behaviour. Why should we refrain from judging groups in the same way?

I guess that means that I'm not being offensive, then, if I call viewpoints racist when they meet the definition.

When you are inventing uses for the word, and not speaking to KKK members, you likely are, which I presume you likely know.

That's very strange - in the end it seems you're more politically correct than me in that you silence your true views on race in order to be polite. I guess this is what the OP is talking about.

I don't silence my views, as you should have observed by now. But I don't need to foist them upon everyone I meet either. If the subject came up in a place and among people who could be reasonably trusted to discuss it rationally I would certainly not hesitate, whoever was present.

I thought about this for a long time, then concluded that cultures can be different and can have 'facets' that I don't agree with but that it doesn't make my culture (whatever that is) superior to theirs

That's meaningless without context. Culture A believes women are slaves and should have no rights, and be beaten whenever they get out of line. It believes gays should be killed on sight and anyone who speaks against or insults God should be executed. It places little value in education, other than in learning about God. It places even less value in freedom of religion or speech. It tolerates immense bigotry and racism in media, government institutions, schools and universities, and a general attitude of corruption in society and its institutions.(BTW, any resemblance to any real world culture is purely coincidental).

Now are you going to suggest there is nothing bad to judge there, and our culture is not superior to that of Culture A one in any way?

Discussing it is very important, I agree, and discussing it with people from that culture would probably be best.

As long as the people involved are not aggressively, even violently defensive about their values.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, but that's not what you're calling racism. You're calling criticism of the Muslim world racism, but Muslims are not a race.

I think I already acknowledged proper use of the word above.

Doesn't matter how people are 'made'. I'm speaking of statistical analyses here. Nothing more nor less. No moral judgements. A simple, logical assessment of success ratios of immigrants based upon a given factor, which, in this case, is place of origin.

Statistical analysis of things that are 'made' are different though, in that its much easier to determine whether variables are independent of each other. You can't do that easily with people.

I think fairness to a potential Canadian is secondary to doing what is logically best for Canada in the sense of screening potential immigrants based upon any known factors which suggest failure or success.

Ok - but you haven't addressed the impracticality, or the fundamental error that resides in generalizing without knowledge of what is the causative factor of behavior within groups.

If you want to treat non-Canadians unfairly, as you seem to be saying, then that's one thing - but how does it help Canada to do so ?

Well, to begin with, you don't get to invent a use for a word which isn't in the dictionary.

But there is a big difference between making a poor judgement of a group based on something as silly as their race (given there is no valid basis to the judgement) and judging the group based upon its observed behaviour. We judge individuals, good or bad, based upon their behaviour. Why should we refrain from judging groups in the same way?

Because you can make personal policies against that person, which is your choice. You can also make personal judgments on groups, which is also your choice but it can lead to fundamental errors based on your logic and your perspective. Making wide ranging policies based on incorrect assessments is a problem for everyone. It offends peoples' sense of fairness and robs Canada of good people.

When you are inventing uses for the word, and not speaking to KKK members, you likely are, which I presume you likely know.

You can stop objecting to my use of English now - if that's really your only problem then I have conceded that the word shouldn't be used to describe judging a religion.

I don't silence my views, as you should have observed by now. But I don't need to foist them upon everyone I meet either. If the subject came up in a place and among people who could be reasonably trusted to discuss it rationally I would certainly not hesitate, whoever was present.

Right - you refrain from offending people. This is what the OP talks about. It appears to speak to people who are too easily offended but it appears more apt when directed towards your behavior.

That's meaningless without context. Culture A believes women are slaves and should have no rights, and be beaten whenever they get out of line. It believes gays should be killed on sight and anyone who speaks against or insults God should be executed. It places little value in education, other than in learning about God. It places even less value in freedom of religion or speech. It tolerates immense bigotry and racism in media, government institutions, schools and universities, and a general attitude of corruption in society and its institutions.(BTW, any resemblance to any real world culture is purely coincidental).

Now are you going to suggest there is nothing bad to judge there, and our culture is not superior to that of Culture A one in any way?

Well, I guess I would have a hard time making friends with someone from Culture A. I don't have a personal need to feel "superior", though.

As long as the people involved are not aggressively, even violently defensive about their values.

It's hard to get violent on MLW. You can hit the SUBMIT button pretty hard and nobody else will feel it.

The big thing that you haven't explained is how you can judge groups with certainty, deciding on what within the group is objectionable. That part, you can only guess at and if you don't think that the culture will be 'cured' - for lack of a better word - by our culture then you're indeed talking about something beyond group behavior.

[cybercoma]

A small point, you can operationalize the "success" of immigrants and analyze it statistically. How you operationalize those definitions are an entirely different debate. The stats can be examined and the operationalization of the terms can be debated. What I mean is you can argue what qualifies as a "successful" transition into a new country.

[Argus]

A small point, you can operationalize the "success" of immigrants and analyze it statistically. How you operationalize those definitions are an entirely different debate. The stats can be examined and the operationalization of the terms can be debated. What I mean is you can argue what qualifies as a "successful" transition into a new country.

I suppose that's true. I'm operating from the economic perspective based on the government stats I posted some time back showing income of immigrants by place of origin. They clearly showed a very wide distance in economic success among immigrants from different parts of the world.

Edited January 28, 2013 by Argus

[jacee]

I suppose that's true. I'm operating from the economic perspective based on the government stats I posted some time back showing income of immigrants by place of origin. They clearly showed a very wide distance in economic success among immigrants from different parts of the world.

Operationalizing "place of origin" is complex too: Is it the 'place', or the 'race' ... or the conditions that exist in that place at that time?

Refugee or economic class immigrant?

Darfur, Haiti, Congo, El Salvador, Cambodia ... and more.

All are/were places of conflict or crisis, famine and disease ... trauma ... and people from these places are often destitute, traumatised and the first generations may not do well upon arrival here.

One would, thus, have to operationalize the conditions of "place", I think, to do a proper analysis of factors contributing to "success" here.

Edited January 28, 2013 by jacee

[Michael Hardner]

Refugee or economic class immigrant?

That's a key differentiator - I hear people talking about 'immigrants' as a general term but then they specifically talk about 'Somalis' not acknowledging that many are refugees.

[cybercoma]

I suppose that's true. I'm operating from the economic perspective based on the government stats I posted some time back showing income of immigrants by place of origin. They clearly showed a very wide distance in economic success among immigrants from different parts of the world.

Yes, but what we need to know is why is there variation, not just that the variation exists.