Rubato

You're applying a sweeping generalization to a specific race of people, so yes I'd file that under racism. If you dislike them because they're whiny bitches that's fine but why does race have to come into it? if you paid more attention to the colour of peoples shirts I'm sure you'd make some observations and form a bias around that too, just like when people see the same numbers crop up when they start looking for them (illuminati conspiracy nuts).

Take the FG Councillor Darren Scully, would you consider his comments racist when he said he'd no longer represent “black Africans”. Is it acceptable because he based it off his own experiences with Africans?
The signs "No Blacks, No Irish No dogs" and "No Irish need apply" were based on peoples experiences with the Irish it doesn't make it any less racist.

MoonlitSunshine

If I were to call it a general impression that influences my initial stance regarding a group of people, it would be more accurate. As I said, I am sure there are plenty of great romanians out there, but my experiences have biased me against dealing with them. It's exactly the same as someone saying "I dislike all superfans of Justin Bieber, because my experience with them is that they are all hyperactive bimbos with no taste in music". There might be some great people out there who are Justin Bieber superfans, but if the first thing you hear about someone is that they like Justin Bieber, your initial reaction is still going to be "uh oh". It's exactly the same thing.

This, Unknown Soldier, is also an answer to your post. The two are very different. Racism is discrimination against someone for no reason other than that they are not you, essentially. It doesn't matter what they are like, but if they are black, you don't like them, for example. My example, and Darren Scully's example, is "I don't like them, because every single experience I have had with them has been negative and I am honestly tired of this happening".

People make judgements all the time, about everything. We know you can generally tell a lot about the kind of person who drives a massive car, we take it as a given that you can say much about a person who likes reading celebrity gossip magazines. To extend this further in the direction of nationality, we all have predispositions about peoples' nationalities based on media and experiences. Is it wrong to do so, if as a rule, it's generally right? Is it wrong to say that Irish people tend to like their drink, that French people tend to be really grumbly about foreigners speaking English in France? Are any of those things racist?

I would say that they are not, because nationality is simply another grouping, which can be used to make a reasonable assumption about someone, because there your culture has a huge effect on your personality. if I were hating on them just because they were Romanian, and regardless of whether they turned out to be like that or not I still disliked them because they were Romanian, then yes, then I would be being racist, but that's not what I'm doing, and it's not what Darren Scully did either.

__________________
"I found it eventually, at the bottom of a locker in a disused laboratory, with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard". Ever thought of going into Advertising?"

- Arthur Dent

Janszoon

I have no idea what the context of this Darren Scully conversation is, but I just wanted to point out that the bolded part is how racists invariably justify their position. Nobody believes they look down on some other group of people completely randomly, they always think they have a good reason. That doesn't mean that they are not racist.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

Rubato

Well I disagree there, I think making assumptions is the root of the problem. What generally tends to happen is people will base their assumptions on the loudest members of each group, not the significant majority. Walk into any country and you'd be hard pressed to find one walking stereotype.

MoonlitSunshine

Jansz, If they have honestly found that to be the case with everyone of that grouping that they have met, then that's fair enough by my book. The amusing thing is that you are doing exactly that with your statement about racists. Are you "racist", or guilty of the same stereotyping as racists by making a statement about all racists? I personally find that people who I would consider racists are much more likely to claim that they have a reason, but in actual fact they don't, or it is based on a very, very small sample space.

I agree that if you meet one asian guy, and then loudly proclaim that all asians are hard-working hikikomori, then that would be being racist (on account of the small sample space), but if I met 100 and they ALL turned out to have one particular thing in common, I'd feel a lot safer about making a statement, disregarding for a second that "asians" are highly unlikely to have one aspect which they all have in common because of the sheer area and population involved :P

Rubato, I wish you luck in your quest to rid the world of assumptions, but it simply aint happening. Stereotypes do exist for a reason, but that said I would not assume a stereotype was true unless I had personal experience to back up that stereotype. We simply have to make assumptions in order to get along. For example, you assume that you can make any kind of non-PC jokes around someone who has made a non-PC joke before. You make assumptions based on everything you know about a person all the time, in order to gauge how you interact with them. If we didn't, we'd have to be so careful about everything that it would simply be ridiculous.

__________________
"I found it eventually, at the bottom of a locker in a disused laboratory, with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard". Ever thought of going into Advertising?"

- Arthur Dent

Rubato

The Irish were assumed to be all thieving drunks, if you were refused entry into a shop because you were Irish would you feel discriminated against? Of course people will still assume, but just because a problem is hard to get rid of doesn't make it is so virtuous in itself. There is simply no excuse for assuming anything about someone before you've met them.

Janszoon

I think you've got the point I was making backwards. Let me put it a different way: Imagine for a moment that you and I are talking to a person who we'd both agree is racist. Now imagine asking him why he hates X group of people. Do you really think his answer is going to be, "Dunno, just don't like the look of 'em I guess"? Of course not. He's going to tell about how they're all thieves or they're all drunks or whatever and he's going to have reasons why he believes that. The point is simply that, in your previous post, you were trying to define racism in a way that doesn't apply to actual human reality. Again, people will always have some kind of justification for racist beliefs, but that doesn't mean their beliefs aren't racist.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

duga

There's no excuse, but I think he is right in saying stereotypes and assumptions will be around forever. There is seriously no getting rid of them. Humans are naturally categorizing creatures. This extends beyond race...in fact, I just had an argument with someone about my assumptions of engineers and hers on biologists. She said something along the lines of "Biologists are just not technical and really don't know what they are doing most of the time." Then I came back with "Engineers all have OCD". We also both consider each other very non-discriminant types of people. These kinds of assumptions are just unavoidable.

The difference, however, is actually acting upon these assumptions. Will I refuse to be friends with an engineer because of what most of them think about me? No, but I will probably think that person has OCD until I get to know them better. The same applies to race.

__________________
Confusion will be my epitaph...

Salami

Well, as much as I'd like to say here, I personally don't have the time to add sources to clarify every single point hip hop bunny hop is taking issue with. I think I've said my piece and really a lot of what I was saying such as "more affluent area in general are less diverse" is pretty basic GCSE stuff. If I could link him to one more source for my claims, it would be this one: Racial and Ethnic Differences in Wealth and Asset Choices

And to be quite frank, what I've seen from Unknown Soldier, Janszoon, Rubato and yourself carries much more significance and is generally much better stuff than my posts are comprised of, and I think you've probably got a lot more time than me for writing in here and putting more thought into posts.

Obviously I'm happy to address people's concerns about anything I'm saying, even to admit that I'm wrong if I am. I'm willing to accept that I have a lot to learn here from many older and wiser people than myself here, so what you say about "we need more voices in here" is absolutely true, but I don't want to be pinned down as opposing anything here other than racism and bigotry.

MoonlitSunshine

Many Irish were a bunch of thieving drunks :P That attitude has died with the legacy, though - I haven't come across any discrimination against the Irish in the year I've been living in the UK. If anything, I've gained on account of everyone seeming to like the Irish over here. If it were to happen to me then yes, i would feel discriminated against, but does it? When was the last time that happened?

@ Jansz, of course he's going to say that, but my point is that the distinction is that the racist won't actually have enough evidence to be able to make that assumption. he or she will be basing it on one bad experience or on what someone told them. As I was saying before, it might seem like semantics, but the difference between that and a position based on personal experience with a large group is significant.

In the case of the Irish Councillor Darren Scully, he stated that every single time he had dealt with the local black african population (and it was a reasonable number of times), they had acted aggressively towards him when they came to him seeking help. He decided that based on the attitude of the community, he no longer felt comfortable representing them and would instead forward their problems on to someone else who could help them. Are there valid reasons for doing so? In my opinion, yes. It could have been the case that these cases were taking up so much time due to the aggressive attitude of the entire subsection of this group that he had had dealings with that it was taking away from his ability to represent the rest of his constituents, who weren't as aggressive. If you have to make a choice, surely you're going to choose the more helpful, whom you might actually be able to help? The above might not be true, but it is at least one form of justification for such a decision.

I understand that there is a very thin line here. I understand how it is a short step from an assumption based on a large body of experience to assumptions based on less and less, until you are being racist. I will note that I am more than happy to be proven wrong, and I am sure Darren Scully would be happy to be proven wrong, but until such a time as I find an exception to the rule, I am going to assume the rule stands.

__________________
"I found it eventually, at the bottom of a locker in a disused laboratory, with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard". Ever thought of going into Advertising?"

- Arthur Dent