So lumping together all jews and ascribing a single characteristic to them isn't anti-semitism? Even when that charateristic touches on stereotypes used in the past to dehumanize jews?
I thought that you would attempt this sort of rebuttal. Sorry, but the fact that you make a connection between what is arguably a positive stereotype and some negative stereotypes says more about you than it does about Shin. You seem to think that such a connection is warranted because Jews are a special case. But isn't that an idea that could be described, based on your logic, as anti-Semitic?
I can give any number of examples of positive stereotypes that can be linked to negative stereotypes. The idea that "Asians are good at math" could be used to imply that "Asians are obsessed with academics and have no social life, or they lack social skills." Saying that "Black men have large(r) penises" could imply that one thinks of black men as sex objects (indeed, anti-black racism in the past has featured stereotypes about black people's sexual inclinations). But the mere use of these stereotypes does not imply hatred. Someone could be attracted to intelligent people and use the positive stereotype about Asians in the process of selecting romantic partners. Similarly, so-called "size queens" may desire to be with black men because of the stereotype about their sexual organs, but how is that anymore hateful then men being aroused by large breasts? I admit that I have a breast fetish, but I don't claim that a woman's value as person is determined by the size of her breasts. Furthermore, I don't even care if my signicant other has large breasts or not. Large breasts are just one thing that arouses me, nothing more.
I noticed that you're only picking on Shin, despite the fact that others in this thread have actually made reasoned attempts to justify the stereotypes about Jews and their practices and occupations concerning money. Shin has not made such statements.
Also, by definition, a positive stereotype about Jews cannot be "anti-Semitic."
It's stereotyping, which is a form of racism.
This is strong evidence that you are way less knowledgeable about racism than you believe. You have not demonstrated that stereotyping is a "form" of racism, not just an aspect of it. You have merely repeated your assertion.
You are certainly entitled to not be offended by it, but that doesn't change what it is.
I sense concern-trolling going on here. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I presume that you are not Asian, since "Bill" is not an Asian name, and you have made no claims to being Asian even though I used my own ethnicity in my argument. On what grounds do claim authority as to what an Asian like me should or should not recognize as racism?
Fact is there are issues on which we have to watch what we say. Using stereotypes is one of those times.
I agree with the principle, but this is a problematic statement. The idea that we should watch what we say means that we are setting a standard for ourselves, not other people. We should hope that other people adopt similar standards, but we should not expect it of them, nor should we punish or reproach them for not having such standards. The most humanistic and productive way to encourage other people to raise or change their standards is through consciousness-raising. Telling someone that he or she is racist for using a stereotype, however harmless, is not consciousness-raising.
I personally hope that other people come to "watch" how they use grammar and vocabulary to express themselves. My writing and speech are hardly perfect, but I make a very earnest, perhaps even obsessive-compulsive, effort to do the best that I can. There are some obviously intelligent people in this forum who don't make such an effort, which is frustrating to me because I have a difficult time reading and understanding what they have to say. I want everyone to make the effort not because I want everyone to be perfect; I just want everyone to be able to express him- or herself clearly to avoid misunderstandings. But I'm not going to castigate someone here for not writing well.
Here's another example from everyday speech: When you are referring to someone of unknown or unspecified gender, do you default to using masculine pronouns? Or do you try to alternate between masculine and feminine pronouns? Or do you always use both simultaneously (e.g., "him or her") Or do you use plural pronouns, such as "they"? When you default to masculine pronouns, it is a manifestation of male privilege, and an overly sensitive person (such as yourself) may call you sexist. When you alternate between masculine and feminine pronouns, you are still assigning gender when the situation hasn't called for it yet. Again, an overly sensitive person could accuse you of making unwarranted generalizations and thus being guilty of sexism. When you use plural pronouns, you are using incorrect grammar, which promotes a lower standard for language. One could also argue that you're denying the individuality of the person in question (i.e., dehumanization). Using masculine and feminine pronouns simultaneously is the most correct approach (and it's what I deliberately try to do myself), but it's very clunky and tiring to use all of the time.
If you say things that sound racist, people will assume you are racist.
Sorry, but merely using stereotypes in speech does not make a person sound racist to me. Nor would it sound racist to most people. But it does depend on what the stereotypes are being used. Saying that "Jews are successful" does not sound like a racist (Or anti-Semitic) statement to me. But saying that "Jews are greedy" would certainly be anti-Semitic.
Among the reasons "systemic" and "institutional" racism exist is because of the "soft" racism of modern language. It's not trivial to point out the impact that language has.
This is unbelievably ignorant. Please make a case for it, instead of stating an unsupported assertion. You have addressed none of the points that I made about the systemic and institutional racism.
Yup - and one of the reasons for that is because so many poor people are minorities. But racists don't say things like "Lets keep those n...... in their place" any more. (Well at least most don't in public.) Instead they say "We need to make sure that welfare mothers learn to work hard for what they get."
Sorry, but your example doesn't show that language is the problem. The statement, "We need to make sure that welfare mothers learn to work hard for what they get," clearly expresses the idea that people on welfare are not inclined to work hard. The statement, "Jews are successful," merely expresses that Jews in general are successful, which may or may not be true, but is nonetheless a statement empty of values or ideology. The ideas/ideologies are the problem, not language.
I can't believe you can seriously poo-poo my arguments about racist language and then raise "white privilege." It's because of white privilege that the langauge of racism has changed. The white people with power want to keep it. They use language as a tool.
This statement is strong evidence that you know very little about white privilege. White privilege is not found primarily through use of language. Language is a very minor aspect of a very complex problem. You make the assertion that white people use language as a tool for preserving their privilege. Please demonstrate why language is such an important tool, more important than some other tools.
But the idea that stereotyping people isn't racist, or sexist, or anti-semitic etc.. just isn't credible.
None of your statements is particularly credible.