Disagreeing with a culture is not racism/bigotry

Post Reply New Topic

Suppose their existed a culture or sub-culture that constantly produced music with lyrics advocating violent, racially-directed crimes and even murders. And suppose this culture was generally tied to people of certain skin color. If a person disagreed with that culture of violence-promoting lyrics, would that person thereby be a racist?

Keep in mind that, in my example, some people of the same skin color as this particular culture or sub-culture would also be in stark disagreement to it. But, regardless, no person objecting to the promotion of racial violence and murder would be correctly dubbed a racist or a bigot.

I just wanted to point out that we can appropriately disagree with a culture or sub-culture in some cases. (I keep using the phrase "culture or sub-culture" because people may use either of those terms for what I've described; I don't think either one is necessarily incorrect.)

Hahahaha, I thought this was going to be about Muslims, so I chose "yes". Now that I realise that it's potentially about something else, I feel queasy about it.

Be honest: do you have something in mind? You sound like you have an axe to grind. Is it hip-hop? I don't know anything about hip-hop, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't commonly advocate racially motivated murder.

I don't know much about hip-hop either, and I think you're right that it doesn't advocate violence/murder. Isn't hip-hop mainly just the kind of music a lot of people put on when they throw a big party? Pretty generic lyrics, right? Like mainly just about general fun? Again, that guess is as far as my "knowledge" -- if that's what it is -- on hip-hop goes. (Not to mention my "knowledge" of parties, me being an Aspie.)

The thread actually doesn't describe just one particular group. I'm talking worldwide, so, there are a lot of them. But rather than naming them, it's best to deal with the issue objectively, and therefore on a concept basis.

You can agree to disagree with a cultures basic tenets but that does not give you the right to decide they should not exist. Acceptance (regardless of whether you agree or disagree) is an important concept that many people miss and without it things tend to get out of control.

Sadly, the things you have just stated are too often invoked by people who have decided that a certain culture should not exist and hence I imagine you stating such things would lead people to automatically assume that you are one of those even if that is not true.

Assumption and association at it's finest.

I'm not saying you are those things, just that perhaps it's why you get taken the wrong way on such topics.

Can a person accept everything? It's a serious philosophical question. Can they?



As my Jewish friend says, "haters gonna hate."



Ya, I know. Violent crime promotion is such a controversial subject.

Nobody said you have to accept everything, don't take it out of context. There is not going to be any productive discussion if you take things out of context.

I was stating that it would be a good idea to accept that they have a right to exist as a culture.

Or do you disagree with that statement?

Have you made it clear to that what you object to is the violent crime promotion and not the culture as a whole? Perhaps if you focus on an aspect people understand, that will ensure that misunderstandings regarding race are kept to a minimum.

For someone who complains that many of your posts get taken the wrong way, perhaps it would be wise to not take things purposely out of context in order to make you point? Complaining about that and then turning around and doing things like that is hypocritical.

Last edited by Kjas on 17 Apr 2012, 9:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

It's not the disagreeing of values that makes it wrong; it's when you say that they aren't allowed to be a part of that culture or assume that everyone with that skin color is like that.

Most of the people who disagree with the culture and are able to realize not everyone is like that or can see that a very large percentage of the time the lyrics are not literal; are the ones who generally don't say anything about it. The people who do say something about it are usually the ones who are trying to exert control over that particular culture, and say that that way is wrong.

It depends. Do you limit your objection to the music or other part of the culture that you find offensive, or do you criticise the entire culture or race? I do not think that the former is racist, but the latter is.

Lol, it's not like I'm going to take any kind of action. Good grief, I'm just explaining that people have a right to disagree with violence without being themselves branded in a negative way.


"Ay, there's the rub" -William Shakespeare, Hamlet.

I'm talking about violent-crime promoting cultures/sub-cultures. Otherwise this thread's OP would contain nothing worth reading or thinking about. I'm asking a hard question, not an easy one.



What's wrong with keeping the debate objective, instead of injecting emotions into it pointlessly? No race was mentioned. The OP is saying that, if a person disagrees with violence-promoting lyrics (toward rape, murder of innocents, etc), the person is not thereby racist. (The only way you could say otherwise is if you are saying that a particular race is violent.) We all agree to that, I trust. And yet, if it's found that the skin color of the disagreeing person is different from that of a group widely known to promote rape and killings of innocents in its lyrics -- suddenly, the legitmately-disagreeing person will often be called upon to do the impossible in proving a negative: that he/she is not a racist. The point of the thread is about artificial, incorrect, negative branding of people for holding opinions that are universally called very good.

And I didn't think I was taking anything of yours out of context. I read a whole sentence of yours, and took it to mean a general principle. Sorry if you didn't mean it as a general principle. It was: "Acceptance (regardless of whether you agree or disagree) is an important concept that many people miss and without it things tend to get out of control." You didn't mention any particular object for the "acceptance", so I assumed it was open-ended.

Last edited by Ragtime on 17 Apr 2012, 10:02 am, edited 3 times in total.

I'm assuming that you're talk about rap / hip hop. It's not really my type of music, but I don't see why an entire music genre should be blamed for the work of individual artists. It is possible to judge and criticize every band in its own right.

I used to be a metal and hard rock fan back in the day, and I remember that heavy metal was also vilified by many people. The only difference is that heavy metal bands were accused of promoting satanism and suicide instead of criminal behavior and sexism. But of course that was a gross generalization based on the lyrics, album artwork and stage performances of a few bands. Some of which I used to listen to, and they didn't turn me into a Satanist Neither did songs like Judas Priest's "Breaking the Law" turn me into a criminal, for that matter.

Btw, I don't think that the concerned African-American parents of juvenile heavy metal fans ever blamed white people for this music genre, even though nearly all metal artists have European ancestry and pale skin.

Again, can we please talk about this in a pure philosophical way, without name-dropping? No "race" has a monopoly on violence promotion. I guess you did make that point clear, so that's good. But it often helps to keep a philosophical debate as academic and technical as possible, at least in the initial stages, to maintain clarity of thought.

I have a framed picture of a famous black musician on my piano. If I didn't believe against idolatry, he'd be one of my idols, because he is a musical genius beyond my comprehension. He also was non-violent in everything he did, as far as his life is known, and promoted interracial peace and cooperation at all times. Sadly though, he is all but forgotten by his people.

Your actions or lack of them (and what constitutes actions is debatable) is irrelevant.

I'll put it to you like this then;

You can agree to disgree with a cultures basic tenets, provided that you accept they have a right, as a culture, to exist.

If you disagree that they have a right to exist, that becomes dangerous territory. By denying their right to exist, you have just admitted to the psychological concept of "dehumanisation". Dehumanisation is the leading factor in racism and bigotry.

My question which you did not answer, "Do they have a right to exist as a culture?", is not only relevant, but in fact, essential, to the question of whether or not it makes someone racist (due to the dehumanisation factor), which was the question in the OP.

Last edited by Kjas on 17 Apr 2012, 11:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

It seems we miscommunicated again. Actions seemed to me to be relevant to your question of, Do I agree that such a culture/sub-culture has a right to exist as a culture/sub-culture -- like it was in my power, or something. I will say this though: Evil has no right to exist. Some will disagree, I know, but most will agree with that statement.

A culture/sub-culture which is defined principally by violence -- that is what I postulated, after all -- has a right to exist? Oh man, someone better tell the police crime divisions that they need to disband their departments -- stopping violent crime will cause any cultures/sub-cultures of violence to exist less! (You do understand that a "culture" can be a way of thinking and acting and nothing more, right? That it isn't necessarily rooted in a specific "race" or religion, right? All this time, I was assuming you knew that. I hope I was correct in that assumption.)

(Do you realize your post repeats the same points over and over?)

I don't quite understand your reaction But then again, I rarely ever do. I don't see where I engaged in any kind of name-dropping in this thread. Anyway, please excuse me for mistaking an academic philosophical debate for an informal discussion about the evils of rap music on an internet forum.

Myself, I have to confess that I simply don't understand its appeal. (I have just enough knowledge of what it is to know I don't want to hear more of it. )

I could see it making you an idiot for taking music far too seriously, but I don't see why it would be racist.