• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is this scenario racism, Can minorities be racist?

Is this scenario racism, Can minorities be racist?

  • Total voters
    65
Cephus said:
Absolutely and without question, you would be racist. Anyone who pays attention to skin color is, by definition, racist.
Click to expand...

Would you think preferential consumerism based on other factors but not race is also bigoted? For example, if one knows a certain product is manufactured in their own state and buys it because of that, is the buyer bigoted toward out of state residents? If a product is union made, if the buyer a non-union bigot? Is race preferred consumerism exclusively immoral while its moral to discriminate against decent people who produce quality products simply because they cannot claim "made in America" for example?
 
AGENT J said:
1.) real world is all i ever talk because fantasies are easily defeated by facts
2.) same as us all. If rights were violated or laws were broken. When im not busy and bored I could go look for a case i looked up before where a WHITE guy sued because there was proof he was passed over for a promotion based on race and it was given to a BLACK FEMALE. since there was proof HE WON because he has the same rights as us all, also the best part is the judge was also a black female.
3.) there are many out there all one has to do is look be honest and not biased, also mathematics and REAL WORLD reality would also suggest that naturally there are less casess of this because it happens less by default/mathematics.
4.) no its factually ILLEGAL to discriminate against a white male 40 year old
as far as morals thats subjective and meaningless to the discussion
5.) this also has nothgin to do with the OP
6.) possible I know ive made my share of mistakes on this site but theres only one factually correct answer and the question was very specific and very clear.
Click to expand...

Let me try this again. Yes your a racist in your example. But proving discrimination is not the same thing, no openly discriminating employer is going to say that an employee or applicant is being turned away because of race, unless they are just incredibly stupid. :)
 
voyager1 said:
1.)Let me try this again. Yes your a racist in your example.
2.) But proving discrimination is not the same thing, no openly discriminating employer is going to say that an employee or applicant is being turned away because of race, unless they are just incredibly stupid. :)
Click to expand...

1.) correct
2.) agreed and history and current times prove many are incredibly stupid . . . . .I dont know if that good or bad? I think its both ;)
 
Smeagol said:
Would you think preferential consumerism based on other factors but not race is also bigoted? For example, if one knows a certain product is manufactured in their own state and buys it because of that, is the buyer bigoted toward out of state residents? If a product is union made, if the buyer a non-union bigot? Is race preferred consumerism exclusively immoral while its moral to discriminate against decent people who produce quality products simply because they cannot claim "made in America" for example?
Click to expand...

There's no law against buying things in your own state. There most certainly is with regard to running your business in a racist manner. I don't care about morality, I care about legality. Anyone who considers race paramount is a racist, no matter what their skin color is or the skin color of their "victim". Blacks can be just as racist as whites, Asians can be just as racist as Hispanics, men can be just as sexist as women and vice versa, etc. Nobody gets special rules.
 
Cephus said:
No, but the OP was. I quote: "Am I a racist, is this racism?"
Click to expand...

Sorry, your post immediately after mine seemed at first to be a reply to one of my questions.
 
I've heard two different definitions of racism. One is the definition you provided, the other is the same definition, but the one committing the racism must be part of the race with the institutional power in the society.

I try to avoid the word racist/sexist/cissexist etc. and just use words like prejudiced and discriminatory.
 
Cephus said:
Absolutely and without question, you would be racist. Anyone who pays attention to skin color is, by definition, racist.
Click to expand...
I'm struggling to grasp how observing physical traits is prejudiced or discriminatory in any way, or at least in a relative sense.
 
Is this scenario racism, Can minorities be racist?
Click to expand...

You betcha, racism is not limited - it's spread throughout the human race
 
Robbie Loucks said:
I'm struggling to grasp how observing physical traits is prejudiced or discriminatory in any way, or at least in a relative sense.
Click to expand...

Observing that they exist isn't. Thinking they are important is.
 
shrubnose said:
People who have little economic or societal power's 'racism' will have little effect on those that it targets.

Why should I care if you hate me if you can't have any effect on my life?

Think about it.




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ RobertGreen Ingersoll
Click to expand...

If the races were reversed, how would what the White guy did have any affect on the black guys life?

Does this apply to all situations?
 
Last edited:
Paschendale said:
I don't think you're right in the slightest. It is only because of the power behind expressions of racism to even care about them. They only exist because of societal divides. To reduce racism away from a societal problem to a personal one is, I would contend, part of the move to diminish criticism of racism and allow it to flourish. We can condemn Sterling or Bundy all we like, but that does nothing to combat the actual problem. Society still allows racial oppression to continue. Remember the satirical bits about how Bundy was in trouble for not using the appropriate code words? That's really the truth. There's all kinds of racial oppression going on, and none of it happens to whites. But use of code words is one way to disguise it, as is trying to turn what is really a societal problem into a personal one.
Click to expand...

So since Doland Sterling said what he said in private and never acted on what he said, it doesn't matter. is that what you are saying?

He never banned blacks from coming to his games, as a matter of fact he invited many more blacks to his games tan would have come without his invitations. How do you reconcile what he said with what he has done?
 
voyager1 said:
No it is not racism because white males under 40 are not a protected class. Now if you include white females and whites over 40 then yes. Also I think the behavior is racist but it is legal assuming the age and gender requirements put forth.
Click to expand...

Since when does the law tell us what is racist and what is not?
 
Last edited:
Mason66 said:
If the races were reversed, how would what the White guy did have any affect on the black guys life?

Does this apply to all situations?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




When does really powerless people's 'racism' ever have any real effect on those that it's directed towards?
 
Mason66 said:
So since Doland Sterling said what he said in private and never acted on what he said, it doesn't matter. is that what you are saying?

He never banned blacks from coming to his games, as a matter of fact he invited many more blacks to his games tan would have come without his invitations. How do you reconcile what he said with what he has done?
Click to expand...

Well, it doesn't really matter, but that's not why. It doesn't matter because who cares what he thinks? But my point was about the OP. A racist opinion only really matters when there is societal support for it. That's why racist opinions, while still despicable, by disempowered minorities don't really matter. Because their prejudices are not enforced the way the prejudices of whites are against non-whites. Racism is a societal problem. It is a stain on our whole society. It's not a thing that just some bad people have. It's a society-wide problem.
 
I say yes but why would I care? I feel that as long as you are not in the public/governing sector you should have the right to be as racist as you wish.
 
Robbie Loucks said:
I've heard two different definitions of racism. One is the definition you provided, the other is the same definition, but the one committing the racism must be part of the race with the institutional power in the society.

I try to avoid the word racist/sexist/cissexist etc. and just use words like prejudiced and discriminatory.
Click to expand...

I have heard that too but it has no factual support thats the issue and fact that SOME people miss.
 
I would say that's racism...but apparently there are other definitions of racism...
 
Paschendale said:
Well, it doesn't really matter, but that's not why. It doesn't matter because who cares what he thinks? But my point was about the OP. A racist opinion only really matters when there is societal support for it. That's why racist opinions, while still despicable, by disempowered minorities don't really matter. Because their prejudices are not enforced the way the prejudices of whites are against non-whites. Racism is a societal problem. It is a stain on our whole society. It's not a thing that just some bad people have. It's a society-wide problem.
Click to expand...

You see that seems backwards to me.

It seems to me it would matter if an individual is racist because it is an individual doing the damage.

An idea a society has does no damage, it is always the individual doing the damage.
 
The Mark said:
I would say that's racism...but apparently there are other definitions of racism...
Click to expand...

There are other deifinitions of racism, but a situation only has to fit one of the definitions to be racism.

That is something Eco doesn't understand.
 
Mason66 said:
You see that seems backwards to me.

It seems to me it would matter if an individual is racist because it is an individual doing the damage.

An idea a society has does no damage, it is always the individual doing the damage.
Click to expand...

An individual racist in a society that doesn't institute racist policy would be harmless. A lunch counter that says "whites only" only really matters because all the other lunch counters said it too. If only one did, everyone would think that counter weird and avoid it. But when society as a whole tolerated it, we had Jim Crow. Individuals' racist actions only have power when society will defend and enforce their prejudices. Individuals' racism hurts someone's feelings. Society's racism makes people into second class citizens.
 
Paschendale said:
An individual racist in a society that doesn't institute racist policy would be harmless. A lunch counter that says "whites only" only really matters because all the other lunch counters said it too. If only one did, everyone would think that counter weird and avoid it. But when society as a whole tolerated it, we had Jim Crow. Individuals' racist actions only have power when society will defend and enforce their prejudices. Individuals' racism hurts someone's feelings. Society's racism makes people into second class citizens.
Click to expand...

But now you run into a paradox. If one counter is whites only then you say that's not racist, or at least not a problem because it's just one. But let's say 5 years later the majority are whites only, then you would say it is racist because of the societal toleration. But nothing about that individual has changed. One day he's not racist, or at least it's irrelevant, and the next he's racist yet nothing about his counter has changed. Do you really think that's logical?
 
pinqy said:
But now you run into a paradox. If one counter is whites only then you say that's not racist, or at least not a problem because it's just one. But let's say 5 years later the majority are whites only, then you would say it is racist because of the societal toleration. But nothing about that individual has changed. One day he's not racist, or at least it's irrelevant, and the next he's racist yet nothing about his counter has changed. Do you really think that's logical?
Click to expand...

I didn't say that wasn't racist. I said that it's not important by itself. If it were an aberration, then it would just be weird. But when society tolerates it, then it's a serious problem. The individual's prejudice only starts to matter when society backs it up. Hence why no white person ever really has to fear the ire of non-whites. It simply hasn't got enough power to make a difference. The individual lunch counter guy doesn't really matter. His counter doesn't matter. Society's prejudices do. The one guy is just an asshole. Society oppresses people.
 
Mason66 said:
There are other deifinitions of racism, but a situation only has to fit one of the definitions to be racism.

That is something Eco doesn't understand.
Click to expand...

Racism is a social construct of specific factors and impacts. You pick and choose among those factors (and ignore impacts) to apologize for real racism and make false accusations of racism. At the heart of such confusion is a desire to deny real racism and perpetuate a system of oppression.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom