• 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
Errr....what? It's right there in black and white, dude.

Yes or no: you think every definition of a word needs to apply in order to make its usage correct?

In the case of racism, yes. Otherwise, one is equating bigotry with racism.
 
Only if one even fails at dictionary reading.
which you obviously do and keep proving LOL

my example of blue proved the fact that you dont understand who definitions work lol
 
In the case of racism, yes. Otherwise, one is equating bigotry with racism.

proven false by the very definitions you pointed out lol
your statement fails and facts win again
 
Dude, EVERYTHING is racist.

Well, there's simple nihilism for ya. Why bother with equating bigotry and AA with racism when one can just proclaim everything is racist and thereby racism is not so much a problem as a natural state. Wonderful.
 
Well, there's simple nihilism for ya. Why bother with equating bigotry and AA with racism when one can just proclaim everything is racist and thereby racism is not so much a problem as a natural state. Wonderful.

COrrect so stop doing it. Use the terms properly so your factually wrong views are no longer part of the problem. Your views perpetuate and empower racist and racism and its part of the problem and so sad in 2014.
 
Honestly, if you're treating the word differently than every other word in the English language as far as the actual definition goes, the issue is with you, not with other people.

It would help if you realized that. Before you launch on a tirade against someone for using the word wrong, remember that you're the one that's not following the dictionary definition, not them.
 
In the case of racism, yes. Otherwise, one is equating bigotry with racism.
I'm equating racial bigotry with racism because according to the dictionary, racial bigotry IS racism.
 
I'm equating racial bigotry with racism because according to the dictionary, racial bigotry IS racism.

Only if you don't read all of the definition.
 
Only if you don't read all of the definition.

That's not how definitions work. And you know that. So why are you pretending that you don't know better?
 
That's not how definitions work. And you know that. So why are you pretending that you don't know better?

In the case of a social construct, it does work like that. Ignoring the social aspects of a social construct is stupidity.
 
In the case of a social construct, it does work like that. Ignoring the social aspects of a social construct is stupidity.

In the case of a social construct, individual definitions no longer apply? Can you name any other word like this? Why doesn't it say that in the definition?

Again: YOU are you issue. You're the one being odd about the definition, not anyone else.
 
Only if you don't read all of the definition.
You NEVER read all the definitions as a whole when viewing a dictionary - each definition is part of the whole, but a situation need only meet one definition's requirements in order to fit that word.
 
Only if you don't read all of the definition.

LOL this lie was laready proven wrong with other examples of words. NOBODY that understands facts and how definitions work would every be mentally retarded enough to believe the lie you keep repeating.
 
1.)In the case of a social construct, it does work like that.
2.) Ignoring the social aspects of a social construct is stupidity.

1.)100% factually false as already proven
2.) agreed so stop doing so

trying to sell this lie only further exposes the complete failure of your posts and empowers racism and racists
 
You NEVER read all the definitions as a whole when viewing a dictionary - each definition is part of the whole, but a situation need only meet one definition's requirements in order to fit that word.

This is so obvious that I'm forced to believe eco is just trolling. He's not nearly stupid enough to not know this extremely simple concept.

In what grade is it that we learn how to use a dictionary? It's just that simple.
 
You NEVER read all the definitions as a whole when viewing a dictionary - each definition is part of the whole, but a situation need only meet one definition's requirements in order to fit that word.

Racism is not an individual act, bigotry is. They should not be equated.
 
Racism is not an individual act, bigotry is. They should not be equated.

And the dictionary disagrees. So we're using the word correctly, and you're just saying "no" when we can all read it.
 
Racism is not an individual act, bigotry is. They should not be equated.

nobody educated honest and objective believes this lie and its been proven factually wrong by 10+ dictionaries and definitions

if ANYBODY disagrees i challenge you to provide any fact that supports the factually false statement in red above. Heck ONE fact will do.
 
We don't need to change the meaning. We just need people to see the meaning of the concept. Every sociology department sees the meaning, because the perspective is at the social level. No individual 'does racism'.

He did racism.
He's doing racism.
He's racisiming


Never seen it.

Why?



Because it's not a ****ing individual act.

It's not an act, it's a belief. That one race or races is/are superior to another/others. That's all. You dont even have to be the race that you believe is superior.

It's not about hate, altho some racists do hate other people because of their race alone.

But racism is a belief and *everything* else is if/how people act on it. Your example of South Africa is *state discrimination based on racism*, not racism itself. It is discrimination based on that belief.
 
You forgot about #2. Is it so difficult to consider the entire dictionary definition? Really, the dictionary serves as an introduction to the concept, and you can't even manage to understand the entire abstract?

It's 3 different definitions for the word, not a cumulative definition, Mr. "Intellectual." Surely you understand that the three are not 'all criteria that must be met?'
 
Racism is not an individual act, bigotry is. They should not be equated.

In the OP example, the individual hiring is acting on his own racist belief.

And it certainly impacts potential employees of the 'wrong' race.
 
In the OP example, the individual hiring is acting on his own racist belief.

And it certainly impacts potential employees of the 'wrong' race.

In the OP, the black individual is unable to change society's higher level of racism. Any white affected is free to move away and not be bothered. Blacks, of course, cannot move away from unjust discrimination. A black cannot create nor perpetuate a society-wide system of unjust discrimination and privilege. That's why a black cannot be racist.

We should not equate the socially insignificant act of a single business owner with oppression felt every single day of ones life no matter where one goes; doing so is intellectually disgusting and pathetic.
 
Mr. "Intellectual."

You can take the quotes off. There's no doubt, in any professor's mind, that I'm an intellectual of considerable caliber. For example, a consideration of the social aspects of a social construct appears beyond your grasp.

You want to define a social construct by an individual act, that's downright dumb.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom