• 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!

‘Knock That White Boy Out’: Arrests Made After Mob Of Teens Attack Disabled Vet

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gardener said:
No, I was referring to your support for the creation of this new power structure that has replaced the former, but simply with the roles reversed.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

All I want is for you to admit that a black person being bigoted against whites carries different implications than a white bigoted against blacks. The former means nothing socially, the latter means lost jobs and other opportunities.
 
ecofarm said:
Too bad you didn't get affirmative action, then you'd be able to converse about racism at a level above idiot.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer me: why do you think my avatar is a black guy? (I hope I used that correctly, it only fits one of the definitions below)

av·a·tar [av-uh-tahr, av-uh-tahr] Show IPA
noun
1.
Hindu Mythology . the descent of a deity to the earth in an incarnate form or some manifest shape; the incarnation of a god.
2.
an embodiment or personification, as of a principle, attitude, or view of life.
3.
Digital Technology. a graphical image that represents a person, as on the Internet.
4.
Also called avatar mouse,, mouse avatar. a mouse that is implanted with cells or tissue freshly extracted from a human being, as to test drug therapies for an individual patient or to study a disease process: Researchers transplanted samples of the patient’s tumor into specially bred avatars.
5.
(in science fiction) a hybrid creature, composed of human and alien DNA and remotely controlled by the mind of a genetically matched human being.
Relevant Questions

So you're calling me racist because I think it's hilarious that you said "black people can't be racist?" hahahahahahahahahahahahahah this is great!!!!
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Unfortunately, words have meaning.
Click to expand...

Yes, they do. Meanings which are not decided through childish tantrums or intellectual meltdowns but context and analysis.
 
Hatuey said:
Yes, they do. Meanings which are not decided through childish tantrums or intellectual meltdowns but context and analysis.
Click to expand...

And in dictionaries. You don't get to choose what they do or don't mean in order to promote whatever viewpoint you have. That, indeed, is CHILDISH. "THIS WORD MEANS ONLY WHAT I WANT IT TO MEAN, ALL ELSE BE DAMNED!"

I've already exhibited several times, with several words, how outrageously stupid that viewpoint is. Now I'm here to continue to kick someone while they're down and clearly wrong, in an effort to teach him not to be so cocky about dumb **** again. I hope he learns his lesson, let's see where this avatar question takes us. It could get crazily hilarious.
 
Hatuey said:
They're usually called racialists. Racism in the means by which they push their racialist beliefs into existence. Racialism doesn't require power. Racism does. At least that's how I think scholars in the field view it.
Click to expand...

Many scholars do, yes.

A true scholar, or at least an independent thinker capable of original thought would question the myriad ways in which power is disseminated. If anything, all these various appeals to authority only prove the extent to which the dynamic has changed in that such authoritarian appeals display how thoroughly invested people are in this new power structure. If it wasn't a power structure, you would not be relying on it as you are.

.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
hahahahahahahahahahahahahah this is great!!!!
Click to expand...

Well, I'm glad you're easily amused. I myself and just wondering how you can be so ignorant. That you would think a black person being bigoted is the same as a white person being bigoted is amazing.


Now, let's see if you can grasp something above the level of a 5 year old:

It doesn't matter who uses the term 'black racist', it's racist. You may not be racist, but the term is. The term is intended to establish a false equivalence and thereby perpetuate the unjust power dynamics that exist today. Thus, whether said by a black, Chinese or white, the term serves white bigots.
 
ecofarm said:
Well, I'm glad you're easily amused. I myself and just wondering how you can be so ignorant. That you would think a black person being bigoted is the same as a white person being bigoted is amazing.
Click to expand...

Find where I said that or admit you're liar and you're putting words in my mouth.

Now why do you think my avatar is depicting a black guy?
 
Gardener said:
Many scholars do, yes.

A true scholar, or at least an independent thinker capable of original thought would question the myriad ways in which power is disseminated. If anything, all these various appeals to authority only prove the extent to which the dynamic has changed in that such authoritarian appeals display how thoroughly invested people are in this new power structure. If it wasn't a power structure, you would not be relying on it as you are.

.
Click to expand...

You're floundering.

Just admit that bigotry by whites is much different than bigotry by blacks, because of societal (institutional) implications.
 
Dude I think you just got your ****ing ass kicked. No joke.

Wrong about definitions, wrong about how to apply them, implying I'm racist against black people, now lying about what I said.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Find where I said that or admit you're liar and you're putting words in my mouth.

Now why do you think my avatar is depicting a black guy?
Click to expand...


I don't care if you are black. The term is racist. The term serves white bigots. Just because you serve white bigots, and use a racist term, does not mean that you are racist - because you have no power to institutionalize anything in this regard.


I'm, white. If I say "I hate blacks" that means blacks are gonna lose jobs. Why? Because I, as a member of the majority, have the power to institute my bigotry - to make it racism.

You're black. If you say "I hate whites", it doesn't mean anything. I'll never lose a job or anything else because of your bigotry. Your bigotry is lame, impotent. It means nothing and it never will.

But my bigotry would mean actual problems for blacks, as I have the backing of the majority.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
And so you choose to ignore history, sociology and common sense. That's great!
Click to expand...

Yes, just as MLK ignored history, and the Bill of Rights as well.

If each generation has to pay for the sins of its grandfathers then we shall never know peace, nor be judged as human beings.
 
ecofarm said:
Nonsense.

All I want is for you to admit that a black person being bigoted against whites carries different implications than a white bigoted against blacks. The former means nothing socially, the latter means lost jobs and other opportunities.
Click to expand...

When a black dominated school system decides that the injuries a white kid has experienced at the hands of racist black kids does not count, his pain is no less simply because people like yourself lend themselves to this institution by claiming there is no such thing as black racism. In fact, that pain is only increased because of the pig-headed insistence on dogma over compassion.
 
ecofarm said:
I don't care if you are black. The term is racist. The term serves white bigots. Just because you serve white bigots, and use a racist term, does not mean that you are racist - because you have no power to institutionalize anything.
Click to expand...

Wrong about definitions, wrong about how to apply them, implying I'm racist against black people, now lying about what I said.
 
Gardener said:
Many scholars do, yes.

A true scholar, or at least an independent thinker capable of original thought would question the myriad ways in which power is disseminated.
Click to expand...

I view it through economic/ideological/cultural/political glasses. Racialists do not have power within a society on any of those levels. Racists do. Again, even the dictionary admits that for racism to exist, it carries several complex layers with power being the second determining factor after race itself.
 
Hatuey said:
I view it through genuine power struggle glasses. Racialists do not have power within a society. Racists do.
Click to expand...

That is making the word "racist" mean more than it actually does. It's factually wrong.
 
ecofarm said:
You're floundering.

Just admit that bigotry by whites is much different than bigotry by blacks, because of societal (institutional) implications.
Click to expand...

I am not floundering at all.

In fact, of the two of us, I am the only one willing to challenge established orthodoxy and the prevailing institutions of power.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
And in dictionaries. You don't get to choose what they do or don't mean in order to promote whatever viewpoint you have. That, indeed, is CHILDISH. "THIS WORD MEANS ONLY WHAT I WANT IT TO MEAN, ALL ELSE BE DAMNED!"
Click to expand...

That would be the meltdown part he mentioned.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
That is making the word "racist" mean more than it actually does. It's factually wrong.
Click to expand...

So now we're restricting definitions? Why is that? Even your dictionary annotations describe racism existing within a context of power.
 
ecofarm said:
That would be the meltdown part he mentioned.
Click to expand...
Wrong about definitions, wrong about how to apply them, implying I'm racist against black people, now lying about what I said.
 
Gardener said:
In fact, of the two of us, I am the only one willing to challenge established orthodoxy and the prevailing institutions of power.
Click to expand...

Oh really? Then why am I almost the only person on my side? While you sit over there, safely among the idiots.

I'm the one buckin' the system here, not you. You have every moron on this board with you. I stand virtually alone.
 
Hatuey said:
So now we're restricting definitions? Why is that? Even your dictionary annotations describe racism existing within a context of power.
Click to expand...

And then the question is, does a word have to fit every individual definition to be used correctly? Or does it only have to fit one?

I mean, I'm not restricting definitions, you are. You're saying the #1 and #3 definitions don't count without #2. If that were the case, #2 would be the only one. But it's not.

rac·ism [rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Why are you restricting definitions?

You didn't see the point of me posting all those definitions? Now you're just being intellectually lazy. A step above ecofarm, though, who quickly decided that anyone that disagreed with him was racist against black people (I specify, because one can be racist against white people, too, of course).
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Oh really? Then why am I almost the only person on my side? While you sit over there, safely among the idiots.
Click to expand...

Wrong about definitions, wrong about how to apply them, implying I'm racist against black people, now lying about what I said.

You don't even have the balls to admit you lied about what I said. Pathetic.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
And then the question is, does a word have to fit every individual definition to be used correctly?
Click to expand...

When the term is something as complex as racism? Sure. It also goes for any of the other "isms". You're not engaging in feminism by being nice to women. You're not engaging in nazism simply because you hate Jews. You're not engaging in Fordism simply by driving a Ford. Again, complex term, analysis which requires more than childish tantrums and dictionary definitions.
 
Hatuey said:
Yes, they do. Meanings which are not decided through childish tantrums or intellectual meltdowns but context and analysis.
Click to expand...

Actually context, analysis AND definition.
 
Hatuey said:
When the term is something as complex as racism? Sure. It also goes for any of the other "isms". You're not engaging in feminism by being nice to women. You're not engaging in nazism simply because you hate Jews. You're not engaging in Fordism simply by driving a Ford. Again, complex term, analysis which requires more than childish tantrums and dictionary definitions.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that it's subjective. Fine. Then don't argue with people about it when they disagree. And if you say it's not subjective, then you need to adhere to the actual definition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom