• 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.
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.

I edited my post, so I want to make sure you see this:

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?

So you seemed to be saying that restricting definitions was bad. Is it still bad when it doesn't work in your favor to point that out? Or are we okay with restricting definitions when it suits your purpose?
 
The left gives blacks a pass for this sort of behavior for two reasons 1) They are afraid of black people and don't want to make them angry. 2) They have built up victimhood fence around blacks to buy their political loyalty that they don't want to shatter it. It would, of course, be in the overall best interest of blacks for to have this sort of behavior stigmatized, but the left really isn't interested in improving the lot of blacks in this country.

I really can't say anything, but just shake my head at this post. If you want minorities and women to vote for your party, then maybe your party should stop talk us like we are all abused and exploited, and too stupid to see it for ourselves. Basically slapping us all in the face is the new way of dissing the left wing now. Seriously, wtf... we are individual people. Stop talking about us like we are all idiots who can't overcome being exploited and used.
 
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.

The problem here, Hatuey, is twofold. For starters, relying on macro to define micro just doesn't cut it because it does not truly assess who has power and who doesn't. It ASSUMES a person of color has no power even if they do. This assumption that a black CEO, school administrator or politician has no power to implement racist systems simply because other black people don't is fallacious as all get up. These blanket statements that blacks (I/e all blacks) cannot be racist because SOME blacks do not have power or have faced discrimination historically are idiotic.

The second problem has to do with perception, and the way memes are transmitted. This is more subtle, of course, but when an entire system treats one group differently than it does another to the point that one cannot be criticized, then this racialism BECOMES racist by very nature of the intimidating weight of the collective application of these memes. THat is very much a power structure, even if it is less overt than the "whites only" signs of days gone by.

Just hold everybody to the same effing standard if you really want to eliminate racism is what I say.
 
Yes, but that is how liberals view it. Take it up with them.

This really isn't a partisan issue, and yet you are making it one. You view minorities in the context of a partisan hack. Way to go... please stop now.
 
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.

You're the one who cannot read definitions. You can spam them pretty well, but you sure as hell can't read them.
 
You're the one who cannot read definitions. You can spam them pretty well, but you sure as hell can't read them.

I haven't kicked someone this hard in the teeth in some time. You want only one definition of the word to apply, so you ignore the others, you imply anyone who disagrees with you is racist against black people, and then lie about what they said and can't even admit it. This is fantastic. Thank you for being...you.
 
The problem here, Hatuey, is twofold. For starters, relying on macro to define micro just doesn't cut it because it does not truly assess who has power and who doesn't. It ASSUMES a person of color has no power even if they do. This assumption that a black CEO, school administrator or politician has no power to implement racist systems simply because other black people don't is fallacious as all get up. These blanket statements that blacks (I/e all blacks) cannot be racist because SOME blacks do not have power or have faced discrimination historically are idiotic.

We're talking sociology, not individuals!

The second problem has to do with perception, and the way memes are transmitted. This is more subtle, of course, but when an entire system treats one group differently than it does another to the point that one cannot be criticized, then this racialism BECOMES racist by very nature of the intimidating weight of the collective application of these memes. THat is very much a power structure, even if it is less overt than the "whites only" signs of days gone by.

This is bull****. No one is saying to avoid criticism of black bigots. We (I guess two of us) ARE saying that the difference between bigotry by the majority and minority must be recognized in a sociological discussion.

Just hold everybody to the same effing standard if you really want to eliminate racism is what I say.

Everyone can be held to the same standards and we can still recognize the difference between bigotry with power and pissing in the wind.
 
So you're saying that it's subjective.

Not at all, I'm saying it's extremely objective. Subjective is deciding that events are racist because they fit 1/3rd of your dictionary definition while others which do not fit those simplistic standards are not. If we were to go by new-era dictionary definitions of racism, Neo-Nationalists would not fit the mold of racist and yet a white guy who doesn't like black people would. When we know, in reality, that's not the case at all.

Remember: black people in the 60s weren't angry about being called niggers. They were angry about the social ramifications (i.e. racist policies) of racialist views.
 
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.

You are appealing to authority big time. I am not.

and this guilt by association is quite beneath you, my friend. If you cannot see the differences between what I say and what many on the far right say, that has more to do with your inability to distinguish than it does my somehow having thrown in my lot. As my original statement stands -- I see the racism from the hard right every bit as much as I see what you are selling. It's just that you reacted to my having taken a middle ground instead of one of the racists.
 
Not at all, I'm saying it's extremely objective. Subjective is deciding that events are racist because they fit 1/3rd of your dictionary definition while others which do not fit those simplistic standards are not. If we were to go by new-era dictionary definitions of racism, Neo-Nationalists would not fit the mold of racist and yet a white guy who doesn't like black people would. When we know, in reality, that's not the case at all.

Remember: black people in the 60s weren't angry about being called niggers. They were angry about the social ramifications (i.e. racist policies) of racialist views.

I don't need you to tell me what black people were angry about. I'm just telling you that black people can be racist. And if you want to "restrict definitions" to ignore that, that's on you. Doesn't do black people any good though, I'll tell you that.
 
I haven't kicked someone this hard in the teeth in some time.

That's delusional. You spazzed out and failed to understand even the most basic sociology. Did you graduate high school, how old are you?
 
This is bull****. No one is saying to avoid criticism of black bigots. We (I guess two of us) ARE saying that the difference between bigotry by the majority and minority must be recognized in a sociological discussion.

You also said that black people can't be racist. And when that simple statement was corrected, you started ignoring definitions of words you didn't like, lying about what people said, and implying that people that disagreed with you were racist themselves. Childish.
 
I'm just telling you that black people can be racist.

And I'm telling you that's uneducated idiocy and it serves white bigots (actual racists, with institutional power).
 
That's delusional. You spazzed out and failed to understand even the most basic sociology. Did you graduate high school, how old are you?

You ignore definitions you don't like, lie, and claim people are racist. Did you want to admit to being a liar?
 
And I'm telling you that's uneducated idiocy and it serves white bigots (actual racists, with institutional power).

You ignore definitions of words that you don't like, so I don't think anyone is actually fooled by you.
 
Childish.

I see. You get all upset when someone accuses you of that. You freak out and spam caps. And then you go and do the same to someone else. Your ignorance is matched only by your hypocrisy.
 
I see. You get all upset when someone accuses you of that. You freak out and spam caps. And then you go and do the same to someone else. Your ignorance is matched only by your hypocrisy.

You lie about what people said, ignore definitions you don't like, and claim people are racist. This is wonderful.

YOU'RE A LIAR, ECO
 
The problem here, Hatuey, is twofold. For starters, relying on macro to define micro just doesn't cut it because it does not truly assess who has power and who doesn't. It ASSUMES a person of color has no power even if they do. This assumption that a black CEO, school administrator or politician has no power to implement racist systems simply because other black people don't is fallacious as all get up. These blanket statements that blacks (I/e all blacks) cannot be racist because SOME blacks do not have power or have faced discrimination historically are idiotic.

The second problem has to do with perception, and the way memes are transmitted. This is more subtle, of course, but when an entire system treats one group differently than it does another to the point that one cannot be criticized, then this racialism BECOMES racist by very nature of the intimidating weight of the collective application of these memes. THat is very much a power structure, even if it is less overt than the "whites only" signs of days gone by.

Just hold everybody to the same effing standard if you really want to eliminate racism is what I say.

We're not talking about a black CEO or a school administrator. We're talking about a few kids walking down the street and beating up a white dude. That's not a depiction of racism in any sense of the word. It's a depiction of thuggery and racialism at best. These kids won't pass this guy over for a less qualified black employee 20 years from now. They won't create legislation stopping him from getting a job. They won't even run the school his grandkids go to.

So to show that this incident is somehow a case of "blacks getting away with racism" is nonsense. We know that with our sentencing guidelines and judicial system, these kids will likely get the maximum time. They will then become part of the system and live in and out of jail.

Meanwhile, the white kid who drunkenly killed 6 people will get community service/probation for having affluenza.
 
You lie about what people said, ignore definitions you don't like, and claim people are racist. This is wonderful.

YOU'RE A LIAR, ECO


Now, now, NWO. I think it's time you settled down a bit. I understand ignorance can be frustrating, and it must be horrible to consider that you are serving white bigots, but, in time (and presuming you study this), you will come to understand how you were manipulated into denying the horrible truth of slavery, oppression and actual modern day racism against black people. You'll discover that blacks don't have the power to oppress whites in society and you will come to terms with the fact that blacks cannot be racists.
 
Now, now, NWO. I think it's time you settled down a bit. I understand ignorance can be frustrating, and it must be horrible to consider that you are serving white bigots, but, in time (and presuming you study this), you will come to understand how you were manipulated into denying the horrible truth of slavery, oppression and actual modern day racism against black people. You'll discover that blacks don't have the power to oppress whites in society and you will come to terms with the fact that blacks cannot be racists.


hahaha i love this. Keep digging. This thread should be stickied, such an embarrassment for you. Can't even read definitions.
 
Do you remember that time you lied about what I said? Remember that time you said I was a white bigot? Remember that time you ignored two definitions of a word in order to promote your viewpoint?

All laid out here in this lovely thread. So ignorant.
 
Do you remember that time you lied about what I said? Remember that time you said I was a white bigot? Remember that time you ignored two definitions of a word in order to promote your viewpoint?

All laid out here in this lovely thread. So ignorant.


Keep serving white bigots, I'm sure they appreciate your service even if they don't pay for it. For them, it's just like the "good ol' days".
 
Keep serving white bigots, I'm sure they appreciate your service even if they don't pay for it. For them, it's just like the good ol' days.

Who are these "white bigots?"
 
Keep serving white bigots, I'm sure they appreciate your service even if they don't pay for it. For them, it's just like the good ol' days.

All I'm serving is the actual English definition of the word, instead of whatever someone would like it be to help them sleep at night.

Ignoring definitions you don't like, lying about what people said, calling them white bigots. Just to promote your viewpoint lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom