• 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!

Creepy Ass Cracker.... Racist or no? [W:329/550]

Is the phrase "Creepy Ass Cracker" Racist?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 49 62.8%
  • No!

    Votes: 14 17.9%
  • I blame Whitey!

    Votes: 8 10.3%
  • Other

    Votes: 7 9.0%

  • Total voters
    78
It's not officially sanctioned but it exists. Do you deny that racism exists and affects every level of society in the US?

Yes..
 
The over-arching, national situation is what it is. Minorities spewing hate have no real power behind it, but when a white spews hate against a black... there's state power behind it.

How so? I would think there would only be "state power" behind it if it was coming from a political party that was in power. I don't think that's the case. While I don't deny that there might be individuals within the government who are racists, I don't believe there are enough of them to do any harm. I also believe that MOST people are not racists.

Racism is an ism. It's not something one can do alone and it's not something one can do without majority power and generally a history of unfair advantage. Removing the power and history from the term racism is belittling the suffering of those who have truly endured racism and not just powerless bigotry.

An "ism?" We have laws against racism in this country, when it comes to it affecting a person's life, job, etc. Name-calling is just name-calling though.
 
So in other words you are using a made up definition of racism instead of the actual definition of racism.

Dictionary definitions are not the end all be all meanings of words

People make that mistake much too often
 
It's not officially sanctioned but it exists. Do you deny that racism exists and affects every level of society in the US?

well heres what i am sensing from you:

"there is racism against whites, however its small on any scale,..however racism against blacks its massive and powerful.
 
Dictionary definitions are not the end all be all meanings of words

People make that mistake much too often

A group of pseudo-intellectuals who come together to make up a bunch of rules about society and call it a science are not the end all be all when it comes to society either.
 
It depends. Racial slurs are not of themselves racist. "Creepy ass cracker/nigger/kike/whateverthe****" is racist if the reason they are creepy is because of the race. If it is just a cracker who is creepy, then no. Racism requires a feeling of superiority over the other race. This is why I complain that people overuse the term racism in a big way here.

May I ask what brought this question about?


This witness below for the prosecution said that Trayvon used the term "creepy ass cracker" as someone who was following him. When asked did she think it was a racist statement she said "no" repeatedly.

Eco has a point somewhat about the gravity of racial slurs having less significance coming from an historically oppressed class. Doesn't make it socially polite or good etiquette but they're still not on an equal footing institutionally.


wit.jpg
 
"Hate crime".
Evidently we are not all equal in the eyes of the law. Penalties for the same action can vary depending on color, race or preference.

Ecofarm's arguement is that there is racist laws. Are hate crime laws racist? Please consider the context of the arguement.
 
An "ism?" We have laws against racism in this country, when it comes to it affecting a person's life, job, etc. Name-calling is just name-calling though.
The significant part of it being an "ism" that he missed is that it's not a verb. It doesn't require a state or an institution or anything of the sort, and even his own silly out of context link said so. It merely gave examples of different types of racism, one of which partially fits his narrow, deeply misguided definition.
 
A group of pseudo-intellectuals who come together to make up a bunch of rules about society and call it a science are not the end all be all when it comes to society either.

Social theorists didn't make up rules

They proposed theories and then provided evidence to support their claims
 
well heres what i am sensing from you:

"there is racism against whites, however its small on any scale,..however racism against blacks its massive and powerful.

It's not so much a matter of size as much as pervasiveness within society. A black disliking whites carries no real societal weight whatsoever.
 
This witness below for the prosecution said that Trayvon used the term "creepy ass cracker" as someone who was following him. When asked did she think it was a racist statement she said "no" repeatedly.

Eco has a point somewhat about the gravity of racial slurs having less significance coming from an historically oppressed class. Doesn't make it socially polite or good etiquette but they're still not on an equal footing institutionally.


View attachment 67149510

And they never will be if one keeps making special exceptions for them.....


Just saying.
 
It's not so much a matter of size as much as pervasiveness within society. A black disliking whites carries no real societal weight whatsoever.

I guess flash mobs of racist blacks terrorizing white people on the basis of being white carries no society weight whatsoever.....

But wait,, that doesn't happen does it?
 
It's not so much a matter of size as much as pervasiveness within society. A black disliking whites carries no real societal weight whatsoever.

yes i know becuase its not covered by the media, and that person is not demonized as the media usually do against a white person..

shall we talk about the Uncle Thomas comment, or Paula Dean....?
 
Dictionary definitions are not the end all be all meanings of words

People make that mistake much too often

If you are going to claim what a word means then the dictionary is the source of what that word means period.You can't claim a word means something and the dictionary doesn't back it up.
 
Dictionary definitions are not the end all be all meanings of words

People make that mistake much too often

In debating, dictionary definitions, credible historical definitions, or credible definitions from other third party sources are all acceptable means of attempting to define words. Unilaterally making up a new definition to suit your argument isn't generally considered a valid debate tactic by anyone, anywhere, in any context.
 
If you are going to claim what a word means then the dictionary is the source of what that word means period.You can't claim a word means something and the dictionary doesn't back it up.

Words have meanings outside the dictionary meanings. It's part of language.

Do dialects not exist?
 
The significant part of it being an "ism" that he missed is that it's not a verb. It doesn't require a state or an institution or anything of the sort, and even his own silly out of context link said so. It merely gave examples of different types of racism, one of which partially fits his narrow, deeply misguided definition.

I can understand his point to an extent, but to say that minorities cannot be racists is kind of silly. Of course anyone can be a racist. It's not exclusive to one particular race, that's for sure. It just so happens that white people are the majority in this country.
 
To remove the state institutional discrimination resulting in oppression and a system of privilege is to reduce the term "racism" almost as to indulge ignorance.

Racism has nothing to do with with that.The only one indulging in ignorance is you.The dictionary is pretty clear what constitutes racism.
 
Racism has nothing to do with with that.The only one indulging in ignorance is you.The dictionary is pretty clear what constitutes racism.

Racial bigotry without oppression and privilege quite misses the point of the term racism.
 
For some discussion regarding racism and the sociological implications of utmost importance, see this thread:

You still have yet to prove a thing......

And... as I have noticed...... You have proceeded to ignore me while still saying the same thing over and over...


You are starting to make me think of Joe Dirt's Dad..... "It just is!"
 
Racial bigotry without oppression and privilege quite misses the point of the term racism.
Again racism is not a verb.

Do dialects not exist?
Yes, though for the purposes of debating, people use words for their actual meaning rather than colloquial variants. However, his misuse of the word racism wasn't related to dialect, it was simply an attempt to twist the actual meaning of a word to suit his personal agenda.
 
You still have yet to prove a thing......

And... as I have noticed...... You have proceeded to ignore me while still saying the same thing over and over...

You are starting to make me think of Joe Dirt's Dad..... "It just is!"

Ok, I tell you what, this is a one time only offer: what the **** do you want?

You want me to prove that bigotry against blacks continues to affect the US at all levels of society?
 
Back
Top Bottom