- Joined
- Sep 28, 2005
- Messages
- 23,463
- Reaction score
- 7,252
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
It's not officially sanctioned but it exists. Do you deny that racism exists and affects every level of society in the US?
Yes..
It's not officially sanctioned but it exists. Do you deny that racism exists and affects every level of society in the US?
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.
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.
So in other words you are using a made up definition of racism instead of the actual definition of racism.
It's not officially sanctioned but it exists. Do you deny that racism exists and affects every level of society in the US?
Dictionary definitions are not the end all be all meanings of words
People make that mistake much too often
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?
"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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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
Social theorists didn't make up rules
They proposed theories and then provided evidence to support their claims
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.
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.
Dictionary definitions are not the end all be all meanings of words
People make that mistake much too often
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.
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.
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.
They pick and choose.
Racism has nothing to do with with that.The only one indulging in ignorance is you.The dictionary is pretty clear what constitutes racism.
For some discussion regarding racism and the sociological implications of utmost importance, see this thread:
Again racism is not a verb.Racial bigotry without oppression and privilege quite misses the point of the term racism.
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.Do dialects not exist?
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!"