• 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
[SUP][/SUP]
What's garage? Was that supposed to be "garbage?" :lol: J/K. I couldn't resist pointing that out.
that people who use racism discrimination should have the power of goverment used against them

Thanks for pointing out the typo.....;)
 
I'm keeping context. Such is key to understanding and discussing racism, as power is a central issue. In other countries, whites did not and do not have the power to institute oppression and privilege.



Fair enough.

Do you think Zimmerman killed Trayvon because he was a racist? Because he hated Trayvon and just wanted to kill him because of the color of his skin?
 
The word holds power because racism exists against blacks. There is no sociological racism against whites and prejudice against whites carries no weight. Prejudice against blacks did and does carry weight against blacks.

Repeating the same mantra over and over again doesn't change anything. No **** racism exists, nobody is denying that. The problem isn't the racism, it's the false perception that it actually has meaning and power.
 
But the Nazis were a minority, so they weren't racist, right?

I have carefully specified alternate power relations, regarding non-US contexts, and given examples in numerous posts this thread.
 
The problem isn't the racism, it's the false perception that it actually has meaning and power.

Racism is oppression and privilege, not just racial bigotry. Racial oppression and privilege, alive and well in this country, has actual meaning and power.
 
Sociological. Learn the difference.

This is a sad excuse of an appeal to authority. If you don't have any evidence to offer me, then your argument is useless.
 
I have carefully specified alternate power relations, regarding non-US contexts, and given examples in numerous posts this thread.
You specified that minorities can't be racist, in accordance with your personally crafted, totally unsubstantiated definition of racism. So, given that Nazi's were a minority on the global political stage, they weren't racist, they were just bigots according to your logic.

Of course, this is nonsense. Racism can be as little as a personal, unexpressed belief, not even spoken out loud to anyone let alone acted out with state backing.
 
Was what Trayvon said bigoted? Yes. Did he deserve to die for it? Should he have said it at all? No, not in the least.
 
I have carefully specified alternate power relations, regarding non-US contexts, and given examples in numerous posts this thread.

Well since this thread was started on the premise of a word (or phrase) and whether or not it alone yields power, I would say that it only holds power for those who give it power. Other than that, it is only a word.

Personally, I wouldn't use "racist" words because I don't want to hurt people's feelings, so I would personally avoid saying such things. I don't think it's okay, but I don't think words are powerful unless the person the word is used against allows it to have power over him or her, and even though the n-word may have some powerful historical connections, it is STILL only a word.
 
Do you think Zimmerman killed Trayvon because he was a racist? Because he hated Trayvon and just wanted to kill him because of the color of his skin?

No, I think two likely morons got in a fight and one shot the other. There's no real evidence that Z initiated physical contact or intended to kill Martin prior to their fight.

When I used the term "murder" is was in the poster's perception. My point was that, even if Z is a psycho racist killer, that's no justification for using racial slurs. After all, there are plenty of murderers of all race and creed.
 
Racism is oppression and privilege, not just racial bigotry. Racial oppression and privilege, alive and well in this country, has actual meaning and power.

obama-laugh-wh-photo.jpg
 
Well since this thread was started on the premise of a word (or phrase) and whether or not it alone yields power, I would say that it only holds power for those who give it power. Other than that, it is only a word.

Prejudice against blacks holds societal power.

Personally, I wouldn't use "racist" words because I don't want to hurt people's feelings, so I would personally avoid saying such things. I don't think it's okay, but I don't think words are powerful unless the person the word is used against allows it to have power over him or her, and even though the n-word may have some powerful historical connections, it is STILL only a word.

An ISM is not about personal power but societal.
 
Prejudice against blacks holds societal power.



An ISM is not about personal power but societal.

You are being a nit picker. It's obvious that he meant does the term or phrase hold any power by itself. And he said racist, not racism. :)
 
This is a sad excuse of an appeal to authority. If you don't have any evidence to offer me, then your argument is useless.

Logic does not conjecture make. You reject logic as an argument. I'm not making an appeal to authority, I'm making an appeal to sociological analysis. Given that racism is sociological, it's a reasonable appeal.
 
You are being a nit picker. It's obvious that he meant does the term or phrase hold any power by itself. And he said racist, not racism. :)

The power of bigotry is in the society, not the individual.
 
Logic does not conjecture make. You reject logic as an argument. I'm not making an appeal to authority, I'm making an appeal to sociological analysis. Given that racism is sociological, it's a reasonable appeal.

Your sociological analysis still needs to be backed up by something called evidence. Otherwise its just your interpretation, which I really could care less for.
 
The power of bigotry is in the society, not the individual.

But individuals make up a society. So, technically, it could be the individual who holds the power. Really, bigots and racists are just asshole people. Do you really think we will EVER purge society of assholes? That's pretty much a pipe dream, don't you think?
 
Logic does not conjecture make. You reject logic as an argument. I'm not making an appeal to authority, I'm making an appeal to sociological analysis. Given that racism is sociological, it's a reasonable appeal.

A conjecture is a proposition that is unproven. Karl Popper pioneered the use of the term "conjecture" in scientific philosophy.[1] Conjecture is contrasted by hypothesis (hence theory, axiom, principle), which is a testable statement based on accepted grounds

Conjecture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have asked you several times for evidence and examples. So until you give me such proof, it is still a conjecture.
 
Your sociological analysis still needs to be backed up by something called evidence. Otherwise its just your interpretation, which I really could care less for.

No problem. Go on believing that a minority pissing in the wind is as threatening as actual racism oppressing minorities and providing privilege to whites.
 
But individuals make up a society. So, technically, it could be the individual who holds the power. Really, bigots and racists are just asshole people. Do you really think we will EVER purge society of assholes? That's pretty much a pipe dream, don't you think?
Liberals believe they can, and they want the power of goverment to do it. That is one reason they don't believe in property rights.
 
But individuals make up a society. So, technically, it could be the individual who holds the power. Really, bigots and racists are just asshole people. Do you really think we will EVER purge society of assholes? That's pretty much a pipe dream, don't you think?

The idea is not to purge society of ignorant haters but to eliminate their influence from our institutions. That has not yet occurred and this actual racism (as opposed to powerless bigotry) still exists in America. This actual oppression and privilege is a much bigger problem than common race-based bigotry that carries no real societal threat or power.
 
Ecofarm's definition comes from an academic, specifically sociological, viewpoint as something such as race is a social construction and thus in order to get a better understanding of race and how it works in the overall society, he examines it through a sociological lens. Rather than use the everyday vernacular, he aims for a specific definition of what racism is and this informs his view of what is or is not racist, something which can be applied to any and all societies. Rather than looking at the actions of the individual, Ecofarm aims to looks at the social institutions within society and how they truly work rather than what they espouse to do or people think that they do. Such a view would lead him to realize that everything that deals with race in America, from the very idea of race to what is racist/racism, are institutionally based and that these institutions back one group over the other. Thus, he differentiates between what racism is and what bigotry is, noting racism is institutionally-based and thus is in and affects the society at large, whereas bigotry is based on the micro-level.

I think that if the situation were reverse, in terms of what race dominated American society (blacks rather than whites), Ecofarm would be stating that what Trayvon said was racist.

I am not saying that I agree or disagree with Ecofarm, I am just trying to explain his reasoning behind his definition.

To Ecofarm: Please correct me if I said anything wrong, that you disagree with.

EDIT: Changed "bigoted" to "racist" for clarification.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom