• 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
I said "other." It totally depends on the context.

And even when meant to be racist, it does not alone justify stalking and shooting that speaker.
 
ecofarm said:
Without institutional backing, it's mere bigotry or prejudice.
It's the 'sociological definition' of racism.
Click to expand...

'Racism' is a form of bigotry or prejudice.
 
What if...? said:
Yes, but cancelled out a bit by actually being a Creepy Ass.
Click to expand...





I'm somewhat down with that idea, if someone is actually a creepy ass cracker, what are you supposed to call him, a 'Fine Southern gentleman'?

I don't believe.




"Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred." ~ Jacques Barzun
 
Moderator's Warning:
People. Cease the personal attacks or there will be further consequences.
 
ecofarm said:
A minority cannot be racist, as there is no state institutional backing.
Click to expand...

Your own wiki link states at the beginning: "Racism is usually defined as views, practices and actions reflecting the belief that humanity is divided into distinct biological groups called races and that members of a certain race share certain attributes which make that group as a whole less desirable, more desirable, inferior, or superior."

Nothing in there about "institutional backing." Nothing about minorities not being able to be racist.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I do. Yes there is racism. But it is not significant. Unless you're the type that see racism in everything...even when talking about money going down a black hole.

Click to expand...


Years later I still crack up when I see that. :lamo
 
instagramsci said:
Dictionary definitions are not the end all be all meanings of words

People make that mistake much too often
Click to expand...

Do you believe one can be a racist in a vacuum? In other words, even if there is no state/institution-sanctioned racism?
 
grip said:
TEco 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.
Click to expand...

His point was that those slurs may be bigoted or prejudice but not racist.
 
Look, it's all semantic, but "racism" usually implies action. While "prejudice" or "bigotry" is based on thought or speech.

I'll be honest, it's parsing. But that is what is usually used to differentiate the "harmless bigot" (the person who thinks / says terrible things about people of other races) from the "racist." This would be the person who denies a job, housing, or commits an act of violence against a person of another race or ethnicity.

Again, parsing, but what Paula Deen did (regardless of what you think of it) isn't what George Zimmerman did. And if - IF - Zimmerman's actions are determined to be based on race, then that's obviously racism at its worst. Paula Deen said some nasty things and fantasized about a ridiculously stupid wedding reception - but she didn't kill anybody.

Paula is (willfully or not) ignorant and doesn't deserve the scorn she received for admitting to being stupid. Zimmerman believed a black kid was automatically suspicious and (as it appears - I'll wait for final judgment) shot him. These are very different circumstances and we're talking about very different people.
 
Geoist said:
Do you believe one can be a racist in a vacuum? In other words, even if there is no state/institution-sanctioned racism?
Click to expand...

I don't deal in hypothetical situations like that
 
Geoist said:
Your own wiki link states at the beginning: "Racism is usually defined as views, practices and actions reflecting the belief that humanity is divided into distinct biological groups called races and that members of a certain race share certain attributes which make that group as a whole less desirable, more desirable, inferior, or superior."

Nothing in there about "institutional backing." Nothing about minorities not being able to be racist.
Click to expand...

From the wiki, as quoted earlier:

Some sociologists have defined racism as a system of group privilege. In Portraits of White Racism, David Wellman has defined racism as “culturally sanctioned beliefs, which, regardless of intentions involved, defend the advantages whites have because of the subordinated position of racial minorities”.[23] Sociologists Noël A. Cazenave and Darlene Alvarez Maddern define racism as “...a highly organized system of 'race'-based group privilege that operates at every level of society and is held together by a sophisticated ideology of color/'race' supremacy.
Click to expand...
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Look, it's all semantic, but "racism" usually implies action. While "prejudice" or "bigotry" is based on thought or speech.

I'll be honest, it's parsing. But that is what is usually used to differentiate the "harmless bigot" (the person who thinks / says terrible things about people of other races) from the "racist." This would be the person who denies a job, housing, or commits an act of violence against a person of another race or ethnicity.

Again, parsing, but what Paula Deen did (regardless of what you think of it) isn't what George Zimmerman did. And if - IF - Zimmerman's actions are determined to be based on race, then that's obviously racism at its worst. Paula Deen said some nasty things and fantasized about a ridiculously stupid wedding reception - but she didn't kill anybody.

Paula is (willfully or not) ignorant and doesn't deserve the scorn she received for admitting to being stupid. Zimmerman believed a black kid was automatically suspicious and (as it appears - I'll wait for final judgment) shot him. These are very different circumstances and we're talking about very different people.
Click to expand...




Anyone who has an adverse opinion of someone simply because that person belongs to a certain ethnic group is a racist.

Whether they just look down their nose at the person or go all the way and shoot him, it's all racism.




"At the heart of racism is the religious assertion that God made a creative mistake when He brought some people into being." Friedrich Otto Hertz
 
ecofarm said:
From the wiki, as quoted earlier:
Click to expand...

So I guess we should go by what some sociologists say. :roll:

I like the definition at the top. 95% of people would agree with it, including I'm sure the rest of the sociologists. ;)
 
instagramsci said:
Because it's irrelevant.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. A hypothetical can help one understand another person's viewpoint. You learn those as well in school. ;)
 
ecofarm said:
That is a quote from the wiki link under definitions/sociological.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the definition according to some sociologists. :lamo

The top of the wiki article gives a definition the rest of us agree with.
 
Geoist said:
So I guess we should go by what some sociologists say. :roll:

I like the definition at the top. 95% of people would agree with it, including I'm sure the rest of the sociologists. ;)
Click to expand...

So you admit that my link and quote was legit, right? I mean, I clarified and you still claimed the quote was not there. I just want to make sure that you acknowledge your error and false claim before we debate further.
 
instagramsci said:
Aw, did your feelings get hurt when someone called you a cracker? Poor baby.

At least that word isn't used to dehumanize you like the n-word is to black people.
Click to expand...

Its all about context. "Cracker" can be used to dehumanize just as saying "Nigga" can be used to humanize (and vice versa). I thought you were opposed to strict definitions and preferred context clues?
 
Geoist said:
Its all about context. "Cracker" can be used to dehumanize just as saying "Nigga" can be used to humanize (and vice versa). I thought you were opposed to strict definitions and preferred context clues?
Click to expand...

n***er does not evoke the same feelings that cracker does

it doesn't
 
ecofarm said:
So you admit that my link and quote was legit, right? I mean, I clarified and you still claimed the quote was not there.
Click to expand...

I never said the quote wasn't there. But you cannot expect the rest of us to accept the definition given by SOME sociologists when it is clear that even sociologists are not in agreement on a definition. "Racism" is a term that can describe an individual's feelings as well as an institution itself. That is how the vast majority of society sees it. Accept it.


I just want to make sure that you acknowledge your error and false claim before we debate further.
Click to expand...

I have made no errors whatsoever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom