• 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
Prejudice from a source without the power to enforce that prejudice is meaningless.

Obviously. It's 'pissing in the wind', without sociological implication or significance to anyone. To think otherwise is so egocentric as to stagger sensitivities. To remove sociological implications from an 'ism' is nonsense; it's nihilism for injustice, it's the promotion of ignorance via intellectually disgusting false equivalence.
 
Last edited:
There is no double standard. Those in power being racial bigots is FAR more devastating to society than powerless minorities pissing in the wind. To ignore the sociological implications of racism is to reduce the term to a childish perspective and sweep under the rug the real conversation. That would be like ignoring context in an Israel/Hamas discussion and treating the two entities as the same thing.

My son was a student in the Oakland, California school system. I had to take him out of that school system because of all the racial abuse he faced. There wasn't a single person in that school system that had the courage to say anything was at all wrong with a bunch of black kids taunting and hurling racist abuse at the white kid as they beat him up.

You try telling my son it is only a "childish perspective" that would consider he might have been treated any differently, k?
 
Obviously. It's 'pissing in the wind', without sociological implication or significance to anyone. To think otherwise is so egocentric as to stagger sensitivities. To remove sociological implications from an 'ism' is nonsense; it's nihilism for injustice, it's the promotion of ignorance via intellectually disgusting false equivalence.

....:doh
 
My son was a student in the Oakland, California school system. I had to take him out of that school system because of all the racial abuse he faced. There wasn't a single person in that school system that had the courage to say anything was at all wrong with a bunch of black kids taunting and hurling racist abuse at the white kid as they beat him up.

You try telling my son it is only a "childish perspective" that would consider he might have been treated any differently, k?

Your son's abuse has no societal implications, merely personal and family. Compared to institutionally pervasive oppression and privilege it is insignificant. While anecdotal evidence may be emotional and of great personal significance, racism (as opposed to racial bigotry) is a sociological discussion. This would be a case of, as others have falsely proposed, ~"it only hurts us if it hurts you"; there's no significant inherent sociological damage.
 
Last edited:
We might take a pause to consider how those who claim sociology is BS nonetheless attempt to school us, to learn us somethin', about racism (which is inherently and by definition part of and nonexclusive of society). The very ones who most despise the discipline seek to proclaim authority within it. That's kinda comical.
 
Last edited:
Prejudice from a source without the power to enforce that prejudice is meaningless.

I wouldn't exactly call it meaningless, and rampant bigotry that is accepted by the mainstream in any community can be a real issue. Certainly to the point where it shouldn't be simply dismissed.
 
My son was a student in the Oakland, California school system. I had to take him out of that school system because of all the racial abuse he faced. There wasn't a single person in that school system that had the courage to say anything was at all wrong with a bunch of black kids taunting and hurling racist abuse at the white kid as they beat him up.

You try telling my son it is only a "childish perspective" that would consider he might have been treated any differently, k?

That's one of the big issues in this discussion: ignoring the fact that blacks do make up a majority in many areas, and do control larger political systems like schools, local govt, ect
 
Your son's abuse has no societal implications, merely personal and family.

How would it lack societal implications? You have a public school system allowing white students to be singled out and abused. It might be happened in a smaller societal context, than the national level. But it's still clearly operating beyond the individual and family


when Compared to institutionally pervasive oppression and privilege it is insignificant.

If it's happening in a public school system then how is it not institutional?
 
Apparently I screwed up the quotes the first time I posted this, so I'll repost and give you a chance to respond.


A 3.3 isn't university material. Period. Is that really the best example they can think of? A guidance councilor straight talking a student with a 3.3 GPA into attending community college instead of a four year university?


Overassignment into special education? He didn't give any proof that a white and a black student with the exact same capabilities had differently likelihoods to be assigned to special education. I hate to bring IQ into a racial debate, but if one group on average has a lower IQ, then that group predictably would make up a higher percentage of those in special education.

As for the example of the teachers, he didn't back this up so I can't directly criticize the methodology here. But, I wonder if there is a sort of hindsight 20/20, where the teachers who serve middle class white schools have higher achieving students, so they are seen as "better," and therefore more likely to retain their job and earn tenure.


Moral of the story: More blacks are poor, so therefore more blacks are without healthcare. Unfortunately the article gives no proof as to why that is, or how it is a result of institutional racism.

Pretty much just treats racism as a given, but doesn't actually support the conjecture. Well you can talk about the "effects" of racism until you are blue in the face, but if you aren't actually proving that something is directly racism instead of just an indirect negative affect, you can't call it "institutional racism."
 
Prejudice from a source without the power to enforce that prejudice is meaningless.

So then it doesnt matter if someone attacks someone based on their race as long as they have no power to enforce that prejudice?

So then if a minority is racist against another minority it is meaningless?

Or this?

1537_1.jpg
 
Your son's abuse has no societal implications, merely personal and family. Compared to institutionally pervasive oppression and privilege it is insignificant. While anecdotal evidence may be emotional and of great personal significance, racism (as opposed to racial bigotry) is a sociological discussion. This would be a case of, as others have falsely proposed, ~"it only hurts us if it hurts you"; there's no significant inherent sociological damage.

You seem to be under the impression that this kind of thing only happens to at most a "few" people. Certainly you believe that its not enough to affect society. If that were the case then why are there so many white racists? Do you think that racism comes from some void or only by being passed down from father to son? Because I can tell you right now that is totally false.

You also seem to forget that in this country a minorty race can have just as much pull on our society as the majority can due to the way our system is set up. Don't believe me? Take some history lessons as to how Jim Crow laws got abolished. Take a history lesson in to people like Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks who both affected society greatly.
 
How would it lack societal implications? You have a public school system allowing white students to be singled out and abused. It might be happened in a smaller societal context, than the national level. But it's still clearly operating beyond the individual and family

If it's happening in a public school system then how is it not institutional?

Apparently its only institutional if whites do it. :roll:
 
So then it doesnt matter if someone attacks someone based on their race as long as they have no power to enforce that prejudice?

So then if a minority is racist against another minority it is meaningless?

Or this?

1537_1.jpg

Violence certainly qualifies. That is an exercise of power. But mean remarks against the powerful (racial, religious, and sexuality majority groups and males) by the powerless (basically everyone else) amount to nothing. Grow a little thick skin. Or maybe stop oppressing people and they won't try to hurt your precious feelings.
 
But mean remarks against the powerful (racial, religious, and sexuality majority groups and males) by the powerless (basically everyone else) amount to nothing.

this assumes that "power" exists on some equal and constant continuum through out society


Or maybe stop oppressing people and they won't try to hurt your precious feelings.

I am not sure the automatic assumption that it's a response to oppression, or that the people being targeted are oppressors, holds much merit
 
Violence certainly qualifies. That is an exercise of power. But mean remarks against the powerful (racial, religious, and sexuality majority groups and males) by the powerless (basically everyone else) amount to nothing. Grow a little thick skin. Or maybe stop oppressing people and they won't try to hurt your precious feelings.



I should just grow thick skin because why? Is it because you are accusing me of personally oppressing people?

I think that you have some explaining to do dude.
 
Violence certainly qualifies. That is an exercise of power. But mean remarks against the powerful (racial, religious, and sexuality majority groups and males) by the powerless (basically everyone else) amount to nothing. Grow a little thick skin. Or maybe stop oppressing people and they won't try to hurt your precious feelings.

I'd say the same thing for the reciprocal.
 
It's a racial slur but not racist. Racism requires institutional backing.
Truth. A slur used by the oppressed to describe the oppressor is not racist.
 
Quick question. Who are the oppressors? Am I by virtue of the color of my skin? Reginald Denny was an oppressor so dragging him out of his truck and beating him nearly to death because he happened to be white was justified?

I seriously wouldn't make it in liberal land.
 
This thread demonstrates to me that high school must have a required class on racial issues. There is so much ignorance and people need to be educated about their society. It's no longer acceptable for white people to put their head in the sand when it comes to racial issues.
 
This thread demonstrates to me that high school must have a required class on racial issues. There is so much ignorance and people need to be educated about their society. It's no longer acceptable for white people to put their head in the sand when it comes to racial issues.

I should have been taught in school that I'm an oppressor, not because of anything I do but because I'm white? I know you won't/can't answer that but I thought I'd ask anyway, lol.
 
Apparently its only institutional if whites do it. :roll:
You realize that whites, in the United States, are the ones who control the power structures in society, right? Of course it's only institutional "if whites do it". They're the ones in power, LOL. What the **** kind of thread is this? LOL
 
This thread demonstrates to me that high school must have a required class on racial issues. There is so much ignorance and people need to be educated about their society. It's no longer acceptable for white people to put their head in the sand when it comes to racial issues.

well i believe people are objecting to the idea being pushed here, that if you are white, and you use racism, you hurt /damage minorities.

however if you are a minority and you use racism, you hurt and damage no one.

that rubs people the wrong way, when they can be accused of wrong doing, but people doing the same against them, its immaterial.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom