- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
- Messages
- 36,921
- Reaction score
- 17,904
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Prejudice from a source without the power to enforce that prejudice is meaningless.
That's silly.
Prejudice from a source without the power to enforce that prejudice is meaningless.
Prejudice from a source without the power to enforce that prejudice is meaningless.
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.
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.
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?
Prejudice from a source without the power to enforce that prejudice is meaningless.
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.
when Compared to institutionally pervasive oppression and privilege it is insignificant.
For me, it would depend on context.The title says it all.... do you believe calling someone a "Creepy Ass Cracker" is racist???????
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.
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.
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?
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?
But mean remarks against the powerful (racial, religious, and sexuality majority groups and males) by the powerless (basically everyone else) amount to nothing.
Or maybe stop oppressing people and they won't try to hurt your precious feelings.
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.
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.
Truth. A slur used by the oppressed to describe the oppressor is not racist.It's a racial slur but not racist. Racism requires institutional backing.
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.
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? LOLApparently its only institutional if whites do it. :roll:
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.
No, in terms of anything other than the target's feelings, powerless prejudice is meaningless.That's silly.