• 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!

Which scenario is racism?

Simple question. Which guy is racist and practicing racism?

  • A.) Black guy owns Ford Dealership, he won't hire whites because he thinks all whites are dishonest

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • B.) White guy owns a Ford Dealership, he won't hire blacks because he thinks all blacks are lazy

    Votes: 4 5.2%

  • C) Both guys

    Votes: 73 94.8%
  • Total voters
    77
Status
Not open for further replies.
LaylaWindu said:
It IS a valid definition, it just doesn't negate the other definitions.
Click to expand...

2b includes racial bigotry, just in a larger context. A social system based on racism. Racism is more than merely racial bigotry, as per 2b.

You don't believe racism is more than merely racial bigotry? You don't think racism includes oppression?
 
Last edited:
Fishking said:
Yes, there is definitely something wrong with it as they are wrong. Period. They are social conditioning to reinvent terms to control how people think. We already have a term for what he described, "systemic racism". Notice the modifier. No need to reinvent the base term of racism from some BS field of study.
Click to expand...

Damn that dictionary, defining terms in ways you do not like!
 
ecofarm said:
Dictionary definition 2b (as valid as any other definition), regarding racial majority privilege (a social system based on racism): only option B applies. This is also true for the academic definition, for the same reason.

According to dictionary definition 1 (the most basic, a child's understanding), both would apply.

Blacks, as a minority power, do not have the ability to oppress whites as a whole and thereby engage in a social system based on racism.

I ascribe to dictionary definition 2b, racism is more than racial bigotry.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming that you're referring to the definition that was in the other thread? This one: 2b : a political or social system founded on racism

In other words your premise is based on the word "founded". Because lets face it, at the time of the US's founding there were a crap ton of racism. Problem is that today =/= 240+ years ago. There are no more laws that protect whites at the expense of blacks. There are no more laws that target blacks exclusively. The KKK and Stormfront folks in the US don't even add up to 1% of the total US population. Those that are racist and whether in the aforementioned groups or not are barred from acting on it in any meaningful way by law and by SCOTUS. Like it or not definition 2b does not apply to the US anymore.

And no, being in majority power =/= racism by those in the majority power. God I hate saying "majority power" in reference to race. Because quite frankly everyone in the US has a voice and has the same amount of power as you or I when it comes to race. As such no one race has a majority power. Your vote counts just as much as mine. A black persons vote counts just as much as yours and mine. etc etc etc. There is no more 2/3rds vote anymore. It's all equal. All other power outside of the government is on an individual level, and we all know that you won't go down to the individual level. You dismiss it out of hand because your liberal arts teachers told you to.
 
ecofarm said:
It's as valid as any other dictionary definition. You just don't like that definition.

If you'd prefer, we can use the academic definition. It postulates the same.
Click to expand...

Is that definition an absolute? Does it apply if I am a minority in the community in which i live?

I'm white. Can I be racist if I live in a black neighborhood? Can I be racist if I live in a city with a primarily Mexican population? Can I be racist if white people aren't the majority in the hemisphere in which I live? Can I be racist as a white man in a world where 2/3rds of the people live in Asia, and 1 in 5 people is Chinese?

More people speak Spanish than English, and about three times as many as that speak Mandarin. Why do you arbitrarily draw your racist lines on our country's border?
 
Fishking said:
No need to reinvent the base term of racism from some BS field of study.
Click to expand...

The dictionary carries the same definition. Nothing is re-invented.

You believe sociology is a BS field of study? How anti-intellectual of you.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Is that definition an absolute? Does it apply if I am a minority in the community in which i live?

I'm white. Can I be racist if I live in a black neighborhood? Can I be racist if I live in a city with a primarily Mexican population? Can I be racist if white people aren't the majority in the hemisphere in which I live? Can I be racist as a white man in a world where 2/3rds of the people live in Asia, and 1 in 5 people is Chinese?

More people speak Spanish than English, and about three times as many as that speak Mandarin. Why do you arbitrarily draw your racist lines on our country's border?
Click to expand...

Context is global. The majority in question is power not population. By reducing context, one could make any claim whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
2b includes racial bigotry, just in a larger context. A social system based on racism. Racism is more than merely racial bigotry, as per 2b.
Click to expand...

Wrong, racism is NOT(as in NEEDED to be) more, it CAN be more but it doesn't have to be nor is it required to be.Yesterday racial bigotry is racism, today racial bigotry is racism and tomorrow racial bigotry will be racism. That fact won't change. :shrug: and its further proven by your inability to provide anything that changes it. Fact remains, both guys are racist.:)
 
LaylaWindu said:
Wrong, racism is NOT(as in NEEDED to be) more, it CAN be more but it doesn't have to be nor is it required to be.
Click to expand...

Is racism more than racial bigotry? Is it a social construct? Does it have something to do with oppression?


If you believe so, you might wanna go with dictionary definition 2b.
 
Last edited:
LaylaWindu said:
It IS a valid definition, it just doesn't negate the other definitions. Just like Definition 3 of blue (relatinging it to a mood) is valid but doesn't negate the other definitions of blud based on color. So if I asked you if if navy blue and royal blue are examples of blue you would say yes. Only a completely dishonest uneducated moron would say give the hilarious answer of no and then claim it's true because navy blue and royal blue aren't feelings or a moods. ;)
Click to expand...

If you want to accept it, that's your choice. I reject it on it's face as not rational or logically congruent. It's inception is merely the child of the defunct realm of sociology which is nothing more than philosophy trying to masquerade as an actual science. This definition is about controlling the thoughts of individuals as language can control how people think, right out of an Orwell novel.

We have a term for what he's describing and that term is "systemic racism". No need to reinvent the base term to cover something already covered.
 
LaylaWindu said:
No more than racial bigotry is not needed for something to be racism, FACT

Yes along with all definitions of words, FACT

No oppression is not needed for something to be racism, FACT

Are both guys racist and practicing racism? YES, FACT :)
Click to expand...

You're clearly hysterical. Why's that?

If you believe racism is more than merely racial bigotry. If you believe racism is a social construct and not merely an individual act. If you believe racism has something to do with oppression...

Then you might wanna go with dictionary definition 2b.
 
Fishking said:
If you want to accept it, that's your choice.
Click to expand...
Weather I accept it or not doesn't change that it exists, so I choose to acknowledge facts.
Fishking said:
I reject it on it's face as not rational or logically congruent. It's inception is merely the child of the defunct realm of sociology which is nothing more than philosophy trying to masquerade as an actual science. This definition is about controlling the thoughts of individuals as language can control how people think, right out of an Orwell novel.
Click to expand...
You are welcome to reject it and that opinion
Fishking said:
We have a term for what he's describing and that term is "systemic racism". No need to reinvent the base term to cover something already covered.
Click to expand...
I agree that term would be more accurate for the lie that is trying to be sold since its being suggested 2b negates the other definitions when it factually does not.
 
ecofarm said:
It's just in the dictionary for giggles, right?
Click to expand...

It includes il-formed concepts, yes. Dictionaries don't make judgments on reason or logic. So if a bunch of illogical and socially programmed people make up a term that defies reason, and uses academia to spread it, it will be included.

2b cannot exist in the same space as the primary definition, they are mutually exclusive. So what's left when two things contradict each other? You cut out the one that contains the fallacy (that would be your version of the definition).
 
Redress said:
Damn that dictionary, defining terms in ways you do not like!
Click to expand...

It's illogical. 2b cannot exist in the same world as the primary definition. They are mutually exclusive. So you must apply reason and logic and understand the propaganda and cut the term that contains the fallacy. Dictionaries includes how people use words, they don't make judgments on faulty usage.
 
Fishking said:
We have a term for what he's describing and that term is "systemic racism". No need to reinvent the base term to cover something already covered.
Click to expand...

If racial bigotry is the same thing as racism, why not just call it racial bigotry. Why do you need two terms for the same thing? Or is that a false equivalence.
 
ecofarm said:
The dictionary carries the same definition. Nothing is re-invented.

You believe sociology is a BS field of study? How anti-intellectual of you.
Click to expand...

The only thing that's anti-intellectual is sociology. That you don't realize this is funny.
 
ecofarm said:
You're clearly hysterical. Why's that?
Click to expand...
Because the lies and factually wrong statements you are trying to sell are hilarious, that and your frustration of the majority of people not choosing to ignore facts like you want them to is cracking me up. But the best part is your inability to bring one thing to the table that supports your asinine claims that the black guy is not racist and practicing racism.
ecofarm said:
If you believe racism is more than merely racial bigotry.
Click to expand...
I haven't given you any of my believes I stated the fact that racism does not have to be more than racial bigotry
ecofarm said:
If you believe racism is a social construct and not merely an individual act.
Click to expand...
Again I haven't given you any of my believes, I stated the fact that racism is a social construct like all definitions of words.
If you believe racism has something to do with oppression...[/QUOTE]
For a third time, I haven't given you any of my believes I stated the fact that oppression is not needed for racism to exist.
ecofarm said:
Then you might wanna go with dictionary definition 2b.
Click to expand...
I go with all definitions because I understand how they work and I don't ignore any of them or facts. Fact remains the black guy is still racist and practising racism
 
LaylaWindu said:
I agree that term would be more accurate for the lie that is trying to be sold since its being suggested 2b negates the other definitions when it factually does not.
Click to expand...

So you acknowledge facts, right? So what do you do when there are definitions that are exclusive of each other? You cannot have concise and logical communication with contradictory definitions and 2b invalidates the primary definition. So the only thing left is to acknowledge the flawed usage of the term and to reject it. We can acknowledge that how some people use the term but reject it as being a valid term.
 
Fishking said:
It's illogical. 2b cannot exist in the same world as the primary definition. They are mutually exclusive. So you must apply reason and logic and understand the propaganda and cut the term that contains the fallacy. Dictionaries includes how people use words, they don't make judgments on faulty usage.
Click to expand...

The first definition is not the primary definition. The order is usually either most used first, or arbitrary.

They can absolutely exist in the same world. They are different contexts of usage.
 
Fishking said:
The only thing that's anti-intellectual is sociology. That you don't realize this is funny.
Click to expand...

That's pathetic.


Fishking said:
It includes il-formed concepts, yes. Dictionaries don't make judgments on reason or logic. So if a bunch of illogical and socially programmed people make up a term that defies reason, and uses academia to spread it, it will be included.
Click to expand...

Anti-intellectualism.

2b cannot exist in the same space as the primary definition, they are mutually exclusive. So what's left when two things contradict each other? You cut out the one that contains the fallacy (that would be your version of the definition).
Click to expand...

They don't contradict. 2b includes racial bigotry, but only as a part of a social system. It's a more refined definition, not a contradictory one.
 
Fishking said:
So you acknowledge facts, right?
Click to expand...
Yes
Fishking said:
So what do you do when there are definitions that are exclusive of each other?
Click to expand...
Nothing needs done just like the definition of blue as a color or a feeling. Or Heavy as in physical weight or emotion
Fishking said:
You cannot have concise and logical communication with contradictory definitions and 2b invalidates the primary definition.
Click to expand...
Of course one can when you practice honesty
Fishking said:
So the only thing left is to acknowledge the flawed usage of the term and to reject it. We can acknowledge that how some people use the term but reject it as being a valid term.
Click to expand...
No "WE" do not that's what you want to do but its no accurate or logical just like the definitions of blue, heavy, hot, cold etc etc and probably 100 other words.

Nothing needs done, just honesty needs practiced. Both the guys are in fact racist and are practicing racism. Racism does also have more in depth layers to it, but those layers are not required to be present for racism to exist.

What would you do with the word fast? Usain bolt is fast right? That's a fact right? Not compared to the speed of light he isn't though. That would be contradictory. So should we not use the word fast to describe usain bolt? Of course we should, it just takes two people who are honest and who uses reality. Logical communication can easily be had as long as we are both practicing logic. 2B is an accurate definition is simply does not negate the other definitions.
 
ecofarm said:
Dictionary definition 2b (as valid as any other definition), regarding racial majority privilege (a social system based on racism): only option B applies. This is also true for the academic definition, for the same reason.

According to dictionary definition 1 (the most basic, a child's understanding), both would apply.

Blacks, as a minority power, do not have the ability to oppress whites as a whole and thereby engage in a social system based on racism.

I ascribe to dictionary definition 2b, racism is more than racial bigotry.
Click to expand...

How did I know you voted against the white guy only? Predictable.....ZZ zzzzz
 
Another day, another 'race'-based thread on DP.

:roll:

Most Americans just cannot seem to stop thinking about 'race'.
 
LaylaWindu said:
Nothing needs done just like the definition of blue as a color or a feeling. Or Heavy as in physical weight or emotion
Click to expand...

You do if the definition starts including red as the definition for blue and things that are light as the definition for heavy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom