• 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.
ecofarm said:
That's pathetic.
Click to expand...

Yes, your field is pathetic.

Anti-intellectualism.
Click to expand...

Yes, your field is anti-intellectual.

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.
Click to expand...

Of course they contradict. Of course you'd have to be...what's the word...intellectual to understand why they contradict.
 
Fishking said:
Yes, your field is pathetic.
Click to expand...

My field is interdisciplinary ecology, specializing in gender. Specifically, low-input agriculture in the developing world including anthropology, sociology and economics. Sociology is only part of my education.

Yes, your field is anti-intellectual.
Click to expand...

Calling sociology anti-intellectual is just pathetic.

Of course they contradict. Of course you'd have to be...what's the word...intellectual to understand why they contradict.
Click to expand...

I've already explained why they do not contradict. You should be able to grasp my explanation. And please, I'm not the anti-intellectual here, you are. I am an intellectual. I earned that title with an MSc and PhD program. By what credentials do you consider yourself an intellectual? Reading blogs and spewing crap about disciplines in which you have no education?
 
LaylaWindu said:
Nothing needs done, just honesty needs practiced. Both the guys are in fact racist and are practicing racism.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Both guys are racist and practicing racism. However, if you accept the alternative Orwellian definition, you'd by wrong to say both.

Racism does also have more in depth layers to it, but those layers are not required to be present for racism to exist.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. How it presents itself has layers.

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.
Click to expand...

Easy. If you were to say, "Usain bolt is fast." we'd know that you're speaking on the context of people. There'd be no need to further explain it. If you were to say, "Usain bolt is fast compared to a cheetah." you'd be using it improperly. There would be no contradiction there.

On the flip side, in your OP, both people are equally racist. And if that was the limit of their racism they'd still be racist, even if they were compared to Hitler. Hitler taking racism to genocidal levels does not make the store owners not racist. They are racist, period.

So, again, they are mutually exclusive terms and I dispense with illogical things.
 
ecofarm said:
My field is interdisciplinary ecology, specializing in gender. Specifically, low-input agriculture in the developing world including anthropology, sociology and economics. Sociology is only part of my education.
Click to expand...

Doesn't contradict what I stated.

Calling sociology anti-intellectual is just pathetic.
Click to expand...

No, it just upsets you because it's a mirror held to your face on how utterly vapid and devoid of value your chosen field is. It must be upsetting. I mean, I'm sure there are plenty of intellectually honest and logical sociologists but that the anti-intellectual and Orwellian ideology that you support has a place in your field shows that there are significant problems and that the inmates are running the asylum.

I've already explained why they do not contradict. You should be able to grasp my explanation. And please, I'm not the anti-intellectual here, you are. I am an intellectual. I earned that title with an MSc and PhD program. By what credentials do you consider yourself an intellectual? Reading blogs and spewing crap about disciplines in which you have no education?
Click to expand...

Lol...no you're not. You're in a reeducation program, the very antithesis of intellectualism. You're building your case on a house of cards and it's of no more import than any other philosophical ideology out there. The definitions contradict. It's funny that you claim such education and cannot grasp it.

Your definition is the definition for the term systemic racism. Your definition induced you to chose the wrong answer in the poll when you chose B and said that A is not a racist or is practicing racism. If they weren't exclusive then you'd also be able to legitimately choose A. You can't, and you won't. Why? Because your definition excludes the other.
 
LaylaWindu said:
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
B.) White guy owns a Ford Dealership, he won't hire blacks because he thinks all blacks are lazy
C.) Both A and B
Click to expand...

The question would, I find, be more interesting, were it posed on a statistical basis, where we do find that Vietnamese heritage folks tend to be more successful than Whites and first generation Blacks seem to do better than the indigenous kind. Would it be justified then to say that you wanted to employ the Iranian in stead of the Hispanic, because they are statistically more probably successful? Would that be racist?
 
Fishking said:
Doesn't contradict what I stated.



No, it just upsets you because it's a mirror held to your face on how utterly vapid and devoid of value your chosen field is. It must be upsetting. I mean, I'm sure there are plenty of intellectually honest and logical sociologists but that the anti-intellectual and Orwellian ideology that you support has a place in your field shows that there are significant problems and that the inmates are running the asylum.



Lol...no you're not. You're in a reeducation program, the very antithesis of intellectualism. You're building your case on a house of cards and it's of no more import than any other philosophical ideology out there. The definitions contradict. It's funny that you claim such education and cannot grasp it.

Your definition is the definition for the term systemic racism. Your definition induced you to chose the wrong answer in the poll when you chose B and said that A is not a racist or is practicing racism. If they weren't exclusive then you'd also be able to legitimately choose A. You can't, and you won't. Why? Because your definition excludes the other.
Click to expand...

You desperately want to believe a black hating whites has the same social impact as a white hating blacks. It doesn't.

When a black says he hates whites, it means nothing to me, as a white. I don't need to worry about the perpetuation of injustice or disadvantage against whites as a whole. It's pissing in the wind. I can safely ignore it.

When a white says he hates blacks, it's a threat to blacks as a whole. It supports the perpetuation of injustice and disadvantage against blacks as a whole. It cannot be safely ignored by anyone, it harms society.

This is why criminal elements of whites do not riot at instances of perceived injustice. There is no threat to whites as a whole with which to rationalize rioting as an act of protecting the group.

Thus, racial bigotry is an individual act whereas racism is a social construct. Racial bigotry does not rise to racism unless it supports a system of injustice.
 
Last edited:
The answer to the poll question is C. Only a ****en moron, or closet racist think its only a or only b. Because I looked at dictionary.com(random house and Collins), merriam-webster.com,American Heritage dictionary and dictionary.cambridge.org. There is no definition that has to do with what majority of race is in power. Nor is there is any definition that says since race A is in power that race B can't be racists.
 
Last edited:
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...

You could really save a lot of time if you didnt just say the word 'racism' alone without a qualifier. In case you had no clue there are different types of racism. What you should be saying is that under these specific guidelines that take real life out of the picture only a race that is a majority can be socially racist. But then that is still a bit too generalized since there are parts of the US where white people are not the majority. I know since I live in one of those places. Local population dynamics can be much different than the total population of Americans. Demographics play a large roll in certain sections of the US.

But none the less your definition isnt a fact, it is a opinion of certain leanings in academic institutions. The problem is that the people promoting the definition that you are asserting, have a lot of baggage that goes along with it. A lot of it has to do with political ideologies. Mostly it is just people who came up with an idea and are trying hard to change the definition. IMO it is all a waste of time and very dishonest. For the simple reason that the definition that you are using isnt really racism it a sociological category that misuses the word racism to cause the appearance that if we just gave in and submitted to it then all will get better. The end result is that your definition is racist. Involuntary actions are not racist. So when there isnt ethnic products at the local market it isnt racism, not unless the purpose was to attack the customers specially based on their race. If there are mostly non-ethnic customers then it was just logistics.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
The end result is that your definition is racist.
Click to expand...

Dictionary definition 2b is not racist. Nor is the academic definition.

Majority privilege is a matter of social dynamics and makes no claims whatsoever regarding racial attributes. The majority race is incidental.

socially racist.
Click to expand...

Racism is a social construct. In considering a social construct, one must consider social stuff. To strip a social construct of social consideration is nonsense.

Racial bigotry is an individual act.
 
Last edited:
rabbitcaebannog said:
IMO, race relations won't change as long as white people play victim. The problem lies within the social construct.
Click to expand...

There are at least 2 problems with whites pretending to be the victims of racism:

1. Whites are not a disadvantaged minority. What's the damage? Just hurt feelings.
2. It ignores the real damage, to blacks as a whole and society itself, of actual racism.

It's absurd when victim-card playing whites pretend blacks just have hurt feelings. That's white "victims". Blacks actually suffer racial disadvantage socially, harming society via the marginalization of a disadvantaged minority.

Whites want to pretend their struggle is the same (or even worse! haha). Pathetic.
 
ecofarm said:
There are at least 2 problems with whites pretending to be the victims of racism:

1. Whites are not a disadvantaged minority. What's the damage? Just hurt feelings.
2. It ignores the real damage, to blacks as a whole and society itself, of actual racism.

It's absurd when victim-card playing whites pretend blacks just have hurt feelings. That's them. Blacks actually suffer racial disadvantage socially.
Click to expand...

I largely agree with much of what you say about race and racism. I do have one question for you arising from this post of yours.

What about whites who work in cities where African-Americans are the majority and control the city and the employment and who have been disadvantaged in their careers by various affirmative action policies that may have been in effect for the last thirty or so years?

What I am asking is this - is it possible that a white person is then a minority and are indeed disadvantaged?
 
ecofarm said:
There are at least 2 problems with whites pretending to be the victims of racism:

1. Whites are not a disadvantaged minority. What's the damage? Just hurt feelings.
2. It ignores the real damage, to blacks as a whole and society itself, of actual racism.

It's absurd when victim-card playing whites pretend blacks just have hurt feelings. That's white "victims". Blacks actually suffer racial disadvantage socially, harming society via the marginalization of a disadvantaged minority.

Whites want to pretend their struggle is the same (or even worse! haha). Pathetic.
Click to expand...

The discrimination is just not even close to being on the same scale.
 
haymarket said:
I largely agree with much of what you say about race and racism. I do have one question for you arising from this post of yours.

What about whites who work in cities where African-Americans are the majority and control the city and the employment and who have been disadvantaged in their careers by various affirmative action policies that may have been in effect for the last thirty or so years?

What I am asking is this - is it possible that a white person is then a minority and are indeed disadvantaged?
Click to expand...

1. Context is global. And here nationally, whites have the power. If we examine the judges, business owners, business executives, professors, etc... whites still have the power even in minority towns. Then there's the justice system, whites have the power. No matter where a white lives, he never has to worry about whites as a whole not getting a fair shake from the courts.

If we reduce context, we lose sight of the big picture and can make any claim whatsoever.

2. Whites can move. Blacks cannot escape majority privilege. Everywhere, they are disadvantaged in the court system. Being a disadvantaged minority is inescapable.
 
Last edited:
rabbitcaebannog said:
The discrimination is just not even close to being on the same scale.
Click to expand...

It's individual instances (racial bigotry) vs. inescapable disadvantage of the group as a whole (racism).
 
Redress said:
That is not what he is doing. He is setting out the definition which he is using, from among those that fit the word, and basing his answer around that. There is no singular definition, there are several for the word "racism". As long as you set out which definition you are using, there is nothing wrong with using any of those definitions.
Click to expand...

That is much like saying that the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another was not murder because there are other definitions of the word murder which differ from that (most common?) definition of murder. If one decides that murder applies only to a group of crows then an example of the unlawful killing of a human is obviously not a murder and we end up discussing something other than the intended topic (as we are now).

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/murder

Opting to use (acknowledge?) only one alternate (and very narrow?) definition of the word "racism" while discounting the most common definition of that word is gettting really old. Deciding that folks lack education if they do not accept the most narrow defintion selected for use by a single poster is a lame debating technique. Racial bigotry need not be systemic racial bogotry nor institutional racial bigotry to be considered "real" racism.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is much like saying that the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another was not murder because there are other definitions of the word murder which differ from that (most common?) definition of murder. If one decides that murder applies only to a group of crows then an example of the unlawful killing of a human is obviously not a murder and we end up discussing something other than the intended topic (as we are now).

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/murder

Opting to use (acknowledge?) only one alternate (and very narrow?) definition of the word "racism" while discounting the most common definition of that word is gettting really old. Deciding that folks lack education if they do not accept the most narrow defintion selected for use by a single poster is a lame debating technique. Racial bigotry need not be systemic racial bogotry nor institutional racial bigotry to be considered "real" racism.
Click to expand...

It's not a different subject or topic.

It's a valid definition.

Failing to understand dictionary definition 2b or the academic definition is a lack of education. Or being too stupid to grasp the social aspects of a social construct despite education.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Yep, just look at the justice system for example.
Click to expand...

Some whites want to pretend a black person hating them is like whites as a whole suffering injustice at the hands of the justice system. They need to walk it off.
 
ecofarm said:
Some whites want to pretend a black person hating them is like whites as a whole suffering injustice at the hands of the justice system. They need to walk it off.
Click to expand...

A lot of times they miss the opportunity of where that root of the anger exist.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
A lot of times they miss the opportunity of where that root of the anger exist.
Click to expand...

Hating whites because of disadvantage against one's group as a whole is not the same as hating blacks because one believes them inferior. Motive matters.

Black hate against whites (with very rare exception) is not founded in supremacist belief. White hate against blacks is founded in supremacist belief.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
It's not a different subject or topic.

It's a valid definition.

Failing to understand dictionary definition 2b or the academic definition is a lack of education. Or being too stupid to grasp the social aspects of a social construct despite education.
Click to expand...

The OP poll included two Ford dealerships that based (not?) hiring on the applicant's race differing from that of the owner. To assert that those identical acts of racial discrimination differ is denying equal protection of the law. It may be a matter of academic discussion whether the rights of any individual should differ based on their majority/minority racial status in an entire nation - but, AFIK, that is settled law in the US. Either case cited in the OP is a, completely valid, example of racial discrimination in hiring practices.
 
ecofarm said:
Hating whites because of racism is not the same as hating blacks because one believes them inferior. Motive matters.
Click to expand...

I agree. I had my education at a young age. I attended an inner city school for kindergarten and first grade. I was the minority. I remember a white boy saying he would not drink chocolate milk because he did not want to turn into a black. The response was a lot of black kids defending themselves. A lot of the black kids did not trust us and rightfully so. Once they saw you would not verbally attack them or hold your nose up to them, many did let their guard down. I made two lifelong friends. For me to say their situation is the same as mine is a lie.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The OP poll included two Ford dealerships that based (not?) hiring on the applicant's race differing from that of the owner. To assert that those identical acts of racial discrimination differ is denying equal protection of the law. It may be a matter of academic discussion whether the rights of any individual should differ based on their majority/minority racial status in an entire nation - but, AFIK, that is settled law in the US. Either case cited in the OP is a, completely valid, example of racial discrimination in hiring practices.
Click to expand...

The white will a find place without discrimination around the corner. The black will find discrimination at every place he goes. It's not the same.
 
ecofarm said:
Hating whites because of disadvantage against one's group as a whole is not the same as hating blacks because one believes them inferior. Motive matters.

Black hate against whites (with very rare exception) is not founded in supremacist belief. White hate against blacks is founded in supremacist belief.
Click to expand...

I think this is the point many are failing to acknowledge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom