• 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.
Cephus said:
It's nothing of the sort. If these people don't want to go to prison, maybe they should try following the law. So much for personal responsibility, huh?
Click to expand...

That's an entirely different topic. You, apparently, don't care that there is a sentencing disparity. Those of us that don't like discrimination based on racism do care.
 
americanwoman said:
Mexicans can be brown, white, black, etc... so I guess you could technically be racist against their skin color but not the fact that the person's ethnicity is Mexican. If you hate Mexicans or think whatever about them, that would actually be prejudiced against their ethnicity in that case.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm glad we are focusing on the individual trees while ignoring the forest.

Why do we arbitrarily draw the power/privilege line at national borders? And why do we only extend this privilege to all of "Western" (read: "white") society when talking about Africa and ignore it when talking about Asia?
 
Fishking said:
Yes, institutional/systemic racism is what they are indeed talking about but they do not use those terms. They just use racism for those terms and therefor whites can never be racist because they are the majority power. That's how they are redefining the term.
Click to expand...
What?

Who is they?
Wait, someone is saying because institutional racism, defined as racism, exists, white people cannot be racist? What?

I need more data. Give it to me.
 
The Mark said:
What?

Who is they?
Wait, someone is saying because institutional racism, defined as racism, exists, white people cannot be racist? What?

I need more data. Give it to me.
Click to expand...

Yes, you'll find it in the academia of sociology. There are at least three people who have voted such in the poll. Look at ecofarm's posts. He claims to have up to doctorate level education in sociology and has been saying this very thing the entire thread.

https://www.nas.org/articles/where_did_we_get_the_idea_that_only_white_people_can_be_racist
 
Fishking said:
I know you didn't, but you're leaning on IQ to make your point and the only way we measure IQ is via IQ tests, of various variety.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it's a different opinion and I respect the criticism either way...

I just think that trends with IQ have a lot to lean on when you really look into them and the implications they have on a wider society.
 
Fishking said:
Yes, you'll find it in the academia of sociology. There are at least three people who have voted such in the poll. Look at ecofarm's posts. He claims to have up to doctorate level education in sociology and has been saying this very thing the entire thread.

https://www.nas.org/articles/where_did_we_get_the_idea_that_only_white_people_can_be_racist
Click to expand...
That link has nothing whatsoever to do with your claim that someone claimed white people couldn't be racist.

In fact it is discussing the opposite.
 
Now we're up to 4 liberals who think racism only applies to whites.
 
The Mark said:
That link has nothing whatsoever to do with your claim that someone claimed white people couldn't be racist.

In fact it is discussing the opposite.
Click to expand...

Right...it's taking the opposing view to that ideology.
 
Fishking said:
That's an entirely different topic. You, apparently, don't care that there is a sentencing disparity. Those of us that don't like discrimination based on racism do care.
Click to expand...

You'd have to demonstrate that there actually is. People make these claims all the time, they point to news articles, but never to any actual peer-reviewed studies. Not to any actual data. They mistake correlation for causation because they don't know the difference between the two. Now I'm not saying there's no individual racism out there, there is. I'm saying I have seen no evidence of INSTITUTIONALIZED racism. Of racism that transcends the individual. We can and should handle those individual cases. But let's not invent a ridiculous conspiracy theory that is not warranted by the actual, objective evidence.
 
LaylaWindu said:
Any judgment based on race about a whole race is racist :shrug: Doesn't really matter way and of course with all prejudice things there are layers and depth to it and even some things that society my accept or be less offended but it's still racist/racism. SO I disagree I don't find that question interesting at all because the answer doesn't change in the slightest. I would say it's interesting what stereotypes people choose to think about or believe and way and how that even changes through parts of the count/globe.
Click to expand...

So it would be racist to develop medicine that only one strain of people requires, that are of the same color or ethnic?
 
Which guy is racist and practicing racism?
Click to expand...

Unknowable.

Individual of color A refuses to hire people of color B because he thinks they posess trait C.
He might also refuse to hire people of all other colors, including his own, because they equally possess trait C as color B.
A simple binary test could have been applied, to see if he would hire someone of his own color, but this was not tested, so we are working on assumptions.
Had the binary test been applied, we would then have to determine if people of color B actually possess trait C to a higher degree than people of color A.
If so, his decision would not be racist, because it would not be derived from any notion of inferiority/superiority on basis of race, but rather statistical evidence regarding the trait.

Tangent A.
However, in an effort to better society, it should be taken into consideration that this decision could nevertheless influence the degree to which people of color B possess trait C.
We can take as a given that traits do not arise spontaneously, but require the correct environment variables to develop, gainful employment often being one of those variables.
Depending on other societal variables it may or may not prove profitable to intervene in the hiring process. This would be social engineering in an effort to combat something we could call "systemic racism".

Tangent B.
Furthermore "systemic racism" is a poorly chosen name. While it has emotional impact it lacks logical consistency in what it attempt to accomplish.
A given state in the relationship between a majority and minority populations says nothing of what the basis for that state is, and hence whether said state is unreasonable or not.
On the other hand, anyone should be able to see that measuring skin melanine levels is no basis for determining honesty or thrift. Those traits are rooted elsewhere in the body, and not well understood anyway.


Sorry... What was the question again?
 
Fishking said:
Up to 3 now but, again, you reject B being the most correct answer so you reject the 2b definition, which you've repeatedly stated you don't. You have contradicted yourself many times in this thread.
Click to expand...

Nope, never rejected any dictionary definition here ever nor have I contradict myself one time. Try again making stuff up will only get laughed at.
 
Fishking said:
But the 2b definition says you're wrong so obviously you reject that definition.
Click to expand...

Don't know what country you are from so maybe it's a lack of education on how english works but nothing in 2b says I'm wrong.
 
MrWonka said:
The real question here is what in the world makes you think that this would be a remotely difficult question to answer?
Click to expand...

Who said I think the question is hard? It is a VERY easy question, yet thread history proves a very small group find it hard and have trouble with facts.
 
Fishking said:
Agreed, but using ecofarm's definition you'd be incorrect and never would be correct.
Click to expand...
Wrong again, nothing in that definition makes the answer "incorrect" Just like the definition of blue as a feeling doesn't stop blue from being a color. Again not sure what country you are from but you seem to not understand how english works. The 2B definition doesn't stop the other definitions from remaining true.
 
Mach said:
Why is their no "neither" and "other" options on this poll?


Again, it clearly doesn't, despite your claims it does.

Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race
This is applicable

based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
This is not applicable, there is no indication in your example that gives someone enough information to make that claim. First definition looks like a no.

A person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races,
Applies.
or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
Does not apply. (not enough information)
Since it's an "or", either can be applied, one looks correct, one incorrect.

ADJECTIVE
Showing or feeling discrimination or prejudice against people of other races,
Applies

or believing that a particular race is superior to another.
Does not apply.
Same as above (one for, one against)

Exactly as Perotista notes, basing it on the belief that one's own race is superior, is the important difference. If it's not taken into account, it's basically synonymous with prejudice/discrimination. We have words for those, why not use them? If it IS taken into account, it's no longer synonymous with prejudiced/discrimination, and as such it's more descriptive. Why not use this interpretation to avoid semantic debate?
Click to expand...

Sorry but there no amount of spin you can post that stops it from fitting to a T. You are simply choosing what you want it to mean based on your subjectivity. I'll simply stick with what is actually said.
 
LaylaWindu said:
Nope, never rejected any dictionary definition here ever nor have I contradict myself one time. Try again making stuff up will only get laughed at.
Click to expand...

Of course you did. You've done so multiple times. You're just obviously not cognizant enough to understand what you've said and how that compares to the other definition. Just say it's beyond you and move on, you'll save yourself some embarrassment.
 
Fishking said:
Of course you did. You've done so multiple times. You're just obviously not cognizant enough to understand what you've said and how that compares to the other definition. Just say it's beyond you and move on, you'll save yourself some embarrassment.
Click to expand...

Still hasn't happen hahahahaha. You're still losing bad and your lies are failing, PLEASE continue :)
 
Racism is defined thus: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
So your poll question is improperly stated as it does not tell us if the black or the white thinks of themselves as racially superior.

So you should ask the question you want answered this way: "which guy is racially biased?"
 
judgeii said:
Racism is defined thus: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
So your poll question is improperly stated as it does not tell us if the black or the white thinks of themselves as racially superior.

So you should ask the question you want answered this way: "which guy is racially biased?"
Click to expand...

No need, the definitions from multiple dictionaries were provided. The superior part is NOT needed so your assumption is wrong. Also not to mention that LOGICALLY if the people in the example believe the other race has flaws and their race does not (hence their hiring practices) how wouldn't that fit your NOT needed qualifier of thinking their race is superior. The race they are hiring is their own because they think theirs is better and doesn't contain the flaw. Let me know if there's anything else I can help with ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom