Why is it only white people that are racist?

[laughing dog]

Your argument amounts to it not being possible for good to be a subcategory of bad. You aren't addressing the actual issue at all--affirmative action is decisions based upon race and thus is racism.

I have addressed your claim. It is a false equivalence to juxtaposition racism and affirmative action. Jim Crow and Affirmative Action are about as synonymous as dogs and cats. Sure, both are four legged mammals, but they are entirely distinct species.

Yes you have.

Traditionally, racism has meant
Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. or

The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
(source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/racism)
Affirmative action is not based on that.

The opponents of affirmative action like Loren have to redefine the term "racism" in order to provide more emotive content to their position.

 

[Trausti]

I have addressed your claim. It is a false equivalence to juxtaposition racism and affirmative action. Jim Crow and Affirmative Action are about as synonymous as dogs and cats. Sure, both are four legged mammals, but they are entirely distinct species.

Yes you have.

Traditionally, racism has meant
Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. or

The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
(source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/racism)
Affirmative action is not based on that.

The opponents of affirmative action like Loren have to redefine the term "racism" in order to provide more emotive content to their position.

Ah, so "separate but equal" was not racism. Interesting.

 

[laughing dog]

Yes you have.

Traditionally, racism has meant
Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. or

The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
(source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/racism)
Affirmative action is not based on that.

The opponents of affirmative action like Loren have to redefine the term "racism" in order to provide more emotive content to their position.

Ah, so "separate but equal" was not racism.

Wrong. "Separate but equal' in the USA was the based on racism - that black people were inferior.

 

[Trausti]

Ah, so "separate but equal" was not racism.

Wrong. "Separate but equal' in the USA was the based on racism - that black people were inferior.

Not at all. Accordingly to you, as long as the proponents of the racially discriminatory policy are not openly doing so because of a belief in racial superiority/inferiority then it's not racism. It's just discrimination based on race - which you apparently approve.

 

[Trausti]

 

[Bomb#20]

Well, you'd need to demonstrate it is a double standard first.

Is it wrong to treat a person differently based on the immutable characteristic of that person's race? If it is wrong then it is wrong. If you start making exceptions for some but not others, that's a double standard. Hypocrites always find rationalizations for their double standards, but hypocrites they remain.

Lenny: Bubbie was convinced the Nazis were gonna rise again. So when she got too old to schtupp her way out of camp she started hoarding money for bribes.

Shane: That's crazy.

Lenny: It's not crazy at all. Listen, genocide can happen again if we're not vigilant. It must never happen again.

Shane: It has happened again.

Lenny: What?

Shane: Genocide. In Rwanda, Cambodia, Bosnia.

Lenny: No, no, to Jews. It must never happen again to Jews.

- Weeds​

 

[Bomb#20]

... But according to your theory, if you're not a dick nobody is going to call you a racist. ...

You're the first person who's ever called me a racist, and not surprisingly it's completely unsubstantiated.

What's your point? Lots of people call others racists, and not surprisingly it's normally completely unsubstantiated. Don2 (Don1 Revised) called me a racist, and it was completely unsubstantiated. If this is the first time it's ever happened to you, you need to get out more.

In this case the lack of substantiation is immaterial, because my point was never to argue that you're racist. My point was to argue that you're a dick. Now, I don't actually think you're a dick any more than I think you're a racist. I'm arguing that you're a dick in order to show you the implications of your theory. I used your theory as a premise in my argument. If my argument is valid -- and it is -- then that means either its conclusion is correct -- you're a dick -- or else its premise is wrong -- and it's premise is your theory. So if you agree with me that you aren't a dick, then you should agree with me that your theory is wrong. Just because you aren't a dick, that doesn't mean nobody is going to call you a racist. Refraining from dickishness has no magical power to cause others to refrain from calling you a racist.

 

[WAB]

Chuckles, laughs, and whatever gives me enough characters to post!


:run:

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wrong. "Separate but equal' in the USA was the based on racism - that black people were inferior.

Not at all. Accordingly to you, as long as the proponents of the racially discriminatory policy are not openly doing so because of a belief in racial superiority/inferiority then it's not racism. It's just discrimination based on race - which you apparently approve.

Jim Crow wasn't merely about prejudice. It was about creating a system that aimed to create a second class of citizens that could allow one race to refuse rights and privileges to the lower class. This included restricting access to voting, education, and justice (legalized violence and even murder). These restrictions permeated into all levels of life, and despite the ending of these laws over 50 years ago, the effects are still being dealt with.

So this whole Affirmative Action ~ racism isn't just inaccurate, it is a willful disregard to recognize history and to use the actual suffering of a race of people for decades to score some shit political points.

 

[rousseau]

You're the first person who's ever called me a racist, and not surprisingly it's completely unsubstantiated.

What's your point? Lots of people call others racists, and not surprisingly it's normally completely unsubstantiated. Don2 (Don1 Revised) called me a racist, and it was completely unsubstantiated. If this is the first time it's ever happened to you, you need to get out more.

In this case the lack of substantiation is immaterial, because my point was never to argue that you're racist. My point was to argue that you're a dick. Now, I don't actually think you're a dick any more than I think you're a racist. I'm arguing that you're a dick in order to show you the implications of your theory. I used your theory as a premise in my argument. If my argument is valid -- and it is -- then that means either its conclusion is correct -- you're a dick -- or else its premise is wrong -- and it's premise is your theory. So if you agree with me that you aren't a dick, then you should agree with me that your theory is wrong. Just because you aren't a dick, that doesn't mean nobody is going to call you a racist. Refraining from dickishness has no magical power to cause others to refrain from calling you a racist.

Reasoned discussion over racial policies is fine and not racist, even if someone calls you a racist. Not admitting that non-white groups need help is not ok, and if someone calls you a racist in that instance, it may not be totally accurate, but it's in the ballpark.

 

[Underseer]

I have addressed your claim. It is a false equivalence to juxtaposition racism and affirmative action. Jim Crow and Affirmative Action are about as synonymous as dogs and cats. Sure, both are four legged mammals, but they are entirely distinct species.

Yes you have.

Traditionally, racism has meant
Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. or

The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
(source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/racism)
Affirmative action is not based on that.

The opponents of affirmative action like Loren have to redefine the term "racism" in order to provide more emotive content to their position.

It's more than that.

What you're describing is just a generalization.

What makes racism racism is a history of systemic injustice inflicted on a population. When you use racist language, you're opening old wounds and re-traumatizing people. That's why people complain about what Muslims in Muslim-majority countries do to religious minorities, but never the reverse (even if in some in those religious minority populations were to make unfair assumptions about the majority Muslims).

Because racism is tied to history, I have a view about racism that isn't very popular among those who are actually concerned about racism. I argue that racism is in part culture-specific because each majority population has a different history of doing different horrible things to different minority groups.

So comparing an entire population to gorillas is seen as universally bigoted by just about everyone (such as when the English did that to Irish people), but the watermelon thing only makes sense to Americans because of our peculiar history. I have a very difficult time explaining to non-Americans why the watermelon thing is racist. Similarly, I have a difficult time understanding why it is insulting for Japanese people to call Koreans "garlic eater." My brain can't get past "But garlic is delicious. Why would you try to insult or denigrate someone by calling them that? It's not even insulting."

 

[Underseer]

Chuckles, laughs, and whatever gives me enough characters to post!


:run:

You're so oppressed.

Some day, you will tell your grandchildren of all the racism and persecution you endured, and their little eyes will well up with tears of admiration.

How do you even get through the day? You are an inspiration to all. [/FACETIOUS]

 

[laughing dog]

Wrong. "Separate but equal' in the USA was the based on racism - that black people were inferior.

Not at all. Accordingly to you, as long as the proponents of the racially discriminatory policy are not openly doing so because of a belief in racial superiority/inferiority then it's not racism. It's just discrimination based on race - which you apparently approve.

Wrong again. I never claimed it the racist intent had to be open.

 

[Bomb#20]

Reasoned discussion over racial policies is fine and not racist, even if someone calls you a racist. Not admitting that non-white groups need help is not ok, and if someone calls you a racist in that instance, it may not be totally accurate, but it's in the ballpark.

Do you think "Not admitting that my religious belief is correct is not okay." qualifies as reasoned discussion?

As I see it, groups do not have needs; people have needs. Groups are grammatical fictions. To say a group has a need is to say either (a) we can categorize people according to any algorithm we pull out of thin air and then determine what someone needs by statistically examining the needs of other people our algorithm grouped him with, or (b) we can define a need into existence by defining a group into existence, because group needs are a separate thing over and above human needs. Why do you feel it's not okay for me to say that? Why do you feel it's not okay for me to have a philosophical disagreement with you about the ontological status of groups?

 

[rousseau]

Reasoned discussion over racial policies is fine and not racist, even if someone calls you a racist. Not admitting that non-white groups need help is not ok, and if someone calls you a racist in that instance, it may not be totally accurate, but it's in the ballpark.

Do you think "Not admitting that my religious belief is correct is not okay." qualifies as reasoned discussion?

As I see it, groups do not have needs; people have needs. Groups are grammatical fictions. To say a group has a need is to say either (a) we can categorize people according to any algorithm we pull out of thin air and then determine what someone needs by statistically examining the needs of other people our algorithm grouped him with, or (b) we can define a need into existence by defining a group into existence, because group needs are a separate thing over and above human needs. Why do you feel it's not okay for me to say that? Why do you feel it's not okay for me to have a philosophical disagreement with you about the ontological status of groups?

Ok, so it's not that you don't admit that they need help, it's that you just don't want to help them.

I agree, that's not racist, but there are definitely other terms for it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your argument amounts to it not being possible for good to be a subcategory of bad. You aren't addressing the actual issue at all--affirmative action is decisions based upon race and thus is racism.

It has never been a good thing. There was a time when it was the lesser evil, that's all.

Is it OK for me to criticize the Nazis for what they did to the Jews without also criticizing the Jews for what they did to the Nazis?

I don't see how this is supposed to be a rebuttal.

Affirmative action has always been racist. There was a time when it was better than the alternative but that time is long since past.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have addressed your claim. It is a false equivalence to juxtaposition racism and affirmative action. Jim Crow and Affirmative Action are about as synonymous as dogs and cats. Sure, both are four legged mammals, but they are entirely distinct species.

Yes you have.

Traditionally, racism has meant
Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. or

The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
(source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/racism)
Affirmative action is not based on that.

The opponents of affirmative action like Loren have to redefine the term "racism" in order to provide more emotive content to their position.

Racism also means taking actions based on racial differences. That's the sense I'm using it in.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes you have.

Traditionally, racism has meant
Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. or

The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
(source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/racism)
Affirmative action is not based on that.

The opponents of affirmative action like Loren have to redefine the term "racism" in order to provide more emotive content to their position.

Ah, so "separate but equal" was not racism. Interesting.

In theory. In practice separate but equal is never actually equal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Jim Crow wasn't merely about prejudice. It was about creating a system that aimed to create a second class of citizens that could allow one race to refuse rights and privileges to the lower class. This included restricting access to voting, education, and justice (legalized violence and even murder). These restrictions permeated into all levels of life, and despite the ending of these laws over 50 years ago, the effects are still being dealt with.

So this whole Affirmative Action ~ racism isn't just inaccurate, it is a willful disregard to recognize history and to use the actual suffering of a race of people for decades to score some shit political points.

The problem is that those effects are cultural, not discrimination. They can't be fixed by applying discrimination.

It's like the doctor trying to fix a broken arm by means of a seat belt. The fact that he broke it by not wearing one doesn't mean it's a treatment.

 

[Bomb#20]

Do you think "Not admitting that my religious belief is correct is not okay." qualifies as reasoned discussion?

As I see it, groups do not have needs; people have needs. Groups are grammatical fictions. To say a group has a need is to say either (a) we can categorize people according to any algorithm we pull out of thin air and then determine what someone needs by statistically examining the needs of other people our algorithm grouped him with, or (b) we can define a need into existence by defining a group into existence, because group needs are a separate thing over and above human needs. Why do you feel it's not okay for me to say that? Why do you feel it's not okay for me to have a philosophical disagreement with you about the ontological status of groups?

Ok, so it's not that you don't admit that they need help, it's that you just don't want to help them.

Why did you write that?

 

[WAB]

As I see it, groups do not have needs; people have needs. Groups are grammatical fictions.

As for the term, people: I find, for the sake of clarity, that it's better to say: individuals (people is a group word).

That being said, you are absolutely correct. I'm a nominalist. Universals, groups, are NOT real entities. They DO NOT exist, except as terms and points of reference. ONLY individuals exist.

This is why I despise classism. There are NO classes of people. Class, classes: these are fictions, created by unwise individuals that had too much ink and too much time on their hands, over the centuries.

Stand up for the "I" .

There is no "I" in team. Right! That's why, in so many work places, this emphasis on teamwork fails, and fails miserably. Because teamwork means certain things to certain people:

• A: Yes, I like being part of the team. I will do whatever I can, in whatever capacity, to make the system function optimally. I see something needs to be done that B is assigned to do, but B is still on his lunch break, even though it's already been 45 minutes. Oh hell, I'll go ahead and do it. It has to get done.
• B: Yes, I like teamwork, too. I see A loves to work. She's a workaholic. I'll just sit back, take it easy, knowing that A will pick up my slack. Hell, she likes it! I wonder what's going on on Facebook? And, what the hell, I need another cigarette. A is here. It'll be okay.