When is racism okay?

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by Mrs.Lucysnow, Aug 18, 2009.

  1. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    When is racism and prejudice okay on sciforums?

    Is it okay to openly bash or denigrate whites, european culture and atheism? Or does this not count as prejudice?

    Is this some way of making up for past injustices or a subversive form of political correctness?

    We are fast and quick to scream racism and insult when its hurled against blacks, Jews or muslims but is it okay to say things like this:

    "Unfortunately, the only type of white pride in Australia, is the kind that drapes the flag around a pig's head."

    Or maybe this is okay:

    "What have you to be proud of thats exclusively "white"?

    If anyone had said this about blacks or muslims it would have been deemed crossing the bounds of civility would it not?

    So I am curious are all other ethnic groups and races off limits like a bunch of endangered species leaving anything European, white or atheist open for attack?

    When I initially spoke out against the treatment of muslim members on this board it was out of a sense that its not okay to mock or marginalize an entire people. Attacking an individual because you dislike said individual is not the same as attacking their race or religion right? Or is it okay to attack someone's beliefs unless of course their beliefs are religious?

    Note I am not speaking of criticism. One can easily criticize or challenge a belief or culture traits without completely maligning and denigrating said people. There has been a lot of talk recently about posting in 'good faith' and it usually takes some time to decide whether a poster is aware of what they are inferring or what their core beliefs are concerning a specific subject but it seems of late that if one is a minority they can be insulting as they wish towards any other culture or ethnicity as long as its a dominant one yet complain if they are subjected to the same treatment. I say we either stop all of it or allow for all of it.

    Please I would like to know what the 'new rules' are concerning this subject, especially since the word racist is being hurled willy-nilly.
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2009
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    When it's funny.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. PieAreSquared Woo is resistant to reason Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,144
    when it's your kids

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    No I'm serious. Because if its not something that is taken seriously then as a group there should be no bans and warnings nor mention of it when it in the rules and we should not have to hold our tongues in the interest of an intellectual debate.
     
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Initial thoughts

    I think part of the problem, Lucy, is that race is such a charged issue that people tend to look at things superficially.

    Certainly there are plenty who would condemn white culture, and even excessively, but when have whites ever endured the kind of oppression that others have? When were the laws oriented specifically against whites? When were school textbooks written to lie about history in order to denigrate whites and advance the propriety of dark skin? There are plenty of people willing to claim that they feel like they should be ashamed of being white, but more often than not I find those complaints to result from a perverse desire. They want to feel like they should be ashamed of being white in order to empower a backlash against darker skin. And in this sense, it's like that bit about men and childbirth. We might regularly blow a knee, or smack ourselves with a hammer, or even shoot and hack each other to painful deaths, but could we really handle childbirth? Likewise, there are plenty in the world who dislike white skin for stupid reasons, and this leads to hurtful statements, outbursts, and actions. But could white people really handle the kind of shit we put blacks and indigenous Americans through in this country? Look at the tantrums people throw at the idea that other communities should be given a route to catch up and recover from past injustice. If we don't go forward with those old injustices intact, white people are apparently horribly oppressed. It's not that there aren't questions to be explored in this context, but to go by the rhetoric slung around, these complaints make white people sound like ... um ... yeah. Makes them sound incredibly weak.

    I have no idea what the pig's head remark means.

    But what is there to be proud of that is exclusively white? Even in my lifetime, there have been loud debates about white people building the country. Okay, fine. So, how would they have done it without slavery, biological warfare, and attempted genocide? Did white people really build this country so exclusively? Hardly. The saying goes that behind every great man is a woman. Make what you want of that, but the early American economy was carried on the backs of dark-skinned slaves. One of our greatest and most influential agricultural innovators was a black man who contributed not only to the promotion of useful and essential crops, but schemes of crop rotation and other techniques to preserve soil quality and infestation. Chinese labor built essential parts of the American railroad system, without which our industrial growth would have been much more limited. One of our favorite national drugs—coffee—certainly wasn't pioneered by white people. The European dark ages saw dark-skinned peoples not only preserve but advance classical knowledge and scientific discovery. And just how much has gunpowder changed humanity?

    The list goes on. I would ask, then, what was the context of the white pride question?

    As to racism and the new rules around here, that's probably going to be a longer resolution, as opinions are divided among the moderators as well.

    I would also point out that the word itself, "racism", is controversial insofar as some would strip it of an essential context. Something that deals with race at all can be racist, much like something that deals with choice can be prejudiced or judgmental.

    As long as we must necessarily consider certain factors and divisions among people, there will always be an —ism to apply. But that sucks the meaning out of those words. Even as race considerations transform into class issues, some would still accuse racism because certain programs aimed at reducing class stratification benefit minority ethnicities more than whites. In the end, there is still an influential core that judges based on skin color and ethnic heritage, and they have been quite successful in recent years at hiding within other issues.

    For instance, and to rehash an argument I posted a couple of months ago about racism and education:

    Imagine you are a metropolitan schools superintendent. Part of your job is to spend money to provide students at various schools equal education and resources. So the first thing you try is sending the same amount of money per student to each of the schools. This doesn't work, though, because there is a difference between the schools up on the hill where the more affluent—mostly white—students attend and the schools in the city where less affluent—mostly minority—students attend. Down in the city, there is a higher crime rate, so of that per student cost, X goes to campus security. Up on the hill, that number is Y. The reality is that X>Y, with the result that less is available to pay teachers and provide resources in the city than up on the hill. So then you decide, Okay, we're going to separate security costs, and spend the same amount per student on teachers and resources. Two problems emerge. First, you're still attracting lesser teachers to the city schools because they have fewer resources to work with. Even in spending the same amount for resources, the schools on the hill already have a better, more secure resource infrastructure. For instance, the affluent schools have a good network in place, while the city schools have fewer, slower, less powerful computers and a shoddy network. But you can't yet take time to deal with that, because someone is suing you: You have spent unequally per student on the city schools. Lawyers, outraged parents, and community advocates accuse you of racism because you're spending more where minority students attend than on students at the affluent, mostly white schools. So you send out your lawyers, spend a shitload of money, and beat down the lawsuit. By this time, test results are coming in, and there is still a problem. Some take the David Duke approach and say this is evidence of minority students being inferior, or simply not applying themselves as well as white students. You can't concede that point, because, well, you're the superintendent and you'll be run out of town if you explain that minority students are simply inferior. What you need, you decide, is money to equalize the school infrastructures in order to provide students equal opportunities and attract better teachers. But voters are already weary of government, and you have to fight, claw, and beg voters to approve the bond measure. And it passes by a hairsbreadth. Guess what? You're about to be sued again, because you're spending money on infrastructure at the minority-populated schools that you're not spending at the white-populated schools. So you take some of the bond money and spend it on infrastructure improvements at the white schools. Only, now you've improved the white schools beyond the equalizing line you set to catch the minority schools up to. On the one hand, at what point do you just say, "Fuck it, I resign." To the other, you still haven't fixed the problem because the new advantages at the affluent, white-populated schools perpetuate the disparity in the results.

    Round about and round about and round and round and round about. And round about and round about it goes. By the end of your career, people are saying, "It's been twenty years, and the lazy minorities can't make the best of the advantages you've handed them. Why are you penalizing white people, you racist?"

    But ... and here's the kick in the sac: You still haven't fixed the problem. At this point, you're hip deep at least in something I mentioned earlier: One of the problems with the merit argument put forward by some conservatives is that it would extend and possibly even reinforce disparities coinciding with racial and ethnic lines over the course of two or three generations.

    And, just to bring the point 'round to the original issue, which of the arguments you would face are liberal, and which are conservative?

    What you're dealing with is a problem that transcends a single generation. As with the firefighters in particular, so with communities in general: When minority communities recover enough from the effects of past discrimination that they are equally represented in diverse aspects of society, so that the affluent communities aren't so predominately white, and minority races and ethnicities have a generational foundation to rely on, then you can say, "No more. We've done all we justly can. You must necessarily stand on your own two feet now. We can no longer in good conscience continue to play at compensating for perceived differences."

    This is the problem liberals see. The conservative response is to sacrifice the general for the sake of the particular. So a school on the hill doesn't get the same raw number of dollars for infrastructure upgrades. Tough shit; that's not the point. The point is to achieve a level playing field before leveling the playing field. If you draw the line today and say, "Everybody ... go!" you're going to perpetuate the disparities that are the direct result of past injustice. Have we achieved equality, or have we achieved something and decided to call it equality? Yet almost everyone agrees that equality is the last thing we might say we've achieved. Liberals see the general inequality and say, "We must do something." Conservatives look at the particular inequalities that occur and say, "It's so horrible!" But the result of favoring the particular over the general is that society will still be caught up in a cycle of inequity.

    Lots of people like to boast of their own achievement. "I did it. I worked hard. I didn't need the state to compensate for me." Yes, but many of those worked hard in advantageous endeavors. Because of past injustices, proportionately fewer minorities have the tutoring and extracurricular activities that help students excel. Last year, I was listening to a story on NPR about the state of the family. Normally, I use this example for that, and not this. I mean ... er ... yeah, work with me here. They were talking to parents and children about what the kids are up to, and it was actually kind of horrifying. One nine year-old was explaining her two musical lessons each week, her tutoring sessions for math, her karate lessons ... the horrifying aspect was that this poor girl would have to pencil in fifteen minutes to do the sort of nothing stuff that kids do, like wander around in the woods or look at the clouds or go jump in the river for the hell of it. And, yes, they talked to minority families as well, but it would be irresponsible to conclude from that small sample that blacks (accounted for, as I recall) and Hispanics (not accounted for, as I recall) are on par with Asians and whites. Proportionately fewer black and Hispanic children have such busy, expensive schedules. Proportionately fewer black and Hispanic children go to computer summer camps and the like. Yes, these white kids are working hard, but in a certain aspect, that's beside the point. When the deprived minority communities achieve equal representation in these endeavors, then you can call off the compensation. If you do it sooner, you will only perpetuate the imbalance.

    The sooner we get this part of the recovery over with, the better. I would hope we could agree on that. But I'm not sure, because what you're advocating appears to be calling off the recovery before it is finished.​

    Yes, it's a long excerpt, but it deals at least in part with the line between the competing definitions of racist.
     
  9. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    Explain to me Tiassa, why I have to get hired AFTER the quota for women, "visible minorities", handicapped people and Native Canadians(which i'm ok with).

    Canada never had slaves. Canada has only every been helpful to visible minorities, bending over backwards for them....because what...my family genetics has less melanin and I'm male?

    That's fucked.
     
  10. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575

    how many times over the years have you posted the above stuff?
    how many times have others?

    i'd say its been repeated ad nauseum

    how long has this broad been here?
    since forever i think

    i say bad faith
    lets put her on trial
    hang her
     
  11. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    I'll have to get back to you on that one

    You really want me to do an analysis of Canadian constitutional law and social history?

    I'll get back to you on that in a few years.

    In the meantime, I think you're right. It's fucked. After all, Canada has never had a problem with prejudice or discrimination of any kind. Its women have always been exactly equal to men. Its indigenous tribes have always been treated perfectly fairly and never been robbed or exploited. And minorities coming into the country from Asia and elsewhere have always been received with open arms and treated as equals.

    So, no. I have no idea what the fuck is wrong with Canadians that they would empower such a horrible government.

    Or have I missed something about Canadian history?

    Like I said, I'll get back to you in a few years. Maybe. If I remember.

    • • •​

    Nah. This is certainly more honest an inquiry than most we've seen in the past. The only complaint I have is the lack of context offered to define the couple of examples she offered. That can be picked up in the long run.

    To the other, if it turns out she's applying the white apologist's definition of racism at the core of the question, then I'll consider getting exasperated.

    Besides, I don't know if I've done the childbirth analogy before. I should at least see how it works. Or doesn't.
     
  12. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575

    pardon
    you must swing too
     
  13. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Tiassa: Certainly there are plenty who would condemn white culture, and even excessively, but when have whites ever endured the kind of oppression that others have? When were the laws oriented specifically against whites?

    I'm sure the Irish will be happy to hear that they never had to suffer as much as non-white people by the hands of other white people.

    Basically I read you saying that its 'ok' to treat another as one would not like to be treated because of some PAST suffering right? Its a valid excuse?

    Tiassa: But could white people really handle the kind of shit we put blacks and indigenous Americans through in this country?

    Why are they too weak? I mean if any human being can 'handle' it then I don't see what is so different about a white human being that they too couldn't handle what happened to indigenous people. Do you think you could have handled being white and protestant on ST. Bartholomew's Day?

    Do you see what you are doing? You are saying that the sins of the father rest on the son. And you are also saying that its okay to kick someone because you disliked being kicked yourself. An eye for an eye leaves everybody blind.

    This is not about 'complaints' by whites, I am not speaking of any one subject here like complaints against affirmative action or anything like that. I am asking if its okay, open season if you will, to disrespect certain groups because one is a minority. Is it okay for someone to be disparaging towards all Jews because the injustices of Israel for example? Or is this wrong simply because the subject are jews?

    I'm asking because if we are looking in society and on these boards to create a modicum of respect then I believe its important that we don't blindly insinuate about any said group. So if we say that white society was or is racist we then take it on and forget that there were whites who fought against slavery and who risked their own lives in order to do the right thing, like taking in Jews during the second world war for example. You speak as if white's have never known suffering and have never known poverty and disenfranchisement FROM ITS OWN SOCIETY, its not true and you know it.

    Tiassa: But what is there to be proud of that is exclusively white? Even in my lifetime, there have been loud debates about white people building the country. Okay, fine. So, how would they have done it without slavery, biological warfare, and attempted genocide?

    So basically you are saying that white people are inherently racist and everything European culture has ever done or produced was at the disadvantage of everyone else. Jesus I wonder what Thomas Paine would think if he were alive right now? Burn the Rights of Man I suppose

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I mean what good was it all right? All of European art, music, literature, scientific and social advancement all boils down to a racist agenda perpetrated against the rest of the world (the non white world)

    If we are to speak in such a way then can I join in and speak of all the harm jews have brought to the world with their scientist and his a-bomb? I mean they should all really be ashamed of themselves especially considering present crimes and misdemeanors currently going on in the evil jewish state of israel. I mean the Japanese treated the Chinese like shit but hey at least they ain't white right? And hell they never created anything that killed so many.

    Tiassa: One of our greatest and most influential agricultural innovators was a black man who contributed not only to the promotion of useful and essential crops, but schemes of crop rotation and other techniques to preserve soil quality and infestation.

    Right and all blacks should be proud but all whites should not be proud of anything produced by their culture since the only thing that is of any importance was slavery and colonialism. I mean the Swedes and Norwegians aren't really guilty of anything but hell they are white aren't they Tiassa.

    Tiassa: I would ask, then, what was the context of the white pride question?

    The context is the same as it would be for any race. Does one have the right to be proud of their culture. You're response seems to be no.

    So basically you are saying that because of all of the world injustices piled up on one plate and offered for us to vomit over that members cannot be treated equally on this board. In other words its wrong to be disparaging against someone's nation, religion or race as long as its non-european or non-western and not atheist because they all at least have it coming to them.

    Thanks for clearing this all up for me Tiassa.

    Phew!

    Damn man you should have more self-respect. In this day and age no Black person would have put up with that kind of malarky .

    You want context:

    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=95380

    There are others but I can't be bothered right now to dig them all up.
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2009
  14. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,595
    All I have to say on this matter is contained within my posts in the thread Lucysnow just cited.
     
  15. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    tiassa if you really want an example of discrimination against "whites" based on skin colour there is always zimbubwee. Of course the rest of the population isnt doing a hell of a lot better but meh.

    Anyway racisium is NEVER ok, in fact biologically i dont belive "race" is a term even used anymore. Country, class (sadly but maybe one day this will be gone), religion, political view points ect yes. But race? no
     
  16. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Even straw has a context

    Yes, the Irish Catholics suffered so horribly under their Black African Protestant masters.

    To the one, I think you're mixing issues. It's not that groups of white people haven't suffered ridiculous oppression. Rather, when in history has white skin ever been subject to the sort of horrors visited upon blacks and indigenous tribes in the Americas? Or Aboriginal tribes in Australia?

    I think you're leaping a just a bit with that.

    I'm not saying they're too weak. You're leaping again. To reiterate:

    But could white people really handle the kind of shit we put blacks and indigenous Americans through in this country? Look at the tantrums people throw at the idea that other communities should be given a route to catch up and recover from past injustice. If we don't go forward with those old injustices intact, white people are apparently horribly oppressed. It's not that there aren't questions to be explored in this context, but to go by the rhetoric slung around, these complaints make white people sound like ... um ... yeah. Makes them sound incredibly weak.​

    I'm of the opinion that white people, subject to the same sorts of oppression, would respond and behave just like any other oppressed people. But to listen to some people howl that we shouldn't go forward unless we preserve and protect injustices of old, it does raise the question.

    Actually, I think it's what you are doing. Tilting windmills. Raising demons to slay. Constructing straw men.

    The sins of the father are necessarily visited on the son. The Civil War was a hundred forty-five years ago, and we're still feeling the aftershocks. This is a matter of practical reality, not subjective will.

    Hardly. Look before you leap. Sometimes it's a long way down a sheer drop.

    Indeed.

    Depends on the disrespect, both enacted and perceived.

    Racism is a complex and dynamic issue, Lucy. Some people figured that since the slaves were emancipated, everything was well and good. These days, some people think that just because Barack Obama has been elected president, we're officially done with racism in America. Yet look at our history. Land seizures and broken treaties with the tribes. The U.S. Army pursued the Nez Perce across three states. History textbooks, for years, have told myths about black and indigenous people in order to justify and augment white pride. Law enforcement disproportionately targets dark skin; how is it that the vast majority of crack users are white while the vast majority of crack prosecutions are against blacks? Could the Tulia outrage ever have happened if a black officer of similar repute had accused that many white people?

    It depends on the disrespect. In the 1990s, Columbus was the object of much dispute. Many accused indigenous and academic interests of unfair revisionism because they questioned the Columbus myth. My generation was taught of Columbus as a hero; most didn't learn of his crimes until college. And yet it is somehow unfair—racist—even, to point out the bad things about Columbus that we have in his own damn hand.

    No, it's not okay to denigrate all Jews for the actions of Israel. Neither is it fair to condemn protests against Israeli actions as anti-Semitic.

    Fair enough. But one person's blind insinuation is another's natural conclusion from both study and experience. As such, we need to look deeper than the superficial rhetoric itself.

    Those efforts are important to note, Lucy, but they should not obscure the fact of how much white people have profited off racism over the years, either. And in Germany, you'll still, over sixty years later, find Lutherans agonizing over the question of whether they did enough. I can't imagine having to make that decision. It's easy enough to say what I would have done, but is it true? Can I really know that? Would I, in my late years, weep for my own belief that I didn't do enough?

    Do you believe or accept that there is a difference between what you choose and what you are?

    A white person can be Catholic or Protestant. So can a black person. But a black person can never be white, regardless of what we might think of Michael Jackson. And a white person can never be black except in movies starring C. Thomas Howell or Robert Downey, Jr.

    You're a woman. One can presume with some safety that you have faced circumstances in which you were, as a human being, denigrated for being a woman. In the past, you would be obliged by law to open your legs for your husband on a regular basis, or else you weren't being a good enough wife. In the past, you would be expected to let sleazy men fondle you because that's what you were worth in the workplace. Men have been the empowered political majority of aeons. And look what makes them feel ashamed of being men. They have to be accused of being violent criminals—rapists, child molesters, &c.—or women. In the gay fray, we find that the empowered majority of men would absolutely freak out if they were treated the way they treat women.

    Yes, white people treat each other like shit. But as a collective identity, they have never been treated the way blacks were in America, or indigenous tribes in the Americas and Australia. And, yes, you know that.

    Else you wouldn't be leaping to battle straw men.

    No, that's what you're saying I'm saying. There is an inherent degree of racism in white culture, but in many—perhaps most—cases its circumstantial background noise.

    We are, as a species, emerging from a zero-sum presupposition. Simply because the results of our former paradigm aren't always pleasing doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to them. But people have, for as long as people have existed, exploited one another. This is a general fact of life. It's also one that is within our power to change, but that's a long process and we're working on it.

    However, some exploitation has been based on stupid divisions. Catholic and Protestant? I think the world is sick of that one. Still, though, one is not born Catholic or Protestant the way one is born black or female.

    I just wanted to check on this, as I might have made a mistake at the outset. Am I supposed to be taking you seriously at this point?

    Again, I just want to check up on this. And, no, this isn't a joke like last time.

    Can you tell the difference between various forms of accusation and condemnation, for instance, those based in reality and those based in fantasy?

    The A-bomb was a Jewish conspiracy? Or did it simply involve some Jews? The Manhattan Project was headed by Lt. Gen. Leslie Richard Groves, descended from Huguenots. But, what, were the other 130,000 people who worked on the project all Jews? And President Franklin Roosevelt, was he a secret Jew?

    The only thing we can conclude about the Jews from the atomic bomb is already self-evident: The fact of being Jewish does not automatically bestow a person with perfect righteousness.

    As to the Japanese, that's a stretch, even for you. One could just as easily point out that the Chinese weren't white enough to warrant our help against the Japanese. The truth of or entry to the War in the Pacific is far, far removed from that.

    Well, at least I can tell Gustav he was right.

    How about this: Would you please offer us a source for a quote in your topic post? I would appreciate an opportunity to consider the broader discussion surrounding the question of, What have you to be proud of thats exclusively "white"?

    After all, I constructed a fairly specific example of a context in which that question becomes valid:

    Even in my lifetime, there have been loud debates about white people building the country. Okay, fine.​

    But, of course, that's irrelevant to you, because it's far easier to simply maintain your own context and deny others theirs.

    So cough up the link, please. Let us see where that question came from in the first place. If you're going to misrepresent me, why should we presume you're representing the original question accurately?

    Ah, but of course. You have no context for it:

    Of course. We trust you.

    Don't thank me. You're doing all the clearing up for yourself. Hell, I'm just a mannequin to dress up according to your needs.

    I'm sure that makes sense. In your own context, of course.

    Of course you can't. We understand.

    Then again, that particular thread is a disgrace. With such a dishonest premise for the opening post, no wonder it was buried in Free Thoughts.
     
  17. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Tiassa: Yes, the Irish Catholics suffered so horribly under their Black African Protestant masters.To the one, I think you're mixing issues. It's not that groups of white people haven't suffered ridiculous oppression. Rather, when in history has white skin ever been subject to the sort of horrors visited upon blacks and indigenous tribes in the Americas? Or Aboriginal tribes in Australia?

    Black protestants? Does it really matter if the person who oppresses you is black or white? I mean is it somehow worse if its someone of another race? I doubt it. If this were true then we wouldn't think of the Cambodian massacre as a 'genocide'.

    Tiassa: I'm of the opinion that white people, subject to the same sorts of oppression, would respond and behave just like any other oppressed people. But to listen to some people howl that we shouldn't go forward unless we preserve and protect injustices of old, it does raise the question.

    Either you are not paying attention to what I am trying to say or I am saying it badly. This isn't about protecting and preserving injustices. I am saying that on this site, if we are to have an atmosphere of respect for each poster, we should refrain from casting a wide net over ANY group whether they be white american, European, black, muslim, atheist or jewish or whatever but what I have been noticing in more than one thread is this attitude where its ok to be disparaging against a group be they european or jewish or athiest what-have-you as long as the group is not on the endangered list. In other words as long as that group is deemed as dominant (whites are a world minority if not in the west and on this site) or deemed as a present or former oppressor. In other words we are behaving as if all whites for example are representative of the worst of their kind. No one liked it when innocent muslims were cast as being representative of the worst their religion has to offer so I don't see why this is ok in the reverse.

    Tiassa: Those efforts are important to note, Lucy, but they should not obscure the fact of how much white people have profited off racism over the years, either. And in Germany, you'll still, over sixty years later, find Lutherans agonizing over the question of whether they did enough. I can't imagine having to make that decision. It's easy enough to say what I would have done, but is it true? Can I really know that? Would I, in my late years, weep for my own belief that I didn't do enough?

    That is completely besides the point, neither you nor I nor Baron or any other member has anything to do with that unless again of course you expect every member to represent the worse of their kind leaving EVERY member open to bias attack or negative inferences by raising it to a group level. You know its the 'all blacks are...' 'all whites are....' and on and on and on.

    What you are doing (and you have the nerve to speak of constructing straw men and raising demons) is taking my simple question about whether its ok to be disrespectful of another group as long as they are not a minority group and dragging every incident in history of racism to the forefront as a way of saying 'well gee based on all that yes its ok'. In other words we protect a few and then allow them to say what they like about another while crying if its done towards them. Its a simple point Tiassa not worthy of a dissertation.

    Tiassa: There is an inherent degree of racism in white culture, but in many—perhaps most—cases its circumstantial background noise.

    Ah so then you are agreeing with me that it shouldn't be deemed normal and natural to insinuate negatively on said group just because of past injustices.

    Tiassa: The A-bomb was a Jewish conspiracy? Or did it simply involve some Jews?

    Good then the irony wasn't lost on you. These are the kinds of tid bits that gets thrown into debate here all the time in order to distract from a discussion and cast a negative inference on a particular group. Glad you get it now. Looks like dishonest posting doesn't it?

    Tiassa: Then again, that particular thread is a disgrace. With such a dishonest premise for the opening post, no wonder it was buried in Free Thoughts.

    I don't think it is dishonest. I don't think to ask why there is a double standard is dishonest especially when there is an honest way of going about such a discussion without mistaking pride for hatred towards another. This is supposed to be a place where intelligent discussion can take place without knee-jerk reaction is it not? I mean you only deem the thread a disgrace because the person belonged to the wrong race Tiassa, in other words a white boy shouldn't make such statements about himself and ask why. On the other hand it would have been fine if he were from any other given group.

    I mean you were the wise man who came up with 'good faith' argument were you not? I suspect that any attempts to decide what and what isn't written in 'good faith' will decide on whether or not you agree with what is being proposed as it is an arbitrary affair when there is no criteria for knowing if a member is posting in 'good faith'. How are you to determine what is and is not in good faith? I mean by what means did you decide that MZ's thread was 'dishonest'?
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2009
  18. davesalasa Registered Member

    Messages:
    21
    Sciforums racism

    I don't think that racism belongs in existence. Sure, genetically, some people are predisposed to being with "their own kind". This is 100% genetically true that all of us are more drawn to people that resemble our own blood genetics. For example, African Americans are more prone to the blood condition sickle cell anemia. This is because of their genetic blood make up, not an issue about racism. Because of this fact, and many others, races are more apt to group together. Whites and whites, Spanish and Spanish, Eastern and Eastern, etc. There are differences in genetic make up, which is where racism is derived from. There are these little differences that keep many people of the same race together, and the ones that break the genetic code and have a mixed child are looked at as outsiders. Because genetically, they are creating a new physical composition of human being. So if you are asking where the real basis for racism comes from, that's it.

    Now as far as racism goes on the forums, racism is not REALLY racism. Just people that can't handle the reality of the world or the ones too unhealthy to be able to rationalize the context. Racial slurs and remarks based on stupidity and ignorance really don't serve a purpose so why say them at all. Those remarks have no point, saying those things don't make any money (except in rare instances I'm sure, cause people have been paid to do stranger things), and saying stupid things that veer away from the whole point of having a conversation, honesty, don't really serve a purpose.

    So racism isn't racism if people are UNCOMFORTABLE with breaking a genetic difference by intermingling with each other. Rationalize that statement, then tell me your mad with anyone of a different race for grouping together genetically, and the majority of people on earth will tell you your crazy and stupid.

    I learned something new today. Awesome.
     
  19. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    These are not about racial slurs per se though I feel where you are coming from. We don't have to use slurs to be disparaging here. One just needs to post in such a way as to damn a whole group of people. Trying to label someone a racist unjustly is a way of attacking someone, so is being condescending and trying to tear a hole in their nation or culture and then inferring that there is something wrong with ALL of them and so therefore they are unworthy etc.

    One doesn't need to use expletives to accomplish this and it is done precisely to veer away from a topic and make it heated. Its called goading.
     
  20. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Is there are reason why you have changed your name and are going down the line of threads posting one liners Sam?
     
  21. Japarican Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    148
    Racism should never be acceptable but it will always be present.
     
  22. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    Indeed.

    Note: two of my fellow managers are minorities (black and Puerto Rican).

    A large black man at work had a gran mal seizure. It was really horrific; the kind where he wasn't just convulsing, but his limbs were slamming against the floor so hard that he actually broke his wrist and cut his forehead. As I'm sure you know, there's no "stop" mechanism (no pain, and no conscioiusness). He just kept going and seeing as how he weighed no less than 250lbs and was, like, 6'6" tall, we were warned to stay away from him by the 911 operator.

    We were called to the location to "respond" to the issue (he had, at that point, just passed out and was shaking a little). By the time manager Tanika (guess which one she was) got there, I looked at her and whispered, "What?! Nobody said he was black. Forget it, I'm going back to work." To which she responded, "Clearly he's also gay sweetie, look at the Streisand t-shirt he's wearing!" A quick glance back at her, "Biiiiiiiitch!" And back to work.

    ~String
     
  23. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Is this an example of racism against whites?
     

Share This Page