Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
The black community
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Lollerskates" data-source="post: 63827651" data-attributes="member: 330186"><p>You are still separating the person from the group - when the individual is distinctly part of the group. As I alluded to before, does one CIA agent's hit mean that it was his/her personal accomplishment - or is it the accomplishment of the entire CIA, especially when the orders come directly from the CIA?</p><p></p><p>If a Klansman is in political places of power, it isn't just the person's individual accomplishment: it is the accomplishment of the entire organization, because the entire organization <strong>can and will</strong> benefit from that one person's position. So, a score of individual racists who kept their Klan ties and have political power means that the Klan has multiple vectors for exploiting political power. </p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Ah, the "I'm not Webster, so what do I know" argument. Was I ever talking about the <strong>dictionary</strong> definition of racism, or <strong>have I continually spoken about the sociological definition of racism - and explicitly said it was the sociological definition? </strong></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This thread is not a discussion of the definition of racism. It is about the sociological implications racism has on "The black community." And, if you are saying racism is nothing more than what Webster says it is - which is "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that <u>racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race</u>" - then you exclude the lot of "armchair" bigots, and prejudiced people, which includes all races. </p><p></p><p>So, no more is calling someone a "creepy @SS cracker" racist, because saying something like that doesn't reflect someone's belief that their skin color is an inherent indicator of superiority over the "cracker." No more can you throw around the term "racism," and "reverse racism," until one has shown genuine distinction that s/he believes his/her race is a categorical indicator of superiority. With your definition, you don't get to yell racism just because your feelings are hurt (as many people do.) If you are calling someone racist because you <em>assume</em> they believe their race inherently holds superiority over another race (the one in question,) that makes you ignorant - because the information was never given to you (about superiority.) People like the KKK, as I have said, are both <strong>racist in terms of the dictionary definition, and sociologically racist</strong>. The KKK explicitly believes their race makes them fundamentally superior to other races. A black person calling a white person an ignorant name is not racism, unless there is clear proof and indication s/he is saying it in relation to expressing his/her belief in his/her race's superiority over the white person. This is, of course, if you exclude the <strong>sociological definition and implications of racism</strong>, which, ironically is just as ignorant as racism itself.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#Sociological" target="_blank">Racism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</a></p><p><a href="http://www.asanet.org/" target="_blank">American Sociological Association</a> (This whole website would probably be of good use for you.)</p><p><a href="http://www.sociologyinfocus.com/tag/racism/" target="_blank">Racism | SociologyFocus</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Lollerskates, post: 63827651, member: 330186"] You are still separating the person from the group - when the individual is distinctly part of the group. As I alluded to before, does one CIA agent's hit mean that it was his/her personal accomplishment - or is it the accomplishment of the entire CIA, especially when the orders come directly from the CIA? If a Klansman is in political places of power, it isn't just the person's individual accomplishment: it is the accomplishment of the entire organization, because the entire organization [B]can and will[/B] benefit from that one person's position. So, a score of individual racists who kept their Klan ties and have political power means that the Klan has multiple vectors for exploiting political power. [COLOR=black][/COLOR] Ah, the "I'm not Webster, so what do I know" argument. Was I ever talking about the [B]dictionary[/B] definition of racism, or [B]have I continually spoken about the sociological definition of racism - and explicitly said it was the sociological definition? [/B] This thread is not a discussion of the definition of racism. It is about the sociological implications racism has on "The black community." And, if you are saying racism is nothing more than what Webster says it is - which is "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that [U]racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race[/U]" - then you exclude the lot of "armchair" bigots, and prejudiced people, which includes all races. So, no more is calling someone a "creepy @SS cracker" racist, because saying something like that doesn't reflect someone's belief that their skin color is an inherent indicator of superiority over the "cracker." No more can you throw around the term "racism," and "reverse racism," until one has shown genuine distinction that s/he believes his/her race is a categorical indicator of superiority. With your definition, you don't get to yell racism just because your feelings are hurt (as many people do.) If you are calling someone racist because you [I]assume[/I] they believe their race inherently holds superiority over another race (the one in question,) that makes you ignorant - because the information was never given to you (about superiority.) People like the KKK, as I have said, are both [B]racist in terms of the dictionary definition, and sociologically racist[/B]. The KKK explicitly believes their race makes them fundamentally superior to other races. A black person calling a white person an ignorant name is not racism, unless there is clear proof and indication s/he is saying it in relation to expressing his/her belief in his/her race's superiority over the white person. This is, of course, if you exclude the [B]sociological definition and implications of racism[/B], which, ironically is just as ignorant as racism itself. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#Sociological"]Racism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/URL] [URL="http://www.asanet.org/"]American Sociological Association[/URL] (This whole website would probably be of good use for you.) [URL="http://www.sociologyinfocus.com/tag/racism/"]Racism | SociologyFocus[/URL] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
The black community
Top
Bottom