“People of Color ONLY space”

[VtPC83]

What is racism to you? To me is the a race believing they are superior to another race solely based on race.

What they did was racist, and yes, I will stick by using that word as you have not given me any other word (or even explanation) that I could use to replace it.

 

[Rakehellion]

What is racism to you? To me is the a race believing they are superior to another race solely based on race.

What they did was racist, and yes, I will stick by using that word as you have not given me any other word (or even explanation) that I could use to replace it.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism?s=t


1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.


I guess we're going with the second one. Someone not inviting you to their clubhouse meeting isn't racism, that's a first-world problem.

 

[cubby1223]

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

I guess we're going with the second one. Someone not inviting you to their clubhouse meeting isn't racism, that's a first-world problem.

Except when emperus was asked to give his opinion of a white-only clubhouse, his response was:

I would generally consider it Racism...

[white people] have a believe[sic] that has transcended history that African Americans are somehow inferior or dirty.

We can go around and nitpick what is racist, what is not racist. The bottom line is everyone has their own individual opinion on what is racist and what is not. There is no singular definition that fits all scenarios for which the word is used. Back in '07 & '08 anyone who disagreed with any single ideological policy of Obama's was labelled a racist on this forum. We've had other articles posted to this forum that give opinions that racism can only exist from the race in power to the race not in power. Many agreed with that definition. Doesn't exist in the dictionary listing above.

You can choose to define racism based on that dictionary's listing, but just have to accept that other people define the word differently. And it doesn't mean one definition is better than the other, it just means that different people have different opinions on the definition. But it makes it difficult when we are tasked to define what is racist and what is not, because the consequences of being labeled racist in the court of public opinion can be quite high, we need rules of what is allowed and what is not allowed, and disagreement often is to be expected. The important part is if we can respect each other and everyone attempt to learn the opposing opinions in times of disagreement, or if we choose to jump at each others throats at every opportunity.

 

[Rakehellion]

So we're in agreement that we all hate each other equally regardless of skin color.

 

[emperus]

Except when emperus was asked to give his opinion of a white-only clubhouse, his response was:



We can go around and nitpick what is racist, what is not racist. The bottom line is everyone has their own individual opinion on what is racist and what is not. There is no singular definition that fits all scenarios for which the word is used. Back in '07 & '08 anyone who disagreed with any single ideological policy of Obama's was labelled a racist on this forum. We've had other articles posted to this forum that give opinions that racism can only exist from the race in power to the race not in power. Many agreed with that definition. Doesn't exist in the dictionary listing above.

You can choose to define racism based on that dictionary's listing, but just have to accept that other people define the word differently. And it doesn't mean one definition is better than the other, it just means that different people have different opinions on the definition. But it makes it difficult when we are tasked to define what is racist and what is not, because the consequences of being labeled racist in the court of public opinion can be quite high, we need rules of what is allowed and what is not allowed, and disagreement often is to be expected. The important part is if we can respect each other and everyone attempt to learn the opposing opinions in times of disagreement, or if we choose to jump at each others throats at every opportunity.

1.) Why you continue to reply to my posts or mention me in what you write is beyond me. You know that for well over a year now I have had you on ignore, yet you still seem to to seek me out. Honestly, if you believe that I harassed you on Facebook and sent messages to your friends, why in GOd's earth would you continue to follow me around. Or was that your other personality who made it on the computer that day? I wish there was an internet version of a restraining order for crazies like yourself.

2.) So, the majority race, who was responsible for the majority of racism in this country, wants to redefine what the word Racism means. That's so ridiculously laughable. What it must be to be white and privileged.

 

[schmuckley]

TBH..
I think Newell Steamer summed up the gist of it succinctly.
Done.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Someone not inviting you to their clubhouse meeting isn't racism, that's a first-world problem.

No, but someone not inviting you to their clubhouse meeting SOLELY because of your race is. It is impossible to argue otherwise.

 

[Rakehellion]

No, but someone not inviting you to their clubhouse meeting SOLELY because of your race is. It is impossible to argue otherwise.

No, read the several posts above.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

No, read the several posts above.

Decisions made on how to treat someone based solely on race are racist. I don't understand how a rational being can deny this. Where am I going wrong?

 

[schmuckley]

I can't post what I really want to ..
but it rhymes with:
bassist diggers are naysist.

You can't post this either.

Perknose
Forum Director

 

[emperus]

Decisions made on how to treat someone based solely on race are racist. I don't understand how a rational being can deny this. Where am I going wrong?

Well it depends. But based on traditional definition of Racism, for it to be racism, it has to be done with the belief that one race is superior or the other race is inferior.

I think it's synonymous with sexism. Do you believe separate Male and Female bathrooms are sexist even though they are separated solely based on sex?

 

[echo4747]

Well it depends. But based on traditional definition of Racism, for it to be racism, it has to be done with the belief that one race is superior or the other race is inferior.

I think it's synonymous with sexism. Do you believe separate Male and Female bathrooms are sexist even though they are separated solely based on sex?

Lets say we have a person that is an accused racist. All that is left is the need to prove that his/her belief is that one race is either superior/inferior. Out of curiosity, what level or burden of proof would you think is req'd?

 

[VtPC83]

Pipeline, you are not wrong. These guys, emperus and Rak, both argue that excluding a group from a meeting, based solely on race is not racist. They both agree it was in poor form but that it was not racist.

I really can't see how they believe that since they seem like rational people based on their writings. When you omit a group based on race it is proclaiming that they are not good enough to be invited, that means you are being racist by omitting them (Rak's own definition, see #1).

 

[Sulaco]

In a way, I can kind of sympathize with the group

But only as far as this: If you're a group like "BLM", who (if taken at their word) ostensibly are concerned exclusively with the perceived racist abuse towards afro Americans from police, and you've seen what happened with the Ferguson demonstrations and media coverage, where large numbers of people who realistically could have cared less about Mike Brown and that community descended from all over to cause trouble, protest government/police, promote general anarchy, or simply massage their own egos and feel excited about being at the center of a major controversy and "tweet about it". Everyone from lowlife "anarchists" to members of the Communist Party et al, were there. Did they give a shit about that issue in that community? Of course not. They just used that limelight to (try to) further their own agendas, or just make noise.


In other words, they don't want it hijacked by people who would use the media attention and 5 minutes of fame to further their own causes that have little if anything to do with what BLM wants.

 

[VtPC83]

I completely agree Sulaco, but they are making the assumption that only whites did what you are suggesting. I'm thinking that Rev Al Sharpton didn't do a lot to help in the Ferguson situation either.

If they were trying to gather support from people who truly cared about the situation it was still wrong to exclude a whole race. They would find many whites who are willing and very interested in equal rights if they didn't close their doors to them.

 

[dank69]

Lets say we have a person that is an accused racist. All that is left is the need to prove that his/her belief is that one race is either superior/inferior. Out of curiosity, what level or burden of proof would you think is req'd?

Accused racist? Racism isn't a crime.

 

[dank69]

Pipeline, you are not wrong. These guys, emperus and Rak, both argue that excluding a group from a meeting, based solely on race is not racist. They both agree it was in poor form but that it was not racist.

I really can't see how they believe that since they seem like rational people based on their writings. When you omit a group based on race it is proclaiming that they are not good enough to be invited, that means you are being racist by omitting them (Rak's own definition, see #1).

So excluding men from using the women's bathroom is sexist? It implies men aren't good enough to enter?

 

[Rakehellion]

It would be like inviting a carpenter to the American Board of Surgery. Not that they have anything against carpentry, but that person doesn't have the experience necessary to meet the qualifications.

 

[VtPC83]

I didn't say anything about sexism, that was someone else's example. The bathroom idea is flawed, that is biological. The separation there is an ethical/moral issue that transcends race so it doesn't really fit here. I think you'll find that all races that share the same moral/ethical dilemma would want separate bathrooms.

I disagree with your statement about experience. You're suggesting that whites don't have a valid opinion simply because they are white and haven't experienced racism? Whites often experience reverse-racism but that seems to often get ignored since it is whites getting discriminated against. Another way whites experience what I consider a form of racism is in the media, you really can't turn on the news these days without being told, that as a white person, you are a terrible person because other white people have done racist things, even if you don't believe in them.

 

[dank69]

I didn't say anything about sexism, that was someone else's example. The bathroom idea is flawed, that is biological. The separation there is an ethical/moral issue that transcends race so it doesn't really fit here. I think you'll find that all races that share the same moral/ethical dilemma would want separate bathrooms. ...

WTF? Race is biological. Ethical/moral issue that transcends race? That doesn't even make sense. Who says it transcends race? You?

 

[emperus]

I didn't say anything about sexism, that was someone else's example. The bathroom idea is flawed, that is biological. The separation there is an ethical/moral issue that transcends race so it doesn't really fit here. I think you'll find that all races that share the same moral/ethical dilemma would want separate bathrooms.

I disagree with your statement about experience. You're suggesting that whites don't have a valid opinion simply because they are white and haven't experienced racism? Whites often experience reverse-racism but that seems to often get ignored since it is whites getting discriminated against. Another way whites experience what I consider a form of racism is in the media, you really can't turn on the news these days without being told, that as a white person, you are a terrible person because other white people have done racist things, even if you don't believe in them.

But of course you miss the point. Not all forms of sexual exclusion are defined as sexism. The same goes with Racism. Not all forms of racial exclusion are defined as racism. Because both racism and sexism are derived from inherently inferior/superior motivations.

But you have an agenda and so I won't let my facts or logic cloud that agenda. You literally sound like someone who has never opened up a history book or is so awash in their own perceived victim-hood it's clouding their judgment.

So, now, News and I bet history are racist because it makes you feel bad? You have no clue what that word even means or you wouldn't be using it so tritely. And that is your agenda.. To redefine the word Racism so again you can use it's Power bred of Slavery, Death, Lynchings and Institutional bias like Jim Crow Laws and blacks are 3/5 a person to make yourself feel better. I'm sorry, that's just utterly stupid.

 

[echo4747]

Accused racist? Racism isn't a crime.

Not saying it is/isn't/needs to be a crime... I'm just curious ones personal opinion of how much proof they need with regard to the superior/inferior aspect to label a person a racist.

 

[dank69]

Not saying it is/isn't/needs to be a crime... I'm just curious ones personal opinion of how much proof they need with regard to the superior/inferior aspect to label a person a racist.

Well that is a very subjective line. What I use to decide may be very different from what others use.

 

[echo4747]

Well that is a very subjective line. What I use to decide may be very different from what others use.

That is kind of my point. I probably shouldn't go back to George Zimmerman but its probably a good example ...as some here call him a racist and others do not. So, basically those that call him a racist as well as those who say he isn't are both correct? - just doesn't seem proper to me.

 

[dank69]

That is kind of my point. I probably shouldn't go back to George Zimmerman but its probably a good example ...as some here call him a racist and others do not. So, basically those that call him a racist as well as those who say he isn't are both correct? - just doesn't seem proper to me.

Who fucking cares? Who really cares who thinks Zimmerman is a racist or not. Can't we all just agree he is a piece of shit human being regardless of what happened with that incident?