Is racism really so difficult to define?

[GobBluth]

Avenue Q said it best. Everyone's a little bit racist.

 

[Vic]

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/greys-anatomy-ellen-pompeo-racist-kamala-harris-comment

Some actress called Kamala Harris overconfident. Leftists brand her as racist for such a bigoted remark.

Yet you act like what I said was off point. You're the blind one, not me.

You lefties are just a giant victim factory now. Racism is the modern red scare. Nice job, liberals.

When did you start caring about Harris?

But I have noticed that you frequently exhibit an excellent example of what I was trying to explain in the OP. In that, whenever you see an opportunity to portray any group that you perceive as the Other in a negative light, regardless of how slim or anecdotal the evidence, you will do so completely. But if you ever perceive any negativity towards what you identify as Us, then you will defend your Us regardless of how overwhelming the evidence. IOW, your morals change based upon how you identify with the characters in the narrative.
It's not a healthy thing. You have a very disturbing identity issue.

 

[sandorski]

Okay, let's play out the thought experiment. If "racism" now has no requirement to include a belief in racial superiority/inferiority and now has subsumed behavior that was once called bigoted or prejudiced, then what word or phrase should we use for those who actually believe that (insert race here) is inferior and should be ethnically cleansed? Is racism the new "sexual assault" which can include everything from forced sexual penetration to groping someone? Is that an improvement where using words or phrases in a less precise way is supposed to be somehow "better" because you can use strategic ambiguity to label someone with the worse sounding "rapist" or "racist" whereas in previous ages of more linguistic precision these terms would have been considered inappropriate to use to describe the conduct?

And yes, I realize completely that Trump is somewhat of an edge case that completely defies all norms of civilized behavior and thus doesn't really deserve efforts to nunace the words we use to condemn his behavior. This conversation is more general in nature than Trump and will still be applicable once Trump is out of office and died and gone to Hades where he belongs.

By your own description, how is Trump not Racist?

 

[Vic]

Hey, Ilhan, if you just dumb a specific instance down to "something" you can make it sound like it wasn't a big deal at all. An actress called Kamala Harris overconfident. People conditioned by the left to be victims manufactured racism out of her criticism of Kamala Harris. Liberals manufacture racism where there was none. Most "racism" that occurs today is manufactured like this.

What Gray said is that your conclusion is based off anecdotal bullshit. A few stupid people saying stupid shit isn't evidence of some grand conspiracy theory to manufacture anything. It's just a few stupid people saying stupid shit.
Now why you're so eager to believe in the grand conspiracy theory is a lot more interesting IMO. It's most likely associated with your need to believe that somebody getting his MAGA hat knocked off is proof of "violent leftism," while a MAGA stepping out of his car to beat up an old man was a fair fight because the old man dared lift his hands to defend himself.

 

[Vic]

It is prejudging, no? Whether it's negative or positive doesn't take away from the fact that it is.. you know.. prejudging.

Or just a really weak red herring.

 

[SMOGZINN]

So again, if I say positive messages - are they racist? Or is it stereotyping? Or is it just statistics?

E.g
"Asians in America are statistically smarter"
"Black people statistically run faster than others"

Hell, Andrew Yang made an Asian stereotype joke while he was at the debate the other day. Was that racist?

Yes, because you are also saying that others are dumber, or slower, or whatever. 'Blacks in America are statistically dumber' is an equivalent statement, and you can see that would be racists right?

 

[blackangst1]

When did you start caring about Harris?

But I have noticed that you frequently exhibit an excellent example of what I was trying to explain in the OP. In that, whenever you see an opportunity to portray any group that you perceive as the Other in a negative light, regardless of how slim or anecdotal the evidence, you will do so completely. But if you ever perceive any negativity towards what you identify as Us, then you will defend your Us regardless of how overwhelming the evidence. IOW, your morals change based upon how you identify with the characters in the narrative.
It's not a healthy thing. You have a very disturbing identity issue.

Portraying a group in negative light is not racist.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Hey, Ilhan, if you just dumb a specific instance down to "something" you can make it sound like it wasn't a big deal at all. An actress called Kamala Harris overconfident. People conditioned by the left to be victims manufactured racism out of her criticism of Kamala Harris. Liberals manufacture racism where there was none. Most "racism" that occurs today is manufactured like this.

Wow, social media war. It's the end of American society.

btw, they given you your silver shirt yet?

 

[Victorian Gray]

Avenue Q said it best. Everyone's a little bit racist.

And Avenue Q (whatever that might be) is wrong.

 

[Vic]

Portraying a group in negative light is not racist.

I didn't say it was. Maybe you should read it again.
What I said was that his morals change based upon how he identifies with the characters in the narrative.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Portraying a group in negative light is not racist.

Doing so because of their race is.

 

[cytg111]

Everyone knows that gingers are the next step in human evolution. If you are not a ginger I suppose you may or may not be able to figure out what that means.

 

[blackangst1]

Doing so because of their race is.

Well, depending. But overall, of course youre correct.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Everyone knows that gingers are the next step in human evolution. If you are not a ginger I suppose you may or may not be able to figure out what that means.

Gingers are the devil!

 

[cytg111]

Gingers are the devil!

A quite natural reaction from the lesser species.

 

[Jhhnn]

Hey, Ilhan, if you just dumb a specific instance down to "something" you can make it sound like it wasn't a big deal at all. An actress called Kamala Harris overconfident. People conditioned by the left to be victims manufactured racism out of her criticism of Kamala Harris. Liberals manufacture racism where there was none. Most "racism" that occurs today is manufactured like this.

Mighty big tar brush. So some guy on twitter says it's racist which means that's what "the left" thinks? Shee-it. There's some damned fool somewhere who'll call anything racist.

It's all hair splitting distraction from obvious racism, the kind our President displays quite shamelessly. That's right. Y'all put a race baiting asshole in the oval office. Does it feel good in that "Fuck You, Libtards!" way that alt-right conservatrolls have come to love so much? It should, because it hurts, and it hurts all of us.

 

[glenn1]

By your own description, how is Trump not Racist?

In Trump's case he's a straight up asshole and if you want to call him racist I'm fine with that and anything else you want to call him. He's not worth the time dwell on the definition of "racist." Doesn't mean in the grand scheme of things there isn't a definitional meaning for 'racist.'

 

[SlowSpyder]

Is it racist to tell someone that they've been "owned?" It harkens back to the ownership of people. What says fair and balanced AT P&N?

 

[JSt0rm]

Is it racist to tell someone that they've been "owned?" It harkens back to the ownership of people. What says fair and balanced AT P&N?

You get owned every day. What do YOU think?

 

[Victorian Gray]

Is it racist to tell someone that they've been "owned?" It harkens back to the ownership of people. What says fair and balanced AT P&N?

#fuckoffStPetersburgSlowtroll

 

[zinfamous]

It's overall not a dumb statement. It's a large problem that when it comes to debating issues, solving problems, etc... certain groups seem to want to stick their heads in the sand and go la-la-la-la you're just racist therefore your argument is invalid!

that definitely applies.

....when making obviously racist arguments. getting past that hurdle, with the racists, is the current problem that we face. head-sand burying simply is not the issue for "the other side."

It's only proper to meet together on the same fair and logical terms, no? How can anyone disagree with that?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Doing so because of their race is.

Winner,Winner, Chicken dinner!!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Why are we trying to define racism??
It`s quite simple -- when people start playing word games you can bet most likely 100% of the time they are racist!! Bottom line!!

 

[pmv]

And Avenue Q (whatever that might be) is wrong.

It's true though that everyone has the potential to be racist, if they find themselves in a position of power that allows it. It's not some intrinsic quality of an individual, it's a human moral weakness that can come out if one is in a position of power. Human beings are and always will be imperfect, which is why, it seems to me, the aim should be to remove or alleviate those power imbalances.

So again, if I say positive messages - are they racist? Or is it stereotyping? Or is it just statistics?

E.g
"Asians in America are statistically smarter"
"Black people statistically run faster than others"

Hell, Andrew Yang made an Asian stereotype joke while he was at the debate the other day. Was that racist?

I think they are in essence, racist remarks. People may or may not take offense at them - because some might consider them too trivial to worry about, especially if they are coming from a member of the stereotyped group - but positive racial stereotypes can validate the negative ones by implication.

Also what does adding the word 'statistically' in there add to the meaning of the sentences? Do you mean 'on average'?

And it also depends on the context and what you are suggesting is the reason for the traits and why you are making the comment.

A comment about black people "running faster" really seems to carry a suggestion of some biological cause, rather than just a contingent social one.

And that one is very obviously not a universal truth anyway - at most you could speculate that might be true of a certain category of professional athlete, maybe, but what's the reason for making such an observation?

There are clearly at least as many black people as white people who would have real trouble running for a bus.

And you are going to have to define both 'smarter' and 'Asian'. Those are both ill-defined terms which makes that statement sound suspect to me. It's not something I'd ever say. In my experience when members of groups make jokes about their own stereotypes its usually sharper and more specific than that.

 

[SlowSpyder]

You get owned every day. What do YOU think?

That's racist? Why do you have to refer to me as your property? That brings me back to a time of slavery, the pain those people felt. I think I need reparations, I'm just as affected by slavery as anyone else today, reparations for all. Obviously I feel great pain when someone uses the term, "owned."