The Face of Racism

[Pulsar]

LOL THIS: The English language says you're wrong, BY DEFINITION.

Just read wolfe's post, You've been owned by the facts, though you'll never admit it, will you?

In your own special butthurt angry world of reality denial and determined stupidity, though, OF COURSE you're right!

You seem to be very selective in your definitions.

the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races.
discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Racism is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes; The belief that one race is superior to all others; Prejudice or discrimination based upon raceen.wiktionary.org/wiki/racism

racist - based on racial intolerance; "racist remarks"
racist - a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others
racist - discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Racist - Playing the race card is an idiomatic phrase that refers to the act of bringing the issue of race or racism into a debate, perhaps to obfuscate ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racist_(epithet)

Racists is a 2006 novel by Kunal Basu about a scientific experiment in the mid-19th century in which a white girl and a black boy are raised ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racists_(novel)

racist - An advocate of racism; Of, relating to, or advocating racism
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/racist

Any attitude, action or institutional structure which systematically treats an individual or group of individuals differently because of their race. The most common form of racism in North America is in the form discrimination against African-Americans. ...
www.translationdirectory.com/glossaries/glossary007_r.htm

An ideology based on the idea that humans can be separated into distinct racial groups and that these groups can be ranked on a hierarchy of intelligence, ability, morality etc. See: ETHNOCENTRISM / RACE / .
bitbucket.icaap.org/dict.pl

the use of race to establish and justify a social hierarchy and system of power that privileges, preferences or advances certain individuals or groups of people usually at the expense of others. Racism is perpetuated through both interpersonal and institutional practices.
www.understandingrace.org/resources/glossary.html

A set of incorrect assumptions, opinions and acts resulting from the belief that one race is inherently/genetically superior to another. It occurs when people are not treated fairly because of their cultural or ethnic differences. ...www.japanesecanadianhistory.net/glossary.htm

a social system in which a minority is privileged at the expense of others, always based on the fictitious idea that human beings are naturally divided into "races" with innate differences of ability and intelligence. ...
www.bijac.org/index.php

It appears that you've got more than your share of "special butthurt angry world of reality denial and determined stupidity, though, OF COURSE you're right! "

The ambiguity of the english language and the difficulty in making a clear definition simple and applicable to EVERY case possible makes it pretty easy to go pick and choose YOUR own definition to fit YOUR own argument. I, on the other hand, will stick to the generally accepted definition of the word. By definition, picking people based on color, race, religion, are all discrimination. Picking by race is clearly racism.

 

[piasabird]

Whenever I see the word race I just see blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I think of apathetic people who want to blame the everything but themselves for their circumstances.

Life in this world can be hard for lots of people. No one race has a commodity on hard times. Life is tough on everyone. It is how you overcome the obstacles placed before you that shape your charcter.

 

[cwjerome]

Might have something to do with the demographics of those who practice law.

Now, if instead of looking at lawyers and judges we were looking at NASCAR fans, then I could see your point. Otherwise you're just arguing for your own brand of affirmative action, which goes back to the first point I made, everyone has their favorites.

Actually I don't have a point, I was just noting an interesting observation as it related to your post. I'm certainly not arguing for any sort of affirmative action.

 

[Tab]

Yes, another glorious Cyclowizard thread.

Cyclowizard's argument is that along with the discussion of Arizona's new laws regarding illegal aliens is we also need to pay attention to this as well. Despite Arizona's law original formulated by a Neo-Nazi Group and being grossly more significant than a relativity unknown individual writing several paragraphs on CNN.com - a site that probably most of us never even go to.

At this point, I can only assume that you are, indeed, illiterate. I will therefore ignore future posts from you. Moving on...

A classic CylcoWizard move, when caught with your pants down claim the other is an idiot and ignore them. Let's look at what happen here...

I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy of labeling everyone on one side of one issue racist when the labelers fail to point out racism in their own ranks.

CycloWizard, claims that we should point out hypocrisy in our own ranks. Hilariously, CylcoWizard doesn't do the same when numerous others in the very same thread act abrupt, use labels, insults, etc.

Even worse, the article that was posted isn't even racist by definition. The author of the article states that he's angry because Obama appointed an individual who was less qualified than another black candidate angering the black community.

EDIT : I'd address Pulsar copy and pasting while clearly not understand the context of the discussion but I need to sleep. Though, I'm going to predict CylcoWizard will continue being a intellectually dishonest jackass and possibly hurl a feel more insults before ignoring those whom disagree with him. In my case I'm betting he'll bring up as he's done with the the past that I'm "not actually debating, I'm just copying my parents arguments and political views".

 

[CycloWizard]

I answered you thoroughly and repeatedly, and as for this last "question" of yours, wolfe presented you the dictionary DEFINITION of racism and extensively showed you how yours was wrong, which you then won't accept, because you speak your own special English in your own special world.

You're wrong. The English language says you're wrong. Keep denying it if you must, but you are completely wrong.

He presented a dictionary definition. Apparently you're not big on the whole language thing or you'd know that words often have many definitions which often vary considerably depending on the source of the definition. You're just in a tizzy because you support an establishment which mandates unjust practices, such as hiring someone due to their ethnicity. You hope that I won't point out that this meets many definitions of the word racism, because that would make you a racist. But I just did. Now what are you going to do - insult my obviously superior mastery of the English language again?

 

[Tab]

He presented a dictionary definition. Apparently you're not big on the whole language thing or you'd know that words often have many definitions which often vary considerably depending on the source of the definition. You're just in a tizzy because you support an establishment which mandates unjust practices, such as hiring someone due to their ethnicity. You hope that I won't point out that this meets many definitions of the word racism, because that would make you a racist. But I just did. Now what are you going to do - insult my obviously superior mastery of the English language again?

Yes, a watered down definition. The definition that's arguable most correct would be probably something such as "abusive discriminatory actions or beliefs towards members of a race, ethnicity or heritage". Infact, my race and minority relations textbook disagrees with you along with my sociology professor.

The only thing is in action here, is as I said earlier is you being an intellectually dishonest jackass.

 

[cwjerome]

When do you get to define racism is such broad terms? "Using race for the justification of an action is the real definition of racism." That's a new one to me. I thought that racism involved either a belief in the superiority of one's own race, or animus toward another race (actually the two usually go together.)

I think that's a very superficial view of racism to believe its simply one race being superior to another. You pretty much miss the philosophical boat and jump straight to a common end result.

A dictionary.com definition is not what we're looking for here. Racism is a concept, full of interrelated ideas and principles. At it's core, racism is a fundamentally wrong view of human nature, a view that leads people to condemn or praise others based on racial membership.

For a person to believe that one race is superior to another, they must first believe that one's race determines one's identity. In other words, one's values and character are not determined by their mind but by their blood. That is racism. Deriving our identity from our race is a corruption that serves no rational purpose.

Seeing the world through colored lenses, celebrating racial differences, glorifying race... merging individuality into the group and following the group, being racial representatives, just an interchangeable part to the racial whole. Those are the roots of racism but people still want to focus merely on the obvious and common outcome of superiority. Instead of tackling the basic intellectual principles to reasonably cut it off, people would rather try to band-aid the results.

 

[CycloWizard]

Yes, a watered down definition. The definition that's arguable most correct would be probably something such as "abusive discriminatory actions or beliefs towards members of a race, ethnicity or heritage". Infact, my race and minority relations textbook disagrees with you along with my sociology professor.

The only thing is in action here, is as I said earlier is you being an intellectually dishonest jackass.

There's a reason you study sociology and I teach engineering, and it's not only because I'm older.

 

[CycloWizard]

I think that's a very superficial view of racism to believe its simply one race being superior to another. You pretty much miss the philosophical boat and jump straight to a common end result.

A dictionary.com definition is not what we're looking for here. Racism is a concept, full of interrelated ideas and principles. At it's core, racism is a fundamentally wrong view of human nature, a view that leads people to condemn or praise others based on racial membership.

For a person to believe that one race is superior to another, they must first believe that one's race determines one's identity. In other words, one's values and character are not determined by their mind but by their blood. That is racism. Deriving our identity from our race is a corruption that serves no rational purpose.

Seeing the world through colored lenses, celebrating racial differences, glorifying race... merging individuality into the group and following the group, being racial representatives, just an interchangeable part to the racial whole. Those are the roots of racism but people still want to focus merely on the obvious and common outcome of superiority. Instead of tackling the basic intellectual principles to reasonably cut it off, people would rather try to band-aid the results.

Well said. It's tough for anyone to accept that any idea to which they subscribe might be labeled as any kind of -ism. However, if one doesn't recognize the problem, it can never be overcome. If justice is the goal, then the means to that end must also be just. When the -ism is too deeply ingrained for the person to see that it is what they are, then you get a Perknose - lots of frothing at the mouth, no substance, and aggression because they can't overcome what they are since they don't know what they are.

 

[CycloWizard]

As I noted in another thread, I am not calling out any particular political leaning in this thread, as both the "left" and the "right" are guilty of this idiocy in different cases. Indeed, the point is to draw attention to these cases so the idiocy is exposed, recognized, and can be overcome. To quote my statement in that thread:

For once, I'll agree with you. Israel is to the right what illegal immigration is to the left. When anyone says we should be less pro-Israel, the die-hard righties scream anti-Semitism! When anyone says that we should crack down on illegal immigration, the die-hard lefties scream racism! Two sides of the same coin. However, if you try to call anyone out on their antics, they tend to get pretty pissed off.

 

[EXman]

Gays are more important than Blacks? Dood Obama has been shutting out the gay lobby until now. This was the get back in the gay ass lobbies ass. Pure and Simple.

 

[Perknose]

But I just did. Now what are you going to do - insult my obviously superior mastery of the English language again?

Dude, lol, you can troll-provoke me all you wish, but I am beyond confident that my mastery of the English language, by any and every measurable metric, exceeds yours.

You're doggedly barking up the wrong tree with that particular tack.

I will say, though, that you're not a bad debater. You've got decent rhetorical chops. Too bad you use them in the service of such small mindedness.

White's whining victimhood RACISM at every possible opportunity, no matter how ridiculous, is chalk-screech-on-a-blackboard annoying to the more secure and sane amongst us.

You come across exactly like the blacks you abhor for reflexively doing the same.

 

[Moonbeam]

CW: You want racism? Here it is. According to Roland Martin, Obama should have appointed a black woman to the Supreme Court simply for being a black woman.

M: Where does he say that? I don't see it.

CW: Using race for the justification of an action the real definition of racism.

M: No it's not. I use race as a justification for using UV block. But where is this action you call racists. I didn't see any action or any call to action except not pushing away friends.

CW: Using gender for the justification of an action the real definition of sexism.

M: No it's not. I use gender to determined who I will screw.

CW: Is it ok to be openly racist if you're black?

M: Is it OK to ask a question like this in a situation where you impute the racism where none exists. Why do you hate black people? Aren't you ashamed?

CW: I absolutely support Roland's right to write racist garbage like this.

M: You absolutely call something garbage that makes perfect sense. Is it because you are stupid or do you just have a huge racist chip that sits invisibly, to you, on your shoulder?

CW: That said,

M: You mean that implied; nothing of the kind was said.

CW: I think the fact that this piece was not pointed out by anyone else in this forum is indicative of a bigger problem: everyone is afraid to call out true racism when it rears its ugly head.

M: Except there was no racism there to point out. You are having hallucinations.

CW: Instead, half of you are too busy calling everyone who wants to enforce existing illegal immigration laws racist to even acknowledge the fact that a rational basis for such an argument might even exist. If you want to heap scorn on someone for being racist, Mr. Martin is surely an easy target, so please proceed to do so.

M: Really, hehe, if you say so, I guess.

I think it more likely you have a burr up your ass.

 

[Pens1566]

<-- Disappointed. I expected this thread to be about spidey's mugshot ...

 

[Red Dawn]

There's a reason you study sociology and I teach engineering, and it's not only because I'm older.

He has a personality and you don't?:\

 

[ZOOYUKA]

Wouldn't that be racial profiling?

 

[CycloWizard]

Dude, lol, you can troll-provoke me all you wish, but I am beyond confident that my mastery of the English language, by any and every measurable metric, exceeds yours.

You're doggedly barking up the wrong tree with that particular tack.

I will say, though, that you're not a bad debater. You've got decent rhetorical chops. Too bad you use them in the service of such small mindedness.

White's whining victimhood RACISM at every possible opportunity, no matter how ridiculous, is chalk-screech-on-a-blackboard annoying to the more secure and sane amongst us.

You come across exactly like the blacks you abhor for reflexively doing the same.

Once again, you cut out most of my post and post random crap which is unrelated. This is a recurring theme with you which I would usually attribute to illiteracy on your part. However, since you are so confident in your mastery of the English language, the only remaining option is that you are intentionally being obtuse to avoid my line of questioning. I can only conclude that this is because you are interested in diverting attention from your obviously ridiculous position to avoid being labeled what you are - a racist who thinks it's not racism to want to elevate a black person over a white person solely by virtue of one's blackness and the other's whiteness.

 

[CycloWizard]

He has a personality and you don't?:\

Yes... That's it...

 

[CycloWizard]

...

Your Jedi mind tricks won't work on me, so you can stop waving your hand and saying, "Nothing to see here."

 

[Mani]

Mani, SCOTUS is not an all-non-black organization. Black people who do not "do as their white liberal betters tell 'em!" do not mysteriously lose their blackness; a black man is as free to choose his own sociopolitical viewpoint as any other person. To the extent that race exists, Justice Clarance Thomas is black.

I didn't bring up the example to say that the SC is an all non-black organization, or that Thomas is an Uncle Tom - I did to make a point about minority representation. In this case, Martin is calling for a black female, a minority that has never been represented on the court, to have been at least under consideration. That is not necessarily racist.

 

[CycloWizard]

I didn't bring up the example to say that the SC is an all non-black organization, or that Thomas is an Uncle Tom - I did to make a point about minority representation. In this case, Martin is calling for a black female, a minority that has never been represented on the court, to have been at least under consideration. That is not necessarily racist.

Why should race ever be a consideration?

 

[Mani]

Why should race ever be a consideration?

Not saying it should. I'm just saying that bringing up race does not necessarily = racist.

 

[ayabe]

Actually I don't have a point, I was just noting an interesting observation as it related to your post. I'm certainly not arguing for any sort of affirmative action.

Right you were just echoing that meme outloud but aren't taking that position, just a little devil's advocacy then.....

"It's interesting that....."X", though I don't really care."

Ok boss.

 

[Moonbeam]

Your Jedi mind tricks won't work on me, so you can stop waving your hand and saying, "Nothing to see here."

A bigot sees what he wants to see and your reading of the OP link was nothing but bigotry. The burr up your ass isn't one you can see but you have been notified of its presence by numerous people in this thread. No Jedi mind tricks means that truth can't penetrate bigotry. You can't handle my questions because nothing real supports your position. It's sad to see you make a horses ass of yourself, but it's something left brained literalistic engineers specialize in, focus on some narrow point and dwell on it all day. I would suggest your ego go fuck itself but it does all the time anyway.

Now show me where the author was racist and not reporting on some blacks take on the Obama selection. I think you don't know how to read, but I will consider what you say because the issue of of little import to me and I read your link pretty fast and may have missed something. And since I'm not a bigot I will listen if you have a real case. You have wasted a lot of words arguing with others. Surely you can point out where the guy is a racists, no? You realize, I hope, that bigots never make a case for their bigotry because bigotry is a belief in an evil that the bigot calls a self evident good, right?

 

[CycloWizard]

A bigot sees what he wants to see and your reading of the OP link was nothing but bigotry. The burr up your ass isn't one you can see but you have been notified of its presence by numerous people in this thread. No Jedi mind tricks means that truth can't penetrate bigotry. You can't handle my questions because nothing real supports your position. It's sad to see you make a horses ass of yourself, but it's something left brained literalistic engineers specialize in, focus on some narrow point and dwell on it all day. I would suggest your ego go fuck itself but it does all the time anyway.

Now show me where the author was racist and not reporting on some blacks take on the Obama selection. I think you don't know how to read, but I will consider what you say because the issue of of little import to me and I read your link pretty fast and may have missed something. And since I'm not a bigot I will listen if you have a real case. You have wasted a lot of words arguing with others. Surely you can point out where the guy is a racists, no? You realize, I hope, that bigots never make a case for their bigotry because bigotry is a belief in an evil that the bigot calls a self evident good, right?

Perknose tried this tack already and failed. Maybe you will do better. Please tell me how suggesting that race should not be considered when selecting a person for a job is bigoted or racist.