Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Breitbart.com)   When Alexandra Pelosi and Bill Maher call you out on your liberal bias, you may have a problem. Yes, we are looking at you HBO   (breitbart.com) divider line 341
    More: Interesting, Alexandra Pelosi, Bill Maher, HBO, welfare queen, liberal bias, hypocrisy, minority leaders  
•       •       •

5355 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Mar 2012 at 4:48 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



341 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-19 03:35:18 PM  

liam76: No, it wasn't constructed without values and culture.


This is just flat wrong. The concept of race was constructed within the early modern period, in reaction to the incorporation of observed ttraits, empiricism, etc. into scientific thought and the need to reconstruct previous ethnic paradigms in the face of colonialism. ...among other things

I cannot emphasize how profoundly wrong your statement is and how its going to be difficult to move forward considering the lack of this knowledge base.

liam76: wiki


no wiki. Thats part of the problem here.
 
2012-03-19 03:39:00 PM  

Party Boy: No, it wasn't constructed without values and culture.


needed to highlight this

liam76: But today when one talks about racism and ethnocentrism one speaks to race and the other to culture and values.



This is a key point on the larger umbrella term to ethnocentrism.
 
2012-03-19 05:37:03 PM  

Party Boy: iam76: No, it wasn't constructed without values and culture.

This is just flat wrong. The concept of race was constructed within the early modern period, in reaction to the incorporation of observed ttraits, empiricism, etc. into scientific thought and the need to reconstruct previous ethnic paradigms in the face of colonialism. ...among other things

I cannot emphasize how profoundly wrong your statement is and how its going to be difficult to move forward considering the lack of this knowledge base.



It was a bit clumsy wording, because I was trying to use your terminology, but the double negative "wasn't constructed without" means they were used.

Party Boy: no wiki. Thats part of the problem here


Part of the problem is the lack of a clear common definition shared by the peopel discussing it. If you disagree with mine, by all means explain why or post your own.

Party Boy: liam76: But today when one talks about racism and ethnocentrism one speaks to race and the other to culture and values.


This is a key point on the larger umbrella term to ethnocentrism


If you want to put racism under the umbrella of "ethnocentrism" I am ok wiht that. Don't really agree but for the sake of conversation I can accept it. But the fact is, in the context of this conversation (ancient chinese laws against interracial marriage) th point about it being racism still stands.



skepticultist: liam76: skepticultist: liam76: skepticultist: the conversation is consistently steered away from discussions of white racism towards conversation of non-white prejudice and bias, which are then conflated with white racism, thus mitigating and trivializing white racism, all to the benefit of white supremacy.

If that prejudice and bias is based on race it is racism.

That farking simple.

Adding "power" to the equation is a convenient way for apologists to excuse racism in non-whites.

Removing power from the equation is a convenient way to minimize the reality of white supremacy.

Only for people who think because some black people (or insert any other race here) are racist that it excuses or minimizes white racism that has had a far greater impact.

Are you one of those people?

No.


So if you aren't one of those people you know your excuse, "convenient way to minimize the reality of white supremacy" is BS.

skepticultist: I'm not a conservative


Yet you are doing exactly what you accuse them of doing.

Ignoring or downplaying one groups "race based bigotry". And yes when you pretend that racism can only be done by one group that is exactly what you are doing. It is bad when "conservatives" do it by saying minorities are just as bad, and it is bad when people like you do it by saying it is impossible for minorities to be racist.
 
2012-03-19 06:09:27 PM  

liam76: If you want to put racism under the umbrella of "ethnocentrism" I am ok wiht that. Don't really agree but for the sake of conversation I can accept it.


Sounds good.

liam76: lack of a clear common definition


Ok. Heres the hook.

Race is a European construct. It came out of a particular time in scientific thinking and colonialism.

Theres a whole world of ethnocentrism that goes beyond this European model. We both know about it.

liam76: ancient chinese laws against interracial marriage


Example. Ancient China is separated from the entire concept of "race" by centuries of years and thousands of miles. You have to use their metrics for defining us-them.
 
2012-03-19 06:35:35 PM  

Party Boy: liam76: lack of a clear common definition

Ok. Heres the hook.

Race is a European construct. It came out of a particular time in scientific thinking and colonialism.

Theres a whole world of ethnocentrism that goes beyond this European model. We both know about it.


So if European people come up with a "construct" that can't be used to describe the actions/beliefs of non-europeans? What if those people grow up in a a european society?

Party Boy: Example. Ancient China is separated from the entire concept of "race" by centuries of years and thousands of miles. You have to use their metrics for defining us-them


No. That is like saying you can't say ancient an societies were misogynistic because it wasn't according to their metric.

They treated people differently based on what we now call race.
 
2012-03-19 06:41:43 PM  
we'd also like her to find out if anyone was concerned over the depiction of Gov. Sarah Palin in the mistake-riddled "Game Change" film that the same cable network released two weeks ago.

[citation needed]
 
2012-03-19 06:44:11 PM  

liam76: What if those people grow up in a a european society?


Ah. Now were talking about context. Yes. That is what is important.

liam76: misogynistic


This is a different term, that is much, much easier to pin down. Biology. Vaginas/Penis. Sure, it gets a little blurry, but this alone makes a very poor analog for different types of ethnocentrism. Stay on point.

liam76: what we now call race.

.. is a European term separated by centuries and thousands of miles.
Separating Ancient Han from other Asians isn't a job for "race." Its a job for terms on ethnicity.

Look, this is easy. I'm going to skip the obvious and not post up something from you in an Israeli type thread on the clumsiness of "race" to describe what constitutes a Jewish ethnicity, laws, and ethnocentrism.
 
2012-03-19 07:21:14 PM  

Party Boy: liam76: What if those people grow up in a a european society?

Ah. Now were talking about context. Yes. That is what is important.



Pin down when it is important. I had an egyptian friend who straight up hated Nubians don't know if that gets filtered but I mean people from the actual region) turns out he also hates all other black people. He grew up in a "non european" society. Is he racist? Did he become non-racist when he lived in the US and was no longer in the class of power?

Also I will repeat.

liam76: So if European people come up with a "construct" that can't be used to describe the actions/beliefs of non-europeans?


Party Boy: This is a different term, that is much, much easier to pin down. Biology. Vaginas/Penis. Sure, it gets a little blurry, but this alone makes a very poor analog for different types of ethnocentrism. Stay on point.


I am on point. You said we have to use their metrics. If we can say by today's standards they were misogynistic we can also say by today standards they were racist.



Party Boy: is a European term separated by centuries and thousands of miles.
Separating Ancient Han from other Asians isn't a job for "race." Its a job for terms on ethnicity.

Look, this is easy. I'm going to skip the obvious and not post up something from you in an Israeli type thread on the clumsiness of "race" to describe what constitutes a Jewish ethnicity, laws, and ethnocentrism


I agree that "race" is clumsy term, but separating Han from other asians is no different than English separating themselves from Irish (same wiht hutu or tutsi), is racism not possible there?
 
2012-03-19 07:25:30 PM  

liam76: Only for people who think because some black people (or insert any other race here) are racist that it excuses or minimizes white racism that has had a far greater impact.

Are you one of those people?

No.

So if you aren't one of those people you know your excuse, "convenient way to minimize the reality of white supremacy" is BS.


No, dumbass, I was mocking you.

If you want to claim that removing power from the equation (i.e. racism = power + prejudice) is a convenient way to minimize the reality of white supremacy that only fools people who think because some [people of color] are "racist" that it excuses or minimizes white racism that has had a far greater impact, then I would agree with that. If you are claiming that no such people exist, or that I am such a person, you're an idiot.

skepticultist: I'm not a conservative

Yet you are doing exactly what you accuse them of doing.


No, you are doing exactly what I accuse them of doing.

Ignoring or downplaying one groups "race based bigotry". And yes when you pretend that racism can only be done by one group that is exactly what you are doing. It is bad when "conservatives" do it by saying minorities are just as bad, and it is bad when people like you do it by saying it is impossible for minorities to be racist.

I'm not arguing that racism "can" only be done by one group, I am arguing that racism has only been done by one group. Theories of race and scientific racism, which underlie the ideology of white supremacy, originated in Europe amongst white Europeans intellectuals. That is a historical fact.

It was not Africans who developed theories of race, nor was it Asians, or Arabs, or anyone other than white Europeans. It was not Africans (or Asians or Arabs or anyone other than white Europeans) who engaged in a global project to bring the entire world under the hegemonic control of white Europeans. These are historical facts, and they are historical facts that continue to have a profound influence and affect on the entirety of international geopolitics and continue to have an influence and effect on the internal politics of white dominant nations (such as America).

It is certainly true that in some hypothetical alternate universe, Africa could have risen to global dominance and developed theories of race to justify global empires built on the colonization and oppression of non-black people, but that isn't what happened in this reality. So it's not "impossible" for minorities to be racist, but it does require an entirely different history in order for it to be the case.

A black person who believes that blacks are superior to whites is not racist, they are bigoted. Because they are still operating within a system of definitions created by whites to suppress people of color. They are reacting to the reality of white supremacy. A black person who hates whites is not racist, they are prejudiced. They have been racially radicalized by the system of white supremacy. There is no system of black supremacy. Even in Zimbabwe there is no black supremacy, because the violence in Zimbabwe is still a reaction to white supremacy.

You can create as many false equivalencies as you want, but the reality remains: racism is white supremacy. And equating a black person who has grown up in white supremacist society and developed a prejudice against the white oppressor class with a white person who has grown up in a white supremacist society and embraced the socially acceptable prejudices against minorities that help to perpetuate white supremacy.

In short: Actively rejecting white supremacy is not equivalent to passively embracing white supremacy, no matter how much you wish for it to be so.

TL;DR: You're an idiot and a racist, and you can fark right the hell off.
 
2012-03-19 07:35:48 PM  

skepticultist: sno man: All Romans were not equal, citizen.

Yes, that's the point you blithering idiot. All Romans were not equal.

Now, in the antebellum South, all men were equal. Because of the Constitution. If you were a poor sharecropper, you were the equal of the plantation owner. Sure, not in actual practice, but that was the ideal. That was the law. Under the law every man was the equal of every other man.

And then there were the slaves. Why weren't they equal? Because of racism. Because of this theory of race that said "These men over here, these men from Africa, with the dark brown skin? They aren't actually men. They're subhuman. We don't have to treat them the same way."

Lastly Antiquity is the past. That is true. To dismiss it out of hand, to not study and learn from the past, you know, so as to not repeat it, is probably not a good idea though.

No one is dismissing the past out of hand, you farking jackass. The only reason we're talking about the past is because you're stupid, racist ass can't cope with talking about the present, where slavery is long gone but white supremacy is still the foundation of the world order.


That you think I'm racist, proves you have no f*cking idea what that word means.
 
2012-03-19 07:51:02 PM  

skepticultist: If you are claiming that no such people exist, or that I am such a person, you're an idiot.


I am saying to redefine racism to include power (and pretend that only white people have power) is dishonest, ignores reality, and is just as stupid as people who think anti-white racism "balances everything out".

It is a tactic by people who want to ignore racism from some group.


skepticultist: Actively rejecting white supremacy is not equivalent to passively embracing white supremacy, no matter how much you wish for it to be so.


Pretending that race based bigotry from a black person is different than race based bigotry from a white person based solely on their race isn't "actively rejecting white supremacy", no matter how much you wish for it to be so. It is racism.



It does nothing but downplay or excuse racism from non-whites, beside the fact how woefully shortsighted that stance is given racist actions we see between groups of non-whites.

Your theories are laughably stupid, and it is astonishing anyone still buys them. But I am guessing you have never lived outside of the US. Look at my above example in Egypt. What would you call a Indonesian of Java heritage who disliked Dayak's or Japanese because of their race? Do they suddenly become non-racist when they move from a country where they have power (Indonesia) to one where they don't (Japan)?



skepticultist: You're an idiot and a racist, and you can fark right the hell off.


I hope you are a highschool or college kid because it is sad to think someone has reached into adulthood this painfully ignorant.
 
2012-03-19 08:00:56 PM  

liam76: I am on point.


Its an analog. Inherent differences built in. in this case, biology is a huge factor.

liam76: I agree that "race" is clumsy term, but separating Han from other asians is no different than English separating themselves from Irish (same wiht hutu or tutsi), is racism not possible there?


No, its not possible.

Race is a particular term with its own historical context.

Do the Han separate them out based on European empiricism and science? No.

More importantly, are the Han employing a paradigm that, as in Race and racism, place the Europeans at the top of a ethnic heirarchy? No.

This list is long, but it is a very particular term.

Its much, much easier to apply this to the Israelis, and there its just wrong. Ashkenazis, power, and the long discussed skin phenotype bias and the Mizrahi or Sephardics. You don't need a primer why this is off.

Ethnocentrism.
 
2012-03-19 08:17:28 PM  

Party Boy: liam76: I am on point.

Its an analog. Inherent differences built in. in this case, biology is a huge factor.

liam76: I agree that "race" is clumsy term, but separating Han from other asians is no different than English separating themselves from Irish (same wiht hutu or tutsi), is racism not possible there?

No, its not possible.

Yea it is.

Race is a particular term with its own historical context.

...and the idea of racism [we are better than you because (fill in the blank)] is as old as dirt. Call it something else if you need to, but that changes no facts.

Do the Han separate them out based on European empiricism and science? No.
Dunno, maybe the selected for the salty when the licked them.

More importantly, are the Han employing a paradigm that, as in Race and racism, place the Europeans at the top of a ethnic heirarchy? No.
Are you high?

This list is long, but it is a very particular term.

Its much, much easier to apply this to the Israelis, and there its just wrong. Ashkenazis, power, and the long discussed skin phenotype bias and the Mizrahi or Sephardics. You don't need a primer why this is off.
?


Ethnocentrism.
 
2012-03-19 08:22:01 PM  

Party Boy: Its an analog. Inherent differences built in. in this case, biology is a huge factor.


You said we had to use their metrics. If that is true we can't comment mysoginy because according to their metrics treating a women bad is ok.

Party Boy: No, its not possible.

Race is a particular term with its own historical context.


Yes it is possible.

If people did something or had the same attitude to match something recently named, we can apply that name o actions in the past.

Do the Han separate them out based on European empiricism and science? No.

Does some racist hillybilly who never read a book hate black because of "European empiricism and science" or because that is what his parents taught him?

More importantly, are the Han employing a paradigm that, as in Race and racism, place the Europeans at the top of a ethnic heirarchy? No.

They employed a paradigm that placed them at the top.


Party Boy: Ethnocentrism


What terms would you use to differentiate between someone who hated chinese language, food, culture, etc, but had no problem with people of chinese heritage?

Still looking for answers to these.

liam76: Pin down when it is important. I had an egyptian friend who straight up hated Nubians don't know if that gets filtered but I mean people from the actual region) turns out he also hates all other black people. He grew up in a "non european" society. Is he racist? Did he become non-racist when he lived in the US and was no longer in the class of power?


liam76: So if European people come up with a "construct" that can't be used to describe the actions/beliefs of non-europeans?

 
2012-03-19 08:36:09 PM  

liam76: Does some racist hillybilly


I hope you can look at this and understand why "racist hilbilly" and "ancient han" are completely different when talking about an Early Modern European invention.

One fits and the other doesn't.

Come on.

liam76: They employed a paradigm that placed them at the top.


They employed a paradigm. Thats right. What is that paradigm in its own historical context?


-----------

liam76: Pin down when it is important. I had an egyptian friend who straight up hated Nubians don't know if that gets filtered but I mean people from the actual region) turns out he also hates all other black people. He grew up in a "non european" society. Is he racist? Did he become non-racist when he lived in the US and was no longer in the class of power?


I don't know your friend. The reason I am not answering that is that the question is unsolvable with the information given.

liam76: So if European people come up with a "construct" that can't be used to describe the actions/beliefs of non-europeans?


This is going to depend on the question and paradigm.

Stay focused.
 
2012-03-19 08:39:35 PM  
Liam...

Answer this question after reading this.

Party Boy: Its much, much easier to apply this to the Israelis, and there its just wrong. Ashkenazis, power, and the long discussed skin phenotype bias and the Mizrahi or Sephardics. You don't need a primer why this is off.


Where is the difficulty in applying "racism" to the current Israeli state? You are going to find your answer here.
 
2012-03-19 08:40:06 PM  

liam76: I am saying to redefine racism to include power (and pretend that only white people have power) is dishonest, ignores reality, and is just as stupid as people who think anti-white racism "balances everything out".

It is a tactic by people who want to ignore racism from some group.


And I am saying that your entire argument is a tactic to distract from the pressing need to address the ongoing effects of four hundred years of white supremacy. You want to focus on the mote in the black man's eye so that you can ignore the beam in the white man's.

Well I'm not falling for it, you dumb racist fark.

Pretending that race based bigotry from a black person is different than race based bigotry from a white person based solely on their race isn't "actively rejecting white supremacy", no matter how much you wish for it to be so. It is racism.

And pretending that race based bigotry from a black person is the same as race based bigotry from a white person only serves to perpetuate and maintain white supremacy by minimizing and trivializing white supremacy.

It does nothing but downplay or excuse racism from non-whites, beside the fact how woefully shortsighted that stance is given racist actions we see between groups of non-whites.

And focusing attention on race based prejudice between historically oppressed groups only serves to perpetuate and maintain white supremacy.

Your theories are laughably stupid, and it is astonishing anyone still buys them. But I am guessing you have never lived outside of the US.

I've lived in the US, Mexico, Prague and Scotland. And you're a moron.

Look at my above example in Egypt. What would you call a Indonesian of Java heritage who disliked Dayak's or Japanese because of their race?

I'd call him prejudiced, because my vocabularly isn't so limited that I need to use words with specific meanings incorrectly, and the correct term for what you are describing is prejudice. Javanese, Dayak and Japanese aren't races, they are ethnicities. Asian is a race. Indonesians, Dayaks and Japanese are all Asians. That is why it is ridiculous to refer to prejudices between these groups as "racism," these are all people of the same race according to all existing theories of race. It's as ridiculous as calling English prejudice towards Irish (and vice versa) "racism." They're both white. An English person who hates the Irish isn't racist, he's prejudiced.

It's really not that hard to understand.
 
2012-03-19 08:43:47 PM  

skepticultist: It's really not that hard to understand.


I have a feeling sometimes Liam and I have a discussion just to have a discussion. I have a friend like this, and its often debate for fun.
 
2012-03-19 08:58:40 PM  

sno man: Party Boy: Race is a particular term with its own historical context.

...and the idea of racism [we are better than you because (fill in the blank)] is as old as dirt. Call it something else if you need to, but that changes no facts.


You can't simply redefine racism as the belief that one group is better than another group for some unspecified reason.

A Star Wars fan who thinks Star Wars fans are better than Star Trek fans because Star Wars had better special effects is not a racist, but according to your shallow and frankly moronic definition of racism, they would be. Likewise a man who thinks men are better than women because men are stronger isn't a racist, he's a chauvinist.

Words have meanings, and the fact that you're a simpleton with a limited vocabulary who can't be bothered to use the correct terms doesn't change that fact.

Racism is the belief that one race is superior to other races. This requires a theory of race. Theories of race vary in their categorization, identifying between three and five races -- typically European, African, Asian, and American Indian. The concept of race is fundamental to the concept of racism, and inflating the definition of racism to include all prejudices between different ethnic groups (most of which are conflicts occurring between groups of the same race according to theories of race) only leads to confusion and diffusion of the concept.

Which is wonderful if your goal is to protect white supremacy from criticism. Is that your goal sno man? Are you trying to give cover to white supremacy? Because if you aren't trying to do that, you should be aware that is exactly what you are doing, and that is precisely why I call you an idiot and a racist.
 
2012-03-19 09:05:58 PM  
Skeptic,

from dictionary.com:
"rac·ism
[rey-siz-uhm]
noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule 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.
Origin:
1865-70; Nothing in there about the whites owning the word...

lets try another...
from the wiki: (just the first paragraph)
"Racism is the belief that inherent different traits in human racial groups justify discrimination. In the modern English language, the term "racism" is used predominantly as a pejorative epithet. It is applied especially to the practice or advocacy of racial discrimination of a pernicious nature (i.e., which harms particular groups of people), and which is often justified by recourse to racial stereotyping or pseudo-science. Racism is popularly associated with various activities that are illegal or commonly considered harmful, such as extremism, hatred, xenophobia, (malignant or forced) exploitation, separatism, racial supremacy, mass murder (for the purpose of genocide), genocide denial, vigilantism (hate crimes, terrorism), etc."
Nothing in there about the whites owning the word either.

How Whites have treated Blacks particularly but not exclusively in the American south is racism, it is a crime against humanity, but that it is the only and exclusive case of racism ever is horseshiat.
 
2012-03-19 09:06:51 PM  

d_the_sandman: Is it just me, or is this claim by skepticultist that the word "racism" can ONLY apply to white supremacy, or that only white people can actively be racists because of power dynamics, only show up in the last few years or so? I first started seeing it on Tumblr, when that site first started gaining some traction. I remember a "racism = power + prejudice" meme that neatly packaged it up for the hipsters. Then I started hearing it sporadically in real life from friends of mine who were in college, in a more scholarly tone. I'm not even going to attempt to debate it here, partly because it's patently insane and needs no rebuttal from sane corners of the internet, but also partly because the adherents to it are essentially conspiracy theorists, and so it would be every bit as much of a waste of time as trying to have a sensible conversation with someone who believes jews run the world. I'm just commenting on it from the angle that it's kind of a fascinating phenomenon, and I think we might be seeing the beginning of a new movement in "radical" academia.

I mean, I don't know how long it can last. The underlying foundation of it is pretty flimsy and easily debunked. Every single reputable mainstream source seems to date the word "racism" to somewhere around the 1930's, and ever since then the word has pretty much consistently meant the same basic thing..............the belief that one race is superior to others. But on the other hand, it does seem to be resonating with a small but growing number of college kids full of the arrogant hubris of the newly educated. There's just a certain personality type that will always latch onto these catch-all theories that they feel can comfortably explain every aspect of human life, you know.......without all the hard brain work and stuff. Some kids go for objectivism, others go for marxism, now maybe there will be an equally annoying fringe cult for whatever "ism" they decide to call this one.


He belongs on the SomethingAwful.com forums. That place is full of people like him. If you ever wondered what it would be like to talk to one of the active participants in the Chinese Cultural Revolution, these are that sort. Reminds me of this: Radical Socialist Movement Ends After Three Semesters (new window)
I'm just going to put him on ignore; his posting style completely puts me off of whatever ideas he was trying to convey. And only dogmatists are ever so certain that they are correct.

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure, while the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
 
2012-03-19 09:09:54 PM  

Party Boy: I hope you can look at this and understand why "racist hilbilly" and "ancient han" are completely different when talking about an Early Modern European invention.

One fits and the other doesn't.

Come on.


That is not what I was responding to, was it?

"based on European empiricism and science" was the claim I was addressing.

Party Boy: They employed a paradigm. Thats right. What is that paradigm in its own historical context?


Indescribable in effect from the one we see from Europeans.

You keep trying to push it to "ethnocentrism" but we can't do that unless you answer this.

liam76: What terms would you use to differentiate between someone who hated chinese language, food, culture, etc, but had no problem with people of chinese heritage?



Party Boy: This is going to depend on the question and paradigm.

Stay focused


Yea, and in this question the paradigm fits.

Party Boy: I don't know your friend. The reason I am not answering that is that the question is unsolvable with the information given.


But it is answerable with a white person from the US who hates blacks? Why is that?

Party Boy: Where is the difficulty in applying "racism" to the current Israeli state? You are going to find your answer here.


I don't see a difficulty.


skepticultist: And I am saying that your entire argument is a tactic to distract from the pressing need to address the ongoing effects of four hundred years of white supremacy. You want to focus on the mote in the black man's eye so that you can ignore the beam in the white man's.


You are drawing far more attention to the "mote" than I am by ignoring it. Acknowledging a mote doesn't imply there is no beam.

If I pointed out that men should be careful of breast cancer is that a tactic to distract from the pressing need to female breast cancer?


skepticultist: I'd call him prejudiced, because my vocabularly isn't so limited that I need to use words with specific meanings incorrectly, and the correct term for what you are describing is prejudice.


An Arab Egyptian in Egypt is in a position of power. If he has bigotry towards nubians (who don't have power) that seems to fit your definition. You said before that you didn't say it can only apply to white people, but that is what this question indicates.

skepticultist: It's as ridiculous as calling English prejudice towards Irish (and vice versa) "racism."


Go to a bar in Ireland and tell them how ridiculous it is to say the English are racist against the Irish.

Last I check Aborigines were caucasian, does that mean that "white" australians that hate them aren't really racist?

Interesting to learn that all that racism against Roma in Europe that I have heard about is garbage because they are cuacasian as well.
 
2012-03-19 09:17:36 PM  

liam76: "based on European empiricism and science" was the claim I was addressing.


Han Chinese - No. White "redneck" - Yes. Theres a pattern here.

liam76: Indescribable in effect from the one we see from Europeans.

Party Boy: Race is a particular term with its own historical context.

Do the Han separate them out based on European empiricism and science? No.

More importantly, are the Han employing a paradigm that, as in Race and racism, place the Europeans at the top of a ethnic heirarchy? No.



liam76: I don't see a difficulty.


Apply it, then. Make the argument that racism fits the Israeli state and not ethnocentrism.
 
2012-03-19 09:18:33 PM  

Party Boy: Han Chinese


ancient han
 
2012-03-19 11:27:42 PM  

sno man: from the wiki: (just the first paragraph)


And there's your problem!!! You should read the whole article. Particularly the history section.


liam76: skepticultist: And I am saying that your entire argument is a tactic to distract from the pressing need to address the ongoing effects of four hundred years of white supremacy. You want to focus on the mote in the black man's eye so that you can ignore the beam in the white man's.

You are drawing far more attention to the "mote" than I am by ignoring it. Acknowledging a mote doesn't imply there is no beam.


When some racist farkwad like you demands that the mote be acknowledged every single time the issue of racism comes up, and discussion of the mote always takes precedence before discussion of the beam, that's a real problem. I don't know youy liam, maybe you're just a jackass playing devil's advocate, but this shiat is real.

Just last week a boy in Florida was shot to death for the crime of walking down a street with a pack of skittles while being black. His killer gets to walk free because we live in a deeply racist society that considers being terrified of black men, even harmless 14 year old black teenagers, to be a reasonable fear.

And f*ckwits like you, who mewl and mince and disingenuously argue around these issues in such a way that they continue to go unaddressed and unresolved are doing nothing to help anyone. All you are doing is making sure that next week another black kid is going to get shot for the crime of being black and scaring a white dude with his blackness. All you are doing is providing cover for neo-Nazi farks like that shiathead that was posting in here earlier.

Well, fark you. You can go eat a bag of dicks and die in a fire. Because this shiat is not amusing.
 
2012-03-19 11:49:33 PM  

skepticultist: sno man: from the wiki: (just the first paragraph)

And there's your problem!!! You should read the whole article. Particularly the history section.


liam76: skepticultist: And I am saying that your entire argument is a tactic to distract from the pressing need to address the ongoing effects of four hundred years of white supremacy. You want to focus on the mote in the black man's eye so that you can ignore the beam in the white man's.

You are drawing far more attention to the "mote" than I am by ignoring it. Acknowledging a mote doesn't imply there is no beam.

When some racist farkwad like you demands that the mote be acknowledged every single time the issue of racism comes up, and discussion of the mote always takes precedence before discussion of the beam, that's a real problem. I don't know youy liam, maybe you're just a jackass playing devil's advocate, but this shiat is real.

Just last week a boy in Florida was shot to death for the crime of walking down a street with a pack of skittles while being black. His killer gets to walk free because we live in a deeply racist society that considers being terrified of black men, even harmless 14 year old black teenagers, to be a reasonable fear.

And f*ckwits like you, who mewl and mince and disingenuously argue around these issues in such a way that they continue to go unaddressed and unresolved are doing nothing to help anyone. All you are doing is making sure that next week another black kid is going to get shot for the crime of being black and scaring a white dude with his blackness. All you are doing is providing cover for neo-Nazi farks like that shiathead that was posting in here earlier.

Well, fark you. You can go eat a bag of dicks and die in a fire. Because this shiat is not amusing.


skepticultist: sno man: from the wiki: (just the first paragraph)

And there's your problem!!! You should read the whole article. Particularly the history section.

did read it. You continue to pick and choose only the low hanging fruit. good for you.


liam76: skepticultist: And I am saying that your entire argument is a tactic to distract from the pressing need to address the ongoing effects of four hundred years of white supremacy. You want to focus on the mote in the black man's eye so that you can ignore the beam in the white man's.

You are drawing far more attention to the "mote" than I am by ignoring it. Acknowledging a mote doesn't imply there is no beam.

When some racist farkwad like you demands that the mote be acknowledged every single time the issue of racism comes up, and discussion of the mote always takes precedence before discussion of the beam, that's a real problem. I don't know youy liam, maybe you're just a jackass playing devil's advocate, but this shiat is real.

Just last week a boy in Florida was shot to death for the crime of walking down a street with a pack of skittles while being black. His killer gets to walk free because we live in a deeply racist society that considers being terrified of black men, even harmless 14 year old black teenagers, to be a reasonable fear.

don't let the fact that the law is farked in Fl re: self defense, and that the guy with the gun wasn't actually white, and that it was more likely the bottle of water that got him shot, get in the way of a good story though

And f*ckwits like you, who mewl and mince and disingenuously argue around these issues in such a way that they continue to go unaddressed and unresolved are doing nothing to help anyone. All you are doing is making sure that next week another black kid is going to get shot for the crime of being black and scaring a white dude with his blackness. All you are doing is providing cover for neo-Nazi farks like that shiathead that was posting in here earlier.

Well, fark you. You can go eat a bag of dicks and die in a fire. Because this shiat is not amusing.


Dude seriously, get help for your anger issues.
Racism is way more widespread than your monochrome mind seems to be able to accept. get over it.
 
2012-03-20 07:02:33 AM  
animal color:
I spent my youth fighting to help folks like you understand that the First Amendment to the Constitution doesn't protect butthurt prats like you -- or the loons at Breitbart and WMD -- from the consequences of what you say.

You were in the Hitler Youth? Amazing.

Free speech is not about who you can shut up. And, this fascist undertone to the left is clearly not limited to Fark. The left is constantly trying to silence anyone with a competing idea, presumably because they know how weak their own are. From trying to get Rush off the air, to drowning out speakers at public events, to bullshiat attempts to get Fox News off the air, the left has always known that, given a fair competition, their ideas lose. Their consistent approach has been to control media and the schools, and make their viewpoint required by law while silencing others. And you call this First Amendment rights? I suppose Kristallnacht was just people expressing their shopping preferences?
 
2012-03-20 07:42:09 AM  

skepticultist: When some racist farkwad like you demands that the mote be acknowledged every single time the issue of racism comes up, and discussion of the mote always takes precedence before discussion of the beam, that's a real problem. I don't know youy liam, maybe you're just a jackass playing devil's advocate, but this shiat is real.


If we were in the thread about that boy who was shot and I spouted off about racist black people you may have a point. As it stands you are teh racist farkwit who came in screaming that only white people can be racist (and have changed your definition to keep up that BS theory).

Party Boy: liam76: "based on European empiricism and science" was the claim I was addressing.

Han Chinese - No. White "redneck" - Yes. Theres a pattern here.


If you can apply that to a white redneck who never read a book about or studied "European empiricism and science" and hated black people because his daddy did (which I would argues accounts for far more racism), then you can apply it to Han chinese.



Party Boy: rehashed points I adressed


I responded to that. If you have a problem with those responses adress them.

There isn't a point in this if you continuely ignore my questions and just keep repeating yours.


You still keep ignoring the important question. You are arguing that my definition of racism and ethocentrism are wrong, but you haven't put forth your definition, and most importantly you haven't put forward what you would use to differentiate between someone who hates/dislikes a culture and someone who hates/dislikes people from that culture regardless if they keep with that culture.

Apply it, then. Make the argument that racism fits the Israeli state and not ethnocentrism.

If we are talking about Sehardic and ashkenanzi problems (which you were alluding to earlier), I would use racism. I have a problem saying that just because there is racism there it is a racist state. (unless of course you want to apply the same logic to Ireland, Greece, etc all the countries that have citizenship priorities based on heritage).
 
2012-03-20 08:05:01 AM  

skepticultist: Just last week a boy in Florida was shot to death for the crime of walking down a street with a pack of skittles while being black. His killer gets to walk free because we live in a deeply racist society that considers being terrified of black men, even harmless 14 year old black teenagers, to be a reasonable fear.


I shouldn't be suprised at your ignorance anymore at this point.

But the person shot was 17 (doesn't make it better, just pointing out how consistantly wrong you are).

Look at image 2, and tell me if you think he is white. (new window)

Guess that can't be a racist act, according to you.
 
2012-03-20 10:00:06 AM  

liam76: because his daddy did


Gee... I wonder where that came from.


liam76: rehashed points I adressed


Lets see how you responded to them...


-------------
skipped post
--------------
liam76: Indescribable in effect from the one we see from Europeans.

Party Boy: Race is a particular term with its own historical context.

Do the Han separate them out based on European empiricism and science? No.

More importantly, are the Han employing a paradigm that, as in Race and racism, place the Europeans at the top of a ethnic heirarchy? No.



liam76: I don't see a difficulty.


Apply it, then. Make the argument that racism fits the Israeli state and not ethnocentrism.

------
your "response," unfisked
Yes it is possible.If people did something or had the same attitude to match something recently named, we can apply that name o actions in the past. Does some racist hillybilly who never read a book hate black because of "European empiricism and science" or because that is what his parents taught him? They employed a paradigm that placed them at the top.

We have the "racist Hilbilly" comment, where

Party Boy: I hope you can look at this and understand why "racist hilbilly" and "ancient han" are completely different when talking about an Early Modern European invention,

and you note that

liam76: "based on European empiricism and science"

.

Ancient Han - no. Ancient Han are different, because

liam76: They employed a paradigm that placed them at the top.

This makes it a different paradigm, for starters. Then you have the structure that its based on - empiricism, science, heritable phenotype, etc.

liam76: but you haven't put forth your definition


This is pretty small minded. This needs a large discussion, rather than some "td:dr." I've suggested one book above. You need some reading and I would suggest you start from there. control -f hannaford.

liam76: I have a problem saying that just because there is racism there it is a racist state.


Here we go.. Why not?
 
2012-03-20 10:35:40 AM  

Party Boy: liam76: because his daddy did

Gee... I wonder where that came from.


It came from his dad. If your point is that it has to be based on "European empiricism and science" then your point fails becasue that is not the basis for most racists today. It is largely learned from yoru family with no real research, just as it was for the ancient Hans.


Party Boy: This makes it a different paradigm, for starters. Then you have the structure that its based on - empiricism, science, heritable phenotype, etc.


And? It is "different" but it is minimially different than racism in practice when the US had anti interracial marriage laws. It is a paradigm that places them on top and uses similiarly defined terms for "grouping".

Your basic argument is that since eurpoeans invented this construct it can;t be applied to any groups that used similiar copnstructs before it, which I am saying is BS.

Party Boy: liam76: I have a problem saying that just because there is racism there it is a racist state. (unless of course you want to apply the same logic to Ireland, Greece, etc all the countries that have citizenship priorities based on heritage).
Here we go.. Why not?


I have bolded the section you cut out.

I don't remember you being this underhanded. I think the bolded section makes it pretty clear why not. Why woudl you cut that part out in your response?


Party Boy: liam76: You still keep ignoring the important question. You are arguing that my definition of racism and ethocentrism are wrong, but you haven't put forth your definition, and most importantly you haven't put forward what you would use to differentiate between someone who hates/dislikes a culture and someone who hates/dislikes people from that culture regardless if they keep with that culture
This is pretty small minded. This needs a large discussion, rather than some "td:dr." I've suggested one book above. You need some reading and I would suggest you start from there. control -f hannaford.


Actually it is pretty simple. We may disagree on what constitutes a "race" since it has changed a lot through time, but when we talk about the differences between racism and ethnocetrism it is very straighforward. Just like anti-semetism means anti jew not snti semite "racism" doesn't have to apply to "race" as scientifically defined.

Your inability to make a distinction in the above bolded section (which you cut out of your reply) is a problem. Every difinition or usage I have heard backs up how I use it (outside of peopel who say that only white people are racist). Wiki backs up how I use it. Seems like you are trying to obfuscate things, unless you can point out how I use it is wrong and explain how you would make the distinction there isn't much point in going on.
 
2012-03-20 03:41:17 PM  

liam76: It came from his dad. If your point is that it has to be based on "European empiricism and science"


You can just stop there. Youll need to add in the historical contexts now.

liam76: And? It is "different"


Yep.

liam76: Indescribable in effect from the one we see from Europeans.


liam76: They employed a paradigm that placed them at the top.



Indescribable to a different paradigm.

QED

liam76: Every difinition or usage I have heard


Read the book I suggested above, then get back to me. No more wiki. No more loose sources of "what you heard."

Read some serious work on the subject, then come back to this.
 
2012-03-20 03:48:09 PM  

liam76: Just like anti-semetism means anti jew not snti semite "racism" doesn't have to apply to "race" as scientifically defined.


This is frustrating. You should be able to understand how your particularism and context on one point and decontextualization on the other works entirely against your argument.

You have to take the time to read just one quality book on the subject. I've suggested a classic. After that, I'm happy to entertain this.

Seriously, you are telling me its "indistinguishable", then say its a different paradigm. Bleh.
 
2012-03-20 05:18:13 PM  

Party Boy: liam76: It came from his dad. If your point is that it has to be based on "European empiricism and science"

You can just stop there. Youll need to add in the historical contexts now.



Funny how you can stop in your quoting of me.

And actually I can stop there.

Doesn't matter what process brought them to the stage where they thought Tibetans or blacks were inferior and not to be married the point is they arrived in the same treatment of them.

Party Boy: liam76: And? It is "different"but it is minimially different than racism in practice when the US had anti interracial marriage laws.

Yep.


Glad you agree.

Party Boy: liam76: Indescribable in effect from the one we see from Europeans.


I think I see a problem (aside from you ignoring half my points and ignoring my responses). I was screwed by spell check there, should have read "indiscernible".

Party Boy: This is frustrating. You should be able to understand how your particularism and context on one point and decontextualization on the other works entirely against your argument.



I am very consistent. Racism has been applied to actions against ethnic groups for quite some time. If you want to argue this is because it came into being when "the arab race", the "Irish race", or the "japanese race" were considered "races" or because of common usage, I don't care. But it is consistent with how people use it.

Same with anti-semetiem.

My argument is only a problem if you lack that consistency and don't look at the real usage of one of the words.

Party Boy: Seriously, you are telling me its "indistinguishable in effect", then say its a different paradigm. Bleh


Fixed that for you.


Party Boy: Read the book I suggested above, then get back to me. No more wiki. No more loose sources of "what you heard."


No more loose sources? You have presented no sources, and you have failed to explain how you would differentiate between two very different attitudes.

If you can't do that very simple task then you either didn't understand that book, or it does nothing but confuse the issue.
 
2012-03-20 05:29:39 PM  
Still waiting on this one.

liam76: Party Boy: liam76: I have a problem saying that just because there is racism there it is a racist state. (unless of course you want to apply the same logic to Ireland, Greece, etc all the countries that have citizenship priorities based on heritage).


Here we go.. Why not?


I have bolded the section you cut out. I don't remember you being this underhanded. I think the bolded section makes it pretty clear why not. Why would you cut that part out in your response?

 
2012-03-21 12:07:22 AM  

liam76: I am very consistent


liam76: Indescribable in effect from the one we see from Europeans.

liam76: They employed a paradigm that placed them at the top.


You contradict yourself. Two different paradigms, by admission, but they're ... ahem.... "indistinguishable in effect"

liam76: You have presented no sources


I mention hannaford twice. 1, 2. You even have it in your post.

Is something wrong with you?


liam76: I am very consistent


Party Boy: You should be able to understand how your particularism and context on one point and decontextualization on the other works entirely against your argument.



Its two standards of particularism and decontextualization.... then you claiming to know "how people use it."

It gets stranger


liam76: liam76: Party Boy: liam76: I have a problem saying that just because there is racism there it is a racist state. (unless of course you want to apply the same logic to Ireland, Greece, etc all the countries that have citizenship priorities based on heritage).

Here we go.. Why not?

I have bolded the section you cut out. I don't remember you being this underhanded. I think the bolded section makes it pretty clear why not. Why would you cut that part out in your response?



I'm cutting it out because this is a tough point for you. I've clearly had the point that it doesnt fit (race-state), and thus to use if for other countries... would be similarly dumb. Somehow, this point has blown by you. You cannot understand this simple basic point. How do I continue?

I don't think its possible. You cannot even see the suggested reading for you, even when you quote it. Wow.

Have the last word. its all yours.
 
2012-03-21 12:23:20 AM  

liam76: skepticultist: When some racist farkwad like you demands that the mote be acknowledged every single time the issue of racism comes up, and discussion of the mote always takes precedence before discussion of the beam, that's a real problem. I don't know youy liam, maybe you're just a jackass playing devil's advocate, but this shiat is real.

If we were in the thread about that boy who was shot and I spouted off about racist black people you may have a point. As it stands you are teh racist farkwit who came in screaming that only white people can be racist (and have changed your definition to keep up that BS theory).


No, instead you're in a thread about racist farks proclaiming that voting for a black man for president specifically because he's black, and would thus be the first ever black president, is racist. And you are apparently defending that position.

So I'm guessing you think BET is racist, and affirmative action is racist, and pointing out racism is racist.

liam76: I shouldn't be suprised at your ignorance anymore at this point.

But the person shot was 17 (doesn't make it better, just pointing out how consistantly wrong you are).


Oh noes, I got the age wrong. That completely demolishes my argument! You're an idiot.

Look at image 2, and tell me if you think he is white. (new window)

Yeah, I thought he was white. I mean his name is George Zimmerman, not exactly a hispanic name.

Guess that can't be a racist act, according to you.

No, it totally is racist. But what you aren't getting is that it is racist in the exact way I've been describing. Go back through this thread and you'll see that I have acknowledged that minorities can be racist, but that to say a minority is racist is to say that they have embraced the ideology of white supremacism. Fearing black youths without any cause, simply because they are black, is part and parcel of white supremacism. George Zimmerman is racist in the exact same way a KKK member is. That he is hispanic is of exactly zero relevance. He could be black himself and it would have no relevance.

But fark this, I'm done talking to you. You're a disingenuous little biatch.
 
2012-03-21 07:01:17 AM  

Party Boy: You contradict yourself. Two different paradigms, by admission, but they're ... ahem.... "indistinguishable in effect"


So two different things can't be indistinguishable in effect"?

A vodka Martini is different than a Gin Martini, but they are "indistinguishable in effect".

Is that a contradiction.

Party Boy: liam76: You have presented no sources

I mention hannaford twice. 1, 2. You even have it in your post.

Is something wrong with you?


Satung there is some guy who agrees with me, linking to his book and not posting what he says isn't presenting your sources.

Party Boy: Its two standards of particularism and decontextualization.... then you claiming to know "how people use it."

It gets stranger


No it is one standard. How it is used. How the dictionary defines it. Really not that complicated. The fact that you can't explain how it should be used and instead link to a book (not even a section or passage of a book, but an entire book) shows you have no idea what you are talking about, don't get the book, or the book is just trying to muddy things up (maybe in an attempt to pretend that only white people can be racist, ala skepticultist).

Party Boy: I'm cutting it out because this is a tough point for you. I've clearly had the point that it doesnt fit (race-state), and thus to use if for other countries... would be similarly dumb. Somehow, this point has blown by you. You cannot understand this simple basic point. How do I continue?


BS. I made a point then explained it, you responded to the point, without the explination then questioned it.

If you think it doesn't fit for another reason, then explain it, dont chop up my responses to pretend I am talking about something else.



Your inability to make a distinction someone who hates/dislikes a culture and someone who hates/dislikes people from that culture regardless if they keep with that culture is the problem. It shows either you don't understand the books you have read or they are just trying to obfuscate things.


skepticultist: No, instead you're in a thread about racist farks proclaiming that voting for a black man for president specifically because he's black, and would thus be the first ever black president, is racist. And you are apparently defending that position.

So I'm guessing you think BET is racist, and affirmative action is racist, and pointing out racism is racist.


If you vote on someone based on their race, yes you are a racist.

If affirmative action is based on race, yes it is racist.

BET and pointing out problems, however is not. Of course you being completely dishonest and pulling things out of your ass is nothing new in thei thread.

skepticultist: Oh noes, I got the age wrong. That completely demolishes my argument! You're an idiot.


It is another in the long list of things that show you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

skepticultist: No, it totally is racist. But what you aren't getting is that it is racist in the exact way I've been describing. Go back through this thread and you'll see that I have acknowledged that minorities can be racist, but that to say a minority is racist is to say that they have embraced the ideology of white supremacism.


So what you are saying is that you changed your mind from the "bigory+ power=racism" idea.

Why don't you run along and come back when you can keep your own shiat straight.
 
2012-03-21 11:47:53 AM  

liam76: If affirmative action is based on race, yes it is racist.


img825.imageshack.us

You're an idiot.
 
2012-03-21 12:57:32 PM  

skepticultist: liam76: If affirmative action is based on race, yes it is racist.



You're an idiot


And you are a racist.

Your cartoon (and the idea behind race based affirmative action) implies that every black person is worse off in life than every white person, and that every white person got ahead on the back of slaves. In a world where that was true race based affirmative action would make sense. Yout cartoon would be true.

We don't live in that world.

It is racist to assume all blacks are below whites and all need a hand up. It is racist to assume that all whites are sitting comfotably and need no help.

The fact racists like yourself don't like to acknowledge is that parental income is a far greater indicator of success in life than race, hence poverty based affirmative action makes sense.
 
2012-03-21 09:29:52 PM  

liam76: skepticultist: liam76: If affirmative action is based on race, yes it is racist.



You're an idiot

And you are a racist.

Your cartoon (and the idea behind race based affirmative action) implies that every black person is worse off in life than every white person, and that every white person got ahead on the back of slaves. In a world where that was true race based affirmative action would make sense. Yout cartoon would be true.

We don't live in that world.

It is racist to assume all blacks are below whites and all need a hand up. It is racist to assume that all whites are sitting comfotably and need no help.

The fact racists like yourself don't like to acknowledge is that parental income is a far greater indicator of success in life than race, hence poverty based affirmative action makes sense.


Congratulations, you have just made the "People who want to address the consequences of racism are racists" arguments. You have achieved Full Derp. You lose.
 
Displayed 41 of 341 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report