Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

What is Racism? Seriously, how is it applied?

Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 12:55:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Title says it all.

To some, it seems racism is some form of elitism where the view is one race is better than all others, or one is worse than all others.

To others, it is simply a generalization fallacy where you apply a trait to an entire race.

Still, others believe it is an action that results in a disparate impact, which means there is no motive nor defense for such a charge. For example, using SAT scores for college admittance (assuming some race historically has poor performance), and as a result, said race is negatively affected.

This last one really bothers me, because it negates any rationale someone may have while attacking them. A common one I hear is when the GOP attacks "blacks people" by means of welfare or early voting (ironic, that the attack is viewed as racist since it assumed the victims are of a race), even though they are not attacking them for being black, but for being Democrat.

So, how, exactly, is something racist, if race isn't a factor in someone's decision making?
My work here is, finally, done.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 1:04:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 12:55:24 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

This last one really bothers me, because it negates any rationale someone may have while attacking them. A common one I hear is when the GOP attacks "blacks people" by means of welfare or early voting (ironic, that the attack is viewed as racist since it assumed the victims are of a race), even though they are not attacking them for being black, but for being Democrat.

Can't a group attack Black people without being racist?
lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 4:32:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Google it.
Why I ignore YYW:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Calling someone a bitch multiple times while claiming you're taking the high road is an art form, I suppose: http://www.debate.org...
lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 4:38:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 4:32:37 PM, lamerde wrote:
Google it.

Wow, over 200,000 search results for "Why are SAT scores racist?" I'm sure you can replace "SAT" with "standardized testing" and also get many results.

There comes a point where a person must take initiative if they're really interested in learning. Personally, I don't think you're interested in learning. Where better place to learn about race than asking a bunch of white boys on DDO?
Why I ignore YYW:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Calling someone a bitch multiple times while claiming you're taking the high road is an art form, I suppose: http://www.debate.org...
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 5:17:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 12:55:24 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Title says it all.

To some, it seems racism is some form of elitism where the view is one race is better than all others, or one is worse than all others.

To others, it is simply a generalization fallacy where you apply a trait to an entire race.
This really depends. What kind of a generalization fallacy? Saying that asian people have smaller - or even different - eyes is applying a trait to an entire race, but is it really a 'generalization fallacy'? Is that not inherently true to those of oriental genealogy?

Contrast that with saying, "black people have large penises", or "white people have small penises". Those are pretty clearly not inherently true to either race, and teeter more along the edge of a racist statement (imho). I'm not sure it's fair to say applying a trait to an entire race is a "racist" thing to do, because identifying people by 'race' is just a method of trait characterization in and of itself.

Here's what my dictionary on my laptop provides as a definition for racism..

racism|noun
- the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

- prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior: a program to combat racism.

(..)
See the first definition. It's kind of vague, because it doesn't really elaborate much on what it means by 'characteristics' or 'abilities'. However, I would deduce by common sense that in saying 'characteristics', the definition is referring to "social" or "cultural" characteristics and abilities; rather than attributes definitively associated with the race by nature. There's your definitive line in the sand. Saying that those physical attributes (or even attributes like asians having higher IQs on balance) have some sort of grander social significance or relevance is racist; even if it is not to the extent of trying to present yourself as an elitist because of your race.

Still, others believe it is an action that results in a disparate impact, which means there is no motive nor defense for such a charge. For example, using SAT scores for college admittance (assuming some race historically has poor performance), and as a result, said race is negatively affected.
I tend to think of myself as very leaning towards social liberalism, and I don't think that's racist. Racism works - or should be perceived as working, anyway - in both directions. Saying that someone needs help being admitted to a college because they were born with brown skin is racist, and to say that someone's chances need to be lowered because they are white is equally so.

This last one really bothers me, because it negates any rationale someone may have while attacking them. A common one I hear is when the GOP attacks "blacks people" by means of welfare or early voting (ironic, that the attack is viewed as racist since it assumed the victims are of a race), even though they are not attacking them for being black, but for being Democrat.

So, how, exactly, is something racist, if race isn't a factor in someone's decision making?
I don't think we can objectively say that race wasn't a factor in any one person's decision making - I think it's been inflated within society to such an extent that it sort of always is. Do you really believe the minds of the Republican lawmakers who made that decision were entirely non-racially motivated?
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 9:11:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 4:38:06 PM, lamerde wrote:
At 5/25/2015 4:32:37 PM, lamerde wrote:
Google it.

Wow, over 200,000 search results for "Why are SAT scores racist?" I'm sure you can replace "SAT" with "standardized testing" and also get many results.

There comes a point where a person must take initiative if they're really interested in learning. Personally, I don't think you're interested in learning. Where better place to learn about race than asking a bunch of white boys on DDO?

You know, I posted this thread with you (and others) in mind.
You refusing to define racism just proves me right about a theory I have.

I didn't ask why are SAT scores racist, did I? I asked what is racism. I'm aware of why people say it is, but, that doesn't comport to the stated definitions of racism I can find. This begs the question: what is the definition of racism, hence this thread.

You know, this is the google definition of racism:
"the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
^ prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."


According to you, calling a thug who is black a thug is racist, but, that doesn't hold up by this definition, so, clearly you have a different definition.
So, please, share it.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 9:24:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 5:17:37 PM, Daltonian wrote:
At 5/25/2015 12:55:24 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Title says it all.

To some, it seems racism is some form of elitism where the view is one race is better than all others, or one is worse than all others.

To others, it is simply a generalization fallacy where you apply a trait to an entire race.
This really depends. What kind of a generalization fallacy? Saying that asian people have smaller - or even different - eyes is applying a trait to an entire race, but is it really a 'generalization fallacy'? Is that not inherently true to those of oriental genealogy?

Ah, but this goes into something else: is racism inherently bad? There can be good racism and bad racism, or even null racism, the latter as you described. Besides, does every single Asian have these eyes? Can a non-Asian not have them? Mixed race?

So, how, exactly, is something racist, if race isn't a factor in someone's decision making?

I don't think we can objectively say that race wasn't a factor in any one person's decision making - I think it's been inflated within society to such an extent that it sort of always is.
I think it can be demonstrated it is insignificant. The onus, in my opinion, is to prove that one's racist thoughts were relevant in said action, as I believe racism takes motivation (i.e. thought crime).
After all, if I told you that the only black man in my company was told he would never get a promotion, can you objectively say that is racist?

Do you really believe the minds of the Republican lawmakers who made that decision were entirely non-racially motivated?
This may have been a bad example, but, yes, I do believe race was a minor, if even significant at all, in this push. In the case of early voting, minorities are not the only ones that do this, and even if it were, I don't believe they push this because they are black, but use the fact they are black to identify what tactic will work.
My work here is, finally, done.
Dilara
Posts: 661
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 10:04:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 12:55:24 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Title says it all.

To some, it seems racism is some form of elitism where the view is one race is better than all others, or one is worse than all others.

To others, it is simply a generalization fallacy where you apply a trait to an entire race.

Still, others believe it is an action that results in a disparate impact, which means there is no motive nor defense for such a charge. For example, using SAT scores for college admittance (assuming some race historically has poor performance), and as a result, said race is negatively affected.

This last one really bothers me, because it negates any rationale someone may have while attacking them. A common one I hear is when the GOP attacks "blacks people" by means of welfare or early voting (ironic, that the attack is viewed as racist since it assumed the victims are of a race), even though they are not attacking them for being black, but for being Democrat.

So, how, exactly, is something racist, if race isn't a factor in someone's decision making?

Hating people because of their race. Hate crimes, affirmative action, eugenics, hate speech, praising racists...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 10:12:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 10:04:53 PM, Dilara wrote:

Hating people because of their race. Hate crimes, affirmative action, eugenics, hate speech, praising racists...

Hate speech and affirmative action have nothing to do with hating people because of their race, inherently. So, I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
My work here is, finally, done.
lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 10:38:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 9:11:52 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

You know, I posted this thread with you (and others) in mind.
You refusing to define racism just proves me right about a theory I have.

Using dictionary definitions when it is such a contentiously debated issue means nothing. It would be like using the dictionary definition of "person" to win an abortion debate. Most race scholars will tell you that racism is systemic - the problem is you (and others) want to define it individually, in terms of who's mean to what race. It is a system of belief that privileges white skin and devalues and discriminates against "other". It does not have to be intentional, and it does not have to be overt.

There are whole chapters, articles, and books, devoted to defining the phenomenon, but you want it in a few nice words? I'll let Paul Mooney do that.

http://www.teabreakfast.com...

I didn't ask why are SAT scores racist, did I? I asked what is racism. I'm aware of why people say it is, but, that doesn't comport to the stated definitions of racism I can find. This begs the question: what is the definition of racism, hence this thread.

You said in the OP it bothers you the most that people claim SAT scores are racist. If you'd Google'd it, you wold see why standardized testing is racist, and it does match the scholarly definition of racism.

Standardized testing is systematically biased and that has been proven - did you Google it? I don't think he Google'd it.

You know, this is the google definition of racism:
"the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
^ prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."


According to you, calling a thug who is black a thug is racist, but, that doesn't hold up by this definition, so, clearly you have a different definition.
So, please, share it.

Do you think it's racist to call a Black person a n***er if they act like a n***er?

I mean, you're looking at an incredibly complicated, nuanced, and broad topic (racism) and expecting it to be defined in one or two nice sentences. Like I said, racism is a system of belief that manifests itself in our institutions in addition to our individual interactions with each other. It stems from societal beliefs about different races, and the fact that there are power differentials among the races. Racism is the root of discrimination against certain groups, as well as systematic bias in an effort to keep certain groups in the margins.
Why I ignore YYW:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Calling someone a bitch multiple times while claiming you're taking the high road is an art form, I suppose: http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 11:17:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 10:38:58 PM, lamerde wrote:
At 5/25/2015 9:11:52 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

You know, I posted this thread with you (and others) in mind.
You refusing to define racism just proves me right about a theory I have.

Using dictionary definitions when it is such a contentiously debated issue means nothing. It would be like using the dictionary definition of "person" to win an abortion debate.

Yet refusing to define terms like "what is a person" to win an abortion debate means something?

That's contradictory, a meaning without a defining is a paper tiger.

Instead of using a concrete phrase as "means something," how about an applicable word like amorphous, as in "all hotly contested ideas should be amorphous and undefinable?"

At least that would be consistent. I would never use meaning and vague as synonyms, even implied.
lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2015 12:25:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
@greyparrot - did I not provide a definition of racism? I'm not sure what your point is.
Why I ignore YYW:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Calling someone a bitch multiple times while claiming you're taking the high road is an art form, I suppose: http://www.debate.org...
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,027
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2015 5:14:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 12:55:24 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Title says it all.

To some, it seems racism is some form of elitism where the view is one race is better than all others, or one is worse than all others.

To others, it is simply a generalization fallacy where you apply a trait to an entire race.

I view racism as both of these things, and ultimately view the term "racism" an as umbrella term that captures any and all discriminatory actions or thoughts against others based on skin color.

Still, others believe it is an action that results in a disparate impact, which means there is no motive nor defense for such a charge. For example, using SAT scores for college admittance (assuming some race historically has poor performance), and as a result, said race is negatively affected.

Ehhh, idk. I think we have to look at the socioeconomic settings of all the kids. Most black children come from ghettos where academic performance isn't valued as highly as other pursuits. More importantly though, we should look at the intent behind the history of weighing SAT scores so heavily when it comes to college admittance. Perhaps it was indeed meant to be a means of culling the non-whites from colleges, but, without solid proof, it's more likely just that black kids perform worse than others due to other factors like their home-life.

This last one really bothers me, because it negates any rationale someone may have while attacking them. A common one I hear is when the GOP attacks "blacks people" by means of welfare or early voting (ironic, that the attack is viewed as racist since it assumed the victims are of a race), even though they are not attacking them for being black, but for being Democrat.

So, how, exactly, is something racist, if race isn't a factor in someone's decision making?

It wouldn't be (or shouldn't be, lol).

It's only racist if race is a factor. Without race being a factor, it's, by definition, not racist. What you describe in your last paragraph just sounds more like political party discrimination (idk if there's an actual term for such a thing or not).
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2015 5:18:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/26/2015 12:25:27 AM, lamerde wrote:
@greyparrot - did I not provide a definition of racism? I'm not sure what your point is.

Sorry, I saw the video (audio) definition you posted. Disregard above.
Dilara
Posts: 661
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2015 8:35:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 10:12:13 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/25/2015 10:04:53 PM, Dilara wrote:

Hating people because of their race. Hate crimes, affirmative action, eugenics, hate speech, praising racists...

Hate speech and affirmative action have nothing to do with hating people because of their race, inherently. So, I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

On purposely disadvantaging people because of their race, hating them because of their race and committing a crime against them because of their race.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2015 10:25:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/26/2015 8:35:19 AM, Dilara wrote:
At 5/25/2015 10:12:13 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/25/2015 10:04:53 PM, Dilara wrote:

Hating people because of their race. Hate crimes, affirmative action, eugenics, hate speech, praising racists...

Hate speech and affirmative action have nothing to do with hating people because of their race, inherently. So, I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

On purposely disadvantaging people because of their race, hating them because of their race and committing a crime against them because of their race.

None of those criteria can be applied to racism if your agenda is to shield the Black community from charges of racism.
slo1
Posts: 4,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2015 12:19:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 10:38:58 PM, lamerde wrote:
At 5/25/2015 9:11:52 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

You know, I posted this thread with you (and others) in mind.
You refusing to define racism just proves me right about a theory I have.

Using dictionary definitions when it is such a contentiously debated issue means nothing. It would be like using the dictionary definition of "person" to win an abortion debate. Most race scholars will tell you that racism is systemic - the problem is you (and others) want to define it individually, in terms of who's mean to what race. It is a system of belief that privileges white skin and devalues and discriminates against "other". It does not have to be intentional, and it does not have to be overt.

There are whole chapters, articles, and books, devoted to defining the phenomenon, but you want it in a few nice words? I'll let Paul Mooney do that.

http://www.teabreakfast.com...

Paul Mooney, is rather foolish, implying that a black person or people could never be in a position of power over people of a different race and exhibit a negative behavior against a person of a different race because of their race.

I understand that society as a whole is white and there has been systematic racism against blacks and even continues to be, but to say that blacks could never be racist is rather asinine. You would have to prove that a black owned company is not in control of its hiring decisions to prove to me that there is no situations where blacks don't have any power over people of another race. I would even go as far as to describe him as a racist to blacks for implying that it is impossible for blacks to ever be in a position of power over other people. How does he get off making such accusations towards black people? Secondly, as there gets to be more and more black people in power, how is it that he is not preaching the importance to not use race as a factor in judgement so history does not repeat itself.

Fundamentally when one argues racism based upon majority rather than the actual act of using race as a factor to the detriment of others, you are setting yourself up for failure when:
1. Whites are no longer the majority.
2. It has been proven that racism from police towards blacks is not eliminated by having black police officers.
3. Racism is deeply rooted in unconscious functions of the brain which all humans have.

I'm very disappointed in Paul Mooney, I would like to end with an analogy. It seems that many people place a premium on the expressed beliefs of African Americans towards racism because they experience it, often daily in some areas.

I would like to remind people that being observer in the midst of an event or situation is not always the most objective. That is why the psychologist maybe great at dispensing helpful advice to a parent and child who are having conflict, but may not be the best at handling the conflict between themselves and their own child.
Dilara
Posts: 661
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2015 6:45:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/26/2015 10:25:38 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/26/2015 8:35:19 AM, Dilara wrote:
At 5/25/2015 10:12:13 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/25/2015 10:04:53 PM, Dilara wrote:

Hating people because of their race. Hate crimes, affirmative action, eugenics, hate speech, praising racists...

Hate speech and affirmative action have nothing to do with hating people because of their race, inherently. So, I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

On purposely disadvantaging people because of their race, hating them because of their race and committing a crime against them because of their race.

None of those criteria can be applied to racism if your agenda is to shield the Black community from charges of racism.
Shielding blacks from racism disadvantaging innocent people and not letting a qualified person get a job or a spot in a college because he's white? That's racist. Denying someone something they deserve and worked hard for because they're white isn't racist?. And blacks aren't stupid like AA supporters think. They don't need racism to get jobs
lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2015 7:38:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/26/2015 12:19:16 PM, slo1 wrote:

Paul Mooney, is rather foolish, implying that a black person or people could never be in a position of power over people of a different race and exhibit a negative behavior against a person of a different race because of their race.

I understand that society as a whole is white and there has been systematic racism against blacks and even continues to be, but to say that blacks could never be racist is rather asinine. You would have to prove that a black owned company is not in control of its hiring decisions to prove to me that there is no situations where blacks don't have any power over people of another race. I would even go as far as to describe him as a racist to blacks for implying that it is impossible for blacks to ever be in a position of power over other people. How does he get off making such accusations towards black people? Secondly, as there gets to be more and more black people in power, how is it that he is not preaching the importance to not use race as a factor in judgement so history does not repeat itself.

Fundamentally when one argues racism based upon majority rather than the actual act of using race as a factor to the detriment of others, you are setting yourself up for failure when:
1. Whites are no longer the majority.
2. It has been proven that racism from police towards blacks is not eliminated by having black police officers.
3. Racism is deeply rooted in unconscious functions of the brain which all humans have.

I'm very disappointed in Paul Mooney, I would like to end with an analogy. It seems that many people place a premium on the expressed beliefs of African Americans towards racism because they experience it, often daily in some areas.

I would like to remind people that being observer in the midst of an event or situation is not always the most objective. That is why the psychologist maybe great at dispensing helpful advice to a parent and child who are having conflict, but may not be the best at handling the conflict between themselves and their own child.

Again, it's a system of power. Even if a female CEO has power over her employees, they still reside and participate in a system where women have less power than men. There are an abundance of studies that show female managers have to employ different management styles than men, and women bosses are viewed as less competent in addition to a host of other issues.

Who argues racism based on majority? I certainly don't, and this is one of the reasons I refuse to use the term "minority". Being a minority alone is not the problem. For example, being a token woman in an all-male job is associated with a number of negative outcomes for the woman (ie, experiencing a "chilly climate"), but being a token male in an all-woman job does not have the same negative outcomes (and can actually lead to a "glass escalator" effect, whereby he's promoted more quickly and advances further).

There are a lot of other things you said but to be honest, I'm just kind not really in the mood to address this point by point. I just wanted to point out again that you are thinking of racism as individual, rather than systemic.
Why I ignore YYW:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Calling someone a bitch multiple times while claiming you're taking the high road is an art form, I suppose: http://www.debate.org...
slo1
Posts: 4,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2015 9:26:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/26/2015 7:38:42 PM, lamerde wrote:
At 5/26/2015 12:19:16 PM, slo1 wrote:

Paul Mooney, is rather foolish, implying that a black person or people could never be in a position of power over people of a different race and exhibit a negative behavior against a person of a different race because of their race.

I understand that society as a whole is white and there has been systematic racism against blacks and even continues to be, but to say that blacks could never be racist is rather asinine. You would have to prove that a black owned company is not in control of its hiring decisions to prove to me that there is no situations where blacks don't have any power over people of another race. I would even go as far as to describe him as a racist to blacks for implying that it is impossible for blacks to ever be in a position of power over other people. How does he get off making such accusations towards black people? Secondly, as there gets to be more and more black people in power, how is it that he is not preaching the importance to not use race as a factor in judgement so history does not repeat itself.

Fundamentally when one argues racism based upon majority rather than the actual act of using race as a factor to the detriment of others, you are setting yourself up for failure when:
1. Whites are no longer the majority.
2. It has been proven that racism from police towards blacks is not eliminated by having black police officers.
3. Racism is deeply rooted in unconscious functions of the brain which all humans have.

I'm very disappointed in Paul Mooney, I would like to end with an analogy. It seems that many people place a premium on the expressed beliefs of African Americans towards racism because they experience it, often daily in some areas.

I would like to remind people that being observer in the midst of an event or situation is not always the most objective. That is why the psychologist maybe great at dispensing helpful advice to a parent and child who are having conflict, but may not be the best at handling the conflict between themselves and their own child.

Again, it's a system of power. Even if a female CEO has power over her employees, they still reside and participate in a system where women have less power than men. There are an abundance of studies that show female managers have to employ different management styles than men, and women bosses are viewed as less competent in addition to a host of other issues.

Who argues racism based on majority? I certainly don't, and this is one of the reasons I refuse to use the term "minority". Being a minority alone is not the problem. For example, being a token woman in an all-male job is associated with a number of negative outcomes for the woman (ie, experiencing a "chilly climate"), but being a token male in an all-woman job does not have the same negative outcomes (and can actually lead to a "glass escalator" effect, whereby he's promoted more quickly and advances further).

There are a lot of other things you said but to be honest, I'm just kind not really in the mood to address this point by point. I just wanted to point out again that you are thinking of racism as individual, rather than systemic.

Systemic racism does not exist in a vacuum. It is a collection of individuals in power, generally the majority, that creates the environment and institutions that allow the systematic oppression. If you don't address racism at an individual level, you can never stamp out racism as the power base changes or it results in civil war to gain power as we saw in the Balkan peninsula.

That is why Martin Luther King said that he had a dream where a man is measured by the content of his character and not the color of his skin.

It take a pretty special person to realize that everyone of us will be in a position of power over someone, whether that is our children, other people who work for us, or even as a preacher or million and one other ways to have power over others. It is never OK to use that power and judge people by the color of his skin.

There is no reason why my stance and Martin Luther King's stance is in opposition of recognizing and understanding the systemic institutions which continue the oppression and racism against blacks. What I have a problem with is the denial that racism can not exist at an individual level. It is foolish and perpetuates the problem.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2015 9:49:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/26/2015 9:26:01 PM, slo1 wrote:

Systemic racism does not exist in a vacuum. It is a collection of individuals in power, generally the majority, that creates the environment and institutions that allow the systematic oppression. If you don't address racism at an individual level, you can never stamp out racism as the power base changes or it results in civil war to gain power as we saw in the Balkan peninsula.

That is why Martin Luther King said that he had a dream where a man is measured by the content of his character and not the color of his skin.

It take a pretty special person to realize that everyone of us will be in a position of power over someone, whether that is our children, other people who work for us, or even as a preacher or million and one other ways to have power over others. It is never OK to use that power and judge people by the color of his skin.

There is no reason why my stance and Martin Luther King's stance is in opposition of recognizing and understanding the systemic institutions which continue the oppression and racism against blacks. What I have a problem with is the denial that racism can not exist at an individual level. It is foolish and perpetuates the problem.

I agree; I believe that is why many believed racism on an individual level would eventually be bred out as racist parents die off, (assuming there are no racist laws on the books to rekindle the flames.) We are still working on the second part of that equation.
Adam_Godzilla
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2015 10:27:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 12:55:24 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Title says it all.

To some, it seems racism is some form of elitism where the view is one race is better than all others, or one is worse than all others.

To others, it is simply a generalization fallacy where you apply a trait to an entire race.

Still, others believe it is an action that results in a disparate impact, which means there is no motive nor defense for such a charge. For example, using SAT scores for college admittance (assuming some race historically has poor performance), and as a result, said race is negatively affected.

This last one really bothers me, because it negates any rationale someone may have while attacking them. A common one I hear is when the GOP attacks "blacks people" by means of welfare or early voting (ironic, that the attack is viewed as racist since it assumed the victims are of a race), even though they are not attacking them for being black, but for being Democrat.

So, how, exactly, is something racist, if race isn't a factor in someone's decision making?

If someone is racially prejudiced it can affect things like favouritism and judging one's skills. If you wanted to decide who to pick for a math competition between an asian and an american, and you pick the asian, that's considered racist (provided you've never assessed the two people's math abilities).
New episode of OUTSIDERS: http://www.debate.org...
Episode 4 - They walk among us
AFism
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2015 11:32:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 4:38:06 PM, lamerde wrote:
At 5/25/2015 4:32:37 PM, lamerde wrote:
Google it.

Wow, over 200,000 search results for "Why are SAT scores racist?" I'm sure you can replace "SAT" with "standardized testing" and also get many results.

There comes a point where a person must take initiative if they're really interested in learning. Personally, I don't think you're interested in learning. Where better place to learn about race than asking a bunch of white boys on DDO?

so... true .... lmfao