Welcome to Gaia! ::

Serverus Snope's avatar

Timid Noob

I do not believe in it because racism is racism no matter who's the target. Racism becomes more potent when one race holds power over the other, but the reverse is still racism.
Phallic Wonderland's avatar

Distinct Browser

10,950 Points
  • Grunny Rainbow 100
  • Gender Swap 100
  • Forum Regular 100
I had thought that reverse racism meant that instead of loathing a race for their traits, you favor them more for their traits. This is only possible for minorities, or so I've been told. Hope it's not stupid.
shinigami ryukie's avatar

O.G. Player

9,900 Points
  • Tycoon 200
  • Beta Citizen 0
  • Invisibility 100
Yea, kind of, I've never really encountered it like, where some black man tried to stop me from going in his store or something, but I've felt descriminated against by peers.
Major Lima Charlie
Jessi Danger
Major Lima Charlie
Jessi Danger
Major Lima Charlie
Little something called power dynamics.


So basically we are all to buy into Pat Bidol and Judy Katz definition rather then the one that the rest of the English Speaking world understands.

Why exactly? O' right, so leftists can say racist things but conveniently declare it not racist maybe?
Yeah, sort of like how we should use the popular definition of "theory." We shouldn't let scientists dictate what the word means, but rather every Tom, d**k, and Jane.

Jargon is jargon for a reason. If the common people don't like that, it's too ******** bad. Get educated or don't complain.


We have the dictionary don't we?

Also the racism formula is not some authoritative academic jargon, it is literally the conjecture of a handful of social justice activists and a few professors scattered across the country.

Why should Pat Bidol, Judy Katz, and Tim Wise preferred definition be the one we consider "educated?"
The lay dictionary does not trump specific fields' jargon. Ever.

No, it is sociological standard. If you don't like it, tough ******** nuts.

I see BWA is rubbing off on you.
He's also fond of the "that's just the way it is" fallacy (bare assertion,) actual etymology of words be damned.
Major Lima Charlie's avatar

Devoted Explorer

Eyerunny
Major Lima Charlie
Jessi Danger
Major Lima Charlie
Jessi Danger
Major Lima Charlie
Little something called power dynamics.


So basically we are all to buy into Pat Bidol and Judy Katz definition rather then the one that the rest of the English Speaking world understands.

Why exactly? O' right, so leftists can say racist things but conveniently declare it not racist maybe?
Yeah, sort of like how we should use the popular definition of "theory." We shouldn't let scientists dictate what the word means, but rather every Tom, d**k, and Jane.

Jargon is jargon for a reason. If the common people don't like that, it's too ******** bad. Get educated or don't complain.


We have the dictionary don't we?

Also the racism formula is not some authoritative academic jargon, it is literally the conjecture of a handful of social justice activists and a few professors scattered across the country.

Why should Pat Bidol, Judy Katz, and Tim Wise preferred definition be the one we consider "educated?"
The lay dictionary does not trump specific fields' jargon. Ever.

No, it is sociological standard. If you don't like it, tough ******** nuts.

I see BWA is rubbing off on you.
He's also fond of the "that's just the way it is" fallacy (bare assertion,) actual etymology of words be damned.
No, this is me countering appeal to popularity. Argument ad populum. It's fallacious.
Blood Valkyrie's avatar

Sparkly Shapeshifter

11,900 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Lavish Tipper 200
  • Person of Interest 200
Racism against white people exists.
Question answered.
from blue to's avatar

Beloved Lunatic

scacchic
from blue to
It almost seems like you thicriticism?uishing mistreatment of white people based on race from racist treatment of others will make it less wrong.


Maybe I worded my question wrong. I'm asking if anyone here believes white people are systematically oppressed by blacks, Latinos, Asians, etc on the basis of their skin color.

What qualifies oppression? Is constant ridicule enough? How about criticism? Exclusion from certain venues? Social ostracizing? Denial of opportunity? Any one or combination of these sufficient, or does it take more?
Corrupting Clay
scacchic
Just out of curiosity, how many of you believe whites face racism? Not just encountering people who are prejudiced and make stereotypical remarks about whites, but racism.


In some places. Hawaii is a good example, I'd say.

There aren't many places in the world where white people don't have superior cultural/economic/political power, though, so it's rare.


Eh? How about China, Japan, and India? Those three make up a huge chunk of the world population right there. And all three have ruled themselves in recent years. China is even starting to economically colonize parts of Africa.
Major Lima Charlie
Eyerunny
Major Lima Charlie
Jessi Danger
Major Lima Charlie
Yeah, sort of like how we should use the popular definition of "theory." We shouldn't let scientists dictate what the word means, but rather every Tom, d**k, and Jane.

Jargon is jargon for a reason. If the common people don't like that, it's too ******** bad. Get educated or don't complain.


We have the dictionary don't we?

Also the racism formula is not some authoritative academic jargon, it is literally the conjecture of a handful of social justice activists and a few professors scattered across the country.

Why should Pat Bidol, Judy Katz, and Tim Wise preferred definition be the one we consider "educated?"
The lay dictionary does not trump specific fields' jargon. Ever.

No, it is sociological standard. If you don't like it, tough ******** nuts.

I see BWA is rubbing off on you.
He's also fond of the "that's just the way it is" fallacy (bare assertion,) actual etymology of words be damned.
No, this is me countering appeal to popularity. Argument ad populum. It's fallacious.

You overextended then, since you made a fallacious (as it stands without elaboration) claim of your own while calling it out.
Furthermore, from what I can tell you're concluding the argument from popularity from "the rest of the English Speaking world" which is not necessarily such an argument; It can be elaborated to be pertaining to the effectiveness of communication already established in the "English speaking world." I don't believe there has ever been a problem with the connotation that stood a test of time, which means the popular usage is one indicator that it has been effective in conveying the idea as shorthand for "scientific racism" and it can be confirmed by other means as well.
That's (scientific racism) the more common type referred to in our communication, and it's not that difficult to say "institutional racism" or "systematic racism" to avoid misunderstandings, understanding what the word "racism" alone is going to denote in the status quo of language usage.

Just expecting people to know what you're talking about when omitting the specific indication against the grain of common understanding, then trying to push appeal to authority to justify it, exclaiming that those who point out the miscommunication are "uneducated," comes off as pretentious and elitist. Those authorities being appealed to by your side of this petty semantic argument likely provided sufficient context in their work to indicate the latter forms of "racism" mentioned above, rather than intending to reform the usage of it.

Actually the OP seems more honorable on this matter than you are being, as she clarified what she meant without any condescension and didn't try to demand that people should understand words how she prefers them to be understood. Such an attitude is a bit more than selfish, and I bet you have the vocabulary to understand what word would fit the bill here. It's quite ironic.
Major Lima Charlie's avatar

Devoted Explorer

Eyerunny
Major Lima Charlie
Eyerunny
Major Lima Charlie
Jessi Danger
Major Lima Charlie
Yeah, sort of like how we should use the popular definition of "theory." We shouldn't let scientists dictate what the word means, but rather every Tom, d**k, and Jane.

Jargon is jargon for a reason. If the common people don't like that, it's too ******** bad. Get educated or don't complain.


We have the dictionary don't we?

Also the racism formula is not some authoritative academic jargon, it is literally the conjecture of a handful of social justice activists and a few professors scattered across the country.

Why should Pat Bidol, Judy Katz, and Tim Wise preferred definition be the one we consider "educated?"
The lay dictionary does not trump specific fields' jargon. Ever.

No, it is sociological standard. If you don't like it, tough ******** nuts.

I see BWA is rubbing off on you.
He's also fond of the "that's just the way it is" fallacy (bare assertion,) actual etymology of words be damned.
No, this is me countering appeal to popularity. Argument ad populum. It's fallacious.

You overextended then, since you made a fallacious (as it stands without elaboration) claim of your own while calling it out.
Furthermore, from what I can tell you're concluding the argument from popularity from "the rest of the English Speaking world" which is not necessarily such an argument; It can be elaborated to be pertaining to the effectiveness of communication already established in the "English speaking world." I don't believe there has ever been a problem with the connotation that stood a test of time, which means the popular usage is one indicator that it has been effective in conveying the idea as shorthand for "scientific racism" and it can be confirmed by other means as well.
That's (scientific racism) the more common type referred to in our communication, and it's not that difficult to say "institutional racism" or "systematic racism" to avoid misunderstandings, understanding what the word "racism" alone is going to denote in the status quo of language usage.

Just expecting people to know what you're talking about when omitting the specific indication against the grain of common understanding, then trying to push appeal to authority to justify it, exclaiming that those who point out the miscommunication are "uneducated," comes off as pretentious and elitist. Those authorities being appealed to by your side of this petty semantic argument likely provided sufficient context in their work to indicate the latter forms of "racism" mentioned above, rather than intending to redefine the usage of it.

Actually the OP seems more honorable on this matter than you are being, as she clarified what she meant without any condescension and didn't try to demand that people should understand words how she prefers them to be understood. Such an attitude is a bit more than selfish, and I bet you have the vocabulary to understand what word would fit the bill here. It's quite ironic.
Wasn't aware I had to explain the contrary viewpoint when calling out an argument for being fallacious.

Though I admit it would be better if I explained it to a tee. Problem is, it's pretty tiresome after you've done it a hundred times.

I concede and all that, no worries. You proved your point. Also, blargh.
Capricious Conundrum's avatar

Dangerous Shapeshifter

7,000 Points
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Signature Look 250
  • Forum Sophomore 300
there is no "reverse" about it. There are racist whites, racist blacks, racist latins, racist asians and racist ********. It's just one of those things that everyone has to deal with at some point or another in their life.
scacchic
Just out of curiosity, how many of you believe whites face racism? Not just encountering people who are prejudiced and make stereotypical remarks about whites, but racism.

scacchic

I'm talking about institutional racism.


Does this qualify?

Quote:
In the past recent years the Ivory Coast has seen a resurgence in ethnic tribal hatred and religious intolerance. In addition to the many victims among the various tribes of the northern and southern regions of the country that have perished in the ongoing conflict, foreigners residing or visiting the Ivory Coast have also been subjected to violent attacks. According to a report by Human Rights Watch, the Ivory Coast government is guilty of fanning ethnic hatred for its own political ends.[6]

In 2004, the Young Patriots of Abidjan, strongly nationalist organisation, rallied by the State media, plundered possessions of foreign nationals in Abidjan. Calls for violence against whites and non-Ivorians were broadcast on national radio and TV after the Young Patriots seized control of its offices. Rapes, beatings, and murders of white expatriates and local Lebanese followed. Thousands of expatriates and Lebanese fled. The attacks drew international condemnation.[7][8]



You didn't mention restriction of location, and it doesn't seem like you're intending it as a rhetorical question or making a fallacious point with equivocation...

Did I just help you with your homework? emotion_donotwant
ARK3R
scacchic
Just out of curiosity, how many of you believe whites face racism? Not just encountering people who are prejudiced and make stereotypical remarks about whites, but racism.


I do. White males in particular (like myself) are often viewed as rich and snobby, sexist, racist pigs unless you are completely submissive to all other "minority" groups.

EDIT:

Not that I would ever consider myself a "men's rights activist" or any of that garbage. I recognize that life is unfair. I can point out stupidity myself.

So some people have negative perceptions towards you. What else?
Keltoi Samurai's avatar

Benevolent Dog

16,300 Points
  • Citizen 200
  • Voter 100
  • Mark Twain 100
scacchic
Jessi Danger
scacchic
Just out of curiosity, how many of you believe whites face racism? Not just encountering people who are prejudiced and make stereotypical remarks about whites, but racism.


If those two things don't qualify as racism, then I'd wonder how many people encounter racism.... or what racism is.

Racism is prejudice + power. It's systematic oppression. Whites are not systematically oppressed nor are people of color in a position of power over whites in the US.


fix'd.

I may still disagree, but this is the only way you can still even begin to make a case for your point
Keltoi Samurai's avatar

Benevolent Dog

16,300 Points
  • Citizen 200
  • Voter 100
  • Mark Twain 100
scacchic
from blue to
It almost seems like you think distinguishing mistreatment of white people based on race from racist treatment of others will make it less wrong.


Maybe I worded my question wrong. I'm asking if anyone here believes white people are systematically oppressed by blacks, Latinos, Asians, etc on the basis of their skin color.


systematically, as in . . . what, exactly? when a Black Panther group plotted to blow up the Bluefield State College as part of an ongoing program to send the message that Whites were not welcome, could that qualify as systematic?

or what of the governments of certain Asian countries that systematically oppress . . . pretty much everyone but a specific subset of pureblooded members of the local Asian populace?

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games