Welcome to Gaia! ::

Jessi Danger
madstobias
Jessi Danger
madstobias
Jessi Danger
The Sky Does Not Bow
Okay, none of you know better than people who have attained degrees in this subject, kay? You're all a bunch of posturing high school-level schmucks.


When those degrees have the same seriousness and legitimacy as chemistry or calculus I'll consider taking their opinion seriously.


Same way as racism and sexism are terms that everyone can use as a vague way of saying they've been discriminated against, chemistry and calculus are just degrees that aren't any different than degrees in graphic design or liberal arts. They all share the same level of seriousness and legitimacy.


Racism and sexism have fairly clearly defined words actually. I don't see how they are vague in any meaningful way. And no, those other degrees are far more useful to the world. Graphic design is nice, but will it get you to the moon? Will it create medicine? Will it engineer the next great technology? Probably not.


Racism and sexism are terms that are clearly defined yet debated upon. But in a realm where things aren't distinguished from each other, I would say that yes, a degree in graphic design will take me to the moon, will create medicine, and will engineer the next great technology. Racism is racism, sexism is sexism, and a degree is a degree.

In terms of the overall helping of people, the sociological definitions and application of sexism and racism helps highlight racial and gender disparity so that those things can hopefully be expressed and corrected without other groups hijacking the terms and draining them of their seriousness. Those terms help to distinguish one group from another. I mean, one instance of racism and sexism is the same as any other. Some black person called me a cracker today, so I forced him into slavery. That’s equal racism.


I see, so you want nuance where it suites you but don't like it where it doesn't suite you. Well I say you take your masters in sociology and go submit a resume to be a chemical engineer.

It feels like you are draining the term of its seriousness by robbing of it its universal "badness," and transforming it into yet another tool for some political praxis. If a group of white kids beat up a black kid we would rightly call it a racist attack, or we would if they did it because the kid they beat up is black. However if a bunch of black kids attack a white kid, because he is a white kid, it doesn't get the much more terrible definition of "racist attack," heck if we buy into Tim Wise, its even understandable and slightly acceptable.

Hence why I don't buy into that line of thinking. You are in effect bastardizing the word and making it less of a general word for something bad and in essence making it look like merely a tool to claim moral superiority in all things and allow the bad actions of one group to be seen as less terrible. So if women advocates (As one Swedish professor did) having all men spend a year in jail just because, it isn't a sexist idea. But if a man suggests the same thing, a male professor from Sweden it would be considered a sexist idea via the magical property of selectively choosing what actions, ideas and hatreds are really bad based on who does them. If racism and sexism is bad, then ALL RACISM AND SEXISM IS BAD. Advocating that attitudes, actions and ideas should not be called racism or sexism (Which in a sense makes them sound less severe) because of who said them to whom is just a weasly self serving cop out.


No, I don't really want nuance where it suits me. It's just nice to have nuance where nuance is necessary, and in the context of legitimacy and seriousness, sometimes one form of racism and sexism, in reality, is actually more severe, legitimate, and serious than another form of racism. That's when the sociological definitions for racism and sexism need to be employed in order to highlight that seriousness and legitimacy.

I already know what would happen if I took my masters in sociology and submitted a resume to be a chemical engineer. I'd probably be laughed at. I also know what would likely happen if I told someone that a black person called me a cracker, said that it was racist, and then compared that form of racism as being equal to racial genocide. I'd probably be laughed at.

I used the definition of what a degree is without acknowledging the specifics therein and compared that vague understanding to racism and sexism in order to show how being specific is sometimes necessary.

The terms shouldn't necessarily be political. They should be sociological. If a group of white people beat up a black person I would call it a hate crime due to the attack being motivated by prejudice or intolerance. I would only consider that attack to be racist if it took place in a society where white people were the dominate class and black people were in the minority.

If a bunch of black kids attack a white kid, because he is a white kid, it doesn't get the much more terrible definition of "racist attack," although it SHOULD if it meets the requirements of black people being the dominate class in an area where white people are in the minority.

Using racism and sexism, at least in how I would use those terms in a sociological way, wouldn't be used as a tool to claim moral superiority in all things, they would be used to help highlight the worst cases of prejudice and intolerance from the less severe cases. I would use those terms to help grant people equal rights, and I would use those terms to help stop gender and racial oppression and genocide.

If women advocated having all men spend a year in jail just because, I wouldn't consider that to be a sexist idea, I would consider it to be a stupid idea. And if a man suggested the same thing, I would consider that idea to be stupid as well. I hopefully would not want to use racism and sexism in a petty "They can say it so I should be able to say it, too" kind of way.
madstobias

I already know what would happen if I took my masters in sociology and submitted a resume to be a chemical engineer. I'd probably be laughed at. I also know what would likely happen if I told someone that a black person called me a cracker and said that it was equal to racial genocide. I'd probably be laughed at.


You know what word we have to describe an someone trying to wipe out an entire ethnic group? We call it genocide, is that nice we already have a word for genocide. Advocating genocide is generally considered racist. So advocating genocide is the only thing you consider racist? Well we already have a word for that, its called genocidal. Racism generally is the belief in one group of people being somehow better or different then another. If a black guy advocated wiping out white people, we would call that a genocidal belief or a racist idea. Or is it less racist since the person advocating it is black? A white person calling a black person darky would be considered equivalent to a black person calling a white person cracker. But why should one be considered racism and other not? Are they not both morally equivalent and thus morally equally reprehensible?

madstobias

I used the definition of what a degree is without acknowledging the specifics therein and compared that vague understanding to racism and sexism in order to show how being specific is sometimes necessary.


I could also point out that my selective dislike of non-STEM degrees is equally as pointless as selectively arguing racism only is racism when X group does it to Y group. Me saying my choice of major is better then another could easily be looked as my own selfish desire to have myself be more important and better then others.

madstobias

The terms shouldn't necessarily be political. They should be sociological. If a group of white people beat up a black person I would call it a hate crime due to the attack being motivated by prejudice or intolerance. I would only consider that attack to be racist if it took place in a society where white people were the dominate class and black people were in the minority.


So effectively we need segregation to end racism? That is a rather odd implication.

Why would it only be considered racism then and only then? Considering racism is defined as the belief in supremacy, or othering wouldn't groups of black people doing the same to white people also be a hate crime or racism? Also what does a rather nebulous group called "white people" do to be dominate? Considering what constitutes white is a fairly diverse group of people of differing languages and origins.

madstobias

If a bunch of black kids attack a white kid, because he is a white kid, it doesn't get the much more terrible definition of "racist attack," although it SHOULD if it meets the requirements of black people being the dominate class in an area where white people are in the minority.


That seems selective and highly self serving. In our language racism is considered a terrible thing. Among the absolute worst things. Your essentially arguing that the same actions done by one group or another are morally different based on skin color? You seem to be arguing that morally simply being numerically smaller or whatever you define as dominate or minority gives one an aura of being "better," which is closer to the classic definition of racism. Essentially black people being incapable of racism is either a cheap ploy to make black people immune to the worst charge in our culture, or its a horrible means of cheapening the very definition of racism and making it a joke since its now nothing more then a political bludgeon that white people won't take seriously anymore.

madstobias

Using racism and sexism, at least in how I would use those terms in a sociological way, wouldn't be used as a tool to claim moral superiority in all things, they would be used to help highlight the worst cases of prejudice and intolerance from the less severe cases. I would use those terms to help grant people equal rights, and I would use those terms to help stop gender and racial oppression and genocide.


Yet I don't see it panning out that way. Arguing say only my gender can be the victim of sexism belittles men's lived experiences and creates resentment. When we need allies and help in achieving some sort of civic cause, there is then backlash because efforts seem self serving. Do all men benefit because some men rise to great heights? What about those that rot in mental institutions or as the legions of homeless people? It seems highly self serving to believe that real or perceived injustices are worse because of who committed it and who received the alleged injustice.

madstobias

If women advocated having all men spend a year in jail just because, I wouldn't consider that to be a sexist idea, I would consider it to be a stupid idea. And if a man suggested the same thing, I would consider that idea to be stupid as well. I hopefully would not want to use racism and sexism in a petty "They can say it so I should be able to say it, too" kind of way.


I would argue that people who do not practice what the preach have no business telling others how they aught to think, feel and behave.
Chahklet's avatar

Tipsy Smoker

Jessi Danger
madstobias
Jessi Danger
Yoshpet
The Sky Does Not Bow
yeah, you're right.

Well, you would be. If you weren't wrong.


Insist harder. It makes your ideas sound well thought out and verifiable.


Thou shalt never disagree with a social justice sally, you will instantly be labeled an -ist, -phobic, or part of some -ism. emotion_dealwithit


What's wrong with having an educationally-structured and logically-sound interpretation of racism and sexism? It can help make those two terms less vague and less abused/exploited.


Because it doesn't sound logical. It sounds essentially like arguing one groups bad behavior is the absolutely worst thing, while the other is not really that bad. Essentially an individuals experiences become better or worse depending on where they rank on an artificial hierarchy of oppression Olympics.

Arguing only X group can be racist, or only Y gender can be sexist essentially makes attacks, even with aid and social support, from those apparently "good," groups seem like less of a problem.

From the perspective of say a white kid beat up by a group of black kids, saying what he experienced isn't racism because Tim Wise thinks it should count as such, does not serve any reasonable cause except make the white kid resent said people and despise the black kids all the more since it seems society is giving them a pass, but if he and his friends were to do the same thing it would be considered infinitely worse in the greater public consciousness. More over that isn't the definition of Racism or Sexism, that is a handful of academics with a political agenda that is served by their definition but it is not the accepted one.
If a group of black kids tried jumping a white kid they would probably receive hard prison time.
Jessi Danger
madstobias

I already know what would happen if I took my masters in sociology and submitted a resume to be a chemical engineer. I'd probably be laughed at. I also know what would likely happen if I told someone that a black person called me a cracker and said that it was equal to racial genocide. I'd probably be laughed at.


You know what word we have to describe an someone trying to wipe out an entire ethnic group? We call it genocide, is that nice we already have a word for genocide. Advocating genocide is generally considered racist. So advocating genocide is the only thing you consider racist? Well we already have a word for that, its called genocidal. Racism generally is the belief in one group of people being somehow better or different then another. If a black guy advocated wiping out white people, we would call that a genocidal belief or a racist idea. Or is it less racist since the person advocating it is black? A white person calling a black person darky would be considered equivalent to a black person calling a white person cracker. But why should one be considered racism and other not? Are they not both morally equivalent and thus morally equally reprehensible?


Genocide, at least the ethnic cleansing type, is the level of severity that I would designate as being appropriate enough for the classification of racism, at least for its sociological application.

Genocide is not the only thing that I would consider to be racist, but its seriousness warrants the classification as opposed to someone being called a pallid snowman.

And I agree, if a black person advocated the genocide of another ethnic group because they didn't like that ethnic group due to the shallow quality of skin color, I would consider that to be a racist idea. As for a white person calling a black person darky, for me that depends. I think that I would call it racist because slavery and how it is attached to the racial disparity in the United States between Caucasians and African-Americans. There's the serious tone of privilege versus oppression that's attached to a white person calling a black person darky. That same serious tone is not attached to a black person calling a white person cracker. So the sociological term doesn't appropriately fit that instance.

However, if the situations were reversed, and America was colonized by Africans and the Africans went to Europe and forced the native Europeans into slavery and the European-Americans went through the process that African-Americans went through, then I would consider a black person calling a white person cracker as racist. Although name-calling is a bit of a stretch for me. It would depend on the name, the name's origin, and the vitriol and seriousness that's attached to the word. Calling someone darky or cracker is one thing, calling someone the n-word is another.

Jessi Danger
madstobias
I used the definition of what a degree is without acknowledging the specifics therein and compared that vague understanding to racism and sexism in order to show how being specific is sometimes necessary.


I could also point out that my selective dislike of non-STEM degrees is equally as pointless as selectively arguing racism only is racism when X group does it to Y group. Me saying my choice of major is better then another could easily be looked as my own selfish desire to have myself be more important and better then others.


That would be arrogant of you to assume, and if you held yourself in a superior regard because of your degree and ethnic group to someone, assuming that you belonged to a privileged class, then that would also probably be racist.

Jessi Danger
madstobias
The terms shouldn't necessarily be political. They should be sociological. If a group of white people beat up a black person I would call it a hate crime due to the attack being motivated by prejudice or intolerance. I would only consider that attack to be racist if it took place in a society where white people were the dominate class and black people were in the minority.


So effectively we need segregation to end racism? That is a rather odd implication.

Why would it only be considered racism then and only then? Considering racism is defined as the belief in supremacy, or othering wouldn't groups of black people doing the same to white people also be a hate crime or racism? Also what does a rather nebulous group called "white people" do to be dominate? Considering what constitutes white is a fairly diverse group of people of differing languages and origins.


It isn't segregation. Using racism and sexism in a specific context for certain serious circumstances does not equate to wanting to use segregation to correct a problem. I explained that implication away in a post to someone else.

Distinguishing something from something else does not = segregation.

If black people were in a state of supremacy like white people are, then if they were doing the same to white people, that would be a hate crime and would likely be racism as well since white people would be the oppressed group in that situation.

As for what white people in the United States did to become dominate, I'm not sure. I'd have to research history. But I can tell you what black people in the United States did to become oppressed. They were black and lived in Africa. Literally, that was it.

Jessi Danger
madstobias
If a bunch of black kids attack a white kid, because he is a white kid, it doesn't get the much more terrible definition of "racist attack," although it SHOULD if it meets the requirements of black people being the dominate class in an area where white people are in the minority.


That seems selective and highly self serving. In our language racism is considered a terrible thing. Among the absolute worst things. Your essentially arguing that the same actions done by one group or another are morally different based on skin color? You seem to be arguing that morally simply being numerically smaller or whatever you define as dominate or minority gives one an aura of being "better," which is closer to the classic definition of racism. Essentially black people being incapable of racism is either a cheap ploy to make black people immune to the worst charge in our culture, or its a horrible means of cheapening the very definition of racism and making it a joke since its now nothing more then a political bludgeon that white people won't take seriously anymore.


If racism is considered to be among the absolute worst things, then clearly calling a person a cracker is among those things, and that's appropriate enough to call racist. Cheapening the very definition of racism would be putting a certain type of name-calling and racial genocide under the same classification, that being racist. Comparing calling someone a cracker to the ethnic cleansing of the jews and putting them in an equal classification is making racism a joke.

That's why I partly believe that racism should be saved for the serious instances of racial disparity.

Jessi Danger
madstobias
Using racism and sexism, at least in how I would use those terms in a sociological way, wouldn't be used as a tool to claim moral superiority in all things, they would be used to help highlight the worst cases of prejudice and intolerance from the less severe cases. I would use those terms to help grant people equal rights, and I would use those terms to help stop gender and racial oppression and genocide.


Yet I don't see it panning out that way. Arguing say only my gender can be the victim of sexism belittles men's lived experiences and creates resentment. When we need allies and help in achieving some sort of civic cause, there is then backlash because efforts seem self serving. Do all men benefit because some men rise to great heights? What about those that rot in mental institutions or as the legions of homeless people? It seems highly self serving to believe that real or perceived injustices are worse because of who committed it and who received the alleged injustice.


Arguing that your gender can be the victim of sexism does not belittle the experiences that men lived through as long as those experiences fall under a certain type of context and circumstance. As for it creating resentment, that various. People can be petty and resentful over anything.

You think that racism should be this and that. Other people think that racism should be that and this. You're resentful of that person. The other person is resentful of you. It doesn't really matter what the belief is since people will be resentful for what they're resentful for. What makes your belief and resentment any more appropriate than the other person's belief and resentment?

Your effort is self-serving because you believe things to be one way. And another person's efforts are self-serving because you believe things another way. Either way, disharmony is created due to the difference in beliefs.

All men do not benefit because some rise to great heights. But at certain times since the majority of those who rose to great heights were men, then men stood a better chance of rising to great heights within that male-dominated sphere than women did. That creates a sphere of privilege where men are the dominate force and women are in the minority. But of course not everyone will be at the same level of success. But overall, within that sphere, men would do better than women because of the societal bias that leans in the favor of men.

What you perceive as being self-serving is reality. There was a time within the US where men had a sphere of dominance (greater than it is now). But what makes your beliefs in this regard any less self-serving than another person's beliefs? Each of you are catering to your own beliefs. Isn't that self-serving?

Jessi Danger
madstobias
If women advocated having all men spend a year in jail just because, I wouldn't consider that to be a sexist idea, I would consider it to be a stupid idea. And if a man suggested the same thing, I would consider that idea to be stupid as well. I hopefully would not want to use racism and sexism in a petty "They can say it so I should be able to say it, too" kind of way.


I would argue that people who do not practice what the preach have no business telling others how they aught to think, feel and behave.


I don't buy that. People are ignorant and hypocritical. That doesn't mean their beliefs or philosophies aren't correct. It just means they're human if they can't always practice what they preach. It's also arrogant for a person to assume that what they believe is 100% correct. Do you always practice what you preach? Have you kept every promise that you've made? Have your actions always met your beliefs? You're human, after all, so I doubt it.

Having a belief or an ideal that someone thinks is right is fine. Human nature can just contradict belief, though.
Love Muffin88's avatar

Shameless Giver

10,650 Points
  • Clambake 200
  • Nudist Colony 200
  • Prayer Circle 200
Jacque De Martyr
Love Muffin88
Okay check it, I treat everyone regardless of color or gender.....the same. If you're an a*****e? ******** you. If you act like a decent-polite human being? Hey, you seem pretty cool. In my opinion, if you are a rational minded human being, you would have this mindset.


What a stupid ideology, people aren't the same. Blacks tend to not have the same advantages Whites tend to have had. Economically and academically. Women have vaginas, Men have penises.

People are different and that needs to be acknowledged.

Ignoring differences will only delude society into thinking that everyone is equal.

Not the case.


Treating people the same regardless of color, gender, creed, the same/as equals is a stupid ideology to have? neutral Hmmm, I guess that makes me one of those crazy people that don't judge people by what they look like, but by the content of their character. Wait a minute...."content of their character". That looks so familiar. Now where have I heard that from?

Blacks tend to not have the same advantages Whites tend to have had. Economically and academically.
That's all well and good, but my point was simply that I treat everyone as equals. So I don't see the point of why you said that.

Women have vaginas, Men have penises.
rofl Oh, that's rich. Reminds me if a caveman told his cave woman: "Uggh. I man with p***s will kill animal for food now. You, woman with v****a, make fire to cook on."

People are different and that needs to be acknowledged.
Does it now. And why exactly is that? How could that possibly be helpful, in any sort of way?

Ignoring differences will only delude society into thinking that everyone is equal.
Lol, what? And causing peoples strifed quest for equality to be in vain, by perpetuating the existent gap between the sexes and races to be WIDER by constantly pointing out just how different we are all from each other, is a better idea? Hows that working out?
Yoshpet's avatar

Dedicated Loiterer

4,500 Points
  • Super Tipsy 200
  • Lavish Tipper 200
  • Forum Regular 100
The Sky Does Not Bow
Yoshpet
The Sky Does Not Bow
yeah, you're right.

Well, you would be. If you weren't wrong.


Insist harder. It makes your ideas sound well thought out and verifiable.

they really do not need to be, when the opposition is just entirely basing what they argue on unsound ground.


"NO U" would have saved you some keystrokes.
Yoshpet's avatar

Dedicated Loiterer

4,500 Points
  • Super Tipsy 200
  • Lavish Tipper 200
  • Forum Regular 100
The Sky Does Not Bow
Mr Sapporo Beer Man
The Sky Does Not Bow
Okay, none of you know better than people who have attained degrees in this subject, kay? You're all a bunch of posturing high school-level schmucks.

/appealtoauthorityfallacy

Nah, an appeal to authority would be if i said "this man is a cop so he is more correct about particle physics than you." If you defer authority to someone who is an expert in the thing you are talking about it's perfectly valid.


No, that's an appeal to inappropriate authority. Appealing to authority is insisting that the conclusion must be true because it was arrived at by an expert. That does not follow.
Thorz's avatar

Destructive Connoisseur

13,750 Points
  • Battle: Counterstrike 150
  • Battle: KO 200
  • Seasoned Warrior 250
So, is it ok people calling me "milky"?
Wait, I don't care anyway...
pidgezero_one's avatar

Girl-Crazy Man-Lover

10,250 Points
  • Sausage Fest 200
  • Nudist Colony 200
  • Clambake 200
Speaking as an engineering major, this past page of "sociology is less important than hard sciences" is complete and unadulterated bullshit.
Jessi Danger
That seems selective and highly self serving. In our language racism is considered a terrible thing. Among the absolute worst things. Your essentially arguing that the same actions done by one group or another are morally different based on skin color? You seem to be arguing that morally simply being numerically smaller or whatever you define as dominate or minority gives one an aura of being "better," which is closer to the classic definition of racism. Essentially black people being incapable of racism is either a cheap ploy to make black people immune to the worst charge in our culture, or its a horrible means of cheapening the very definition of racism and making it a joke since its now nothing more then a political bludgeon that white people won't take seriously anymore.

What they are doing is identifying that the context of the actions is different, to avoid the equivocation of the circumstances affecting each group as the same. When people say there is no difference between racism against white people and racism against black people, the impression is given that they both face the same kind and same amount of racial oppression. This isn't true. In a culture where white people dominate and racism against black people is embedded in the culture, there are far wider effects from being subject to discrimination on a racial basis for the black person. White people, while they may be acted against because of their race, will so not experience the same level of disadvantage that black people do asa result of their race. When one says: "There is no difference between racism against white people and racism against black people" they are giving an implication about what is true about the level and kinds of racist oppression faced by each group within society. An impression which then makes it impossible to identify the differences and the way black people are disadvantaged because of their race more so than white people. In such an equivocation, the racism against black people is NOT being taken seriously at all. The people who make such arguments are ignoring the presence and the effects of racism on black people(as they are thinking that level and kinds of racial discrimination, within the given society, against black people are the same as faced by white. They are vastly different).

While I'm not necessarily a fan of grand declarations of "You can't be oppressive to the dominate group," as it does imply it is impossible for an oppressed group to mistreat someone of the dominate group, the issue it is used to address, equivocation of the oppressed groups struggles and oppression with those of the dominant group, is very real and serious.
Lady PhiIomena's avatar

Feline Sex Symbol

10,900 Points
  • Frozen Solid 200
  • Snowball Hero 200
  • Invisibility 100
I highly recommend not voicing anything seen here on tumblr.
madstobias

Genocide, at least the ethnic cleansing type, is the level of severity that I would designate as being appropriate enough for the classification of racism, at least for its sociological application.

Genocide is not the only thing that I would consider to be racist, but its seriousness warrants the classification as opposed to someone being called a pallid snowman.


Why confuse the words racism and genocide? They are two separate words for a reason. By the dictionary definition of racism, one could classify a genocide as racist, but racism is specifically a belief, an attitude.

Hence, you can say, "Racist Genocide!" a genocide born out of racist attitudes held by one group for another.

In a sense your actually killing the nuance of racism. Racism can only mean one thing now instead of being a descriptor for a cause or idea that can be generally applied. For example the phrase Institutional racism, where a specific institution holds the idea that is racist. The sociologist definition of racism essentially casts out this important means of understanding racism in favor of an ideologically easy argument. Instead of having a nuanced use of racism, racism becomes the sole property of a specific clique within the socio-political spectrum and a tool for political lobbying. Making the word almost meaningless, even dare I say it a joke.

Sexism likewise is a fairly well understood word with the ability to have nuanced meaning. Just as Racism under the commonly held definition is.

madstobias

And I agree, if a black person advocated the genocide of another ethnic group because they didn't like that ethnic group due to the shallow quality of skin color, I would consider that to be a racist idea. As for a white person calling a black person darky, for me that depends. I think that I would call it racist because slavery and how it is attached to the racial disparity in the United States between Caucasians and African-Americans. There's the serious tone of privilege versus oppression that's attached to a white person calling a black person darky. That same serious tone is not attached to a black person calling a white person cracker. So the sociological term doesn't appropriately fit that instance.


That seems to make little sense, considering the white person in question may not only not be the descendant of a slave holder but could literally be a fresh arrival, just off the boat from say Russia, arriving only in 1995 and the black person may be from Namibia, also arriving in 1995. Neither is related to slavery in the old American South except via looking like people who were involved. If we are talking power dynamics, actually there is harsh social pressures to punish the white persons actions, but not much against the black persons actions.

Your words in fact seem to almost imply its nearly acceptable or at least understandable. Which IMHO just breeds resentment and continued conflict.

The exact same statement can be made about the term Sexism.
br0wneyed-babe's avatar

Mega Shopper

DC Catwoman
I highly recommend not voicing anything seen here on tumblr.

Ahahaa. I didn't come on for a few days and suddenly this thread has 10 pages! But out of everything I will have to agree with you here. I see a lot of stupid opinions on Tumblr. It makes no sense really.
br0wneyed-babe's avatar

Mega Shopper

Desideraht
People constantly argue this very passionately, and I have difficulty showing them that you can be racist against ANY group. In fact, I was arguing with a UNIVERSITY student who was studying women's rights and civil rights and that sort of s**t as a major. And he was acting like because he goes to uni, he's right and I'm wrong. But he argued that you can't be racist against white people. I think that is automatically a racist statement, and I can't believe he used his schooling to try to cover his a**. Really pissed me off.

Agreed. I don't know how anyone who is white and/or male can agree with that statement. You can be racist or sexist towards anyone of any race or color. In the dictionary, racism isn't defined as "discrimination towards anyone not white" and same for sexism. Discrimination based on race or sex is wrong, regardless of their race or sex. Saying a white person "can't like rap because they're white" is just as bad as saying "you can't like punk music; you're black."
br0wneyed-babe's avatar

Mega Shopper

Phallic Wonderland
Jacque De Martyr
Reevva
Yeah some kid in my Chemistry class told the entire class that this one girl is Asian, so she must be extremely smart. The class just kind of looked at him like he was stupid, and he kept on repeating it... I eventually told him that he is making a really racist statement. He told me in a really matter of fact tone that its impossible for him to be racist, because he is black. emotion_eyebrow

Our teacher over heard the whole thing, and she even told you that your skin color does not make you not racist. ******** people who think you can't be racist towards white people, or sexist towards men for that matter...


A white person can be the victim of racism, it just pretty much never happens.


Or brushed off. It is minimized because we're painted as the bad guys of the past who deserve it.

Agreed with you all.

Yes, it's very rare that racism occurs towards whites (though I do think sexism happens a lot to men, and even more to women, but sexism as a whole seems to be overlooked a lot but that's another issue). I still think it's just as bad though (to be racist to a white person), even if they are the majority. Like I mentioned, it's like saying it's okay to bully a rich kid, because he's had privileges others haven't had. :S

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