Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
TripItUp

What is your definition of racism?

Recommended Posts

The term "racism" gets thrown around quite a bit by Liberals and has even been documented as a definition that has "evolved."

Please provide what your definition is so that the Politics forum has a working definition that we can all discuss in relative tranquility and peace.

 

LINK 1

LINK 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

To paraphrase Potter Stewart: I know it when I see it. 

And I sure as hell see it in our President. 

There's the emotional response.  

Anybody have a more useful definition?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

Sure, when a Republican says something it is racist but if a Democrat says something he/she just misspoke.  

link?

Edited by Snorkelson
Seriously, scroll through and see how many different times he’s “misspoke”
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what it isn't.......it is not Pelosi saying Trump wants to make America white again. Calling someone a racist does not qualify as a racist comment.

..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly telling a handful of brown congresswomen from the US to go back to their countries would be near the top of a list of obvious examples.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think (like Trump does) that white people who immigrate here and become citizens are immediately Americans but people of color who immigrate here and become citizens are still Mexicans, Nigerians etc. than you are a racist.

Edited by lazyike
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about just the actual definition?

Racism

noun

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

Edited by unckeyherb
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In practice, nearly everyone uses the terms "racism" and "prejudice" interchangeably.  Even people who push the "prejudice + power" definition tend to slide back to plain old "prejudice" as soon as it's convenient to do so.  This particular topic is my personal go-to example of a motte and bailey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's racist when those who admit to being racist think it's acceptable and advancing of their agenda.

 

Someone on this board said it months ago (paraphrasing)..."I don't know if President Trump is racist......but he's managed to convince those who admit to being racist that he's racist."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, unckeyherb said:

How about just the actual definition?

Racism

noun

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

Exactly....this isn't complicated :shrug: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, timschochet said:
15 hours ago, TripItUp said:

There's an emotional response. 

It certainly is not. 

Of course it is.  It's a purely subjective approach that you can't/don't want to articulate objectively.  You want free reign to label things as you like when you like.  That's part of the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's almost like there's different levels of racism. Some people don't think "casual" racism rises to the level to actually be labeled "racist." 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Of course it is.  It's a purely subjective approach that you can't/don't want to articulate objectively.  You want free reign to label things as you like when you like.  That's part of the problem.

Just because one has difficulty articulating an exact definition doesn’t mean it’s a purely subjective approach- that was the whole point of Potter Stewart’s ruling on pornography (“I know it when I see it”) which I paraphrased. 

In some instances the whole purpose of asking for a definition is an attempt to confuse the issue. This thread is an example of that IMO. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

Just because one has difficulty articulating an exact definition doesn’t mean it’s a purely subjective approach- that was the whole point of Potter Stewart’s ruling on pornography (“I know it when I see it”) which I paraphrased. 

In some instances the whole purpose of asking for a definition is an attempt to confuse the issue. This thread is an example of that IMO. 

Seems like he wants to understand where people are coming from.  Are there people giving non answers?  Yep....I don't think that's the intention of the thread.  This isn't difficult.  We have really good definitions for our words.  This one happens to be pretty clear and easy to identify.  It's not obscure until people want to label something "racist" that isn't.

If you have problems articulating the definition, rely on the dictionary.  That's what it's there for.  If you want to make the event/situation/comment "racist" and it doesn't fit the definition, then you're the problem, not the definition.  I had this same conversation with jon_mx over "socialism".  You guys are ridiculous with this stuff.  If anyone is attempting to "confuse the issue" its those of you who are labeling things incorrectly.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Seems like he wants to understand where people are coming from.  Are there people giving non answers?  Yep....I don't think that's the intention of the thread.  This isn't difficult.  We have really good definitions for our words.  This one happens to be pretty clear and easy to identify.  It's not obscure until people want to label something "racist" that isn't.

If you have problems articulating the definition, rely on the dictionary.  That's what it's there for.  If you want to make the event/situation/comment "racist" and it doesn't fit the definition, then you're the problem, not the definition.  I had this same conversation with jon_mx over "socialism".  You guys are ridiculous with this stuff.  If anyone is attempting to "confuse the issue" its those of you who are labeling things incorrectly.

I really disagree with you about this. But it doesn’t interest me to pursue the argument so let’s leave it at that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

I really disagree with you about this. But it doesn’t interest me to pursue the argument so let’s leave it at that. 

Of course it doesn't....you want to be able to label things as you see fit...the emotional response that Trip alluded to and that you pushed back on.  I get that...just be honest with what you're doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, timschochet said:

In some instances the whole purpose of asking for a definition is an attempt to confuse the issue. This thread is an example of that IMO. 

In legal and technical papers terms are defined to limit confusion.  Would you give us the examples you alluded to of defining terms so as to enhance confusion?  And how exactly is this thread an attempt to “confuse an issue”?

Quite frankly, constant discussion over a topic that can’t be defined and is often selectively applied sounds pretty damn confusing as is.  Not sure how you can increase that confusion simply by asking people what they mean.

Edited by Gary Coal Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gary Coal Man said:

In legal and technical papers terms are defined to limit confusion.  Would you give us the examples you alluded to of defining terms so enhance confusion?  And how exactly is this thread an attempt to “confuse an issue”?

Quite frankly, constant discussion over a topic that can’t be defined and is often selectively applied sounds pretty damn confusing as is.  Not sure how you can increase that confusion simply by asking people what they mean.

Look- in truth I really don’t care if we label what Donald Trump wrote on Sunday as racist, or bigoted, or ignorant, or hamburger. 

What I want is a society in which we all agree that what Trump wrote was wrong and worthy of condemnation. I am a believer in political correctness. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Look- in truth I really don’t care if we label what Donald Trump wrote on Sunday as racist, or bigoted, or ignorant, or hamburger. 

What I want is a society in which we all agree that what Trump wrote was wrong and worthy of condemnation. I am a believer in political correctness. 

The OP never mentioned Trump.  His question had a broader scope about a term that has been entrenched in political debate well before Trump.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gary Coal Man said:

The OP never mentioned Trump.  His question had a broader scope about a term that has been entrenched in political debate well before Trump.

Yes I know. But just before he started the thread he made clear his thoughts in another thread that what Trump said wasn’t racist. 

Which is fine. He’s entitled to his opinion. It’s frustrating and depressing to me that one could parse the definition to the point where what Trump said was not racist. But I don’t care to argue the point. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Look- in truth I really don’t care if we label what Donald Trump wrote on Sunday as racist, or bigoted, or ignorant, or hamburger. 

What I want is a society in which we all agree that what Trump wrote was wrong and worthy of condemnation. I am a believer in political correctness. 

That's not what this thread is for Tim...why are you trying to make it about something it isn't?  Is this spill over from some other back and forth you were having?  It's pretty clear, if he started another thread, it was because he wanted to keep that back and forth separate from this particular question.  So stick to topic and stop trying to make this thread something its not.  

This is a simple, yet important question to be answered.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for the group: 

Would you consider this "racist?"

I don't dislike black people. Just the ones that act like "n's" word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bucky86 said:

Question for the group: 

Would you consider this "racist?"

I don't dislike black people. Just the ones that act like "n's" word.

Who’s the speaker and what’s the context?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Commish said:

That's not what this thread is for Tim...why are you trying to make it about something it isn't?  Is this spill over from some other back and forth you were having?  It's pretty clear, if he started another thread, it was because he wanted to keep that back and forth separate from this particular question.  So stick to topic and stop trying to make this thread something its not.  

This is a simple, yet important question to be answered.

That’s fine. I’ll leave you to it then. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gary Coal Man said:

Who’s the speaker and what’s the context?

A convo between friends discussing criminals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gary Coal Man said:
6 minutes ago, Bucky86 said:

Question for the group: 

Would you consider this "racist?"

I don't dislike black people. Just the ones that act like "n's" word.

Who’s the speaker and what’s the context?

I'm not sure this matters.  I can't think of a single context where "n" word is not racist...it was a term created to demean and mock black people.  That's it's origin and primary meaning.  I'm not sure it matters that black people co-opted it and made an alternate definition to use among themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Bucky86 said:

Question for the group: 

Would you consider this "racist?"

I don't dislike black people. Just the ones that act like "n's" word.

-er or -a?  Who said it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Commish said:

I'm not sure this matters.  I can't think of a single context where "n" word is not racist...it was a term created to demean and mock black people. 

Sure it matters.

What I’m trying to get out is that something like Chris Rock’s famous comedy routine fits the description that Bucky laid out.  A person is saying that they have no problem with black people, but they don’t like N-word types.  The messenger and the context of the message changes whether people would define the message as “racist”

Now here’s an example where a white person uses the N-word and it wasn’t intended to be racist.  Barbara Walters uses the term because she’s reading from copy and the term is an integral part of a news story.  Walters’ black coworker, Sherri Shepherd, suggests that Barbara Walters’ intent and the context doesn’t matter, but shouldn’t it?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Gary Coal Man said:

Sure it matters.

What I’m trying to get out is that something like Chris Rock’s famous comedy routine fits the description that Bucky laid out.  A person is saying that they have no problem with black people, but they don’t like N-word types.  The messenger and the context of the message changes whether people would define the message as “racist”

Now here’s an example where a white person uses the N-word and it wasn’t intended to be racist.  Barbara Walters uses the term because she’s reading from copy and the term is an integral part of a news story.  Walters’ black coworker, Sherri Shepherd, suggests that Barbara Walters’ intent and the context doesn’t matter, but shouldn’t it?

 

Context always matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gary Coal Man said:

Sure it matters.

What I’m trying to get out is that something like Chris Rock’s famous comedy routine fits the description that Bucky laid out.  A person is saying that they have no problem with black people, but they don’t like N-word types.  The messenger and the context of the message changes whether people would define the message as “racist”

Now here’s an example where a white person uses the N-word and it wasn’t intended to be racist.  Barbara Walters uses the term because she’s reading from copy and the term is an integral part of a news story.  Walters’ black coworker, Sherri Shepherd, suggests that Barbara Walters’ intent and the context doesn’t matter, but shouldn’t it?

 

Why did you cut out part of my comment in your response?  That's the crux of both of these examples.  I would agree that Chris Rock's use isn't really different than what Bucky said.  I'd consider both racist.  It's clearly a demeaning term to a subset of his race and meant to be a distinction of superiority/inferiority.  Just like if I used the term "white trash" to demean white people that I don't think live up to a standard (thus making them inferior).

In my comment I wasn't considering situations where the word was being reported on.  I was considering situations where it was being used by people in conversation.  So I guess that is a context (where it's being reported on) that it being spoken isn't completely inappropriate/racist.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, TripItUp said:

The term "racism" gets thrown around quite a bit by Liberals and has even been documented as a definition that has "evolved."

Please provide what your definition is so that the Politics forum has a working definition that we can all discuss in relative tranquility and peace.

 

LINK 1

LINK 2

What is the purpose of this thread?  To discuss what the term "racism" means to each of us individually, or to come to consensus on a working definition?  It seems to me that you've asked a loaded question in looking for a single working definition of a term that you apparently believe, given the links you've provided, is far more nuanced and confusing.  

Of course, you haven't told us what your definition is, choosing instead to wait for replies.  Then, when a "Liberal" - I like the capitalization by the way - replies, you can point to the nuance and confusion in your links as a passive way of belittling or challenging them.  What this confusion then allows you to do is dismiss any behavior that is allegedly racist because, "academically" speaking, you don't think it technically meets your criteria for what is racist even though you haven't told us what you think that means.  In fact, one could argue that you believe there is no such thing as racism.

The problem with this approach is that the two links you provided are just two white guys spouting off on their views on the term racism.  They aren't scholars or experts in any field - they are just dudes on the internet giving you what you want to blur lines and excuse the common, everyday, racist statements made by Trump and others, or at least place them in a gray zone where you can defend this behavior and call out overly sensitive "Liberals".  

The first guy, BJ Campbell, proclaims to "think a lot" and labels himself as a "conscientious objector to the culture war." In his article, he says "I don’t want to go around labeling people based on skin color and treating them differently because of it. I want to love everyone. It’s how I was indoctrinated."  His basic premise, noble as it seems, willfully ignores the historical institutions that have repressed people of color and have resulted in political, economic, legal, and social imbalances.  In my view, no discussion on the term racism can start with the premise that we are all on equal footing - it's overly simplistic and ignorant.

The second guy, John Hunt MD (a Doctor of what? The site - Casey Research - seems to really want me to buy their stock tips), had this to say "racism may, in part, be a residual handicap left over from primitive times."  Oof.  I stopped reading there - Sorry Al Campanis, but I've heard enough. 

Rather than taking the bait, I'm going to take my thoughts somewhere else.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Mookie said:

What is the purpose of this thread?  To discuss what the term "racism" means to each of us individually, or to come to consensus on a working definition?  

Both

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Mookie said:

 

The problem with this approach is that the two links you provided are just two white guys spouting off on their views on the term racism.  

I just googled “definition of racism”....guy.  These were the two links that popped up.

 

Feel free to provide other articles that address the definition.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Telling people to go back to where they are from based on their ethnicity or what you think is their ethnicity...racist.

Saying a federal judge born in Indiana can't be impartial because he is Mexican...racist.

Saying, during hearings about Casinos, "They don't look like Indians to me"...racist.

When discussing immigration...calling African Nations ####holes and wanting more people from Norway...while also saying immigrants from Nigeria would never go back to their huts...yeah, also probably pretty racist.

“Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.”...yeah, thats racist too.l

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Why did you cut out part of my comment in your response?  That's the crux of both of these examples.  I would agree that Chris Rock's use isn't really different than what Bucky said.  I'd consider both racist.  It's clearly a demeaning term to a subset of his race and meant to be a distinction of superiority/inferiority.  Just like if I used the term "white trash" to demean white people that I don't think live up to a standard (thus making them inferior).

In my comment I wasn't considering situations where the word was being reported on.  I was considering situations where it was being used by people in conversation.  So I guess that is a context (where it's being reported on) that it being spoken isn't completely inappropriate/racist.

Fair enough.

But in the context of of black people like Chris Rock making fun of #####s or white people making fun of white trash isn’t that distinction and criticism more about behavioral differences than race?  They’re not saying that a subset of their race is inferior due to race, they’re saying that subset of their race is inferior due to behavior.  The fact that the speaker is drawing a distinction within their race shows that they don’t believe that the negative aspects of the worst behaved people within their race apply to their race on the whole.

Edited by Gary Coal Man
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Gary Coal Man said:

Fair enough.

But in the context of of black people like Chris Rock making fun of #####s or white people making fun of white trash isn’t that distinction and criticism more about behavioral differences than race?  They’re not saying that a subset of their race is inferior due to race, they’re saying that subset of their race is inferior due to behavior.  The fact that the speaker is drawing a distinction within their race shows that they don’t believe that the negative aspects of the worst behaved people within their race apply to their race on the whole.

This is a good point...perhaps.  I guess it would require more "what exactly do you mean" kinds of questions to those using the term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutism has done great self-harm to liberation struggles for women, people of color & differents in this country. Perhaps because every rule has already been bent against them in one way or another, each group has embraced fallacies in the name of having at least one gun to slam down on the table. Reparations were in sight for black people, yet they used what political capital they were gaining to own the n-word and punish hi-profile violators (when they were usually nowhere near the most virulent bigots) instead. LGBT have embraced an unknowable basis (that sexuality is a birthright) for their struggle because they fear they'll be set back if sexual hormonality is seen as spectral (which it almost certainly is). Women's new lie is that centuries of trading on pulchritude & exploiting their gatekeeper status is absolved by bad male sexual conduct. That'n's gonna splode quicker than you might think.

Edited by wikkidpissah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody has provided a definition...more anecdotal references than anything.

I think the entire racism conversation in this country is inefficient at best as a result of not having a working definition.  The lack of definition actually compounds the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, TripItUp said:

Nobody has provided a definition...more anecdotal references than anything.

I think the entire racism conversation in this country is inefficient at best as a result of not having a working definition.  The lack of definition actually compounds the problem.

 

16 hours ago, wikkidpissah said:

Use of power against another due to race.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, TripItUp said:

Nobody has provided a definition...more anecdotal references than anything.

I think the entire racism conversation in this country is inefficient at best as a result of not having a working definition.  The lack of definition actually compounds the problem.

 

7 hours ago, unckeyherb said:

How about just the actual definition?

Racism

noun

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TripItUp said:

Nobody has provided a definition...more anecdotal references than anything.

I think the entire racism conversation in this country is inefficient at best as a result of not having a working definition.  The lack of definition actually compounds the problem.

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/how-do-we-know-if-something-is-racist-an-expert-explains/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no such thing as NOT racist. Only racists say they don't have a racist bone in their bodies. Antiracists do not. A racist is what a racist SAYS. A racist is what a racist DOES. What you do and say are racist. But we don't expect you to own your racism. Racists never do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TripItUp said:

Nobody has provided a definition...more anecdotal references than anything.

I think the entire racism conversation in this country is inefficient at best as a result of not having a working definition.  The lack of definition actually compounds the problem.

:kicksrock:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things that are rooted in human emotion and societal fabrics are generally difficult to define in words. Racism, depression, love, fear, jealousy, regeret, hate, justice, liberty, crime, etc. I agree with Tim that some things are just what they feel to people. I can't make a list for someone what has to happen for them to become depressed or what the exact signs are to know they are feeling love. I can't define what is funny or what isn't. These things are gravitational laws and can not be perfectly explained in a neat forum post. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.