What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

What is your definition of racism? (1 Viewer)

TripItUp

Footballguy
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

 
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.

..

 
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.

 
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."

 
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. 

 
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.

 
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. 

 
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.

 
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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. 

 
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.

 
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. 

 
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.

 
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. 

 
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.

 
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?

 
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.

 
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.

 
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.

 
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.

 
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

 
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.

 
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.

 
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.


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.

 
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/

 
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.

 
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:

 
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. 

 
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.
Maybe have a bit more discretion in your links. That second one actually had this text:

Slavery is dehumanization. Libertarians are its most avid opponents. Libertarians oppose even the partial slavery that results from coercive taxation.
I'd suggest that anyone who even partially equates taxation with slavery probably isn't entering into a discussion on the definition of racism with good intentions.

 
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.
Does Trip have you on ignore or something?

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.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top