Yes, you can be racist against white people

[cybercoma]

3 minutes ago, Argus said:

only Whites can be racists, and they're racists whenever they think or say anything disapproving of (to say nothing of taking any action against) any other ethnic, racial or religious group, regardless of reasoning or justification.

Since I know you saw my post, that's not even remotely close to anything I said. Individual thoughts and words are irrelevant to institutional and structural racism. You're conflating discrimination and individual prejudice with racism.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

That is a discrimination and only a single aspect of racism that is not even remotely sufficient to define racism on a whole.

That's my point.  Racism is discrimination based on race.  You can have as many other definitions as you want, but there is no requirement to meet them all before something can be defined as racist.  Just my definition will do it.

Edited January 7, 2017 by bcsapper

[cybercoma]

Just now, bcsapper said:

That's my point.  Racism is discrimination based on race.  You can have as many other definitions as you want, but there is no requirement to meet them all before something can be defined as racist.  Just my defintion will do it.

Your definition is not useful and unnecessarily limiting to individual relationships. It completely ignores the largest aspect of what racism actually is.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, cybercoma said:

Your definition is not useful and unnecessarily limiting to individual relationships. It completely ignores the largest aspect of what racism actually is.

It doesn't ignore anything.  Racism is a personal thing when it is actually experienced by a person. There is no reason whatsoever to exclude it from the dynamics of a personal relationship, just because there are larger aspects. 

To say that two Swedes who beat up a Japanese person because they just don't like the Japanese are racists if they do it in Sweden but are only discriminating if they do it in Japan is ridiculous.

[Argus]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

It doesn't ignore anything.  Racism is a personal thing when it is actually experienced by a person. There is no reason whatsoever to exclude it from the dynamics of a personal relationship, just because there are larger aspects. 

To say that two Swedes who beat up a Japanese person because they just don't like the Japanese are racists if they do it in Sweden but are only discriminating if they do it in Japan is ridiculous.

In all likelihood, the SJWs would consider them racist in both instances. On the other hand, if a black person beat up a white person in America or in Nairobi because they don't like white people that would NOT be racist.

[bush_cheney2004]

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

It doesn't ignore anything.  Racism is a personal thing when it is actually experienced by a person. There is no reason whatsoever to exclude it from the dynamics of a personal relationship, just because there are larger aspects.

 

True, but the alt-left elites and progressives want to control the definition of "racist" for their own agenda.   It's trench warfare over language and definitions, taking their cue from the likes of Noam Chomsky.

[cybercoma]

11 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

It doesn't ignore anything.

Absolutely it does. I told you that it focuses on microsocial personal interactions and ignores institutional and structural racism. Having institutional and structural power is what gives racism force and force is what produces effect. You can ignore and avoid individuals and personal interactions. You can't escape the social structures and institutions that make up society.

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

Absolutely it does. I told you that it focuses on microsocial personal interactions and ignores institutional and structural racism. Having institutional and structural power is what gives racism force and force is what produces effect. You can ignore and avoid individuals and personal interactions. You can't escape the social structures and institutions that make up society.

No it does not, and I'm not trying to ignore or escape anything.  I am simply acknowledging that the one does not preclude the other.  Institutional and structural power is not the only criteria for racism.  To insist it is so is simply to allow off the hook those to whom one is uncomfortable ascribing such nastiness.  Much better to call it discrimination.  It's not as bad.

[cybercoma]

3 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I am simply acknowledging that the one does not preclude the other.  Institutional and structural power is not the only criteria for racism.

It's not the only requirement but it's a necessary requirement for there to be racism. Without force, racism has no effect. Full stop.

[-1=e^ipi]

12 hours ago, cybercoma said:

People of colour can discriminate against whites and be just generally dickheads, but they cannot be racist towards whites in the United States nor Canada. Whites hold institutional and structural power here. There is no way for a white person in Canada nor the United States to experience the kind of racism that people of colour navigate daily with institutional and structural forces against them.

 

You actually believe this nonsense?

 

I reject your racist definition of racism.

[-1=e^ipi]

5 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Anyone who discriminates based on race is being racist.  Racism is discrimination based on race.

No, see the SJWs have redefined the word racism, because it's actually meaning is inconvenient to them. We all just need to listen and believe.

[-1=e^ipi]

4 hours ago, cybercoma said:

Absolutely it does. I told you that it focuses on microsocial personal interactions and ignores institutional and structural racism.

 

I know right. Like when I apply for a government job and the institution known as the government tells me that I will have a lower chance of getting the job due to my race... nah that's totally not institutional racism. Nor is it institutional racism when other institutions, such as universities, do the same thing.

[cybercoma]

5 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

You actually believe this nonsense?

I reject your racist definition of racism.

That's your opinion and it's as meaningless as your turds to me. No one, not you or anybody else has made any coherent argument to the contrary.

[cybercoma]

Just now, -1=e^ipi said:

I will have a lower chance of getting the job due to my race.

That's not even remotely true statistically or otherwise, even with the existence of "hiring quotas" (which don't work the way you're implying either).

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

It's not the only requirement but it's a necessary requirement for there to be racism. Without force, racism has no effect. Full stop.

I'm not sure what you mean by force. Racism can be anything from a hand hidden snicker to the Holocaust. 

[-1=e^ipi]

Just now, cybercoma said:

That's your opinion and it's as meaningless as your turds to me. No one, not you or anybody else has made any coherent argument to the contrary.

 

This is clearly an asexualphobic microaggression and I am deeply triggered. Time to head to my safe space.

[cybercoma]

Just now, bcsapper said:

I'm not sure what you mean by force. Racism can be anything from a hand hidden snicker to the Holocaust. 

If you don't understand what I'm talking about, then maybe you should take the time to read about racism instead of just believing you know everything.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, cybercoma said:

That's your opinion and it's as meaningless as your turds to me. No one, not you or anybody else has made any coherent argument to the contrary.

Your arguments haven't made sense to me, either. 

[cybercoma]

Just now, bcsapper said:

Your arguments haven't made sense to me, either. 

Sounds like a personal problem. I've explained it to you. I can't understand it for you too.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

If you don't understand what I'm talking about, then maybe you should take the time to read about racism instead of just believing you know everything.

I refuted your arguments regarding power so you changed the word.  Does force = power?  Because they really don't mean the same thing. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

Sounds like a personal problem. I've explained it to you. I can't understand it for you too.

Oh, that's a silly old cliche that just means you don't have an argument.  I must have seen that a dozen times on here in the last few months.  Come up with something new, eh?

Try arguing the point.

[drummindiver]

10 hours ago, cybercoma said:

That's not even remotely true statistically or otherwise, even with the existence of "hiring quotas" (which don't work the way you're implying either).

So now affirmative action is a myth? mmmmkay.

[cybercoma]

11 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I refuted your arguments regarding power so you changed the word.

You didn't refute anything, considering you have to talk about words rather than meaning.

[cybercoma]

1 hour ago, drummindiver said:

So now affirmative action is a myth? mmmmkay.

Affirmative Action disadvantaging white people is absolutely a myth.

[DogOnPorch]

6 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

Affirmative Action disadvantaging white people is absolutely a myth.

Which talking head told you that one?

Racism is racism...and laws designed to benefit one skin colour over another are RACIST.