Yes, you can be racist against white people

[cybercoma]

4 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Which talking head told you that one?

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

And when you can't even get a phone call for an interview because your name isn't white enough, that's racism and white privilege. That's why affirmative action isn't disadvantaging anyone. White people get preferential treatment and that's bore out in the numbers, if you take thirty seconds to look into discrimination in hiring practices, instead of filling your head with mush-brained, alt-right, white nationalist propaganda, you would see that.

Edited January 8, 2017 by cybercoma

[DogOnPorch]

5 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

And when you can't even get a phone call for an interview because your name isn't white enough, that's racism and white privilege. That's why affirmative action isn't disadvantaging anyone. White people get preferential treatment and that's bore out in the numbers, if you take thirty seconds to look into discrimination in hiring practices, instead of filling your head with mush-brained, alt-right, white nationalist propaganda, you would see that.

Again...you wouldn't call me white in person.

Laws based on skin colour are racist. You're free to support such things...I do not.

Edited January 8, 2017 by DogOnPorch

[TimG]

---

Edited January 8, 2017 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

1 hour ago, cybercoma said:

And when you can't even get a phone call for an interview because your name isn't white enough, that's racism and white privilege. That's why affirmative action isn't disadvantaging anyone. White people get preferential treatment and that's bore out in the numbers, if you take thirty seconds to look into discrimination in hiring practices, instead of filling your head with mush-brained, alt-right, white nationalist propaganda, you would see that.

 

Interestingly, the studies by Philip Oreopoulos, which show a hiring bias against foreign names, also show a larger and more statistically significant bias against male names. But the second fact doesn't fit in Cybercoma's SJW word view, so it gets ignored.

Edited January 8, 2017 by -1=e^ipi

[Guest]

1 hour ago, cybercoma said:

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

We were talking about the meaning of words.

[cybercoma]

2 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

you wouldn't call me white in person.

I didn't call you white. Your race is irrelevant.

[cybercoma]

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

Interestingly, the studies by Philip Oreopoulos, which show a hiring bias against foreign names, also show a larger and more statistically significant bias against male names. But the second fact doesn't fit in Cybercoma's SJW word view, so it gets ignored.

If you want to start a thread about bias against men, then go ahead. Otherwise, take a look at the topic of this thread again.

[cybercoma]

57 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

We were talking about the meaning of words.

You were talking about what is and is not racism. You want the definition restricted to the microsocial level of individual discrimination without reference to institutional and structural forces. I'll repeat what i said earlier, your definition is reductive and ignores the fundamental aspect of racism: power. Individual discrimination is part of it, but not the only part and not even the sufficient part to define it.

Edited January 8, 2017 by cybercoma

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

You were talking about what is and is not racism. You want the definition restricted to the microsocial level of individual discrimination without reference to institutional and structural forces. I'll repeat what i said earlier, your definition is reductive and ignores the fundamental aspect of racism: power. Individual discrimination is part of it, but not the only part and not even the sufficient part to define it.

I wasn't arguing about what is not.  You were the only one arguing about what is not.

My definition is just more inclusive, that's all.  Your definition seeks to alleviate the responsibility for such actions for some people based on their race, which is racist in itself.

 

[bush_cheney2004]

3 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I wasn't arguing about what is not.  You were the only one arguing about what is not.

My definition is just more inclusive, that's all.  Your definition seeks to alleviate the responsibility for such actions for some people based on their race, which is racist in itself.

 

Precisely....the labels and excuses for people of other "races" is very...racist.

[DogOnPorch]

10 hours ago, cybercoma said:

I didn't call you white. Your race is irrelevant.

 

Sure thing. That's why you brought it up.

[cybercoma]

9 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

Sure thing. That's why you brought it up.

You having trouble reading? I said you fill your brain with white nationalist propaganda because that seems to be all you post lately, to the detriment of reason and logic. I didn't make any assumptions about your race. You could be a black lesbian in a wheelchair for all I care.

Edited January 9, 2017 by cybercoma

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, cybercoma said:

You having trouble reading? I said you fill your brain with white nationalist propaganda because that seems to be all you post lately, to the detriment of reason and logic.

More lies. I post like I always do: facts.

That's all you have: personal attacks and lies: the tools of the desperate.

[Rue]

She's a hateful bigot. Plenty like her who are Muslim, who are Muslim and from Iran, and/or who perceive whites as a category.

She's nothing special. Idiots come in both genders, all colours, skin tones, religions, and with or without skin conditions.

The only reason she was noticed is because she's a Muslim from Iran.

I could care less about her. She's just one of many lesions on a face full of acne.

Nothing some anti-biotics can't clear up.

If she sat next to me on a plane I would offer her a kosher salami to take home to her mama.

She probably has food insecurities too.

 

Edited January 12, 2017 by Rue

[SpankyMcFarland]

I would consider Iranians to be 'white people' which makes the comments odder - at least Caucasian, by and large, apart from a small Oriental component e.g. Uzbeks, Hazara refugees etc. 

And aren't most of us racist to some extent? Don't we prefer the company of our own tribe? Some manage to control that impulse better than others but it surely exists in nearly everyone. Can anyone say they have never had a racist thought? 

BTW a Kurdish Muslim friend of mine takes the kosher option on planes. He considers it more reliably free of culinary crimes than the Muslim food on offer. 

Edited January 25, 2017 by SpankyMcFarland

[kactus]

19 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I would consider Iranians to be 'white people' which makes the comments odder - at least Caucasian, by and large, apart from a small Oriental component e.g. Uzbeks, Hazara refugees etc. 

And aren't most of us racist to some extent? Don't we prefer the company of our own tribe? Some manage to control that impulse better than others but it surely exists in nearly everyone. Can anyone say they have never had a racist thought? 

BTW a Kurdish Muslim friend of mine takes the kosher option on planes. He considers it more reliably free of culinary crimes than the Muslim food on offer. 

Couldn't agree more with that assertion that most of us are racists to some extent...

I don't think the twitter concerned here is being consciously racist as you pointed out as this may sound odd.

I mean the english take a pi*& on irish and scotts and so on.

Where do we draw the line? How long is the piece of string?

[DogOnPorch]

Scottish/Irish/English aren't races.

Edited January 26, 2017 by DogOnPorch

[kactus]

4 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Scottish/Irish/English aren't races.

I didn't say they were.

The response was given in the context of the above poster's assertion on tribes, groups etc.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

Scottish/Irish/English aren't races.

If Muslims can be a race, and all the progressives and leftists insist they are, then English, Irish and Scots are races.

[eyeball]

I suggest we start using the word asshole in place of racist.

Seems more to the point.

[Boges]

52 minutes ago, Argus said:

If Muslims can be a race, and all the progressives and leftists insist they are, then English, Irish and Scots are races.

No, Muslims are just overwhelmingly part of a visible minority, so criticizing them is racist, I guess. The Boston Bombers were as white as they come though. 

I guess the more fashionable retort to anti Muslim sentiments is Xenophobia. 

But I have had people argue with me that Chinese is a race, as opposed to an ethnicity within a larger racial group. So if Chinese can be a race, any ethnicity can be. Including Canadian. 

Edited January 26, 2017 by Boges

[eyeball]

C'mon, get to the point.

[DogOnPorch]

48 minutes ago, Boges said:

 

I guess the more fashionable retort to anti Muslim sentiments is Xenophobia. 

 

 

Xenophon had some pretty good reasons to "fear" the Persians. After the Anabasis, I suppose that role was reversed.

[SpankyMcFarland]

How religious does this girl sound?:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/paniz-khosroshahy/mcgill-cycle-sexual-violence_b_9778676.html

Most of that could have been written by any 'old stock' young Canadian Anglo female.

 

Edited January 27, 2017 by SpankyMcFarland

[Argus]

1 hour ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Xenophon had some pretty good reasons to "fear" the Persians. After the Anabasis, I suppose that role was reversed.

But progressives don't believe we have any reason to fire anyone. Remember, even if 99 out of 100 of them want to behead you, there's still that 1 who doesn't! So you can't generalize without being a xenophobe!