OBJ loves animals - he posts videos with his dogs all the time. I find in endearing and I am sure the video he posted to instagram with the lion and chimps was harmless and in goof fun.
Wasn’t PETA just advocating that the phrase “bringing home the bacon” should be banned because it was insensitive to pigs? PETA can shove it and so can the media. Leave OBJ alone let him live his life.
any news is good news. The guy he made the video with is a massive animal activist, fights constantly against poaching, and has raised massive amounts of awareness to animal preservation.
That chimp was better of playing catch than sitting in a cage. What the fuck is wrong with people?
no longer play ball with your dog, either? Are dogs 2nd class animals?
As far as the assholes giving Beckham shit for having fun, get off your XBox or Play Station. Remember to not go on vacations and keep yelling at people to get off your lawn.
and I don't think jcn meant it to come out the way that it sounded. At least I hope not.
No don’t rationalize it. It was not ok to say that. Not even a fucking inkling.
No need to be so quick with the race card. News flash: all humans are primates.
Yeah, maybe I am slow but I didn't see it as a racial thing. All humans evolved from the great apes. But some behave more primitively than others regardless of race.
and I don't think jcn meant it to come out the way that it sounded. At least I hope not.
No don’t rationalize it. It was not ok to say that. Not even a fucking inkling.
No need to be so quick with the race card. News flash: all humans are primates.
Equating black people with monkeys and apes has a long, rich, racist history in this county (and around the world). This isn't playing the race card. Maybe it wasn't a conscious move, but it was definitely racist.
was trying to be some racist monster. It wasn't a smart comment, but he's a long-time poster here who has never exhibited anything closet to bigotry. No need for the torches and pitchforks, folks.
I guess playing fetch with your dog now is abuse Â
Not the best joke to make for obvious reasons, but there's no doubt in my mind that it wasn't at all racially motivated or meant to be in poor taste. jcn has been around a long time - I've never seen him post anything remotely racist. Pretty safe to assume this was harmless.
That organization loves going media whoring to rustle up some donation money. Meanwhile they quietly kill more than 90% of animals brought into their shelters and supports breed-specific bans.
I don't really care about what OBJ does, but it's worth taking every opportunity possible to remind folks about what a terrible organization PETA is.
was trying to be some racist monster. It wasn't a smart comment, but he's a long-time poster here who has never exhibited anything closet to bigotry. No need for the torches and pitchforks, folks.
Sure, the comment may have been a mistake, but it is problematic, and it is best that either JCN or a mod delete it.
Not the best joke to make for obvious reasons, but there's no doubt in my mind that it wasn't at all racially motivated or meant to be in poor taste. jcn has been around a long time - I've never seen him post anything remotely racist. Pretty safe to assume this was harmless.
These things aren’t harmless. I don’t care what he’s done before or how long he has posted. We are all adults and we know what words mean.
and I don't think jcn meant it to come out the way that it sounded. At least I hope not.
No don’t rationalize it. It was not ok to say that. Not even a fucking inkling.
No need to be so quick with the race card. News flash: all humans are primates.
Equating black people with monkeys and apes has a long, rich, racist history in this county (and around the world). This isn't playing the race card. Maybe it wasn't a conscious move, but it was definitely racist.
Jcn comment i dont believe it to be intended that some right away jump right to..racism
Today racism is so instilled in humans its first thought anything close to it that is automatically assumed. Its sad that this world got worse with it. Understanding and comprehension of quote saying or word is lost nowadays. Very sad
Jcn comment i dont believe it to be intended that some right away jump right to..racism
Today racism is so instilled in humans its first thought anything close to it that is automatically assumed. Its sad that this world got worse with it. Understanding and comprehension of quote saying or word is lost nowadays. Very sad
No it’s sad that people try to justify it. That’s the sad part. Being fucking complacent makes you just as bad. That’s the sad part. People bllindly say oh he’s posted forever he can’t possibly be racist.
Jcn comment i dont believe it to be intended that some right away jump right to..racism
Today racism is so instilled in humans its first thought anything close to it that is automatically assumed. Its sad that this world got worse with it. Understanding and comprehension of quote saying or word is lost nowadays. Very sad
Nah- you're either in denial or overly sensitive. I don't want to get too into the weeds here, but racism = prejudice + power. All of us have prejudices, but white people are the predominant group with power. It's that simple- we're all racist and we all exist in a society build on white supremacy. You can deny and reject what i'm saying if you want, but I can promise you that those who don't have the privilege of whiteness don't have that luxury.
If you want to make this a better place, do the work to confront your own biases and those of the people you care about.
Jcn comment i dont believe it to be intended that some right away jump right to..racism
Today racism is so instilled in humans its first thought anything close to it that is automatically assumed. Its sad that this world got worse with it. Understanding and comprehension of quote saying or word is lost nowadays. Very sad
No it’s sad that people try to justify it. That’s the sad part. Being fucking complacent makes you just as bad. That’s the sad part. People bllindly say oh he’s posted forever he can’t possibly be racist.
So your reading is that the punchline is that Josh Norman is black and therefore a primate? It doesn't have anything to do with Josh Norman's antics and general douche baggery? Why isn't Beckham referred to as a primate if it's all about blackness?
I think you're reading too much into it. It was a glib joke that turns out is problematic because of the cultural implications it holds.
RE: PETA have always been a bunch of a-holes anyway Â
Jcn comment i dont believe it to be intended that some right away jump right to..racism
Today racism is so instilled in humans its first thought anything close to it that is automatically assumed. Its sad that this world got worse with it. Understanding and comprehension of quote saying or word is lost nowadays. Very sad
No it’s sad that people try to justify it. That’s the sad part. Being fucking complacent makes you just as bad. That’s the sad part. People bllindly say oh he’s posted forever he can’t possibly be racist.
Am i trying to justisfy it it? No, but i also can see it can immediately being racist comment (instilled by society) but when you arent you can disconcern what IS and what ISN'T via objective comprehension. JCN comment wasnt (i hope) intended for it to be..as said, it wasnt great idea to comment on post like this, as you can see it immediately turned to that thought..racism..its sad its got worse and sad part it will continue.
Jcn comment i dont believe it to be intended that some right away jump right to..racism
Today racism is so instilled in humans its first thought anything close to it that is automatically assumed. Its sad that this world got worse with it. Understanding and comprehension of quote saying or word is lost nowadays. Very sad
No it’s sad that people try to justify it. That’s the sad part. Being fucking complacent makes you just as bad. That’s the sad part. People bllindly say oh he’s posted forever he can’t possibly be racist.
So your reading is that the punchline is that Josh Norman is black and therefore a primate? It doesn't have anything to do with Josh Norman's antics and general douche baggery? Why isn't Beckham referred to as a primate if it's all about blackness?
I think you're reading too much into it. It was a glib joke that turns out is problematic because of the cultural implications it holds.
If you wanted to refer to Norman as an animal because he's a jackass, calling him a donkey would make more sense. Seeing a chimp and thinking "Josh Norman joke!" might not be intended as racist. I'm not saying jcn overtly hates or fears black people. But comparing a black person to an ape IS racist.
Jcn comment i dont believe it to be intended that some right away jump right to..racism
Today racism is so instilled in humans its first thought anything close to it that is automatically assumed. Its sad that this world got worse with it. Understanding and comprehension of quote saying or word is lost nowadays. Very sad
No it’s sad that people try to justify it. That’s the sad part. Being fucking complacent makes you just as bad. That’s the sad part. People bllindly say oh he’s posted forever he can’t possibly be racist.
Am i trying to justisfy it it? No, but i also can see it can immediately being racist comment (instilled by society) but when you arent you can disconcern what IS and what ISN'T via objective comprehension. JCN comment wasnt (i hope) intended for it to be..as said, it wasnt great idea to comment on post like this, as you can see it immediately turned to that thought..racism..its sad its got worse and sad part it will continue.
Jcn comment i dont believe it to be intended that some right away jump right to..racism
Today racism is so instilled in humans its first thought anything close to it that is automatically assumed. Its sad that this world got worse with it. Understanding and comprehension of quote saying or word is lost nowadays. Very sad
No it’s sad that people try to justify it. That’s the sad part. Being fucking complacent makes you just as bad. That’s the sad part. People bllindly say oh he’s posted forever he can’t possibly be racist.
So your reading is that the punchline is that Josh Norman is black and therefore a primate? It doesn't have anything to do with Josh Norman's antics and general douche baggery? Why isn't Beckham referred to as a primate if it's all about blackness?
I think you're reading too much into it. It was a glib joke that turns out is problematic because of the cultural implications it holds.
If you wanted to refer to Norman as an animal because he's a jackass, calling him a donkey would make more sense. Seeing a chimp and thinking "Josh Norman joke!" might not be intended as racist. I'm not saying jcn overtly hates or fears black people. But comparing a black person to an ape IS racist.
Jcn comment i dont believe it to be intended that some right away jump right to..racism
Today racism is so instilled in humans its first thought anything close to it that is automatically assumed. Its sad that this world got worse with it. Understanding and comprehension of quote saying or word is lost nowadays. Very sad
No it’s sad that people try to justify it. That’s the sad part. Being fucking complacent makes you just as bad. That’s the sad part. People bllindly say oh he’s posted forever he can’t possibly be racist.
Am i trying to justisfy it it? No, but i also can see it can immediately being racist comment (instilled by society) but when you arent you can disconcern what IS and what ISN'T via objective comprehension. JCN comment wasnt (i hope) intended for it to be..as said, it wasnt great idea to comment on post like this, as you can see it immediately turned to that thought..racism..its sad its got worse and sad part it will continue.
JCN can't speak for himself now?
Not speaking..let him/her carry on..im done because nothing good comes with these conversations race, politics, or religion. Bottomline, this world is no good and the humans (all) that live in it.adios good luck before this thread is deleted
the ball, you know like midget tossing. I don't get the problem with playing catch with him. Actually thought the little fella's got better hands than OBJ, and didn't need gloves.
Not the best joke to make for obvious reasons, but there's no doubt in my mind that it wasn't at all racially motivated or meant to be in poor taste. jcn has been around a long time - I've never seen him post anything remotely racist. Pretty safe to assume this was harmless.
These things aren’t harmless. I don’t care what he’s done before or how long he has posted. We are all adults and we know what words mean.
We're all adults which means we're all able to not jump to conclusions on intent, especially without the benefit of site and sound, even if the overtones are obvious to some of us.
That's the only way to maintain civility, to have a leg to stand on, and be a credible voice to learn from.
Correct yes, condemn, make sure you have right on your side.
Past behavior and actions are a good indicator of intent and he has been a reasonable, respectful, and tolerant poster in this community for many, many years.
Humans are primates, that's where I initially went. Do I understand others going somewhere else with the comment? Of course.
I prefer to give people of good character at least the benifit of explanation.
I love this place. But you’ve all offended me and I think the only way to make BBI safe again is for the mods to ban everyone. Look at what OBJ has done to us! And to think, we could have had a constructive thread on whether or not Eli is done.
intent matters anymore or if it is simply how one interprets intent?
Quote:
These things aren’t harmless. I don’t care what he’s done before or how long he has posted. We are all adults and we know what words mean
Without intent, things are most definitely harmless. And spare the bullshit about being adults and knowing what words mean. The adults on this thread can't even come to a conclusion on what the words meant, but we supposedly all know?
I'd say that on face value, humans are primates, but that likely won't matter since you've already determined intent and apparently aren't going to give a fuck if told otherwise.
RE: ok, so I thought maybe he was using the chimp as Â
the ball, you know like midget tossing. I don't get the problem with playing catch with him. Actually thought the little fella's got better hands than OBJ, and didn't need gloves.
I had the same reaction, I expected him to throw it at him hard or hurt him in some way.
OK. I agree that I'm not always right when I'm offended. But if you're going to assert that, you should also accept that you're not always right just because you aren't offended. Also, this one is pretty well documented. I mean, come on now. - ( New Window )
RE: RE: OMG are you kidding me with the racism again!! Â
OK. I agree that I'm not always right when I'm offended. But if you're going to assert that, you should also accept that you're not always right just because you aren't offended. Also, this one is pretty well documented. I mean, come on now. - ( New Window )
and i encourage you ALL to shred me for the typo in my google search.
RE: RE: This thread is another reason to trade him Â
Odell didn’t even throw the chimp. When I read the OP title I thought he was throwing a chimp around instead I say a chimp throwing a better ball then Lauletta did this season.
then OBJ is in the right here. PETA is a disgrace, and this is coming from a guy that spent a few years as a vegetarian due to the whole animal welfare thing.
RE: RE: Are there any men in that PETA organization? Â
Not the best joke to make for obvious reasons, but there's no doubt in my mind that it wasn't at all racially motivated or meant to be in poor taste. jcn has been around a long time - I've never seen him post anything remotely racist. Pretty safe to assume this was harmless.
These things aren’t harmless. I don’t care what he’s done before or how long he has posted. We are all adults and we know what words mean.
Neither is 'retard', which on game threads gets bandied about regularly. Anyone who thinks that word is less hurtful, really ought to think again.
RE: PETA are generally good people who fight for those who have no voice Â
I certainly don’t live up to their ideals but I respect them. Giving up eating meat, using leather goods, etc. are all noble things.
I don’t get the need to mock them. They’ve brought awareness to many important issues over the years. We’re better because of groups like them.
The ideals sound good, but it's where they go with those ideals that earns them the reputation.
I'm talking about things like their campaign comparing Holocaust victims with chickens. Or even fear mongering campaigns that suggest dairy causes autism.
How is it different to compare BR to a Neanderthal any different? And the article was written seriously, rather than jest.
Is it OK just because BR is white?
Where is the line drawn?
At what point is everybody being too sensitive?
I'm not suggesting I have the answers, but its food for thought.
I think I can answer this. No, the article you quoted is not racist for a few reasons. For one thing, racism requires a power imbalance. Since Ben is white, it can't be racist towards him. It could be prejudiced, but in this case the writer is white as well, so it doesn't apply.
Also, while the word neanderthal is often used to describe inappropriate, "unevolved" behavior, it does not (to my knowledge) have a racial or ethnic signifier to it, nor does it have a history of use to hurt a group of people.
OK, that joke didn't go down too well, my apologies. Â
I know given the way it's used in racial contexts why someone would be offended, but that wasn't the intent, was just trying to poke some fun as Norman being a dumb animal.
Why I overlooked jackass as pointed out earlier in the thread is beyond me, but I didn't spend a whole lot of time drawing that one up.
RE: RE: ok as long as we have gone down this rabbit hole... Â
How is it different to compare BR to a Neanderthal any different? And the article was written seriously, rather than jest.
Is it OK just because BR is white?
Where is the line drawn?
At what point is everybody being too sensitive?
I'm not suggesting I have the answers, but its food for thought.
I think I can answer this. No, the article you quoted is not racist for a few reasons. For one thing, racism requires a power imbalance. Since Ben is white, it can't be racist towards him. It could be prejudiced, but in this case the writer is white as well, so it doesn't apply.
Also, while the word neanderthal is often used to describe inappropriate, "unevolved" behavior, it does not (to my knowledge) have a racial or ethnic signifier to it, nor does it have a history of use to hurt a group of people.
OH BULLSHIT. Racism is hatred of another race just because of skin color. That's it. Anything else is your own kooky fucking definition you got from some half-baked idiot trying to score points for their side by doing serious mental gymnastics. Come off it.
If you wanted to refer to Norman as an animal because he's a jackass, calling him a donkey would make more sense. Seeing a chimp and thinking "Josh Norman joke!" might not be intended as racist. I'm not saying jcn overtly hates or fears black people. But comparing a black person to an ape IS racist.
This is the post I was referring to. You're absolutely right that another animal (specifically jackass) would have been even more funny and not the least bit offensive. I stuck with primate because of the chimpanzee in the headline, without really considering the racial implications at the time. Oversight on my part.
RE: OK, that joke didn't go down too well, my apologies. Â
I know given the way it's used in racial contexts why someone would be offended, but that wasn't the intent, was just trying to poke some fun as Norman being a dumb animal.
Why I overlooked jackass as pointed out earlier in the thread is beyond me, but I didn't spend a whole lot of time drawing that one up.
It was a funny joke and you shouldn't have to apologize.
RE: RE: OK, that joke didn't go down too well, my apologies. Â
I know given the way it's used in racial contexts why someone would be offended, but that wasn't the intent, was just trying to poke some fun as Norman being a dumb animal.
Why I overlooked jackass as pointed out earlier in the thread is beyond me, but I didn't spend a whole lot of time drawing that one up.
It was a funny joke and you shouldn't have to apologize.
Calm down, snowflake. Maybe he actually has a conscience and can understand how intentions may not outweigh social facts.
I know given the way it's used in racial contexts why someone would be offended, but that wasn't the intent, was just trying to poke some fun as Norman being a dumb animal.
Why I overlooked jackass as pointed out earlier in the thread is beyond me, but I didn't spend a whole lot of time drawing that one up.
It was a funny joke and you shouldn't have to apologize.
Calm down, snowflake. Maybe he actually has a conscience and can understand how intentions may not outweigh social facts.
LOL I'm the snowflake for saying he shouldn't have to kowtow to a couple of posters who probably have really lotion-y hands? OK, lol. Social facts...what is that? Like, facts you made up to make everyone feel badly for you? Waaaaaaaah. Somebody should get their binkies.
such a hankering to call a black guy a monkey. I'll keep that in mind when reading your future posts.
Sleep well, sweet snowflake of mine.
Nice strawman. Didn't realize you were such a weeping bag of vaginas. Let me know when the menstrual cramps stop and you want to go back to being a man.
such a hankering to call a black guy a monkey. I'll keep that in mind when reading your future posts.
Sleep well, sweet snowflake of mine.
Nice strawman. Didn't realize you were such a weeping bag of vaginas. Let me know when the menstrual cramps stop and you want to go back to being a man.
It's no strawman. You're actually the only one still defending the joke. Even the guy who made it realized it probably wasn't his best idea. That should tell you all you need to know. Though, I imagine you struggle mightily with anything involving discernment and not being a cunt.
such a hankering to call a black guy a monkey. I'll keep that in mind when reading your future posts.
Sleep well, sweet snowflake of mine.
Nice strawman. Didn't realize you were such a weeping bag of vaginas. Let me know when the menstrual cramps stop and you want to go back to being a man.
It's no strawman. You're actually the only one still defending the joke. Even the guy who made it realized it probably wasn't his best idea. That should tell you all you need to know. Though, I imagine you struggle mightily with anything involving discernment and not being a cunt.
HAHAHAHAHA. You know why? Because words are fucking words. And it was a funny joke. I'll gladly take being called a cunt rather than complain like a whiny bitch about a salty joke. Seriously, go cry in your pillow now until you fall asleep, I'm sure you'll feel better in the morning.
Hey, here's free one: I'm Jewish. Why don't you throw some zinger anti-Semitic lines at me now to add to your misogynistic lines from before? I'm sure you could make some great cracks about my Jewishness. After all words are words. Nothing bad ever comes from just words... What do blacks care? It's just a joke. Lighten up, blacks.
Hey, here's free one: I'm Jewish. Why don't you throw some zinger anti-Semitic lines at me now to add to your misogynistic lines from before? I'm sure you could make some great cracks about my Jewishness. After all words are words. Nothing bad ever comes from just words... What do blacks care? It's just a joke. Lighten up, blacks.
Night night, shitstain.
Nope sorry, I don't believe in identity politics. So no, you can be a giant pussy no matter what your racial, ethnic, sexual identity or religious background. But if you feel more comfortable, maybe we can get another Jew to help you realize you are an oversensitive crotch waffle, mmkay?
RE: RE: ok as long as we have gone down this rabbit hole... Â
I think I can answer this. No, the article you quoted is not racist for a few reasons. For one thing, racism requires a power imbalance. Since Ben is white, it can't be racist towards him. It could be prejudiced, but in this case the writer is white as well, so it doesn't apply.
Also, while the word neanderthal is often used to describe inappropriate, "unevolved" behavior, it does not (to my knowledge) have a racial or ethnic signifier to it, nor does it have a history of use to hurt a group of people.
I have to disagree with almost everything you said here...
There is nothing in the definition of racism about power imbalance (below I have quoted and linked Wikipedia). In fact, I have heard some black people accuse other black people of being racist against blacks. By you're logic about power imbalance that is impossible...
Furthermore, there is nothing that says a person of the same race cannot be racist, or say something that is or should be considered racist against their own race.
I have never met jcn, but what if he is black himself? What does that say about this whole thread?
Does it really matter the race of the author of that article? I have only ever heard "Neanderthal", used as an epithet, applied to white men. I would say that it is most definitely a term used to denigrate white men, usually who behave badly, but I have seen it used against somebody who simply disagrees, or even in some cases people who are doing their jobs such as police, national guard etc. It is both racist ans sexist. Don't forget there were Neanderthal women as well.
To drive this point home... I took my 6 year old son to Disney last week. My family was standing in line, right at the entry point to a ride, and woman came out of nowhere and tried to cut in front of us. All I say was "Hey, Hey", the woman turned to me and said "Ok fine, you don't have to be a Neanderthal about it". If you don't think it was used as a racial slur, I have news for you. The woman was not the same race. This incident being fresh in my mind is why I brought this up in the first place.
Racism as defined in Wikipedia
Quote:
Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another, which often results in discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity. The use of the term "racism" does not easily fall under a single definition.[1]
The ideology underlying racism often includes the idea that humans can be subdivided into distinct groups that are different due to their social behavior and their innate capacities as well as the idea that they can be ranked as inferior or superior.[2] Historical examples of institutional racism include the Holocaust, the apartheid regime in South Africa, slavery and segregation in the United States, and slavery in Latin America. Racism was also an aspect of the social organization of many colonial states and empires.
While the concepts of race and ethnicity are considered to be separate in contemporary social science, the two terms have a long history of equivalence in both popular usage and older social science literature. "Ethnicity" is often used in a sense close to one traditionally attributed to "race": the division of human groups based on qualities assumed to be essential or innate to the group (e.g. shared ancestry or shared behavior). Therefore, racism and racial discrimination are often used to describe discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, independent of whether these differences are described as racial. According to a United Nations convention on racial discrimination, there is no distinction between the terms "racial" and "ethnic" discrimination. The UN convention further concludes that superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous, and there is no justification for racial discrimination, anywhere, in theory or in practice.[3]
Racist ideology can manifest in many aspects of social life. Racism can be present in social actions, practices, or political systems (e.g., apartheid) that support the expression of prejudice or aversion in discriminatory practices. Associated social actions may include nativism, xenophobia, otherness, segregation, hierarchical ranking, supremacism, and related social phenomena.
I know given the way it's used in racial contexts why someone would be offended, but that wasn't the intent, was just trying to poke some fun as Norman being a dumb animal.
Why I overlooked jackass as pointed out earlier in the thread is beyond me, but I didn't spend a whole lot of time drawing that one up.
Thank you for this.
Being bold enough to admit a mistake and having some level of self awareness unfortunately continues to be a rare thing on BBI.
RE: RE: OK, that joke didn't go down too well, my apologies. Â
I know given the way it's used in racial contexts why someone would be offended, but that wasn't the intent, was just trying to poke some fun as Norman being a dumb animal.
Why I overlooked jackass as pointed out earlier in the thread is beyond me, but I didn't spend a whole lot of time drawing that one up.
It was a funny joke and you shouldn't have to apologize.
It was a funny joke to YOU, not to others. Not sure why your pea brain can’t get that.
RE: RE: PETA are generally good people who fight for those who have no voice Â
I certainly don’t live up to their ideals but I respect them. Giving up eating meat, using leather goods, etc. are all noble things.
I don’t get the need to mock them. They’ve brought awareness to many important issues over the years. We’re better because of groups like them.
The ideals sound good, but it's where they go with those ideals that earns them the reputation.
I'm talking about things like their campaign comparing Holocaust victims with chickens. Or even fear mongering campaigns that suggest dairy causes autism.
They go overboard - no doubt.
But we (general population) also flip out when we see videos of dogs being skinned alive in China, etc. they are passionate about animal suffering and animal rights. Even the animals we may consider to be lower on the totem pole.
My awareness/views have evolved over the years and continue to evolve (e.g., I now study the meat and dairy products I buy carefully and only buy from companies that treat animals humanely if I can help it). I’m sure the same goes for many on this board. We owe that in part to groups like PETA who bring these issues to the forefront.
I should add there are pretty good watchdog sites out there Â
For shoppers to use as resouces when buying food/groceries, clothing, entertainment, etc. I recommend you all check those out (some may even get input from PETA).
discussion on things like this because you will automatically have people go here:
Quote:
No it’s sad that people try to justify it. That’s the sad part. Being fucking complacent makes you just as bad. That’s the sad part. People bllindly say oh he’s posted forever he can’t possibly be racist.
Just like the weatherman that was fired, there is a fair segment of the population that truly believes a person without a history of racist comments is racist, even if it is an unintentional comment.
Saying that people will "blindly" say something is a crock of shit. jcn has posted here for years. I can't remember any other instance of a comment that could be taken otherwise, so is the support for him "blind" or is it based on a long history of not going down the sewer?
If anything, it seems more like a knee-jerk reaction to "blindly" call him a racist.
Just extrapoloate this out a bit. Let's say jcn was a well known sportscaster and made the comment - there would be people leading the charge to have him fired using the same logic above. That's pretty fucking sad, especially since we know that the call for him to be fired may likely be heeded.
if the intent behind it was meant to be racist. Probably not the smartest joke to make but wow I can't stand what our society has become with this hypersensitivity.
I know given the way it's used in racial contexts why someone would be offended, but that wasn't the intent, was just trying to poke some fun as Norman being a dumb animal.
Why I overlooked jackass as pointed out earlier in the thread is beyond me, but I didn't spend a whole lot of time drawing that one up.
It was a funny joke and you shouldn't have to apologize.
It was a funny joke to YOU, not to others. Not sure why your pea brain can’t get that.
Doesn't matter if others found it funny at all, really. But if you're going to throw a bitch-fest about a joke (even an offensive one) then you probably shave your legs. It's probably about time for you to make the real man of your house a sandwich. What I'm saying is, maybe you get rubbed the wrong way about a joke, but if your female sensitivities are so fucking fragile you might as well go ahead and get the operation. Otherwise, try being a man, realize it's a joke, doesn't have a real impact on your life, and move on.
Lets all take a lesson from Morgan Freeman (God himself) Â
FREEMAN: You’re going to relegate my history to a month?
WALLACE: Come on.
FREEMAN: What do you do with yours? Which month is White History Month? Come on, tell me.
WALLACE: I’m Jewish.
FREEMAN: OK. Which month is Jewish History Month?
WALLACE: There isn’t one.
FREEMAN: Why not? Do you want one?
WALLACE: No, no.
FREEMAN: I don’t either. I don’t want a Black History Month. Black history is American history.
WALLACE: How are we going to get rid of racism until …?
FREEMAN: Stop talking about it. I’m going to stop calling you a white man. And I’m going to ask you to stop calling me a black man. I know you as Mike Wallace. You know me as Morgan Freeman. You’re not going to say, “I know this white guy named Mike Wallace.” Hear what I’m saying?
RE: OK, that joke didn't go down too well, my apologies. Â
I know given the way it's used in racial contexts why someone would be offended, but that wasn't the intent, was just trying to poke some fun as Norman being a dumb animal.
Why I overlooked jackass as pointed out earlier in the thread is beyond me, but I didn't spend a whole lot of time drawing that one up.
Thank you, jcn. I appreciate that you owned this and explained your intent. We all make mistakes. I know how corny it sounds, but I think the important thing to do is to own them and learn from them (something I'm sure I could do better myself).
RE: RE: RE: ok as long as we have gone down this rabbit hole... Â
I think I can answer this. No, the article you quoted is not racist for a few reasons. For one thing, racism requires a power imbalance. Since Ben is white, it can't be racist towards him. It could be prejudiced, but in this case the writer is white as well, so it doesn't apply.
Also, while the word neanderthal is often used to describe inappropriate, "unevolved" behavior, it does not (to my knowledge) have a racial or ethnic signifier to it, nor does it have a history of use to hurt a group of people.
I have to disagree with almost everything you said here...
There is nothing in the definition of racism about power imbalance (below I have quoted and linked Wikipedia). In fact, I have heard some black people accuse other black people of being racist against blacks. By you're logic about power imbalance that is impossible...
Furthermore, there is nothing that says a person of the same race cannot be racist, or say something that is or should be considered racist against their own race.
I have never met jcn, but what if he is black himself? What does that say about this whole thread?
Does it really matter the race of the author of that article? I have only ever heard "Neanderthal", used as an epithet, applied to white men. I would say that it is most definitely a term used to denigrate white men, usually who behave badly, but I have seen it used against somebody who simply disagrees, or even in some cases people who are doing their jobs such as police, national guard etc. It is both racist ans sexist. Don't forget there were Neanderthal women as well.
To drive this point home... I took my 6 year old son to Disney last week. My family was standing in line, right at the entry point to a ride, and woman came out of nowhere and tried to cut in front of us. All I say was "Hey, Hey", the woman turned to me and said "Ok fine, you don't have to be a Neanderthal about it". If you don't think it was used as a racial slur, I have news for you. The woman was not the same race. This incident being fresh in my mind is why I brought this up in the first place.
Racism as defined in Wikipedia
Quote:
Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another, which often results in discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity. The use of the term "racism" does not easily fall under a single definition.[1]
The ideology underlying racism often includes the idea that humans can be subdivided into distinct groups that are different due to their social behavior and their innate capacities as well as the idea that they can be ranked as inferior or superior.[2] Historical examples of institutional racism include the Holocaust, the apartheid regime in South Africa, slavery and segregation in the United States, and slavery in Latin America. Racism was also an aspect of the social organization of many colonial states and empires.
While the concepts of race and ethnicity are considered to be separate in contemporary social science, the two terms have a long history of equivalence in both popular usage and older social science literature. "Ethnicity" is often used in a sense close to one traditionally attributed to "race": the division of human groups based on qualities assumed to be essential or innate to the group (e.g. shared ancestry or shared behavior). Therefore, racism and racial discrimination are often used to describe discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, independent of whether these differences are described as racial. According to a United Nations convention on racial discrimination, there is no distinction between the terms "racial" and "ethnic" discrimination. The UN convention further concludes that superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous, and there is no justification for racial discrimination, anywhere, in theory or in practice.[3]
Racist ideology can manifest in many aspects of social life. Racism can be present in social actions, practices, or political systems (e.g., apartheid) that support the expression of prejudice or aversion in discriminatory practices. Associated social actions may include nativism, xenophobia, otherness, segregation, hierarchical ranking, supremacism, and related social phenomena.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism
Hi MCL
I appreciate you taking the time to read what I said and respond in a thoughtful way. Just to be clear – I don’t expect to “win” this, or have you agree with me, but I’m glad we’re talking about it.
I don’t take issue with wikipedia’s definition of racism in the abstract, but I would focus on one key quote: “The use of the term "racism" does not easily fall under a single definition.” The article then goes on to talk about racial discrimination, which I interpret as different from racism. There is a lot written about the idea the racism equation that I presented and there are plenty of arguments that counter it. The reason I appreciate this definition of racism is that I think it captures the way that racism exists in society. The reason that power is so important is because racial categories are a social construct created for the sole purpose of allowing certain groups to profit off of and subjugate other groups. There’d still be ethnic division, bigotry, and discrimination without this, but racism feeds off of and (in my opinion) requires power imbalance.
To your point about black people accusing other black people of racism, I’d argue that oppressed people often internalize the message of the oppressor, and sometimes even weaponize it for personal gain. They might be saying racist things or leveraging racism, but I think there is a distinction between those ideas and BEING racist. I recognize this gets muddy, but I don’t want to delve deeper into that, because as a white guy, it doesn’t feel like my place.
With regard to your perception of the word Neanderthal, I’m not sure what to say other than that I disagree with your interpretation. I agree that the word is used to accuse someone of being a chauvinist or piggish, but I’ve never seen it as being anti-white. I did a quick search for examples of this and struck out. Even urban dictionary, which never fails to include every offensive interpretation of a word or phrase, focuses on gender when it comes to the word Neanderthal. It seems to me a woman of color could use that word (even if she had no cause) because you are a man, not because you are white. However, even if she called you a cracker, for lack of a better example, I’d argue it isn’t racist, but bigoted and prejudiced, because of the working definition of societal racism that I use.
However, even if she called you a cracker, for lack of a better example, I’d argue it isn’t racist, but bigoted and prejudiced, because of the working definition of societal racism that I use.
You mean it is OK to insinuate that jcn is racist, but if a black woman called a white man a cracker, intentionally, it wouldn't signify that?
Isn't making a slur based on a person's color one definition of racism?
Not the best joke to make for obvious reasons, but there's no doubt in my mind that it wasn't at all racially motivated or meant to be in poor taste. jcn has been around a long time - I've never seen him post anything remotely racist. Pretty safe to assume this was harmless.
These things aren’t harmless. I don’t care what he’s done before or how long he has posted. We are all adults and we know what words mean.
Again - he didn't mean it to be racist at all. Intent matters and he explained that it was probably not the best choice of words, just as I figured he would.
We don't need to burn him alive because of it or make it into a major ordeal and I'm not justifying anything. I'm simply saying based on the history of the poster, I think it was fair to give him the benefit of the doubt and let him explain it. If there was no ill-intent behind it, we can take it for what it was and move on.
We aren't going to make progress in repairing the racial divide in this country any quicker by pointing the finger at people who aren't racist.
However, even if she called you a cracker, for lack of a better example, I’d argue it isn’t racist, but bigoted and prejudiced, because of the working definition of societal racism that I use.
You mean it is OK to insinuate that jcn is racist, but if a black woman called a white man a cracker, intentionally, it wouldn't signify that?
Isn't making a slur based on a person's color one definition of racism?
My argument is not intended to justify that woman's actions, and at no point was my argument that jcn is racist. I'd argue that jcn's comment was racist, even if it clearly was not intended to be racist. I'd argue that a black woman calling a white man a cracker is prejudiced and bigoted, not racist.
I'd argue that jcn's comment was racist, even if it clearly was not intended to be racist. I'd argue that a black woman calling a white man a cracker is prejudiced and bigoted, not racist.
What comment by a black person directed towards a white would be racist??
Why is jcn's use of the word primate, which could be construed as meaning human as much as it can be construed to mean a derogatory term of a monkey, but a woman's use of the word cracker can't really be construed any other way as it certainly isn't referring to a tasty snack in any stretch?
However, even if she called you a cracker, for lack of a better example, I’d argue it isn’t racist, but bigoted and prejudiced, because of the working definition of societal racism that I use.
You mean it is OK to insinuate that jcn is racist, but if a black woman called a white man a cracker, intentionally, it wouldn't signify that?
Isn't making a slur based on a person's color one definition of racism?
My argument is not intended to justify that woman's actions, and at no point was my argument that jcn is racist. I'd argue that jcn's comment was racist, even if it clearly was not intended to be racist. I'd argue that a black woman calling a white man a cracker is prejudiced and bigoted, not racist.
I would define any prejudice or bigotry based on race, racism. Who holds power doesn't matter.
Basically it seems you are condoning racism toward white people because whether real or perceived you believe that white people have the power. By your own definition, I would argue that that very point of view is racist because it seeks to turn the balance of power. Only when white people are no longer perceived has holding the balance of power would you consider it racism.... Seems like pretty shaky ground to me.
Since you mention Urban Dictionary I looked myself and found this nugget:
Quote:
Neanderthal
A Caucasian human.
A white person.
White people are Neanderthals.
by CherylCheryl January 20, 2018
Yes, I said you people. So I am singling out each of your ethnic backgrounds (despite not knowing them) and you are all free to think that I meant it in a derogatory manner.
Yes, I said you people. So I am singling out each of your ethnic backgrounds (despite not knowing them) and you are all free to think that I meant it in a derogatory manner.
Well, I tried to make it clear that I'm not a racist, I'm an asshole, but then the Asshole Association of America called to say they didn't appreciate me self-identifying with them. Bunch of assholes.
However, even if she called you a cracker, for lack of a better example, I’d argue it isn’t racist, but bigoted and prejudiced, because of the working definition of societal racism that I use.
You mean it is OK to insinuate that jcn is racist, but if a black woman called a white man a cracker, intentionally, it wouldn't signify that?
Isn't making a slur based on a person's color one definition of racism?
My argument is not intended to justify that woman's actions, and at no point was my argument that jcn is racist. I'd argue that jcn's comment was racist, even if it clearly was not intended to be racist. I'd argue that a black woman calling a white man a cracker is prejudiced and bigoted, not racist.
I would define any prejudice or bigotry based on race, racism. Who holds power doesn't matter.
Basically it seems you are condoning racism toward white people because whether real or perceived you believe that white people have the power. By your own definition, I would argue that that very point of view is racist because it seeks to turn the balance of power. Only when white people are no longer perceived has holding the balance of power would you consider it racism.... Seems like pretty shaky ground to me.
Since you mention Urban Dictionary I looked myself and found this nugget:
Quote:
Neanderthal
A Caucasian human.
A white person.
White people are Neanderthals.
by CherylCheryl January 20, 2018
You're right about urban dictionary! I didn't read far enough down. So there are some people out there who use this word through a racial lens. I'd argue the more common usage is still connected to gender. But more to MY point, either way I don't consider it racist.
We have different definitions of racism, so we aren't going to agree, which is fine. I DO seek to turn the balance of power. I'd like for our institutions to not be built upon the notion of white supremacy. This isn't very realistic, but it is a nice dream. This does not mean I seek to see white people fully disempowered to the benefit of people of color. I'd just like everyone to have a fair shake and equal stake. That does involve us (white people) ceding some power.
To your last point, though it's not what I seek, sure, if white people someday live in a world where they have had every institution built to disadvantage them because of the color of their skin, then I'll happily acknowledge that calling a white person a neanderthal is racist.
several major companies like Oracle, Google, Facebook where they have a massive over representation of Indians, and the Indians in power appear to be discriminating against hiring white men. These suits include the Indian consulting agencies, and many have been brought by the US Government not just individuals.
Being in that industry, I can attest to many of the things alleged in these suits.
But this is just one segment of the US, not every institution. If true, does that count as racism?
hold a disproportionate balance of power, an that does need to shift.
Quote:
We have different definitions of racism, so we aren't going to agree, which is fine.
This is true. Although, racism is generally used as a tool to empower the racist, I do not think that it matters where the balance of power lies. Any form of prejudice or bigotry based on skin color, or race is racism.
I'd argue that jcn's comment was racist, even if it clearly was not intended to be racist. I'd argue that a black woman calling a white man a cracker is prejudiced and bigoted, not racist.
What comment by a black person directed towards a white would be racist??
Why is jcn's use of the word primate, which could be construed as meaning human as much as it can be construed to mean a derogatory term of a monkey, but a woman's use of the word cracker can't really be construed any other way as it certainly isn't referring to a tasty snack in any stretch?
My response would be that no comment by a black person towards a white person is racist. Prejudiced or bigoted? Sure. Clearly other people here disagree with me.
I'm not saying the use of the word cracker is not prejudiced against white people. But it does not have the same kind of history of usage as comparing black people to monkeys. It also hasn't been leveraged in nearly as damaging ways.
Although, racism is generally used as a tool to empower the racist, I do not think that it matters where the balance of power lies.
I think this is the key point in this thread. I am guilty of laughing at the joke and missing the the fact that it could be construed the wrong way. In the end, I agree the joke was insensitive and was clearly better off not being made. jcn himself admitted this. I can admit my immediate comment may have added fuel to that fire and was to some extent insensitive as well, I apologize to anybody offending by it. That said, neither jcn nor I were seeking to gain any power, or to cause others to lose power. Jumping to the racist card then is an overreaction. Insensitive, stupid, yeah ok. But the level of hypersensitivity has risen too high. As many people have stated on here, intent matters. I would argue that jcn had no intent, however the author of the article about Roethlisberger and the women I met in the park both had intent.
several major companies like Oracle, Google, Facebook where they have a massive over representation of Indians, and the Indians in power appear to be discriminating against hiring white men. These suits include the Indian consulting agencies, and many have been brought by the US Government not just individuals.
Being in that industry, I can attest to many of the things alleged in these suits.
But this is just one segment of the US, not every institution. If true, does that count as racism?
I'm not very well informed about these suits. Can you give me some good articles to read?
RE: Lets all take a lesson from Morgan Freeman (God himself) Â
WALLACE: How are we going to get rid of racism until …?
FREEMAN: Stop talking about it. I’m going to stop calling you a white man. And I’m going to ask you to stop calling me a black man. I know you as Mike Wallace. You know me as Morgan Freeman. You’re not going to say, “I know this white guy named Mike Wallace.” Hear what I’m saying?
Although, racism is generally used as a tool to empower the racist, I do not think that it matters where the balance of power lies.
I think this is the key point in this thread. I am guilty of laughing at the joke and missing the the fact that it could be construed the wrong way. In the end, I agree the joke was insensitive and was clearly better off not being made. jcn himself admitted this. I can admit my immediate comment may have added fuel to that fire and was to some extent insensitive as well, I apologize to anybody offending by it. That said, neither jcn nor I were seeking to gain any power, or to cause others to lose power. Jumping to the racist card then is an overreaction. Insensitive, stupid, yeah ok. But the level of hypersensitivity has risen too high. As many people have stated on here, intent matters. I would argue that jcn had no intent, however the author of the article about Roethlisberger and the women I met in the park both had intent.
Intent matters. So does subconscious bias and internalized racism. You weren't intentionally seeking power becuase jcn, you, me - we already have the power. The past four to five hundred years of western history have ensured that we have the power and virtually every institution in the US today works to ensure we keep that power.
I'd argue that jcn's comment was racist, even if it clearly was not intended to be racist. I'd argue that a black woman calling a white man a cracker is prejudiced and bigoted, not racist.
What comment by a black person directed towards a white would be racist??
Why is jcn's use of the word primate, which could be construed as meaning human as much as it can be construed to mean a derogatory term of a monkey, but a woman's use of the word cracker can't really be construed any other way as it certainly isn't referring to a tasty snack in any stretch?
My response would be that no comment by a black person towards a white person is racist. Prejudiced or bigoted? Sure. Clearly other people here disagree with me.
I'm not saying the use of the word cracker is not prejudiced against white people. But it does not have the same kind of history of usage as comparing black people to monkeys. It also hasn't been leveraged in nearly as damaging ways.
Can an individual of color be racist if he does have power?
For example, what if Magic Johnson refused to hire white people to management positions in Magic Johnson Theaters and was overheard saying that he doesn't trust whitey.
several major companies like Oracle, Google, Facebook where they have a massive over representation of Indians, and the Indians in power appear to be discriminating against hiring white men. These suits include the Indian consulting agencies, and many have been brought by the US Government not just individuals.
Being in that industry, I can attest to many of the things alleged in these suits.
But this is just one segment of the US, not every institution. If true, does that count as racism?
I'm not very well informed about these suits. Can you give me some good articles to read?
Here is one about Oracle. Its interesting that "Non-Asians" (a euphemism for "Non-Indians" because Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, etc are referred to a "East-Asians") are paid less, but hired more...
Not the best joke to make for obvious reasons, but there's no doubt in my mind that it wasn't at all racially motivated or meant to be in poor taste. jcn has been around a long time - I've never seen him post anything remotely racist. Pretty safe to assume this was harmless.
These things aren’t harmless. I don’t care what he’s done before or how long he has posted. We are all adults and we know what words mean.
Again - he didn't mean it to be racist at all. Intent matters and he explained that it was probably not the best choice of words, just as I figured he would.
We don't need to burn him alive because of it or make it into a major ordeal and I'm not justifying anything. I'm simply saying based on the history of the poster, I think it was fair to give him the benefit of the doubt and let him explain it. If there was no ill-intent behind it, we can take it for what it was and move on.
We aren't going to make progress in repairing the racial divide in this country any quicker by pointing the finger at people who aren't racist.
I agree that "intent" as well as context matters. And although in this instance I take jcn at his word that he didn't mean anything by his joke, I'm sure that everyone on this thread commenting about what they believe his intent to be probably don't know him outside of a few of his posts on an online football forum.
Bottom line is that you can't ever know for sure what is in someone's heart without having a greater exposure of who they are as a person. And choosing to assume, without having that information,that there is no malice behind someone's comments is a privilege afforded to only those who have never belonged to a group of people with a history of bias and discrimination against them.
I will read the article. I'll also try to respond to the few others who have posed questions, but I really have to buckle down and do some work right now.
I'd argue that jcn's comment was racist, even if it clearly was not intended to be racist. I'd argue that a black woman calling a white man a cracker is prejudiced and bigoted, not racist.
What comment by a black person directed towards a white would be racist??
Why is jcn's use of the word primate, which could be construed as meaning human as much as it can be construed to mean a derogatory term of a monkey, but a woman's use of the word cracker can't really be construed any other way as it certainly isn't referring to a tasty snack in any stretch?
My response would be that no comment by a black person towards a white person is racist. Prejudiced or bigoted? Sure. Clearly other people here disagree with me.
I'm not saying the use of the word cracker is not prejudiced against white people. But it does not have the same kind of history of usage as comparing black people to monkeys. It also hasn't been leveraged in nearly as damaging ways.
Can an individual of color be racist if he does have power?
For example, what if Magic Johnson refused to hire white people to management positions in Magic Johnson Theaters and was overheard saying that he doesn't trust whitey.
Would that be racist?
They can certainly discriminate. And be sued for discrimination. Even though Magic has individual power, i'd argue he is hamstrung by institutional systems working against him and others like him. So while he can certainly discriminate, because of societal power structures, I don't consider it racism. I know plenty of people will take issue with that. But i have to go take care of some things now, so I won't be responding for a while.
RE: RE: RE: In general I agree that whites still Â
Intent matters. So does subconscious bias and internalized racism. You weren't intentionally seeking power becuase jcn, you, me - we already have the power. The past four to five hundred years of western history have ensured that we have the power and virtually every institution in the US today works to ensure we keep that power.
Discussing "every institution in the US" would take this thread into political territory, we are dangerously to close to it as it is. So lets not go there.
Subconscious bias is very interesting...
A white woman walking alone down a street at night.
An unknown man approaches the other way.
Case 1: The man is white, no markings, well dressed.
Case 2: The man is black, tattooed, wearing a sweats and a hoodie.
I guarantee that almost every white woman facing Case 2 would be more nervous than Case 1.
Is she wrong?
What if the black man is a good guy, but he can see the fear on her face, how is he supposed to feel?
IDK...
There are all kinds of misquoted statistics, and statistics taken out of context both ways. It's hard to get to the bottom line truth.
There is also much more media coverage about crimes against white women than there is of women of other races. To a certain extent, that stokes a disproportional fear into the white woman. But since there is so much violent crime against women, perhaps its not such a bad thing that women in general should keep their guard up at all times.
Diving into all this stuff just gets too weedy. I get back to the Morgan Freeman comment. "Stop talking about it", at least the way we have been. Stop dividing people in general.
are basically using discrimination and racism interchangeably:
Quote:
They can certainly discriminate. And be sued for discrimination. Even though Magic has individual power, i'd argue he is hamstrung by institutional systems working against him and others like him.
Racism is discrimination against a person because of their race. And this meaning is important because we can't really just go by what individuals believe. Your position is that there can be no racism of a black towards a white because of societal history and power.
Let's take that to an extreme and give that opinion value. What happens when some redneck's position on racism is that a white cannot be racist if there isn't actually a written record of the discrimination?
What places your position above his, but better yet, what if there are millions of people with different definitions of what is racism? We have to at least agree that discrimination of someone based on race is racism.
are basically using discrimination and racism interchangeably:
Quote:
They can certainly discriminate. And be sued for discrimination. Even though Magic has individual power, i'd argue he is hamstrung by institutional systems working against him and others like him.
Racism is discrimination against a person because of their race. And this meaning is important because we can't really just go by what individuals believe. Your position is that there can be no racism of a black towards a white because of societal history and power.
Let's take that to an extreme and give that opinion value. What happens when some redneck's position on racism is that a white cannot be racist if there isn't actually a written record of the discrimination?
What places your position above his, but better yet, what if there are millions of people with different definitions of what is racism? We have to at least agree that discrimination of someone based on race is racism.
That really should be irrefutable
odunde - I agree with FMiC, your definition is absurdly narrow. So narrow that it is itself racist because you are dividing people into groups, those that can and cannot be racist based on their race. If you recall Wikipedia's definition, that division was the core of of it. The term HAS to be applied equally to all people. Any other personal definition collapses on itself.
Although this discussion of the definition of racism has been both interesting and somewhat revealing, I want to get back to my original issue.
I certainly agree that simian based comparisons with blacks is at the very least insensitive and generally unacceptable.
If we all agree on that, I think that I have shown that Neanderthal is is also a racial and sexist slur. And I see Neanderthal used in media all the time. There was an incident with fans at a hockey game in Chicago not long ago. The write referred to the fans as Neanderthals. I have seen BR called a Neanderthal many times. There are plenty of other adjectives that can be used, brutish, loutish, uncivilized, primitive, yada yada yada. Why do we see reaction like this thread to a much more vague and unintentional reference, and we are all complacent with the overt usage of Neanderthal as a slur against white men?
and noticed your occupation is Youth Services Librarian. As a librarian you are aware of many of the reference materials available. For example Websters dictionary which defines racism as
Quote:
Definition of racism
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism
3 : racial prejudice or discrimination
Please take note of the 3rd entry. This means that racism is prejudice based upon someone's race. It does not include any caveats regarding social hierarchies.
In a discussion it is important that there is mutual agreement on what words mean. You should not make up words or modify definitions of existing ones. It creates confusion and needless agitation for other posters. The fact that you insist that you have your own singular definition, apart from all others, is silly and makes you seem a bit daft. It also hints that you feel mentally superior to others and therefore not bound to conventional definitions. Funny considering the topic.
So here you have wasted the time of numerous posters for no reason except that you like to have "your own" definition to a word.
and noticed your occupation is Youth Services Librarian. As a librarian you are aware of many of the reference materials available. For example Websters dictionary which defines racism as
Quote:
Definition of racism
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism
3 : racial prejudice or discrimination
Please take note of the 3rd entry. This means that racism is prejudice based upon someone's race. It does not include any caveats regarding social hierarchies.
In a discussion it is important that there is mutual agreement on what words mean. You should not make up words or modify definitions of existing ones. It creates confusion and needless agitation for other posters. The fact that you insist that you have your own singular definition, apart from all others, is silly and makes you seem a bit daft. It also hints that you feel mentally superior to others and therefore not bound to conventional definitions. Funny considering the topic.
So here you have wasted the time of numerous posters for no reason except that you like to have "your own" definition to a word.
You're a librarian. Use the fucking dictionary!
Yep. I’m a librarian and I have no problem understanding how a dictionary defines racism. I’m trying to discuss how racism functions in society. It’s a different thing. If you look up racism=prejudice + power you will see I hardly invented this idea it’s been around for nearly fifty years. You’ll also find tons of writing on the idea, some that examines and expands on the argument I’m trying to make. And plenty more that will reinforce your suspicion that I’m full of shit. I’d encourage you to read some of each.
Although this discussion of the definition of racism has been both interesting and somewhat revealing, I want to get back to my original issue.
I certainly agree that simian based comparisons with blacks is at the very least insensitive and generally unacceptable.
If we all agree on that, I think that I have shown that Neanderthal is is also a racial and sexist slur. And I see Neanderthal used in media all the time. There was an incident with fans at a hockey game in Chicago not long ago. The write referred to the fans as Neanderthals. I have seen BR called a Neanderthal many times. There are plenty of other adjectives that can be used, brutish, loutish, uncivilized, primitive, yada yada yada. Why do we see reaction like this thread to a much more vague and unintentional reference, and we are all complacent with the overt usage of Neanderthal as a slur against white men?
I mean, I have no problem discouraging the use of the term Neanderthal but it’s a pretty weak comparison. It has none of the historical weight or toxicity that calling a black person a monkey or ape has. The later of these has been used by extremists in propaganda aimining to terrorize and murder people because of their skin color. The former, has a muddled history that some connect to race others connect to boarish behavior. It’s apples and oranges.
are basically using discrimination and racism interchangeably:
Quote:
They can certainly discriminate. And be sued for discrimination. Even though Magic has individual power, i'd argue he is hamstrung by institutional systems working against him and others like him.
Racism is discrimination against a person because of their race. And this meaning is important because we can't really just go by what individuals believe. Your position is that there can be no racism of a black towards a white because of societal history and power.
Let's take that to an extreme and give that opinion value. What happens when some redneck's position on racism is that a white cannot be racist if there isn't actually a written record of the discrimination?
What places your position above his, but better yet, what if there are millions of people with different definitions of what is racism? We have to at least agree that discrimination of someone based on race is racism.
That really should be irrefutable
I'm not trying to be cute, but discrimination based on race is racial discrimination, not racism. If I used discrimination and racism interchangeably, that is my bad. I didn't intend to.
are basically using discrimination and racism interchangeably:
Quote:
They can certainly discriminate. And be sued for discrimination. Even though Magic has individual power, i'd argue he is hamstrung by institutional systems working against him and others like him.
Racism is discrimination against a person because of their race. And this meaning is important because we can't really just go by what individuals believe. Your position is that there can be no racism of a black towards a white because of societal history and power.
Let's take that to an extreme and give that opinion value. What happens when some redneck's position on racism is that a white cannot be racist if there isn't actually a written record of the discrimination?
What places your position above his, but better yet, what if there are millions of people with different definitions of what is racism? We have to at least agree that discrimination of someone based on race is racism.
That really should be irrefutable
odunde - I agree with FMiC, your definition is absurdly narrow. So narrow that it is itself racist because you are dividing people into groups, those that can and cannot be racist based on their race. If you recall Wikipedia's definition, that division was the core of of it. The term HAS to be applied equally to all people. Any other personal definition collapses on itself.
The core of racism isn't just dividing people into groups. It is dividing people into groups in order to exploit and/or subjugate. When I talk about a power requirement, it is in part because of how liquid and dynamic racial categories have been. If you look at any immigrant group to this country, there was a time that they were other, before gradually gaining the privilege of whiteness. But the benefits of "becoming white" fully rest on non-white groups who suffer the costs of white supremacy. One group rises, the other pays the price of their rise. That is grossly over simplified, but it happens over and over.
Race is the construct that allows white people to maintain their economic and social status. Black people can't be racist because they haven't been granted systematic access to the kind of power that gatekeepers require.
I disagree that my definition is narrow, or inherently divides people into groups. It does, however, place a condition on the term: access to power.
And anyone else who wants to continue to talk about this, let me know and I’ll check back later and give you my email address. I’d love to keep discussing this but i feel like we are exhausting the usefulness of Bbi as a medium for this kind of discussion.
In comment 14255803 .McL. said:
The core of racism isn't just dividing people into groups. It is dividing people into groups in order to exploit and/or subjugate. When I talk about a power requirement, it is in part because of how liquid and dynamic racial categories have been. If you look at any immigrant group to this country, there was a time that they were other, before gradually gaining the privilege of whiteness. But the benefits of "becoming white" fully rest on non-white groups who suffer the costs of white supremacy. One group rises, the other pays the price of their rise. That is grossly over simplified, but it happens over and over.
Race is the construct that allows white people to maintain their economic and social status. Black people can't be racist because they haven't been granted systematic access to the kind of power that gatekeepers require.
I disagree that my definition is narrow, or inherently divides people into groups. It does, however, place a condition on the term: access to power.
Listen to what you are saying:
Quote:
Race is the construct that allows white people to maintain their economic and social status. Black people can't be racist because they haven't been granted systematic access to the kind of power that gatekeepers require.
Wikipedia Definition of Racism
Quote:
The ideology underlying racism often includes the idea that humans can be subdivided into distinct groups that are different due to their social behavior and their innate capacities as well as the idea that they can be ranked as inferior or superior.
There is not much difference in what you are saying vs. the Wikipedia definition. In your definition, you are very clearly dividing people into groups based on their innate capacities and ranking them. However, within the context of racism, you are making the black person superior. Your very definition of racism is racist.
I will grant you that there are people that wield racism as a weapon to gain or hold power. But the 2 are very different concepts. You can connect them to make a very specific argument about a given society, group or individual at a given time, but with fluid nature of society, the argument does not necessarily hold true at another point in time. This supposed definition was created at the height of the civil rights movement, its a political argument meant to galvanize a segment of the population into action. To its credit, it worked. Its not a social scientific argument. The changes in attitude about race in society (at least some portions of it) combined with the influx of people of various ethnic backgrounds over the past 50 years (since this political/fallacious idea was put forth), require the definition of racism to be more broad.
From the Wikipedia page Prejudice Plus Power
Quote:
The definition has been criticized by some academics for relying on the assumption that power is a zero-sum game, and for not accounting for the lack of uniformity in prejudicial attitudes.[6] Critics have also noted that this definition is belied by the fact that except in absolutist regimes, minorities, however disadvantaged they may be, are not powerless, because power is organized into multiple levels.
Black people in this country are not powerless. Neither are Latinos, Muslims, Jews, Indians, East Asians, Whites, etc... Take a look at the 116th House of Representatives.
Regarding Neanderthal, I will grant you that in our current society, it doesn't have the level of toxicity that simian comparisons have, at least not right now. However, if it remains unchecked like simian comparisons were, who is to say it won't reach the same levels of toxicity in the future. I can tell you it felt pretty toxic to me at Disney. Its usage as a slur should not be condoned any more than the simian comparisons.
you have created your own interpretation of racism which cannot be valid
Quote:
Race is the construct that allows white people to maintain their economic and social status. Black people can't be racist because they haven't been granted systematic access to the kind of power that gatekeepers require.
There are so many holes in this argument. In your belief system, a black person could call a white person every slur in the book and not be racist, even if they hate a white person with every fiber of their body and their intention is to hate them simply because they are white. That simply makes no sense.
But putting that aside, in your definition, racism is geographical. By definition, a white man cannot be racist when in China. And it raises a question - can a black person be racist in Africa? Can anyone but Hispanics/Latinos be racist in South America? Can the Japanese be racist to Chinese or is this impossible due to both having yellow skin?
You really can't make up definitions or it leads to a ton of loopholes
In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protests to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy, which has engulfed the Negro community, must not lead us to a distrust of all white people. For many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone. And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back.
[…]
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I will go with the MLK concept of racism over Patricia Bidol-Pavda.
regarding the Prejudice plus Power argument:
Quote:
It appears that the primary indoctrination mode for this thinking is liberal academia, quite often Marxist in leaning. The Marxist world frame is one where power is a fixed quantity, and groups compete for that power. If any one group has power, then that power was stolen from other groups, and the other groups must take the power back from the dominant group.
We don't live in a Marxist society, and I have no intention of doing so.
Although this definition of racism has taken hold Â
in certain fringe groups... It is generally debunked by the vast majority of scholars. Here is a good article providing similar arguments that both FMiC and I have made to debunk this concept.
For those unsure of what I’m referring to, the idea that straight white males (SWMs) cannot be subjected to bigotry of any flavour... these individuals wish to redefine bigotry in order to exclude a group of people. The irony of this should be rather obvious, and it only becomes more so as one delves into the details.
The supporting argument for their claim generally goes as follows:
Bigotry (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.) is prejudice plus power/privilege (power and privilege are interchangeable in this context).
SWMs have power/privilege (socioeconomic, political, and institutional).
Therefore, it is impossible for SWMs to be victims of bigotry/impossible for groups without power to perpetrate bigotry.
There are several problems with this argument, the most obvious of which is its faulty premise. What it describes is institutional bigotry, which is a specific form of bigotry that barely scratches the concept’s surface. This definition can be traced back to Patricia Bidol-Padva’s relatively obscure 1970 book Developing New Perspectives on Race: An Innovative Multi-Media Social Studies Curriculum in Racism Awareness for the Secondary Level, and it isn’t particularly well-subscribed .... That being said, let’s accept the premise for discussion’s sake.
...
[they] should be exquisitely sensitive to the folly of making wild generalisations about certain categories of people, particularly in light of the fact that they perceive said categories entirely as social constructions. If asked, they would endorse the idea of individuality, yet the irony is that doing so would instantly reveal the flaws in their argument. Individual experience cannot be reduced to a handful of elements within a sea of variables. Let’s use an absurd example to illustrate the point.
Barack Obama is approached by a homeless SWM. He punches the homeless man, and then cites his hatred of white people as motive for doing so. Of the two people, who holds the power in this example? That the president’s actions were motivated by racism should be obvious, but let’s keep stacking the deck. In addition to being homeless, the man is in a wheelchair, was born with a slew of learning disabilities, and has suffered from severe clinical depression since the age of fourteen. In evaluating his quality of life, how much emphasis should we place on his race, gender, and sexuality? Is he in a more privileged position than the president simply because he’s white? It should be clear that other factors have had a more profound effect on the man’s quality of life. The example is deliberately absurd, but it needn’t be.
Let’s replace Obama with a gay black woman and the homeless man with a transgender woman. Is the gay black woman transphobic? Who is in a more powerful position? What if the example instead contains a white woman and a black man? Do we have a privilege mathematician on hand who can do the calculation for us? It should be abundantly clear that we don’t have nearly enough information to determine who is more privileged, and it wouldn’t matter even if we had comprehensive life histories. Racism is racism, sexism is sexism, transphobia is transphobia, and so on. We don’t require a hierarchy of privilege in order to recognise bigotry when we see it.
It’s difficult not to view such ideas with cynicism. [They have] a habit of inventing arguments and buzzwords that appear designed for the sole purpose of allowing them to get away with things they spend their lives railing against. It’s one giant exculpatory gymnastics routine...
jcn for the win!
LOL
Dude I hate Josh norman just as much as any Giants fan but this is by far the most racist comment I have ever seen on this site. Not funny at all.
Wasn’t PETA just advocating that the phrase “bringing home the bacon” should be banned because it was insensitive to pigs? PETA can shove it and so can the media. Leave OBJ alone let him live his life.
Because he tossed a football harmlessly to a chimp? Wtf is wrong with you people?
Yeah. Not sure you meant it the way it read but....jeeeeeez
That chimp was better of playing catch than sitting in a cage. What the fuck is wrong with people?
As far as the assholes giving Beckham shit for having fun, get off your XBox or Play Station. Remember to not go on vacations and keep yelling at people to get off your lawn.
No don’t rationalize it. It was not ok to say that. Not even a fucking inkling.
Quote:
and I don't think jcn meant it to come out the way that it sounded. At least I hope not.
No don’t rationalize it. It was not ok to say that. Not even a fucking inkling.
No need to be so quick with the race card. News flash: all humans are primates.
Quote:
Enough of his shit
Because he tossed a football harmlessly to a chimp? Wtf is wrong with you people?
It was a joke, Francis.
Ha. Your handle makes that funny.
Quote:
In comment 14254680 Matt in SGS said:
Quote:
and I don't think jcn meant it to come out the way that it sounded. At least I hope not.
No don’t rationalize it. It was not ok to say that. Not even a fucking inkling.
No need to be so quick with the race card. News flash: all humans are primates.
Yeah, maybe I am slow but I didn't see it as a racial thing. All humans evolved from the great apes. But some behave more primitively than others regardless of race.
Quote:
In comment 14254680 Matt in SGS said:
Quote:
and I don't think jcn meant it to come out the way that it sounded. At least I hope not.
No don’t rationalize it. It was not ok to say that. Not even a fucking inkling.
No need to be so quick with the race card. News flash: all humans are primates.
Equating black people with monkeys and apes has a long, rich, racist history in this county (and around the world). This isn't playing the race card. Maybe it wasn't a conscious move, but it was definitely racist.
I don't really care about what OBJ does, but it's worth taking every opportunity possible to remind folks about what a terrible organization PETA is.
Sure, the comment may have been a mistake, but it is problematic, and it is best that either JCN or a mod delete it.
These things aren’t harmless. I don’t care what he’s done before or how long he has posted. We are all adults and we know what words mean.
Quote:
In comment 14254688 BigBlueDownTheShore said:
Quote:
In comment 14254680 Matt in SGS said:
Quote:
and I don't think jcn meant it to come out the way that it sounded. At least I hope not.
No don’t rationalize it. It was not ok to say that. Not even a fucking inkling.
No need to be so quick with the race card. News flash: all humans are primates.
Equating black people with monkeys and apes has a long, rich, racist history in this county (and around the world). This isn't playing the race card. Maybe it wasn't a conscious move, but it was definitely racist.
+1 Sure came off that way to me!
Today racism is so instilled in humans its first thought anything close to it that is automatically assumed. Its sad that this world got worse with it. Understanding and comprehension of quote saying or word is lost nowadays. Very sad
What exactly do you mean by "obviously referencing Beckham's past with Washington's Josh Norman"?
Today racism is so instilled in humans its first thought anything close to it that is automatically assumed. Its sad that this world got worse with it. Understanding and comprehension of quote saying or word is lost nowadays. Very sad
No it’s sad that people try to justify it. That’s the sad part. Being fucking complacent makes you just as bad. That’s the sad part. People bllindly say oh he’s posted forever he can’t possibly be racist.
Today racism is so instilled in humans its first thought anything close to it that is automatically assumed. Its sad that this world got worse with it. Understanding and comprehension of quote saying or word is lost nowadays. Very sad
Nah- you're either in denial or overly sensitive. I don't want to get too into the weeds here, but racism = prejudice + power. All of us have prejudices, but white people are the predominant group with power. It's that simple- we're all racist and we all exist in a society build on white supremacy. You can deny and reject what i'm saying if you want, but I can promise you that those who don't have the privilege of whiteness don't have that luxury.
If you want to make this a better place, do the work to confront your own biases and those of the people you care about.
Why is that?
Quote:
Jcn comment i dont believe it to be intended that some right away jump right to..racism
Today racism is so instilled in humans its first thought anything close to it that is automatically assumed. Its sad that this world got worse with it. Understanding and comprehension of quote saying or word is lost nowadays. Very sad
No it’s sad that people try to justify it. That’s the sad part. Being fucking complacent makes you just as bad. That’s the sad part. People bllindly say oh he’s posted forever he can’t possibly be racist.
So your reading is that the punchline is that Josh Norman is black and therefore a primate? It doesn't have anything to do with Josh Norman's antics and general douche baggery? Why isn't Beckham referred to as a primate if it's all about blackness?
I think you're reading too much into it. It was a glib joke that turns out is problematic because of the cultural implications it holds.
I don’t see where you could possibly equate Sinn Fein with PETA, ludicrous...
Quote:
deleted.
Why is that?
You don’t believe this thread will be deleted? C’mon man.
Quote:
IMO. They’re like Sinn Fein used to be for the IRA.
I don’t see where you could possibly equate Sinn Fein with PETA, ludicrous...
Quote:
Jcn comment i dont believe it to be intended that some right away jump right to..racism
Today racism is so instilled in humans its first thought anything close to it that is automatically assumed. Its sad that this world got worse with it. Understanding and comprehension of quote saying or word is lost nowadays. Very sad
No it’s sad that people try to justify it. That’s the sad part. Being fucking complacent makes you just as bad. That’s the sad part. People bllindly say oh he’s posted forever he can’t possibly be racist.
Am i trying to justisfy it it? No, but i also can see it can immediately being racist comment (instilled by society) but when you arent you can disconcern what IS and what ISN'T via objective comprehension. JCN comment wasnt (i hope) intended for it to be..as said, it wasnt great idea to comment on post like this, as you can see it immediately turned to that thought..racism..its sad its got worse and sad part it will continue.
Quote:
In comment 14254754 micky said:
Quote:
Jcn comment i dont believe it to be intended that some right away jump right to..racism
Today racism is so instilled in humans its first thought anything close to it that is automatically assumed. Its sad that this world got worse with it. Understanding and comprehension of quote saying or word is lost nowadays. Very sad
No it’s sad that people try to justify it. That’s the sad part. Being fucking complacent makes you just as bad. That’s the sad part. People bllindly say oh he’s posted forever he can’t possibly be racist.
So your reading is that the punchline is that Josh Norman is black and therefore a primate? It doesn't have anything to do with Josh Norman's antics and general douche baggery? Why isn't Beckham referred to as a primate if it's all about blackness?
I think you're reading too much into it. It was a glib joke that turns out is problematic because of the cultural implications it holds.
If you wanted to refer to Norman as an animal because he's a jackass, calling him a donkey would make more sense. Seeing a chimp and thinking "Josh Norman joke!" might not be intended as racist. I'm not saying jcn overtly hates or fears black people. But comparing a black person to an ape IS racist.
Quote:
In comment 14254754 micky said:
Quote:
Jcn comment i dont believe it to be intended that some right away jump right to..racism
Today racism is so instilled in humans its first thought anything close to it that is automatically assumed. Its sad that this world got worse with it. Understanding and comprehension of quote saying or word is lost nowadays. Very sad
No it’s sad that people try to justify it. That’s the sad part. Being fucking complacent makes you just as bad. That’s the sad part. People bllindly say oh he’s posted forever he can’t possibly be racist.
Am i trying to justisfy it it? No, but i also can see it can immediately being racist comment (instilled by society) but when you arent you can disconcern what IS and what ISN'T via objective comprehension. JCN comment wasnt (i hope) intended for it to be..as said, it wasnt great idea to comment on post like this, as you can see it immediately turned to that thought..racism..its sad its got worse and sad part it will continue.
JCN can't speak for himself now?
Quote:
In comment 14254764 BigBlueDownTheShore said:
Quote:
In comment 14254754 micky said:
Quote:
Jcn comment i dont believe it to be intended that some right away jump right to..racism
Today racism is so instilled in humans its first thought anything close to it that is automatically assumed. Its sad that this world got worse with it. Understanding and comprehension of quote saying or word is lost nowadays. Very sad
No it’s sad that people try to justify it. That’s the sad part. Being fucking complacent makes you just as bad. That’s the sad part. People bllindly say oh he’s posted forever he can’t possibly be racist.
So your reading is that the punchline is that Josh Norman is black and therefore a primate? It doesn't have anything to do with Josh Norman's antics and general douche baggery? Why isn't Beckham referred to as a primate if it's all about blackness?
I think you're reading too much into it. It was a glib joke that turns out is problematic because of the cultural implications it holds.
If you wanted to refer to Norman as an animal because he's a jackass, calling him a donkey would make more sense. Seeing a chimp and thinking "Josh Norman joke!" might not be intended as racist. I'm not saying jcn overtly hates or fears black people. But comparing a black person to an ape IS racist.
I 100% agree with that.
Quote:
In comment 14254764 BigBlueDownTheShore said:
Quote:
In comment 14254754 micky said:
Quote:
Jcn comment i dont believe it to be intended that some right away jump right to..racism
Today racism is so instilled in humans its first thought anything close to it that is automatically assumed. Its sad that this world got worse with it. Understanding and comprehension of quote saying or word is lost nowadays. Very sad
No it’s sad that people try to justify it. That’s the sad part. Being fucking complacent makes you just as bad. That’s the sad part. People bllindly say oh he’s posted forever he can’t possibly be racist.
Am i trying to justisfy it it? No, but i also can see it can immediately being racist comment (instilled by society) but when you arent you can disconcern what IS and what ISN'T via objective comprehension. JCN comment wasnt (i hope) intended for it to be..as said, it wasnt great idea to comment on post like this, as you can see it immediately turned to that thought..racism..its sad its got worse and sad part it will continue.
JCN can't speak for himself now?
Not speaking..let him/her carry on..im done because nothing good comes with these conversations race, politics, or religion. Bottomline, this world is no good and the humans (all) that live in it.adios good luck before this thread is deleted
Quote:
Not the best joke to make for obvious reasons, but there's no doubt in my mind that it wasn't at all racially motivated or meant to be in poor taste. jcn has been around a long time - I've never seen him post anything remotely racist. Pretty safe to assume this was harmless.
These things aren’t harmless. I don’t care what he’s done before or how long he has posted. We are all adults and we know what words mean.
We're all adults which means we're all able to not jump to conclusions on intent, especially without the benefit of site and sound, even if the overtones are obvious to some of us.
That's the only way to maintain civility, to have a leg to stand on, and be a credible voice to learn from.
Correct yes, condemn, make sure you have right on your side.
Past behavior and actions are a good indicator of intent and he has been a reasonable, respectful, and tolerant poster in this community for many, many years.
Humans are primates, that's where I initially went. Do I understand others going somewhere else with the comment? Of course.
I prefer to give people of good character at least the benifit of explanation.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHA.
Jackson for OBJ straight up!!!!
Without intent, things are most definitely harmless. And spare the bullshit about being adults and knowing what words mean. The adults on this thread can't even come to a conclusion on what the words meant, but we supposedly all know?
I'd say that on face value, humans are primates, but that likely won't matter since you've already determined intent and apparently aren't going to give a fuck if told otherwise.
I had the same reaction, I expected him to throw it at him hard or hurt him in some way.
What!?
OK. I agree that I'm not always right when I'm offended. But if you're going to assert that, you should also accept that you're not always right just because you aren't offended. Also, this one is pretty well documented.
I mean, come on now. - ( New Window )
Quote:
OK. I agree that I'm not always right when I'm offended. But if you're going to assert that, you should also accept that you're not always right just because you aren't offended. Also, this one is pretty well documented. I mean, come on now. - ( New Window )
and i encourage you ALL to shred me for the typo in my google search.
Quote:
.
What!?
I know it may not seem it but I'm capable of a joke.
Quote:
.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHA.
Jackson for OBJ straight up!!!!
I'm still wondering which dupe this is.
Quote:
In comment 14254850 Go Terps said:
Quote:
.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHA.
Jackson for OBJ straight up!!!!
I'm still wondering which dupe this is.
Idk but hes obnoxiously prolific.
Quote:
In comment 14254850 Go Terps said:
Quote:
.
What!?
I know it may not seem it but I'm capable of a joke.
That was very well played sir!
Well, hell, this thread already went down the reacism toilet, might as well go down the sexism one as well.
Is there anybody else we can offend?
Quote:
or is it just loaded with lonely women who have not been laid in years?
Well, hell, this thread already went down the reacism toilet, might as well go down the sexism one as well.
Is there anybody else we can offend?
do you need a box of fucking tissues?
Quote:
In comment 14254933 EricJ said:
Quote:
or is it just loaded with lonely women who have not been laid in years?
Well, hell, this thread already went down the reacism toilet, might as well go down the sexism one as well.
Is there anybody else we can offend?
do you need a box of fucking tissues?
sarcasm... learn, accept it, it can be your friend!
Is comparing Ben Roethlisberger to a Neanderthal being racist?
https://www.si.com/more-sports/2011/01/28/ben-roethlisberger
How is it different to compare BR to a Neanderthal any different? And the article was written seriously, rather than jest.
Is it OK just because BR is white?
Where is the line drawn?
At what point is everybody being too sensitive?
I'm not suggesting I have the answers, but its food for thought.
I don’t get the need to mock them. They’ve brought awareness to many important issues over the years. We’re better because of groups like them.
Quote:
Not the best joke to make for obvious reasons, but there's no doubt in my mind that it wasn't at all racially motivated or meant to be in poor taste. jcn has been around a long time - I've never seen him post anything remotely racist. Pretty safe to assume this was harmless.
These things aren’t harmless. I don’t care what he’s done before or how long he has posted. We are all adults and we know what words mean.
Neither is 'retard', which on game threads gets bandied about regularly. Anyone who thinks that word is less hurtful, really ought to think again.
I don’t get the need to mock them. They’ve brought awareness to many important issues over the years. We’re better because of groups like them.
The ideals sound good, but it's where they go with those ideals that earns them the reputation.
I'm talking about things like their campaign comparing Holocaust victims with chickens. Or even fear mongering campaigns that suggest dairy causes autism.
FFS this country is circling the drain because of the word police. GROW A PAIR AND MOVE ON WITH YOUR LIFE.
Is comparing Ben Roethlisberger to a Neanderthal being racist?
Quote:
A changed man? Who knows, but certainly the loss of millions of dollars is motivation to not act like a Neanderthal in public.
https://www.si.com/more-sports/2011/01/28/ben-roethlisberger
How is it different to compare BR to a Neanderthal any different? And the article was written seriously, rather than jest.
Is it OK just because BR is white?
Where is the line drawn?
At what point is everybody being too sensitive?
I'm not suggesting I have the answers, but its food for thought.
I think I can answer this. No, the article you quoted is not racist for a few reasons. For one thing, racism requires a power imbalance. Since Ben is white, it can't be racist towards him. It could be prejudiced, but in this case the writer is white as well, so it doesn't apply.
Also, while the word neanderthal is often used to describe inappropriate, "unevolved" behavior, it does not (to my knowledge) have a racial or ethnic signifier to it, nor does it have a history of use to hurt a group of people.
Why I overlooked jackass as pointed out earlier in the thread is beyond me, but I didn't spend a whole lot of time drawing that one up.
Quote:
IN all seriousness:
Is comparing Ben Roethlisberger to a Neanderthal being racist?
Quote:
A changed man? Who knows, but certainly the loss of millions of dollars is motivation to not act like a Neanderthal in public.
https://www.si.com/more-sports/2011/01/28/ben-roethlisberger
How is it different to compare BR to a Neanderthal any different? And the article was written seriously, rather than jest.
Is it OK just because BR is white?
Where is the line drawn?
At what point is everybody being too sensitive?
I'm not suggesting I have the answers, but its food for thought.
I think I can answer this. No, the article you quoted is not racist for a few reasons. For one thing, racism requires a power imbalance. Since Ben is white, it can't be racist towards him. It could be prejudiced, but in this case the writer is white as well, so it doesn't apply.
Also, while the word neanderthal is often used to describe inappropriate, "unevolved" behavior, it does not (to my knowledge) have a racial or ethnic signifier to it, nor does it have a history of use to hurt a group of people.
OH BULLSHIT. Racism is hatred of another race just because of skin color. That's it. Anything else is your own kooky fucking definition you got from some half-baked idiot trying to score points for their side by doing serious mental gymnastics. Come off it.
If you wanted to refer to Norman as an animal because he's a jackass, calling him a donkey would make more sense. Seeing a chimp and thinking "Josh Norman joke!" might not be intended as racist. I'm not saying jcn overtly hates or fears black people. But comparing a black person to an ape IS racist.
This is the post I was referring to. You're absolutely right that another animal (specifically jackass) would have been even more funny and not the least bit offensive. I stuck with primate because of the chimpanzee in the headline, without really considering the racial implications at the time. Oversight on my part.
Why I overlooked jackass as pointed out earlier in the thread is beyond me, but I didn't spend a whole lot of time drawing that one up.
It was a funny joke and you shouldn't have to apologize.
Quote:
I know given the way it's used in racial contexts why someone would be offended, but that wasn't the intent, was just trying to poke some fun as Norman being a dumb animal.
Why I overlooked jackass as pointed out earlier in the thread is beyond me, but I didn't spend a whole lot of time drawing that one up.
It was a funny joke and you shouldn't have to apologize.
Calm down, snowflake. Maybe he actually has a conscience and can understand how intentions may not outweigh social facts.
I'm certainly no racist - I hate everyone equally, regardless of skin color.
Quote:
In comment 14254994 jcn56 said:
Quote:
I know given the way it's used in racial contexts why someone would be offended, but that wasn't the intent, was just trying to poke some fun as Norman being a dumb animal.
Why I overlooked jackass as pointed out earlier in the thread is beyond me, but I didn't spend a whole lot of time drawing that one up.
It was a funny joke and you shouldn't have to apologize.
Calm down, snowflake. Maybe he actually has a conscience and can understand how intentions may not outweigh social facts.
LOL I'm the snowflake for saying he shouldn't have to kowtow to a couple of posters who probably have really lotion-y hands? OK, lol. Social facts...what is that? Like, facts you made up to make everyone feel badly for you? Waaaaaaaah. Somebody should get their binkies.
Sleep well, sweet snowflake of mine.
Sleep well, sweet snowflake of mine.
Nice strawman. Didn't realize you were such a weeping bag of vaginas. Let me know when the menstrual cramps stop and you want to go back to being a man.
Quote:
such a hankering to call a black guy a monkey. I'll keep that in mind when reading your future posts.
Sleep well, sweet snowflake of mine.
Nice strawman. Didn't realize you were such a weeping bag of vaginas. Let me know when the menstrual cramps stop and you want to go back to being a man.
It's no strawman. You're actually the only one still defending the joke. Even the guy who made it realized it probably wasn't his best idea. That should tell you all you need to know. Though, I imagine you struggle mightily with anything involving discernment and not being a cunt.
Quote:
In comment 14255011 adamg said:
Quote:
such a hankering to call a black guy a monkey. I'll keep that in mind when reading your future posts.
Sleep well, sweet snowflake of mine.
Nice strawman. Didn't realize you were such a weeping bag of vaginas. Let me know when the menstrual cramps stop and you want to go back to being a man.
It's no strawman. You're actually the only one still defending the joke. Even the guy who made it realized it probably wasn't his best idea. That should tell you all you need to know. Though, I imagine you struggle mightily with anything involving discernment and not being a cunt.
HAHAHAHAHA. You know why? Because words are fucking words. And it was a funny joke. I'll gladly take being called a cunt rather than complain like a whiny bitch about a salty joke. Seriously, go cry in your pillow now until you fall asleep, I'm sure you'll feel better in the morning.
Hey, here's free one: I'm Jewish. Why don't you throw some zinger anti-Semitic lines at me now to add to your misogynistic lines from before? I'm sure you could make some great cracks about my Jewishness. After all words are words. Nothing bad ever comes from just words... What do blacks care? It's just a joke. Lighten up, blacks.
Night night, shitstain.
Hey, here's free one: I'm Jewish. Why don't you throw some zinger anti-Semitic lines at me now to add to your misogynistic lines from before? I'm sure you could make some great cracks about my Jewishness. After all words are words. Nothing bad ever comes from just words... What do blacks care? It's just a joke. Lighten up, blacks.
Night night, shitstain.
Nope sorry, I don't believe in identity politics. So no, you can be a giant pussy no matter what your racial, ethnic, sexual identity or religious background. But if you feel more comfortable, maybe we can get another Jew to help you realize you are an oversensitive crotch waffle, mmkay?
I think I can answer this. No, the article you quoted is not racist for a few reasons. For one thing, racism requires a power imbalance. Since Ben is white, it can't be racist towards him. It could be prejudiced, but in this case the writer is white as well, so it doesn't apply.
Also, while the word neanderthal is often used to describe inappropriate, "unevolved" behavior, it does not (to my knowledge) have a racial or ethnic signifier to it, nor does it have a history of use to hurt a group of people.
I have to disagree with almost everything you said here...
There is nothing in the definition of racism about power imbalance (below I have quoted and linked Wikipedia). In fact, I have heard some black people accuse other black people of being racist against blacks. By you're logic about power imbalance that is impossible...
Furthermore, there is nothing that says a person of the same race cannot be racist, or say something that is or should be considered racist against their own race.
I have never met jcn, but what if he is black himself? What does that say about this whole thread?
Does it really matter the race of the author of that article? I have only ever heard "Neanderthal", used as an epithet, applied to white men. I would say that it is most definitely a term used to denigrate white men, usually who behave badly, but I have seen it used against somebody who simply disagrees, or even in some cases people who are doing their jobs such as police, national guard etc. It is both racist ans sexist. Don't forget there were Neanderthal women as well.
To drive this point home... I took my 6 year old son to Disney last week. My family was standing in line, right at the entry point to a ride, and woman came out of nowhere and tried to cut in front of us. All I say was "Hey, Hey", the woman turned to me and said "Ok fine, you don't have to be a Neanderthal about it". If you don't think it was used as a racial slur, I have news for you. The woman was not the same race. This incident being fresh in my mind is why I brought this up in the first place.
Racism as defined in Wikipedia
Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another, which often results in discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity. The use of the term "racism" does not easily fall under a single definition.[1]
The ideology underlying racism often includes the idea that humans can be subdivided into distinct groups that are different due to their social behavior and their innate capacities as well as the idea that they can be ranked as inferior or superior.[2] Historical examples of institutional racism include the Holocaust, the apartheid regime in South Africa, slavery and segregation in the United States, and slavery in Latin America. Racism was also an aspect of the social organization of many colonial states and empires.
While the concepts of race and ethnicity are considered to be separate in contemporary social science, the two terms have a long history of equivalence in both popular usage and older social science literature. "Ethnicity" is often used in a sense close to one traditionally attributed to "race": the division of human groups based on qualities assumed to be essential or innate to the group (e.g. shared ancestry or shared behavior). Therefore, racism and racial discrimination are often used to describe discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, independent of whether these differences are described as racial. According to a United Nations convention on racial discrimination, there is no distinction between the terms "racial" and "ethnic" discrimination. The UN convention further concludes that superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous, and there is no justification for racial discrimination, anywhere, in theory or in practice.[3]
Racist ideology can manifest in many aspects of social life. Racism can be present in social actions, practices, or political systems (e.g., apartheid) that support the expression of prejudice or aversion in discriminatory practices. Associated social actions may include nativism, xenophobia, otherness, segregation, hierarchical ranking, supremacism, and related social phenomena.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism
Why I overlooked jackass as pointed out earlier in the thread is beyond me, but I didn't spend a whole lot of time drawing that one up.
Thank you for this.
Being bold enough to admit a mistake and having some level of self awareness unfortunately continues to be a rare thing on BBI.
Quote:
I know given the way it's used in racial contexts why someone would be offended, but that wasn't the intent, was just trying to poke some fun as Norman being a dumb animal.
Why I overlooked jackass as pointed out earlier in the thread is beyond me, but I didn't spend a whole lot of time drawing that one up.
It was a funny joke and you shouldn't have to apologize.
It was a funny joke to YOU, not to others. Not sure why your pea brain can’t get that.
Quote:
I certainly don’t live up to their ideals but I respect them. Giving up eating meat, using leather goods, etc. are all noble things.
I don’t get the need to mock them. They’ve brought awareness to many important issues over the years. We’re better because of groups like them.
The ideals sound good, but it's where they go with those ideals that earns them the reputation.
I'm talking about things like their campaign comparing Holocaust victims with chickens. Or even fear mongering campaigns that suggest dairy causes autism.
They go overboard - no doubt.
But we (general population) also flip out when we see videos of dogs being skinned alive in China, etc. they are passionate about animal suffering and animal rights. Even the animals we may consider to be lower on the totem pole.
My awareness/views have evolved over the years and continue to evolve (e.g., I now study the meat and dairy products I buy carefully and only buy from companies that treat animals humanely if I can help it). I’m sure the same goes for many on this board. We owe that in part to groups like PETA who bring these issues to the forefront.
Just like the weatherman that was fired, there is a fair segment of the population that truly believes a person without a history of racist comments is racist, even if it is an unintentional comment.
Saying that people will "blindly" say something is a crock of shit. jcn has posted here for years. I can't remember any other instance of a comment that could be taken otherwise, so is the support for him "blind" or is it based on a long history of not going down the sewer?
If anything, it seems more like a knee-jerk reaction to "blindly" call him a racist.
Just extrapoloate this out a bit. Let's say jcn was a well known sportscaster and made the comment - there would be people leading the charge to have him fired using the same logic above. That's pretty fucking sad, especially since we know that the call for him to be fired may likely be heeded.
I'm certainly no racist - I hate everyone equally, regardless of skin color.
I appreciate your understanding of the sensitivity.
Quote:
In comment 14254994 jcn56 said:
Quote:
I know given the way it's used in racial contexts why someone would be offended, but that wasn't the intent, was just trying to poke some fun as Norman being a dumb animal.
Why I overlooked jackass as pointed out earlier in the thread is beyond me, but I didn't spend a whole lot of time drawing that one up.
It was a funny joke and you shouldn't have to apologize.
It was a funny joke to YOU, not to others. Not sure why your pea brain can’t get that.
Doesn't matter if others found it funny at all, really. But if you're going to throw a bitch-fest about a joke (even an offensive one) then you probably shave your legs. It's probably about time for you to make the real man of your house a sandwich. What I'm saying is, maybe you get rubbed the wrong way about a joke, but if your female sensitivities are so fucking fragile you might as well go ahead and get the operation. Otherwise, try being a man, realize it's a joke, doesn't have a real impact on your life, and move on.
WALLACE: Black History Month, you find …
FREEMAN: Ridiculous.
WALLACE: Why?
FREEMAN: You’re going to relegate my history to a month?
WALLACE: Come on.
FREEMAN: What do you do with yours? Which month is White History Month? Come on, tell me.
WALLACE: I’m Jewish.
FREEMAN: OK. Which month is Jewish History Month?
WALLACE: There isn’t one.
FREEMAN: Why not? Do you want one?
WALLACE: No, no.
FREEMAN: I don’t either. I don’t want a Black History Month. Black history is American history.
WALLACE: How are we going to get rid of racism until …?
FREEMAN: Stop talking about it. I’m going to stop calling you a white man. And I’m going to ask you to stop calling me a black man. I know you as Mike Wallace. You know me as Morgan Freeman. You’re not going to say, “I know this white guy named Mike Wallace.” Hear what I’m saying?
Why I overlooked jackass as pointed out earlier in the thread is beyond me, but I didn't spend a whole lot of time drawing that one up.
Thank you, jcn. I appreciate that you owned this and explained your intent. We all make mistakes. I know how corny it sounds, but I think the important thing to do is to own them and learn from them (something I'm sure I could do better myself).
Quote:
I think I can answer this. No, the article you quoted is not racist for a few reasons. For one thing, racism requires a power imbalance. Since Ben is white, it can't be racist towards him. It could be prejudiced, but in this case the writer is white as well, so it doesn't apply.
Also, while the word neanderthal is often used to describe inappropriate, "unevolved" behavior, it does not (to my knowledge) have a racial or ethnic signifier to it, nor does it have a history of use to hurt a group of people.
I have to disagree with almost everything you said here...
There is nothing in the definition of racism about power imbalance (below I have quoted and linked Wikipedia). In fact, I have heard some black people accuse other black people of being racist against blacks. By you're logic about power imbalance that is impossible...
Furthermore, there is nothing that says a person of the same race cannot be racist, or say something that is or should be considered racist against their own race.
I have never met jcn, but what if he is black himself? What does that say about this whole thread?
Does it really matter the race of the author of that article? I have only ever heard "Neanderthal", used as an epithet, applied to white men. I would say that it is most definitely a term used to denigrate white men, usually who behave badly, but I have seen it used against somebody who simply disagrees, or even in some cases people who are doing their jobs such as police, national guard etc. It is both racist ans sexist. Don't forget there were Neanderthal women as well.
To drive this point home... I took my 6 year old son to Disney last week. My family was standing in line, right at the entry point to a ride, and woman came out of nowhere and tried to cut in front of us. All I say was "Hey, Hey", the woman turned to me and said "Ok fine, you don't have to be a Neanderthal about it". If you don't think it was used as a racial slur, I have news for you. The woman was not the same race. This incident being fresh in my mind is why I brought this up in the first place.
Racism as defined in Wikipedia
Quote:
Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another, which often results in discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity. The use of the term "racism" does not easily fall under a single definition.[1]
The ideology underlying racism often includes the idea that humans can be subdivided into distinct groups that are different due to their social behavior and their innate capacities as well as the idea that they can be ranked as inferior or superior.[2] Historical examples of institutional racism include the Holocaust, the apartheid regime in South Africa, slavery and segregation in the United States, and slavery in Latin America. Racism was also an aspect of the social organization of many colonial states and empires.
While the concepts of race and ethnicity are considered to be separate in contemporary social science, the two terms have a long history of equivalence in both popular usage and older social science literature. "Ethnicity" is often used in a sense close to one traditionally attributed to "race": the division of human groups based on qualities assumed to be essential or innate to the group (e.g. shared ancestry or shared behavior). Therefore, racism and racial discrimination are often used to describe discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, independent of whether these differences are described as racial. According to a United Nations convention on racial discrimination, there is no distinction between the terms "racial" and "ethnic" discrimination. The UN convention further concludes that superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous, and there is no justification for racial discrimination, anywhere, in theory or in practice.[3]
Racist ideology can manifest in many aspects of social life. Racism can be present in social actions, practices, or political systems (e.g., apartheid) that support the expression of prejudice or aversion in discriminatory practices. Associated social actions may include nativism, xenophobia, otherness, segregation, hierarchical ranking, supremacism, and related social phenomena.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism
Hi MCL
I appreciate you taking the time to read what I said and respond in a thoughtful way. Just to be clear – I don’t expect to “win” this, or have you agree with me, but I’m glad we’re talking about it.
I don’t take issue with wikipedia’s definition of racism in the abstract, but I would focus on one key quote: “The use of the term "racism" does not easily fall under a single definition.” The article then goes on to talk about racial discrimination, which I interpret as different from racism. There is a lot written about the idea the racism equation that I presented and there are plenty of arguments that counter it. The reason I appreciate this definition of racism is that I think it captures the way that racism exists in society. The reason that power is so important is because racial categories are a social construct created for the sole purpose of allowing certain groups to profit off of and subjugate other groups. There’d still be ethnic division, bigotry, and discrimination without this, but racism feeds off of and (in my opinion) requires power imbalance.
To your point about black people accusing other black people of racism, I’d argue that oppressed people often internalize the message of the oppressor, and sometimes even weaponize it for personal gain. They might be saying racist things or leveraging racism, but I think there is a distinction between those ideas and BEING racist. I recognize this gets muddy, but I don’t want to delve deeper into that, because as a white guy, it doesn’t feel like my place.
With regard to your perception of the word Neanderthal, I’m not sure what to say other than that I disagree with your interpretation. I agree that the word is used to accuse someone of being a chauvinist or piggish, but I’ve never seen it as being anti-white. I did a quick search for examples of this and struck out. Even urban dictionary, which never fails to include every offensive interpretation of a word or phrase, focuses on gender when it comes to the word Neanderthal. It seems to me a woman of color could use that word (even if she had no cause) because you are a man, not because you are white. However, even if she called you a cracker, for lack of a better example, I’d argue it isn’t racist, but bigoted and prejudiced, because of the working definition of societal racism that I use.
You mean it is OK to insinuate that jcn is racist, but if a black woman called a white man a cracker, intentionally, it wouldn't signify that?
Isn't making a slur based on a person's color one definition of racism?
Quote:
Not the best joke to make for obvious reasons, but there's no doubt in my mind that it wasn't at all racially motivated or meant to be in poor taste. jcn has been around a long time - I've never seen him post anything remotely racist. Pretty safe to assume this was harmless.
These things aren’t harmless. I don’t care what he’s done before or how long he has posted. We are all adults and we know what words mean.
Again - he didn't mean it to be racist at all. Intent matters and he explained that it was probably not the best choice of words, just as I figured he would.
We don't need to burn him alive because of it or make it into a major ordeal and I'm not justifying anything. I'm simply saying based on the history of the poster, I think it was fair to give him the benefit of the doubt and let him explain it. If there was no ill-intent behind it, we can take it for what it was and move on.
We aren't going to make progress in repairing the racial divide in this country any quicker by pointing the finger at people who aren't racist.
Quote:
However, even if she called you a cracker, for lack of a better example, I’d argue it isn’t racist, but bigoted and prejudiced, because of the working definition of societal racism that I use.
You mean it is OK to insinuate that jcn is racist, but if a black woman called a white man a cracker, intentionally, it wouldn't signify that?
Isn't making a slur based on a person's color one definition of racism?
My argument is not intended to justify that woman's actions, and at no point was my argument that jcn is racist. I'd argue that jcn's comment was racist, even if it clearly was not intended to be racist. I'd argue that a black woman calling a white man a cracker is prejudiced and bigoted, not racist.
What comment by a black person directed towards a white would be racist??
Why is jcn's use of the word primate, which could be construed as meaning human as much as it can be construed to mean a derogatory term of a monkey, but a woman's use of the word cracker can't really be construed any other way as it certainly isn't referring to a tasty snack in any stretch?
Quote:
but this makes no sense at all:
Quote:
However, even if she called you a cracker, for lack of a better example, I’d argue it isn’t racist, but bigoted and prejudiced, because of the working definition of societal racism that I use.
You mean it is OK to insinuate that jcn is racist, but if a black woman called a white man a cracker, intentionally, it wouldn't signify that?
Isn't making a slur based on a person's color one definition of racism?
My argument is not intended to justify that woman's actions, and at no point was my argument that jcn is racist. I'd argue that jcn's comment was racist, even if it clearly was not intended to be racist. I'd argue that a black woman calling a white man a cracker is prejudiced and bigoted, not racist.
I would define any prejudice or bigotry based on race, racism. Who holds power doesn't matter.
Basically it seems you are condoning racism toward white people because whether real or perceived you believe that white people have the power. By your own definition, I would argue that that very point of view is racist because it seeks to turn the balance of power. Only when white people are no longer perceived has holding the balance of power would you consider it racism.... Seems like pretty shaky ground to me.
Since you mention Urban Dictionary I looked myself and found this nugget:
Neanderthal
A Caucasian human.
A white person.
White people are Neanderthals.
by CherylCheryl January 20, 2018
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Neanderthal
Well, I tried to make it clear that I'm not a racist, I'm an asshole, but then the Asshole Association of America called to say they didn't appreciate me self-identifying with them. Bunch of assholes.
Quote:
In comment 14255410 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
but this makes no sense at all:
Quote:
However, even if she called you a cracker, for lack of a better example, I’d argue it isn’t racist, but bigoted and prejudiced, because of the working definition of societal racism that I use.
You mean it is OK to insinuate that jcn is racist, but if a black woman called a white man a cracker, intentionally, it wouldn't signify that?
Isn't making a slur based on a person's color one definition of racism?
My argument is not intended to justify that woman's actions, and at no point was my argument that jcn is racist. I'd argue that jcn's comment was racist, even if it clearly was not intended to be racist. I'd argue that a black woman calling a white man a cracker is prejudiced and bigoted, not racist.
I would define any prejudice or bigotry based on race, racism. Who holds power doesn't matter.
Basically it seems you are condoning racism toward white people because whether real or perceived you believe that white people have the power. By your own definition, I would argue that that very point of view is racist because it seeks to turn the balance of power. Only when white people are no longer perceived has holding the balance of power would you consider it racism.... Seems like pretty shaky ground to me.
Since you mention Urban Dictionary I looked myself and found this nugget:
Quote:
Neanderthal
A Caucasian human.
A white person.
White people are Neanderthals.
by CherylCheryl January 20, 2018
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Neanderthal
You're right about urban dictionary! I didn't read far enough down. So there are some people out there who use this word through a racial lens. I'd argue the more common usage is still connected to gender. But more to MY point, either way I don't consider it racist.
We have different definitions of racism, so we aren't going to agree, which is fine. I DO seek to turn the balance of power. I'd like for our institutions to not be built upon the notion of white supremacy. This isn't very realistic, but it is a nice dream. This does not mean I seek to see white people fully disempowered to the benefit of people of color. I'd just like everyone to have a fair shake and equal stake. That does involve us (white people) ceding some power.
To your last point, though it's not what I seek, sure, if white people someday live in a world where they have had every institution built to disadvantage them because of the color of their skin, then I'll happily acknowledge that calling a white person a neanderthal is racist.
Cave monkey
A racist term for white people. Dealing with how whites are from Neanderthals.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Cave monkey
And this:
Slur Represents Reason & Origins
Caveman Whites Refers to the Neanderthals living in caves; used by rappers.
http://www.rsdb.org/race/whites
Being in that industry, I can attest to many of the things alleged in these suits.
But this is just one segment of the US, not every institution. If true, does that count as racism?
This is true. Although, racism is generally used as a tool to empower the racist, I do not think that it matters where the balance of power lies. Any form of prejudice or bigotry based on skin color, or race is racism.
What comment by a black person directed towards a white would be racist??
According to the social justice warriors... there are no comments towards a white person that can be considered to be racist.
In fact, we can probably count on one hand the number of times a non-white person was called a racist in the media in 2018.
Quote:
I'd argue that jcn's comment was racist, even if it clearly was not intended to be racist. I'd argue that a black woman calling a white man a cracker is prejudiced and bigoted, not racist.
What comment by a black person directed towards a white would be racist??
Why is jcn's use of the word primate, which could be construed as meaning human as much as it can be construed to mean a derogatory term of a monkey, but a woman's use of the word cracker can't really be construed any other way as it certainly isn't referring to a tasty snack in any stretch?
My response would be that no comment by a black person towards a white person is racist. Prejudiced or bigoted? Sure. Clearly other people here disagree with me.
I'm not saying the use of the word cracker is not prejudiced against white people. But it does not have the same kind of history of usage as comparing black people to monkeys. It also hasn't been leveraged in nearly as damaging ways.
I think this is the key point in this thread. I am guilty of laughing at the joke and missing the the fact that it could be construed the wrong way. In the end, I agree the joke was insensitive and was clearly better off not being made. jcn himself admitted this. I can admit my immediate comment may have added fuel to that fire and was to some extent insensitive as well, I apologize to anybody offending by it. That said, neither jcn nor I were seeking to gain any power, or to cause others to lose power. Jumping to the racist card then is an overreaction. Insensitive, stupid, yeah ok. But the level of hypersensitivity has risen too high. As many people have stated on here, intent matters. I would argue that jcn had no intent, however the author of the article about Roethlisberger and the women I met in the park both had intent.
Being in that industry, I can attest to many of the things alleged in these suits.
But this is just one segment of the US, not every institution. If true, does that count as racism?
I'm not very well informed about these suits. Can you give me some good articles to read?
WALLACE: How are we going to get rid of racism until …?
FREEMAN: Stop talking about it. I’m going to stop calling you a white man. And I’m going to ask you to stop calling me a black man. I know you as Mike Wallace. You know me as Morgan Freeman. You’re not going to say, “I know this white guy named Mike Wallace.” Hear what I’m saying?
^ This!!!
Quote:
Although, racism is generally used as a tool to empower the racist, I do not think that it matters where the balance of power lies.
I think this is the key point in this thread. I am guilty of laughing at the joke and missing the the fact that it could be construed the wrong way. In the end, I agree the joke was insensitive and was clearly better off not being made. jcn himself admitted this. I can admit my immediate comment may have added fuel to that fire and was to some extent insensitive as well, I apologize to anybody offending by it. That said, neither jcn nor I were seeking to gain any power, or to cause others to lose power. Jumping to the racist card then is an overreaction. Insensitive, stupid, yeah ok. But the level of hypersensitivity has risen too high. As many people have stated on here, intent matters. I would argue that jcn had no intent, however the author of the article about Roethlisberger and the women I met in the park both had intent.
Intent matters. So does subconscious bias and internalized racism. You weren't intentionally seeking power becuase jcn, you, me - we already have the power. The past four to five hundred years of western history have ensured that we have the power and virtually every institution in the US today works to ensure we keep that power.
Quote:
I'm lost:
Quote:
I'd argue that jcn's comment was racist, even if it clearly was not intended to be racist. I'd argue that a black woman calling a white man a cracker is prejudiced and bigoted, not racist.
What comment by a black person directed towards a white would be racist??
Why is jcn's use of the word primate, which could be construed as meaning human as much as it can be construed to mean a derogatory term of a monkey, but a woman's use of the word cracker can't really be construed any other way as it certainly isn't referring to a tasty snack in any stretch?
My response would be that no comment by a black person towards a white person is racist. Prejudiced or bigoted? Sure. Clearly other people here disagree with me.
I'm not saying the use of the word cracker is not prejudiced against white people. But it does not have the same kind of history of usage as comparing black people to monkeys. It also hasn't been leveraged in nearly as damaging ways.
Can an individual of color be racist if he does have power?
For example, what if Magic Johnson refused to hire white people to management positions in Magic Johnson Theaters and was overheard saying that he doesn't trust whitey.
Would that be racist?
Quote:
several major companies like Oracle, Google, Facebook where they have a massive over representation of Indians, and the Indians in power appear to be discriminating against hiring white men. These suits include the Indian consulting agencies, and many have been brought by the US Government not just individuals.
Being in that industry, I can attest to many of the things alleged in these suits.
But this is just one segment of the US, not every institution. If true, does that count as racism?
I'm not very well informed about these suits. Can you give me some good articles to read?
https://www.employmentattorneyla.com/blog/2017/06/oracle-is-facing-two-employment-lawsuits-in-california.shtml
Here is one about Oracle. Its interesting that "Non-Asians" (a euphemism for "Non-Indians" because Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, etc are referred to a "East-Asians") are paid less, but hired more...
Quote:
In comment 14254739 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
Not the best joke to make for obvious reasons, but there's no doubt in my mind that it wasn't at all racially motivated or meant to be in poor taste. jcn has been around a long time - I've never seen him post anything remotely racist. Pretty safe to assume this was harmless.
These things aren’t harmless. I don’t care what he’s done before or how long he has posted. We are all adults and we know what words mean.
Again - he didn't mean it to be racist at all. Intent matters and he explained that it was probably not the best choice of words, just as I figured he would.
We don't need to burn him alive because of it or make it into a major ordeal and I'm not justifying anything. I'm simply saying based on the history of the poster, I think it was fair to give him the benefit of the doubt and let him explain it. If there was no ill-intent behind it, we can take it for what it was and move on.
We aren't going to make progress in repairing the racial divide in this country any quicker by pointing the finger at people who aren't racist.
I agree that "intent" as well as context matters. And although in this instance I take jcn at his word that he didn't mean anything by his joke, I'm sure that everyone on this thread commenting about what they believe his intent to be probably don't know him outside of a few of his posts on an online football forum.
Bottom line is that you can't ever know for sure what is in someone's heart without having a greater exposure of who they are as a person. And choosing to assume, without having that information,that there is no malice behind someone's comments is a privilege afforded to only those who have never belonged to a group of people with a history of bias and discrimination against them.
Sorry to duck away.
Quote:
In comment 14255448 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
I'm lost:
Quote:
I'd argue that jcn's comment was racist, even if it clearly was not intended to be racist. I'd argue that a black woman calling a white man a cracker is prejudiced and bigoted, not racist.
What comment by a black person directed towards a white would be racist??
Why is jcn's use of the word primate, which could be construed as meaning human as much as it can be construed to mean a derogatory term of a monkey, but a woman's use of the word cracker can't really be construed any other way as it certainly isn't referring to a tasty snack in any stretch?
My response would be that no comment by a black person towards a white person is racist. Prejudiced or bigoted? Sure. Clearly other people here disagree with me.
I'm not saying the use of the word cracker is not prejudiced against white people. But it does not have the same kind of history of usage as comparing black people to monkeys. It also hasn't been leveraged in nearly as damaging ways.
Can an individual of color be racist if he does have power?
For example, what if Magic Johnson refused to hire white people to management positions in Magic Johnson Theaters and was overheard saying that he doesn't trust whitey.
Would that be racist?
They can certainly discriminate. And be sued for discrimination. Even though Magic has individual power, i'd argue he is hamstrung by institutional systems working against him and others like him. So while he can certainly discriminate, because of societal power structures, I don't consider it racism. I know plenty of people will take issue with that. But i have to go take care of some things now, so I won't be responding for a while.
Intent matters. So does subconscious bias and internalized racism. You weren't intentionally seeking power becuase jcn, you, me - we already have the power. The past four to five hundred years of western history have ensured that we have the power and virtually every institution in the US today works to ensure we keep that power.
Discussing "every institution in the US" would take this thread into political territory, we are dangerously to close to it as it is. So lets not go there.
Subconscious bias is very interesting...
A white woman walking alone down a street at night.
An unknown man approaches the other way.
Case 1: The man is white, no markings, well dressed.
Case 2: The man is black, tattooed, wearing a sweats and a hoodie.
I guarantee that almost every white woman facing Case 2 would be more nervous than Case 1.
Is she wrong?
What if the black man is a good guy, but he can see the fear on her face, how is he supposed to feel?
IDK...
There are all kinds of misquoted statistics, and statistics taken out of context both ways. It's hard to get to the bottom line truth.
There is also much more media coverage about crimes against white women than there is of women of other races. To a certain extent, that stokes a disproportional fear into the white woman. But since there is so much violent crime against women, perhaps its not such a bad thing that women in general should keep their guard up at all times.
Diving into all this stuff just gets too weedy. I get back to the Morgan Freeman comment. "Stop talking about it", at least the way we have been. Stop dividing people in general.
Racism is discrimination against a person because of their race. And this meaning is important because we can't really just go by what individuals believe. Your position is that there can be no racism of a black towards a white because of societal history and power.
Let's take that to an extreme and give that opinion value. What happens when some redneck's position on racism is that a white cannot be racist if there isn't actually a written record of the discrimination?
What places your position above his, but better yet, what if there are millions of people with different definitions of what is racism? We have to at least agree that discrimination of someone based on race is racism.
That really should be irrefutable
Quote:
They can certainly discriminate. And be sued for discrimination. Even though Magic has individual power, i'd argue he is hamstrung by institutional systems working against him and others like him.
Racism is discrimination against a person because of their race. And this meaning is important because we can't really just go by what individuals believe. Your position is that there can be no racism of a black towards a white because of societal history and power.
Let's take that to an extreme and give that opinion value. What happens when some redneck's position on racism is that a white cannot be racist if there isn't actually a written record of the discrimination?
What places your position above his, but better yet, what if there are millions of people with different definitions of what is racism? We have to at least agree that discrimination of someone based on race is racism.
That really should be irrefutable
odunde - I agree with FMiC, your definition is absurdly narrow. So narrow that it is itself racist because you are dividing people into groups, those that can and cannot be racist based on their race. If you recall Wikipedia's definition, that division was the core of of it. The term HAS to be applied equally to all people. Any other personal definition collapses on itself.
I don't know, I think about 35% of this site would prefer to cut Eli and play the chimp. Anything is better than Eli!!!
I certainly agree that simian based comparisons with blacks is at the very least insensitive and generally unacceptable.
If we all agree on that, I think that I have shown that Neanderthal is is also a racial and sexist slur. And I see Neanderthal used in media all the time. There was an incident with fans at a hockey game in Chicago not long ago. The write referred to the fans as Neanderthals. I have seen BR called a Neanderthal many times. There are plenty of other adjectives that can be used, brutish, loutish, uncivilized, primitive, yada yada yada. Why do we see reaction like this thread to a much more vague and unintentional reference, and we are all complacent with the overt usage of Neanderthal as a slur against white men?
Unless they're from Philly, of course. Then they're Eagle fans!
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism
3 : racial prejudice or discrimination
Please take note of the 3rd entry. This means that racism is prejudice based upon someone's race. It does not include any caveats regarding social hierarchies.
In a discussion it is important that there is mutual agreement on what words mean. You should not make up words or modify definitions of existing ones. It creates confusion and needless agitation for other posters. The fact that you insist that you have your own singular definition, apart from all others, is silly and makes you seem a bit daft. It also hints that you feel mentally superior to others and therefore not bound to conventional definitions. Funny considering the topic.
So here you have wasted the time of numerous posters for no reason except that you like to have "your own" definition to a word.
You're a librarian. Use the fucking dictionary!
Quote:
Definition of racism
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism
3 : racial prejudice or discrimination
Please take note of the 3rd entry. This means that racism is prejudice based upon someone's race. It does not include any caveats regarding social hierarchies.
In a discussion it is important that there is mutual agreement on what words mean. You should not make up words or modify definitions of existing ones. It creates confusion and needless agitation for other posters. The fact that you insist that you have your own singular definition, apart from all others, is silly and makes you seem a bit daft. It also hints that you feel mentally superior to others and therefore not bound to conventional definitions. Funny considering the topic.
So here you have wasted the time of numerous posters for no reason except that you like to have "your own" definition to a word.
You're a librarian. Use the fucking dictionary!
Yep. I’m a librarian and I have no problem understanding how a dictionary defines racism. I’m trying to discuss how racism functions in society. It’s a different thing. If you look up racism=prejudice + power you will see I hardly invented this idea it’s been around for nearly fifty years. You’ll also find tons of writing on the idea, some that examines and expands on the argument I’m trying to make. And plenty more that will reinforce your suspicion that I’m full of shit. I’d encourage you to read some of each.
I certainly agree that simian based comparisons with blacks is at the very least insensitive and generally unacceptable.
If we all agree on that, I think that I have shown that Neanderthal is is also a racial and sexist slur. And I see Neanderthal used in media all the time. There was an incident with fans at a hockey game in Chicago not long ago. The write referred to the fans as Neanderthals. I have seen BR called a Neanderthal many times. There are plenty of other adjectives that can be used, brutish, loutish, uncivilized, primitive, yada yada yada. Why do we see reaction like this thread to a much more vague and unintentional reference, and we are all complacent with the overt usage of Neanderthal as a slur against white men?
I mean, I have no problem discouraging the use of the term Neanderthal but it’s a pretty weak comparison. It has none of the historical weight or toxicity that calling a black person a monkey or ape has. The later of these has been used by extremists in propaganda aimining to terrorize and murder people because of their skin color. The former, has a muddled history that some connect to race others connect to boarish behavior. It’s apples and oranges.
Quote:
They can certainly discriminate. And be sued for discrimination. Even though Magic has individual power, i'd argue he is hamstrung by institutional systems working against him and others like him.
Racism is discrimination against a person because of their race. And this meaning is important because we can't really just go by what individuals believe. Your position is that there can be no racism of a black towards a white because of societal history and power.
Let's take that to an extreme and give that opinion value. What happens when some redneck's position on racism is that a white cannot be racist if there isn't actually a written record of the discrimination?
What places your position above his, but better yet, what if there are millions of people with different definitions of what is racism? We have to at least agree that discrimination of someone based on race is racism.
That really should be irrefutable
I'm not trying to be cute, but discrimination based on race is racial discrimination, not racism. If I used discrimination and racism interchangeably, that is my bad. I didn't intend to.
Quote:
are basically using discrimination and racism interchangeably:
Quote:
They can certainly discriminate. And be sued for discrimination. Even though Magic has individual power, i'd argue he is hamstrung by institutional systems working against him and others like him.
Racism is discrimination against a person because of their race. And this meaning is important because we can't really just go by what individuals believe. Your position is that there can be no racism of a black towards a white because of societal history and power.
Let's take that to an extreme and give that opinion value. What happens when some redneck's position on racism is that a white cannot be racist if there isn't actually a written record of the discrimination?
What places your position above his, but better yet, what if there are millions of people with different definitions of what is racism? We have to at least agree that discrimination of someone based on race is racism.
That really should be irrefutable
odunde - I agree with FMiC, your definition is absurdly narrow. So narrow that it is itself racist because you are dividing people into groups, those that can and cannot be racist based on their race. If you recall Wikipedia's definition, that division was the core of of it. The term HAS to be applied equally to all people. Any other personal definition collapses on itself.
The core of racism isn't just dividing people into groups. It is dividing people into groups in order to exploit and/or subjugate. When I talk about a power requirement, it is in part because of how liquid and dynamic racial categories have been. If you look at any immigrant group to this country, there was a time that they were other, before gradually gaining the privilege of whiteness. But the benefits of "becoming white" fully rest on non-white groups who suffer the costs of white supremacy. One group rises, the other pays the price of their rise. That is grossly over simplified, but it happens over and over.
Race is the construct that allows white people to maintain their economic and social status. Black people can't be racist because they haven't been granted systematic access to the kind of power that gatekeepers require.
I disagree that my definition is narrow, or inherently divides people into groups. It does, however, place a condition on the term: access to power.
The core of racism isn't just dividing people into groups. It is dividing people into groups in order to exploit and/or subjugate. When I talk about a power requirement, it is in part because of how liquid and dynamic racial categories have been. If you look at any immigrant group to this country, there was a time that they were other, before gradually gaining the privilege of whiteness. But the benefits of "becoming white" fully rest on non-white groups who suffer the costs of white supremacy. One group rises, the other pays the price of their rise. That is grossly over simplified, but it happens over and over.
Race is the construct that allows white people to maintain their economic and social status. Black people can't be racist because they haven't been granted systematic access to the kind of power that gatekeepers require.
I disagree that my definition is narrow, or inherently divides people into groups. It does, however, place a condition on the term: access to power.
Listen to what you are saying:
Race is the construct that allows white people to maintain their economic and social status. Black people can't be racist because they haven't been granted systematic access to the kind of power that gatekeepers require.
Wikipedia Definition of Racism
The ideology underlying racism often includes the idea that humans can be subdivided into distinct groups that are different due to their social behavior and their innate capacities as well as the idea that they can be ranked as inferior or superior.
There is not much difference in what you are saying vs. the Wikipedia definition. In your definition, you are very clearly dividing people into groups based on their innate capacities and ranking them. However, within the context of racism, you are making the black person superior. Your very definition of racism is racist.
I will grant you that there are people that wield racism as a weapon to gain or hold power. But the 2 are very different concepts. You can connect them to make a very specific argument about a given society, group or individual at a given time, but with fluid nature of society, the argument does not necessarily hold true at another point in time. This supposed definition was created at the height of the civil rights movement, its a political argument meant to galvanize a segment of the population into action. To its credit, it worked. Its not a social scientific argument. The changes in attitude about race in society (at least some portions of it) combined with the influx of people of various ethnic backgrounds over the past 50 years (since this political/fallacious idea was put forth), require the definition of racism to be more broad.
From the Wikipedia page Prejudice Plus Power
The definition has been criticized by some academics for relying on the assumption that power is a zero-sum game, and for not accounting for the lack of uniformity in prejudicial attitudes.[6] Critics have also noted that this definition is belied by the fact that except in absolutist regimes, minorities, however disadvantaged they may be, are not powerless, because power is organized into multiple levels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice_plus_power
Black people in this country are not powerless. Neither are Latinos, Muslims, Jews, Indians, East Asians, Whites, etc... Take a look at the 116th House of Representatives.
Regarding Neanderthal, I will grant you that in our current society, it doesn't have the level of toxicity that simian comparisons have, at least not right now. However, if it remains unchecked like simian comparisons were, who is to say it won't reach the same levels of toxicity in the future. I can tell you it felt pretty toxic to me at Disney. Its usage as a slur should not be condoned any more than the simian comparisons.
There are so many holes in this argument. In your belief system, a black person could call a white person every slur in the book and not be racist, even if they hate a white person with every fiber of their body and their intention is to hate them simply because they are white. That simply makes no sense.
But putting that aside, in your definition, racism is geographical. By definition, a white man cannot be racist when in China. And it raises a question - can a black person be racist in Africa? Can anyone but Hispanics/Latinos be racist in South America? Can the Japanese be racist to Chinese or is this impossible due to both having yellow skin?
You really can't make up definitions or it leads to a ton of loopholes
In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protests to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy, which has engulfed the Negro community, must not lead us to a distrust of all white people. For many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone. And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back.
[…]
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I will go with the MLK concept of racism over Patricia Bidol-Pavda.
regarding the Prejudice plus Power argument:
It appears that the primary indoctrination mode for this thinking is liberal academia, quite often Marxist in leaning. The Marxist world frame is one where power is a fixed quantity, and groups compete for that power. If any one group has power, then that power was stolen from other groups, and the other groups must take the power back from the dominant group.
We don't live in a Marxist society, and I have no intention of doing so.
https://www.skepticink.com/flyingscotsman/2015/08/07/pseudo-liberals-check-your-understanding-of-privilege/
For those unsure of what I’m referring to, the idea that straight white males (SWMs) cannot be subjected to bigotry of any flavour... these individuals wish to redefine bigotry in order to exclude a group of people. The irony of this should be rather obvious, and it only becomes more so as one delves into the details.
The supporting argument for their claim generally goes as follows:
Bigotry (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.) is prejudice plus power/privilege (power and privilege are interchangeable in this context).
SWMs have power/privilege (socioeconomic, political, and institutional).
Therefore, it is impossible for SWMs to be victims of bigotry/impossible for groups without power to perpetrate bigotry.
There are several problems with this argument, the most obvious of which is its faulty premise. What it describes is institutional bigotry, which is a specific form of bigotry that barely scratches the concept’s surface. This definition can be traced back to Patricia Bidol-Padva’s relatively obscure 1970 book Developing New Perspectives on Race: An Innovative Multi-Media Social Studies Curriculum in Racism Awareness for the Secondary Level, and it isn’t particularly well-subscribed .... That being said, let’s accept the premise for discussion’s sake.
...
[they] should be exquisitely sensitive to the folly of making wild generalisations about certain categories of people, particularly in light of the fact that they perceive said categories entirely as social constructions. If asked, they would endorse the idea of individuality, yet the irony is that doing so would instantly reveal the flaws in their argument. Individual experience cannot be reduced to a handful of elements within a sea of variables. Let’s use an absurd example to illustrate the point.
Barack Obama is approached by a homeless SWM. He punches the homeless man, and then cites his hatred of white people as motive for doing so. Of the two people, who holds the power in this example? That the president’s actions were motivated by racism should be obvious, but let’s keep stacking the deck. In addition to being homeless, the man is in a wheelchair, was born with a slew of learning disabilities, and has suffered from severe clinical depression since the age of fourteen. In evaluating his quality of life, how much emphasis should we place on his race, gender, and sexuality? Is he in a more privileged position than the president simply because he’s white? It should be clear that other factors have had a more profound effect on the man’s quality of life. The example is deliberately absurd, but it needn’t be.
Let’s replace Obama with a gay black woman and the homeless man with a transgender woman. Is the gay black woman transphobic? Who is in a more powerful position? What if the example instead contains a white woman and a black man? Do we have a privilege mathematician on hand who can do the calculation for us? It should be abundantly clear that we don’t have nearly enough information to determine who is more privileged, and it wouldn’t matter even if we had comprehensive life histories. Racism is racism, sexism is sexism, transphobia is transphobia, and so on. We don’t require a hierarchy of privilege in order to recognise bigotry when we see it.
It’s difficult not to view such ideas with cynicism. [They have] a habit of inventing arguments and buzzwords that appear designed for the sole purpose of allowing them to get away with things they spend their lives railing against. It’s one giant exculpatory gymnastics routine...
https://areomagazine.com/2017/06/16/racism-does-not-equal-prejudice-power/