|
1. Ignorant - "i don't like people who are mean to me, most of those are white" would have been an acceptable phrasing.
2. Racist - prejudice based on nationality which includes a broad generalization (also the ignorance of claiming there are things more important than SC).
3. Sexist - which in most ways is the same as racism although it's important to keep both words in our vocabularies. Think of it this way - discrimination based on generalization can have more or less merit. "Caucasians have light skin" - a phrase few would object to. "Old people have poor eyesight", "Women have mammary glands" - again, phrases few would object to. However - semantically, these phrases in turn must mean that a 70 year old, tanned white lady with surgically removed breasts (let's say for cancer) and 20/20 vision is neither old, white nor woman? Generalization in itself is problematic and a stupid way of accommodating for the simple solution of sorting everything in boxes which is so dearly loved by us homo sapiens.
Oh wait - does what i just wrote mean that someone who use a different sorting system for categorizing information is something other than a human being?
|
United States24776 Posts
On April 25 2011 10:25 Craton wrote:
Nice to know we're splitting hairs over racism vs sexism.
I don't get your point. They have a lot of similarities but are also different. Why is this splitting hairs? It makes you look very foolish if you refer to a sexist situation as racist.
|
You just proved my point: rather than deal with the issue of discrimination, people immediately latch on to the misuse, or perceived misuse, of terminology. Instead of dealing with actual issues, they devolve something into an argument over semantics.
It's the equivalent of sticking your nose in the air; you look down with disdain at people because "they look very foolish," even when it's largely irrelevant.
Put another way: people try to trivialize instances of discrimination by attacking the semantics.
|
United States24776 Posts
On April 25 2011 10:28 Craton wrote:
You just proved my point: rather than deal with the issue of discrimination, people immediately latch on to the misuse, or perceived misuse, of terminology. Instead of dealing with actual issues, they devolve something into an argument over semantics.
If the goal of this blog was to end discrimination but I only talked about semantics then I would see your point. The goal of this blog was to try to get people on the same page so we can start to communicate more effectively which is a pre-requisite for doing things such as "dealing with actual issues." If you want to make a blog discussing ways to deal with discrimination then go right ahead.
On April 25 2011 10:28 Craton wrote:
It's the equivalent of sticking your nose in the air; you look down with disdain at people because "they look very foolish," even when it's largely irrelevant.
Put another way: people try to trivialize instances of discrimination by attacking the semantics.
If someone had confronted me to discuss issues other than what I discussed then perhaps you'd have a right to criticize me for choosing to talk about something else? I think you are applying legitimate complaints of other situations... to this situation.
|
Thank you so much, I can't describe how annoyed I get where I can't say "he's black" with being called racist. It's just stupid.
|
No it's not. It's a get-together for people to feel superior about themselves over semantics.
|
On April 25 2011 10:28 Craton wrote:
You just proved my point: rather than deal with the issue of discrimination, people immediately latch on to the misuse, or perceived misuse, of terminology. Instead of dealing with actual issues, they devolve something into an argument over semantics.
It's the equivalent of sticking your nose in the air; you look down with disdain at people because "they look very foolish," even when it's largely irrelevant.
Weird way of reasoning. Of course it's important to keep the terminology alive and the terms themselves apart.
Why? Very simple. Generalization is bad, right?
You know what you're doing right now? You're generalizing discrimination.
|
On April 25 2011 10:32 Thrill wrote:
You know what you're doing right now? You're generalizing discrimination.
Discrimination is a general term.
|
United States24776 Posts
On April 25 2011 10:32 Craton wrote:
No it's not. It's a get-together for people to feel superior about themselves over semantics.
You are very cynical. That's not our problem.
|
On April 25 2011 10:33 Craton wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2011 10:32 Thrill wrote:
You know what you're doing right now? You're generalizing discrimination. Discrimination is a general term.
So you don't believe there's merit to separating for example age discrimination (which has several points of merit) and race discrimination?
|
I can't take this seriously when you're using movies and tv shows as your case studies.
I'll just say that there are physical differences between races.
|
I say people spend too much time arguing semantics during instances of discrimination.
You say I'm "generalizing discrimination," when such a thing is inherently general, and then you pull an arbitrary association with my disdain for arguing semantics vs arguing actual issues with a belief that there's no merit to separating discrimination.
Your logic has gaping holes.
On April 25 2011 10:37 HowitZer wrote:
I can't take this seriously when you're using movies and tv shows as your case studies.
I'll just say that there are physical differences between races.
I had a bigger issue with how his conclusions for 1-3 don't logically follow with the proceeding parts of the post.
Since he likes TV shows, the South Park meme is appropriate, here:
Step 1: Post definitions and an example of racism
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Draw conclusions about the original 3 polls.
That said, I chose to ignore that in favor of my original position.
|
On April 25 2011 10:37 Craton wrote:
I say people spend too much time arguing semantics during instances of discrimination.
You say I'm "generalizing discrimination," when such a thing is inherently general, and then you pull an arbitrary association with my disdain for arguing semantics vs arguing actual issues with a belief that there's no merit to separating discrimination.
Your logic has gaping holes.
Arguing anything without clearly defined standards of semantics and common linguistic ground to stand on (speaking the same language and knowing that X means X to all parties if you will) is futile and in my opinion equivalent in use to throwing pies aimed at one another.
|
I hesitate to get too involved into discussion, but I remember there was a thread about discrimination against men or something (the guy who called his insurance company racist for charging him more because he was male, and got his insurance rate reduced eventually -_-), but I personally define something as racist if it contains some inherent prejudice.
That is, if there is logical reasoning behind a decision that discriminates (i.e. differentiates, not the negatively connotative definition), then it is not racist. If, however, an internal and irrational bias (i.e. without any reasons or despite reasons) exists against a race, then I believe that is racist. In fact, at first I thought the first two were indeed racist, but upon further consideration, I don't think those statements actually constitute racism, because they don't demonstrate an internal prejudice.
Stating that one doesn't like another group because they're mean to one doesn't mean it's racist, because that person has merely stated that this group is mean to him/her. It's sort of a generalization and not very intelligent, but it's not racism because it implies no innate racism.
As for the second, it's also a generalization, but it's not racist because it implies no latent bigotry. It might be mean and very uninformed, but the speaker is merely ignorant and pans koreans as devoting too much time to starcraft. It's an unfounded opinion, but demonstrates no clear racism.
Just my two cents ><
Though @micronesia: I think you should put an example of what you think IS racism in the OP.
|
Plenty of prejudicial things have had logical reasoning behind them; it's the ones that don't which are usually the more glaring examples.
|
Okay, so that was a weak point and poorly stated :/
I meant it more to suggest that people who are racist carry a preconceived and unfounded belief about another group that cannot be dissuaded by facts suggesting otherwise...I suppose. I am not particularly well-versed in this subject--that was just my opinion of the matter.
|
United States24776 Posts
On April 25 2011 10:37 HowitZer wrote:
I can't take this seriously when you're using movies and tv shows as your case studies.
I'll just say that there are physical differences between races.
These are examples to illustrate points... not case studies to show how the world actually works... I really don't get what your complaint is... it sounds like it is somehow inconvenient for you to accept what I have written so you are attacking some aspect of them which in no way affects the legitimacy of what I wrote. If you have an actual problem with the points I made then you can explain that. I'm no expert on this topic. And yes there are physical differences... black people have darker skin than white people most of the time; asians have different shaped eyes than latinos most of the time... we could go on and on.
I had a bigger issue with how his conclusions for 1-3 don't logically follow with the proceeding parts of the post.
Since he likes TV shows, the South Park meme is appropriate, here:
Step 1: Post definitions and an example of racism
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Draw conclusions about the original 3 polls.
I actually don't see how you have in any way demonstrated that my conclusions don't logically follow... whether or not they do.
|
Because you have no actual explanation or reasoning as to the conclusions you drew regarding the polls. You simply state a conclusion with the expectation of people to accept your word as fact, rather than lead the reader from point a to point b.
The second portion of the OP contains several definitions of racism and your interpretation of several pieces of media, but none of that serves as the explanation that your conclusions require. Thus, there is a logical disconnect ("Step 2: ???") between your second and third sections.
|
My hand is very firmly down my pants about the use of words as well!
Race isn't genetic. Obviously we consider it to be something passed through heredity but that is a definition created by society. Any observation of how people have been classified into race based on their ancestry demonstrates this, for example the "one drop rule". It has always been arbitrary groupings and it always will be.
What would you have us call your first example? How is assigning negative qualities to a group of people based on their race not implicitly stating the inferiority of that race?
In some other thread I made the point that oppressed people who are upset about the nature of their oppression are generally depicted as having something wrong with them. There is an elaborate unconscious machine in society designed to remind us all that if they had a little more sense they wouldn't be upset. This thread is part of that machine. "If you only had a finer understanding of semantics, you'd see that this isn't racist!" Rather than contributing something to the dialogue it distracts from it by creating a second dialogue about the first one, a second dialogue which specifically attacks one side of the first one.
I'm terribly sorry that it's inconvenient to have to explain how "it's not racist" when you say something offensive but a perfectly good solution is to not go around saying offensive shit and respect the people around you a little bit.
PS dis post not racisms
|
des is much more articulate than I.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
