|
United States24755 Posts
On April 26 2011 08:52 des wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2011 08:39 micronesia wrote:
I've been thinking about the definition of the word racism and I think the problem is this: words can have several similar definitions. That's why they usually have a 1, 2, 3 etc in the dictionary. I think mine is the #1 definition which I'm sticking to 100% whereas the #2 definition is broader like what you are thinking.
I consider this a weakness of the human language but there's probably a reason why I would never major in that lol Did you just look up the definition in the dictionary/wikipedia or did you do more research into the topic? e: fixed formatting
I've actually been thinking about this topic for a while dating back to when I took a course in college where a 'unit' was similar to this topic (actually a lot of the points I brought up during the class were similar to a lot of the comments being made in this thread).
|
On April 26 2011 08:58 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2011 08:52 des wrote:On April 26 2011 08:39 micronesia wrote:
I've been thinking about the definition of the word racism and I think the problem is this: words can have several similar definitions. That's why they usually have a 1, 2, 3 etc in the dictionary. I think mine is the #1 definition which I'm sticking to 100% whereas the #2 definition is broader like what you are thinking.
I consider this a weakness of the human language but there's probably a reason why I would never major in that lol Did you just look up the definition in the dictionary/wikipedia or did you do more research into the topic? e: fixed formatting I've actually been thinking about this topic for a while dating back to when I took a course in college where a 'unit' was similar to this topic (actually a lot of the points I brought up during the class were similar to a lot of the comments being made in this thread).
Okay but did that period of time inform your definition? Did you do any thinking as to why this is/isn't legitimate? Did you ever try to find an alternative definition and assess if it was better or worse?
I ask because your defense of this definition seems to be primarily that it has been written somewhere.
Also I took a couple classes myself 
|
On April 26 2011 08:39 micronesia wrote:
I've been thinking about the definition of the word racism and I think the problem is this: words can have several similar definitions. That's why they usually have a 1, 2, 3 etc in the dictionary. I think mine is the #1 definition which I'm sticking to 100% whereas the #2 definition is broader like what you are thinking.
I agree that words can have several similar definitions. But if we drop the whole 'which definition is correct" discussion wouldn't you agree that a broader definition is more practical? Don't you think it's stupid not to label "I hate white people, all they do is rob and steal" as racist? I just seems so obvious to me lol xd
|
United States24755 Posts
On April 26 2011 09:07 des wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2011 08:58 micronesia wrote:On April 26 2011 08:52 des wrote:On April 26 2011 08:39 micronesia wrote:
I've been thinking about the definition of the word racism and I think the problem is this: words can have several similar definitions. That's why they usually have a 1, 2, 3 etc in the dictionary. I think mine is the #1 definition which I'm sticking to 100% whereas the #2 definition is broader like what you are thinking.
I consider this a weakness of the human language but there's probably a reason why I would never major in that lol Did you just look up the definition in the dictionary/wikipedia or did you do more research into the topic? e: fixed formatting I've actually been thinking about this topic for a while dating back to when I took a course in college where a 'unit' was similar to this topic (actually a lot of the points I brought up during the class were similar to a lot of the comments being made in this thread). Okay but did that period of time inform your definition? Did you do any thinking as to why this is/isn't legitimate? Did you ever try to find an alternative definition and assess if it was better or worse? I ask because your defense of this definition seems to be primarily that it has been written somewhere. Also I took a couple classes myself
Almost all of my 'research' as you would put it has been regarding the academic usage/discussion of racism (both in my class and since). There seems to be somewhat of a divide between conversational racism and academic racism that I did not fully understand and it seems to explain some of the disagreement/confusion.
On April 26 2011 09:12 Belano wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2011 08:39 micronesia wrote:
I've been thinking about the definition of the word racism and I think the problem is this: words can have several similar definitions. That's why they usually have a 1, 2, 3 etc in the dictionary. I think mine is the #1 definition which I'm sticking to 100% whereas the #2 definition is broader like what you are thinking.
I agree that words can have several similar definitions. But if we drop the whole 'which definition is correct" discussion wouldn't you agree that a broader definition is more practical? Don't you think it's stupid not to label "I hate white people, all they do is rob and steal" as racist? I just seems so obvious to me lol xd
I don't think broader definitions are always more practical.
Why do you want to label that quote as racist? You basically just said "Don't you think it's stupid to use your definition of racism instead of mine" even though I think you didn't intent that.
|
On April 26 2011 09:19 micronesia wrote:
Why do you want to label that quote as racist? You basically just said "Don't you think it's stupid to use your definition of racism instead of mine" even though I think you didn't intent that.
Indeed I did not. Let my try and reconstruct my argument
Why do I want to label it as racist? Because I think that the difference between the two quotes that I have used is insignificant. They are extremely similar. They both follow the same principle, namely that they are both prejudice directed at someones race. The difference is only in the nature of that prejudice, which I find very minor. Basically, since they are so similar, they should fall under the same label. I believe that this is more practical, since labeling two statements this similar differently would cause confusion.
Now (edit: I assume) you would argue that difference between the two quotes is significant. I ask you, why is that?
|
United States24755 Posts
On April 26 2011 09:46 Belano wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2011 09:19 micronesia wrote:
Why do you want to label that quote as racist? You basically just said "Don't you think it's stupid to use your definition of racism instead of mine" even though I think you didn't intent that. Indeed I did not. Let my try and reconstruct my argument Why do I want to label it as racist? Because I think that the difference between the two quotes that I have used is insignificant. They are extremely similar. They both follow the same principle, namely that they are both prejudice directed at someones race. The difference is only in the nature of that prejudice, which I find very minor. Basically, since they are so similar, they should fall under the same label. I believe that this is more practical, since labeling two statements this similar differently would cause confusion. Now (edit: I assume) you would argue that difference between the two quotes is significant. I ask you, why is that?
Aren't there other labels we use that both statements fall under? You already used 'prejudice'... I don't see why every relevant label to this discussion has to apply to all similar statements. Is your line of reasoning that prejudice (which both statements are?) is bad, racism is bad, therefore both statements must be racist?
According to the more academic definition of racism, I think the statements are different. Conversationally where racism is how you defined it earlier then I suppose they can both be labeled racist (this is new to me but I think I have to accept it).
|
United States5541 Posts
There seems to be somewhat of a divide between conversational racism and academic racism that I did not fully understand and it seems to explain some of the disagreement/confusion.
Yeah, so conversational racism is basically, anyone can be racist. Academic racism is the idea that only white people can be racist since they are in control of the institution and the systems in place
|
On April 26 2011 09:50 micronesia wrote:
Aren't there other labels we use that both statements fall under? You already used 'prejudice'... I don't see why every relevant label to this discussion has to apply to all similar statements. Is your line of reasoning that prejudice (which both statements are?) is bad, racism is bad, therefore both statements must be racist?
No what I'm trying to say has nothing to do with anything being "bad". I just think that they are basically the same, and that clinging to the difference is splitting hairs which is impractical.
On April 26 2011 09:50 micronesia wrote:
According to the more academic definition of racism, I think the statements are different. Conversationally where racism is how you defined it earlier then I suppose they can both be labeled racist (this is new to me but I think I have to accept it).
Yeah, I agree.
|
Those examples are not racism. They are just stereotypical statements. If a black guy doesn't like white people, it doesn't mean he is racist, he's just discriminating. Perhaps their light skin or slightly more decent habits is something that he dislikes. But if he believes than the white race is inferior for X reason or it shouldn't have the rights to do X thing, that's racist IMO
|
First example is racism, hard to define it otherwise. Your weak point is a belief that speakers idea of white people being mean is wrong since the sample size he's dealing with is small enough for the trait to be attributed to cultural differences. But it shouldn't matter whether he's right or wrong - in his eyes all whites possess the same inherent flaw of being mean, thus he is a racist - he attributes their trait of being mean to genetic factors that constitute white race.
It is very hard to find a quality definition of racism, it definitely doesn't revolve around being 'better'. That wikipedia definition should end before the 'inherent superiority' passage. In my eyes being a racist roughly means attributing different traits and capacities to having different genetics.
Technically it should be just as racist to state that black people are better at basketball just because they are black, even though it seemingly doesn't point to any kind of inferiority.
|
Racism is a retarded concept invented by Western colonialist society. It doesn't actually make any sense, seeing as there is no such thing as "races," it's just a very simplistic color-coded way of trying to categorize people. Talking about people based on nationality makes a lot more sense, although in today's cosmopolitan world, even that concept is greatly diluted and almost irrelevant. It's absolutely moronic that people still continue to try to look at things based on this absurd concept of "race."
Black means what? Libyan? Algerian? Congolese? South African? Joke.
White? English? German? Polish? Russian? Bosnian? Joke.
Asian? Mongolian? Hindu? Russian? Indonesian? Chinese? Huge joke.
Latino? Just lawl. Lawl at the fucking concept of race.
Sad that people still harp on and on about race and it actually is a social issue. Woe to the stupidity of common society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
