+ Reply to Thread
Page 689 of 893 FirstFirst ... 189 589 639 679 687 688 689 690 691 699 739 789 ... LastLast
Results 13,761 to 13,780 of 17845

Thread: Random News Article Discussion II

  1. #13761

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclone_Baroness View Post
    Yeah what I was saying is his character wasn't racist against white people. Which is why I didn't see him as a valid example for what we were talking about. If the point was to say black people can be racist. Usually you'd find an example of someone not also hating on the already oppressed.

    People do like to claim reverse racism. But I have never heard of it on a scale where white people were really held back. It's like impossible on a significant scale.
    Hey! There's a useful word that sets all of this straight immediately!

  2. #13762

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    "Assad's regime plan to use chemical weapons against opposition in 2009"

    Spoiler:

    I could very well share this article with you lot (I can download it on the website). Trying to figure out a way to do it though.

    edit:
    Spoiler:
    for those who are interested
    http://uptobox.com/u88s7uremmkb
    (after the 30secs, just click on "téléchargement gratuit" and "cliquez ici pour lancer votre téléchargement" )
    Last edited by Nilitch; June 1st, 2017 at 04:20 PM.

  3. #13763
    King of the Monsters Lucky Dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Monster Land

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Quote Originally Posted by maxterdexter View Post
    https://www.caracaschronicles.com/20...-constitution/

    The core of the mess, the legacy of "as it comes, we'll see" as an institution.
    Enlightening article, thanks for sharing, really appreciate it.

    The Organization of American States met yesterday to debate what actions should be taken in regards to the crisis in Venezuela. The meeting was suspended, the organization plans to meet and discuss the matter again at a later date. A judge who ratified the jail sentence of a political leader was killed yesterday as well.

    “I thought of Godzilla as the embodiment of violence and hatred for mankind, because he was created by atomic energy. He's like a symbol of humanity's complicity in their own destruction. He doesn't have an emotion. He is an emotion.” — Jun Fukuda

  4. #13764

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Populists are country poison.

  5. #13765
    Someone call for Zeidoktor sgamer82's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Middleton, ID

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    I confess I haven't been following this conversation post for post, but the gist I've gotten is it's been a back and forth over what constitutes racism.

    Admittedly this is part of WHY I haven't followed the conversation, because to me it's pretty straightforward.

    Do you consciously take an action or stance with regards to another person primarily because of their race? Yes? That's racist behavior. Positive or negative, black on white or white on black, it all amounts to the same thing.
    Waldorf: You know Statler, after watching the last nine hundred episodes of One Piece, I think I've come to a conclusion.
    Statler: No you haven't.
    Both: DOHOHOHOHOHO!

  6. #13766

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Quote Originally Posted by sgamer82 View Post
    I confess I haven't been following this conversation post for post, but the gist I've gotten is it's been a back and forth over what constitutes racism.

    Admittedly this is part of WHY I haven't followed the conversation, because to me it's pretty straightforward.

    Do you consciously take an action or stance with regards to another person primarily because of their race? Yes? That's racist behavior. Positive or negative, black on white or white on black, it all amounts to the same thing.
    Category wise. But beyond that it doesn't in terms of power behind it, or how concerning an issue it is.

    Honestly, aside from alt-right idiots I think not a soul on here actually disagrees with that fundamental idea. Just with wording and phrasing.

    --- Update From New Post Merge ---

    Quote Originally Posted by Nilitch View Post
    You mean, economy? how is it out of imperialism and/or racism though?
    Imperialism that doesn't involve equal incorporation of the newly conquered populations into your normal citizenship laws is pretty much predicated on regarding those people as less than human.

  7. #13767

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Quote Originally Posted by Outerspec View Post
    Not to undermine the affect of institutionalized racism and the disparity of how racism affects minorities several magnitudes larger than any racism a white person might experience but...black people can be racist, on an individual level. I don't expect this video to convince you but it does go some way to help explain anything I could tell you.



    I don't agree with the video saying power can't be measured though. It can be measured in policy, statistics showing incarceration rates and deaths by people in power, disproportional quality in education and housing, wealth gap, media coverage, and so on. Hell, you could even look at surface value and look at all of our 45 presidents who have been in charge to lead this country and see what sticks out.

    Edit: I planned on taking this convo to a different thread but those tend be shut down after a while for, well, you know why.

    http://forums.arlongpark.net/showthr...=38267&page=66
    I just watched this video and... wow is it pretentious and pretty awful.

    Language is a human invention, but so is physics. Arguing that any one of these two things is more immutable than the other is simply wrong. Physics changes over time as newer, better models and concepts about how the world works are developed. In that same sense, language is constantly in flux as newer, better ways to convey ideas and meaning are developed.

    This is why there is a big social push for reassigning the definition of the word racism. Because racial prejudice is not equivalent in all directions, even on a personal level, it is important that the more generally used and accepted word for this concept, racism, be amended to also address the most important part of the concept: its impact on society. Racial prejudice and bias can certainly go any and every direction, people are habit forming creatures, and without continual reminders to correct our bad habits and wrong concepts/models of the world, we run the risk of becoming entrenched in a world view that is not only detrimental to ourselves, but also harmful to others.

    This video argues that a change in the definition of racism to emphasize the importance of institutional systems conflates the meaning between individual and institutional racial prejudice. It then goes on to enforce that racism should only be used to describe the individual problem of racial prejudice, completely discounting the need for a simple, well recognized term for the bigger problem of institutional racial prejudice.

    This line of reasoning is extremely hypocritical. By insisting that the well used word be used to describe an interaction only on the personal level that can mean very different things depending on who the actor is, who the action is imposed upon, and what races each of these persons belong to, the creator of this video is doing exactly what he is condemning others of doing: conflating two (or many more) very different concepts with a single word.

    Anyway. You can disagree with me if you want, that's cool. But I really felt like this ought to be commented upon. Yeah, there's definitely a lot of confusion around this issue, and I can see where the creator of this video is coming from. Unfortunately, the video's creator is being extremely hypocritical and arguably adding to the problem of institutional racism by insisting that the definition of the word must be rigid and cannot change to address the concerns and problems of our society at this very moment.

    What we really need is a new word for racism on an individual basis... but I can't think of one at the moment. Nah, I take it back. Let's just use bigotry. I feel like that's a good one.
    Last edited by benjamminbrown; June 1st, 2017 at 07:33 PM.

  8. #13768

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Quote Originally Posted by benjamminbrown View Post
    I just watched this video and... wow is it pretentious and pretty awful.

    Language is a human invention, but so is physics. Arguing that any one of these two things is more immutable than the other is simply wrong. Physics changes over time as newer, better models and concepts about how the world works are developed. In that same sense, language is constantly in flux as newer, better ways to convey ideas and meaning are developed.

    This is why there is a big social push for reassigning the definition of the word racism. Because racial prejudice is not equivalent in all directions, even on a personal level, it is important that the more generally used and accepted word for this concept, racism, be amended to also address the most important part of the concept: its impact on society. Racial prejudice and bias can certainly go any and every direction, people are habit forming creatures, and without continual reminders to correct our bad habits and wrong concepts/models of the world, we run the risk of becoming entrenched in a world view that is not only detrimental to ourselves, but also harmful to others.

    This video argues that a change in the definition of racism to emphasize the importance of institutional systems conflates the meaning between individual and institutional racial prejudice. It then goes on to enforce that racism should only be used to describe the individual problem of racial prejudice, completely discounting the need for a simple, well recognized term for the bigger problem of institutional racial prejudice.

    This line of reasoning is extremely hypocritical. By insisting that the well used word be used to describe an interaction only on the personal level that can mean very different things depending on who the actor is, who the action is imposed upon, and what races each of these persons belong to, the creator of this video is doing exactly what he is condemning others of doing: conflating two (or many more) very different concepts with a single word.

    Anyway. You can disagree with me if you want, that's cool. But I really felt like this ought to be commented upon. Yeah, there's definitely a lot of confusion around this issue, and I can see where the creator of this video is coming from. Unfortunately, the video's creator is being extremely hypocritical and arguably adding to the problem of institutional racism by insisting that the definition of the word must be rigid and cannot change to address the concerns and problems of our society at this very moment.

    What we really need is a new word for racism on an individual basis... but I can't think of one at the moment. Nah, I take it back. Let's just use bigotry. I feel like that's a good one.
    Alright just to be totally honest...

    This is never going to catch on and is a waste of time.

    Also it doesn't really function at all well addressing racism between non-white groups, which historically is a huge problem that has allowed formerly non "white" groups to use black people as a punching bag to entrench themselves up higher or even into being acceptable. Something that really really shouldn't be hand waved in regards to newer immigrant groups including some parts of Hispanic society.
    It also doesn't address inter-black racism like colorism, or plain old black Republican style "Im a good one!" stuff.
    Then there's situations like where you weigh in stuff like religious communities, and does like being black Christian in some contexts put you above being Muslim. Does a white Muslim outrank Latino Christians and East Asians, or only if they are visibly Muslim? Are Jews white? Sub-white? Who is higher in the ladder in terms of being able to be racist to the other? South Asians or East Asians? Does this depend on where we are in the country?
    Heck are individual and institutional racism even clearly totally separate phenomena? Are we actually really tackling the issue by forcing them apart so strictly? Isn't institutional racism the death of a thousand individual racist cuts, dependent on the fact that the majority group has the presence to be throughout the power structure and the minority group constantly experiencing far more damaging individual racist events over and over wherever they turn outside their own community? Whereas the majority person navigating that same wider world of jobs and opportunities is almost inherently surrounded by their own community just as a general rule?

    Hell I guess I'm saying its extremely oversimplified. And really not actually useful much at all beyond just being something that will never ever catch on outside academic journals.

  9. #13769

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Quote Originally Posted by benjamminbrown View Post
    I just watched this video and... wow is it pretentious and pretty awful.

    Language is a human invention, but so is physics. Arguing that any one of these two things is more immutable than the other is simply wrong. Physics changes over time as newer, better models and concepts about how the world works are developed. In that same sense, language is constantly in flux as newer, better ways to convey ideas and meaning are developed.

    This is why there is a big social push for reassigning the definition of the word racism. Because racial prejudice is not equivalent in all directions, even on a personal level, it is important that the more generally used and accepted word for this concept, racism, be amended to also address the most important part of the concept: its impact on society. Racial prejudice and bias can certainly go any and every direction, people are habit forming creatures, and without continual reminders to correct our bad habits and wrong concepts/models of the world, we run the risk of becoming entrenched in a world view that is not only detrimental to ourselves, but also harmful to others.

    This video argues that a change in the definition of racism to emphasize the importance of institutional systems conflates the meaning between individual and institutional racial prejudice. It then goes on to enforce that racism should only be used to describe the individual problem of racial prejudice, completely discounting the need for a simple, well recognized term for the bigger problem of institutional racial prejudice.

    This line of reasoning is extremely hypocritical. By insisting that the well used word be used to describe an interaction only on the personal level that can mean very different things depending on who the actor is, who the action is imposed upon, and what races each of these persons belong to, the creator of this video is doing exactly what he is condemning others of doing: conflating two (or many more) very different concepts with a single word.

    Anyway. You can disagree with me if you want, that's cool. But I really felt like this ought to be commented upon. Yeah, there's definitely a lot of confusion around this issue, and I can see where the creator of this video is coming from. Unfortunately, the video's creator is being extremely hypocritical and arguably adding to the problem of institutional racism by insisting that the definition of the word must be rigid and cannot change to address the concerns and problems of our society at this very moment.

    What we really need is a new word for racism on an individual basis... but I can't think of one at the moment. Nah, I take it back. Let's just use bigotry. I feel like that's a good one.
    Is this a joke post? Like, in my opinion now and again you get carried away and make pretty wild unsubstantiated claims of a philosophical/psychological nature that really don't stand up to any level of scrutiny... but did you literally just say that physics is equally fluid as language? Can I please have a hit of whatever you're smoking? The laws of physics are not, as far as we know, mutable... but even if they are, they sure as hell aren't determined by humanity's collective opinion on any given day. Yes, our understanding of the laws of physics is imperfect/incomplete, so we adjust our models based on our observations, but none of that affects the actual behavior of the universe. To imply so is either incredibly obtuse or, ironically, a petty semantic manipulation.

    Unfortunately I actually sat through that video just so I could reply to your post, so I can say without a doubt that the point being illustrated has nothing to do with your meaningless tangent. The example given is that Jupiter has a stronger gravitational force than the Earth. So please, tell me how that's a subjective statement. Our assessment of its validity may change at some point based on observation, but our knowledge (or lack thereof) of the universe's behavior does not affect that behavior.

    Even then, because I can imagine you trying to keep arguing that, the obvious point is that the laws of physics are not subject to semantic interpretation. It's so basic and obvious that I'm embarrassed to even be explaining this. The main thing the video is arguing is that the definition of racism comes down to semantic details that are more harmful than helpful if everybody isn't on the same page about what words mean when they are spoken. It doesn't argue any of the things your post claims it argues beyond the fact that confusion is bad, and explaining why and how people can get confused and how either side of the "dictionary" debate can make their point. It's not arguing against the evolution of language (which as an aside, isn't always positive as you imply!), but rather against the chaotic and possibly forced redefinition of a word that even in this very thread is causing the very semantic clash the video describes. You know what's a simple, well-recognized term for institutional racial prejudice? "Institutional racism." Damn, that was hard.

    This grand accusation of hypocrisy is cute, but entirely in your head. Seriously, try rewatching the video and listen to what is actually said. The video doesn't offer any answers, nor does it particularly take a stance other than to point out that waters get muddy when this type of arbitrary distinction is artificially imposed. Language is very fluid and dynamic, yes, but most of the changes occur naturally and often over time. The dictionary is more a reflection of what words actually mean to people in real life than it is a decree of what a word shall forever mean. Whether the definition of "racism" is naturally changing or not is another matter, but at any rate it's purely semantic. And, as I feel more strongly than ever now having typed that post, an utter waste of my fucking time.

  10. #13770
    The Nice Guy Outerspec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Home away from home.

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Quote Originally Posted by benjamminbrown View Post
    This video argues that a change in the definition of racism to emphasize the importance of institutional systems conflates the meaning between individual and institutional racial prejudice. It then goes on to enforce that racism should only be used to describe the individual problem of racial prejudice, completely discounting the need for a simple, well recognized term for the bigger problem of institutional racial prejudice.

    This line of reasoning is extremely hypocritical. By insisting that the well used word be used to describe an interaction only on the personal level that can mean very different things depending on who the actor is, who the action is imposed upon, and what races each of these persons belong to, the creator of this video is doing exactly what he is condemning others of doing: conflating two (or many more) very different concepts with a single word.

    Anyway. You can disagree with me if you want, that's cool. But I really felt like this ought to be commented upon. Yeah, there's definitely a lot of confusion around this issue, and I can see where the creator of this video is coming from. Unfortunately, the video's creator is being extremely hypocritical and arguably adding to the problem of institutional racism by insisting that the definition of the word must be rigid and cannot change to address the concerns and problems of our society at this very moment.

    What we really need is a new word for racism on an individual basis... but I can't think of one at the moment. Nah, I take it back. Let's just use bigotry. I feel like that's a good one.
    I don't know...

    I'm not seeing in the video where it says that the term racism can only be applied on the individual level. I don't even see where it's implying that. If I saw something like that I wouldn't even bother posting the video because it'd be automatic garbage. If you could point the moment/time out to me that'd be helpful.

    I'm also not seeing in the video where it's saying the definition of racism should be rigid. If anything, it's arguing against the concept of racism being rigidly defined as "a,b,c" or denied as "x,y,z".

    I do agree though that this guy can come off as a pretentious asshole and even I didn't agree with everything he said like not being able to measure power, but I still feel he made pretty fair points for both sides.
    Last edited by Outerspec; June 1st, 2017 at 09:44 PM.
    Everything's Eventual...


  11. #13771

    Lightbulb Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Quote Originally Posted by Monkey King View Post
    Alright just to be totally honest...

    This is never going to catch on and is a waste of time.

    Also it doesn't really function at all well addressing racism between non-white groups, which historically is a huge problem that has allowed formerly non "white" groups to use black people as a punching bag to entrench themselves up higher or even into being acceptable. Something that really really shouldn't be hand waved in regards to newer immigrant groups including some parts of Hispanic society.
    It also doesn't address inter-black racism like colorism, or plain old black Republican style "Im a good one!" stuff.
    Then there's situations like where you weigh in stuff like religious communities, and does like being black Christian in some contexts put you above being Muslim. Does a white Muslim outrank Latino Christians and East Asians, or only if they are visibly Muslim? Are Jews white? Sub-white? Who is higher in the ladder in terms of being able to be racist to the other? South Asians or East Asians? Does this depend on where we are in the country?
    Heck are individual and institutional racism even clearly totally separate phenomena? Are we actually really tackling the issue by forcing them apart so strictly? Isn't institutional racism the death of a thousand individual racist cuts, dependent on the fact that the majority group has the presence to be throughout the power structure and the minority group constantly experiencing far more damaging individual racist events over and over wherever they turn outside their own community? Whereas the majority person navigating that same wider world of jobs and opportunities is almost inherently surrounded by their own community just as a general rule?

    Hell I guess I'm saying its extremely oversimplified. And really not actually useful much at all beyond just being something that will never ever catch on outside academic journals.
    Oh, there's no denying that the change in the way the word racism is used that I've suggested is an oversimplification of a more complex problem. The key is that it's a step in the right direction. There are all sorts of intricacies to the way racial bias is acquired and acted out... but I think that adapting our existing language to begin to address this quality of the problem will make it easier for the general populace to begin to see just how complex of a problem it is.

    If you look up the definition of the word power in the dictionary, you see all of the common meanings for such a word. But you can also look on Wikipedia and see that there is a very specialized use of this word in science. That's the sort of thing I'm getting at, here. Not everybody you meet on the street will understand the scientific use of the word, but several will. Eventually that meaning takes hold and becomes an important part of the definition of the word, something that is recognized as ultimately correct and indisputable (for now).

    It's a little unfair, I think, to say that this is all just academic blithering and essentially a waste of time. Maybe it's just me and the social circles that I run in, but this is a question that has sprung up repeatedly in my life, with different groups and in different social settings. And that's not to say that it's something that I bring up... for the most part, when this topic presents itself, I am essentially an observer. It seems to me that this debate over the meaning of the word, and whether it should be adjusted to address the importance of the social status/power of the individuals at play when racial bias exhibits itself, is diffusing into the general populace. In my eyes, this debate is good and probably also a natural precursor to an organic change in the way the word will be used in the future.

    Of course, I could be wrong, and you do make some good points. Maybe the people advocating for the change are all poindexters like me and fated to fail in the face of other social pressures.

    Quote Originally Posted by Foolio View Post
    Is this a joke post? Like, in my opinion now and again you get carried away and make pretty wild unsubstantiated claims of a philosophical/psychological nature that really don't stand up to any level of scrutiny... but did you literally just say that physics is equally fluid as language? Can I please have a hit of whatever you're smoking? The laws of physics are not, as far as we know, mutable... but even if they are, they sure as hell aren't determined by humanity's collective opinion on any given day. Yes, our understanding of the laws of physics is imperfect/incomplete, so we adjust our models based on our observations, but none of that affects the actual behavior of the universe. To imply so is either incredibly obtuse or, ironically, a petty semantic manipulation.

    Unfortunately I actually sat through that video just so I could reply to your post, so I can say without a doubt that the point being illustrated has nothing to do with your meaningless tangent. The example given is that Jupiter has a stronger gravitational force than the Earth. So please, tell me how that's a subjective statement. Our assessment of its validity may change at some point based on observation, but our knowledge (or lack thereof) of the universe's behavior does not affect that behavior.

    Even then, because I can imagine you trying to keep arguing that, the obvious point is that the laws of physics are not subject to semantic interpretation. It's so basic and obvious that I'm embarrassed to even be explaining this. The main thing the video is arguing is that the definition of racism comes down to semantic details that are more harmful than helpful if everybody isn't on the same page about what words mean when they are spoken. It doesn't argue any of the things your post claims it argues beyond the fact that confusion is bad, and explaining why and how people can get confused and how either side of the "dictionary" debate can make their point. It's not arguing against the evolution of language (which as an aside, isn't always positive as you imply!), but rather against the chaotic and possibly forced redefinition of a word that even in this very thread is causing the very semantic clash the video describes. You know what's a simple, well-recognized term for institutional racial prejudice? "Institutional racism." Damn, that was hard.

    This grand accusation of hypocrisy is cute, but entirely in your head. Seriously, try rewatching the video and listen to what is actually said. The video doesn't offer any answers, nor does it particularly take a stance other than to point out that waters get muddy when this type of arbitrary distinction is artificially imposed. Language is very fluid and dynamic, yes, but most of the changes occur naturally and often over time. The dictionary is more a reflection of what words actually mean to people in real life than it is a decree of what a word shall forever mean. Whether the definition of "racism" is naturally changing or not is another matter, but at any rate it's purely semantic. And, as I feel more strongly than ever now having typed that post, an utter waste of my fucking time.
    If my response above doesn't already make it clear, then no, I wasn't making a joke post. Hey, I get that you find a lot of my posts pretty annoying. It must feel great to unload some of that frustration! But I think you might be jumping on my case a little too much, and here's why:

    The laws of the universe are probably rigid and not constructions of the human mind (though there's plenty of debate about their actual rigidity, even among the greatest physicists... and let's not have a philosophical discussion here about whether or not they're constructed by the mind). That's not what I was getting at. Physics is humanity's attempt at applying our own language to encompass those laws. That's why I say that physics and language themselves are equally fluid. Both of these concepts and their accepted meanings change over time to address the important problems of that particular period in human history. Hell, physics as a science didn't even really exist a thousand years ago! Clearly, it is a growing, changing thing. Call that a semantic argument if you want, but it's certainly not a waste of time, in my eyes.

    The video that was posted makes a huge mistake, I think, in comparing the idea of language to the idea of physics and saying that one of these human constructs is more important or immutable than the other. Language, like physics, is there to help people suss out the true meaning behind a more complex phenomenon, like social interaction or the natural laws of the universe. In the video, it is said that...

    Declaring that a particular term means this or that doesn't bear the same weight... as declaring that gravity is stronger on Jupiter than it is here on Earth.
    ... which is certainly correct! Unfortunately, what the speaker seems to miss is that the people advocating for a change in the way the word racism is used aren't simply declaring that the definition of the word is wrong. They're trying to point out that the societal status/power of the individuals exhibiting racism change the meaning of the word already! It's almost like they're noticing that the "gravity" of the word is "stronger" when applied to people of a higher social status than those who are basically the underdogs of society. What a concept!

    Recognition of this aspect of racism, as I've said above, certainly seems to be seeping into the general social awareness, and I think that's why this debate keeps coming up all over the place. If you don't think that's an example of a natural, organic change to our language, well then I disagree! It definitely seems hypocritical to me that the creator of this video wants to "advocate for the dictionary definition" of racism when the definitions he listed are clearly so limited to the personal/individual scale. His definitions are extremely flawed in that they assume the idea of racism can be purely boiled down to individual interactions when, as Zephos so effectually pointed out, the problem simply cannot be simplified in such a way. Individual racism and institutional racism go hand in hand and are important aspects of the same concept, the same societal problem. To insist that the word only be used to describe some ideal situation where the impact to society or the pressures of society do not matter seems pretty ridiculous to me (about as useful and academic as a physics problem where "all other effects are ignored"). It's hypocritical to take this stance if you're going to use the argument that the people advocating for the change in the meaning of the word are the ones actually conflating things.

    Anyway, sorry to have been such a thorn in your side lately, buddy. Hopefully this helps you to see a little better where I'm coming from.

    Quote Originally Posted by Outerspec View Post
    I don't know...

    I'm not seeing in the video where it says that the term racism can only be applied on the individual level. I don't even see where it's implying that. If I saw something like that I wouldn't even bother posting the video because it'd be automatic garbage. If you could point the moment/time out to me that'd be helpful.

    I'm also not seeing in the video where it's saying the definition of racism should be rigid. If anything, it's arguing against the concept of racism being rigidly defined as "a,b,c" or denied as "x,y,z".

    I do agree though that this guy can come off as a pretentious asshole and even I didn't agree with everything he said like not being able to measure power, but I still feel he made pretty fair points for both sides.
    The video most certainly does exactly this right around 8:39 and onward. It doesn't say that racism can only mean racial prejudice on the individual scale, but it does say that "it sure would be dandy" if it did. This is emphasized by the institutional graphic fading away and the individual graphic growing to encompass the whole screen.

    Yeah, the main point that the video is making is that it'd be best if there were no confusion about the meaning of the word when used in general... but it's awfully pretentious to claim that sociologists aren't intelligent for suggesting that there is nuance to how racism should be perceived with respect to the social status of the individuals involved. If anything, sociologists are simply pointing out something that the whole of society already seems to be recognizing. Advocating for a change in the accepted definition because of this debate is, I think, not as unintelligent or pointless as many people might try to say it is.
    Last edited by benjamminbrown; June 2nd, 2017 at 01:25 AM.

  12. #13772
    The Nice Guy Outerspec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Home away from home.

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Quote Originally Posted by benjamminbrown View Post
    The video most certainly does exactly this right around 8:39 and onward. It doesn't say that racism can only mean racial prejudice on the individual scale, but it does say that "it sure would be dandy" if it did. This is emphasized by the institutional graphic fading away and the individual graphic growing to encompass the whole screen.

    Yeah, the main point that the video is making is that it'd be best if there were no confusion about the meaning of the word when used in general... but it's awfully pretentious to claim that sociologists aren't intelligent for suggesting that there is nuance to how racism should be perceived with respect to the social status of the individuals involved. If anything, sociologists are simply pointing out something that the whole of society already seems to be recognizing. Advocating for a change in the accepted definition because of this debate is, I think, not as unintelligent or pointless as many people might try to say it is.
    That's not what it's saying, at all. It literally says, "It sure would be dandy if anyone who said or did anything racist could be called racist..."

    Not, 'It sure would be dandy if racism can only mean racial prejudice on the individual level...'

    And you have to remember the context of the argument is, can black people be racist? That's why it faded away the institutional racism picture because it's arguing that black people aren't being accused of racism on the insitutional level but rather the individual level. Context . Nor is the video insulting the intelligence of sociologist as it clearly accepts the model of institutional racism and individual racism and their differences. And seeing as how Institutional Racism is the combination of power + prejudice the video is also accepting that social status plays some kind of role in the overall context of racism in America. I would also personally point out it's the more important and damaging form of racism in America.

    But in the context of individual racism it's just arguing that it would be nice if it could be applicable to all.
    Everything's Eventual...


  13. #13773

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    http://www.cracked.com/article_24698...terrorism.html

    I can be replaced by a caracas chronicles and cracked feed. Until the maxterdexterbot is created, this is my job.
    3DS FC: 0516-7666-3837
    SW-4128-8032-0729

  14. #13774

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II: is racism racist?

    Outerspec, the crux of my entire argument is that context matters. Racism becomes a different thing entirely depending on the individuals involved, what race they belong to or identify with, what social status they have, what society they come from, etc.

    To assume that racism can be reduced to an individual basis only in the first place is, I think, very wrong. That's my whole point, and I would argue that's what other advocates for changing the definition would say as well.

    And, yes, the video absolutely was deriding sociologists for making the unintelligent mistake of conflating separate issues/ideas with a single word. The problem is that... the issues aren't separate, they cannot be pulled apart without reducing the meaning of what you're talking about into something else entirely. That's why insisting that the term racism be used specifically to talk about individual racial prejudice, regardless of context, is actually the root of the hypocrisy - it is dumbing racism down into something that it isn't, and in the process conflates all the forms of racism as the same thing.

  15. #13775
    Discovered Stew Femme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    A very special place

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II: is racism racist?

    I think the point of the video is being missed.

    To sum it up, the video is trying to demonstrate that when used, the word "racist" can be meant in two different contexts (institutional vs. Individual). If a person insists that "black people cant be racist", it's necessary to define that individual racism is absolutely possible for any person of colour, however at this current time, black people are not the majority of people in power and thus cannot practice institutional racism.
    Hidden:



  16. #13776

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II: is racism racist?

    I think it's pretty clear that I caught that meaning in the video. I'm simply arguing that it's wrong to say that individual and institutional racism are separate issues. They're intricately connected, and actually just different aspects of the same thing.

    Again, this is all my opinion and perspective, and you don't have to agree with me. I'm just trying to clarify my point of view for those of you who seem to think that I'm saying something else.

  17. #13777
    Discovered Stew Femme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    A very special place

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II: is racism racist?

    Yes, but they are separate issues on the subject of the video is "Can Black people be racist" and we are talking about individual vs. institutional racism on the context of black people, not everyone.

    So are you saying that in this year of 2017, black people can be institutionally racist against white people?
    Hidden:



  18. #13778

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II: is racism racist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Femme View Post
    To sum it up, the video is trying to demonstrate that when used, the word "racist" can be meant in two different contexts (institutional vs. Individual). If a person insists that "black people cant be racist", it's necessary to define that individual racism is absolutely possible for any person of colour, however at this current time, black people are not the majority of people in power and thus cannot practice institutional racism.
    ...I think I can get behind this, the way you've phrased it. Reducing it to axioms like that.

    Still think the guy who makes those videos comes off as a huge piece of shit, though.

  19. #13779
    The Nice Guy Outerspec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Home away from home.

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II: is racism racist?

    Yes, context does matter and that's why I'm against the idea that racism can only be attributed to one race. It's not that simple. As I've said many times before its affects varies depending on who is on the receiving end and who is delivering it but no race is immune to problems of bigotry, prejudice, and hate.

    Nothing about racsim is being reduced by saying individuals of separate races can be racist. If anything it helps people move the discussion on to systematic racism rather than get bogged down in a debate like this. And it's important to recognize the bigger problem of racism running through our society at the systemic level but it never helps to claim racism is a specifically unique race problem. There are levels to this.

    I see that our main disagreement is between wheteher or not individual and institutional racism can be separated. You believe you can't have one without the other. I agree with the video which says the issues do mix but can also be separated to move the conversation forward, to help define racism, to discuss and at no expense to bigger overall problem.
    Everything's Eventual...


  20. #13780

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II: is racism racist?

    Quote Originally Posted by benjamminbrown View Post
    I think it's pretty clear that I caught that meaning in the video. I'm simply arguing that it's wrong to say that individual and institutional racism are separate issues. They're intricately connected, and actually just different aspects of the same thing.

    Again, this is all my opinion and perspective, and you don't have to agree with me. I'm just trying to clarify my point of view for those of you who seem to think that I'm saying something else.
    Thing is, I really don't think you get the meaning of the video. You're still arguing against something nobody said and redefining your point to something nobody was contesting, while largely ignoring counter-arguments and the fact that a lot of what you're saying is really not relevant to the discussion at hand. Even CCC is on the same page as me now when he acknowledged Femme's summary. You keep saying context matters but... you're the one who lacks it here?

+ Reply to Thread

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts