Can black people be racist? Dear White People director breaks it down.

  • 118 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for sirfizzwhizz
sirfizzwhizz

38721

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

217

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Poll Can black people be racist? Dear White People director breaks it down. (116 votes)

Uh Duh! 94%
Hell Nah! 6%

Im just a ignorant American born white boy of privilege. So i am unable to form a non prejudiced view. What do you think?

Also anyone enjoy that Dear White People show? Is it funny?

 • 
Avatar image for kingyang
Kingyang

1446

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Anybody and everybody can be racist. It is just black racism has <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<impact than white racism Shits complicated. YES anybody can be racists.

Avatar image for thewatcherking
TheWatcherKing

22610

Forum Posts

31

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2  Edited By TheWatcherKing

Can black people be racist?

Obviously, anyone can be racist regardless of nationality,color, or ethnicity.I am black and I think someone would have to be incredibly dumb to think they're immune to being racist based solely skin color.

Avatar image for dragonborn_ct
Dragonborn_CT

26392

Forum Posts

13892

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#3  Edited By Dragonborn_CT

Before I say anything, how much counts the opinion of a South American Latin? Or that of South Pacific Asian?

Avatar image for deactivated-5a20a68641bc7
deactivated-5a20a68641bc7

1969

Forum Posts

1028

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Yes. Robert Mugabe is probably the most racist head of state of his time.

Avatar image for just_sayin
just_sayin

5677

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5  Edited By just_sayin

During the LA riots, POC Damian Williams threw a brick at the head of Reginald Denny. He pointed at him and danced around his unconscious body. Denny was targeted because he was white. He was pulled from his truck, attacked, kicked, beaten with a claw hammer before having a brick thrown at his head - all because of the color of his skin. Was that racist? Did Reginald Denny have the power in that situation? It was indeed a racist act. To pretend that only certain races can be racist is a racist claim in and of itself.

Loading Video...

Avatar image for modernww2fare
modernww2fare

8829

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Yes!

Avatar image for deactivated-5a2b0053414c5
deactivated-5a2b0053414c5

8165

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Obviously, and it annoys me that this is an actual question people have to ask...

Avatar image for kyrees
kyrees

13625

Forum Posts

100

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8  Edited By kyrees

i really wonder whether people really don't have any ideas of stuff outside their homes or country. seriously black people can't be racist ?! might as well say that to any nation that is predominantly black then.

Avatar image for comicace3
comicace3

12438

Forum Posts

1465

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 1

This is one of the dumbest questions on my list of dumbest questions.

Avatar image for deactivated-614ce5c370323
deactivated-614ce5c370323

10069

Forum Posts

1569

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Yes, except for me. I'm special.

Avatar image for deactivated-614ce5c370323
deactivated-614ce5c370323

10069

Forum Posts

1569

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Im just a ignorant American born white boy of privilege. So i am unable to form a non prejudiced view. What do you think?

You must have died from laughter typing this. Cause I died of laughter reading this.

Avatar image for arkbound
Arkbound

1666

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Yes and no, it depends on how you define racism. Most people that say "no" are really saying there is a difference between being prejudice and being racist. Paul Mooney explains its really a question of power, and the influence/control that black people, specifically african americans, can (or more accurately cant) project on other peoples lives.

To be clear I'm not necessarily agreeing with the argument, but there is some misrepresentation of this argument going on whenever this topic is discussed so I am just clarifying.

Loading Video...

Avatar image for emperordmb
Emperordmb

1987

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

@arkbound said:

Yes and no, it depends on how you define racism. Most people that say "no" are really saying there is a difference between being prejudice and being racist. Paul Mooney explains its really a question of power, and the influence/control that black people, specifically african americans, can (or more accurately cant) project on other peoples lives.

To be clear I'm not necessarily agreeing with the argument, but there is some misrepresentation of this argument going on whenever this topic is discussed so I am just clarifying.

Well that's a terrible argument. We don't live in some caste system where black people and white people have different rights under the law and where only white people can have power over black people and vice versa. As @just_sayin pointed out, a black person beating the shit out of a white person for being white is an instance where a black person had the powerover a white person to beat the crap out of him. Or for example the kidnapping of that disabled white guy by those four black people for racially motivated reasons is an instance in which those black people had powerover a white person. Or any black person who murders or assaults a white person on the basis of their race clearly has the physical power to notably impact that white person. By contrast if you want to argue hurling hateful speech about a race isn't "racist" when black people do it because they're only saying things and words have no power, then some random white person in no special position of power hurling hateful speech about black people isn't, or if verbal insults are considered power then its racist either way, or if its considered racist when white people do it because those attitudes support racist actions against black people then again the same could be said vise versa.

Critical Race theory is nothing more than post-modernist nonsense that social marxists use to leverage social control and influence.

Avatar image for batvibe12
Batvibe12

6453

Forum Posts

586

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Yes, black people can be racist.

Ex. Radical BLM people.

Avatar image for buttersdaman000
buttersdaman000

23713

Forum Posts

60

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

If you dislike a person based on their race then you're racist....it's that simple.

Avatar image for super_ninja
Super_ninja

3809

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

yes.

Avatar image for gunmetalgrey
gunmetalgrey

4980

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

For some reason, people like to complicate things, defending their double standard and deflecting guilt by saying stuff like: "But we need to take history into account, X-people had all the power for X years! X-people wouldn't understand because only Y-people were suffering from oppression! Y-people can't be oppressors because Y-people didn't have the power!"

Pretty words that seem rational on the surface, but it all boils down to an eye for an eye. They don't want to be defined by the color of their skin, but they choose to be defined by their history, and so they'll never escape it. I wonder when they're gonna realize that they're only contributing to the perpetuation of hate. They're also degrading themselves by basically saying that they're unable to attain the same influence and privileges that their former oppressors had by their own hands.

Avatar image for bastets
Bastets

256

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

yes

Avatar image for removekebab
removekebab

3794

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20  Edited By removekebab

Krauts are racist to krauts. Wat do?

Avatar image for kingyang
Kingyang

1446

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21  Edited By Kingyang
Avatar image for wollfmyth209
WollfMyth209

17626

Forum Posts

3513

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Thinking only white people can be racist is racist, tbh.

Avatar image for kingyang
Kingyang

1446

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for mrmonster
mrmonster

24687

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Yes. Anyone can be racist against anyone, and I don't care if your first year sociology teacher and/or MTV taught you otherwise.

I swear, if some sociology teacher in a community college taught his students that the sky was green, half the gender studies majors in his class would believe it.

Avatar image for deactivated-5a84a212043e5
deactivated-5a84a212043e5

2790

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Anyone can be racist. It's like asking: Can black people wear hats? Can Asians read?

Avatar image for artthief
ArtThief

493

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

If you dislike a person based on their race then you're racist....it's that simple.

Avatar image for static_shock
Static Shock

53107

Forum Posts

12480

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 1

#27  Edited By Static Shock

Everyone has some or more racial biases or prejudices based on skin color. That includes Black people. I think the key here is acknowledging that, and working to reduce or eliminate those biases. That has to be a conscious decision, though.

However, if we're talking about racism in reference to the oppression of a minority race on the basis of economics, law enforcement and politics in favor of a majority race, then Black people cannot be racist, based on that. We lack the economic and political power to be racist. That's just what it is. The United States government has been doing this to Black people since its inception, and there's plenty of evidence (much of it historical) to back it up (hundreds of years of slavery, the 13th amendment, racial profiling, Jim Crow laws, housing discrimination/redlining, the distribution of the G.I. Bill to fewer than 100 Black soldiers and over 60,000 White soldiers, I could go on, etc, blazze, whatever-the-hell)....

Racism is bigger than just racial biases or slurs, folks. Understand that this isn't an attack on White people. But, if the shoe fits....

Avatar image for arkbound
Arkbound

1666

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28  Edited By Arkbound

@emperordmb:

Well that's a terrible argument.

Terrible argument or not, that is the one being made.

We don't live in some caste system where black people and white people have different rights under the law and where only white people can have power over black people and vice versa.

No. We don't anymore. But for a long time the power divide was just that.

As @just_sayin pointed out, a black person beating the shit out of a white person for being white is an instance where a black person had the power over a white person to beat the crap out of him.

Agreed. What Mooney failed to realize is that institutional racism is not the only forum of racism. Or maybe he didn't. He made it clear the definition he was using.

Or for example the kidnapping of that disabled white guy by those four black people for racially motivated reasons is an instance in which those black people had powerover a white person.

That is rather horrible.

Or any black person who murders or assaults a white person on the basis of their race clearly has the physical power to notably impact that white person.

Agreed.

By contrast if you want to argue hurling hateful speech about a race isn't "racist" when black people do it because they're only saying things and words have no power, then some random white person in no special position of power hurling hateful speech about black people isn't, or if verbal insults are considered power then its racist either way, or if its considered racist when white people do it because those attitudes support racist actions against black people then again the same could be said vise versa.

Yep. Again the difference is not lost on me.

Critical Race theory is nothing more than post-modernist nonsense that social marxists use to leverage social control and influence.

Its a little extreme to call what he is arguing critical race theory.

And to be honest you haven't really discussed the point. You have not shown how Black people in the united states have ever been institutional racist (passing laws and in enforcing policies that actively oppress another race) and they haven't to my knowledge. That was the point Mooney and others are making.

We have already established that 1 on 1 anyone can hold prejudices or act in a racist way. But that wasn't the point being discussed or made.

Avatar image for emperordmb
Emperordmb

1987

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#29  Edited By Emperordmb

@arkbound said:

@emperordmb:

Terrible argument or not, that is the one being made.

No. We don't anymore. But for a long time the power divide was just that.

Agreed. What Mooney failed to realize is that institutional racism is not the only forum of racism. Or maybe he didn't. He made it clear the definition he was using.

That is rather horrible.

Agreed.

Yep. Again the difference is not lost on me.

Okay so I don't feel much of a need to respond to this in detail since this part is basically us agreeing

Its a little extreme to call what he is arguing critical race theory.

And to be honest you haven't really discussed the point. You have not shown how Black people in the united states have ever been institutional racist (passing laws and in enforcing policies that actively oppress another race) and they haven't to my knowledge. That was the point Mooney and others are making.

We have already established that 1 on 1 anyone can hold prejudices or act in a racist way. But that wasn't the point being discussed or made.

I'd argue in the modern day affirmative action is institutionally racist, as are college diversity quotas which actually screw over Asians the most funny enough.

But in any case, can you actually point out current day institutional racism to substantiate the claim that black people are incapable of this form of racism but white people aren't? Because honestly it seems like institutional racism is used as a buzzword to try and implicate a class of oppressors and a class of oppressed in order to leverage some social/political influence, I mean if you're changing the definition of a word with social and emotional weight to suit your argument (not you the people making this argument) rather than speaking plainly and describing the problem with the current definitions that automatically comes off as fishy and manipulative to me. The fact that racism meant one thing for almost all of human history then got redefined so people could use it as a political buzzword in this way is not something I'm comfortable with.

At the same time though, I haven't seen a very compelling case for institutional racism against black people in today's United States. So if you'd like to point to me a policy or law or institution that is racist at the moment (aside from affirmative action I mean) then I'm willing to listen. Unless you aren't interested in defending the claim that there is modern day institutional racism.

Avatar image for arkbound
Arkbound

1666

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#30  Edited By Arkbound

@emperordmb:

I'd argue in the modern day affirmative action is institutionally racist, as are college diversity quotas which actually screw over Asians the most funny enough.

This is why I said it depends on how you define racism.

And how is affirmative action, a policy intended to counter balance historical economic and social inequity, a racist institutional practice? It helps the largely disenfranchised populations of society. And funnily enough who had the power to establish this policy? Are you telling me that, by this chain of logic, if white people were participatory in this policy (which they obviously were) they were in fact racist against themselves? No. This is a policy meant to correct issues in society, if it creates others it's not out of malice, prejudice, or the intent to subjugate.

That is like saying a grant or scholarship targeted at giving aid/incentive to women in underrepresented fields of study is sexist against men.

But in any case, can you actually point out current day institutional racism to substantiate the claim that black people are incapable of this form of racism but white people aren't?

No because on this I don't actually argue with Mooney. His argument falls short the minute that black representatives were elected and black people given the vote and other rights (notice how I say the word given). Now it becomes a messy question of who has more/ less power and that isn't quite the same thing.

But that said if institutional racism can no longer exist to the degree it did, it doesn't change the fact that Africans Americans to my knowledge have never practiced it. Hence the argument black people can't be racist. Its not that we are incapable of doing so because we are always the disenfranchised (like some permanent victim of society) so much that we have historically lacked the power to influence another racial groups lives in that way.

Because honestly it seems like institutional racism is used as a buzzword to try and implicate a class of oppressors and a class of oppressed in order to leverage some social/political influence, I mean if you're changing the definition of a word with social and emotional weight to suit your argument (not you the people making this argument) rather than speaking plainly and describing the problem with the current definitions that automatically comes off as fishy and manipulative to me.

It is rather manipulative il give you that. I think Ben Shapiro put it best. You can't say institutional racism as a broad general term and expect to fight it. That said there is no one definition of racism. Its a fluid construct to many. I'm just pointing out what @static_shock pointed out:

the oppression of a minority race on the basis of economics, law enforcement and politics in favor of a majority race,

Based on that definition and others like it we can't be racist. I call bs on a lot of it but that is the argument being made (and I had to clarify because its often ignored and replaced by flagrant strawman)

The fact that racism meant one thing for almost all of human history then got redefined so people could use it as a political buzzword in this way is not something I'm comfortable with.

And what was that one meaning?

At the same time though, I haven't seen a very compelling case for institutional racism against black people in today's United States. So if you'd like to point to me a policy or law or institution that is racist at the moment (aside from affirmative action I mean) then I'm willing to listen. Unless you aren't interested in defending the claim that there is modern day institutional racism.

Well firstly I am not American. Aside from that I only came to clarify the argument and defend very specific parts of it. So I can't think of any enforced on the books law today that is a good example of institutional racism

Avatar image for removekebab
removekebab

3794

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Wtf am I reading

Avatar image for spockoclock
SpockOClock

41

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

People of all kinds can be racist.

Avatar image for emperordmb
Emperordmb

1987

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

@arkbound:

And how is affirmative action, a policy intended to counter balance historical economic and social inequity, a racist institutional practice? It helps the largely disenfranchised populations of society. And funnily enough who had the power to establish this policy? Are you telling me that, by this chain of logic, if white people were participatory in this policy (which they obviously were) they were in fact racist against themselves? No. This is a policy meant to correct issues in society, if it creates others it's not out of malice, prejudice, or the intent to subjugate.

That is like saying a grant or scholarship targeted at giving aid/incentive to women in underrepresented fields of study is sexist against men.

You can argue what the intent is but in practice it is a law that discriminates against and is detrimental to white people based on nothing more than their skin color. And yes I do believe giving women specific grants and aid is sexist or at least functionally sexist, having a vagina or black skin is not a qualification and should not be treated as such, and for that matter neither is having a penis or white skin. The idea that the racism of individuals in society can be fixed by institutions discriminating on the basis of race and sex is absurd in my eyes, and I believe people should only be judged based on the quality of their work.

If someone were to argue an affirmative action type program based around economic class rather than race then I would have an easier time accepting a program like that because that at least actually accounts for who is more or less privileged in these situations. If affirmative action were based on economic class it would benefit a poor white person over a rich black person and a poor black person over a rich white person, whereas race based affirmative action would not only benefit a poor black person over a rich white person but also really stupidly a rich black person over a poor white person.

In a society where we want all people to have equal opportunity and be treated equally under the law we should not have programs designed to be partial to specific races or sexes. Leave the law impartial, with anti-discriminatory laws that apply no matter who discriminates, and that's all that needs to exist within the law. Making the law partial towards specific groups of people is the opposite of egalitarianism.

No because on this I don't actually argue with Mooney. His argument fails short the minute that black representatives were elected and black people given the vote and other rights (notice how I say the word given). Now it becomes a messy question of who has more/ less power and that isn't quite the same thing.

But that said if institutional racism can no longer exist to the degree it did, it doesn't change the fact that Africans Americans to my knowledge have never practiced it. Hence the argument black people can't be racist. Its not that we are incapable of doing so because we are always the disenfranchised (like some permanent victim of society) so much that we have historically lacked the power to influence another racial groups lives in that way.

It is rather manipulative il give you that. I think Ben Shapiro put it best. You can't say institutional racism as a broad general term and expect to fight it. That said there is no one definition of racism. Its a fluid construct to many. I'm just pointing out what @static_shock pointed out:

Based on that definition and others like it we can't be racist. I call bs on a lot of it but that is the argument being made (and I had to clarify because its often ignored and replaced by flagrant strawman)

Ah yes I love Ben Shapiro even though I'm moderately left-leaning. Also based on that definition the vast vast majority of white people also can't be racist since the vast majority of white people aren't sitting in positions of institutional power where they get to arrange the laws or institutions to benefit them. It's a definition that could only even potentially apply to a fraction of a percent of white people, and to noone if there is no provable racist institution or law, which is why I find this argument so manipulative because it creates a false dichotomy of an oppressor and oppressed class with the binary of "white people can be racist and black people can't" even though even when accepting that definition the vast vast majority of white people still can't be racist.

And what was that one meaning?

"Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

As far as I can tell it was only relatively recently that people started trying to redefine the word racism to try and include power and power structures and systems, and generally I see people trying to redefine the word in such a way to apply different standards to people of different races.

Well firstly I am not American. Aside from that I only came to clarify the argument and defend very specific parts of it. So I can't think of any enforced on the books law today that is a good example of institutional racism

Right okay, I was mainly asking that because I wasn't sure what parts of the argument you were defending, and I specified America because I'm not familiar enough with the laws of other countries to argue that systemic racism doesn't exist in said countries.

Avatar image for deactivated-5edd330f57b65
deactivated-5edd330f57b65

26437

Forum Posts

815

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Of course but it has zero effect compared to what white people being racist has done in America at least.

Avatar image for green_tea
Green_Tea

10857

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Asian parents are shameless about their racist remarks lol

Avatar image for deactivated-5df99b4bb2d5b
deactivated-5df99b4bb2d5b

642

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Sorry Dear White People, but a big no to you. Anyone can be racist and no amount redefining the word will change that. Stuff like this really gets under my skin.

Avatar image for deactivated-5a794b61068b8
deactivated-5a794b61068b8

7203

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for greysentinel365
Greysentinel365

10843

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Of course they can be racist.

Avatar image for marvelanddcfan24
MarvelandDCfan24

9080

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I've met racist black people and yes they can be racist anyone can

Avatar image for deathstroke52
Deathstroke52

7006

Forum Posts

487

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

lol

Avatar image for mimisalome
mimisalome

6899

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#41  Edited By mimisalome

What a screwed up society

Avatar image for just_sayin
just_sayin

5677

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@arkbound said:

This is why I said it depends on how you define racism.

And how is affirmative action, a policy intended to counter balance historical economic and social inequity, a racist institutional practice? It helps the largely disenfranchised populations of society. And funnily enough who had the power to establish this policy? Are you telling me that, by this chain of logic, if white people were participatory in this policy (which they obviously were) they were in fact racist against themselves? No. This is a policy meant to correct issues in society, if it creates others it's not out of malice, prejudice, or the intent to subjugate.

That is like saying a grant or scholarship targeted at giving aid/incentive to women in underrepresented fields of study is sexist against men.

Affirmative action has been acknowledged by the Supreme court as discriminatory and racist. Sandra Day O'Connor in Grutter v Bollinger writing for the majority said that quotas were indeed illegal and that though diversity aimed programs for admissions were legal they should only be legal for at most another 25 years because they discriminate. The exemption for such policies to help right past injustices must have an ending date.

School diversity programs are indeed discriminatory. For instance, Harvard studies have shown that Asians are the most discriminated in so called "diversity" programs. The cut off for an Asian is 200 SAT points higher than for a person of color at the average university the study found. They also showed that people of color are more likely to be the beneficiaries of these programs than other racial groups, including Asians or Hispanics.

Discriminating against smart Asians? Sure makes sense to me. Those Asians founding fathers, imposing their Asian patriarchal structure on us with that constitution written in Korean. Serves them right to be discriminated against in academic admissions.

The problem with Affirmative action policies is that they do not usually take into account the financial state of the person benefiting from the discrimination, nor does it take into account the financial status of the one who is discriminated against. For instance, a rich black person, like Colin Powell's son, may be the beneficiary of such policies while a poor white kid from Appalachia may be the victim of such policies.

These racist policies have been in place for the last 45+ years. The original intent was that they would fix past injustices but that they would be ended within 20 to 25 years (or so was said at the time). Now, 2 generations later, they still exist. In Federal government hiring, white people are under represented by about 15%, blacks are over represented by 15%, while Hispanics are slightly under represented and Asians again are under represented. So, racist Affirmative action policies benefit POC, but don't do much for other ethnic groups.

The reality is that all these racist Affirmative action policies found in school admission policies, grants, awarding government jobs, and hiring practices could be replaced with policies that benefit the poor and would in most instances be more effective at achieving diversity goals also. Of course those who have been the beneficiaries of racist Affirmative Action policies do not want to do this, even though it would help those most in need. After all, Colin Powell's son needs that extra help more than that poor white kid living in a single wide trailer in Appalachia.

Avatar image for pipxeroth
pipxeroth

10000

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

If you think the answer is no you need to get off the internet

Avatar image for silencedogood
SilenceDogood

24

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#44  Edited By SilenceDogood

Fact: Black people are the most racist.

Avatar image for thedarkpaladin
Thedarkpaladin

22885

Forum Posts

30

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

And always remember kids, It's not racism if you hate everyone equally.

Avatar image for rdclip
RDClip

2792

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Anyone can be racist. Hell, 'white' people have been racist against other white people in the past. Look up how Irish, Italian, Polish or just about any Catholic was treated in the 19th century.

Until people can accept that we are all just humans and no one group is special, there will be prejudice. Nothing anyone can do now can make up for the sins of people long since dead. The best we can do is treat and see everyone equally.

Avatar image for arkbound
Arkbound

1666

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@emperordmb:

I think your argument ultimately comes down to equality vs equity. I don't think everyone should be treated equally because there are still members of society that are so far behind that a meritocracy wouldn't be possible. I think that, with consideration for circumstances, people should be treated equitably until historical wrongs can be alleviated. And only at that point can we look to treat everyone equally.

You can argue what the intent is but in practice it is a law that discriminates against and is detrimental to white people based on nothing more than their skin color.

Alright seeing as everyone is determined to judge affirmative action by its outcomes lets ignore intent for a second. Affirmative action's most affected group is actual Caucasian women (at least in the states). If that is true how is that an example of race based discrimination in institutional form? The very result of the practice is in fact producing a non-raced based outcome. How can it be both negatively and positively racists towards the same race? The fact is that affirmative action is not prejudice against whites, it is simply non-advantageous to the majority (White Caucasian Males). As it was designed to be. If you disagree with that need then fine, but its not the same thing as being discriminatory.

And yes I do believe giving women specific grants and aid is sexist or at least functionally sexist, having a vagina or black skin is not a qualification and should not be treated as such, and for that matter neither is having a penis or white skin.

Sexual organs and skin color are not used as qualifications. That is silly. All this argument represents is affirmative actions misconceptions.

If you want to preach about a meritocracy that is fine, but if we are talking about function then you again need to understand that incentives work, mitigating factors are real, and that just because one group that is historically disenfranchised is supported to counter-balance the harm perpetrated against them, that that doesn't mean said group is better or worse.

The idea that the racism of individuals in society can be fixed by institutions discriminating on the basis of race and sex is absurd in my eyes, and I believe people should only be judged based on the quality of their work.

Again this is pretty idealistic. America is a capitalistic society that values merit and hardwork, but that doesn't mean its a meritocracy. All affirmative action is trying to do is recognize that not everyone starts off in life equally. Its like mitigation for legal proceedings. As nice as it is too say that hardwork and character should be the only deciding factors, they simply aren't.

If someone were to argue an affirmative action type program based around economic class rather than race then I would have an easier time accepting a program like that because that at least actually accounts for who is more or less privileged in these situations.

There are programs like that. That is why I brought up grants earlier and intent. There are several that actively try and incentives students who's families earn under a certain level. Would this extra money be an unfair advantage over families with more money? By your earlier chain of logic yes. It would be discriminating because everyone didn't have equal opportunity to said money, disregarding circumstances or need. See my point?

Your only issue with affirmative action seems to be race or sex, when the same principles and logic you are using to call it down also would apply economic affirmative action plans in much the same way. If you think Affirmative action doesn't work, that is different discussion. But I don't buy that it is inherently racist against white people.

If affirmative action were based on economic class it would benefit a poor white person over a rich black person and a poor black person over a rich white person, whereas race based affirmative action would not only benefit a poor black person over a rich white person but also really stupidly a rich black person over a poor white person.

You touched on one of the flaws of affirmative action. But that isn't its sum and it shouldn't be vilified solely because it has unintended negative affects on some. It should be improved upon not dismissed.

In a society where we want all people to have equal opportunity and be treated equally under the law we should not have programs designed to be partial to specific races or sexes. Leave the law impartial, with anti-discriminatory laws that apply no matter who discriminates, and that's all that needs to exist within the law. Making the law partial towards specific groups of people is the opposite of egalitarianism.

The law isn't being practiced equally though. Seriously there are several examples of this. Lighter sentences for whites vs blacks committing the same crimes or lighter sentences for high class criminals. And if the law and society was always impartial, their wouldn't be a need for anti-discrimination laws in the first place. And now you have conflicting ones at that. The Good Wife does an excellent job illustrating this negotiation that often takes place in legal proceedings. That is a separate discussion though.

But again I am largely unfamiliar with the finer points of American law. Can you show one of the unequal laws you are referring too?

Ah yes I love Ben Shapiro even though I'm moderately left-leaning. Also based on that definition the vast vast majority of white people also can't be racist since the vast majority of white people aren't sitting in positions of institutional power where they get to arrange the laws or institutions to benefit them.

If institutional racism was the only form of racism, or the definition the one we chose to follow then sure. No one said that all white people were racist. No one reasonable anyway. But back on topic, it would still exclude black people from being racist by that definition.

It's a definition that could only even potentially apply to a fraction of a percent of white people, and to noone if there is no provable racist institution or law,

Just to be clear I said there were no current laws that came to mind. Not that there weren't any ever. There were several, they no longer exist. Following that chain of logic, no black or white american currently perpetuates institutional racism. Again that's the argument being made (or at least its logical conclusion)

which is why I find this argument so manipulative because it creates a false dichotomy of an oppressor and oppressed class with the binary of "white people can be racist and black people can't" even though even when accepting that definition the vast vast majority of white people still can't be racist.

Iv already discussed this point.

Overall you seem to forget that its actually a portion of the white population that has benefited the most from affirmative action in the states. Furthermore as the programs were largely implemented by policymakers who in fact were white themselves, I find it hard to believe they are racist against themselves.

Next just to reiterate, the way affirmative action should work, is that only qualified persons are considered for the job. It's not gold fish for minorities where you simply hire the feature you are looking for. Its meant to recognize that a person of the majority and a person of the minority likely did not face the same obstacles getting where they are. Are their going to be times where it backfires and helps the wrong person? Absolutely, but we don't stop sending people to jail simply because a small portion of them are going to be innocent.

@just_sayin:

Affirmative action has been acknowledged by the Supreme court as discriminatory and racist. Sandra Day O'Connor in Grutter v Bollinger writing for the majority said that quotas were indeed illegal and that though diversity aimed programs for admissions were legal they should only be legal for at most another 25 years because they discriminate. The exemption for such policies to help right past injustices must have an ending date.

Of course one of the major talking points is if they are meant to correct a historical wrong, at what point have they done their job. 25 seems arbitrary but hey whatever works. Also im not American. If you want to debate the inherent aspects of affirmative action I am game, but my legal system has a very different interpretation regarding the practice (and discriminatory practices in general iirc). So no offense but I could honestly careless what a particular supreme court judge has to say. So if you want to bring up more of their arguments cool, but I'm not convinced solely on the conclusion.

School diversity programs are indeed discriminatory. For instance, Harvard studies have shown that Asians are the most discriminated in so called "diversity" programs. The cut off for an Asian is 200 SAT points higher than for a person of color at the average university the study found. They also showed that people of color are more likely to be the beneficiaries of these programs than other racial groups, including Asians or Hispanics.

Right...but how does any of this have to do with AA plans being institutional racist against white people?

Affirmative action is meant to give aid to those not in the majority. In the ivy league educational stream Asian students I suppose are the majority. If it now helps white and other students of different races and backgrounds, Im not seeing how that proves its institutionally racist against whites or proves blacks are racist through said programs.

Maybe that wasn't your point, but you are just interjecting on a specific section of my post so im trying to figure out what your point is.

Discriminating against smart Asians? Sure makes sense to me. Those Asians founding fathers, imposing their Asian patriarchal structure on us with that constitution written in Korean. Serves them right to be discriminated against in academic admissions.

And how is a flawed program against Asian students proof that Black people are racist? Where Black people the only race that lobbied for that program? You are missing the point, just because you are the beneficiary doesn't make you prejudice or racist.

Or maybe I am unclear. Still trying to figure out your exact argument.

The problem with Affirmative action policies is that they do not usually take into account the financial state of the person benefiting from the discrimination, nor does it take into account the financial status of the one who is discriminated against. For instance, a rich black person, like Colin Powell's son, may be the beneficiary of such policies while a poor white kid from Appalachia may be the victim of such policies.

Right, again this is a fair point. (I say the same thing above in Emperor's post) The flaw in affirmative action is that it links race directly with social economic class. Not what I was arguing but cool.

These racist policies have been in place for the last 45+ years. The original intent was that they would fix past injustices but that they would be ended within 20 to 25 years (or so was said at the time). Now, 2 generations later, they still exist. In Federal government hiring, white people are under represented by about 15%, blacks are over represented by 15%, while Hispanics are slightly under represented and Asians again are under represented. So, racist Affirmative action policies benefit POC, but don't do much for other ethnic groups.

Im interested as too where you are getting your numbers. Everything I have read has indicates that in actuality, white Caucasian women are the most benefited by affirmative action in the United States

The reality is that all these racist Affirmative action policies found in school admission policies, grants, awarding government jobs, and hiring practices could be replaced with policies that benefit the poor and would in most instances be more effective at achieving diversity goals also. Of course those who have been the beneficiaries of racist Affirmative Action policies do not want to do this, even though it would help those most in need. After all, Colin Powell's son needs that extra help more than that poor white kid living in a single wide trailer in Appalachia.

I will say to you same thing I said to Emperor:

Are their going to be times where it backfires and helps the wrong person? Absolutely, but we dont stop sending people to jail simply because a small portion of them are going to be innocent.

Your assertion that some how we should scrap all AA plans simply because there will be instances were a undeserving person will benefit is ludicrous. In fact there are several financial assistance programs to help that "poor white kid living in a single wide trailer" so if you can accept that that poor kid needs help over their "more advantageous peer" then you can at least see that helping the disenfranchised is not an act of discrimination against the majority. You simply disagree who the disenfranchised are ordon't seem AA as an effective solution.

Avatar image for thewatcherking
TheWatcherKing

22610

Forum Posts

31

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Fact: Black people are the most racist.

That is an opinion, and one that can never be proven

Avatar image for xaosxaos
Xaosxaos

92

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@silencedogood said:

Fact: Black people are the most racist.

That is an opinion, and one that can never be proven

Lol, no, this is an attempt to be a troll.

Avatar image for thewatcherking
TheWatcherKing

22610

Forum Posts

31

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@xaosxaos: are you referring to me or the other guy?