a social experiment on racism

Recommended Videos

Fox12

AccursedT- see you space cowboy
Jun 6, 2013
4,828
0
0
Vault101 said:
some people can't accept the idea that their demographic is somhow (dare I say it) Privaliged over another, because they take it personally, as in they think it means "they themsevles" are inatly more privaliged or that its somhow painting them as the "bad guy"
To be fair, I would do the same in their situation. She surrounds them with unfriendly faces and then antagonizes them. Then she acts like they're ignorant, and need to be enlightened. While I agree with her in principal, I hate her methodology. You can say that she was just trying to make them understand what it feels like to be a minority, but I don't even think she accomplishes that. The way she frames the study, she basically accuses people of being part of the problem. If I was in that group, I would wonder why this woman is yelling at me when I agree with her. It's not the 1960s anymore. The face of racism has changed, but her methods haven't. I also find it interesting that she silences decent. What's the point of this exercise, if not to create dialogue?
 

Vegosiux

New member
May 18, 2011
4,381
0
0
V4Viewtiful said:
verdant monkai said:
The black woman in the suit had a right chip on her shoulder.
A lot of Black women do, many reasons contribute to it. I don't want to get into that because that involves racism, feminism AND cosmetics and a bunch of other stuff :p
See, the first two I can stomach, marginally, but when it comes to talking cosmetics, I'm on thin ice. Know nothing about that.

I suppose my issue here is that there's sometimes the sentiment that "It's okay to be a dick if..."

It's not. It's never "okay". There might be circumstances that make it understandable and alleviate the dickery, but we should all strive to rise above that, not look for excuses.
 

V4Viewtiful

New member
Feb 12, 2014
721
0
0
Vegosiux said:
V4Viewtiful said:
verdant monkai said:
The black woman in the suit had a right chip on her shoulder.
A lot of Black women do, many reasons contribute to it. I don't want to get into that because that involves racism, feminism AND cosmetics and a bunch of other stuff :p
See, the first two I can stomach, marginally, but when it comes to talking cosmetics, I'm on thin ice. Know nothing about that.

I suppose my issue here is that there's sometimes the sentiment that "It's okay to be a dick if..."

It's not. It's never "okay". There might be circumstances that make it understandable and alleviate the dickery, but we should all strive to rise above that, not look for excuses.
I very much agree, I added cosmetic because of what I understand about the fashion industry and the power of self image.
 

Vegosiux

New member
May 18, 2011
4,381
0
0
V4Viewtiful said:
Vegosiux said:
V4Viewtiful said:
verdant monkai said:
The black woman in the suit had a right chip on her shoulder.
A lot of Black women do, many reasons contribute to it. I don't want to get into that because that involves racism, feminism AND cosmetics and a bunch of other stuff :p
See, the first two I can stomach, marginally, but when it comes to talking cosmetics, I'm on thin ice. Know nothing about that.

I suppose my issue here is that there's sometimes the sentiment that "It's okay to be a dick if..."

It's not. It's never "okay". There might be circumstances that make it understandable and alleviate the dickery, but we should all strive to rise above that, not look for excuses.
I very much agree, I added cosmetic because of what I understand about the fashion industry and the power of self image.
Agh, I didn't get that! I figured it was one of those humorous last additions to the list people do sometimes. (You know, arson, murder and jaywalking)

But yes, there's a point to be made there, too...maybe not in this thread in specific, but there is one.
 

DementedSheep

New member
Jan 8, 2010
2,654
0
0
Hawkeye21 said:
Heh, I love how various brands of Social Justice Warriors like to position themselves above racism. I bet they still shit their pants pretty bad, when approached by ghetto dressed blacks on the street at night. With good reason too.

Info based on FBI National Crime Victimization Survey and a lot of informative links:
http://www.examiner.com/article/federal-statistics-of-black-on-white-violence-with-links-and-mathematical-extrapolation-formulas

Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery.

Blacks are three times more likely to use a hand gun, and twice more likely to use a knife.

Hispanics commit three times more violent crimes than whites, but the statistics are nebulous because sometimes they are classified as white, so it could be far higher.

The best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percent of the population that is black and Hispanic.

Blacks are 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against whites then vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit a robbery.

Forty-five percent of black crime is against whites, 43 against other blacks, and 10 percent against Hispanic.

Blacks are seven times more likely to go to prison, Hispanics three times, and the reason is clear, because from 1980 to 2003 the US incarceration rate has tripled, and so proves that Justice is not only hard won, but well served.

Interracial Rape Statistics:

http://www.library.flawlesslogic.com/rape.htm
Studies from the late 1950s showed that the vast majority of rapes were same-race offenses. Research in Philadelphia carried out in 1958 and 1960 indicated that of all rapes, only 3.2 percent were black-on-white assaults and 3.6 percent were white-on-black. Since that time, the proportion of black-on-white rapes has soared. In a 1974 study in Denver, 40 percent of all rapes were of whites by blacks, and not one case of white-on-black rape was found. In general, through the 1970s, black-on-white rape was at least ten times more common that white-on-black rape. [319]

Because interracial rape is now overwhelmingly black on white, it has become difficult to do research on it or to find relevant statistics. The FBI keeps very detailed national records on crime, but the way it presents rape data obscures the racial element rather than clarifies it. Dr. William Wilbanks, a criminologist at Florida International University, had to sift carefully through the data to find that in 1988 there were 9,406 cases of black-on-white rape and fewer than ten cases of white-on-black rape. [320] Another researcher concludes that in 1989, blacks were three or four times more likely to commit rape than whites, and that black men raped white women thirty times as often as white men raped black women. [321]

Interracial crime figures are even worse than they sound. Since there are more than six times as many whites as blacks in America, it means that any given black person is vastly more likely to commit a crime against a white than vice versa.

I don't think racism among white people is caused by old prejudice anymore, it's more like a defense mechanism... I would probably be considered racist as fuck if I lived in USA. Though, during my work in Brazil I've had predominately non-white friends, so go figure.
Crime goes up the lower down on in the socio-economic bracket you are. Yes, minority races tend to commit far more crime for this reason. It also goes up in broken homes. Groups get stuck in the poverty trap and it's self perpetuating cycle that isn't specific to blacks. Not to mention how are theses stats gathered? if you already think the justice system is against you are going to report crime against yourself, especially if its committed by someone in a better position to the police? If you do go the police and the person doesn't get charged would it appear on these stats? If your falsely accused and get charged would it appear on these these stats? This dose not "emphatically prove" that there isn't bias in the justice system as this article is trying to claim.
 

V4Viewtiful

New member
Feb 12, 2014
721
0
0
Vegosiux said:
V4Viewtiful said:
Vegosiux said:
V4Viewtiful said:
verdant monkai said:
The black woman in the suit had a right chip on her shoulder.
A lot of Black women do, many reasons contribute to it. I don't want to get into that because that involves racism, feminism AND cosmetics and a bunch of other stuff :p
See, the first two I can stomach, marginally, but when it comes to talking cosmetics, I'm on thin ice. Know nothing about that.

I suppose my issue here is that there's sometimes the sentiment that "It's okay to be a dick if..."

It's not. It's never "okay". There might be circumstances that make it understandable and alleviate the dickery, but we should all strive to rise above that, not look for excuses.
I very much agree, I added cosmetic because of what I understand about the fashion industry and the power of self image.
Agh, I didn't get that! I figured it was one of those humorous last additions to the list people do sometimes. (You know, arson, murder and jaywalking)

But yes, there's a point to be made there, too...maybe not in this thread in specific, but there is one.
Yes and no.
Though it covers women as a whole, specifically for Black people it has ruined the self esteem and breed self hatred that abandons natural heritage, stuff like red blush on on cheeks and perms and weaves in order to look more white which was a device used by the racist system to control the minority populace.

It's a form of brainwashing they used to convince them that "white" is beautiful, even Black men did that rubbish, they still do but in smaller numbers (I knew someone who had a Jheri Curl till the day he died), Weave and hair extension is a 10 billion dollar industry and do you know who finances it? Black woman, a 10 billion dollar industry that stitches and glues other peoples hair in there's.
Jewish woman had rhinoplasties for similar self image problems but the jewish community have just about put a stop to it.

This all started to appease the white man but now it's a self perpetuating form of self-harm and self-hate but that's how I see it.

Social Engineering I think is the term
 

Proto Taco

New member
Apr 30, 2013
153
0
0
Racism is a difficult topic to address, due in large part to the fact that it tends to polarize the conversation in one direction. Usually when the word 'racism' is used it immediately refers to someone who is white harassing or patronizing someone who isn't. Now while I won't argue the fact that being 'white' does offer privilege, the default setting for what most people consider 'racism' is inherently racist. Perhaps a few examples would help illustrate my point better.

I was raised to NOT be racist. I know that's not the case for all white families, but that was my upbringing. I also grew up in a predominantly white neighborhood until I moved to the south to attend college. Upon arriving in the south I had little concept of racism and just generally thought 'people are people, this'll be fun to gain new perspectives.' However, as I started greeting people who weren't white, especially black people, I noticed a strange trend; a lot of them either acted surprised I was speaking to them or would offer up one of those phony disarming grins that are usually reserved for used car salesmen. A lot of them didn't, as well, mind, and I had some good conversations with those people, but the general, I dunno, distrust? I received just as a consequence of my 'race' was unusual to me because I didn't think in terms of 'race' I thought in terms of complexion.

I got used to that eventually, however, and soon I was making friends of all stripes, complexions and backgrounds, but then came the really weird thing that totally freaked me out; white racism committed by white people. There's a guy who went to the local LGBT center I used to chill at a lot, and he was half white, half native american, but it was hard to tell just by looking at him. Unless you had extensive exposure to native american culture/people (which I did growing up in Utah), you'd just think he was white. Anyway, he would crow from the rooftops about being Native American all the whilst completely deriding white people. It was common for him to walk into the room and point-blank say something like, "white people are evil." Shortly thereafter everyone who is by all accounts of 'race' (I'll detail that more in a bit) 'white' began digging up any ancestry they had that wasn't 'white' and crowing it from the rooftops, as though being white is some kind of disease or disability they didn't want to catch.

Now I am well aware of 'white privilege' and I do everything in my power to ensure my little corner of the world is as free of it as I can possibly make it, but did what that guy do piss me off? Yes, yes it did. I put A LOT of effort into paying attention to my non-white friends, listening to them, their concerns, and learning common socioracist pitfalls established by white privilege so that I can avoid them all because a bunch of ancestors, whom I'm not even related to, decided to be jerktards to non-white people for a few hundred years. It's REALLY freaking annoying.

Does all that mean I am as discriminated against as say African Americans? No, it does not, but it does mean that 'white racism' exists, and it causes a lot of stress for white people who already have to deal with the constant guilt laid on them for actions they had no influence over perpetrated by ancestors they had no control over and may not even be related to. So when you see white people getting edgy and defensive, that's most likely what's going on, unless they actually are racist, but that's a whole other discussion right there.

Furthermore a lot of people forget that 'race' does not actually exist. 'Race' as typified by skin color, is a social aberration created by humans to 'other' people different from themselves. The level of biological separation required for humans to occupy different races simply does not exist. Complexion and minor physical adaptions such as nostril width and eye positioning, do not warrant reclassification of humans into various subspecies. Black people do not have a different genome, nor even phenotype than white people, they merely express various facets of the same genome and phenotype to different degrees. In short, 'race' is an artificial construct created by insecure individuals to separate and/or stratify themselves from others. The sooner we can get that through our heads at a social and cultural level, the better.

I guess what I'm saying here is, "I do my best," and I know I'm not alone. And if some self-righteous 'anti-racist' crusader decides the best way to address racism is by punking white people with their own ignorance, we're never going to make any progress. Crap like this 'exercise' will only serve to further alienate people from each other and deepen the racial divide. We should be focusing on common ground and understanding, not forcing peoples' own ignorance down their throat, that's never solved anything.
 

PhiMed

New member
Nov 26, 2008
1,483
0
0
V4Viewtiful said:
iseko said:
V4Viewtiful said:
When someone says Black people can't be racist they are correct.
Black people can't be racist? Do you even own a dictionary? Racism is prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one?s own race is superior. THAT is racism. If you are from a certain race (doesn't matter which) and you hate another person because he is from another race. Then you are racist.

Black people can't be racist is one of the dumbest statements ever.
don't quote the dictionary, they categories the most popular meanings, not always original or accurate.

like I said Racism is a system and a more accurate word is bigotry, Black people can't be racist for the simple fact that they don't control the system.

I should have clarified, Racism from black in the west isn't so because we can't hold back another race economically socially or lawfully. African nations though that can apply.
Without a system in place to enforce it racism is powerless.
What you're describing is not "racism", but "institutional racism", a concept introduced by Black Power advocates in the 1960's (who were also, technically, racist, if you are going by the actual meaning of the word). There has been a shift in the use of the word "racism" among (mostly) black power groups to mean "institutional racism". It's a relatively recent, warped re-defining of the word that is not accepted by the society at large, nor should it be. Many black people have chosen to claim that, because they cannot be the perpetrators of institutional racism (which is also not entirely true... try being a white guy at a historically black institution, or in South Africa) that they cannot be racist. That is bullshit.

What racism is is the belief that all of humanity can be categorized, based on physical characteristics, into various "races" with defining characteristics inherent to all individuals within that subset. Aside from this concept being false on its face from an anthropological standpoint, it becomes particularly problematic when one tries to attribute "good" and "bad" characteristics to major swaths of people as part of these "inherent characteristics".

Glad I could clear that up.
 

Majinash

New member
May 27, 2014
148
0
0
Vault101 said:
SonOfVoorhees said:
As for racism, there are a lot of arseholes that judge due to colour - nothing will change those people. Or those that are way to PC about it that is just as racist in my book. We have some amazing black actors in this world that star in huge movies, yet people still cry racism just because a black actor plays a criminal in a tv show. When we should be judging them on their ability playing the character instead of screaming racism.
no, the point is they ONLY get to play criminals...they get typecast into narrow roles
wait, are you guys talking about British TV? I can think of more big name black actors that play protagonists than play criminals in the US. I'll admit my knowledge of British TV is... Doctor Who, and the only black guy I can remember was a nice guy.
 

Hawkeye21

New member
Oct 25, 2011
249
0
0
DementedSheep said:
Crime goes up the lower down on in the socio-economic bracket you are. Yes, minority races tend to commit far more crime. This isn't specific to blacks.

Not to mention how are theses stats gathered?

if you already think the justice system is against you are going to report crime against yourself, especially if its committed by someone white to the police?

If you do go the police and person doesn't get charged would it appear on theses stats?

If your falsely accused and get charged would it appear on these these stats?

This dose not "emphatically prove" that there isn't bias in the justice system.
Why would you agree with me, only to proceed to try to muddy the issue?

1) They were gathered by FBI, based on court convictions.
2) Well, considering police is pretty demographically diverse (I am sure you can find a black cop around if you look hard enough), I would say it is not such a big problem as you implying. It would be interesting to see those statistics.
3) No. If you are charged with something, but are not proven guilty, you are acquitted of all charges.
4) Again, no.
5) That was an assumption, which is most likely wrong to some degree. Do you have some proof or statistics for that? Still, if we take into account that African Americans constitute only 13.5% of US population, statistics don't paint a pretty picture.
 

DementedSheep

New member
Jan 8, 2010
2,654
0
0
Hawkeye21 said:
DementedSheep said:
Crime goes up the lower down on in the socio-economic bracket you are. Yes, minority races tend to commit far more crime. This isn't specific to blacks.

Not to mention how are theses stats gathered?

if you already think the justice system is against you are going to report crime against yourself, especially if its committed by someone white to the police?

If you do go the police and person doesn't get charged would it appear on theses stats?

If your falsely accused and get charged would it appear on these these stats?

This dose not "emphatically prove" that there isn't bias in the justice system.
Why would you agree with me, only to proceed to try to muddy the issue?

1) They were gathered by FBI, based on court convictions.
2) Well, considering police is pretty demographically diverse (I am sure you can find a black cop around if you look hard enough), I would say it is not such a big problem as you implying. It would be interesting to see those statistics.
3) No. If you are charged with something, but are not proven guilty, you are acquitted of all charges.
4) Again, no.
5) That was an assumption, which is most likely wrong to some degree. Do you have some proof or statistics for that? Still, if we take into account that African Americans constitute only 13.5% of US population, statistics don't paint a pretty picture.
If you look hard enough you can find a black cop sometimes doesn't mean there is no problem or perceived problem but since I don't live in the USA I'm not going to comment too much on that. Its just point to consider when you look at statistics.
Point is getting accurate statistic on crime isn't simple because it can't take into account unreported crime and you can't tell how many are false or how many times someone was acquitted when they are guilty so it certainly can't prove if a justice system is bias or not (especially if you are gathering your data thru the system you are trying to claim is not bias) and even the ratio of crime between groups is sketchy at best. A lot of people bring up statistics like they are the be all and end all and you can't argue with them but statistics on their own don't mean a lot. Statistics can be useful but are easy to manipulate to say what you want, they don't show you the root cause of something and they rely on having access to accurate data which a lot of the time you simply can't get.
What assumption? all I said was X dose not prove Y. What that articles seem to be saying is the justice system is not bias and more likely to convect certain groups, it just they commit more crime. We know they commit more crime because members of that group...get convected of more crime. The problem with this should be pretty obvious.

If you actually understand higher crime rates is not a race (as in caused by genetics) issue and while there is likely a higher crime rate you shouldn't put to much stock in the actual number those stats show fine but that's not how your post comes across.
 

V4Viewtiful

New member
Feb 12, 2014
721
0
0
PhiMed said:
V4Viewtiful said:
iseko said:
V4Viewtiful said:
When someone says Black people can't be racist they are correct.
Black people can't be racist? Do you even own a dictionary? Racism is prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one?s own race is superior. THAT is racism. If you are from a certain race (doesn't matter which) and you hate another person because he is from another race. Then you are racist.

Black people can't be racist is one of the dumbest statements ever.
don't quote the dictionary, they categories the most popular meanings, not always original or accurate.

like I said Racism is a system and a more accurate word is bigotry, Black people can't be racist for the simple fact that they don't control the system.

I should have clarified, Racism from black in the west isn't so because we can't hold back another race economically socially or lawfully. African nations though that can apply.
Without a system in place to enforce it racism is powerless.
What you're describing is not "racism", but "institutional racism", a concept introduced by Black Power advocates in the 1960's (who were also, technically, racist, if you are going by the actual meaning of the word). There has been a shift in the use of the word "racist" among (mostly) black power groups to mean "institutional racism". It's a relatively recent, warped re-defining of the word that is not accepted by the society at large, nor should it be. Many black people have chosen to claim that, because they cannot be the perpetrators of institutional racism (which is also not entirely true... try being a white guy at a historically black institution, or in South Africa) that they cannot be racist. That is bullshit.

What racism is is the believe that all of humanity can be categorized, based on physical characteristics, into various "races" with defining characteristics inherent to all individuals within that subset. Aside from this concept being false on its face from an anthropological standpoint, it becomes particularly problematic when one tries to attribute "good" and "bad" characteristics to major swaths of people as part of these "inherent characteristics".

Glad I could clear that up.
The Africa thing holds up though but I wasn't referring to them. As for those organisation oh yeah, I know quite a few of them where even against Malcolm X and he wanted to take arms (to oversimplify).

I was in fact referring to the west (and I mentioned Institutional Racism in an early spoiler which was what I was talking about as well), I don't think in general being a white dude in a black institution works here for the simple fact that as soon as you walk out the doors it's over, it hasn't stopped you getting a job, it hasn't held you back economically, that's the type of thing that happened in South Africa when the white people where in charge now it's reverse and few see the irony.

As for the re-defining, shouldn't it be? Yes, the idea of superiority over another race does apply to the word but If I could call some one [insert racial slur that applies to you here] in a country that they dominate it doesn't do much but give them a bad day. On the flip side of being a minority it would undermine your social status, keep you from jobs you were qualified for and block you in the justice system. It's not exactly warped because it has proven applications in everyday life and is far more damaging.
Other countries have the Institutional Racism but those on the receiving end aren't apart of it... unless they go the Uncle Tom/Ruckus and the Black Guy Samuel L Jackson played in Django, which is scary.
 

Ickorus

New member
Mar 9, 2009
2,887
0
0
thaluikhain said:
iseko said:
V4Viewtiful said:
When someone says Black people can't be racist they are correct.
Black people can't be racist? Do you even own a dictionary? Racism is prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one?s own race is superior. THAT is racism. If you are from a certain race (doesn't matter which) and you hate another person because he is from another race. Then you are racist.

Black people can't be racist is one of the dumbest statements ever.
There's a saying that's used around, "racism is prejudice plus power". Now, this is for a specific definition of racism (or other ism), the point being that things are very different when society is on your side.

A white person who hates Asians, and a Japanese person who hate white people might have similar amounts of prejudice, but how it operates will be very different if they are in the US or Japan.

In that sense, black people (in the US or UK or Australia, say) can't be racist (in the same way that white people can).
Oh for fucks sakes, we already have a term for that, it's called INSTITUTIONAL RACISM.

Black people are just as capable of racism as anyone else.

I'm fucking sick of this social justice shit, bunch of fucking bigots using their supposed victim status as a get out of jail free card for the horrendous, toxic shit they spew.

It seems to me the closer we get to true equality the more of these nasty fucks crawl out of the woodwork to divide us.
 

EternallyBored

Terminally Apathetic
Jun 17, 2013
1,434
0
0
V4Viewtiful said:
As for the re-defining, shouldn't it be? Yes, the idea of superiority over another race does apply to the word but If I could call some one [insert racial slur that applies to you here] in a country that they dominate it doesn't do much but give them a bad day. On the flip side of being a minority it would undermine your social status, keep you from jobs you were qualified for and block you in the justice system. It's not exactly warped because it has proven applications in everyday life and is far more damaging.
Other countries have the Institutional Racism but those on the receiving end aren't apart of it... unless they go the Uncle Tom/Ruckus and the Black Guy Samuel L Jackson played in Django, which is scary.
Then the question becomes, "why do we need to redefine the word when we already have one that works just fine" the concept of institutionalized racism is one that is descriptive and easy to explain, as this very thread has demonstrated by having about half it's posts calling out the redefinition as nonsensical, most people do not understand why the term racism needs to be made arbitrarily selective, especially when we can cover the expanded definition simply by adding a single word like societal, or institutional to the word.

It also screws with the etymology of the word by taking a word meant to describe the "why" and "what" of an action or belief, and adding fairly complex stipulations to it. If you redefine racism as a whole this way, then when you describe a minority persons action as prejudiced or discriminatory, then you only have the "what" words to describe them, and are now completely lacking in the "who" or "why".

The word also becomes very muddy between cultures, and much more subjective, as we've now got to determine which cultures count as the majority in each country to use the term, and the situation gets even muddier when you have minority groups discriminating against each other. Do we call black people discriminating against Hispanics in the U.S. racism, or can that only be prejudice and discrimination, it unnecessarily narrows the concept of racism into an overly specific word that can only be used when talking about a majority power, the problem being that the majority power is not nearly as clear cut in other places as it is in the U.S. That's partly why the concept of redefining racism in this manner has always struck me as very ethnocentric, more specifically, trying to alter the language specifically for American sensibilities.

To put it more succinctly, I doubt that redefinition is ever really going to catch on with any society at large, because it doesn't really do anything other than make the word racism and racist harder to use with little actual benefit that couldn't be much more easily accomplished just by being more descriptive.
 

Bix96

New member
Oct 10, 2012
64
0
0
To be honest I think this whole experiment failed right out of the gate when she started to silence acceptable criticism with "see some of us white folks would not like to see other white folks abused" as if that is the only reason people would speak up about the faulty logic of the experiment.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,538
4,128
118
Lightknight said:
It's a HUGE discussion in today's society. In what way are we uninformed about racism? Our generation is basically appalled at members of the previous generation we run across and society actively blacklists individuals who are shown to be racist.

Tell me, what don't we know about it? What are we missing? Who isn't getting taught that people should be judged by their actions and not the way they look? Who hasn't been taught about Jim Crow laws and the tragic practices of separate drinking fountains and all those terrible acts? It's standard lessons that have greatly removed prejudice in our generation. We find racism actively insulting and that's the sort of future that racism has even if the previous generations haven't quite gotten over it.
Yes, people have been taught about previous and extreme examples of racism. Yes, everyone knows that "racism", in a vague and nebulous way, is a bad thing.

That's why people will preface racist statements with "I'm not racist, but...", and often believe it.

Yes, members of society will actively blacklist certain racists, and there will be a shitload of other people defending them. How many western nations don't have political parties which have openly racist members or agendas?

Your profile says you are from the US. If you think that the Republican party, which is large and powerful with millions of supporters, doesn't have serious problems with racism, then you are one of the people who is uninformed about racism.
 

PhiMed

New member
Nov 26, 2008
1,483
0
0
V4Viewtiful said:
PhiMed said:
V4Viewtiful said:
iseko said:
V4Viewtiful said:
When someone says Black people can't be racist they are correct.
Black people can't be racist? Do you even own a dictionary? Racism is prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one?s own race is superior. THAT is racism. If you are from a certain race (doesn't matter which) and you hate another person because he is from another race. Then you are racist.

Black people can't be racist is one of the dumbest statements ever.
don't quote the dictionary, they categories the most popular meanings, not always original or accurate.

like I said Racism is a system and a more accurate word is bigotry, Black people can't be racist for the simple fact that they don't control the system.

I should have clarified, Racism from black in the west isn't so because we can't hold back another race economically socially or lawfully. African nations though that can apply.
Without a system in place to enforce it racism is powerless.
What you're describing is not "racism", but "institutional racism", a concept introduced by Black Power advocates in the 1960's (who were also, technically, racist, if you are going by the actual meaning of the word). There has been a shift in the use of the word "racist" among (mostly) black power groups to mean "institutional racism". It's a relatively recent, warped re-defining of the word that is not accepted by the society at large, nor should it be. Many black people have chosen to claim that, because they cannot be the perpetrators of institutional racism (which is also not entirely true... try being a white guy at a historically black institution, or in South Africa) that they cannot be racist. That is bullshit.

What racism is is the believe that all of humanity can be categorized, based on physical characteristics, into various "races" with defining characteristics inherent to all individuals within that subset. Aside from this concept being false on its face from an anthropological standpoint, it becomes particularly problematic when one tries to attribute "good" and "bad" characteristics to major swaths of people as part of these "inherent characteristics".

Glad I could clear that up.
The Africa thing holds up though but I wasn't referring to them. As for those organisation oh yeah, I know quite a few of them where even against Malcolm X and he wanted to take arms (to oversimplify).

I was in fact referring to the west (and I mentioned Institutional Racism in an early spoiler which was what I was talking about as well), I don't think in general being a white dude in a black institution works here for the simple fact that as soon as you walk out the doors it's over, it hasn't stopped you getting a job, it hasn't held you back economically, that's the type of thing that happened in South Africa when the white people where in charge now it's reverse and few see the irony.

As for the re-defining, shouldn't it be? Yes, the idea of superiority over another race does apply to the word but If I could call some one [insert racial slur that applies to you here] in a country that they dominate it doesn't do much but give them a bad day. On the flip side of being a minority it would undermine your social status, keep you from jobs you were qualified for and block you in the justice system. It's not exactly warped because it has proven applications in everyday life and is far more damaging.
Other countries have the Institutional Racism but those on the receiving end aren't apart of it... unless they go the Uncle Tom/Ruckus and the Black Guy Samuel L Jackson played in Django, which is scary.
No. It should not be re-defined. Why should we re-define "racism" to mean "institutional racism"? Institutional racism is about widespread stigma and denial of resources. Racism is about an individual world view. They are completely different things. We already have a term for institutional racism: institutional racism.

The attempt at redefinition is an attempt to push the idea that it is not harmful or wrong for a person from a minority group to be bigoted, and that idea is a dangerous one. It's an excuse. There is a tendency by some to bring out this defense whenever they're accused of racism as a distraction. Rather than just saying, "Yeah, you're right. That was a crappy thing I said/did. I'm sorry," they change the topic of conversation. "No, I'm not racist. I'm incapable of being racist because I have an alternative definition of racism, and here's what my definition of racism is." And ostensibly, "not racist" is equated with "perfectly fine," which is completely untrue.
 

PhiMed

New member
Nov 26, 2008
1,483
0
0
DementedSheep said:
Hawkeye21 said:
Heh, I love how various brands of Social Justice Warriors like to position themselves above racism. I bet they still shit their pants pretty bad, when approached by ghetto dressed blacks on the street at night. With good reason too.

Info based on FBI National Crime Victimization Survey and a lot of informative links:
http://www.examiner.com/article/federal-statistics-of-black-on-white-violence-with-links-and-mathematical-extrapolation-formulas

Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery.

Blacks are three times more likely to use a hand gun, and twice more likely to use a knife.

Hispanics commit three times more violent crimes than whites, but the statistics are nebulous because sometimes they are classified as white, so it could be far higher.

The best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percent of the population that is black and Hispanic.

Blacks are 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against whites then vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit a robbery.

Forty-five percent of black crime is against whites, 43 against other blacks, and 10 percent against Hispanic.

Blacks are seven times more likely to go to prison, Hispanics three times, and the reason is clear, because from 1980 to 2003 the US incarceration rate has tripled, and so proves that Justice is not only hard won, but well served.

Interracial Rape Statistics:

http://www.library.flawlesslogic.com/rape.htm
Studies from the late 1950s showed that the vast majority of rapes were same-race offenses. Research in Philadelphia carried out in 1958 and 1960 indicated that of all rapes, only 3.2 percent were black-on-white assaults and 3.6 percent were white-on-black. Since that time, the proportion of black-on-white rapes has soared. In a 1974 study in Denver, 40 percent of all rapes were of whites by blacks, and not one case of white-on-black rape was found. In general, through the 1970s, black-on-white rape was at least ten times more common that white-on-black rape. [319]

Because interracial rape is now overwhelmingly black on white, it has become difficult to do research on it or to find relevant statistics. The FBI keeps very detailed national records on crime, but the way it presents rape data obscures the racial element rather than clarifies it. Dr. William Wilbanks, a criminologist at Florida International University, had to sift carefully through the data to find that in 1988 there were 9,406 cases of black-on-white rape and fewer than ten cases of white-on-black rape. [320] Another researcher concludes that in 1989, blacks were three or four times more likely to commit rape than whites, and that black men raped white women thirty times as often as white men raped black women. [321]

Interracial crime figures are even worse than they sound. Since there are more than six times as many whites as blacks in America, it means that any given black person is vastly more likely to commit a crime against a white than vice versa.

I don't think racism among white people is caused by old prejudice anymore, it's more like a defense mechanism... I would probably be considered racist as fuck if I lived in USA. Though, during my work in Brazil I've had predominately non-white friends, so go figure.
Crime goes up the lower down on in the socio-economic bracket you are. Yes, minority races tend to commit far more crime for this reason. It also goes up in broken homes. Groups get stuck in the poverty trap and it's self perpetuating cycle that isn't specific to blacks. Not to mention how are theses stats gathered? if you already think the justice system is against you are going to report crime against yourself, especially if its committed by someone in a better position to the police? If you do go the police and the person doesn't get charged would it appear on these stats? If your falsely accused and get charged would it appear on these these stats? This dose not "emphatically prove" that there isn't bias in the justice system as this article is trying to claim.
Rape is not a result of poverty.
 

Xdeser2

New member
Aug 11, 2012
465
0
0
You know...

...that whole time I thought it was going to be some super fucking meta shit showing that the shoe fits on the other foot just as well. It was hinted at ALL THROUGH the video.

They commented on how she was appalled by how quickly brown eyed students hated blue eyed ones in her old elementary school classroom.


They went out of their way to emphasize her main goal was to make the Brown eyes HATE the blue eyes.


She hung all sorts of signs saying things like "Blue eyes not welcome" or something to that affect.

I really thought it was going to be a learning experience for both sides. One to show the Blue eyes what racism is like. One to show the brown eyes how easily they could fall down the same superiority trap. Haha but NOPE.
 
Aug 1, 2010
2,768
0
0
I remember watching a documentary of the very first Brown Eye/Blue Eye thing she did with the elementary school in a social psych class.

While that was actually quite interesting and is something that I think should be done by more schools, Elliot has since gone completely insane and the things she does now are generally idiotic.

The biggest problem I have with her is that she seems to emphasis that non-whites victims that need special care. It's the same thing as whole privilege thing where cultural divides are only made worse because it's repeated that the two grouped are fundamentally different from birth.

She also has no sense of scale. Her comment about lynchings is very representative of this. Lynchings are not something that is considered good. Even in the more racist parts of the United States, it doesn't happen anymore. Public opinion has changed. If that sort of thing were to happen today, there would be an extreme reaction.

Now granted, racism is still very existent, especially when you look at statistics and the criminal justice system, but I really don't think Elliot is doing much to combat it.