is positive racism as bad as negative racism

[Spaceman_Spiff]

No of course not;

Positive Racism: Giving a black person a job over a white person regardless of qualifications
Negative Racism: Lyniching a black person.

 

[Kasawd]

I break down into laughter when someone calls me cracker or white-boy. That sometimes pisses them off and that is all the payback I need.

Racism is strange. If everyone would just treat it as one big joke, perhaps things would be a little better.

 

[Seldon2639]

Heres why I said that. Prejudice is wrong. No excuses. Gays were not enslabed, but are still being forbidden rights and all that. You would think all blacks would appreciate their civil rights past and be for rights for all humans, but still many are ignorant fucks. What happened shouldnt be an excuse to be a dick, it should be an oportunity to be better as people.
Also people hate gays to the point of killing, and blacks were forbidden from marrying whites.
My point is, it should have been a learning experience, not an excuse for hate, and any black person who wants to forbid anyone's human rights might as well say "I liked slavery/segregation", to me anyways. (Anyone who wants to forbid rights is just as bad, but it just seems sad to not want to be better than those who harmed you)

You seem to have missed my point. I'm not passing judgement on whether homosexual marriage is a good thing. My point was that there's a difference between "you're black, and therefore can't marry white people" and "no one can marry a person of their own gender". If the law is administered fairly and equitably, disparity in effect doesn't prove discrimination. The law in Texas which prohibited homosexual sodomy but not heterosexual sodomy was discrimination, since it specifically targeted one group. Saying, however, "no one can do this" and having it be particularly harmful to one group is not the same as saying "this group can't do this".

Peyote is an illegal narcotic substance which is used by some Native American tribes for religious rites. Does the fact that they aren't allowed to use a substance which they need to use for their rites an example of discrimination? Wouldn't that be like saying Catholics can't do the whole Eucharist thing? Well, no, not from a legal perspective. When we outlawed alcohol, the Catholic Church didn't get to use wine. No one gets to use peyote, and no one gets to marry people of their own gender. The law is enforced fairly and equitably (I can't marry a man, either), and simply happens to disproportionately affect one group.

 

[Lexodus]

no such thing as positive racism

Positive discrimination, he means. This can be good, i.e offering financially unstable students a working allowance, or giving the elderly (also often less well off as they have no stable income) cheaper bus/train tickets, but also be bad, i.e women's movements making pretty much damn sure that a woman always gets custody after a divorce, even if she's the abusive/adulterous/whatever parent, and people giving places in universities to black people or women just because they are black and/or women, rather than on grades. Yes, this happens.

 

[Seldon2639]

Yes I am confusing couldn't and didn't go to school (I went to school, and colege to clear that up) and I see your point. Really the issue that im getting at is if two people go for a job and one is better educated then he should get the job. End of story, black or white, old or young. I know that white people are generally beter educated because of the social system, and not nessesarily any smarter, but the are proven by grades to be educated and that shold be used when selecting for a job. Sorry if that was a bit garbled, at least I didn't try any analergies this time.

Well, that's the disagreement, then. And I don't really see a way to resolve it.

I, by the way, play devil's advocate on this issue because I don't have a personal belief about it. Both arguments are at least somewhat valid, and both deserve to be presented fairly.

 

[Lexodus]

I break down into laughter when someone calls me cracker or white-boy. That sometimes pisses them off and that is all the payback I need.

Racism is strange. If everyone would just treat it as one big joke, perhaps things would be a little better.

My response was, 'What? I'm a fucking biscuit now?", followed by laughter.
Duder didn't like that.

 

[WarpGhost]

I hate the way people dress politically-sanctioned discrimination up as 'positive discrimination'. You're still discriminating and by implication it is *negative* against someone else. For example I have no more control over being born white male than someone being born black and/or female, yet I know that there are those who argue (and have indeed managed to make laws to legally apply their arguments) that I should be discriminated against because my very existance means I am somehow mystically discriminating against people who arent white males.

The cruel irony is that my life can be *legally* made harder (whereas the reverse was true only many generations ago; everything since has been illegal; and neither were my doing) than other's because of the belief that somehow it is actually 'easier' than others. Nobody seems willing to notice that both cannot be true at the same time. I for example have to face the very real possibility that (when/if I do get the job that I'm told my evil pale complexion and testicles apparently has automatically already given me...) my career progression will be slowed or held in check because I have the misfortune of competing alongside someone who didnt look like me. And the justification is that because the opposite sometimes happened 1-2+ generations ago, my generation and all subsequent ones must suffer that fate in their stead.

So much for equality. Its swinging between extremes like this that causes more problems than it solves. Somewhere along the line, laws to stop discrimination have become laws that actively promote discrimination. We need to be going after *everyone* who discriminates, not switching schizophrenically between two halves of the population.

 

[The lord cypher]

on this subject why is there a black police oficers union and a musim one and a sikh one but no white or christan one because it would cause outrage.

it the same that no person who is a supporter of the BNP is allowed to be a police man/woman but any other political vew is fine and yet we are supposed to be all equal. surely the only way for every one to be on the same rung of the ladder is eather let any and all have the chance to police people, and remove all unions bar one for ALL police. and ether let all political and religous vews in or have a all athiest non voting police force.
this organisation can be used as a overall vew for the whole country as like with any BNP supporter (sorry US poters goggle or wiki it) as they dont all (infact not many at all) harbour nazi vews (national front party covers most who have those vews). Many are against posative rasisum but that is vewed as racist by many groups who are looking after ethnic groups ect who are ruled and run by white chrisian dogodders why not let them run there own support groups that is the problem there should be no second rules or doubble standards in any country on law or culture.
If britan was a deeply christan country our culture 200+ years ago was you dont support god then you are are a heathen you shall be burt todeth as it stand we let a lot more go than many countrys go.

i warn and appologise i have writing dissabilaties so sorry about grammer and spelling.
i might also point out i am a atheist have no religiouse or pollitical vews possative or negative and no offence or social harm was or is intended in this post if anyone has a problem with it please let me know and i shall remove it and also you will as in this debate be a posatve racist lol (in a way)

many thanks

 

[PurpleRain]

i just read another thread with a similar issue but i thought i would elaborate with a new thread. In britain we live in a multicultural society and it has it good points and its bad points but im beginning to get the sense that the people who are getting most racism are "white british". If a person of ethnic background were to offend me with such phrases as honky, vanilla etc then nothing would be done about it but if i were to retaliate then i would suffer a greater punishment.

i also think that some of our rules are "fudged" for other religious backgrounds, i think its unfair that we have to abide by these rules but because it clashes with someones faith then they are neglected. I dont have a problem with respecting other cultures but i think that people should respect our culture and our rules. if i went to suadi arabia i would adere to thier rules and im sure that british women have to wear a headscarf in suadi despite the fact that it clashes with OUR tradition. i think that people should adere to the culture/rules of country they are a guest (or immigrated to). i think that it would be ok if they allowed an expection in the rules for everyone, after all isnt racism when people of a different background are treated differently from those from another background.

just to clarify, i would not mind if people were treated equally and exceptions were made from religions if the same exception was made for everyone. its just my opinion that positive racism towards ethinic people is inadvertantly become negative racism towards white people. im not racist towards other cultures (as i said, if i went to another country i would adere to thier culture)

although it could be argued that us britons have ruined the culture of spain, and it could be argued that as a nation we dont take religion as seriously as muslims and sikhs and that we dont appreciate religion on the same level as them.

First paragraph: That's racism. You can report them for that. Law is supposed to be blind and thus they should receive the same punishment.

Secondly, culture tends to stink some times. Why conform? What's the point of it unless illegal. Then fight the powers that be. If they won't back down, you can still do it, just receive punishment for it.

Third of all, being racist means you are generalizing because of race. Good racism and bad racism are still both racism. Racism is bad. Also, the fuck(?) on your religious point. What are you trying to get at?

Forth of all, argued? The British empire along with France and Spain has done massive damage to the world. Look at Africa.

 

[BlackJack47]

As long as we can joke about something without actual hatred behind it then really i think its fine, there are obvious boundaries but apart from that, we can't live together respectfully without humour.

 

[Kiutu]

Heres why I said that. Prejudice is wrong. No excuses. Gays were not enslabed, but are still being forbidden rights and all that. You would think all blacks would appreciate their civil rights past and be for rights for all humans, but still many are ignorant fucks. What happened shouldnt be an excuse to be a dick, it should be an oportunity to be better as people.
Also people hate gays to the point of killing, and blacks were forbidden from marrying whites.
My point is, it should have been a learning experience, not an excuse for hate, and any black person who wants to forbid anyone's human rights might as well say "I liked slavery/segregation", to me anyways. (Anyone who wants to forbid rights is just as bad, but it just seems sad to not want to be better than those who harmed you)

You seem to have missed my point. I'm not passing judgement on whether homosexual marriage is a good thing. My point was that there's a difference between "you're black, and therefore can't marry white people" and "no one can marry a person of their own gender". If the law is administered fairly and equitably, disparity in effect doesn't prove discrimination. The law in Texas which prohibited homosexual sodomy but not heterosexual sodomy was discrimination, since it specifically targeted one group. Saying, however, "no one can do this" and having it be particularly harmful to one group is not the same as saying "this group can't do this".

Peyote is an illegal narcotic substance which is used by some Native American tribes for religious rites. Does the fact that they aren't allowed to use a substance which they need to use for their rites an example of discrimination? Wouldn't that be like saying Catholics can't do the whole Eucharist thing? Well, no, not from a legal perspective. When we outlawed alcohol, the Catholic Church didn't get to use wine. No one gets to use peyote, and no one gets to marry people of their own gender. The law is enforced fairly and equitably (I can't marry a man, either), and simply happens to disproportionately affect one group.

If you are focusing on that then you have COMPLETLY missed what I was saying.
I am talking about prejudice against gays as a whole.

 

[Spineyguy]

To come out of one era of racism and step straight into another one would render all of the campaigning and deaths meaningless.

Martin Luther King campaigned for equality, not more racism. If we start 'positive' *cough-cough* racism, then he and all the other campaigners will've achieved cock-all.

So no, Positive racism is not as bad as Negative racism, it's worse. The hippocricy of such a move would make a mockery of the whole of the last century.

 

[Spineyguy]

A wise man once sang:

"Scatman, fat-man, black and white and brown-man. Tell me 'bout the colour of your soul."

R.I.P John.

 

[Seldon2639]

If you are focusing on that then you have COMPLETLY missed what I was saying.
I am talking about prejudice against gays as a whole.[/quote]

I did get a mite sidetracked. But, my point (tangential as it became) is that a large segment of the African-American population is irked by the attempts by the homosexual community to equate their respective struggles. And to "blame" the black community for things like the passing of Proposition 8.

Add to the fact that many African-Americans are deeply religious, and the whole "they suffered discrimination, and should thus be more sensitive to the claims of discrimination from other groups" is somewhere between "a bit" and "overwhelmingly" annnoying

 

[Kiutu]

If you are focusing on that then you have COMPLETLY missed what I was saying.
I am talking about prejudice against gays as a whole.

I did get a mite sidetracked. But, my point (tangential as it became) is that a large segment of the African-American population is irked by the attempts by the homosexual community to equate their respective struggles. And to "blame" the black community for things like the passing of Proposition 8.

Add to the fact that many African-Americans are deeply religious, and the whole "they suffered discrimination, and should thus be more sensitive to the claims of discrimination from other groups" is somewhere between "a bit" and "overwhelmingly" annnoying[/quote]Well they shouldnt be irked, and they should be more caring about thr rights of others. And religion is often an enemy of equal rights for homosexuals, so its hard to care about that as a reason. I am pro-equal rights for everyone regardless of orientation, color, gender, or what have you, because I hate having my rights withheld from me. I am not out to put down others out of spite, nor should blacks, or jews, or anyone else. I despise people who want to forbid rights from anyone, only reason I focus on blacks is because you'd hope they would sympathize. Two wrongs dont make a right, is ultimatly what I am saying I guess.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

Any time you benefit someone based on race, you are inversely negatively affecting people of other races not getting that benefit

i.e.- all rascism is negative

 

[DracoSuave]

Racism for a group is racism against all other groups.

It IS that simple.

'We should get a Jew because he's good at accounting, being a Jew. Don't hire that other guy.'
is equally as racist as
'Don't hire that guy because he's black. Go hire a Jew instead.'

Newsflash: They are both the same statement.