• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Racism without racists [W:26]

:screwy

SP exists, it must be addressed.



All applicants meet minimum standards.

your error is damning individuals for alleged group wrongs

it would be like imprisoning 15 random blacks for the riots in Ferguson

there is no such thing as minimum standards in selections where there are more applicants than spaces. The only qualified people are those who are the most qualified.

as I noted, if there are three olympic sprinting positions on the USA team, those who are not the three fastest are not qualified

same with seats at Harvard Medical school

a black with a 3.2 is not qualified compared to an Asian with a 3.9 GPA

BBL
 
your error is damning individuals for alleged group wrongs

Groups are made of individuals. Your error is failing to understand a social perspective and only looking at the personal. As the article noted:
"The first thing we must stop doing is making racism a personal thing and understand that it is a system of advantage based on race,"


So, stop being personal about it and begin to understand the sociological considerations.
 
People like me? I don't know what you're talking about...

I said I have seen racism, and I deal with it in my personal life. In fact, I was dealing with it on Thanksgiving Day.

My sister wants to adopt a child from India, and some people in our family see something wrong with that. And yesterday, somebody in my family declared they have issues my fiancé, because they thought maybe he was Indian and was a "worshipper of cows" (ignorance). It goes on and on.

My great grandmother on my mom's side was born around the area of modern Ukraine and what was Yugoslavia. She had to deal with the racism in that region and the genocide coming out of Yugoslavia and Nazi Germany.

US racism has a different history all it's own, but it's far from being the only country with it and I have seen so many sides of racism. My grandma doesn't like Czechs for some reason and thinks they are dishonest, thiefs, and backstabbers. I have been told that Asians don't like each other.

I don't relate much to US racism or understand it. I don't think black males are scary. I live in a big city and see them all the time. Young black males don't bother me. I think it's stupid like I think my grandma's hatred of Czechs is stupid...


As for saying that I obscure racism, I don't see that applying to me. Racist people obscure their racism to themselves, and everybody is left to simply accept it as part of that person. That's where I stand with some people in my life.

So what's your definition of racism? Being white in the US? I used to worry more about being accused of racism from people like you who see it everywhere you look or in every criticism of Obama, but you all who throw accusations of racism around like candy have succeeded in obscuring it so much it doesn't mean anything any more.
 
its the same attitude that affirmative action fans engage in. Since you are white-you must have BENEFITED by WHITE PRIVILEGE and that means its fair to deny you and your 4.0 GPA and top 1% board scores admission to say Harvard Medical school in favor of some lazy minority who made 3.2 and was in the 91st percentile on the boards

And you're always complaining that Obama benefited from AA...

So in your world black men are over privileged and white men are under privileged???
 
Probably murderer or child molester... but I don't view the world in black and white. Bill Cosby has been accused of rape, and everybody thought so damn highly of him. It's very possible he is a rapist considering all the facts, but that doesn't mean Bill Cosby is entirely evil and hasn't done any good in the world.

The world isn't black and white. Good people sometimes do horrible things.

What carries more negative connotation than calling someone a racist? Give me some examples. I'm thinking maybe "child molestor" or "rapist" but I can't think of many more things to call someone that are more damning in today's society. Maybe you can cite some examples for us.
 
You're exhibiting a very high level of denial.

I avoid network news. You are less informed the more you watch, and it's mostly just political punditry. The focus on negativity can also depress you.

If you want to know about the real world and real people, then talk to real people. Don't just let network news tell you about how others think and feel...
 
racism is often a "bomb" liberals deploy in arguments they are losing. I tire of it

And yet in the face of actual racism those on the right often cry foul to minimize it.

Who's worse?
 
So you don't find the NAACP racist like others in this thread?

No. I don't find the NAACP to be racist, at least not based on their website. They have supported some "remedies" that I found to be racist, specifically those with quotas (usually carefully described as goals) that virtually force hiring/promotion "reverse" discrimination in order to meet them.
 
And yet in the face of actual racism those on the right often cry foul to minimize it.

Who's worse?

Give us some examples of, "actual racism".
 
And yet in the face of actual racism those on the right often cry foul to minimize it.

Who's worse?

And yet in the face of criticism, those on the left often cry racism to minimize it. There. See what I did. :)
 
Here's an example of institutional racism that some conservatives may be able to understand-redlining. Redlining is "a discriminatory practice by which banks, insurance companies, etc., refuse or limit loans, mortgages, insurance, etc., within specific geographic areas, especially inner-city neighborhoods." (Dictionary.com)

Redlining advocates justified the practice with statistics that show that a designated "bad" neighborhood has more crime and/or loan defaults. However, if you look into the process more closely you can find hidden assumptions and institutionalized racism.

Assuming our "bad" neighborhood is largely African American, it is that race which will suffer from the practice of redlining. To get the big picture you need to consider why African Americans happen to live in "bad" neighborhoods. There are several potential reasons. A big one is how the boundry lines are drawn when evaluating the different neighborhoods. There may be a poor white neighborhood that has as much crime and as many loan defaults as the African American neighborhood, but that fact gets statistically diluted because it is within the same boundaries as another, larger neighberhood with different characteristics. That statistical dilution may, or may not, be intentional. But it should be noted that statistical dilution is the tool used for successful jerrymandering. (which has been used for racist purposes many times)

Another reason is that the more prosperous African Americans who would ordinarily choose to live in a better neighborhood were prohibited from doing so by discriminatory real estate practices in the not-too-distant past. In addition, employment and wage discrimination in the recent past against African Americans made it more difficult for them to afford a home compared to an equivalent white person. The lower quality schools in the African-American neighborhoods (largely due to less funding from property taxes compared to more prosperous areas) insured that another generation would have fewer opportunities to afford living in a more desirable neighborhood. African Americans were economically restricted to poorer neighborhoods compared to equally educated, skilled and hard working whites by historic discrimination and the resulting economic damage. You don't have to accept that there is ongoing racial disrimination to see that discrimination in the past, and other factors, can still put many African Americans well qualified for a loan in neighborhoods that are considered bad when redlining is used.

Redlining is unfair, but it is also an overbroad, inaccurate method for evaluating potential borrowers. Judging potential buyers based on their individual credit, employment and criminal history is much more accurate than deciding based on their neighborhood alone. Qualifying borrowers based on neighborhood is especially inaccurate when considering residents of an African American Neighborhood that is still impacted by past racism. It may cost more to initially implement evaluation of individuals rather than neighborhoods, but doing so brings in many more qualified customers and more effectively weeds out unqualified customers.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, what I see is justification for making value judgments about people completley regardless of what someone does or doesn't do. It's like saying, "you, yourself may not be a rapist and may not have raped anyone but you're still guilty of perpetuating rape therefor you are a rapist, oh maybe not the worst kind, but a rapist none the less", and no, I don't believe racism exists without racial bigotry. I don't believe people can be guilty of something unless it's something that they have some control of. To say you're racist based on things having nothing to do with you - well, how do you counter that? Answer: you don't bother because it's a ridiculous notion to begin with, plus you have to know that some folks are just going to make that claim about you and no amount of proof to the contrary will make any difference.

Let's take the example of someone who strongly believes that rape is morally acceptable and believes that it should be legal. He sees rape as the right of people who are strong and brave enough to do it. He looks down on people who think that rape is a significant and serious problem. If it was legal, he would be a rapist. He denies that rape is harmful and thinks that rape victims are "just paying their dues" and make a big deal over nothing.

He has never raped anyone, only because it is illegal, and he has only shared his views anonymously online and with a few friends and family members. Everyone once in a while when he drinks too much he may say something like "I'd sure like to rape that bitch!" or "damn bitches keeping rape illegal are ruining our fun" out in public. Otherwise he is a solid citizen.

Is he a good person? Or do you think his opinions will influence how he treats other people, his politics and how his children turn out? Do you think his beliefs and attitudes may have a toxic affect on others around him? Or, is it wrong to criticize and shun him as long as he never rapes anyone?
 
Last edited:
This is your central point, I presume. So how, precisely, is systemic privilege perpetuated by people that don't advocate racial bigotry or "supremacist ideology". Explain to me how I'm perpetuating systemic privilege merely by questioning the fact that there actually is "systemic privilege" in this society? I see laws designed to give minorities advantages over equally qualified "white people" but I don't see the reverse. So explain. Details please.

I'll give you an example of degrees of racism:

Imagine that you buy a particular brand of a product because it is the least expensive brand.

1. You are unaware that it is cheaper because it is made by slaves of a particular race. (In this case you have no racist intent but your choice is helping to keep that brand and the practice of racist slavery profitable.)

2. You are aware that it is made by slave labor, but feel so poor that you feel justified in saving money from the worker's enslavement.

3. You are aware that it is made by slave labor, but everyone you know buys it and says its OK to do so, it is the best deal, and you have always bought it out of habit.

4. You think it is OK to enslave that race because they lost the war.

5. You think it is OK to enslave that race because that is the law of the jungle and the marketplace-only the best will win.

6. You think it is OK to enslave that race because they are inferior and best suited for hard labor.

7. You think it is OK to enslave that race because they are evil and deserve the punishment.

8. You seek a job keeping the slaves in line because you will enjoy punishing that evil race for daring to exist.
 
Last edited:
Here's an example of institutional racism that some conservatives may be able to understand-redlining. Redlining is "a discriminatory practice by which banks, insurance companies, etc., refuse or limit loans, mortgages, insurance, etc., within specific geographic areas, especially inner-city neighborhoods." (Dictionary.com)

Redlining advocates justified the practice with statistics that show that a designated "bad" neighborhood has more crime and/or loan defaults. However, if you look into the process more closely you can find hidden assumptions and institutionalized racism.

Assuming our "bad" neighborhood is largely African American, it is that race which will suffer from the practice of redlining. To get the big picture you need to consider why African Americans happen to live in "bad" neighborhoods. There are several potential reasons. A big one is how the boundry lines are drawn when evaluating the different neighborhoods. There may be a poor white neighborhood that has as much crime and as many loan defaults as the African American neighborhood, but that fact gets statistically diluted because it is within the same boundaries as another, larger neighberhood with different characteristics. That statistical dilution may, or may not, be intentional. But it should be noted that statistical dilution is the tool used for successful jerrymandering. (which has been used for racist purposes many times)

Another reason is that the more prosperous African Americans who would ordinarily choose to live in a better neighborhood were prohibited from doing so by discriminatory real estate practices in the not-too-distant past. In addition, employment and wage discrimination in the recent past against African Americans made it more difficult for them to afford a home compared to an equivalent white person. The lower quality schools in the African-American neighborhoods (largely due to less funding from property taxes compared to more prosperous areas) insured that another generation would have fewer opportunities to afford living in a more desirable neighborhood. African Americans were economically restricted to poorer neighborhoods compared to equally educated, skilled and hard working whites by historic discrimination and the resulting economic damage. You don't have to accept that there is ongoing racial disrimination to see that discrimination in the past, and other factors, can still put many African Americans well qualified for a loan in neighborhoods that are considered bad when redlining is used.

Redlining is unfair, but it is also an overbroad, inaccurate method for evaluating potential borrowers. Judging potential buyers based on their individual credit, employment and criminal history is much more accurate than deciding based on their neighborhood alone. Qualifying borrowers based on neighborhood is especially inaccurate when considering residents of an African American Neighborhood that is still impacted by past racism. It may cost more to initially implement evaluation of individuals rather than neighborhoods, but doing so brings in many more qualified customers and more effectively weeds out unqualified customers.


The whole anti- " Redlining " " fair lending " iniative was based on one huge false narrative.

Discriminatory lending practices actually never existed on any substantial scale.

" Fair lending " wasn't about forcing banks to lend to credit worthy applicants who's skin color kept them from receiving loans.

It was about Government intervention because those base standards were declared innately racist.
 
Groups are made of individuals. Your error is failing to understand a social perspective and only looking at the personal. As the article noted:


So, stop being personal about it and begin to understand the sociological considerations.

You truly hate the concept of personal freedom and equal rights. Pure socialists will argue the ends justified the means in machine gunning people down. Your messages on this topic are pure socialism declaring individual rights should be non-existent for the good of your ideology.

Never claim your anything but an extreme liberal. Of course you want machine guns legalized. They are necessary to level the racial playing field. Too many white people.
 
And yet in the face of actual racism those on the right often cry foul to minimize it.

Who's worse?

the worst are the liberals who scream about racism while believing blacks aren't smart enough to make it without government handouts or affirmative racism
 
And you're always complaining that Obama benefited from AA...

So in your world black men are over privileged and white men are under privileged???

in a narrow spectrum of admissions to top schools blacks have huge advantages over smarter whites and asians
 
Groups are made of individuals. Your error is failing to understand a social perspective and only looking at the personal. As the article noted:


So, stop being personal about it and begin to understand the sociological considerations.

I don't believe in screwing over individuals to slake the butt hurt of a group

you do
 
in a narrow spectrum of admissions to top schools blacks have huge advantages over smarter whites and asians

I wonder how white people would suddenly feel about quotas if universities and top jobs were filled by Asians....
 
I wonder how white people would suddenly feel about quotas if universities and top jobs were filled by Asians....

Asians are the most obvious victims of affirmative action.
 
I wonder how white people would suddenly feel about quotas if universities and top jobs were filled by Asians....

We wouldn't care because Asians would earn those positions on there own merit.
 
And yet in the face of actual racism those on the right often cry foul to minimize it.

Who's worse?

I could show you many examples of that being complete bull****, just from my own posts. When someone is clearly and undeniably racist, we have no interest in minimizing it. Why would we unless you're claiming we're sympathetic to it?

Nothing ever changes does it?
 
I'm always careful to note that what the person says is racist, not that they are personally racist (unless I believe the person is consciously trying to demonize or oppress a minority race). It's similar to "acting like a bitch vs. being a bitch". Don't be the person that's all "don't call me a bitch!!11!!" Of course, the use of a pejorative is a question in itself, but that's aside the analogy.

Notice the title of the thread and the article: Racism without racists (meaning without those of ill intentions).

Guilt requires intent.

All you're doing is to try to make a term more palatable to me so I guess I'll just accept it and admit to what a racist douchebag I am. Now, I might concede douchbag, in fact I will concede that at times I can be and that's based on my intentional actions or words. I will not concede racist no matter how you try to soft sell me on it. Of course, you don't me, for all you know I have a framed picture of Hitler next to my bed, but my friends who do know me, I'm pretty sure would defend me against such an accusation (at least I hope so).
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom