The word Racist has officially lost all meaning from over use

[Noodlegawd]

It's never been a better time for ACTUAL racists, because so many people are distracted calling everyone a racist regardless of whether they really are, it's easy for them to hide.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Let's test this hypothesis.

A 'yes', 'no', or 'indeterminate' in each case. In your opinion, which of the following behaviours constitute racism according to the new Oxford definition (i.e. "The inability or refusal to recognize the rights, needs, dignity, or value of people of particular races or geographical origins.")?

1. At a dinner party, Bob claims "Asians are smarter than whites," citing a 2008 Swedish study on general intelligence that includes statistics categorized by race.
2. Jill, a white woman who was once assaulted by a black man, crosses the street whenever she sees a large black man approaching on her side of the sidewalk.
3. Mary declares at a political rally, "Most white cops--nearly all of them--are racist."
4. Joe keeps a Confederate flag--a keepsake from his childhood--in his bedroom window. He refuses to take it down even after several people insist it's a symbol of racism and makes them uncomfortable.
5. Holly claims she would never marry a black man because she finds them loud and unattractive.
6. Jim asks Lo, a newcomer to his town of obviously Asian descent, "Are you from China?"
7. Peter, a white man, is a firm believer in Affirmative Action and racial quotas. "Black communities need a leg up to compensate for other systemic inequalities," he claims.
8. Donna argues online, "All lives matter. White privilege is just an excuse made up by black people."
9. Les, a Korean man, refuses to hire anyone except Koreans to work in his shop.
10. Kim, a deeply religious woman, disapproves of interracial marriages, sincerely believing that God intended the races be kept separate and distinct.
11. Roy, an ethnic Jew, maintains a site "sonsofishmael.com" documenting atrocities committed by Arabs and defending a thesis that Arabs are a violent and factious people by nature.
12. Maude, a black professor of sociology, pens an op ed asking readers to eschew citing the research of white sociologists, arguing their research is inherently biased and instrumental in the perpetuation of dangerous stereotypes.
13. Neil, an Asian man, is an outspoken proponent of racial profiling for police work, believing that profiling makes policing smarter and more effective.
14. John, a man indifferent to race, refuses to stop hanging out with Ellis, his childhood friend and an outspoken white supremacist, simply because of his beliefs on race.
15. Gary, a black TV entertainer, frequently pokes fun at whites, mocking their dancing and driving abilities in particular.
16. Kate, a white woman, and her friend Katelyn, a black woman, agree in a discussion that "there's a difference between blacks and (N word)s".
17. James categorically refuses to hire another aboriginal man after his previous two aboriginal employees suffered problems with alcohol abuse.
18. Jeanine, a full-time volunteer for a NGO in the Black Lives Matter movement, argues on her blog that modest taxes should be levied on white Americans to fund a reparations package intended to compensate "people of colour" from past injustices such as slavery.
19. Ellie, a white New Englander, reflexively calls white debate opponents racist and bigoted when she perceives she's losing an argument.
20. Joseph, a Texan, sincerely believes the influx of Mexican migrants to the US is a threat to the stability and prosperity of the nation.

I welcome everyone reading this to provide responses, and we'll see how consistent they are. :coffeepap

This isn’t valuable even a little bit.

“A Black man has a turtle. A white guy comes along and kicks it over...”

“Ah ha! The white guy is racist!”

“...only to find out the turtle was a Klansman. Now. Don’t you feel silly for assuming?”

Q’s are super stupid too.

 

[Practical]

It has lost it's teeth certainly. When everything is racist, nothing is. It's more or less boy who cried wolf now.

 

[Paradoxical]

The word Racist means nothing

Thanks you, liberal PCers

Some idiotic poster said I was racist. I responded that "I'll bite. Why am I a racist?"

As the left always does, the poster slinked away and will note seen again on that topic.

 

[Paradoxical]

And you've come to this conclusion, how?

I just posted on this. Please see the why and how above. Liberals define racism as whatever they claim it is. Like claiming masks are the reason for low death rates now in New York.

Claims are a dime a dozen.

 

[RealityNow]

Well, now what's the right wing spin, when Trump is on Audio confirming that white racism is systemic..... !!!! Spin that!!!! its from the mouth of your worshiped cult leader.

 

[OrphanSlug]

I just posted on this. Please see the why and how above. Liberals define racism as whatever they claim it is. Like claiming masks are the reason for low death rates now in New York.

Claims are a dime a dozen.

Any claim could fall under that standard, I believe what we should be talking about is intentions.

 

[Paradoxical]

Any claim could fall under that standard, I believe what we should be talking about is intentions.

How do you discern intentions? Is that something you assume?

 

[OrphanSlug]

How do you discern intentions? Is that something you assume?

That happens anyway. Being honest here, I am not trying to call you or anyone else specifically out.

Generally speaking when someone calls someone else a racist the real call out is the intention of being racist, something along the lines of accepting two different standards (economic, social, both, something) based on race. Think 1950's in the south, white people get these things and standards where minorities get less.

As another example only for the purposes of discussion, generally speaking when someone calls someone else a socialist (or something along those lines) the underline intention is to call out being anti-capitalist or wealthy envy or something like that. We have those discussions around here all day long.

I would conclude that intention is at least inferred if not explicitly called out depending on the nature of the debate.

You could argue that without that at least inferred reason called out, then branding someone as something is intellectual laziness.

 

[COTO]

This isn’t valuable even a little bit.

“A Black man has a turtle. A white guy comes along and kicks it over...”

“Ah ha! The white guy is racist!”

“...only to find out the turtle was a Klansman. Now. Don’t you feel silly for assuming?”

Q’s are super stupid too.

Do I feel silly for assuming a hypothetical turtle isn't a member of the KKK?

No. No, I can't say that I do.

Why are my questions "super stupid"? Give me some insights into your thinking.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Do I feel silly for assuming a hypothetical turtle isn't a member of the KKK?

No. No, I can't say that I do.

Why are my questions "super stupid"? Give me some insights into your thinking.

I”m unclear on why you’re under the impression I require your participation? You’re taking an awfully long rube goldbergian route just to argue “the word racist is thrown around too much and has thus lost all meaning”

If you wanna get there and argue/discuss/yell about the crux of that, let’s do that Otherwise perhaps I just haven’t deemed anything you’ve written thus far impressive enough to engage you in the format you’re asking for? You can tell me I”m “hiding” or “deflecting” and all the other euphemisms ya’ll use when someone isn’t taking the bait. And I don’t mind bait - this forum is bait. All of it. Yours just isn’t that enticing?

That’s the gist. Pout or participate. Ain’t my call for what you do with your ball.

 

[Paradoxical]

That happens anyway. Being honest here, I am not trying to call you or anyone else specifically out.

Generally speaking when someone calls someone else a racist the real call out is the intention of being racist, something along the lines of accepting two different standards (economic, social, both, something) based on race. Think 1950's in the south, white people get these things and standards where minorities get less.

As another example only for the purposes of discussion, generally speaking when someone calls someone else a socialist (or something along those lines) the underline intention is to call out being anti-capitalist or wealthy envy or something like that. We have those discussions around here all day long.

I would conclude that intention is at least inferred if not explicitly called out depending on the nature of the debate.

You could argue that without that at least inferred reason called out, then branding someone as something is intellectual laziness.

Sorry, but I don't understand that gobblygook that sounds like it came from some liberal radical college professor. To me, it is gibberish.

 

[COTO]

I”m unclear on why you’re under the impression I require your participation? You’re taking an awfully long rube goldbergian route just to argue “the word racist is thrown around too much and has thus lost all meaning”

If you wanna get there and argue/discuss/yell about the crux of that, let’s do that Otherwise perhaps I just haven’t deemed anything you’ve written thus far impressive enough to engage you in the format you’re asking for? You can tell me I”m “hiding” or “deflecting” and all the other euphemisms ya’ll use when someone isn’t taking the bait. And I don’t mind bait - this forum is bait. All of it. Yours just isn’t that enticing?

That’s the gist. Pout or participate. Ain’t my call for what you do with your ball.

I stated in post #18 that "[Oxford's new] principal definition [of racism] is subjective to the point of near-uselessness."

You rebutted in #21: "I don’t think it’s subjective at all. There are clearly laid out parameters, a through logic, and common usage applicable to modern culture."

We obviously disagree on the point, and as I see it, the best way to persuade you and other readers of my position is to present you with a series of situations, ask you to judge each one according to Oxford's new definition, and discuss the results.

Having administered a similar survey on another forum about a year ago, it is my contention both that: i) responses to the questions will be all over the map, and no two respondents' answers will be the same, and ii) you'll find that many of the situations you deem to be racism don't satisfy Oxford's definition, while many of the situations you deem not to be racism do reasonably satisfy Oxford's definition.

By this I intend to prove to you that their new definition is neither objective, nor consistently interpreted, nor consistent with your own views on what is and isn't racism.

Hence if you have a few minutes to spare on DP, I'd appreciate your providing responses for the questionnaire. Perhaps I'll wind up convincing you that the term "racism" realistically has less meaning than you presently think it does.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

I stated in post #18 that "[Oxford's new] principal definition [of racism] is subjective to the point of near-uselessness."

You rebutted in #21: "I don’t think it’s subjective at all. There are clearly laid out parameters, a through logic, and common usage applicable to modern culture."

We obviously disagree on the point, and as I see it, the best way to persuade you and other readers of my position is to present you with a series of situations, ask you to judge each one according to Oxford's new definition, and discuss the results.

Having administered a similar survey on another forum about a year ago, it is my contention both that: i) responses to the questions will be all over the map, and no two respondents' answers will be the same, and ii) you'll find that many of the situations you deem to be racism don't satisfy Oxford's definition, while many of the situations you deem not to be racism do reasonably satisfy Oxford's definition.

By this I intend to prove to you that their new definition is neither objective, nor consistently interpreted, nor consistent with your own views on what is and isn't racism.

Hence if you have a few minutes to spare on DP, I'd appreciate your providing responses for the questionnaire. Perhaps I'll wind up convincing you that the term "racism" realistically has less meaning than you presently think it does.

Yeah, I get it. You just want me to answer the questions.

That’ll be a pass, friend.

 

[COTO]

Yeah, I get it. You just want me to answer the questions.

That’ll be a pass, friend.

That's certainly your prerogative, but if you won't defend your position, don't marvel when conservatives assert that 'racism' has lost (or is in the process of losing) all meaning. :shrug:

On a completely unrelated topic, and out of morbid curiosity: Are you actually a member of Antifa? Your profile doesn't say anything except that you're a "former right wing conservative".

That was presumably before the head injury.






I kid. I kid.

 

[TheParser]

Let's test this hypothesis.

A 'yes', 'no', or 'indeterminate' in each case. In your opinion, which of the following behaviours constitute racism according to the new Oxford definition (i.e. "The inability or refusal to recognize the rights, needs, dignity, or value of people of particular races or geographical origins.")?

1. At a dinner party, Bob claims "Asians are smarter than whites," citing a 2008 Swedish study on general intelligence that includes statistics categorized by race.
2. Jill, a white woman who was once assaulted by a black man, crosses the street whenever she sees a large black man approaching on her side of the sidewalk.
3. Mary declares at a political rally, "Most white cops--nearly all of them--are racist."
4. Joe keeps a Confederate flag--a keepsake from his childhood--in his bedroom window. He refuses to take it down even after several people insist it's a symbol of racism and makes them uncomfortable.
5. Holly claims she would never marry a black man because she finds them loud and unattractive.
6. Jim asks Lo, a newcomer to his town of obviously Asian descent, "Are you from China?"
7. Peter, a white man, is a firm believer in Affirmative Action and racial quotas. "Black communities need a leg up to compensate for other systemic inequalities," he claims.
8. Donna argues online, "All lives matter. White privilege is just an excuse made up by black people."
9. Les, a Korean man, refuses to hire anyone except Koreans to work in his shop.
10. Kim, a deeply religious woman, disapproves of interracial marriages, sincerely believing that God intended the races be kept separate and distinct.
11. Roy, an ethnic Jew, maintains a site "sonsofishmael.com" documenting atrocities committed by Arabs and defending a thesis that Arabs are a violent and factious people by nature.
12. Maude, a black professor of sociology, pens an op ed asking readers to eschew citing the research of white sociologists, arguing their research is inherently biased and instrumental in the perpetuation of dangerous stereotypes.
13. Neil, an Asian man, is an outspoken proponent of racial profiling for police work, believing that profiling makes policing smarter and more effective.
14. John, a man indifferent to race, refuses to stop hanging out with Ellis, his childhood friend and an outspoken white supremacist, simply because of his beliefs on race.
15. Gary, a black TV entertainer, frequently pokes fun at whites, mocking their dancing and driving abilities in particular.
16. Kate, a white woman, and her friend Katelyn, a black woman, agree in a discussion that "there's a difference between blacks and (N word)s".
17. James categorically refuses to hire another aboriginal man after his previous two aboriginal employees suffered problems with alcohol abuse.
18. Jeanine, a full-time volunteer for a NGO in the Black Lives Matter movement, argues on her blog that modest taxes should be levied on white Americans to fund a reparations package intended to compensate "people of colour" from past injustices such as slavery.
19. Ellie, a white New Englander, reflexively calls white debate opponents racist and bigoted when she perceives she's losing an argument.
20. Joseph, a Texan, sincerely believes the influx of Mexican migrants to the US is a threat to the stability and prosperity of the nation.

I welcome everyone reading this to provide responses, and we'll see how consistent they are. :coffeepap

In my opinion, "Jill" (No. 2) is NOT a racist.

For all we know, she might be married to an African American gentleman.

For all we know, she might have marched in a BLM protest.

I feel that Jill is just a realist. She acknowledges that an unusually large percentage of certain gentlemen commit robberies, sucker punching, etc. She does not want to take any chances. Her being cautious lacks any malice.

 

[Helix]

And you've come to this conclusion, how?

Maybe RT had an article about it.

 

[COTO]

In my opinion, "Jill" (No. 2) is NOT a racist.

For all we know, she might be married to an African American gentleman.

For all we know, she might have marched in a BLM protest.

I feel that Jill is just a realist. She acknowledges that an unusually large percentage of certain gentlemen commit robberies, sucker punching, etc. She does not want to take any chances. Her being cautious lacks any malice.

When I administered the questionnaire on another forum, I got back 15 respondents and the answers were all over the map. No two people define racism the same way.

Until recently, we had the recourse that we could go to the dictionaries for something tangible. But if you've been following my arc with @AuntAntifa, you'll know that even this avenue has been stripped away.

I'm sure the people in this thread arguing that "racism" isn't a meaningless term have a pretty solid idea of what it means to them (even if they can't articulate it), but I'm just as sure they fail to realize how little others' conceptions of racism resemble theirs.