#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Poochy boy BELIEVES that if a BLACK person threatens a WHITE person, it's RACISM - PERIOD
How nuts is that? Or is it a sickness?? Can hate do that to you?? Have you met people like that??
excon
Nobody could believe that
Side Score: 13
|
Indeed, poochy boy DOES
Side Score: 14
|
|
No arguments found. Add one!
|
This American thing of racism has clearly consumed the nation and exposes Americans as being in the same pitiful, small minded category as those much criticized countries involved in internal conflicts the throughout the world. In Northern Ireland we have this;- Irish Nationalist/British Loyalist conflict. In many Muslim countries they have the carnage between the Muslim denominations of the Sunni and Shia. The European politicians have imported millions of Muslims who are now carrying out terrorist atrocities in most of Europe and this conflict will expand in both severity and frequency of the deadly incidents. Americans scoffed at the so called troubles in Northern Ireland, U.K when all the while their own country was/is being torn apart with race riots, protest demonstrations and counter demonstration. Time to stand back and take stock of yourselves. Side: Indeed, poochy boy DOES
2
points
Only among arseholes. I agree. I said liberal, didn't I. Arseholes tend to be the only people who tell others what they think, and the only ones who pretend their bigoted opinions represent those of a general population census. Ok. You agree with me, so why did you dispute me? Side: Nobody could believe that
It's really not. It is if you consider Obama an American liberal. The standard liberal view is that all races deserve equal treatment, and that racism can be committed by every race. Not in America. Liberals have made it very clear that you can only be racist of you are in a disadvantaged group. I know several American liberals. Not one has the views you describe. Ask them if they think black people can be racist toward white people. I don't think you have asked. Side: Nobody could believe that
Neither of us are going to win this argument this way, we're both arguing without sources. I looked, I couldn't find any poll pertaining to whether white people can be racist. Regardless, I still hold to my view that people who think white people alone are capable of racism is an unhappy minority. So, I'll reframe this debate. Most of the debate over racism comes from differing views on what the term means. The specific brand of progressives of which you are referring define racism as a societal force, and claim that reverse racism is racism, but much less of a problem as it is merely prejudice against their oppressors. Not a definition I agree with, and it is at odds with the dictionary definition (which I will paste below my argument), but it is a view I can understand. After all (,to play devils advocate), which is worse? An entire system built from slavery, with little to no initial thought to giving your people the advantages their slave drivers had? Or a handful of people getting pissed off at the unfairness of this situation and lashing out at those they deem to be part of the problem. Of course, it's still harmful discriminatory racism at the individual level, (which is why I don't support this view), but I do sort of understand where they are coming from. Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. Side: Indeed, poochy boy DOES
1
point
Well okay, but if we follow that reasoning to it's natural conclusion then we must conclude that slavery was not racism. Africans were not taken as slaves because of the colour of their skin but due to their apparent child like mentality and inability to defend themselves from the raiding slave traders. Side: Nobody could believe that
1
point
If you follow the reasoning to its conclusion you will conclude that slavery as an abstract concept is not racist. That's because any one can enslave anyone else, regardless of race. However the actual slavery of Africans was of course racist, as is the reasoning of "child like mentality and inability to defend themselves" that was used as an excuse at the time and is still unbelievably being peddled now. Side: Nobody could believe that
2
points
Boz, Well put. Slavery is not the result of racism, as such, but rather the result of greed, desire for power, lack of empathy, and all manner of other antisocial and personal failings of the human psyche. Absolutely I agree with you that the reasoning of "child like mentality and inability to defend themselves" that was used as an excuse at the time . However, the indications of US History are that slavery (of Blacks, poor English, and Irish, existed in the British colonies prior to the inculcation of the racist justifications. The racist attitudes you discuss came in to drive the replacement of White slaves with Black slaves during the 1700's as outright slavery and indentured servitude of the colonial underclasses waned. The institution of slavery already existed. The racism just helped to change which people were slaves. Side: Indeed, poochy boy DOES
2
points
When we look at ancient and modern history, and at modern cultures, the only other things that seem to be as common to societies as slavery are war, war's accompanying genocide, and music. Usually slavery is reserved for "the other." This keeps the society from fracturing under the weight of fear of being enslaved by others within the society. The rule (whether explicitly codified or not) that only outsiders may be enslaved enables the members of the society to trust their neighbors. Moreover, it raises the status of even those who own no slaves by adding a layer at the bottom of the hierarchy. In order to support this thinking, people must assume that the slaves are, for whatever reason (race, religion, etc.) less human than the core of society. In this way, slavery creates a psychological and sociological impetus for things like racism. Racism does not cause the slavery, but rather, slavery and the need to justify it are the cause of the racism. Most often slavery is reserved for conquered peoples. Typical examples are: - The Babylonian enslavement of the Hebrews - The Hebrew enslavement of conquered Canaanites - The Roman enslavement of Gallic and Thracian (etc.) prisoners. - The Spartan enslavement of Messanian and Laconian prisoners. - The various Native American tribes who enslaved captured members of rival tribes. - The Spanish and Portuguese enslavement of the entire native populations of South and Central America during the Conquista and after. - The African tribes who routinely enslaved captives of wars with rival tribes. Beginning in the 16th Century, these tribes began selling their captured rivals to the European slavers. Some societies have used religious/cultural differences or class to justify enslaving portions of their own populations, or of immigrants. Examples of this are: - Enslavement of non-Muslims in the Islamic world. (The Quran expressly permits it.) Currently it is common for people to be promised jobs if they move from places like the Philippines or India to Middle Eastern countries, and then when they arrive to be summarily made into slaves. - The enslavement of the entire underclass of serfs in medieval Europe lasted for a the entire thousand years of the middle ages and early renaissance. (Serf means "slave.") Additionally, because the feudal system stipulates that the king (or duke, earl, lord, etc.) own all the people within his demesne, even peasants were de facto slaves, and very often were treated exactly like slaves, despite technically being freemen. - The use of debt to justify slavery, both explicit and de facto, was used in China for thousands of years. - Debt was likewise used in the United States for at least a century to create a system of de facto slavery through the application of company stores, especially in rural areas. This was common in coal mining and agriculture. There is no shortage of example of humans treating each other inhumanely. Racism is just one of many routines of mental and social gymnastics people have used to justify it. Side: Nobody could believe that
1
point
I agree with this pretty much in full. And thanks for the outline, it looks like you've done a good study of slavery. However, I will say that when these things occur, they universally coincide with attitudes towards the other as being of less inherent value and therefor expendable to ones needs. This same attitude is manifest in many forms of discrimination including exploitative capitalism and dogmatic ideological pursuits. It probably traces back to evolutionary tribalism but in the modern world this must be transcended if we are to live together in peace. Side: Nobody could believe that
1
point
However, I will say that when these things occur, they universally coincide with attitudes towards the other as being of less inherent value and therefor expendable to ones needs. This same attitude is manifest in many forms of discrimination including exploitative capitalism and dogmatic ideological pursuits. I think the similarity between the two is a fair indication that the desire to exploit is the impetus behind the devaluation of the personhood of the "other", and the resulting discrimination and enslavement, etc. Side: Nobody could believe that
1
point
The verbosity of the two pseudo academics doesn't alter the fact that slavery had nothing to do with racism. A blind man on a galloping horse could see from a mile off that the diabolical trade in slaves was for profit, ( what to hell else would it be for you shithead?) which shouldn't be misinterpreted with greed, and a consequence of the perception which most people had about Negroes during that awful period. You two Don Quixote type bogus professors have hijacked the thread and used it to try to enhance your already over inflated ego. Your mutual admiration society is embarrassingly juvenile and graphically illustrates your preoccupation with your own self importance. Side: Nobody could believe that
1
point
1
point
Apparently you do not aspire to disagree without being disagreeable. Fair enough.
Boz and I were just having a conversation, and did not mean to hijack the thread. True, it was the development of a digression, but there is no harm in that. If you don't want to read it, then don't. If you don't want to see it, click Hide Replies. If you want to contribute (as you apparently did), you are welcome to do so as succinctly or verbosely as you like. Regarding the mutual admiration society. You may find that acknowledging an opponent's salient points in a debate/argument, especially when corresponding with a stranger, is a useful tool to ensure the interchange remains polite and that disagreement is not mistaken for disparagement or close-mindedness. In my experience this makes for more honest and interesting conversation. I am curious, though. What did you mean to add to your insults by comparing us to Don Quixote? Side: Nobody could believe that
1
point
Near as I can tell, people have always treated each other horribly. I don't think it is anomalous when societies are unjust and brutal. The real surprise is when people treat each other with dignity. It is equally unusual when people do not think first of their material self-interest, even before their hatreds. That is at the root of why I think the egg came first. The concept of racism is pretty new Side: Nobody could believe that
1
point
Hi Marcus Yes the concept of racism as it stands today might be relatively new, but I think it stems from an attitude towards outsiders on an affective level which then forms the basis for the concepts. As an aside, I am impressed with your ability to meet cynical, closed minded, obnoxious comments with reasonable dialogue. I think its the sign of a big heart and its genuinely appreciated. When someone as toxic as that wades in with comments showing no value, my reaction is to wash my hands of them. But I suppose your way might be more beneficial in the long run, even if it is lost on that particular commenter. Side: Nobody could believe that
1
point
Boz, Thanks for the nod. In point of fact, I do not have a big heart. I just watch what is happening in the US (with great disappointment) and recognize that riots in the street are the result of people not doing the work of thinking, and instead simply expressing their feelings, many of which are responses to misunderstood statements, social situations, etc. This becomes disastrous when the "opposition" response is based on the same pathology. This leads me back to your initial comment. ...the concept of racism as it stands today might be relatively new, but I think it stems from an attitude towards outsiders on an affective level which then forms the basis for the concepts. "...Towards outsiders on an affective level" is the insightful bit. Racial/cultural/gender/ group identification (of oneself and of others) in a pluralistic society is based primarily on mistaking a category as an organization or cohesive group. This results from combining the logical fallacies of red herring and overgeneralization. My initial impulse is to attribute this to poor education and deficient mental hardware, but when I perceive myself falling into the trap, I see that it has the affective foundation you point out. While avarice may play a big part in this vis-à-vis slavery, I think fear and frustration are bigger players in our current society. Consider: - For roughly a thousand years in Western Europe, drums were used almost exclusively for battlefield signals. Each rhythm set was a signal (advance, retreat, flank left, etc.) hence modern rudimental drumming like we see in parades and in marching band drum solos. - There is a rhythm called Fanga which comes from the west coast of Africa (still known to the Vai people in modern Liberia.) Fanga means "welcome". When visitors came to a village, the whole village, including drummers playing this rhythm, would all turn out to greet the newcomers by drumming, dancing and singing. - Imagine how, in the 15th century, the first European sailors known to sail down the coast of Africa would interpret this display when coming ashore to get water. Imagine your ship at anchor, and a horde of people gathering on the beach playing what you know only as instruments of war. - Their natural expectation would have been an attack. The sailors' understandable emotional response would have been fear. Their likely response would have been aggression. - The only way to avoid disaster (in the future if not at the time) and a continuing hostility would have been for them to reason that the presence of dancing and singing women and children indicated that they might not be in danger. Only after moving past the affect would they have a shot at not automatically escalating the perceived threat. It seems that an increasing number of Americans think their feelings matter more than rational thought, common sense, hard work, or Constitutional principles. The only way to change that is reasonable dialogue. Side: Nobody could believe that
It's almost worse than that. In another debate he accused me of being racist because I said: "As long as it's covering the essentials it doesn't matter. I don't particularly want to see it but I have my choice of looking away, if she's proud of her body then more power to her." With regards to a large woman in a bikini. He cries racism quite often but never see's it in himself. Side: Indeed, poochy boy DOES
Racism is owned by the Democrats The obvious reply is....so you are a democrat then. The better reply is....racism isn't owned by any party nor is it owned by any race. Part of the problem is that you think that it can be so you use that to justify your own racist remarks. Side: Nobody could believe that
Mint how many times do i have to show you Democrats are Racist ? Okay i will do it one more time to prove you Leftist are hypocrites ! CNN's resident communist, Van Jones, went into a bit of a tizzy due to the mounting realization that Trump was actually going to be the next president, calling it a "nightmare." "It's hard to be a parent tonight for a lot of us. You tell your kids, ‘Don’t be a bully.’ You tell your kids, ‘Don’t be a bigot.’ You tell your kids, ‘Do your homework and be prepared.’ Then you have this outcome, and you have people putting children to bed tonight and they’re afraid of breakfast. "They’re afraid of, ‘How do I explain this to my children?’ I have Muslim friends who are texting me tonight saying, ‘Should I leave the country?’ I have families of immigrants that are terrified tonight.” Jones said many things attributed to Trump’s success to but that race also played an important role in the election. Of course. "This was a whitelash against a changing country,” Jones nearly shouted. “It was a whitelash against a black president in part. And that’s the part where the pain comes. And Donald Trump has a responsibility tonight to come out and assure people that he is going to be the president of all the people he insulted and offended and brushed aside. http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/ Tell me Leftist that Negros are not Racist Side: Nobody could believe that
How about Ted Nugent? Is he white and Republican enough to count? Side: Nobody could believe that
Well, no. I don't believe in the liberal definition of racist that you are using. Plus, you didn't ask that. You asked if she threatened to kill Trump. She did not. She hopes someone kills Trump. It's just as bad, but it isn't a threat. She never said she was going to do anything to Trump. Side: Nobody could believe that
1
point
Mint, What I think you and Outlaw are getting at is not which party owns racism, but rather which party has institutionalized it in their platforms, and openly supports racist acts and policies. Maybe the problem is that people put racism in some special category with all sorts of moral baggage. People think that a racist is automatically a bad person, so when they see good people, or people with good intentions, they miss the racism. For the sake of argument, let us strip racism of its status as immoral, and look at it as flawed logic, bad thinking. Stupid, perhaps, but not evil, and possibly connected with good intentions. Racism is, essentially, separating people into categories based on a single accidental and immutable characteristic, and then treating members of the category as if: a) They have more in common than that racial characteristic or b) They are a group or association instead of an abstraction. (Categories are merely abstractions, and exist only in the mind.) This connects the actions or circumstances of one individual to the actions or circumstances of a completely unrelated individual for no reason other than the being in the same category This is all based on bad logic, specifically the Red Herring and Overgeneralization fallacies. Most of the racists I see are on TV, especially TV news shows. That automatically skews the distribution towards the Democrats having more racists, but I don't know what the distribution would be if there were as many conservative journalists as liberal ones. However, many Democrats show themselves as racist through Black Lives Matter or being BLM supporters, Affirmative Action & related policies, and the "White Privilege" scorekeepers. These are all based on sorting people into racial categories, assigning/granting victimhood, preference, and blame based on the category, not based on individual action, experience, or achievement. Republican policies and judgments are generally based on a pretty strict concept of individual responsibility, and a belief in meritocracy. That is not to say there are no Republican racists, but they have to buck the foundations of the Republican party's political philosophy. I have personally known remarkably few racists (from all across the political spectrum), but all of them have been people of good will, "fine people." Seriously, they were kind and generally polite, and would never have knowingly or intentionally done harm or been unfair to anyone. Their problem was that they thought of people in terms of categories based on immutable but irrelevant characteristics. Side: Nobody could believe that
which party has institutionalized it in their platforms, and openly supports racist acts and policies. Hello m: It's true.. One party PRETENDS that racism ENDED when the Civil War did. That's racism by looking the other way. The other party RECOGNIZES that we ENSLAVED a people, and RECOGNIZES that racism DIDN'T end with the Civil War.. That too is racism. But it's racism by paying too much attention.. At its core, vile, hateful, unapologetic racism, as demonstrated by poochy boy, is STILL with us. Is it better to DO something about it, or HOPE it'll go away on its own?? I suggest that IF it was gonna go away on its own, it would have by now.. excon Side: Nobody could believe that
1
point
One party PRETENDS that racism ENDED when the Civil War did. That's racism by looking the other way. Judging by your description of the other party, I assume you mean to say that the Republican party PRETENDS... That would not seem to be accurate. Were you correct, the Republican (albeit a RINO) president would not have said, "We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence." Nor would he have bothered to say, ""No matter our color, creed, religion, our political party, we are all Americans first." I appreciate that you are frustrated that there is still any racism. I am, too. I suggest that IF it was gonna go away on its own, it would have by now. Most overt racism by unabashed hate groups is gone. Those groups are few and far between, and universally discredited. (for example Trump has been denouncing David Duke for 20 years.) Most of the racism that is left is the well-intentioned racism of groups who insist that they are not racist (e.g. BLM, the many (not all) in the Democrat party, La Raza). Things were getting better in the 70's & 80's, and the improvement slowed down in the 90's, but as far as I can tell, actual racism was very rare in the US. Then, when the hard economic times of the Obama years hit, a lot of people slid back to use the traditional racial levers to try to explain their own situation, excuse their own failings, or justify why they deserved some unfair advantage. Black Lives Matter booing at the statements "All/Brown/White, etc. lives matter" was a huge step back, especially when politicians and media people approved the racism of disagreeing when people say "all lives matter." Counterintuitively, people need to stop making race and racism into an issue. The trick is to leave it to individuals, I think. It requires trust in the continuance of the previous general cultural change. We won't get that until everybody stops screaming about it. The change can only happen through quiet voices talking with each other politely as individuals instead of belligerent representatives of arbitrary categories.
In Charlottesville, how people behaved to each other was the main issue because that is what determines whether people engage with each other to effect the cultural change. - People being rude and hateful was an issue on both sides. - People being violent was an issue on both sides. - People thinking that one set of people being assholes justified in-kind response was an issue on both sides. - People being unjustifiably self-righteous was an issue on both sides. This is the behavior that keeps people from actually engaging with each other as individuals. In the end, it is engaging with each other as individuals that is the only way to end racism. Side: Nobody could believe that
Were you correct, the Republican (albeit a RINO) president would not have said, "We condemn in the strongest possible terms, blah, blah, blah, blah.... Hello again, m: They wouldn't have said that???? DUDE! Politicians of all stripes SAY all the right things.. BELIEVING what they say is the first step to PRETENDING they mean it.. I'm not interested in what they SAY.. I'm interested in what they DO.. I'm also not interested in what interest groups say either, cause they have an interest. I'm interested in what government DOES, or DOESN'T do. Toward that end, can we get SPECIFIC, and talk about a specific policy, say affirmative action and WHY we have it or why we shouldn't have it?? Do we have a collective guilt for what our forefathers did? I think so. When a preference is made to black people, it doesn't give them a leg up. It just makes them even. I think you think it gives them a leg up. excon Side: Nobody could believe that
1
point
Excon, Please forgive the length, but I respect your point and I take you seriously enough as a conversation partner/debater to write a detailed response. If you are in a hurry, the upshot is that if good people accept racism as as valid in any circumstance, we are stuck with bad people insisting that racism is valid in all circumstances. Ask your relatives who died in concentration camps how well that works out. Toward that end, can we get SPECIFIC, and talk about a specific policy, say affirmative action and WHY we have it or why we shouldn't have it?? Do we have a collective guilt for what our forefathers did? I think so. Let's examine the underlying assumptions when you say this to support Affirmative Action, and similar programs and policies. Then let's examine the ramifications of those assumptions. Assumptions Assumption 1 - The assumption underlying your support of Affirmative Action is that it is acceptable, and even ethically required, to categorize people based on race, and then use that categorization to extend advantages to individuals in one category, and in so doing, to inflict disadvantages on individuals in another category, all in a well-meaning (I am sure) effort to rectify the effects of misdeeds committed by people in one category against people in a different category. NOTE: Such categorization is not based on any individual action by any of the parties involved. It addresses neither demonstrated victimization of individual beneficiaries nor actual misdeeds by individuals negatively affected. NOTE: The term for categorizing people by their race, and then treating them differently (extending advantages & disadvantages) because of their race is racism. Assumption 2 - All White people in the US have forefathers who enslaved or discriminated against Blacks. This is both racist and ridiculous. The fact is that most Antebellum European immigration to the US was to states where slavery was illegal, and the vast majority of European immigration occurred after the Civil War. My earliest immigrant ancestor came to the US in 1890, and the other three came after 1910. They all lived in the Dakotas or the Pacific Northwest, so they did not have anything to do with Jim Crow, KKK, or Civil Rights Era nastiness. Assumption 3 - You advance the concept of race-based collective guilt as valid for determining the financial advantages/disadvantages under the tacit assumption that it would only be applied to things like jobs and college admission. Ramifications Ramification 1 - Once we accept racism as valid criterion for extension of one set of advantages/disadvantages to particular racial categories in one socially constructed circumstance, we are stuck with race as being valid for extending other sets of advantages/disadvantages to people in other racial categories in other socially constructed circumstances. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The same logical underpinning (race is a valid way to categorize people and extend advantages/disadvantages) that support Affirmative Action also support other policies that could be proposed by the KKK & Co. or some other set of racist nutjobs. Ramification 2 - The validation of race as a determining factor for government programs like Affirmative Action (re)establishes race as as a valid determinant for access to things other than jobs. Why not extend it to voting? The precedent would justify making White people's votes worth less than Black people's votes as a way to even things out for past injustices. The ratio 2/3 comes to mind. I wonder why? Ramification 3 - Once we accept the assumption that people bear collective guilt, and are in any way accountable for the deeds of strangers whose only connection is race, the logic automatically extends to the proposition that validating racist categorization has ramifications to criminal justice and national security. - If some African militia leaders kidnap children, turn them into soldiers, and then have them burn villages and chop the breasts off women before raping them to death, we should just arrest any Africans, and then imprison them for war crimes. - If some Germans commit genocide, your suggestion of collective guilt implies that we arrest people of German descent (regardless of whether they participated, were not on the European continent at the time, or had not yet been born) and imprison them for war crimes. Obviously these are exaggerated and contrived examples, so let's take it out of the hypothetical. Let's examine what we know are the historical results of such categorization as you advocate, and such collective guilt as you say people share. - If some Black guy commits a murder or a rape or a robbery, just pick up some other Black guy, convict him, and throw him in prison. They share collective guilt based on race. Hell, go ahead and just hang him from the nearest tree. Burn a cross in his yard to show you are doing it in the name of righteousness. - If hundreds of Japanese guys commit mass murder by mounting an unprovoked military attack, then just round up all the Japanese you can, and put them in internment camps. They are all in the same category, and share collective guilt for what other Japanese people did. Besides, it is safer that way. - If some Jews are accused of engaging in corrupt business practices or of siphoning off the nation's wealth, or if some unidentified group of Jews (the "Elders of Zion", for example) is accused of sedition, then it must be righteous and just to round up all the Jews, put them in camps, and make them pay for any "misdeeds" of other Jews by taking all their property, including the gold from their teeth, and making their skin into lamp shades and gloves. Seriously, think about it. Your statement translates to the plain statement that "racism is 'good', so long a "good" people institute racist policies for "good" reasons like justice, or national security. History tells us that we cannot count on people to be good or just when they institute policies based on racism. Considering both hypothetical and known instances of such a philosophy in action, do you actually want to justify racism as valid and then defend a racist policy? Side: Nobody could believe that
|