CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
There is a difference between extreme racism and ordinary prejudice. Yes. Extreme racism is a trait of psychopathic dx and should be included as a diagnostic code. These extreme racists represent a danger to themselves and others.
Can you identify the difference between 'extreme racism' and 'ordinary prejudice?' Yeah said there was a difference and said how to deal with one of the options, but you didn't say what it was.
- Might you clarify to what it is that you mean by this phrase....
Quite frankly there shouldn't be any sense of familiarities or ordinances with prejudices. Why, might you ask? You're leaving a big gap open for people to believe that their preconceived thoughts about any race, culture, or ethnic category is okay simply because it's "common" to think this way, but that isn't correct nor is it okay, especially if these thoughts are false. A racists person is simply a racist there is no such thing as an "extreme racist" or "slight racist"; racism, literally speaking here has zero grey(gray) areas.
No. People aren't born racists. They form opinions by observation and through experience. It is also a form of self preservation as certain races are more violent than others. For instance, before the P.C, brigade had the publications stopped, London's Metropolitan Police issued statistics showing that whilst blacks represented 10% of the City's population they were responsible for 90% of all violent crime, including gun and knife attacks. Blacks have a congenital aversion to the disciplines of a formal education which results in them finding difficulty in securing 'gainful employment' as adults, and then blame the ''big bad white man'' for their plight. This, 'oh us poor repressed blacks'' syndrome results in an irrational sense of persecution offering them the perfect excuse for murderous crime, maiming and rioting at the drop of a hat. So, instead of racism being a form of mental disorder, it is a clear illustration of the well balanced mind of a prudent human being with their self survival instincts well honed.
certain races are more violent than others -blah blah, blacks, blah
that a good point except that it's based on assuming the quote above, which i cannot agree with.
you briefly hinted at poverty being the cause for black aggression, which i agree with, but i feel you underestimate the predicament horrendously and accept it only when in favour of your race. whenever whites find themselves in a position such as some blacks and others are in now they rebel and slaughter, only in history the whites in these scenarios are seen as righteous and just. with the blacks you just look at it as primitive and unruly. you also seem to be forgetting that your whole 'irrational sense of persecution' applies to poor whites as well as any other race.
in addition to this, there are no world wars worth mentioning amongst blacks whilst whites have caused 2.
you briefly hinted at poverty being the cause for black aggression, which i agree with, but i feel you underestimate the predicament horrendously and accept it only when in favour of your race
Yes, but black poverty doesn't automatically indicate white oppression. I heard an NPR piece on Hispanics worldwide being behind in education because both past and present Hispanic culture hasn't had a big emphasis on reading and writing in the household. Maybe true, but it goes to show that just because a group of people is behind doesn't mean it has to be because some other group is holding them back, nor does a group require special privilege to do well. Blacks bore the brunt of slavery in the US, but there were just one group in a long line of oppressed minorities, many of whom are now excelling in the United States. Japanese Americans were subject to internment and discrimination in only the last century, but that hasn't stopped them from jumping to the top of several academic and professional fields in this country. As a white male living in the US I've always resented the notion that anything I achieve isn't the result of my hard work or dedication but of a special, unearned advantage inherit to my skin color, and conversely that any lack of achievement or bad behavior from minorities is a direct result of the terrible, ongoing racial oppression all whites are apparently responsible for.
whenever whites find themselves in a position such as some blacks and others are in now they rebel and slaughter, only in history the whites in these scenarios are seen as righteous and just.
Ahh no. The kind of aggression we're talking about is burglary, mugging, assault, gang association, etc., all of it driven by poverty. Shotgun-totting white-trash hicks with prison tattoos selling crank on the street corner are remembered every bit as distastefully as their black counterparts. I agree that history as we know it is a biased account, but that fact isn't relevant here.
in addition to this, there are no world wars worth mentioning amongst blacks whilst whites have caused 2
That's borne of a lack of capability, not a lack of malicious intent. There have been plenty of insane, homicidal warlords in Africa who would have gladly sparked global conflict if only they had the strength to do so. In fact there's probably even more aspiring tyrants in Africa than anywhere else, given the horrific level of violence that has characterized the continent for most of recorded history (that would be before imperialism, colonization, slavery, the Cold War, and all the other world problems that are evidently the inherited sins of young white people like myself who, of course, had jack shit to do with all of that).
Yes, but black poverty doesn't automatically indicate white oppression.
In places like the US where slavery is only 150 years old, it probably does indicate it.
I heard an NPR piece on Hispanics worldwide being behind in education because both past and present Hispanic culture hasn't had a big emphasis on reading and writing in the household.
It might also have to do with the fact that Central and South America used to be populated by "uncivilized" people. It takes a while to catch up. Just like how it takes a while for oppressed former-slaves to catch up.
Japanese Americans were subject to internment and discrimination in only the last century, but that hasn't stopped them from jumping to the top of several academic and professional fields in this country.
Many of them are also immigrants from the nation of Japan, not descendants of slaves. There is a fairly large difference between a slave and a temporary enemy of the state.
As a white male living in the US I've always resented the notion that anything I achieve isn't the result of my hard work or dedication but of a special, unearned advantage inherit to my skin color, and conversely that any lack of achievement or bad behavior from minorities is a direct result of the terrible, ongoing racial oppression all whites are apparently responsible for.
I think the point is that on average, a while male will receive far more opportunities than some random minority. Maybe your specific case is different, but that does not change the average.
In places like the US where slavery is only 150 years old, it probably does indicate it.
It's a possibility, I'll readily admit, and a certainty in certain cases, but that doesn't mean it's the norm or even a significant subset. I'm sure you'd agree there is a definite glorification of the poverty/crime lifestyle in large swaths of African American culture, perhaps a sway strong enough to persuade a black youth to choose a career path in gang-related drug peddling, for instance, instead of completing his education and getting a real job when the opportunity is available to him.
It might also have to do with the fact that Central and South America used to be populated by "uncivilized" people. It takes a while to catch up.
If by "uncivilized" you mean "not as likely to be competent academics," I agree with you, as was my point. But why were they less civilized, as you put it? Why do they have to catch up? Central and South America weren't colonized predominantly by white people, nor were the residents made to be slaves. Africa had been the cradle of civilization for thousands of years before white people landed on Her shores and started loading up fieldhands. By rights Africa should posses the most advanced civilization (architecture, agriculture, economy, government, social rights, etc) on the planet, since it's been populated the longest. It doesn't. In fact on average Africa is the worst continent on the planet. Again, why is that? Why were they so far behind that they needed catching up in the first place, even before people who look like me started taking advantage?
Many of them are also immigrants from the nation of Japan, not descendants of slaves. There is a fairly large difference between a slave and a temporary enemy of the state.
Where they are actually from is largely irrelevant. Racism is predominantly predicated on appearance, not actual nationality. Someone discriminating against blacks isn't suddenly going to be nice to a black person if he finds out he's an immigrant or a national; the racist hates the black person because he's black.
Regarding the difference, no argument there, and I meant to say as much but accidentally left it out. However, my point was that pretty much every minority group (including non-American white minorities, like the Irish) faced heavy persecution in the US when they first arrived, and then said minorities largely overcame the persecution, integrated, and are now significantly more successful. I agree that slavery is more damaging than internment, but when you factor in the time differences I think it balances out; the internees themselves and their children went on to college and are now running IMB, Google, and Intel in America. No American to African ex-slaves are still alive. The "oppressed" black descendants of slaves are half a dozen or more generation removed from slavery. Hell, they're more American than half the white people in this country, because they've been here longer.
I think the point is that on average, a while male will receive far more opportunities than some random minority. Maybe your specific case is different, but that does not change the average.
You're probably right, but I'm also unique there because I live in a portion of California where whites are a poverty-ridden minority. What it's gone to show me is that yes, when white men are calling the shots, other white men do pretty well. But also that when Chinese men are calling the shots, other Chinese men do pretty well. And that when Hispanic women are calling the shots, Hispanic women do pretty well. I guess what I resent is less the often correct assertion that whites are doing disproportionately well in the US, and more I resent the implication that racism and/or profile-based favoritism are somehow unique to white people, and all other races are only ever victims.
It's a possibility, I'll readily admit, and a certainty in certain cases, but that doesn't mean it's the norm or even a significant subset.
That would depend on too many factors to even begin to qualify. There is no simple assumption of significance or insignificance.
I'm sure you'd agree there is a definite glorification of the poverty/crime lifestyle in large swaths of African American culture, perhaps a sway strong enough to persuade a black youth to choose a career path in gang-related drug peddling, for instance, instead of completing his education and getting a real job when the opportunity is available to him.
There is also a glorification of education in large swaths of African American culture, perhaps a sway strong enough to persuade a black youth to choose a career path, for instance, instead of succumbing to the pressures of poverty, oppression, and society by engaging in criminal activity, when the opportunity of a good education is available.
If by "uncivilized" you mean "not as likely to be competent academics," I agree with you, as was my point.
I was referring to technological advancement, not pedigree.
But why were they less civilized, as you put it? Why do they have to catch up? Central and South America weren't colonized predominantly by white people, nor were the residents made to be slaves.
They were colonized by white people, unless if you consider fair-skinned Europeans as non-white.
The indigenous residents were used as slaves, the ones that were not slaughtered at least. The majority of slaves were black simply due to the number of indigenous people killed and the number of African slaves sent to Latin America.
Africa had been the cradle of civilization for thousands of years before white people landed on Her shores and started loading up fieldhands. By rights Africa should posses the most advanced civilization (architecture, agriculture, economy, government, social rights, etc) on the planet, since it's been populated the longest. It doesn't. In fact on average Africa is the worst continent on the planet. Again, why is that? Why were they so far behind that they needed catching up in the first place, even before people who look like me started taking advantage?
Development of civilizations in various stages is an extremely complicated subject. I will try to give you a simplified explanation.
Basic requirements:
1) A source of water nearby or a system to transport it.
2) A source of fertile land. Agriculture.
3) Various resources depending on the technological era. Bronze age - bronze, Iron Age - iron, Stone Age - stones, etc. A
Almost all technological eras required lumber.
4) Trade (not just domestic, but trade with other civilizations)
If we look at the cradle of human development, Mesopotamia, we can see how important these factors were to the development of a civilization. They invented agriculture methods that have been used for thousands of years. We can see these similarities in many other early civilizations such as the Egyptians, Greek, Romans, Ancient Chinese, etc. During ancient times, white people were the uncivilized ones. The titles of civilized and uncivilized have shifted countless times throughout history.
The fact that white people have pulled ahead in the last two centuries has nothing to do with genetic predisposition (as you seem to imply). It is just how the world works.
Where they are actually from is largely irrelevant. Racism is predominantly predicated on appearance, not actual nationality. Someone discriminating against blacks isn't suddenly going to be nice to a black person if he finds out he's an immigrant or a national; the racist hates the black person because he's black.
You used Japanese Americans to point out that some minorities excel in the US, while the blacks do not. Pointing out the differences between various minorities sheds light on the error in your logic.
However, my point was that pretty much every minority group (including non-American white minorities, like the Irish) faced heavy persecution in the US when they first arrived, and then said minorities largely overcame the persecution, integrated, and are now significantly more successful. I agree that slavery is more damaging than internment, but when you factor in the time differences I think it balances out; the internees themselves and their children went on to college and are now running IMB, Google, and Intel in America. No American to African ex-slaves are still alive.
Even after slavery ended, blacks were still oppressed for a long period of time, many believe to this day.
It is difficult to suddenly adjust the mindset of a population to see a human being where there once stood a slave.
The "oppressed" black descendants of slaves are half a dozen or more generation removed from slavery. Hell, they're more American than half the white people in this country, because they've been here longer.
Being removed from slavery does not mean removed from oppression. Your ignorance of the civil rights movement seems dubious.
Being here longer has no relevance towards oppression. Native Americans have been here longer than everyone else and are still one of the most oppressed minorities in the US.
The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964. Anti-miscegenation only became illegal in 1967 after SCOTUS ruling. The 15th Amendment was finally ratified by all 50 states in 1997. The 13th Amendment was finally ratified by all 50 states in 1995; although, a clerical error delayed that to 2013.
If we refer back to the topic at hand, oppression, then perhaps half a dozen or more generations of mice removed.
You're probably right, but I'm also unique there because I live in a portion of California where whites are a poverty-ridden minority. What it's gone to show me is that yes, when white men are calling the shots, other white men do pretty well. But also that when Chinese men are calling the shots, other Chinese men do pretty well. And that when Hispanic women are calling the shots, Hispanic women do pretty well. I guess what I resent is less the often correct assertion that whites are doing disproportionately well in the US, and more I resent the implication that racism and/or profile-based favoritism are somehow unique to white people, and all other races are only ever victims.
Yes. The characterization that only white people are racist is ridiculous.
Racism and oppression is a relationship shared between majorities and minorities.
Even Buddhist majority nations commit genocide against minorities. That is how the world works.
Yes, but black poverty doesn't automatically indicate white oppression
if that's something i suggested, it was not deliberate.
just because a group of people is behind doesn't mean it has to be because some other group is holding them back
agreed
I've always resented the notion that anything I achieve isn't the result of my hard work or dedication but of a special, unearned advantage inherit to my skin color
much of what is achieved is play to circumstance. skin colour is but one of many advantages you may or may not have, but unfortunately it will undeniably affect your life depending on where and in which culture you live in. other lucky breaks could be being born to a wealthy family, good looks, a talent, mental aptitude. none of these are necessarily deserved and many with these advantages will not have to work as much or be as dedicated to achieve the same as others. it is unfair, but an insurmountable fact of life.
There have been plenty of insane, homicidal warlords in Africa who would have gladly sparked global conflict if only they had the strength to do so i would agree, in addition to generally taught 'white' history perhaps not covering the scale of the history of any other culture.
if you wouldn't mind, what are your views on the legitimacy of stereotypes?
much of what is achieved is play to circumstance. skin colour is but one of many advantages you may or may not have, but unfortunately it will undeniably affect your life depending on where and in which culture you live in.
Agreed. But it would be pretty rich of me to move to China and whine and whine because all the Chinese people in China (who, you know, speak the language like natives, have a lifelong understanding of the culture, and look, act, and hold beliefs in a similar manner to the vast majority of people in China) have some kind of "undeserved privilege," and are therefore a bunch of oppressive racists who need to "check" themselves.
if you wouldn't mind, what are your views on the legitimacy of stereotypes?
That they're pretty damn legit if you keep in mind that by definition stereotypes are generalizations based on statistics (or maybe just mental analysis of repeated observation), and that while statistics are made up of individuals but individuals are not made up of statistics. To me this means being willing to cross the street to avoid a thugged-out, crip-walking black man coming my way, but, say, not to inquire about a black acquaintance's stolen firearm and gram of crack/cocaine, insisting he must have them, "because black are, of course, all a bunch of criminal drug dealing scum," or something like that.
Rephrased, just because I like metaphors, ignorance is meeting three Americans and remarking to the third one, "on, you're the one with herpes," citing the 1 in 3 American has herpes statistic. But it's not ignorant to wear a condom because 1 in 3 Americans has herpes.
it would be pretty rich of me to move to China and whine and whine because all the Chinese people in China...have some kind of "undeserved privilege," and are therefore a bunch of oppressive racists who need to "check" themselves.
thats a valid point, but at some point the people moving and complaining about china become a significant part about what china actually is. this is especially true for america, which is essentially built out of several cultures around the world.
(who, you know, speak the language like natives, have a lifelong understanding of the culture, and look, act, and hold beliefs in a similar manner to the vast majority of people in China)
Do you believe black people fail in any of these categories for America?
No, since it is a learned behavior. Even if it is simply because you didn't grow up around people of a certain race and you feel uncomfortable around them because they are unfamiliar to you, it's still a learned behavior.
Now that I say that, I'm actually not sure if that means that it is or isn't a mental illness.
I was trying to address that in my original comment. Yes, we do have a tendency to mistrust those who are different from us, but that is learned from being around those who look like you as a child, not based on what you look like. If a white kid is adopted by a black family and grows up exclusively around black people, they may have a tendency to mistrust whites and not blacks.
it seems we are talking past each other. I find lay speak and geek speak often to conflict. If you don't assume the same definitions and conditions, then of course conflict and confusion arises. I'm a geek, so, there's that...
not that i disagree, but if you consider learned behaviours not to be mental illnesses then what about learned behaviours that mimic mental disabilities?
Yeah, I'm not sure actually. I lost confidence in my answer by the end.
I guess if it was a learned behavior that mimics mental illness the behavior itself wouldn't be the same thing. Just like a symptom and a cause of the symptom aren't the same.
No, I don't think so. I believe everyone is equal and people who are insecure about themselves try to bring down other with their racists statements to bring themselves up.
"Socially deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious, or sexual) and conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are not mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict results from a dysfunction in the individual, as described above."
Being able to live in denial in that Utopian kingdom of ''Cloud Cuckoo Land'' must be wonderful. Even a shortsighted dimwit on a galloping horse could see from a mile off that the ethnic minorities originating from other races all manage, in the main, to prosper and be an asset to their adopted countries. The Jews, the Chinese, white Europeans and many other ethnic classifications have all merged into American society and, through their work ethic, ingenuity and self reliance been able to make a good life for themselves and at the same time contribute towards making the United States the greatest country on earth. Not so the whinging black man with an enormous chip on his shoulder. It's not by chance that inventions and discoveries such as the computer you're all using, the language which you're using to communicate, electricity, the light bulb, radio, television, the telephone, the automobile, aircraft, submarines, ocean going liners, splitting of the atom, the petro-chemical industry, ( fuel and plastics) almost all modern building techniques and material, high yield farming methods, mass production (Britain's Industrial Revolution and Henry Ford ) life saving and pain relieving drugs and surgical operating procedures, etc, etc, were all the product of brain power from non blacks, mainly whites. For instance, whilst the Jews keep the past horrors of the Holocaust under control, they roll up their sleeves and get on with the harshness of everyday working life, the blacks, in stark contrast and generally speaking, engage in a wide range of criminal activities, loafing around and feeling sorry for themselves. They have convinced themselves that they are a special case for state handouts and privileges which everyone else has to earn. It's up to the blacks to mesh in with the societies of the countries which they have adopted as their home and not for their hosts to bow to their constant whinging nor accept their violent criminality. It's the black's ''attitude of mind'' which is going to have to change if there ever is to be harmony between blacks and whites throughout the world. Whites have bent over backwards to facilitate the 'different''! ways of the black man, it's now time for them to put their own house in kilter with the rest of the world.
