So you know people who want to put other races in death camps or restore Jim Crow?Racism may not be institutionalized as it once was in the past, but there are certainly individuals who are racist. As I said before, the racist individuals I have met are quite a diverse group.
By the way, in my experience, I have met more racist individuals who are from the Midwest than from any other region in the US, including the South.
Hawaii, my home state is also not immune. White people have been victims of racism there and there is a low simmering feud going on between the different Polynesian groups. I have had a native Hawaiian friend who was targeted for assault by a Tongan gang, for no reason other than he was Hawaiian.
Yes, I know people who have actually proposed putting Americans of Arab descent into internment camps, like what happened to the Japanese during World War 2.So you know people who want to put other races in death camps or restore Jim Crow?
Really?
As far as I can find out, only whites have less than equal standing before the law today, not minorities.
Real racism is going to make a resurgence and it will be because, in part, that so many have destroyed the sting of the word.
People react to their interpretations of what you say. Note that I’ve never said that you can’t use the word.Now we cant use words because ignorant people might be offended?
I’ll leave that up to you, but I will suggest 1 Thessalonians 5:22Oh, so now we have to consult a new kind of dictionary to avoid being branded racists so that we can avoid the appearance of racism?
Do as you see fit. I personally question the wisdom of using a word if you think people are likely to misunderstand it. The initial reaction that some one have may be to tell you that she is offended which might open up an opportunity for discussion. But one might also not share their initial reaction with you but instead with others which opens up an opportunity for damage to your standing within your community. Given that I don’t know about your community it’s possible you have little to no risk of this. I’m sure you are informed to make the best decision for yourself.Nah, I sayjust forget the whole thing and I will do as I want, and if someone tells me personally that they are offended by a word I use we can discuss it.
Within these forums I’ve encountered more that one that has promoted the separation of people by racial classification. His stated motivation was to keep the races “pure” and prevent every one from converging into a single “race.” I’ll let readers make their own judgement on this.As for people who would like to bring back Jim Crow laws; look no further than this forum. There is a poster that would like to bring back laws that would segregate the races, in the interest, so he says, of keeping humanity diverse.
So you have seen those posts promoting the “pure” races theory. I once answered to him/her that it was not Catholic doctrine, this necessity of keeping the races pure. But he/she said I was mistaken.Within these forums I’ve encountered more that one that has promoted the separation of people by racial classification. His stated motivation was to keep the races “pure” and prevent every one from converging into a single “race.” I’ll let readers make their own judgement on this.
Jim Crow was not about internment camps like the Japanese Americans got as it convolutes security concerns and racial profiling. Is racial profiling also racism now?Yes, I know people who have actually proposed putting Americans of Arab descent into internment camps, like what happened to the Japanese during World War 2.
As for people who would like to bring back Jim Crow laws; look no further than this forum. There is a poster that would like to bring back laws that would segregate the races, in the interest, so he says, of keeping humanity diverse.
So yes, racism is very much alive.
Two issues here: 1) will I use that word? Not likely unless it comes up in a discussion like this over the word itself. 2) Should we defend those who do use it legitimately and help them defend their free speech rights? Definitely yes.People react to their interpretations of what you say. Note that I’ve never said that you can’t use the word.
I’ll leave that up to you, but I will suggest 1 Thessalonians 5:22
Do as you see fit. I personally question the wisdom of using a word if you think people are likely to misunderstand it.
I thought the Catholic church has already condemned this interpretation of the OT?So you have seen those posts promoting the “pure” races theory. I once answered to him/her that it was not Catholic doctrine, this necessity of keeping the races pure. But he/she said I was mistaken.
There have always been words that one can’t use. And not because you might offend ‘ignorant’ people, but because the words were not considered proper for polite society. As a matter of fact, it was considered ‘ignorant’ to use certain words.Now we cant use words because ignorant people might be offended?
Oh, so now we have to consult a new kind of dictionary to avoid being branded racists so that we can avoid the appearance of racism?
Nah, I sayjust forget the whole thing and I will do as I want, and if someone tells me personally that they are offended by a word I use we can discuss it.
It is not true that any meaningful proportion of white Americans are racist in any reasonable sense of the word.What belief is untrue?
The term racism is so broadly defined that we are all now racists, right up there with Hitler and Himmler.
The belief that the US hasn’t made any racial progress is not merely wrong but extremely harmful. I accept that blacks generally have the strong belief that white racism is still a serious problem, but if we don’t rebut that misconception it will continue to fester, fed as it is by those who profit from keeping it alive.Might as well lay back and try to enjoy it.
Yes, if it’s not too much effort I would like to see some of those studies.When I have the time to respond in detail later this evening I can provide for you references to the studies and let you make up your own mind. Let me know if this is the type of response that you are looking for (before I spend the effort on organizing the information into a reply).
Okay I misunderstood.Jim Crow was not about internment camps like the Japanese Americans got as it convolutes security concerns and racial profiling. Is racial profiling also racism now?
Jim Crow laws were not about voluntary segregation neither; they compelled segregation on everyone and sent people to prison for violating those stupid laws.
I asked if you know of people that support Jim Crow and death camps.
Let’s at least acknowledge the necessity of distinguishing between the behavior of individuals and the behavior of entire classifications of people. The fact that a few people are racists means nothing at all. Is it accurate to say that Hispanics can’t speak English because some can’t, or that blacks are criminals because some are? Is it any more reasonable to assert that whites are racist because some are?Within these forums I’ve encountered more that one that has promoted the separation of people by racial classification. His stated motivation was to keep the races “pure” and prevent every one from converging into a single “race.” I’ll let readers make their own judgement on this.
I don’t think anyone here says that only whites are guilty of racism. I have gone out of my way to say that racism can be practiced by any individual, no matter the race.Let’s at least acknowledge the necessity of distinguishing between the behavior of individuals and the behavior of entire classifications of people. The fact that a few people are racists means nothing at all. Is it accurate to say that Hispanics can’t speak English because some can’t, or that blacks are criminals because some are? Is it any more reasonable to assert that whites are racist because some are?
Ender
I’m glad we agree. I certainly wouldn’t use the word to render my thoughts as speech. There are also other words I tend to avoid for lesser reasons. One of my primary objections in attempting to communicate with some one is to be understood and interpreted in a manner that more closely matches what I wish to express.Two issues here: 1) will I use that word? Not likely unless it comes up in a discussion like this over the word itself.
I think we are not in agreement about what would constitute a violation of someone’s free speech.
- Should we defend those who do use it legitimately and help them defend their free speech rights? Definitely yes.You seem to imply you say no to both questions.
That’s fine, I agree. I’ve not classified the person bey0nd saying that the person is a member of these forums, like myself. Outside of being a member of this community of CAF users I’ve not not classified him/her as being a member of any specific group. I also don’t know enough about the person to put him/her in such a box.Let’s at least acknowledge the necessity of distinguishing between the behavior of individuals and the behavior of entire classifications of people.
I expressed something similar in the first two sentences of #137The fact that a few people are racists means nothing at all. Is it accurate to say that Hispanics can’t speak English because some can’t, or that blacks are criminals because some are? Is it any more reasonable to assert that whites are racist because some are?
No one is particularly concerned about individual racism. The concern is whether there is significant racism in America…and that concern implies white racism since racism on the part of others is hardly ever raised as an issue. The whole reason this topic has popped up now is because of the protests and riots over the deaths of two black men at the hands of white police. That these are examples of white racism is the narrative being sold, and the debate here is about whether the allegation has any merit.I don’t think anyone here says that only whites are guilty of racism. I have gone out of my way to say that racism can be practiced by any individual, no matter the race.
‘Niggardly’ is hurtful? ‘Black Hole’ is offensive?There have always been words that one can’t use. And not because you might offend ‘ignorant’ people, but because the words were not considered proper for polite society. As a matter of fact, it was considered ‘ignorant’ to use certain words.
My mother would say son of a sea cook or son of a biscut maker instead of son of a b*****. For her, the ‘f’ word was fudge. Darnit was another favorite. She did not do this just when children were around, but all the time.
Part of it was politiness, and part of it was not wanting to disparage people. Most of the words being used are being used in an (name removed by moderator)ersonal disparaging way that lump everyone into categories. That is why using certain words is wrong, it is because it disparages people, whether you mean to or not.
And since you now know that those words are hurtful, isn’t on you to stop hurting people instead of on them to stop being hurt?
Okay I misunderstood.
Yes I do know people that would like to bring back the Jim Crow laws.
No, I do not know people who are pro death camp.
I do not what you are trying to do. Are you trying to convince me that racism no longer exist? If that is the case, no I am not convinced. I have run across too many racist individuals.
There is a practical aspect to freedom that is above and beyond mere legalities.I think we are not in agreement about what would constitute a violation of someone’s free speech.
I’ve never encountered some one’s free speech rights being violated for use of the word. I have encountered one’s popularity and acceptance within one of his communities lowered or some ejection from a community (yes, it’s always a male to which the use of the word has been attributed when I hear of it).
Take an exaggerated case If someone decided to say in public “I don’t like people in group XXXXX, I wish they would all go to an uncomfortable place” he may do so without legal penalty. It’s not illegal. If people within the community decide that they wish to have no association with the person for saying the phrase that is not a free speech issue. Some communities (including employers) are more reactive than others for certain types of things.
Were some one to try to pass a law to make the use of the word illegal I would be against the law. If a person decides to use the word and finds that his community strongly discourages the use of the word and no longer wishes to interact with him I’m not sure what it would mean to fight against that. Encourage people to study more etymology?
Because of my current association with a employer that has many clients that are attentive to social media there are some things for which I am selective about expressing. Among my friends I might say “Service provider XXXXXX has terrible service!.” That’s fine. On my social media accounts I don’t express this, nor do I “like” or “+1” or retweet any statement that expresses this sentiment with which I may already agree. I have been forewarned that I could loose my job if I did so. Loosing my job for these expressions isn’t a violation of my free speech. Being put in prison over them or prosecuted for it would be such a violation.
I do question the wisdom of using a word for which misunderstands and strong emotional reactions have been frequently known to occur in response.