1. We have moved to a new forum system. All your posts and data should have transferred over. Welcome, to the new Serebii Forums. Details here
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
    Dismiss Notice
  3. If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders
    Dismiss Notice

Prejudice Plus Power and Racism and Sexism

Discussion in 'Debate Forum' started by U.N. Owen, Apr 21, 2017.

  1. Sadib

    Sadib Time Lord Victorious

    I'm not the one who's saying we shouldn't use dictionaries to find out what words mean.
  2. snorlax512

    snorlax512 Well-Known Member

    Why are we still having this discussion... literally nobody takes this 'new definition' seriously outside of safe spaces in liberal colleges.
  3. bobjr

    bobjr It's Fusion, I don't have to expalin it. Staff Member Moderator

    You say liberal colleges like the majority of the GOP doesn't already think colleges are liberal breeding grounds, outside of those awful religious colleges that won't teach proper science.

    Plus the whole "college safe spaces" thing is way overblown. There's a difference between "We need a space to tune out all dissent" vs "What you're saying isn't funny/respectful".
  4. GhostAnime

    GhostAnime Searching for her...

    and people of color*

    you think the only way for knowledge is through dictionaries? when you want to learn about evolution, do you go to a dictionary? cancer? basketball? seriously?
  5. Scammel

    Scammel Well-Known Member

    You claimed this earlier in the thread and contradicted yourself with the source you provided:

  6. snorlax512

    snorlax512 Well-Known Member

    They're not wrong...
  7. GhostAnime

    GhostAnime Searching for her...

    and then I said:

    But let's go through with this train of thought:

    1) Whites are still predominant in most positions of power ranging from police, politicians, managers, teachers, etc.

    2) There are no harmful images of whites, there are no harmful stereotypes of ideas about whites that would make us perceive them as a negative group (before you say "what if we stereotype white people as racist?" let's not ignore the fact that being openly racist never negatively affected the image of any white person to the same extent as being black or black stereotypes. Guns that kill black people sell for thousands of dollars on the market ffs. racism literally SELLS).

    With these two facts in mind, even if you consider prejudice to be a bigger problem, it would still have little to no effect on the white living experience. Therefore, even "prejudice" racism is inequal even removing institutional laws. Whites holding prejudice views is much more damaging and impactful than poc holding them.
  8. Scammel

    Scammel Well-Known Member

    Perhaps, but the onus is certainly on you to prove it.

    Yes, I remember now - according to your philosophy, Irish people, Jewish people etc. aren't white. Their identity is to be eroded and shaped to fit your argument.
  9. GhostAnime

    GhostAnime Searching for her...

    I said images. As in, visual presentation. That color on your skin is still white privilege.

    I wouldn't know if you were Irish or Jewish until you told me (although Jews wear certain attire... but come on, they're not going to be followed around stores, harassed by police, or have their resumes rejected any time soon).
  10. Scammel

    Scammel Well-Known Member

    Please tell me this is coming from a place of benign ignorance. You're not seriously telling me you've never seen visual representation of Jewish physical stereotypes. Hell, at least one country hosts an annual anti-Semitic cartoon contest.

    Do you even Wonder Woman?
  11. GhostAnime

    GhostAnime Searching for her...

    I'm not going to discuss this any longer until you actually address the fact that simply having white skin changes the experience and prejudice of populations. This is proven sociologically to the point where simply entertaining this as a rebuttal is nonsense. Tell me where this isn't true for Irish/Jewish people (at least in North America) and I'll revisit this.
  12. Scammel

    Scammel Well-Known Member

    I've addressed it multiple times. Many white European ethnic groups are often the beneficiaries of institutional racism in North America and elsewhere. I've said words to that effect constantly throughout the thread.

    I'm genuinely waiting to hear how you've managed to get through life without ever having seen an anti-Semitic cartoon. More likely, you have, but it's just not registered as racism because you can't help but frame the debate through the black/white lens.
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2017
  13. GhostAnime

    GhostAnime Searching for her...

    ... And still don't suffer through prejudice for their white skin which is the current discussion.

    We're steering off course.

    My only point to you was that white people (or people with white/fair skin) do not suffer prejudicy in the same way people of color do simply because of the imbalance of power and the cultural significance light-skin has versus dark-skin (another term for this is colorism if you will instead of racism).

    It's not removing the history of the Irish or Jewish communities. That is where intersectionalism comes into play. You can be oppressed and have privilege at the same time. Neither are mutually exclusive.

    tl;dr institutional and systematic racism are so intertwined with prejudice that it's impossible to separate the two for the purpose of discussion when talking about anything related to racism. You simply cannot have one without the other regardless of any semantics anybody want to place, black or white.
  14. Scammel

    Scammel Well-Known Member

    You really need to start making it very explicit that you're referring to North America only. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one, because

    would be monstrous revisionism otherwise.

    Edit: Actually, you know what, I'm done here. It's tiring having people stand metaphorically agape when I so much as mention the situation outside the States. So much suffering over so many centuries just gets boxed up and forgotten or nipped and tucked to fit a contemporary, localised debate where the proponents can't even be bothered to do a simple Google search for something as endemic as visual anti-Semitic tropes.
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2017
  15. Sadib

    Sadib Time Lord Victorious

    Snorlax, all your posts only hurt your side. Please leave this topic, so I can try to fix the damage you have caused.

    Why would you .include people of color? Not all of them agree with the definitions. I know some Bangladeshis who hate Pakistanis and think black people are stupid. According to you, that's not racism because they don't have power. Bigotry still exists even if some people want to rebrand it an attempt to trivialize it.

    People use dictionaries so we understand what each other is saying. I could say specious is a combination of special and specious or that engender is a new type of gender, but you prove that I'm wrong with a dictionary.
  16. chess-z

    chess-z campy vampire

    You entirely missed the point. Please do some preliminary reading on intersectional bigotry.
  17. Sadib

    Sadib Time Lord Victorious

    What's that?
  18. chess-z

    chess-z campy vampire

    This may come off as pretentious, but if you don't know you should look it up. Do the reading, for all of our sakes.
  19. Sadib

    Sadib Time Lord Victorious

    What do I read? That's why I asked you. I Googled intersectional bigotry. The first link was the Wikipedia page for intersectionality. The word bigotry appears in this passage:
    Is that what you wanted me to read, that all types of discrimination are interwoven?

    This was the second result. I don't think has anything to do with anything, but it's still interesting?
  20. GhostAnime

    GhostAnime Searching for her...

    honestly it's hard to find systematic inequality as painful and as extensive as black people in United States. That's not to say there aren't other forms of racism and colorism in other countries but to have one so powerful that we still see residual facts in something as simple as tanned skin is quite something else. Aboriginals and Native Americans also come to mind as well.

    It just seems like we're talking about two different things and you're too hung-up on semantics. I'm not being explicit enough? Listen, we're talking about PREJUDICE resulting merely from a system. I asked you to show me how Jew prejudicy works sociologically or systematically and you didn't come up with much besides a trope. Do you have something that tells me that there's a system out there that clearly makes Jews more likely to die at the hands of police than non Jews, or to be followed around in stores? How about representation? I think the issue with trying to compare Jews to colorism/antiblackness is that one is more overt, more readily seen and understood as antiblackness where for many people, Jew (socially) isn't even a "race" but simply a way of life.

    I would include people of color because a large percentage, even those same Bangledeshis most likely, would at least say white people know nothing about racism still.

    What you're referring to specifically though is what we call antiblackness, which is definitely not uncommon among nonblack poc. Can they be racist against black people? Mostly a debated topic within the community but the consensus on my end would answer no since they lack the power to actually systematically oppress us; but we still acknowledge nonblack poc can exhibit antiblack prejudice.

    You're not getting what I'm saying.

    The problem with your statement is that you assumed the dictionary was the only way to gain knowledge about something. It isn't. Dictionaries don't really prove you or I wrong because it's just language. Language changes, and for the most part, language is really just a way of saying you and I agree that this certain thing means this. It doesn't mean "1+1 =2". You follow me here? Think of it like this: 1 + 1 would equal 2 regardless of whether we defined 1 as 3 or 4 in some alternate universe of communication. Math equations exist entirely outside of human interference. the 1's are merely for the purpose of communication. That's why you don't go in a dictionary to prove 1 + 1 = 2.

    Like for your specious and engender statements for example.. I can prove you wrong.. in the sense that I can tell you what those words mean in society, but if you were saying something much more complex and open-ended like, "WHAT is gender?" You're not going to prove anybody that there are only two genders because the dictionary only mentions two. You're going to probably go in a combination of resources and studies because "gender" is defined and expressed in different ways through different countries and carries different meanings.

    tl;dr the dictionary does not objectively prove existential facts on words, topics, and issues. they are merely for the purpose of how a word has been used and communicated as.
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2017

Share This Page