[News] Pool's closed.
- Thread starter sixpackshaker
- Start date
- Status
S
SeraRelm
He's taking it back.
Sheegs, Sheegs, Sheegs.
First, racism and it's common bastardization.
Descrimination is a byproduct of racism, but not in and of itself racism. It is possible to have descrimination without racism, as is the case of the web site that is causing so much of an issue with you.
Racism is using a position of power by the ruling race to descriminate against a minority race. This is always the biggest argument when new students take a cultural awareness course in college and the teacher states that minority groups can not be racist. It's because people don't really understand what the word actually means.
As the ruling race in America is still whites, they are the only race that can actually be racist. Racism is defined by which group is in power.
Black only dating cites are, by definition descriminatory, but not racist.
J-Date is desctriminatory, but not racist.
Whites for whites WOULD be descriminatory AND racist as it is the race in power that is doing the descriminating.
Now, does this make it ethically right? that's a completely different question.
First, racism and it's common bastardization.
Descrimination is a byproduct of racism, but not in and of itself racism. It is possible to have descrimination without racism, as is the case of the web site that is causing so much of an issue with you.
Racism is using a position of power by the ruling race to descriminate against a minority race. This is always the biggest argument when new students take a cultural awareness course in college and the teacher states that minority groups can not be racist. It's because people don't really understand what the word actually means.
As the ruling race in America is still whites, they are the only race that can actually be racist. Racism is defined by which group is in power.
Black only dating cites are, by definition descriminatory, but not racist.
J-Date is desctriminatory, but not racist.
Whites for whites WOULD be descriminatory AND racist as it is the race in power that is doing the descriminating.
Now, does this make it ethically right? that's a completely different question.
North_Ranger
Staff member
I'm still gonna be mockin' Swedes...
Talk about murdering something with semantics...
You need to steer a thread off-topic, not just tell people what to discuss instead so they'll do it.
figmentPez
Staff member
Racism:
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
Please note that the primary and tertiary definitions of the word racism have nothing to do with what group is in power. Any person or group that holds that one race is inherently superior or inferior, or who holds hatred or intolerance based on race, is racist. Individuals or groups from minorities can be racist against the majority. Minorities can be racist towards other minorities. A person or group from the majority can even be racist against themselves, if they're a particular breed of masochist. Anyone who believes that race determines a group or indivdual's place in the world is racist, regardless of if they are in power, or not.
M
makare
Don't get Poe started on a racist rant... or it'll be epic.
I can't say anything. I'm a white male - thus my argument is invalid.
Furthermore, I'm a cop - and everyone KNOWS we're racist as HELL.
Furthermore, I'm a cop - and everyone KNOWS we're racist as HELL.
oc, you nazi communist jew bastard
I was just going to let this be and stop following the thread, but in a way, you actually supported my argument, which to be honest I may have not been clear on.
If you're looking at institutinalized racism or legal definitions of racism, the second definition is the only one that matters. The other two would deal with morality.
As I said, the morality is debatable, but the governmental role is not.
figmentPez
Staff member
If you're talking strictly about government, then a government that allows a black-only dating service to exist, while banning a white-only dating service, is promoting racism, and is thus racist. It doesn't matter if the minorities are the one's being given the "privilege" of discriminating against the majority, it's still racism.
If a white-only dating site is presumed to exist because of the racism of it's clients (and that's a very reasonable assumption), then the only conclusion is that a black/asian/star-bellied-sneech-only dating site also exists solely because of racism. It doesn't matter who is in the majority. If it is wrong for a white person to insist on dating a white person, then it is wrong for a person of another race to insist on dating within their race, as well.
The presumption that the majority in power will only ever discriminate in it's own favor is a false one. A vocal minority sometimes get it's way in a government, or a majority make stupid decisions. So a government can discriminate against a majority. More than that, the standard for a government being racist is not solely discriminating against a race, but also promoting racist ideologies at all.
Dude, sorry, but you're totally wrong...
It's racism whether or not the people practising it have power... it's just that when they don't it doesn't much affect the people discriminated against if they have no power... but that doesn't change the textbook definition of racism...
As for the whites only dating site, the reason why everyone would see it as racist is because of history... if it wasn't for that no one would see it as any worse then a jewish, muslim or wiccan dating site... but that doesn't actually change the definition of racism...
Added at: 13:22
Yes, i't like allowing a jewish dating site, but not a KKK one... now there's some racist government.
ElJuski
Staff member
I did some quick skimming, but has anyone actually thought of the fact that a Jewish-only dating site doesn't actually hurt anybody, whereas this white's only pool incident actually is?
Context is so key with all of this shit. You can't just go walking around with a big rubber stamp saying this and that is racist.
Also, we're not racist, we love white people: ford trucks apple pies bald eagles!
Context is so key with all of this shit. You can't just go walking around with a big rubber stamp saying this and that is racist.
Also, we're not racist, we love white people: ford trucks apple pies bald eagles!
Oh really... what about white people with a fetish for crooked noses... you didn't think of them, did you... racist.
S
SeraRelm
Just so I get this right, which of these is racist?
North_Ranger
Staff member
I know how you feel. I'm a white, blue-eyed, blonde male from Scandinavia. I can't say jack shitI can't say anything. I'm a white male - thus my argument is invalid.
Furthermore, I'm a cop - and everyone KNOWS we're racist as HELL.
What's worse is that due to treatments I am now bald as well
In the UK it is against the law to discriminate against any person on racial grounds. This applies to ALL races.
Because any race of person can be Jewish.
S
SeraRelm
Judaism is both a religion and a people. Interestingly, it follows a matriarchal line of progression in that you're only Jewish if your mother is/was Jewish.
Yeah, all you have to do is bleed a little: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew?#Converts_to_Judaism
Ouch...
Also, for some you're one even if you're of another faith: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew?#Jews_who_have_practiced_another_faith
Added at: 17:28
Not that interesting considering a lack of paternity tests and no country for almost 2000 years... pretty much the best way to be sure of genetic continuity under those conditions.
S
SeraRelm
True, which is smart, but considering the fact most societies tend to be patriarchal, it's interesting.
ElJuski
Staff member
Sheg, it's more like, people coming together because of cultural similarities isn't racism, much like a bunch of White Sox fans aren't being prejudiced for all going to a White Sox bar. It's pretty sickening that people try and point fingers about racism if there's any hint of like-people coming together. The White's Only pool thing is much more different, and much more awful, because it bears both a cultural burden as well as a strictly physical limitation.
Which isn't to say that white culture does this all the time anyways.
Which isn't to say that, in certain regards, that's not necessarily a bad thing, either. But the whole white people cultural homogeny thing is also a very sticky subject in this universe, because, well. White American culture fucked tons of people over for the last several centuries.
Which isn't to say that white culture does this all the time anyways.
Which isn't to say that, in certain regards, that's not necessarily a bad thing, either. But the whole white people cultural homogeny thing is also a very sticky subject in this universe, because, well. White American culture fucked tons of people over for the last several centuries.
The second one.Just so I get this right, which of these is racist?
The first one makes no reference to race. At all.
--Patrick
M
makare
chikan gud
- Status