Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Née whiterider
retired moderator
#26 Old 20th Jul 2014 at 9:54 PM
Quote: Originally posted by AzemOcram
1. I have never heard "QUILTBAG" before.
It's just a slightly neater version of LGBTQIA.

Quote: Originally posted by AzemOcram
2. What do you mean by " dominant majority that you and 90% of the assholes in the world happen to be part of"? Do you mean that 90% of people are not LGBTI or 10% are transgender?
No. I mean that in general, oppressed groups are minorities. The majority of people discriminating against or being an asshole to members of the oppressed group are not themselves members of the said group. Nice try, strawman, but it is perfectly obvious that my point did not relate specifically to gender identity or sexuality, and nor was it about statistics.

Quote: Originally posted by AzremOcram
I also read a scholarly study that showed that all transsexuals have comorbid psychological issues or were born intersexed.
If you ever teach, you should save that study to teach your students the importance of checking the authority of sources and using critical thinking in academic contexts.

Re 4, excellent.

What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact.
Advertisement
Alchemist
Original Poster
#27 Old 20th Jul 2014 at 9:56 PM
@NaeShelle I am literally going to say this for the last time. Racism is when you judge someone (anyone, you can be black, white, yellow, green, beige, blue, all colours of the rainbow) for their race. That it's institutionalized as well in certain parts of the world? It is, but that doesn't make one kind of racism more relevant than another. It's not only 'discrimination and prejudice' when someone calls me white trash, it is racism. It doesn't matter if my ancestors did what they did, what matters is here and now, and what's here and now is that people continue to twist the definition of racism to their liking, and that includes white people as well. Discriminating against a race is racism no matter its proportion, no matter what race the person who's discriminating is, no matter the race the person who's being discriminated is.

I quite frankly don't give a shit if it's a straight person calling me a dyke or a gay man (which has happened countless times coming from someone who I considered to be a friend; he also happened to be extremely misogynistic). I don't give a shit if it's a straight person erasing my bisexuality with his or her constant need to label someone as this or that, or if it's another member of the LGBTQ+ community. I don't give a shit if it's a male being misogynistic or a female. It's the same kind of discrimination, whoever it's coming from.

Evil doesn't worry about not being good. - The Warden, Dragon Age Origins
Top Secret Researcher
#28 Old 20th Jul 2014 at 10:04 PM
These hurt feelings come from being treated like that, just because of my skin colour. Minor racism, yes, but still racism.

You really don't seem to understand that racism comes in a variety of forms and by a variety of methods. If someone treats someone else badly due to their skin colour, that is racism. If you took my statements and replaced 'white' with 'black', how would you react? You appear to think that racism only comes in one package and against one group of people, and that my feelings as a fellow human being doesn't count as much as yours, another human being.

Focusing too much on what has happened in the past only creates an unending circle. It is one thing to know about the past, it's another to obsess over it. Personally, I'd rather focus on living my life, learning new things every day, and trying my best to make this world a better place.

That, and drink some ice-cold cider. It's too bloody hot here...

EDIT: And Rawra has ninja'd me, but with even better wording.

I would like to clear up the little matter of my sanity as it has come into question. I am not in any way, shape, or form, sane. Insane? Hell yes!

People keep calling me 'evil.' I must be doing something right.

SilentPsycho - The Official MTS2 Psycho
Née whiterider
retired moderator
#29 Old 20th Jul 2014 at 10:07 PM
Since this has turned into a debate about the definition of racism, maybe OP should alter the question to not rely on a word like racism, but refer to the specific attitudes or actions you wanted to talk about.

What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact.
Field Researcher
#30 Old 20th Jul 2014 at 10:08 PM
Quote: Originally posted by SilentPsycho
These hurt feelings come from being treated like that, just because of my skin colour. Minor racism, yes, but still racism.

You really don't seem to understand that racism comes in a variety of forms and by a variety of methods. If someone treats someone else badly due to their skin colour, that is racism. If you took my statements and replaced 'white' with 'black', how would you react? You appear to think that racism only comes in one package and against one group of people, and that my feelings as a fellow human being doesn't count as much as yours, another human being.

Focusing too much on what has happened in the past only creates an unending circle. It is one thing to know about the past, it's another to obsess over it. Personally, I'd rather focus on living my life, learning new things every day, and trying my best to make this world a better place.

That, and drink some ice-cold cider. It's too bloody hot here...

EDIT: And Rawra has ninja'd me, but with even better wording.


You have literally read nothing I've said. Either that or you're responding in spite of.

But alright.

Queen of the Land of Typos.

Check out my simblr.
Alchemist
Original Poster
#31 Old 20th Jul 2014 at 10:10 PM
Changed it.

Evil doesn't worry about not being good. - The Warden, Dragon Age Origins
Lab Assistant
#32 Old 20th Jul 2014 at 11:23 PM
In case you did not know, Irish people were discriminated against heavily for a while and as far as I know, never owned slaves. However, because of their pale complexion, they get treated like they are guilty. There are Irish persons I know who are discriminated against in a racist manner who are not noticeably racist themselves. Some people of African descent do not care if another minority was oppressed, they will treat them poorly regardless. The most homophobic people I have ever met were all POC.

--Ocram

Always do your best.
Field Researcher
#33 Old 21st Jul 2014 at 12:00 AM Last edited by NaeShelle : 21st Jul 2014 at 12:32 AM.
Quote: Originally posted by AzemOcram
In case you did not know, Irish people were discriminated against heavily for a while and as far as I know, never owned slaves. However, because of their pale complexion, they get treated like they are guilty. There are Irish persons I know who are discriminated against in a racist manner who are not noticeably racist themselves. Some people of African descent do not care if another minority was oppressed, they will treat them poorly regardless. The most homophobic people I have ever met were all POC.

--Ocram


Didn't I say someone would throw in the Irish?

eta: ignored the rest of the post bc blatant generalizations that have nothing to do with anything (but most especially history) are blah ~

Queen of the Land of Typos.

Check out my simblr.
Scholar
#34 Old 21st Jul 2014 at 4:00 AM
Well I'm kind of late to the party but anyways...

Tumblr annoys me too. Because I understand the whole "certain people in this majority annoy me" to a certain extent. People on Tumblr take it to an extreme. To the point where they condemn people for being cis/white/straight/male first and ask questions later. Which to me is a problem and doesn't actually solve problems. But then they only ways I can apply it to myself are because I am a woman and I have pretty severe mental illness--three of them, actually. And I don't go around getting angry at healthy people just for being healthy or whatever, when healthy people have said that I "should just kill myself" or that my illnesses aren't real, or a hundred other horrible things. But mentally ill people generally don't push back like other minorities do anyway, so it's kind of irrelevant, honestly.

I will say that white people jokes don't really offend me but they kind of annoy me, like a mosquito bite annoys me for a few moments. Whereas prejudice against minorities deeply bothers me. Yes I'm white and straight and cisgender but it still bothers me a lot; when there was prejudice against an Indian American Miss USA or if there's homophobic or transphobic people on the Internet it can literally ruin my whole day. Basically it affects me nearly as much as prejudice against a group I'm a part of would affect me.

So I guess all I can say is I like a happy medium? Like I hate prejudiced people but I also am not a fan of looping to the other side so that people are randomly hated for who they are when they're part of the majority, too. Making jokes about them is one thing; being an asshole is another, and it's not okay. I don't want you hating my sister because she's bisexual or my friend because she's Muslim and wears a hijab or me because I have major depression, but I don't want you hating my dad because he's white and straight and male and cisgender, because he's a wonderful non-prejudiced person himself and he can't control any of that either.

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”
bleed-in-ink.tumblr.com
Top Secret Researcher
#35 Old 21st Jul 2014 at 5:42 AM Last edited by r_deNoube : 21st Jul 2014 at 5:54 AM.
Quote: Originally posted by BlakeS5678
I think the question really being asked here is "Can a majority be discriminated against?"

Yes, that was the situation in South Africa and Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, for example. Haiti also has a privileged light-skinned, French-speaking minority ruling a darker, Kriol-speaking majority. There are autocratic countries where the rulers come from a particular clan and/or minority religious sect. Etc. etc.

Quote: Originally posted by NaeShelle
Didn't I say someone would throw in the Irish?

Yes, in what I took as an effort to pre-emptively erase them. But you neglected to explain why their experience is irrelevant to your point, and relatedly, why they might appear to be relevant enough to "throw them in" if, in fact, they're not.

The term "racism" is used currently -- and in my view, correctly -- by anti-racist Scots and others to describe behavior by racist Scots toward Irish. This racist behavior happens most conspicuously in the context of athletic events, where perpetrators use the team rivalry as cover. Granted that the US has a specifically awful history with racism, still if we are discussing the definition of the word in English, then sources from other English-speaking countries are also relevant.
Quote: Originally posted by TheRedCardScotland.org
... There are four parts of a person’s identity that if targeted, would be classed as racism, they are:

1. Skin Colour
2. Religion
3. Culture
4. Nationality

Racism is extremely negative for society. People may experience racism as a result of an individual’s actions or because an institution’s procedures disadvantage them (institutional racism).
...
Racism can take place between people who have the same skin colour but a different nationality or religion. For example a white English person could be racist to a white Irish person, or a black Christian person could be racist towards a black Muslim person.
...
It is important to mention that racism is usually directed at people from minority groups by people who are in the majority group. In Britain, racism is much more likely to happen to people in minority groups, but not all of those people are black. For example some Muslim people, Polish people, Gypsy, Roma and Travellers can be the targets of racist abuse, even though many of these people are white.
...
Field Researcher
#36 Old 21st Jul 2014 at 6:49 AM
Quote: Originally posted by r_deNoube
Yes, in what I took as an effort to pre-emptively erase them. But you neglected to explain why their experience is irrelevant to your point, and relatedly, why they might appear to be relevant enough to "throw them in" if, in fact, they're not.

The term "racism" is used currently -- and in my view, correctly -- by anti-racist Scots and others to describe behavior by racist Scots toward Irish. This racist behavior happens most conspicuously in the context of athletic events, where perpetrators use the team rivalry as cover. Granted that the US has a specifically awful history with racism, still if we are discussing the definition of the word in English, then sources from other English-speaking countries are also relevant.


Well, for that I'll apologize. I should have been way more specific. When I said Irish, I meant Irish-Americans and Irish American history. I feel like that changes things a little.

Hm. I'll have to think about the other info you've presented & come back when I can form my thoughts properly. But I do conceded that I've been (as I've already admitted) looking at racism from a U.S.-centric viewpoint for the duration of this debate.

Queen of the Land of Typos.

Check out my simblr.
Scholar
#37 Old 21st Jul 2014 at 1:59 PM
I'm still really confused as to why we're not supposed to discuss Irish (Irish-Americans specifically?) people. Why exactly are they not relevant? In fact, it feels extremely relevant in a debate about discriminating against majorities considering they were an oppressed group of white people.

Just call me Blake! :)
Hola, hablo español también - Hi, I speak Spanish too.
Field Researcher
#38 Old 21st Jul 2014 at 2:33 PM Last edited by NaeShelle : 21st Jul 2014 at 2:46 PM.
Quote: Originally posted by BlakeS5678
I'm still really confused as to why we're not supposed to discuss Irish (Irish-Americans specifically?) people. Why exactly are they not relevant? In fact, it feels extremely relevant in a debate about discriminating against majorities considering they were an oppressed group of white people.


The debate was first against racism specifically rather than just discriminating against majorities as a whole. There was then an issue about the exact definition of racism & when a consensus couldn't be met (and it was understood that a more specific question was being asked), the topic was changed.

My comment about the Irish-Americans was concerning racism specifically, not so much general discrimination.

eta - we can talk about the Irish Americans but understand that, once again, I'm coming from a U.S. viewpoint. In my saying that bringing the Irish Americans up was unnecessary, I was saying that concerning American history the discrimination they faced can't be conflated with the racism PoC have historically faced bc ethnic disparities or not, they're still white.

Also, someone said the Irish didn't own slaves? According to the Florida Irish Heritage website, "a previous article about early Irish settlers in St. Augustine, the 1783 Spanish Census of East Florida revealed that many of these Irish settlers owned slaves".

Queen of the Land of Typos.

Check out my simblr.
Top Secret Researcher
#39 Old 21st Jul 2014 at 6:04 PM
Quote: Originally posted by BlakeS5678
I'm still really confused as to why we're not supposed to discuss Irish (Irish-Americans specifically?) people. Why exactly are they not relevant? In fact, it feels extremely relevant in a debate about discriminating against majorities considering they were an oppressed group of white people.


I think it was supposed to avoid a NOT ALL MEN interruption. As in, "white people can't have oppressed anyone because the Irish were white and they were oppressed!" or "Irish people were oppressed/enslaved, too, so it wasn't racist that they enslaved black people and Native Americans, therefore I can call a black person a pineapple if I want to!"
Theorist
#40 Old 22nd Jul 2014 at 5:03 AM
Quote: Originally posted by AzemOcram
In case you did not know, Irish people were discriminated against heavily for a while and as far as I know, never owned slaves. However, because of their pale complexion, they get treated like they are guilty. There are Irish persons I know who are discriminated against in a racist manner who are not noticeably racist themselves. Some people of African descent do not care if another minority was oppressed, they will treat them poorly regardless. The most homophobic people I have ever met were all POC.

--Ocram


Sorry, but that's pretty much almost verbatim stormfront and vanguard news network material right there. What's next? "Japan is racist against non-japanese, so it should be okay for white people to be racist against non-white people in their own country?" Oh, and don't forget creatively interpreting institutionalized racism in favor of whites as "white nationalism." I'm not saying you're a racist yet, but don't create a fictional reality where the world is against white people and then live in that creation.
Scholar
#41 Old 22nd Jul 2014 at 2:30 PM
Quote: Originally posted by AzemOcram
Some people of African descent do not care if another minority was oppressed, they will treat them poorly regardless. The most homophobic people I have ever met were all POC.
--Ocram


I'm just going to leave this here because I read it and it felt relevant.

Quote: Originally posted by GLAAD; 2014 Studio Responsibility Index
...Polls have repeatedly disproven the notion that U.S. minority communities are inherently more anti-gay than Caucasians. In fact, support for LGBT equality may actually be increasing at greater rates in those communities, and this should be reflected in films marketed to them...


I'll let that quote speak for itself. Really let it sink in....

Just call me Blake! :)
Hola, hablo español también - Hi, I speak Spanish too.
Lab Assistant
#42 Old 22nd Jul 2014 at 4:21 PM
I am happy to see that the negativity I have experienced is not the norm. I was trying to say that discrimination based on ethnicity, appearance, and sexual orientation is wrong regardless of who is the victim and who is the perpetrator.

Also, women are the voting majority in the USA so it is possible for them to change the political scene but because of the corruption in the government, gerrymandering, and lack of good candidates, it is exceedingly difficult for the people to have a voice, even if they are a majority. Corporate lobbyists and wealthy politicians for am oligarchy that pretends to listen to the people.

Edit: I never claimed that the world was against white people. I also have no clue what storm front or vanguard are. Also, racism is not as important now than the increasing oppression of big business and big government.


--Ocram

Always do your best.
Top Secret Researcher
#43 Old 22nd Jul 2014 at 11:32 PM
Quote: Originally posted by AzemOcram
Also, racism is not as important now than the increasing oppression of big business and big government.

Don't miss the connections! Racism is a very important tool in the oppression that you consider more important. In the US (to take the best-known and most-often-discussed example), concentrated power is absolutely served by pitting working-class white men against PoC.

Let me use electoral politics as an example. Particularly but not only in the South -- where quite a large number of American PoC live -- white males and black people are the only two large groups that reliably vote in blocs. So, if you can (1) get the larger group to completely shut out the smaller group, via winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes, and then (2) get that larger group to vote against its own economic interests (something that PoC, by and large, don't do), by misdirecting their economic frustration at ordinary people of other races and genders, rather than at those who are really getting their money -- then that's it. Those who might ever challenge your power instead fight each other and you win.

The flaw in the way I presented that argument is my use of the word "you". In fact it is not you who benefits from this system, it is a class of people who play games much, much bigger than TS3 and who are perfectly happy to throw you (really, you) under a bus, whatever your color, if it will protect their place in that game.

I used the South as an example because of its electoral laws and history, but the strategy has lately been intentionally spreading to the rest of the country, partly under the guise of ginned-up concern over "voter fraud". It is not that the very rich and powerful necessarily care one way the other about the race of individuals they deal with personally; it is rather that they have discovered that racism serves their purposes, and they are indifferent to the suffering that comes from it. It seems to me that the suffering will continue until the majority decline to play their part in the game.
Mad Poster
#44 Old 28th Jul 2014 at 3:29 PM
Interesting. May I throw this into the pot: what about the business practice (common in US) of giving job applicants "points" (a better chance of being hired) if they are "African Americans" or "Hispanic" (this is the way I've seen it worded). They also give points to other "disadvantaged" groups - vets, disabled, etc. Is this discrimination? What about the Black Caucus? There seems to be a difference between grouping people according to their ethnic background, vs the social/economic group they belong to ("Black Americans have been mistreated for so long they should NOW get specia privledges")

Stand up, speak out. Just not to me..
Field Researcher
#45 Old 28th Jul 2014 at 4:10 PM
Quote: Originally posted by grammapat
Interesting. May I throw this into the pot: what about the business practice (common in US) of giving job applicants "points" (a better chance of being hired) if they are "African Americans" or "Hispanic" (this is the way I've seen it worded). They also give points to other "disadvantaged" groups - vets, disabled, etc. Is this discrimination? What about the Black Caucus? There seems to be a difference between grouping people according to their ethnic background, vs the social/economic group they belong to ("Black Americans have been mistreated for so long they should NOW get specia privledges")


The practice of giving certain applications "points" is & was instituted due to the fact that those disadvantaged (why the quotation marks?) people groups you're referring to had to deal with the even more-so common practice of not receiving jobs based on those very qualities that would cause some employers to hire them. Even now those groups are, statistically speaking, still less likely to get hired than their more socially advantaged counterparts. Practices like affirmative action are countermeasures, not initial standards.

Furthermore, there's a black caucus because historically black people have been shut out of votes or issues pertaining to them have been handled by people that don't understand the struggles faced by them &/or are biased against them. (And before someone asks "Why isn't there a white caucus?", a majority of Congress is white. A majority doesn't need a caucus.)

Finally, it's not about granting certain people special privileges. It is now & has always been about leveling the playing field so that all people have the same opportunities.

Queen of the Land of Typos.

Check out my simblr.
Lab Assistant
#46 Old 28th Jul 2014 at 5:59 PM Last edited by AzemOcram : 31st Jul 2014 at 6:14 PM.
I think it is more logical to grant points for being fluent in more languages. Some persons are barely fluent in a single language. Other skills like reading, writing, and math are also important. It also means that the education system in the USA should be improved.

--Ocram

Always do your best.
Mad Poster
#47 Old 31st Jul 2014 at 3:30 AM
Quote: Originally posted by grammapat
Interesting. May I throw this into the pot: what about the business practice (common in US) of giving job applicants "points" (a better chance of being hired) if they are "African Americans" or "Hispanic" (this is the way I've seen it worded).


The practice you mention (generally called Affirmative Action), I believe actually feeds racism over the long term. Basically, it can be interpreted to say that people from the groups that get points aren't capable of competing on an equal playing field.
Now, the playing field isn't equal, but it never will be. There will always be kids born into situations where they won't get what they need to reach their potential. I'm concerned that Affirmative Action has reached the point where it's doing more harm than good in the USA. This concerns me particularly as a parent of kids who would be awarded points for their dad's ethnic origins, if they mention it, under this system.
This is one of those well-intended policies that seems to be back-firing. My husband has expressed frustration with the general assumption at every new job he's started that he is an Affirmative Action hire, which he has to work two or three times as hard as everyone else to prove he's capable, at which point he's irritated his professional colleagues by showing them up as slackers. It's a lose-lose situation for him.

Pics from my game: Sunbee's Simblr Sunbee's Livejournal
"English is a marvelous edged weapon if you know how to wield it." C.J. Cherryh
Theorist
#48 Old 31st Jul 2014 at 11:25 AM
He'd have to work two or three times as hard regardless though, or not have a job at all, if there weren't initial policies against racial bias hiring in some places, at some companies. That's even at companies without affirmative action policies active these days, since it's worth paying lip service to racially sensitive hiring even if you don't have an actual policy to avoid to appearance of selection hiring against race.

Or to put another way, it's pretty much unavoidable. Minorities weren't being hired at all, or were being hired at the worst possible positions, before. I'd love to say that we're in a post-racial world now where people just know better, but then you come into threads like this and you've got idiots essentially peddling the notion that minorities somehow have it easy and therefore it's "okay to be a jerk again." Obviously with that sort of attitude still selling I imagine it would all quickly spiral back into segregation, like Alabama's schools, without some sort of reinforcement policy or punishment process. I don't know what the answer is. Presumably at some point we'll all breed into mutts and go back to just hating each other because some of us have more money and are prettier or something.
Mad Poster
#49 Old 31st Jul 2014 at 5:57 PM
Mistermook, it hasn't mattered who the employer was, local, state, or fed government, private industry, you name it. I certainly wouldn't say there isn't racial prejudice. We see it all too often.
I'm not sure there's any good solution, except time, and time itself was part of the problem with differentiation of ethnic groups.
I think there are probably better solutions for the current situation in the USA than those currently being applied. If we continue with a point scale, I could see offering points based on family poverty, regardless of ethnic group, for college entry--but also requiring colleges to offer corresponding extra services to students awarded points. (I'm pretty sure the Obama girls are going to have many more advantages than a kid of any ethnic background from a poor background.) Anti-discrimination laws may be much more important than Affirmative Action at this point for ethnic minorities. Affirmative Action is feeding the notion that minorities have it easy, and that's going to be a big problem for kids in my kids' generation and my hopefully future grandkids'. In that sense, discrimination against majorities done by the majority (which is the effect Affirmative Action can have) can harm minorities.
I've seen the studies done on names and interview calls, and I wonder if there's any way to control for the presumed social background associated with what are generally thought of as ethnic names in those studies. That is, the general assumption that the names are ethnic is also a general assumption of a poverty background. I suspect there's a lot more classism going on than we're seeing and it's hidden by what is believed to be racism. The middle class kids I'm generally around have what are assumed to be 'white' first names in those studies, regardless of their ethnic backgrounds.
With the advent of DNA testing, I suspect a lot of people who've always thought of themselves as ethnically pure are going to discover that actually, their ancestors reproduced with outsiders as enthusiastically as insiders. That is, we're all already mutts. It's just appearances left.

Pics from my game: Sunbee's Simblr Sunbee's Livejournal
"English is a marvelous edged weapon if you know how to wield it." C.J. Cherryh
Lab Assistant
#50 Old 31st Jul 2014 at 6:19 PM
I find it hilarious that 2 people think the education system in the USA does NOT need improving. Anyway, education is a useful means out of poverty. I sincerely believe that education should only be required until the age of 16 but public education should be free for all those up to 12th grade (usually around age 18) with high performing students getting free Community College education as long as they maintain a high enough grade, up to their first Associates Degree, with citizens still able to get Pell Grants for Bachelors Degrees.

--Ocram

Always do your best.
 
Page 2 of 3
Back to top