Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

RustyKnight wrote:Because I'm white, I'm automatically a racist? Isn't that a racist sentiment?

Zing! You sir are correct. Racism or bigotry knows no intrinsic color.

Gailbraithe wrote:

Now, you can be a very enlightened racist (like me), meaning that you still see race just as society trains you to, but you also see that you've been trained, and you work to overcome that training and to raise the consciousness of others. But the hardest part about overcoming race is that a) almost everyone you talk to is a racist and won't even attempt to address that, and b) because of all of those unconscious racists racism is still having a powerful effect of oppressing people of color and privileging white people.

But pretty much everyone is a racist. I won't say everyone, because I haven't met everyone, but outside of tribes living untouched in the Amazon and people like that, I doubt you could find anyone who is entirely without racist ideas.

Ugh, racism isnt seeing race, if I recognize a black person as black I am not a racist. If i feel that because I am born white, because my blood is european, and this makes me superior to that black person THEN I am a racist. Racism is the belief that someones ethnicity plays a large part in determining intelligence and what not. If I feel that half black/white kids are genetically inferior to me because they have black genes, I am racist. If I have a friend who is half black/white and I recognize this fact without it changing my opinion of him then I am not racist.

Monster Rain wrote:So it's racist to hold everyone to the same standard?

Not in the abstract, but in this particular context only racists want to "hold everyone to the same standard." Only racists want to define racism in such a way that it is impossible to deal with the realities of racism without being labeled a racist by the actual racists. When "holding everyone to the same standard" has the actual, practical effect of perpetuating racism, then yes, it is racist to want to hold everyone to the same standard.

Throwing around the word radical around too... Pot. Kettle. Black.

I used the word radicalized, not radical. Do you know what that word even means? I don't think you do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RustyKnight wrote:Because I'm white, I'm automatically a racist? Isn't that a racist sentiment?

No, because you think in terms of black and white, you are engaging in racism. That is what racism is: thinking about people in terms of race.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrockRitcey wrote:Racism is discrimination based on race. A black person hating a white person because they are white is the same thing as a white person hating a black person because they are black. A black person can be racist against white people. It has nothing to do about whose ancestors were slaves. It is just as much a hate crime for some black panthers to beat up some white guys as it would be for some neo-nazi's to beat up some black guys.

No, it's not. And the fact that you are arguing that tells me something about you: That you have never taken a sociology class, that you have never studied racism in any serious sense, and that you are walking into this argument armed with only your poor understanding of the dictionary.

What you have just said is ignorant. A black person hating a white person because they are white is PREJUDICE. Even a white person hating a black person because they are black is not racism. That''s still PREJUDICE. Prejudice is a product of racism, but prejudice is not racism itself.

Racism is the concept of human race. It a system of thought that identifies groups within the human species which are identified as "races." It was developed by Europeans and became the dominant part of European ideology during the 17th century as a means to justify the wholesale oppression and exploitation of non-Europeans. Racism always benefits white people, because that is the entire point of racism, to benefit white people. So when you say a person is racist towards another person, do you know what you're actually doing? Displaying gross ignorance. Racism is not a verb, it is not something you do to people.

All of which you would know if you, I dunno, took a freaking class on the subject. But racism is one of those topics that every dumbass in the world thinks they are qualified to speak about without a shred of understanding, without any education, and without any clue of exactly how boring, ignorant and stupid their blatherings are.

Seriously, from now on, if any of you are going to try to argue with me on this, I want credentials. I want the name of the school where you studied racism academically, and I want to know what classes you took on the subject. I myself took two introductory level sociology classes (at Shoreline Community College) specifically on the subject of racism while pursuing a degree in criminal justice. So its not like I'm some super-expert on this subject, but so far the people arguing with me don't seem to know anything. At all.

If you seriously cannot come up with a deeper understanding of racism than citing the freaking dictionary at me, which is just offensively stupid, then you really need to stop and ask yourself exactly how arrogant and stupid a person has to be to insist their opinion on a subject which they haven't studied at all be taken seriously just because you can bang on a keyboard.

Oh snap, where is Fateweaver when you need him?

Gailbraithe wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:So it's racist to hold everyone to the same standard?

Not in the abstract, but in this particular context only racists want to "hold everyone to the same standard." Only racists want to define racism in such a way that it is impossible to deal with the realities of racism without being labeled a racist by the actual racists. When "holding everyone to the same standard" has the actual, practical effect of perpetuating racism, then yes, it is racist to want to hold everyone to the same standard.

Throwing around the word radical around too... Pot. Kettle. Black.

I used the word radicalized, not radical. Do you know what that word even means? I don't think you do.

I stuck my head in OT and remembered why I left it in the first place. I can't have a highbrow conversation with someone who doesn't know what a root word is.

rad·i·cal·ized, rad·i·cal·iz·ing, rad·i·cal·iz·es
To make radical or more radical:

They just cued my outro.

So your using your own definition of racism, not the one that the entire world recognizes as racism, but one that was told to you by a sociology professor. When dictating what words mean it is best to turn to the recognized definition of the word not one that is believed by a few people in a specific field of study.

I always like how someone takes an into into sociology and all of a sudden their opinion is right. Perhaps if you don't like other peoples opinions then you shouldn't be arguing on the internet. I would also assume that when people talk about racism they would be talking about common usage of the word and not its specific usage from your intro level classes. The author from your texts might have used racism to describe the system he proposed, but as with all art classes that is his opinion and not actual science or fact. Reading the opinions of 2, obviously well educated people does not make everything they say right.

If you want to argue about your sociology classes then perhaps you should go back to your community college and talk to other students.

Gailbraithe wrote:
Racism is the concept of human race. It a system of thought that identifies groups within the human species which are identified as "races." It was developed by Europeans and became the dominant part of European ideology during the 17th century as a means to justify the wholesale oppression and exploitation of non-Europeans.

Yes.

Gailbraithe wrote:
Racism always benefits white people, because that is the entire point of racism, to benefit white people.

No. Racism is any sort of action that works to reinforce the theory that race is a casual force in human activity. That is the point of racism. The fact that it has been most obviously exploited by white Europeans (itself a deeply Orientalist concept) does not change the fact that racism itself is not bound to white vs. everyone else.

Gailbraithe wrote:
So when you say a person is racist towards another person, do you know what you're actually doing? Displaying gross ignorance. Racism is not a verb, it is not something you do to people.

And, used in that fashion, racism is not functioning as a verb.

Gailbraithe wrote:
Seriously, from now on, if any of you are going to try to argue with me on this, I want credentials. I want the name of the school where you studied racism academically, and I want to know what classes you took on the subject.

Macalester College.

Race, Place, and Space
Gender in the African American Community
Female, and Minority Economics
Black Africa
African Americans: Movement Politics in American Minority Groups
African Music and Culture: Rasta to Rap
War on the African Continent

Yay, Racism topics are ALWAYS fun! /sarcasm

Before I get so very hot and heavy into this, I am going to answer the OP's question: There is one, and ONLY one, time that the N-word, or any racial slur, is appropriate.

What is that one time those word is appropriate? If anyone of another pigment starts with racial slurs first. That black guy just thought it was funny to call me a Cracker (and you see this? The black racial slur is censored, but the white one isn't. How's THAT for racism (Nothing against Dakka, you guys really have no choice))? I will call him N***** to his face. That hispanic "gangster" wants to call me a cracker too? His name just became Pedro, and I ask why he isn't wearing his sombrero. I only ever use racial slurs/stereotypes when someone else opens that door.

That is all.

As for those of you who are saying all muslims are bad... I'm not going to say stop watching Glenn Beck, but what I am going to say is: Remember that Glenn Beck is in the same boat as Obama, he wants the country to do what he wants and he is going to, willingly and knowingly or not, tell only what he wants you to hear. I would like to remind everyone what happens when everyone lumps an entire religion/cult/beleif system (I CAN use all those meaning the same thing, I'm a Deitist) or ethnicity into one group: WWII. Nuff said.

Gailbraithe, Let me ask you this: Do you beleive a fathers sins are his sons to bear?

So we have to show credentials to know when someone isn't making sense?

Also, appeals to authority always works when all of your memorized talking points fall flat. No really, they do.

Monster Rain wrote:So we have to show credentials to know when someone isn't making sense?

Also, appeals to authority always works when all of your memorized talking points fall flat. No really, they do.

Tenuous, unverifiable authority no less. Still, I'm an arrogant prick, and its fun to trump people with my own modest credentials.

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:So we have to show credentials to know when someone isn't making sense?

Also, appeals to authority always works when all of your memorized talking points fall flat. No really, they do.

Tenuous, unverifiable authority no less. Still, I'm an arrogant prick, and its fun to trump people with my own modest credentials.

It was in no way directed at you sir.

Also:

Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry
Potions; and Defense Against the Dark Arts
Professor Severus Snape
Slytherin

I also studied at the Tower of High Sorcery in Wayreth and have seen Roots four times.

Wayreth?! That's a party sorcerer's tower!

dogma wrote:Wayreth?! That's a party sorcerer's tower!

Yeah, my Dad wanted me to go to Palanthas but I was all like "feth that noise, man!"

Gailbraithe wrote:Thank you for the timely assist, Captain Obvious. I'm not quite sure what we would have done without you. Except, you know, carry on fine.

As you appear to be defining terms in any way you see fit, then demanding credentials to support an opposing argument... Moving on.

Yeah, but pretty much everyone is racist.

No, they aren't. If you mean 'racist' against certain types of ice cream, then sure, I totally get what you're saying even if it doesn't make much sense. We aren't talking about ice cream and using the term 'racist' in place of 'discriminatory', doesn't make a great deal of sense to me. We are all biased in certain ways and many are biased in ways that can be classified in generic groups.

Look down the list of -isms, tell me that people who do A.) automatically do B.) and I will tell you, you're wrong. I am quite sure that took care of whatever the hell you were talking about. People discriminate in many ways against other people, it does not automatically take the form of being racist over sexist, over hating people in general. You can be all three, which does not assume that everyone is much the same way. You can also act on things and choose not to act on things, even work against your own prejudice in whatever form it may be.

If 'everyone is racist' they are automatically sexist, ageist, homophobic and whatever else. They aren't and summarizing that large portion of 'everyone' as anything but generally discriminatory, is narrow-minded. While I would agree that there are large scale practices that are racist, I would be hard pressed to convince myself that every person involved in our society as a whole is racist. We don't need to be individually racist for a larger action of racism to take place. If the conversation was as simple as the color of ones skin, it would have all been worked out a long time ago.

Minority groups are consistently at the short end of any given stick. There are few ways around that and on a large scale it does make sense why society would develop systems that regard the largest parts as the most important. There are problems that need to be solved and talking about color is not the way to go about solving those problems. Getting beyond the abstract ideas and working with specific examples that do actually illustrate obvious racism, is the place to start.

Talk about how Oakland has lost way too many cops and how that is likely to instigate further racial tension, due to the fact that it is almost always based in fear from one side or another.

It's almost impossible not to be, because even if one recognizes that the idea of human races is scientifically falsifiable and factually incorrect, one still tends to notice other people's race. If you're a white person, then you're racist -- now before you react to that, let me explain what I mean: If you are identified as white by most people, that is because a) you have a low melanin count and b) most people are racist. If you accept this identification, if you believe that you are a white person, then you have embraced (almost certainly unconsciously, since we learn this stuff as little kids) the idea that white people exist, and if white people exist then race must exist, which means iptso facto if you think you are white, then you are a racist: a person who thinks of humans in terms of race.

What does white mean. What does black mean. What does brown mean. What does yellow mean.

If I paint myself black and think of myself PAINTED BLACK, I am now thinking of myself painted black. I can do the same for being painted yellow, white, brown, or even purple.

There is no solid meaning to any of those words, they are colors. If you want to talk abstractly about how it is to be a black man in America, there is a great deal to talk about, even if much of the conversation is limited to ideas that work on a scale beyond direct action.

Now, you can be a very enlightened racist (like me), meaning that you still see race just as society trains you to, but you also see that you've been trained, and you work to overcome that training and to raise the consciousness of others. But the hardest part about overcoming race is that a) almost everyone you talk to is a racist and won't even attempt to address that, and b) because of all of those unconscious racists racism is still having a powerful effect of oppressing people of color and privileging white people.

When I see a specific African American community and look around at the problems that the community faces due to local government, there are solutions to those problems and they are attainable. You can be a very real human, like me.

But pretty much everyone is a racist. I won't say everyone, because I haven't met everyone, but outside of tribes living untouched in the Amazon and people like that, I doubt you could find anyone who is entirely without racist ideas.

That seems to have an awful lot to do with how you are interpreting peoples actions.

Look, there are clearly some people in modern American society who think having sex with eight year old girls is not a heinous crime (frex: pedophiles, 7chan users), but no one (with any damn common sense at least) is going to correct you if you say "Americans think having sex with eight year old girls is totally gross and heinous." Despite their being several views on any given subject within any given community.

How did you end up there?

Okay.

Pretending everything is hunky-dory is not going to bring people together, because there is an aggrieved party and it's not white people. Black people are, collectively, really sick and tired of white people.

Everything isn't hunky-dory and opinions on why that is, along with how to deal with it, are diverse. It isn't divided along lines of black people and white people, nor is it any other combination of colors. There is a more sensible argument regarding class and color, even then I would consider it lacking in much of the important detail. You can look at one group to get a general idea, then get serious information by looking at specific sub-groups.

What does group A2 think. Why do they think that. What effect does it have on the subject, for group A2 to have that opinion. What interactions are there between group A2 and group B2/3 separately. What interactions are there between group A2 and the whole. Is there any problem within any situation presented, if so are there ways to deal with that problem directly.

When it gets right down to it, racism isn't really an issue for politics, except to the degree that the Republicans (and Fox News) use race-baiting and race-based fear to win elections. There isn't much more the government can do. From here on out, it basically comes down to individuals choosing who they want to be, and how they want to face the remaining problem of racism.

Keeping a subject within the national conversation is about as direct as you could possibly be. If we are talking about racism on a large, yet individualized scale, having a conversation about it might not solve anything, but it will certainly keep some options open. Not all solutions are positive ones, especially when you are talking about a specific group effected by a large scale problem. All negative solutions do not preclude the option for further solutions, which may in themselves be positive. Perhaps A can't happen before Z does, I really don't know.

That's not what were talking about. We're talking about a white guy turning around, intruding on a conversation between a group of black guys, and telling them to stop calling each of the n-word and justifying that action by asserting that there should be no double-standards. In this context, that essentially amounts to asserting that black people can't have their own opinion on the subject.

It basically is what we are talking about. Both people are entitled to their opinions and both are DEFINITELY entitled to be wrong in those opinions.

There is just as much of an argument against the use of a word, as there is for it. Just because 'one side' decides that they will be both for AND against it, doesn't mean that their argument is any more sound than the opposing one.

When a white person makes the "people are just people" argument in order to support an action that amounts to telling a black person what to do, black people will tend to suspect what the white person in question really means is "people are just white people."

I don't see why, besides a need to answer a question that a person who thought that might have. Is this man racist. That is a question that many people ask themselves, although many that have faced intense racism in the past might be more likely to think that way. People are just people, they really, really are. Thinking that a statement like that makes someone racist, is ignorant quite frankly.

What would be a perfectly reasonable statement, might sound an awful lot more like, "This person holds their opinion in as high a regard as I do". Beyond that you can also tell them they are completely wrong, as they are perfectly able to do so against you as well. Both of you can be wrong, just so my point is completely clear.

I was in the chow hall myself when this exact story came on the TV from a news channel. And the title of the story was exactly the same as the title of this thread. That's crazy. Anyway, I watched the story for a bit and thought about how I feel about it.

I woudn't use it. I understand that it appears to be somewhat acceptable in US black/African American culture. I also understand that language changes. I also understand that words only mean what we ascribe to them.

However, I still woudln't use it and I don't think it's the best choice of words for people to use.

youbedead wrote:So your using your own definition of racism, not the one that the entire world recognizes as racism, but one that was told to you by a sociology professor. When dictating what words mean it is best to turn to the recognized definition of the word not one that is believed by a few people in a specific field of study.

No, I'm using the actual definition of racism. The one that educated people use. The one that is widely recognized, but only summarized (and in the process grossly oversimplified) in the dictionary.

It is the definition used in social sciences. That doesn't make it a weird definition, that makes it the actual definition. Because discussions of racism fall under the purview of the social sciences. If you aren't talking about racism from the perspective of the social sciences, then you're talking about racism from an ignorant perspective.

Where would you turn for the recognized definition? The dictionary? Would you attempt to understand physics by looking up the word in the dictionary? How about chemistry? History? Mathematics?

If I say that mathematics is the systematic treatment of magnitude, relationships between figures and forms, and relations between quantities expressed symbolically, and thus this is mathematics:



How would you respond? Would you agree with me that this Picasso painting is a systematic treatment of magnitude, relationships between figures and forms, and relations between quantities expressed symbolically, and thus is mathematics? Of course not, because you've taken a math class, and you understand that there is more to mathematics than is expressed in that one sentence from a dictionary.

And that's what I'm telling you: You cannot understand what racism is by reading a dictionary. You have to actually study the issue, and many people have and are already studying it. And those people, social scientists, have a definition of racism that takes into account the history of the term, its use in contexts, and consequently leads to deeper understanding of the issue than reading a fething dictionary and thinking you're educated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrockRitcey wrote:I always like how someone takes an into into sociology and all of a sudden their opinion is right. Perhaps if you don't like other peoples opinions then you shouldn't be arguing on the internet. I would also assume that when people talk about racism they would be talking about common usage of the word and not its specific usage from your intro level classes. The author from your texts might have used racism to describe the system he proposed, but as with all art classes that is his opinion and not actual science or fact. Reading the opinions of 2, obviously well educated people does not make everything they say right.

Yeah, pile on the anti-intellectualism, denigrate getting an education, and whatever you do don't mention the GED you failed to get. I never said my opinion was right because I've bothered to educate myself, I said my opinion was relatively informed compared to you. I don't see you actually countering that. Just whining about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:No. Racism is any sort of action that works to reinforce the theory that race is a casual force in human activity. That is the point of racism. The fact that it has been most obviously exploited by white Europeans (itself a deeply Orientalist concept) does not change the fact that racism itself is not bound to white vs. everyone else.

That's a radical redefinition of racism which I am deeply suspicious of, as I've only seen it promoted by white supremacists who wish to turn every discussion of race into a discussion of "reverse racism," to deflect attention from the giant elephant in the room (white supremacy).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote:

Yeah, but pretty much everyone is racist.

No, they aren't. If you mean 'racist' against certain types of ice cream, then sure, I totally get what you're saying even if it doesn't make much sense. We aren't talking about ice cream and using the term 'racist' in place of 'discriminatory', doesn't make a great deal of sense to me. We are all biased in certain ways and many are biased in ways that can be classified in generic groups.

I am not using racist in the place of discriminatory. You're the one who is conflating the two, not me. My point is that.

If 'everyone is racist' they are automatically sexist, ageist, homophobic and whatever else. They aren't and summarizing that large portion of 'everyone' as anything but generally discriminatory, is narrow-minded. While I would agree that there are large scale practices that are racist, I would be hard pressed to convince myself that every person involved in our society as a whole is racist. We don't need to be individually racist for a larger action of racism to take place. If the conversation was as simple as the color of ones skin, it would have all been worked out a long time ago.

What I am saying would make more sense if you would actually consider it, which you're clearly not. When I say that everyone is racist, I mean that everyone tends to think of race as a real thing. Not that people are hateful, not that they discriminate, only that they notice. When you meet a new person you are going to notice things about them. Whether they are male or female. If they are gay or straight. Young or old. Attractive or ugly. Black or white. Those are the sort of things our society trains us to recognize, and that's why pretty much everyone is racist, sexist, heterocentrist, agist, etc. Because

But pretty much everyone is a racist. I won't say everyone, because I haven't met everyone, but outside of tribes living untouched in the Amazon and people like that, I doubt you could find anyone who is entirely without racist ideas.

That seems to have an awful lot to do with how you are interpreting peoples actions.

It has nothing at all to do with interpreting people's actions. All you have to do is listen to people talk.

There is just as much of an argument against the use of a word, as there is for it. Just because 'one side' decides that they will be both for AND against it, doesn't mean that their argument is any more sound than the opposing one.

That's true. Which I acknowledged in my very first post on the subject. It's not a matter of what is right (which really can never be determined), it's a matter of who appears to have the power to decide what is right.

Basically it boils down to this: Black people have decided they have the right to set the rules regarding the use of the n-word.

White people get to make a choice in reaction to that: Do we say "Okay, sure, whatever you need to make you feel like you have power in this situation." or do we say "No, I want the right to set the rules regarding the use of the n-word."

I am of the opinion that there is no reason to not let black people decide the rules on the n-word. I can see absolutely no reason to argue the point. There is nothing at all to be gained by arguing the point. It's just a waste of time.

What about Asian racism? I've been out with like.. 5 Asian birds an nearly all of them told me that older Asians are super racist.. it seems a bit harsh to blame it all on johnny white man.

Okay, I'm not going to approach the serious conversation in any way, shape or form. I'm just going to leave this here.
Watch the language kiddies.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iau-e6HfOg0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63M34s8afbo&feature=related

Watch the language kiddies.

"reded" for added emphasis.

BrockRitcey wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Easy:
-Use it in my home and you're never in my home again.
-Use it at my place of business and you'll never work here again.
-Use it in my presence and you're a friend you will be neither by the end of the sentence.

Now would this apply no matter who was using the word?

Yes.

kronk wrote:The only hatred allowed is for Muslims, who want to kill or conquer all non-muslims.

You're saying that every muslim is a terrorist. Which could not be further from the truth.

Back to topic, I have two black friends and out of respect never ever say the N-word.

DOGMA

Offline
Gailbraithe wrote:

Racism is the concept of human race. It a system of thought that identifies groups within the human species which are identified as "races." It was developed by Europeans and became the dominant part of European ideology during the 17th century as a means to justify the wholesale oppression and exploitation of non-Europeans.


Yes.


Gailbraithe wrote:

Racism always benefits white people, because that is the entire point of racism, to benefit white people.


No. Racism is any sort of action that works to reinforce the theory that race is a casual force in human activity. That is the point of racism. The fact that it has been most obviously exploited by white Europeans (itself a deeply Orientalist concept) does not change the fact that racism itself is not bound to white vs. everyone else.


Gailbraithe wrote:

So when you say a person is racist towards another person, do you know what you're actually doing? Displaying gross ignorance. Racism is not a verb, it is not something you do to people.


And, used in that fashion, racism is not functioning as a verb.


Gailbraithe wrote:

Seriously, from now on, if any of you are going to try to argue with me on this, I want credentials. I want the name of the school where you studied racism academically, and I want to know what classes you took on the subject.


Macalester College.

Race, Place, and Space
Gender in the African American Community
Female, and Minority Economics
Black Africa
African Americans: Movement Politics in American Minority Groups
African Music and Culture: Rasta to Rap
War on the African Continent

Snap.

In B4 Lock.

PS- I want to play @ Frazzled's place- Weiner Securities!!!!!

The word in question has a very specific background and meaning. There's no confusion about the 'n'-word. Regardless of who is using it, it refers to the same thing.

Australia has a slightly different situation with the word '[see forum posting rules]'. It is an oft-used racial slur, but it is also a surname, among other things. It was originally derived, in the negative sense, from the colloquial name for the raccoon, it's 'bandit mask' and their habit of stealing food. We also have a popular brand of cheese called '[see forum posting rules]'.

Now obviously the latin niger means 'black', but in every contemporary context, it is an offensive statement.

Look at the example in the example in the link below. The first case of the sports field was reasonable. The second, referring to the cheese I have mentioned above, is well worth debating. By this I mean, the name of the sports field was essentially offensive, whereas the brand of cheese is... well, just a brand name.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread394978/pg1

I believe that black people who choose to refer to each other as the word in question, whatever the context, should be welcome to do so, but should not be surprised if people take offense. Just like cursing and using terms in reference, there are places where it is acceptable, if not appropriate.

On the other hand, indigenous Australians do not call each other "my [see forum posting rules]", and I have never, ever heard, "'Sup, [see forum posting rules]!".
They do use the N-word, though.


EDIT: It appears that the censors got in before me. You yanks are a funny bunch.
The Forum Posting Rules links in this post are not instances of the n-word, but the colloqiual name for raccoons as mentioned above.

Racism or racialism n 1 the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority. 2 abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis of such a belief.

Collins Concise Dictionary, 21st Century Edition

Gailbraithe wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrockRitcey wrote:I always like how someone takes an into into sociology and all of a sudden their opinion is right. Perhaps if you don't like other peoples opinions then you shouldn't be arguing on the internet. I would also assume that when people talk about racism they would be talking about common usage of the word and not its specific usage from your intro level classes. The author from your texts might have used racism to describe the system he proposed, but as with all art classes that is his opinion and not actual science or fact. Reading the opinions of 2, obviously well educated people does not make everything they say right.

Yeah, pile on the anti-intellectualism, denigrate getting an education, and whatever you do don't mention the GED you failed to get. I never said my opinion was right because I've bothered to educate myself, I said my opinion was relatively informed compared to you. I don't see you actually countering that. Just whining about it.

I actually got a bachelor of science from Thompson Rivers University. It was mostly a big waste of time though, it took 4 years of getting A's to realize I didn't rally care for science.

Oh wow, didn't see the attack Mod mode checking.

I love how Gailbraithe thinks he's better than everyone else in this thread. Classic internets.

Modquisition on. Private warnings have been given. Lets get back on topic and in compliance with Dakka Rule #1.

Part of the process of disarming a word and rendering it harmless, in some cultures, is to "claim" it for yourself... let 'em keep it.

Besides, you deserve a bit of discomfort for the centuries of oppression you're responsible for, whitey!

And we're back on "sins of the father" again...