CDZ POLL: The "Is It Racist" Quiz

[Mac1958]

An example of where we are now: Make No Mistake, Trump's Government Shutdown Is About Racism | HuffPost

"Taking it even further, Trump somehow manages to combine sexism with racism by asking why the “pretty Korean lady” wasn’t negotiating with North Korea. The insane thing about this statement is that I’m 100 percent certain that in Trump’s mind, he was paying her a compliment."

There is absolutely nothing either racist or sexist about "pretty Korean lady". But this is how ridiculous things have become.
.

 

[Mac1958]

I think we have to be careful here. Because racism DOES exist....and it's convenient for some to pretend it doesn't....

Absolutely, exactly. And that's why I hate seeing such an important word, and thing, trivialized and diluted like this.
.

It gets used so often, when a real racist shows up, the sting of calling them out on it is gone. You're right, it's been watered down, I wonder by whom, mostly? I ain't mentionin' no names, y'all figure that one out fer yurselves.

Yeah, it's pretty clear.
.

 

[Marion Morrison]

An example of where we are now: Make No Mistake, Trump's Government Shutdown Is About Racism | HuffPost

"Taking it even further, Trump somehow manages to combine sexism with racism by asking why the “pretty Korean lady” wasn’t negotiating with North Korea. The insane thing about this statement is that I’m 100 percent certain that in Trump’s mind, he was paying her a compliment."

There is nothing either racist or sexist about "pretty Korean lady". But this is how ridiculous things have become.
.

Well, if you needed an answer to the rhetorical question I posed, there it is!

 

[JoeB131]

Absolutely, exactly. And that's why I hate seeing such an important word, and thing, trivialized and diluted like this.

Then stop trying to dilute it.

Better yet, challenge the actual racists on this board with the same vigor you go after "regressives" who think that Nazis have no place on our college campuses. Or that our Middle east policies are kind of dumb.

 

[JoeB131]

"Taking it even further, Trump somehow manages to combine sexism with racism by asking why the “pretty Korean lady” wasn’t negotiating with North Korea. The insane thing about this statement is that I’m 100 percent certain that in Trump’s mind, he was paying her a compliment."

There is absolutely nothing either racist or sexist about "pretty Korean lady". But this is how ridiculous things have become.

Did you read the entire article?

I don't know, I would say that if the first two things he notices about her is that she's "Pretty" and "Korean", and not "A skilled intelligence officer" or "from New York".

Well, at least he didn't say she was from "A S***hole", so I guess that's progress.

Hey, remember when we didn't give the president points for MINOR offensiveness?

 

[Mac1958]

"Taking it even further, Trump somehow manages to combine sexism with racism by asking why the “pretty Korean lady” wasn’t negotiating with North Korea. The insane thing about this statement is that I’m 100 percent certain that in Trump’s mind, he was paying her a compliment."

There is absolutely nothing either racist or sexist about "pretty Korean lady". But this is how ridiculous things have become.

Did you read the entire article?

I don't know, I would say that if the first two things he notices about her is that she's "Pretty" and "Korean", and not "A skilled intelligence officer" or "from New York".

Well, at least he didn't say she was from "A S***hole", so I guess that's progress.

Hey, remember when we didn't give the president points for MINOR offensiveness?

And there it is. Again.
.

 

[JoeB131]

And there it is. Again.

That your dumb premise got refuted.

Yes. Yes, it did.

Did you read the entire article?

 

[Mac1958]

And there it is. Again.

That your dumb premise got refuted.

Yes. Yes, it did.

Did you read the entire article?

It's not an article. It's an opinion piece.

From a person whose thought processes mirror yours.

Thanks again, this is very useful, as always.
.

 

[JoeB131]

t's not an article. It's an opinion piece.

From a person whose thought processes mirror yours.

Thanks again, this is very useful, as always.

You mean an Asian American who has been treated like he's some kind of alien because of how he looks, even though he was raised by white people as an American?

Well, no, I really have no basis for that, so I can only imagine what it is like. I think we are going to see a lot more of it with these rich white yuppies adopting babies from China.

The point was, Trump was being very condescending to a young woman who worked very hard to be a professional in her field. Patronizing is the flip side to prejudice.

 

[Mac1958]

t's not an article. It's an opinion piece.

From a person whose thought processes mirror yours.

Thanks again, this is very useful, as always.

You mean an Asian American who has been treated like he's some kind of alien because of how he looks, even though he was raised by white people as an American?

Well, no, I really have no basis for that, so I can only imagine what it is like. I think we are going to see a lot more of it with these rich white yuppies adopting babies from China.

The point was, Trump was being very condescending to a young woman who worked very hard to be a professional in her field. Patronizing is the flip side to prejudice.

Thanks again.

Coyote, this is exactly what I'm talking about. When standards are set this low for such an important word, the real racism is given cover in the big picture.

Calling someone a "pretty Korean lady" is racist and sexist. This is madness.
.

 

[JoeB131]

Thanks again.

Coyote, this is exactly what I'm talking about. When standards are set this low for such an important word, the real racism is given cover in the big picture.

Calling someone a "pretty Korean lady" is racist and sexist. This is madness.

I don't know any professional woman who wouldn't be offended by that, and would probably result in a trip to Human Resources?

Then again, that's what started this crazy "PC Police" obsession with you, isn't it?

YOu want to define racism down to the Klansman you think just needs a hug, when in reality, it's the subtle racism that sees race and gender first, and then the person as a professional second.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Is that something YOU can agree on?

Can we also agree that these Africa shithole threads are disturbing?

Yeah, I can agree with that. Putting concepts into practice can be more difficult, however.

When a poster taunts another poster by taking satisfaction with the child of that poster being attacked because of his race, perhaps next time you could put these principles into practice rather than blaming the target of the racist taunting for responding to a question by providing a personal experience of how racism works both ways.

just saying........

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Better yet, challenge the actual racists on this board with the same vigor you go after "regressives" who think that Nazis have no place on our college campuses. Or that our Middle east policies are kind of dumb.

Perhaps this would be a good opportunity for you to repeat some of the attitudes you have expressed towards Jewish people.

 

[Coyote]

t's not an article. It's an opinion piece.

From a person whose thought processes mirror yours.

Thanks again, this is very useful, as always.

You mean an Asian American who has been treated like he's some kind of alien because of how he looks, even though he was raised by white people as an American?

Well, no, I really have no basis for that, so I can only imagine what it is like. I think we are going to see a lot more of it with these rich white yuppies adopting babies from China.

The point was, Trump was being very condescending to a young woman who worked very hard to be a professional in her field. Patronizing is the flip side to prejudice.

Thanks again.

Coyote, this is exactly what I'm talking about. When standards are set this low for such an important word, the real racism is given cover in the big picture.

Calling someone a "pretty Korean lady" is racist and sexist. This is madness.
.

I agree - that is spreading the definition of "racism" into very think territory and it no longer has a real meaning. I tend to feel the same way when people make comparisons between modern American political people or parties to "Nazi's" and "Hitler" - or misuse the word genocide. All are very powerful wrongs that damaged many people in real life. They shouldn't be tossed around like candy.

 

[Mac1958]

t's not an article. It's an opinion piece.

From a person whose thought processes mirror yours.

Thanks again, this is very useful, as always.

You mean an Asian American who has been treated like he's some kind of alien because of how he looks, even though he was raised by white people as an American?

Well, no, I really have no basis for that, so I can only imagine what it is like. I think we are going to see a lot more of it with these rich white yuppies adopting babies from China.

The point was, Trump was being very condescending to a young woman who worked very hard to be a professional in her field. Patronizing is the flip side to prejudice.

Thanks again.

Coyote, this is exactly what I'm talking about. When standards are set this low for such an important word, the real racism is given cover in the big picture.

Calling someone a "pretty Korean lady" is racist and sexist. This is madness.
.

I agree - that is spreading the definition of "racism" into very think territory and it no longer has a real meaning. I tend to feel the same way when people make comparisons between modern American political people or parties to "Nazi's" and "Hitler" - or misuse the word genocide. All are very powerful wrongs that damaged many people in real life. They shouldn't be tossed around like candy.

That's another great example. Even "socialism" is treated the same way, tossed around until it can mean anything.
.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I was told here, once, that I was racist for suggesting all people be treated the same and all held to the same standards. Therein lies the problem with the term in that to an increasing degree, anybody who does not show a complete deference to other races is now called racist by p.c. snowflakes. Any objection of the considerable degree of hatred blacks display towards whites is now racist. Rejecting bad behavior is now racist. Refusing to apologize for the accident of birth that resulted in pale skin is now racist.

As Joeb has shown, just about EVERYHING is racist if it falls even the slightest bit short of a system of beliefs that places blacks above reproach, and ascribes a race-based sense of original sin to whites. People have become so anti-racist that they have become completely racist by promoting these double standards.

Yep. It's such an important word, and such an important thing, that it's a shame it has been weaponized, trivialized and diluted in this way.

Another poster, earlier in this thread, flat-out denied that arguments like Joe's exist. And yet, right on cue, there they are, clear as day for all to see.
.

The word has been weaponized to such a degree that it has created a group phobia. Some in this thread have pointed out that it's overuse has made it meaningless, but that is only for some. For the large portion of the left, it's use has resulted in a very rigid and self-reinforcing system where people will do just about anything to avoid being called racist. We see it in this forum on a daily basis, where very authoritarian people do not question the double standards they proffer, but merely take them as gospel.

... all the while giving significant cover to the REAL racism that does still exist...
.

I think we have to be careful here. Because racism DOES exist....and it's convenient for some to pretend it doesn't....

There are, as far as I can tell, a couple of key things toward which each of must be careful, as it were:

• A big part of the problem is that many people think what is and is not racism/racist, along with who has and hasn't the capacity to exhibit it, is variable or debatable. It isn't.
• Racism, discrimination and prejudice are not the same things, yet people conflate them. Prejudice and discrimination are effects of racism; racism doesn't derive from them. Prejudice and discrimination are perfectly acceptable provided the basis for the prejudice/discrimination is sound, and I mean sound in the strict logic sense of the word. Quite simply, race is an unsound basis for discriminating against or prejudicing oneself against anything and anyone.
  
  I discriminated against all car makers except one when I purchased my last car. When I extended offers of employment to certain individuals, I discriminated against those to whom I didn't extent offers; however, the race of none of those individuals had nothing to do with why I extended or didn't extend to them an offer. When a lady expresses a romantic interest toward me, if I think she's interesting, smart, hot, etc., I'll return her interest if I'm not otherwise encumbered and thus cannot, and whether I'll do so doesn't have anything to do with her race.

 

[Mac1958]

I was told here, once, that I was racist for suggesting all people be treated the same and all held to the same standards. Therein lies the problem with the term in that to an increasing degree, anybody who does not show a complete deference to other races is now called racist by p.c. snowflakes. Any objection of the considerable degree of hatred blacks display towards whites is now racist. Rejecting bad behavior is now racist. Refusing to apologize for the accident of birth that resulted in pale skin is now racist.

As Joeb has shown, just about EVERYHING is racist if it falls even the slightest bit short of a system of beliefs that places blacks above reproach, and ascribes a race-based sense of original sin to whites. People have become so anti-racist that they have become completely racist by promoting these double standards.

Yep. It's such an important word, and such an important thing, that it's a shame it has been weaponized, trivialized and diluted in this way.

Another poster, earlier in this thread, flat-out denied that arguments like Joe's exist. And yet, right on cue, there they are, clear as day for all to see.
.

The word has been weaponized to such a degree that it has created a group phobia. Some in this thread have pointed out that it's overuse has made it meaningless, but that is only for some. For the large portion of the left, it's use has resulted in a very rigid and self-reinforcing system where people will do just about anything to avoid being called racist. We see it in this forum on a daily basis, where very authoritarian people do not question the double standards they proffer, but merely take them as gospel.

... all the while giving significant cover to the REAL racism that does still exist...
.

I think we have to be careful here. Because racism DOES exist....and it's convenient for some to pretend it doesn't....

There are, as far as I can tell, a couple of key things toward which each of must be careful, as it were:

• A big part of the problem is that many people think what is and is not racism/racist, along with who has and hasn't the capacity to exhibit it, is variable or debatable. It isn't.
• Racism, discrimination and prejudice are not the same things, yet people conflate them. Prejudice and discrimination are effects of racism; racism doesn't derive from them. Prejudice and discrimination are perfectly acceptable provided the basis for the prejudice/discrimination is sound, and I mean sound in the strict logic sense of the word. Quite simply, race is an unsound basis for discriminating against or prejudicing oneself against anything and anyone.
  
  I discriminated against all car makers except one when I purchased my last car. When I extended offers of employment to certain individuals, I discriminated against those to whom I didn't extent offers; however, the race of none of those individuals had nothing to do with why I extended or didn't extend to them an offer. When a lady expresses a romantic interest toward me, if I think she's interesting, smart, hot, etc., I'll return her interest if I'm not otherwise encumbered and thus cannot, and whether I'll do so doesn't have anything to do with her race.

I don't think that the actual definition or usage of the word matters to those who spray it around like water.

It's merely a mechanism used to put a target on the defensive and avoid an honest conversation. It's a weapon, an epithet, not an honest observation.

I've now seen a few (real) liberals bring up an important point: We have created a generation (or more) of people who literally don't know how to have an honest conversation on race, because they have never had to. They just scream RACIST, and as they hoped, the conversation is over. No further conversation needed, no constructive communication required.

That surely doesn't bode well.
.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I was told here, once, that I was racist for suggesting all people be treated the same and all held to the same standards. Therein lies the problem with the term in that to an increasing degree, anybody who does not show a complete deference to other races is now called racist by p.c. snowflakes. Any objection of the considerable degree of hatred blacks display towards whites is now racist. Rejecting bad behavior is now racist. Refusing to apologize for the accident of birth that resulted in pale skin is now racist.

As Joeb has shown, just about EVERYHING is racist if it falls even the slightest bit short of a system of beliefs that places blacks above reproach, and ascribes a race-based sense of original sin to whites. People have become so anti-racist that they have become completely racist by promoting these double standards.

Yep. It's such an important word, and such an important thing, that it's a shame it has been weaponized, trivialized and diluted in this way.

Another poster, earlier in this thread, flat-out denied that arguments like Joe's exist. And yet, right on cue, there they are, clear as day for all to see.
.

The word has been weaponized to such a degree that it has created a group phobia. Some in this thread have pointed out that it's overuse has made it meaningless, but that is only for some. For the large portion of the left, it's use has resulted in a very rigid and self-reinforcing system where people will do just about anything to avoid being called racist. We see it in this forum on a daily basis, where very authoritarian people do not question the double standards they proffer, but merely take them as gospel.

... all the while giving significant cover to the REAL racism that does still exist...
.

I think we have to be careful here. Because racism DOES exist....and it's convenient for some to pretend it doesn't....

There are, as far as I can tell, a couple of key things toward which each of must be careful, as it were:

• A big part of the problem is that many people think what is and is not racism/racist, along with who has and hasn't the capacity to exhibit it, is variable or debatable. It isn't.
• Racism, discrimination and prejudice are not the same things, yet people conflate them. Prejudice and discrimination are effects of racism; racism doesn't derive from them. Prejudice and discrimination are perfectly acceptable provided the basis for the prejudice/discrimination is sound, and I mean sound in the strict logic sense of the word. Quite simply, race is an unsound basis for discriminating against or prejudicing oneself against anything and anyone.
  
  I discriminated against all car makers except one when I purchased my last car. When I extended offers of employment to certain individuals, I discriminated against those to whom I didn't extent offers; however, the race of none of those individuals had nothing to do with why I extended or didn't extend to them an offer. When a lady expresses a romantic interest toward me, if I think she's interesting, smart, hot, etc., I'll return her interest if I'm not otherwise encumbered and thus cannot, and whether I'll do so doesn't have anything to do with her race.

I don't think that the actual definition or usage of the word matters to those who spray it around like water.

It's merely a mechanism used to put a target on the defensive and avoid an honest conversation. It's a weapon, an epithet, not an honest observation.

I've now seen a few (real) liberals bring up an important point: We have created a generation (or more) of people who literally don't know how to have an honest conversation on race, because they have never had to. They just scream RACIST, and as they hoped, the conversation is over. No further conversation needed, no constructive communication required.

That surely doesn't bode well.
.

I don't think that the actual definition or usage of the word matters to those who spray it around like water.

That may be. I can't say goes through their minds.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I was told here, once, that I was racist for suggesting all people be treated the same and all held to the same standards. Therein lies the problem with the term in that to an increasing degree, anybody who does not show a complete deference to other races is now called racist by p.c. snowflakes. Any objection of the considerable degree of hatred blacks display towards whites is now racist. Rejecting bad behavior is now racist. Refusing to apologize for the accident of birth that resulted in pale skin is now racist.

As Joeb has shown, just about EVERYHING is racist if it falls even the slightest bit short of a system of beliefs that places blacks above reproach, and ascribes a race-based sense of original sin to whites. People have become so anti-racist that they have become completely racist by promoting these double standards.

Yep. It's such an important word, and such an important thing, that it's a shame it has been weaponized, trivialized and diluted in this way.

Another poster, earlier in this thread, flat-out denied that arguments like Joe's exist. And yet, right on cue, there they are, clear as day for all to see.
.

The word has been weaponized to such a degree that it has created a group phobia. Some in this thread have pointed out that it's overuse has made it meaningless, but that is only for some. For the large portion of the left, it's use has resulted in a very rigid and self-reinforcing system where people will do just about anything to avoid being called racist. We see it in this forum on a daily basis, where very authoritarian people do not question the double standards they proffer, but merely take them as gospel.

... all the while giving significant cover to the REAL racism that does still exist...
.

I think we have to be careful here. Because racism DOES exist....and it's convenient for some to pretend it doesn't....

There are, as far as I can tell, a couple of key things toward which each of must be careful, as it were:

• A big part of the problem is that many people think what is and is not racism/racist, along with who has and hasn't the capacity to exhibit it, is variable or debatable. It isn't.
• Racism, discrimination and prejudice are not the same things, yet people conflate them. Prejudice and discrimination are effects of racism; racism doesn't derive from them. Prejudice and discrimination are perfectly acceptable provided the basis for the prejudice/discrimination is sound, and I mean sound in the strict logic sense of the word. Quite simply, race is an unsound basis for discriminating against or prejudicing oneself against anything and anyone.
  
  I discriminated against all car makers except one when I purchased my last car. When I extended offers of employment to certain individuals, I discriminated against those to whom I didn't extent offers; however, the race of none of those individuals had nothing to do with why I extended or didn't extend to them an offer. When a lady expresses a romantic interest toward me, if I think she's interesting, smart, hot, etc., I'll return her interest if I'm not otherwise encumbered and thus cannot, and whether I'll do so doesn't have anything to do with her race.

I don't think that the actual definition or usage of the word matters to those who spray it around like water.

It's merely a mechanism used to put a target on the defensive and avoid an honest conversation. It's a weapon, an epithet, not an honest observation.

I've now seen a few (real) liberals bring up an important point: We have created a generation (or more) of people who literally don't know how to have an honest conversation on race, because they have never had to. They just scream RACIST, and as they hoped, the conversation is over. No further conversation needed, no constructive communication required.

That surely doesn't bode well.
.

They just scream RACIST, and as they hoped, the conversation is over.

Well, if someone were to accuse me thus, whatever conversation they were having with me likely would end because (1) I wouldn't deign to dignify such an accusation by responding to it and (2) their doing so would make it irrefutably clear to me the person is willing to make claims about things they haven't rigorously evaluated. One or the other of those two reasons may or may not, depending on my mood, be a conversation ender, but together, they definitely will be.

 

[Coyote]

I was told here, once, that I was racist for suggesting all people be treated the same and all held to the same standards. Therein lies the problem with the term in that to an increasing degree, anybody who does not show a complete deference to other races is now called racist by p.c. snowflakes. Any objection of the considerable degree of hatred blacks display towards whites is now racist. Rejecting bad behavior is now racist. Refusing to apologize for the accident of birth that resulted in pale skin is now racist.

As Joeb has shown, just about EVERYHING is racist if it falls even the slightest bit short of a system of beliefs that places blacks above reproach, and ascribes a race-based sense of original sin to whites. People have become so anti-racist that they have become completely racist by promoting these double standards.

Yep. It's such an important word, and such an important thing, that it's a shame it has been weaponized, trivialized and diluted in this way.

Another poster, earlier in this thread, flat-out denied that arguments like Joe's exist. And yet, right on cue, there they are, clear as day for all to see.
.

The word has been weaponized to such a degree that it has created a group phobia. Some in this thread have pointed out that it's overuse has made it meaningless, but that is only for some. For the large portion of the left, it's use has resulted in a very rigid and self-reinforcing system where people will do just about anything to avoid being called racist. We see it in this forum on a daily basis, where very authoritarian people do not question the double standards they proffer, but merely take them as gospel.

... all the while giving significant cover to the REAL racism that does still exist...
.

I think we have to be careful here. Because racism DOES exist....and it's convenient for some to pretend it doesn't....

There are, as far as I can tell, a couple of key things toward which each of must be careful, as it were:

• A big part of the problem is that many people think what is and is not racism/racist, along with who has and hasn't the capacity to exhibit it, is variable or debatable. It isn't.
• Racism, discrimination and prejudice are not the same things, yet people conflate them. Prejudice and discrimination are effects of racism; racism doesn't derive from them. Prejudice and discrimination are perfectly acceptable provided the basis for the prejudice/discrimination is sound, and I mean sound in the strict logic sense of the word. Quite simply, race is an unsound basis for discriminating against or prejudicing oneself against anything and anyone.
  
  I discriminated against all car makers except one when I purchased my last car. When I extended offers of employment to certain individuals, I discriminated against those to whom I didn't extent offers; however, the race of none of those individuals had nothing to do with why I extended or didn't extend to them an offer. When a lady expresses a romantic interest toward me, if I think she's interesting, smart, hot, etc., I'll return her interest if I'm not otherwise encumbered and thus cannot, and whether I'll do so doesn't have anything to do with her race.

I don't think that the actual definition or usage of the word matters to those who spray it around like water.

It's merely a mechanism used to put a target on the defensive and avoid an honest conversation. It's a weapon, an epithet, not an honest observation.

I've now seen a few (real) liberals bring up an important point: We have created a generation (or more) of people who literally don't know how to have an honest conversation on race, because they have never had to. They just scream RACIST, and as they hoped, the conversation is over. No further conversation needed, no constructive communication required.

That surely doesn't bode well.
.

I think that happens a lot: racist, antisemite, etc. gets thrown out, and totally stops a discussion because where can you go from there? It's not necessarily that it isn't true but it's up to the claiment to attack the ARGUMENTS being made rather than the person - and show those arguments to be faulty - or racist - or antisemitic. In fact if you've ever debated with Shusha in IP, she does just that and she does it very well without ever resorting to name calling. The other thing is - if you attack the arguments, you provide space for the other person to think and reassess his/her position whereas yelling racist puts one automatically on the defensive and ends the discussion. It becomes about the person and not the argument.

I can understand why people do that...especially when confronted by some really hateful attitudes...it's difficult to keep one's temper.