It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Racism or Bigotry, Which is it???

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Ok, so this is just an explanation on what the current usage of Racism and Bigotry are for others. Like some of you I wasn't exactly clear on what the difference between those two terms actually was according to intellectuals and academics of today. Even more confusing was when I'd hear someone in the media say "Black People can't be Racist only White People can be Racist". To me that always sounded kinda Racist to say that in the first place as well as being plain wrong.

But recently I saw some guy who actually described it and why that is how the word Racist is being used that way. So I thought I'd write it here for anyone else who might be confused as to why so many people are saying that.

Apparently when using the term Racist rather than prejudice or bigot, the difference is that Racism is not only having the perspective that some races are superior to others or prejudice toward other groups based on race but also having the means to act upon those racist thoughts against that group of people.

So for example, A Racist White Cop not only acts negatively toward another person because of their race but since he's in a position of authority he has the means to act on his racism and effect that other persons life in some way. That is why so many people say that only "White People" can be racist, because they are in the position to effect other peoples lives in negative ways because of it. On the other hand, without that power to effect others you're just considered a Bigot but not Racist.

So using the same example as above, the White Cop is said to be Racist because he also has the power to effect the other person against their will, but the victim wouldn't be called racist even if he hated the cop equally as the cop hates him based on their racial differences because he lacks the power to effect the cops life. The victim in this case would just be said to be Bigoted against the Cop.

This is how it's been defined in today's society apparently and even though I now understand it, I still don't agree with what they're saying or how they use it.

I don't have any trouble with it being defined that way however. It makes perfect sense and actually does help point out the difference between those terms. But the problem is that to say Black People can't be Racist Against White People because they lack the power to effect them against their will is just plain wrong. They certainly can and I think they are making themselves sound weak by saying or believing such BS.

Perhaps during the slave era when black people literally were owned as property such a statement might be valid. But not today and not in an open or even quasi open society like we have. Anyone can effect anyone else against their will based on just their prejudice alone. Now of course that balance of power may not be completely equal but it never is and never will be. But there are Judges, Politicians, Wealthy Business Owners, Great Athletes, Actors, etc. of all races that have positions of power over other people and other races. Especially here in America where we are mixed cultures.

Anyway, Just thought I'd throw that out there for those who were confused on why the word Racism or Racist is used differently by some people and with a different subtle meaning sometimes. Hopefully I explained it well enough. Let me know what you think.




posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 10:26 PM
link   
I once had to tell some donut chick on Twitter black people can indeed be racist.


She said "we can't be racist because you have to be in the majority"...

I told her it was actually about superiority and she blocked me.


Silly SJW twat.



I know racists of all colours.

Well, not East Asian, I don't know any East Asians.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

That's funny because in that example she was incorrect both in the concept and the actual usage of it too.

I suppose the "majority" could also be the "superiority" but not always.

So she blocked you and probably thought you were just wrong and mean. Oh well, what can you do???



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 10:30 PM
link   
I think you guys should stop trying to change the meanings of words to suit your sociopolitical agenda.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

I wasn't even mean to her, well, until just now.

But that's neither here nor there she was using the term majority as if that was in the definition of racism.

When I pointed out its about superiority in a moral sense and not population she got all pissy and blocked me.

Yes she was wrong, and you and myself are right.


Anyone can affect anyone with their prejudice.
Colour plays no part in it.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: NthOther

We didn't change them. Some academics and intellectuals somewhere changed them. Or defined them specifically like that maybe.

I'm just trying to explain why it's used that way now by so many people because it confused me when people started saying stuff like that.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm


On the other hand, without that power to effect others you're just considered a Bigot but not Racist.
Bigotry is an intolerance of an opinion and is used to cover subject matter such as race, gender, religion and political leanings.

The philosophy espoused here of an ability to effect someone defines who and who isn't deemed racist is inaccurate and does not define why, for instance, Asia viewed the washing machine Ad as meh whilst other cultures went into meltdown mode.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 10:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther
I think you guys should stop trying to change the meanings of words to suit your sociopolitical agenda.


It's only me an mOjOm here and we haven't changed a thing.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Ya, the example that was used that made it clear to me was some guy saying that Whites could be racist but not blacks because White people make the laws that Black People have to follow or something like that.

But I was thinking, wait, not just White People get to make or pass laws now. I mean sure he's only half black I guess but basically we have a black president now. Black Congress men and women. Etc. So while that might of been true a while back his example wouldn't be correct today.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Yes, the power thing that comes with critical race theory. I don't buy it. Power is a shifting thing. If you go down to certain neighborhoods in this town at certain times of day, then you are powerless in the face of the resident minority populations, and they know it. So being white won't help you one whit no matter how "white" the perceived overall power structure is; you are liable to getting your @ss beat and badly and no one will life a finger to help you.

All the power in those neighborhoods runs against you.

I also think the power excuse is just a fancy way to get away with being racist and bigoted without having to face those accusations. How else do you explain the ability to have endless organizations set aside for your race without otherwise thinking that it might be a bit racist and exclusive of you?

In reality, the emperor has no clothes, and if you aren't careful, he'll be selling you on white privilege next.


At any rate, the word racism according to my dictionary is the notion that one's own ethnic stock is superior with the secondary definition of discrimination or prejudice based on racism. Prejudice is irrational hatred or suspicion of a particular group, race, or religion in this context. Meanwhile, a bigot is someone who is rigidly devoted to his own group, race, religion, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

As you can see, all three words have closely related meanings. A bigot can be racist and prejudiced because of that bigotry. However, what critical race theory does is shunt those words off from the individual onto society at large, so that even if you are not a bigoted individual acting out of prejudice based on race, you are still guilty because your society as a whole is loaded with so-called racist, prejudiced, and bigoted constructs that keep certain groups down to the advantage of others. This is the whole basis for white guilt. So it is almost a Marxist/collectivist notion of assigning guilt so that none are blameless and all who are of a certain ethnic group, religion, or ideology must share in the guilt ... even if they are not in fact racist, prejudiced, or bigoted.

And, if you ask me, that theory is in and of itself a subtle sort of prejudice.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Yeah, because the Asian Culture in that case was the one with the power and they get to do and say what they want without considering themselves racist.

From the outside though, everyone else said they are racist against blacks though because nobody on the outside is part of their superior position.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Tying the definition of racism to the capacity to exercise authority over someone is reverse-engineering the concept to include anyone who benefits, in any way, from the current power structure.

It's straight up Leninism.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: NthOther

Well, it's not just the power to exercise authority over someone but having that power and exercising it based on a Racial Bias toward others with you're Race being thought of as superior in some way.

It has to have both those elements to be said to be Racist or Racism. Otherwise it's just considered to be Bigotry or Prejudice.

That's how I understand it. There might be some other words or terms I've left out too. I'm not an Academic so I won't and can't explain it like one.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Real simple examples,

If you hate Whitey just because he's White, but can't do anything about it, you're just a bigot.

But

If you hate Whitey just because he's White, and can f*ck with him and get away with it, then you're Racist.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 10:55 PM
link   
I would put it on a scale of 0 to 10 of how tolerant are you to other social groups

To me racist is scale 10 completely intolerant or unwilling to take on any other characteristics of another social group other then your own

Bigotry is somewhere in middle you disagree with certain aspects

0 is multicultural and extremely adaptable or interest in new things

For example I have nothing against black people but would never be physically attracted or capable mixing in as the culture is something I don't identify myself with

Or another example Spiritually I relate to Muslims disagree with their laws but people are not the law


Then there are things like gun control and homosexuality I was completely uncomfortable with both for different reasons (now to me guns are retarded and I loosened up with the homosexuals it was fear and the unfamiliar that was boundary)

It's hard to box and categorise people I think that's the main trouble who ever you are and what ever you think

It's ok to not want to mix or be uncomfortable it's not ok to take it out on that person (I think it's mostly fear of some type)




edit on 1-6-2016 by Tehthehet because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408




some donut chick on


Can someone explain this to me?



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Here's an interesting thought as well and one you might like since you always use the term "Controlled Opposition".

Ok, so when I said earlier about how the idea that Black's can't be Racist but Whites Can because they hold the power position. Some might think that such an idea or definition was created as a way for Black People to use the term Racist in their favor. On the other hand if you think about it, it might also be a very clever thing for White's who have the Power Position to create that same idea because it simply reinforces the concept that "White have a Power Position over Blacks."

So it could be a sneaky way basically of setting up the Victims of that term to accept that definition thinking they can use it against their attackers even though by accepting that definition it's always a subconscious reminder that they are always the going to be the victims.

Does that makes sense???

It's just one way of using language to control perception.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 11:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Domo1

Lol donut is another term for idiot here in London.

Chick is a chick.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Tehthehet

Some of those are out of the classification of Race though.

Like homosexuality and even Muslim. They aren't Race specific.

So the term Racism wouldn't apply to them. Bigotry certainly would though as bigotry isn't always racial.

Does that make sense???



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 11:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: Domo1

Lol donut is another term for idiot here in London.

Chick is a chick.


Ha!!!! I thought you meant some chick that sold donuts. It was specific and I didn't know why you had to mention her profession in that example but I just thought "ok, so he's talking to chick behind the counter selling donuts I guess."

LOL

I'm glad you pointed that out Domo1 or I'd have never even thought about it again.
edit on 1-6-2016 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join