Let's talk all about racism.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Aristotelian1

To solve racism, one must stop talking about racism.

Racism has been talked to death.

Want to end racism?

End affirmative action.
End putting "race" on applications, ID's, medical records, everything.

Treat people based on their actions and behaviors and not on how much melanin they have in their skin.


There.

I've "chatted" about racism.

Well, what is racism? We have to all agree on what we aren't participating in, right?

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Aristotelian1

I would say racism is the personal discrimination of people who have different genetic features (skin color, eye color, hair color, nose size/shape, hair texture, etc. This discrimination can range anywhere from mild disdain to hatred.

Of course, there are cultural factors involved too. People tend to certain attribute perceived taboo cultural practices with certain races. That is how stereotype transpire.

Is all discrimination based on race, bad?

Bad? Well I wouldn't say that it is wise to discriminate based on race. You would essentially be limiting your ability to know and love others. Is it always harmful? I don't think so. What do you prefer? Coke or Pepsi? You must have used some discriminatory thought process to arrive to your choice.

I know people who will never marry outside of their own race. Why? I don't know. They aren't bad people, they just have personal preferences, so that is an example of harmless discrimination. The downside, is that they may never find their soul mate simply because that person might be of another race.

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Aristotelian1

The broadest definition of racism is belief in the theory that the human population can be divided into groups or categories known as races. The theory falls flat because the human species can only be divided into individuals.

But I don't agree with that in the slightest, good sir. Humans can be categorized in many ways. Not just as individuals.

Dividing the people into groups and specificities in the mind is one thing, but doing so with real people is another.

a reply to: Aristotelian1

Da fu. . ?

Okay.

You define it for your topic.

If I agree, then I'll participate further.

You honestly think there are different definitions of racism?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Aristotelian1

The broadest definition of racism is belief in the theory that the human population can be divided into groups or categories known as races. The theory falls flat because the human species can only be divided into individuals.

But I don't agree with that in the slightest, good sir. Humans can be categorized in many ways. Not just as individuals.

Dividing the people into groups and specificities in the mind is one thing, but doing so with real people is another.

I'm not sure what you are getting at, honestly. Are you talking about segregation? One wouldn't say "you can only classify dogs as individuals." One could say "that is a German Shepard" and not be unreasonable, categorically speaking.

a reply to: Aristotelian1

I think the point was that there is a difference between reflection and action of analyzing such things...

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Aristotelian1

Da fu. . ?

Okay.

You define it for your topic.

If I agree, then I'll participate further.

You honestly think there are different definitions of racism?

"a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."

www.merriam-webster.com...

I found this definition. What Les is talking about is the acknowledgment of "race." He has a different definition than this one it seems.

a reply to: Aristotelian1

This might be the broadest (and vaguest) thread topic I've ever seen.

Racism is the perpetuation of preconceived opinions of others based on their genetic or national heritage.

In modernity, racism is tied to socio-economic correlations and it could just as easily be called "classism" if not for exceptions. So if it's socio-economics, why call it racism at all?

Because of history. A history of colonialism in tandem with religion-driven racism led to the class-divided correlations you see today.

But to discuss any of it, you need to know what aspect of racism you are talking about.

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Aristotelian1

Da fu. . ?

Okay.

You define it for your topic.

If I agree, then I'll participate further.

You honestly think there are different definitions of racism?

"a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."

www.merriam-webster.com...

I found this definition. What Les is talking about is the acknowledgment of "race." He has a different definition than this one it seems.

Okay.

Fair enough.

The definition makes me feel uncomfortable. Toodles.

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: Aristotelian1

This might be the broadest (and vaguest) thread topic I've ever seen.

Racism is the perpetuation of preconceived opinions of others based on their genetic or national heritage.

In modernity, racism is tied to socio-economic correlations and it could just as easily be called "classism" if not for exceptions. So if it's socio-economics, why call it racism at all?

Because of history. A history of colonialism in tandem with religion-driven racism led to the class-divided correlations you see today.

But to discuss any of it, you need to know what aspect of racism you are talking about.

Racism can be "national heritage?" Racism is the same thing as "classism," almost?

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Aristotelian1

Da fu. . ?

Okay.

You define it for your topic.

If I agree, then I'll participate further.

You honestly think there are different definitions of racism?

"a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."

www.merriam-webster.com...

I found this definition. What Les is talking about is the acknowledgment of "race." He has a different definition than this one it seems.

Okay.

Fair enough.

The definition makes me feel uncomfortable. Toodles.

Why does it make you feel uncomfortable?

a reply to: Aristotelian1

Dog Breeds are the product of artificial selection or environmental isolation. That is hardly the case with human beings. It is unreasonable to compare the two.

I'm saying there are no races outside of the mind, and the belief that there is is racism in its purest sense. Types and categories do not exist outside of abstract thinking.

a reply to: Aristotelian1

I've been around long enough to know that any topic that brings in racial superiority probably won't be a pleasant topic.

Just my opinion.

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: Aristotelian1

This might be the broadest (and vaguest) thread topic I've ever seen.

Racism is the perpetuation of preconceived opinions of others based on their genetic or national heritage.

In modernity, racism is tied to socio-economic correlations and it could just as easily be called "classism" if not for exceptions. So if it's socio-economics, why call it racism at all?

Because of history. A history of colonialism in tandem with religion-driven racism led to the class-divided correlations you see today.

But to discuss any of it, you need to know what aspect of racism you are talking about.

Racism can be "national heritage?" Racism is the same thing as "classism," almost?

Both of those questions can be answered the same. The key is modernity. Today, racism is closely linked to nationality and socio-economic class. By "linked", I mean in the sense of causation. The correlation comes from a history of authentic racism as defined by conventional dictionaries, spurred often by the religious dogma of the time.

There is still classic racism, of course (like some Christians believing black people are cursed by their god, ect), but mostly it's a matter of superimposing skin color with class or nationality.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Dogs are usually only racist because they see in black and white, and it disturbs some dogs when the contrast of shade in skin tones reverse...

Please don't hold me to the fire of truth on that... but I have witnessed what I have concluded to be racist dogs in the past... and will in the future as well.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Aristotelian1

To solve racism, one must stop talking about racism.

Racism has been talked to death.

Want to end racism?

End affirmative action.
End putting "race" on applications, ID's, medical records, everything.

Treat people based on their actions and behaviors and not on how much melanin they have in their skin.


There.

I've "chatted" about racism.

WOW if it was that easy, to stop racism by just not talking about it. As a minority, I rarely talk about racism unless we are discussing it in class, yet I have experienced racism, some subtle, some outright. I know the difference when someone treats you horrible because they are generally a bad person or having a bad day.

I can tell you not talking about it or ignoring it simply does not work.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Aristotelian1

Dog Breeds are the product of artificial selection or environmental isolation. That is hardly the case with human beings. It is unreasonable to compare the two.

I'm saying there are no races outside of the mind, and the belief that there is is racism in its purest sense. Types and categories do not exist outside of abstract thinking.

Different types of human bodies and different types of dog bodies is an unreasonable comparison? Are you saying that different races did not come about due to environmental isolation/evolution? In order to categorize, one must have something to categorize. Categorization is the recognition of similarities and differences between things and the grouping of them accordingly. Categorization is abstract. What you are categorizing, and how, is not necessarily abstract and definitely not so when it comes to race. Race is not abstract, our recognition of it is.

a reply to: bigdaddycruel6699

Then what's your solution?

I offered mine.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Hard to say, you can't force educate the ignorant nor can you fight racism with violence..etc

I would guess that we keep discussing it, in order for everyone to understand what is happening out there and to see what peoples real grievances are.

It is real hard to get any kind of real discussion because the a lot of right refuses to believe racism is real and that it has has devastating effects on people or they tell you to ignore it which is kind of hard when you face it on a daily basis. Then we have the far left crying wolf every time someone is treated bad and a lot of people use it as an excuse for their failures in life.

a reply to: bigdaddycruel6699

I never said that we ignore it, but if we stop focusing on it start treating it as an aberrant thought process, we might make better strides.

Hell, how long do we need to talk about it?

It seems to me, the more we focus on it, the worse it gets!