Definition of Racism

Post Reply New Topic

Is racism merely a discrimination against a certain set of people based on, what I would call, their "valence" (outward appearance or class or grammar, etc.) or can it also be favoritism based on their "valence" too?

Of course.

The far left is so eager to pull the race card on anything too because theyr so scared of being called a racist themselves that they often do not look at it critically. If someone who happens to be a certain color does not get their way all the time, automatically "racism" with them. It's like you absolutely can't disagree with someone of a different color or the PC police will scream racism.
The right wing is just as bad, most right wingers from what I've observed are racist, they look for an excuse to be racist, integration of church and state, against LEGAL immigration, but this is just my opinion.

Discrimination towards one group is favoritism towards another. Asking this is like asking if the glass is half full or half empty.

The common definition of racism in my field, sociology, is an ideology (shared belief system) which justifies the oppression of one or more populations based on perceived physical differences, such as, skin pigmentation, shape of eye fold, etc.

Racism, as I see it, is not the same as racial prejudice (though racial prejudice is an individual expression of racism), and it is not racial discrimination (though racial discrimination can be a result of racism).

Various words have had their meanings altered by political influence over the last few decades. "Marriage" and "racism" are good examples. Of course, I could give dictionary definitions, but my knowledge is based on a vocabulary collected during pre-pc times, so that would be pointless. I expect modern dictionaries reflect the popular politically-corrupted usage of these words, in the best traditions of Orwellian newspeak!

I think showing preference on what you call valence is really where racism is considered as such.

Actual job discrimination is a little more complicated. If they're not hiring based on color or sex, then that should legitimately be challenged. If they discriminate because of poor vernacular, poor hygiene, or other matters which would make someone a poor fit for the job (particularly if it takes dealing with the public in a highly fiduciary manner), that's a matter of practicality and its one of those things that fits in to someone's ability to perform the job as required or in a way at least that isn't damaging to the company's image and ultimately business and profitability. The later I think is completely the employers right, take that away and they can't effectively staff themselves anymore which really impinges on their right to function effectively as a business entity.


Yeah, disabilities are in a little bit different of a class but when its a matter of personal choice that people won't get themselves into the mold to a degree to fill in a position it shows a lack of effort on their part and projects that if they don't really care about putting their best foot forward at an interview that there's probably a lot of other much more important things that they won't care much about as well.

There is a scientific explination. You might want to explore that first.

Racism. Did I tell you that a friend of mine said,” that white girls will mess me up”, I said “then in that case my other fiend (who happens to be white) should also seek black girls, because as you said, they are much better to date”. She said “he can date white and I should date my own.” I said ,”that is not what you meant. You lied to influence me”

If she made the observation that black girls are a better date then whites , and came to the conclusion that white guys as well as black would be happier with a black girl then, I wouldn’t consider that racist, though it would be insensitive.

It still has the same fallacy of "all _____ people are the same."

Iamnotaparakeet, I agree with spdjeanne. I don’t see that there’s a distinction between the two options you’re offering us.

However, spdjeanne may well disagree with what I’m about to say about the whole concept of “discrimination”. “Discrimination” is a word that has acquired wholly negative connotations, and this should not be the case. That it has is largely down to ruling elite using the word to push their agenda.

Everyone “discriminates”. For example, parents discriminate by caring more for their own children than for complete strangers. This is just nature. Its basis is genetic.

Race is just an extension of kin. It is simply human nature to put the interests of your own race above the interests of other races.

This follows logically from Darwinism, even if liberals don’t like it. Of course, these people are always fine with using Darwinism to attack Christianity.

Btw, iamnotaparakeet speaks of “valence” (outward appearance). Humans are hard-wired to tell by “outward appearance” which people are genetically close to themselves and which people are genetically distant.

Globally, most self-defined Christians accept evolution. Creationism is an aberration and is mostly found in North America and Australia.

I also agree, it is the same, if it is done based on race than any other reason.


well I partly agree, because it depends on what would be the definition of discrimination, in the sense that if you say there are different types of discrimination, then everyone discriminates somehow.

if you know a person that it is a dangerous criminal with violent behaviour, and that person got out of jail, you would do anything to try to avoid that person, discrimination, for safety.

Little children can discriminate you as well, if for some reason they fear you.

Society don't tolerate rapists, murderers, are they being discriminated?

But, we have the type of discrimination, which is based on no other than prejudice, when underestimating people just basing it on skin color, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability, when it comes that the reason for it is unjust, then this is when we hear of this type of discrimination a lot.

Racism is the acknowledgment that races exist. Thus, one can have scientific disposition toward the races, or a moral disposition. Though the very variants that separate the races are only really apparent skin deep, and can only be distinguished by the naked eye through physical traits, leading to say that any particular race is inferior to another intellectually, is absurd and lacks scientific evidence. There's differences among all human beings through their heredity and external environment, and how we become accustomed to this environment as said in Darwin's theory of evolution, evolves us as a species and makes several adaptations to best suit it. However, this is not to say that races can be taken by themselves to be judged physically to be inferior or not. There's many factors that would bias this experiment. For one, a race would probably be judged by it's prevalent traits as a whole, rather than anomalies judging the race's potential. So cultures, creeds, religion, environments, education in the surrounding area... all comes into play. The differences are so absolutely menial, one should consider someone as an individual, not by their race. However, as it seems in the world today, the elite are employing the media, and other such tools to divide and conquer. Racism is just one of their methodologies. Acknowledge this and free yourself from this trap, hate is one of the easiest feelings to mimic and feel, likewise to manipulate and destroy. Don't fall into this mindset, free yourself.

-Quincy

.

NOT EXACLY, if you can acknowledge that races have different physical characteristic then you must acknowledge that races also have different mental capabilities.

It is absurd to believe that all, but all races have equal is like saying that all modals of 1.6 turbo cars run at same speed of 124.03 MPH. Which would be impossible to achieve without capping the speed artificially.

Some races are smarter then other, but it all comes down to how you define intelligence. I guess you can define it IQ tests or scientific logical aspie skills or both.
Often we want give put a moral veneer on science. But of you do so, then it ceases to be a science. Maybe it isn’t in the best interest of NTs at large know this , because they are so screwed up and wicked but I am not NT, I am a motherf****ng aspie, Motherf***er.

But how do you create race? To a westerner that has little experience with the Orient, the Korean, Chinese, and Vietnamese all look pretty much alike - we could clump them together into a regional race we call Asian. To people from Asia, there are obvious distinctions, so they distinguish based on national/ethnic divides. And even within a nation, (like China), there are regional differences between say, the Han and people from and the western autonomous regions. And within any given western autonomous region, there are differences between villages, and within villages, there are differences between different families.

So do we lump all Asians together as 1 race, and then do a comparison? If so, then the variance (differences) between people we classified as Asians is far greater than any differences between "Asians" and other large groups like "European" and "African." At that level, things like skin color, hair, eye color, etc really are the distinguishing features. The same holds true when dealing with ethnic races. Maybe when we get down to the village or family line there are highly significant differences between races (and millions of races). Leading to a conclusion: race is far less important than individual variation.