Originally posted by Nibedicusi think you are focusing on exceptions rather than the overarching rule in our society. okay the black man had physical power over the woman but he still did not have that societal power that a white person would have. in the broader society there is clearly privilege for white people even if it does not always fully manifest itself in the most obvious way. also my definition of racism is one that is accepted by many anti-racist educators who are actually informed on this issue.
Yup. Cuz the "privilege" sure helped her here. Tell me, at what time did that woman have the power to oppress that black guy in that scenario? At what time could she deny him any opportunity?Methinks you have a very specific, very skewed and very biased view on what qualifies as racism.
Originally posted by cdtmum the white ppl governing our country right now??? black ppl would never have that many of their own in power or have their interests represented in the same sort of way. just look at our courts and cabinets and it is clear who is in power.
What whites? What positions of power?White "trumpers" are generally looked down at as uneducated hicks who work at Wendy's.
Originally posted by Surturno chuck schumer was not being racist because he was trying to empower a dis empowered group that is under-represented. it cannot be racist to want to end inequality and have diversity because diversity is about acceptance and having cultures represented that have historically been oppressed. sometimes we have to prioritize race if there is a clear deficit or inequality to be fixed. that is undoing a wrong.
Informing you that you are wrong is not flipping out. You talking about white privilege only makes sense if you just time traveled here from the 1950s.And yes, a policy created to prioritize race is indeed racist. Notice the policy wasn't "if you have people from a variety of different races and they are all equally qualified, just put their names in a hat and pick one" or anything like that. It was "if everything else is equal, factor in race".
And yes, what Chuck Schumer did was also racist and anyone who doesn't see that is mentally challenged. His only concern should have been if the person was or was not qualified. If the situation was different and it was Republicans complaining about there being too many blacks chosen...the Democrats would have an utter meltdown.
Originally posted by aalyasecura95
i think you are focusing on exceptions rather than the overarching rule in our society. okay the black man had physical power over the woman but he still did not have that societal power that a white person would have. in the broader society there is clearly privilege for white people even if it does not always fully manifest itself in the most obvious way. also my definition of racism is one that is accepted by many anti-racist educators who are actually informed on this issue.
um the white ppl governing our country right now??? black ppl would never have that many of their own in power or have their interests represented in the same sort of way. just look at our courts and cabinets and it is clear who is in power.no chuck schumer was not being racist because he was trying to empower a dis empowered group that is under-represented. it cannot be racist to want to end inequality and have diversity because diversity is about acceptance and having cultures represented that have historically been oppressed. sometimes we have to prioritize race if there is a clear deficit or inequality to be fixed. that is undoing a wrong.
So many Leftist Lies in this post.
Sargon just did a video that is quite relevant to the discussion. It's more people who try to pull the "blacks can't be racist" stuff. Franchesca Ramsey lol. So they come up with a new word for racism: colorism.
Originally posted by Silent Masterwe are talking about modern america here and not a desert island which would not even be a society and so many of the things that we are talking about here do not come into play. you can keep pretending that white ppl do not have power and privilege but the evidence is all around you. minorities can be prejudiced but racism is another matter simply because they lack the power to actually oppress and discriminate like white ppl have for centuries and continue to do so in subtle ways.
So, if 4 people are shipwrecked on a Island. 3 black people and 1 white person. is it possible for the 3 black people to be racist?
Originally posted by aalyasecura95
i think you are focusing on exceptions rather than the overarching rule in our society. okay the black man had physical power over the woman but he still did not have that societal power that a white person would have. in the broader society there is clearly privilege for white people even if it does not always fully manifest itself in the most obvious way. also my definition of racism is one that is accepted by many anti-racist educators who are actually informed on this issue.
What are you talking about? I specifically mentioned the above scenario as the example on what you feel is racist. This isn’t an “exception” at all.
You seem to be blind to the fact that “societal power” was meaningless in this scenario. All the control/power that mattered was in the hands of the black man. He had all the power and the prejudice here. You require a meaningless (to this scenario) specific societal factor because you refuse to admit that racism exists in everyone and you need an excuse to only lay the blame solely on the race(s) regardless of circumstances. A societal factor not even under the control of the individual victim at that. As a POC, I would say that you (or the thought process you follow) are the racist here.
And, sorry, I don’t really care what you think many indoctrinating so-called “educators” “accept”. Explain your point and debate it. Simply falling back to an appeal to authority when you cannot succesfully argue the logic of your own “point” only makes it weaker.
Til then, I will follow this “authority” when I talk about a racist is:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/racist
Which states:
A person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races.
It's funny that somewhere along the way some on the left altered the definition of racism to add the criteria of "you need privilege and power".
The only true reason to do that is if you want to downplay the racism of a minority. With cries of "it's not racist it's prejudice" there is the underlying implication that being racist is worse than being prejudice. But that is all nonsense.
Side note: Francesca Ramsey is married to a white guy lol.
Originally posted by aalyasecura95
we are talking about modern america here and not a desert island which would not even be a society and so many of the things that we are talking about here do not come into play. you can keep pretending that white ppl do not have power and privilege but the evidence is all around you. minorities can be prejudiced but racism is another matter simply because they lack the power to actually oppress and discriminate like white ppl have for centuries and continue to do so in subtle ways.
I have a question. Going by the logic you are using for what is required for racism, do you think it is possible for an American woman to be sexist against a man?
Originally posted by Blindside12
Rob again does anything to address other issues un related to Schumers racism.
Schumer's stupid for taking this angle and it backfired on him.
Surt, take notes.
Originally posted by Robtard
You have to be a Republican to take this angle and it work. Like when Trump claimed an American Judge could not do his job because Trump assumed he was Mexican; Trumpers had no problem with that then.Funny thing, that same judge later sided with Trump on an issue with his silly wall and Trump applauded.
Originally posted by aalyasecura95
There is indeed discrminatory practices in the legal system and there are certain states where rules have been upheld making black representation harder(I'll spell out the example once I recall it), but that does not serve as justification to deny a judge a spot on the basis of his race.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
I assume you can read:Rob directly addressed Schumer's stupidity and called it stupidity. He addressed the issue before pointing out what he perceives as a double standard. Him making a point isn't a deflection.
Surt, take notes.
But the senate minority leader is more important than the president!
Thanks for explaining the obvious, Rocky. But you're concise points will fall on deaf ears.
Originally posted by Robtard
Thanks for explaining the obvious, Rocky. But you're concise points will fall on deaf ears.
You deflected. Rocky whining and saying you didn't doesn't magically change it lol. Do better.
But you called Schumer stupid, or what he said stupid.
Was what he did racist? It of course was, but I want to see if you'll admit it.