Summations Only

Because you are basically discussing discrimination and not racism. I would agree with you that discrimination does hinge upon the privilege of the individuals involved, but not that racism does. I have seen plenty of examples of racism from all walks of life in my time on this Earth and for you to ask me to deny that is ridiculous. There is racism in this scenario against the white people. Sure they will get served by someone, but they are forced to wait while other individuals in the restaurant are served simply based on one individual's viewpoint of their race.Yes, the black guy will get fired, and he will fired for being racist and refusing service based solely on skin color. I'm sorry, but for judging individual's based solely on skin color, one deserves to get fired. There was nothing in this scenario that said that the black person was not able to go out other nights, and was simply an employee who should be willing to do his job to the best of his ability. He is therefore not dis-privileged by having to work, in fact, let me see how far claiming to my job that they are discriminating against me because I am class dis-privileged gets me. For an example of racism, I will admit that while I served tables I really wanted to not serve tables with individuals who had tattoos such as a swastika or white power symbols. However, as my job it is my duty to do so to the best of my ability and I never once tried to refuse someone. I do not consider myself class dis-privileged by doing my job. Rather, I consider myself somewhat class privileged by having a job. Right, and it is racism that they were forced to wait longer because someone did not like their skin color. I do not see the privilege because there is none to be seen. These are simply individuals who want a bite to eat. We all like to go out to eat occasionally. The individual in question had no knowledge of these people other than skin color. He did not talk to them, he did not acknowledge them, he simply refused based solely on skin color. I think that this idea that there is no such thing as reverse racism is completely false.Here is another example, when I first began working in a restaurant, a girl (according to you sex dis-privileged) walked up to me on my first day and grabbed my crotch. She was a fellow server, completely a peer. We were both white, we both worked in the same job, and we both came from similar upbringings. According to your ridiculous theory, this was not sexual harrassment because she has one more dis-privilege than I have.Another example:
A white person walks into a hispanic neighborhood and is shot and killed simply for being in an area when he is white. (before you go off on a tangent claiming I am saying all hispanics are violent, don't. I do not think all hispanics are violent, I am merely using a race that you would claim is dis-privileged). According to your thesis, this is not a hate crime, this is not racism. And yet, if the opposite happened and a white man killed a hispanic for being in his neighborhood (We'll say Southy) than it is racist?The problem with your ideas is that you are simply painting with a far too broad of brush. Not all whites are privileged by being white (sorry, but there is a lot more equality happening now, whether you see it or not is your own cognitive dissonance). Not to say that we have achieved complete equality, but the improvements have definitely been noticeable. Not all blacks are dis-privileged by being black. We no longer live in a world that can be painted with the brush of races against races, and this focusing on privilege instead of the true underlying cause (racism and hating someone simply for being a different color) is not going to benefit us as we try to abolish racism, sexism, or any other negative ism.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

I think the problem is more accurately describes as "special pleading."Crash claims that x is racist when one person does it, and is not racist when another person does it.Given the exact same activity, whether it be stereotyping, speaking racial epithets, etc, it is only racist if the "privileged" race is the aggressor.If using racial epithets is racist, then it's racist. To say otherwise requires special pleading.Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.

Hello everyone!This has been and still is a very interesting discussion, let's not let it run off the rails. I'm not going to take any action unless I continue to see discussion of participants instead of topic.

From HERE (there are many other definitions and explanations, as well as links, if interested): Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.

Racism is discrimination on the basis of race, and discrimination always refers to privilege.The privilege is key. Sometimes, there are non-privileged reasons to make discriminations based on race; for instance it's not racist when your doctor says "well, taking the fact that you're an African-American into account, it's probably better for you to take this medication instead of this other one", or "well, taking into account the fact that you're of Ashkenazi Jew ancestry, it's probably a good idea to have you tested for Tay-Sachs disease.That exactly meets Hooah and Rahvin's definitions of "treating people differently because of their race" - I mean, to a T, we're literally talking about how people are being treated - but nobody thinks that's racist. In fact, what we now know is racist or sexist is medically treating people the same based on their race or sex - assuming that we can learn everything we need to know about the medical needs of African-Americans or women based on medical tests that generated data only from studies of white men.What's the difference? Privilege. Racism is always a matter of privilege - privileges that break down along racial lines. I don't deny that the black guy holds some animus against white people in your example, but you asked whether the situation was racist against white people. And it's just plainly not. They have all the power in the situation and the black guy has hardly any. They're privileged over him in half a dozen different directions. How could they possibly experience racism from him? No, that's a pretty basic class privilege - having to work for someone else. Sorry, just can't be denied. There's always privilege. Everybody there has privilege by virtue of living in the United States, by virtue of being able to afford to eat at a restaurant, not being homeless and therefore employable, being able-bodied instead of handicapped, being neurotypical instead of wracked by a phobia against leaving their home, and so on. Privilege isn't a thing where you have it or you don't. That's where these discussions usually go off the rails; privileged people point to a handful of disadvantages they may have as though that disproves their privilege. Nonsense. Privilege is all relative, which is why an Asian can be racist against a black person but not really against a white person. (Arguably, black people have the least racial privilege of the major races in the United States.) If she genuinely sexually harassed you, then it was because she had more privilege than you. I can't determine what it was without knowing more, but without her privilege over you, it was impossible for you to have been harassed by her. How could it have been?

Because you're not using any accepted definitions for the term "sexual harassment."Sexual harassment does not require privilege. It merely requires a sex-related act that creates a hostile working environment. That can be a joke at the expense of a gender, it can be unwanted touching, it can be demands for sexual favors, etc - and while it can occur between people with different amounts of "power" in the organization, this is not required.Let's provide another demonstration. Once upon a time, my boss quoted the Bible at me, knowing I was an Atheist, in a performance review. This was workplace discrimination based on my religion. Atheists are not the "privileged" class, so you should agree.If the tables were reversed and I had said to him "your God doesn't exist and your religion is wrong," whether I was his boss or not, I would also be guilty of religious discrimination and harassment in the workplace.Privilege makes -isms worse, it allows one class to implement policies and make the discrimination systemic, but racism most certainly does still exist even when privilege does not - it's just not as significant in social justice terms. In absolute terms, however, racism is racism.Your example of medical treatment in a previous reply is more well-directed; however, it does not meet the dictionary definition of racism that I posted earlier.Twice.Here, I'll post it again:

quote:

---

racism
   [rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races

---

A doctor using race as a method of directing questions and treatment for diseases that are actually race-linked is not significantly different from asking if a patient has diabetes in his family history. It does not demonstrate a belief that one race is superior to another, it does not create any policy or system of government by which individuals of a given race will be treated as inferior, and it certainly does not espouse hatred for a race.ABE:Now, if the doctor had instead refused treatment due to race (regardless of which race is in question and who has "privilege") for a life-threatening disease, then we would be witnessing an example of racism. See the definition. Simply noting a difference can be as simple as recognizing that one person is Caucasian and another is Hispanic...but that only becomes racism when one decides that one of those races is superior or inferior.Noting that people of African descent can have sickle-cell anemia and acting accordingly is not racism, while saying that their susceptibility to sickle-cell makes them inferior would be racism.Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.

Except that I am technically not. Is it racism to deny someone employment based on a disability? No? isn't that discrimination? If the two terms were, in fact, synonymous, it would actually be racism to deny someone employment based on disability. But since racism is not the same as discrimination, denying someone employment based on a disability is not racism.What IS racism, though, is any act of judging someone based merely on their skin color. The group of black guys who ask the Asian kid to help with their math homework just because he is Asian? That's racism. The Asian guy who sees the Mexican at the store and assumes he's the janitor? That's racism. The white dude that sees the white guy at the club and assumes he won't dance because we all know white guys don't dance? That's racism. The black woman who is walking down the street, then crosses to the other side of the street when she sees a group of black youths coming her way? That's racism.Surely you can see that these are all racist moments? You made very clear that you disagree. However, whether two words are actually synonyms really isn't up for debate when those two words don't actually mean the same thing and are not totally interchangeable. Actually, it does. Judging someone based on their race or skin color is exactly what racism is. Racism isn't just what bigotted white people do to black people. It does actually go both ways (and sideways and backwards). Pretty sure it makes you the racist since you jumped on that one. You are the one who made the connection that they are violent because they are black. if you weren't a racist, you would see that I meant they would be violent against you because you used a racial slur against them. Just like a group of redneck white boys would whip your yankee ass if you went up to a group of them and called them stupid rednecks. The funny thing about words? They don't inherently carry any value. The word nigger isn't in itself derogatory. It really depends on how it is used. The word nigger exists and just because I type it does not make me a racist.And "slanty eyes" was an adjective I used for the motion the character in my example was using. Get your racist slurs straight. You'll notice I called them gooks.

Could someone explain how it promotes equality to only consider white people as able to be racist? Or only consider men as able to be sexist? IMO, the racist label is a pretty strong one, but if other races get a "free pass" so to speak, and are free from that label no matter how they act, how is that advancing equality?This thread has me ready to chop my cock off and put on black face.

It's not, but that's not the intent of the Atheist+ definitions.They're trying to restrict the field of topics to those examples of -isms that present the largest challenges to social justice - instances where privilege is being used to enact bigoted policies and systemic discrimination.And I can basically understand why - systemic sexism is a more significant problem for society than individual examples of a woman objectifying a man, for example. There is a systemic wage gap between the genders, for example.The problem is that Crash has argued that privilege-enhanced -isms are the only examples of -isms. They may be all that's talked about on the Atheist+ forums, but the definition of "racism," as one example, is abundantly clear - "racism" is the belief or expression that one or more races are superior or inferior to one or more other races, a hatred of one or more races, or any government or other policy when systematically enforces such concepts.That last bit, the policies, can only happen when one group has sufficient privilege to enact them...but that's only part of the definition.And crash is absolutely wrong about the "way people act." Comedians are one thing - some people enjoy race-based humor. Others do not, and there are those who oppose using terms like "cracker" just as much as other racial epithets.

Oh please point out where I have proven myself to be a liar.Has your account been hacked by one of EvC's infamous crazy creationists? The one who thinks everyone hates them? This is a discussion board, a debate site. I am disagreeing with you. I think you are wrong. That's kinda what we are supposed to do here. If I had a personal vendetta against you, I'd call you more names or something. Maybe post personal information of yours and have pizzas sent to your house. Nope. You seem to be the only one losing her shit. Funny thing about that? Yep, I usually agree with most everything you post. Same with Rahvin. That kinda happens with liberal atheists. You just seem to be a bit more liberal/PC about the subjects contained in this thread, that's all. When you've proven to me that my position is as wrong as I think yours is, perhaps I will. The problem is: you have taken my position and lambasted it, twisting it into something I am not even talking about, so the likelihood of you changing my mind is very low.

I've stayed out of this thread because crash is in it, and it will, as it has, devolved into him calling everyone a liar and that you're all wrong and he doesn't get why you don't see that. You know, typical crash shit.But this is just over the top racism here: I'm not Mexican, I'm Cuban B!- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Maybe it's you, man. Maybe you're not easy to discuss things with because you pull the same shit over and over, even the most easy to debate with people in the forum have aproblem with you when you are in the wrong.In every thread where you're wrong you make the same statement about everyone not admitting when they are wrong or that they are simply liars because of it. Why is that? It's a pattern, obviously.- Oni

I'll give this a shot...You can discriminate based on privilage, sure, but you can also be racist by simply not liking a race of people.When black people live near asian neighborhoods the asians are racist toward blacks and the blacks are racist toward the asians. I see that all the time. I also see hispanics say racist things about blacks, about middle easterns, about asians, and about white people. In all of those cases I took what people were saying to be racist, in any direction between the races it was going.I don't think privilage played a role in any of that, at least I can't see wear it did. Everyone was from the same social-economical background.I guess part of the problem is thinking you live in a culture where "white people" are privilaged in some way? Are they, really? Across the board? I don't see that at all. Here in the US we live in a culture where RICH people are privilaged, but not just because someone is "white" does that make them privilaged.- Oni

Hi Onifre,You joined the party late and probably missed my request back in Message 348 where I asked everyone to focus discussion on the topic and not on other participants.Speaking personally but I'm sure this is common, I've been on both sides of the fence in discussions. I've been in some where everyone else thought I was crazy while I believed that they must be on some kind of mind-melding drugs that gave them all the same delusions, and I've been in others where it was everyone against a lone crazy person. The lesson I take from this is that sometimes you're the crazy guy, and sometimes someone else is the crazy guy, but you mustn't take it personally. In other words, don't become deluded by righteousness when in the majority, and don't fall into despair, desperation or vengefulness when not.Not to say that some people aren't crazy, but at least here we have to follow Kipling and treat them all just the same.Edited by Admin, : Typo.

Special pleading is only fallacious when the putative requested exemption is presented without justification.I've not done that. By your reasoning - ignoring justified exceptions - it's "special pleading" to note that you can be arrested by a cop but not by a fireman. The difference is privilege. Because racism is discrimination on the basis of race, and because discrimination only occurs from a position of greater privilege to lesser, some things when done by A to B may be racial discrimination, but not when done by C to D. That's not special pleading, because the difference is justified by the different situation of privilege between A and B and C and D.