Summations Only

Where did I say "this is exactly and precisely what crashfrog said, verbaitm. What follows are the exact words crashfrog said" followed by the words you claim I claim you said exactly?

And my position (and I believe Oni's and Rahvins) is that there are other scenarios where racism occurs that have nothing to do with discrimination or privilege.1) A person that votes for the president and uses the color of the presidents skin as a factor would be considered racist. That would be an act of racism.2) A person that decides who they allow in their establishment based on the color of their skin is a racist. That is a racist act.3) A person who makes a judgement based on the color of another persons skin is a racist. That is a racist act.See that? Some of those contain discrimination (number 2) but are not based on discrimination, nor are they necessarily discrimination. But none if them are exact examples of precisely and only discrimination or privilege because we cannot identify the privileged party, but we can identify that it is racist.

Aannnd we've just taken 100 steps back. This is going nowhere.

Do you realize that you have effectively made up your own definition of racism? This thread is at the top of google search results when searching for this sentence. When everyone else uses a word and everyone else agrees on how that word will be used, how do you figure that yours is the correct one and the one that should be used even though the rest of us have come to the same conclusion and use the word the same way without even needing to discuss it? The adult thing to do would be "I guess I don't have a full understanding of racism" or "I guess racism has other meanings and is a much wider subject".That's all I intended to do here. Tell you that the way you are using the words sexism and racism run contrary to the way everyone else that uses those words.Racism actually occurs. In real life. Real people really do experience racism. And guess what? The racism that real people experience is not limited to the basis of privilege or discrimination. Your obscure sociology definition is not the end all be all of racism definitions. It is a sub category or type of racism. Racism can even occur where no one is offended! Who'da thunk it?Racism does not literally mean discrimination. There can be racism with no discrimination.Racism does not have to only be done unto the "underprivileged". Racism can occur where no privilege is involved. We've given you examples that you've shoehorned privilege into.Racism does not have to be offensive to be considered racism.

No, crash, I actually interact with real human beings. I see racism actually happen. In real life. I use the word racism with people and they actually happen to not have this weird definition that you do. Oddly enough (actually no that odd) you are the first person I have ever encountered that used the word racism in the manner that you do. My son understands that racism is judging someone based on their race. He knows it's wrong no matter who does it.He's 8. What's your excuse?Do you not find it odd that everyone in this thread no only disagrees with you, but is using the words sexism and racism in the same exact fashion? Critical race theory and sociology of racism obviously did not tell you how to identify actual racism. You might want to get your nose out of the books and interact with people. See racism in action. Or you could look up the definition the rest of us are using. You know, the most common definition. Instead, you have to hunt and peck and scour to find yours. No, you haven't On the contrary. The examples I have given are things that have actually happened. Things I have seen with my own 2 eyes and heard with my own 2 ears.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Because everyone really is out to get you. I really would lie about witnessing racism in order to win a fake internet argument. The stakes are that high.

Not that I agree that this is a valid for of discussion (where you lay out some arbitrary line or argument that we are then suppsoe to meet or make in order to convince you) could you point to the post in question where you identified the argument required to convince you that you wrong?Let's forget the fact that I never intended to prove you "wrong", per se. Just to point out that you are using a definition so obscure and far removed from every day normal people usage as to render it meaningless.

I just asked you where you did this. What post. Be specific. I guess you would have to change wikipedia and modify google search results. Oh, and change what people actually consider racism.edit:
Tell you what,. All you have to do in order for me to concede my point is find ONE actual person that agrees with you in full. You'll notice that ALL of your opponents agree in full and we didn't even have to "find" one another. We just agree because we are real people who know what racism is and how the word is used in real life.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Not a single one of those posts clearly states, in no uncertain terms, "this is what my detractors must do in order to change my mind".

So you wanted me to explain something that I do not agree with? If I recall (feel free to jog my memory by pointing me to which of those messages contained this line of text), I said both instances were racist. Same thing here. oh, look at that. Again, those things ARE racist. Why would I have to prove to you why they are not racist in order to prove how I am correct? YOU are the one that says they are not racist. Take a look in the mirror there, champ.

Thanks. I wasn't sure if I had replied or not. They are both racist (that is my reply). I don't give a shit about convincing you of which "method" is more accurate or whatever. I am telling you that your definition is one that is obscure as fuck and only used by you and maybe some stuffy crackers in sociology class that don't know shit about racism. Yes, technically it could be construed as being racist because it is something that is done based on race, what with the title being "stuff WHITE PEOPLE like". What I am not saying is that it is offensive. Being offensive is not a prerequisite for being technically racist. Ooh. Nope, wrong again their cracker ass fantastic. In Message 382, Oni says: But reading his further comments about this "stuff white people like" (because I have no idea what it even is) is that it is not even at all remotely related to racism and you are an asshat retard for continually bringing it up. So, like Oni, I too will ask you to point out the relevancy of "stuff white people like". I don't want to sound like I'm kissing his ass or just parroting him, but Oni and I have the same position on this "stuff white people like" even though you think you've caught us in a jam.Is it technically racist? Yes. Why? Because it is something that is done based on race. Could "stuff white people like" accurately also be called "stuff BLACK PEOPLE like" and still be exactly the same? No? Why not? Because it is about white people.Even though it technically is racist, it simply isn't offensive and thus, no one gives a shit. So again, in order to convince you that yours is the wrong position and mine is the right one, you think I am supposed to make an argument that is not mine? You want me to support a position that I do no take? Is that right?Just your say so is not sufficient to say yours is more accurate. Yours is absolutely not accurate at all since every single other person in this entire discussion is using the words sexism and racism differently. The rest of us are actually differentiating racism/sexism from offensiveness, discrimination and privilege. You aren't. Your definition doesn't even accurately identify racism or sexism at all. Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

We don't even have to presume that:in Message 324, he says:

quote:

---

And since there's no race that has privilege over people of the white race
  —crash

---

(there's one less thing he can change and claim misrepresentation about since following his arguments to their logical conclusion constitutes misrepresentation) I asked him about exactly this sort of thing (racism that doesn't involve white people) in at least 3 replies (Message 352, Message 328 and Message 315) and he never answered. He did, however, make damn sure to answer and clarify that black on white is NEVER racism. Instead, he calls me racist for using racist terminology.Oh, and Oni did in Message 358 and Message 378, which crash conveniently failed to respond to. I guess he can only identify racism where he thinks he can see the inherent privilege: white pride.

Here is an idea: for once you could try responding to what it is your quoting. In this case, the proper response from you would be: "you're right, I did not respond to those 5 scenarios from you or Oni". What did you do? You shifted the fucking goalposts. No it's not, as I just laid out. You did not respond to the minority on minority racism examples me or Oni laid out. YOU are the liar here. Oh, how cute. Your one example is one that requires an alternate universe where, according to you, blacks would have privilege. Could you provide an example in modern day America where YOU believe blacks have privilege over whites?Better yet, respond to those 5 examples laid out by myself and Oni in the messages I referenced.

You did not respond to the scenarios. I did not say you did not respond to the messages themselves. Then feel free to provide an example in modern day America. Still waiting. Not the 5 I just referenced. You could show me exactly where you did and what your response to the minority on minority racism is. I did address that. I said "both racist" in Message 480. Why do I have to prove why something isn't racist if I think it is racist?Tell you what: you need to explain to creationists why god exists. Sound fair?Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.