Kemal Ergenekon Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 toppest of keks, good sir. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Ap Ioan Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 Unfortunately for your argument, words don't cause any real human suffering. Oil causes human suffering. War causes human suffering. Even imprisoning people for speaking their mind would cause more human suffering than the words on their mind. Your arguement is severely flawed here. Oil is an inanimate object, it cannot cause anything by it's own doing. War is the putting into practice words spoken, but War is the actions of people. Words and ideas go hand in hand and words have great power. Quote Still a man hears what he wants to hearAnd disregards the rest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-Dean-G Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 I'm laughing too hard at the last comment to remember what I was gonna say. Quote i think i've met like like a total of twenty people between (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) and PW who i didn't consider mentally broken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 Your arguement is severely flawed here. Oil is an inanimate object, it cannot cause anything by it's own doing. War is the putting into practice words spoken, but War is the actions of people. Words and ideas go hand in hand and words have great power. I disagree. Sure, maybe it has to at least be drilled first, but it's highly toxic and can wipe out ecosystems. Words are powerful and war doesn't have to have anything to do with words. If oil can't harm people by itself, neither can words. In the end, if I want to kill you I still have to take action. Chanting "die" isn't going to produce any results. Though it might get annoying pretty fast. Quote _________________________________________________________________ <Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line. --Foxburo Wiki-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-Dean-G Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 I disagree. Sure, maybe it has to at least be drilled first, but it's highly toxic and can wipe out ecosystems. Words are powerful and war doesn't have to have anything to do with words. If oil can't harm people by itself, neither can words. In the end, if I want to kill you I still have to take action. Chanting "die" isn't going to produce any results. Though it might get annoying pretty fast. Being annoyed is totes results. Quote i think i've met like like a total of twenty people between (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) and PW who i didn't consider mentally broken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Avalanche Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 I find it odd how people are quick to halt their own rights in the name of safety/security. I may not like what others have to say, but I would sure as Hell defend your right to voice it. Quote Beer. Damn Good Beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spite Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 So that would be hate speech you say? In order to be consistent with this view, do you also oppose your own government taking things much farther by actually killing ISIS supporters? Or do you actually believe these people should be protected from words but not bombs? Your response had no relation to my post so I'm not sure how to respond. I don't defend the right of people to voice ISIS views. I think that standing on a street corner saying that infidels should be killed using terror tactics should be illegal. I also think people actively trying to do terrorist actions against the UK or France or wherever should be stopped with force if necessary. It's not about taking rights away. As kemal said, freedom of speech when used for some purposes can take away people's first order rights. If I exercise my freedom to call for Muslims to be lynched, I'm threatening the freedom of Muslims living peaceful lives nothing to do with ISIS. Namely their freedom to live their lives unmolested by pitchfork welding mobs. It's like saying you can have freedom of assembly, but if you assemble in the highway the government is going to move you. Freedom of speech doesn't, and has never existed in a pure form in any case. Libel and slander exist. You can't post porn on these boards or on a sidewalk. You can't print copyrighted material. You can't publish someone else's personal details. You can't stand outside someone's house with a megaphone singing all night. Actually there are tonnes of times when you can't just say or write whatever you like, and in all cases the reason why is that by doing so you'd be infringing on someone else's rights. Hate crimes are just the latest in a long list of restrictions on your freedom of speech to protect the rights of others. 3 Quote ☾☆ Priest of Dio just because the Nazis did something doesn't mean it's automatically wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stujenske Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 1. What do you guys consider racist? Discrimination or alienation against a race/ethnic group. 2. Do you believe there a such thing as racism against whites? Yes, but it is extremely rare. 3. Do you find the Confederate Flag offensive? Yes. 4. Thoughts on racial stereotyping? If you're joking around and having fun and don't go too far, ok. Otherwise it's dumb. 5. Should racism be banned, or is it a necessary downside of free speech? Yes, it should be banned. And I don't believe in any free speech, not just being "politically correct" as they say. Quote <insert signature here> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-Dean-G Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 "Extremely" lofl. Location location location Quote i think i've met like like a total of twenty people between (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) and PW who i didn't consider mentally broken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ikhan Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 1. What do you guys consider racist? Discrimination against people due to race. 2. Do you believe there a such thing as racism against whites? Yes 3. Do you find the Confederate Flag offensive? No, I do not find it offensive, in my opinion, it is part of history. Now, was there anything bad done under it? Yes, but we could say the same about the American Flag, or the British Flag, or the French Flag, or even the Belgian Flag. 4. Thoughts on racial stereotyping? I think it is a necessary evil if we are to allow free speech. 5. Should racism be banned, or is it a necessary downside of free speech? I believe it would violate our constitutional rights as Americans. But it does not mean that I do not hate racism, I utterly despise racism in fact. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stujenske Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 "Extremely" lofl. Location location location Oh. looks like we've got a xenophobic, resentful, whiny white boy here. Quote <insert signature here> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-Dean-G Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Well, first of all, I've always welcomed outsides, forgive freely(even those that ran me over in that car, beat me with wood and metal, and attempted to rob, stab or otherwise hurt me), and am Latino/Native American/"White" Birth Certificate says Native American. Mr. Judgey Pants. Now, the reason I was so sarcastic and condescending was because it is a matter of culture and location. I have tan skin, but am called "white boy". I get ripped off constantly. I've been hit with cars, beaten, or otherwise ostracized for being white in a black community. Do not assume. It make an ass out of u and me Quote i think i've met like like a total of twenty people between (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) and PW who i didn't consider mentally broken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redael Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Rascim is simply a method people use to boost there self esteem by thinking they are better than a group of people. I don't believe in police rascim(for most police, they may be a few) Beucuse blacks, for whatever reason, statistically commit more crime. 1 Quote Gary Johnson 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-Dean-G Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 quote please? Quote i think i've met like like a total of twenty people between (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) and PW who i didn't consider mentally broken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Avalanche Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Rascim is simply a method people use to boost there self esteem by thinking they are better than a group of people. I don't believe in police rascim(for most police, they may be a few) Beucuse blacks, for whatever reason, statistically commit more crime. Wha? Poverty commits more crime, not a race. Poverty stricken areas naturally have more crime and violence. That is your "for whatever reason" you are attempting to spew. I can also vouch for most Blacks when I say that racism is by far a huge issue when dealing with the police, nationally. They have proven, not only on television but in simply dealing with them on a regular basis for years, they are pretty much the most racist bunch of bastards in my entire city. Spiteful towards their job, racially driven to target individuals and their families, extreme prejudice in their obligatory comments of stereotyping, racially profiling in every instance, and then bragging about it to the local cab driver parked in the lot at night waiting for a fare to call in(which was me for years). 1 Quote Beer. Damn Good Beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 (edited) 1.) The systematic oppression of a race of people 2.) Not in the United States. There can be prejudice, but the system supports white people in America. 3.) Yes, considering most of the confederate states seceded because of slavery. 4.) A tool of white supremacy 5.) 'Free Speech' is only applicable to the government. Racism has no place in a private space like Politics and War. Being prejudice because of race would be racism, no? 1. What do you guys consider racist? Discrimination or alienation against a race/ethnic group. 2. Do you believe there a such thing as racism against whites? Yes, but it is extremely rare. Racism against whites is much more prevalent now, so much so that you're now considered racist if complain about racism against white people. Whites generally ignore it though because they're still the majorities in their countries. Edited February 1, 2016 by Clarke 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Brother Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Racism against whites is much more prevalent now, so much so that you're now considered racist if complain about racism against white people. Whites generally ignore it though because they're still the majorities in their countries. Racism is by definition reliant on two factors; prejudice and institutional power. In order for anyone or anything to be racist, these two factors must be present. In countries where the population, society, politics and government is dominated by white people, often white men, it's impossible for people who aren't white to be racist against people who are white, because they don't possess the institutional power required for to fulfill the definition of racism. They can be prejudiced, but prejudice is not the same as racism. In countries where white people are a minority, where they have a smaller part in society and lack institutional power, I would agree that non-white people could be racist against white people, but not in countries where white people are dominant. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 (edited) Racism is by definition reliant on two factors; prejudice and institutional power. In order for anyone or anything to be racist, these two factors must be present. In countries where the population, society, politics and government is dominated by white people, often white men, it's impossible for people who aren't white to be racist against people who are white, because they don't possess the institutional power required for to fulfill the definition of racism. They can be prejudiced, but prejudice is not the same as racism. In countries where white people are a minority, where they have a smaller part in society and lack institutional power, I would agree that non-white people could be racist against white people, but not in countries where white people are dominant. No those two things don't have to present, that's an opinion and it's not the definition of racism. Present a source where that is the definition of racism as a quick search provides no references to the definition containing "institutional power" as a condition. Racism does however include prejudice "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.". If you're prejudice because someone is a different race it obviously fits the bill that you're racist. Your explanation is a perfect example of how racism against whites is actually mainstream now and much more prevalent as you can be openly racist to white people with your logic. As for whites being minorities, I doubt any white who openly complains about blacks won't be seen as racist in countries where they're a minority. Edited February 1, 2016 by Clarke 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hao Huiyu Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Racism is by definition reliant on two factors; prejudice and institutional power. In order for anyone or anything to be racist, these two factors must be present. In countries where the population, society, politics and government is dominated by white people, often white men, it's impossible for people who aren't white to be racist against people who are white, because they don't possess the institutional power required for to fulfill the definition of racism. They can be prejudiced, but prejudice is not the same as racism. In countries where white people are a minority, where they have a smaller part in society and lack institutional power, I would agree that non-white people could be racist against white people, but not in countries where white people are dominant. racism ˈreɪsɪz(ə)m/ noun noun: racism the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. "theories of racism" prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. Really? So if a white guy in a majority-white nation is barred from entering a shop based on the colour of his skin, it's not racial discrimination? If a black guy in a majority-black nation is lynched by a white mob because of the colour of his skin, it's not racial discrimination? 4 Quote First nation to 1,000 NS First nation to 2,000 NS First nation to 3,000 NS First nation to 4,000 NS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Brother Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 (edited) I'm just going to put this here, hopefully it'll suffice as an explanation: "Prejudice plus power" is a (re)definition of "racism"[2][3] or "sexism"[4]. While the original definition of "racism" is something like "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race",[5][6] some academics reject this definition and require an additional condition of "...by someone in a position of power over them".[7] Obviously, the majority of sexism is still against women by men, and the majority of racism in the US is against minorities by whites,[8] but this definition makes the converse categorically impossible, rather than just less frequent and/or less harmful. The conventional definition of "racism" isn't inherently treated as a power imbalance, but as an ignorant and tribal expression of fear and hate. It is something anyone is theoretically capable of, and a level which any sufficiently frightened or angry human risks stooping to. In this view, the phenomenon of racism is seen as the collective problem of society and mankind, something that each and every human being has a responsibility to remain vigilant against. Power imbalance only factors into the extent of the consequences.The narrower definition of "prejudice plus power" posits that the addition of a power imbalance to prejudice leads to a qualitatively different phenomenon. In particular, the unambiguous term institutional racism, which requires neither fear nor hate but is a systemic consequence of old prejudices, fits more neatly into the 'prejudice plus power' paradigm.The word "racism" originated around 1936, "when a new word was required to describe the theories on which the Nazis based their persecution of the Jews".[7] Earlier, this was called "racialism", "race hatred", or "race prejudice".[9]It is important to note that, whether you agree or disagree with the definition, words can have many meanings. The use of racism to mean "prejudice plus power" by however many academics does not disqualify other definitions of the term any more than psychiatrists defining the term "depression" as a specific disorder disqualifies using it to mean being extremely sad. "Prejudice plus power" as used by some academics is what is called a stipulative definition[wp], used primarily for academic research to simplify discussions and text, not to "replace" other definitions of the word in common usage.http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Prejudice_plus_power And by the way, I'm as white as you can be and I'm pretty sure I'm incapable of being racist against my own race. Edited February 1, 2016 by Big Brother Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 (edited) You can't really argue with that since there is an established definition and that is an opinion held of what the definition should be. What you seem to be really saying is in fact individuals can't be racist as they hold no power for the most part. Only a group can be racist as they have the power and if one group is larger than the other then the smaller one can't be racist unless it has more power than the larger group. If we're to consider that the better definition of racism then blacks would be racist if they held the power in majority black areas of a white country if whites were the minorities in those areas and held little to no power. Edited February 1, 2016 by Clarke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-Dean-G Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 "re-definition" pedantalert 1 Quote i think i've met like like a total of twenty people between (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) and PW who i didn't consider mentally broken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hao Huiyu Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 I'm just going to put this here, hopefully it'll suffice as an explanation: And by the way, I'm as white as you can be and I'm pretty sure I'm incapable of being racist against my own race. I don't anyone implied that you were being racist against your own race? You did a pretty good job of failing to address our points though 1 Quote First nation to 1,000 NS First nation to 2,000 NS First nation to 3,000 NS First nation to 4,000 NS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Avalanche Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 I know some pretty racist Native Americans regardless of the definition from rationalwiki.org 1 Quote Beer. Damn Good Beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-Dean-G Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Quote i think i've met like like a total of twenty people between (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) and PW who i didn't consider mentally broken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.