Should discussion about The Poem be ... censored?

[Valmy]

I'm assuming you're Dutch, as I doubt anyone besides Dutch people (or English language history experts , as apparantly, Frisian was one of the languages that influenced old English) would know what Frisians are.

Nope. Europa Universalis/Crusader Kings player. I know my obscure European ethnic groups now.

[Amentep]

But I agree the racism we experience is not this deep and implacable racism that some black people have faced for generations and is more caused by frustration, however it does manifest itself as bigotry. Its more annoying than anything else but its still a form a racism and this shouldn't be denied ?

I don't disagree with that statement. But I don't think you solve racism by letting it slide because of historical oppression. The solution to racism is for everyone to realize that race doesn't matter, and you just can't get there without addressing racism of all types - no matter how ultimately ineffectual the racism itself may be.

 

 

@Amentep You're the one who brought up different types of racism.

I reject the assertion that I brought up different types of racism - because I don't believe there are different types of racism.

 

To use "reverse racism" or "reactionary racism" as an example, what you say is quite true - it is often borne of systematic discrimination. But you don't create equality by continuing to allow the idea that the groups are unequal to persist even if there's a sympathetic reason for it to exist in the oppressed population; its a flawed approach.  You can't fix the system until you fix the perception.

 

To eradicate racism (IMO), the idea that the races are fundamentally different must be challenged as a very notion at all levels.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Amentep

[Valmy]

South Africa is a bad example in general because, as far as I have understood, the white minority is still dominant in many ways.

My understanding is it is very regional. The white people are all in the western part of the country.

[Psychevore]

Ah yes... we used to be quite something in the past, apparantly.

 

Which for some fools is a reason to think we should break off from the Netherlands and form our own state.

 

*violent head-desking*

[PrimeJunta]

 

@KaineParker Indeed. 

 

Can you provide an alternative word for the concept defined in the "Racism (Sociological)" link I posted? One that's in "the dictionary," naturally.

Aside from the initial definition I already posted?

 

Alternative word. Surely you agree that the definition I posted defines a concept? If you don't want to use the word 'racism' for that concept, I'm asking you for some other word you do want to use for it. One that is in the dictionary, naturally, since you insist on that. We need a word for the concept to be able to discuss it, you know.

 

 

No, my motive is to steer this thread into a discussion about the failure of capitalism and the glory of socialism.

In that case, you're failing.

[PrimeJunta]

I reject the assertion that I brought up different types of racism - because I don't believe there are different types of racism.

 

To use "reverse racism" or "reactionary racism" as an example, what you say is quite true - it is often borne of systematic discrimination. But you don't create equality by continuing to allow the idea that the groups are unequal to persist even if there's a sympathetic reason for it to exist in the oppressed population; its a flawed approach.  You can't fix the system until you fix the perception.

 

To eradicate racism (IMO), the idea that the races are fundamentally different must be challenged as a very notion at all levels.

How are you going to do that?

 

I propose that we start by (1) identifying ways in which people are systematically being treated unfairly due to their 'race', and (2) fixing those problems, starting with the ones that impact the largest group of people most negatively.

 

Ideas will follow as practices change. Going ideology-first strikes me as futile.

[BruceVC]

 

South Africa is a bad example in general because, as far as I have understood, the white minority is still dominant in many ways.

My understanding is it is very regional. The white people are all in the western part of the country.

 

No we live all over South Africa and we are dominant in the economic sector but there are valid reasons for this. However  I don't want to hijack this discussion with a debate about the social and economic reality of South Africa

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

@KaineParker Indeed.  Can you provide an alternative word for the concept defined in the "Racism (Sociological)" link I posted? One that's in "the dictionary," naturally.

Aside from the initial definition I already posted?

Alternative word. Surely you agree that the definition I posted defines a concept? If you don't want to use the word 'racism' for that concept, I'm asking you for some other word you do want to use for it. One that is in the dictionary, naturally, since you insist on that. We need a word for the concept to be able to discuss it, you know.

Is a collection of words acceptable? If so, "Systematic disadvantages of (insert preferred racial/ethnic group here) in (insert state/society here)" is a far more precise term that accurately conveys what you're talking about at the cost of being long-winded.

 

If you're looking for a single word, then no. Complex concepts such as the systematic disadvantages faced by blacks in the United States can not be condensed into a single word without eroding some measure of nuance.

 

In that case, you're failing.

I'm only one man.

[Amentep]

How are you going to do that?

 

I propose that we start by (1) identifying ways in which people are systematically being treated unfairly due to their 'race', and (2) fixing those problems, starting with the ones that impact the largest group of people most negatively.

 

Ideas will follow as practices change. Going ideology-first strikes me as futile.

 

IMO, you can't fix the system unless you fix why the system exists.  Racism is perpetuated through generations; you can improve the lives of the oppressed but they can still pass on the mindset that oppression has created (regardless of which side they're on) to further generations.  If you don't strike down the ideology the only thing you've done is given both sides equal hand in hating one another (ie both can use the system to oppress one another in continuing cycles of oppression).

 

EDIT: Also, if you allow the racism to continue to exist, fixing the oppressive system is only going to lead to the racists creating a better (or at least more subtle) oppressive system. The only way to end an oppressive system is to end the root of the oppression, ie the basic concept of race as anything other than an arbitrary construct.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Amentep

[Mungri]

If we eradicated all infectious diseases forever, then our immune systems would become useless. Id rather maintain a strong immune system.

[Valmy]

No we live all over South Africa and we are dominant in the economic sector but there are valid reasons for this. However  I don't want to hijack this discussion with a debate about the social and economic reality of South Africa

Pity because I would find it interesting. But probably a good idea. Another thread and another day then.

[Gfted1]

That's great because as a black person its impossible for me to be racist because I'm an oppressed minority!

 

Kill all the whiteys!

I prefer the term Honkey, tyvm.

 

Stop oppressing me.

[Amentep]

If we eradicated all infectious diseases forever, then our immune systems would become useless.

And then when we invaded Mars, we'd be the ones killed by the common cold, not the Martians.

[Mungri]

 

That's great because as a black person its impossible for me to be racist because I'm an oppressed minority!Kill all the whiteys!

I prefer the term Honkey, tyvm.Stop oppressing me.

This is also great because on most other forums the mods would have banned me for that post.

[scrotiemcb]

"SJW" was intended as an insult. I find it's often more effective to own such attempts rather than try to fight them.

 

I have, however, started referring to the Other Side as "SIJW's." If our side is for justice, by implication the other side is for injustice. Nice and symmetrical. I can live with these terms.

Dangerous thoughts here.

 

Both of these "sides" are extremely vocal minorities, representing but a tiny fraction of the overall populace. For most, the label "warrior" couldn't apply less, and their views (when they decide to even have them) comprise a mixture of PC and not-at-all PC beliefs, as well as several which are uniquely moderate.

 

For the record, I am not a SJW. If forced to choose, I'd rather be a SJW than a "SIJW," but I don't have to, so I don't.

 

The reason is that I am only willing to fight to a point. Someone in this thread said earlier that a murderer has no right to life, etc. Real eye-for-an-eye stuff. To me, whether or not they have a right to it or not is irrelevant. We, as a community, are not more free when we kill murderers, but when we prevent them. Vengeance is not a goal of mine.

 

Mercilessness isn't a goal of mine, either. People will make mistakes. Sometimes, those mistakes will be so deeply rooted in that person's ethos that their behavior could be called evil. But this doesn't mean this always will be so, or what they have to contribute cannot be realized.

 

In fighting evil, we should fight the idea, the offspring of an ethical error... but not the person, unless left no other recourse. And for people, if one cares one lick about social justice, we must take care not to hate them, but instead direct our hate in its entirety towards false ideas.

 

There is a word I wish was less grammatically akward, and that word is "spar." It indicates a martial struggle, a fight, but the implication is that it is a friendly, or at least civil, bout, intended not to defeat others, but for mutual improvement, via the sharpening of skills, the discovery of weaknesses, and the improvisation of new solutions. I love sparring. But I hate war.

 

So I'm content being a Social Justice Sparrer. But I'll never be a Social Justice Warrior. And even then, sparring is a hobby to me, not a mission.

Edited April 14, 2015 by scrotiemcb

[Valmy]

When I think of the term SJW I tend to think of that mob that seeks to strike down those with impure beliefs, or even those with pure beliefs but said that stupid thing that one time. Rather than simply people with a SJ agenda. I mean I like to think I am on those people's side.

[Gfted1]

 

 

That's great because as a black person its impossible for me to be racist because I'm an oppressed minority!Kill all the whiteys!

I prefer the term Honkey, tyvm.Stop oppressing me.

This is also great because on most other forums the mods would have banned me for that post.

 

 

Why would you be banned for using a non-discriminatory word? That's crazy talk!

[Mungri]

Brains ... Please use them.

 

Then you might understand.

 

The first line in this post ended up with a 1 month ban on another forum lol.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Brains ... Please use them.

Then you might understand.

The first line in this post ended up with a 1 month ban on another forum lol.

Sounds like a terrible place. It was RPGnet wasn't it?

[Mungri]

Nope. Path of Exile forum:

 

http://i.imgur.com/iyiBmIS.png

 

You actually get to see one of the mods publically defaming and getting mad at me for having written 'Brains ... Please use them'.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Mungri

[Gfted1]

Regarding the poem, to me, it didn't pass the sniff test and absolutely read as discriminatory.

 

As to the discussion, I have a good hard belly laugh when I read posts trying to handwave any form of discrimination, up, down, or sideways. The post of yours that I quoted seemed to lampoon that so I don't have a problem with it. But for real, it wont be tolerated in any form.   

[DIIscIIple]

Is anyone else offended that the poems are so bad?

[scrotiemcb]

Nope. Path of Exile forum:

 

http://i.imgur.com/iyiBmIS.png

 

You actually get to see one of the mods publically defaming and getting mad at me for having written 'Brains ... Please use them'.

hi bhavv

[Namutree]

 

First, racism. Saying that white people can't be subjected to racism or will casually dismiss it is racism in itself.

You'd have a point if racism was defined simply as discrimination based on race. Most social justice advocates don't define it that way, so you're either ignorant of what the conversation is actually about or you're arguing in bad faith.

 

He does have a point as racial discrimination is a valid definition of racism. The version you referred to is valid as well.

 

Both carry a powerful stigma (and both should); if social justice advocates don't accept both versions as valid, they are perpetuating injustice.

[Serdan]

 

 

First, racism. Saying that white people can't be subjected to racism or will casually dismiss it is racism in itself.

You'd have a point if racism was defined simply as discrimination based on race. Most social justice advocates don't define it that way, so you're either ignorant of what the conversation is actually about or you're arguing in bad faith.

 

He does have a point as racial discrimination is a valid definition of racism. The version you referred to is valid as well.

 

Both carry a powerful stigma (and both should); if social justice advocates don't accept both versions as valid, they are perpetuating injustice.

 

ffs, try to actually comprehend what you read. Luckmann was referring to being told that white people can't be subjected to racism. The only scenario where I have seen anyone make such a claim is when sja's are talking about racism as systemic oppression. White people are not subjected to systemic oppression, so when a white person interjects into that conversation with "But a black person was once mean to me!" they are rightfully told to **** off. If I had only written the first sentence you'd have a point, but I followed it up with two more sentences that made it perfectly clear what I was on about.

I made my response specifically to what he wrote and with the underlying assumptions in mind.