-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Shots fired at Police during Dallas Police anti-violence protest (5 officers killed)
- Thread starter thenight11
- Start date
- Status
excelsiorlef
Member
Nevermind misread
kame-sennin
Member
dangeraaron10
Unconfirmed Member
I've been around GAF for a while now.
This is, hands down and without compare, the worst thing I've ever read on this forum. This makes me sick to read, and this kind of thought process is on the same level of toxin that the far-right extremists use.
I'm done here.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
Any actual references to that? I'd love to hear a respected academic go on record and say there is only one definition of racism.
Very academic approach.
According to celebrated intellectual Geo, when 'academics' got involved, apparently. They only have one definition and no room for nuance, according to him.
BudokaiMR2
Member
The reason that academia focuses solely on institutional racism is because it is really the part most worth studying and the only aspect where wide-sweeping action and reform is possible. That doesn't somehow make racism on an individual basis not a thing.
This seems pretty obvious to me.
This seems pretty obvious to me.
Maintenance
Member
What the fuck.
J_ToSaveTheDay
Member
I see where this comes from, but as part-Korean individual, "racism" is used in context of the treatment of Korean citizens during World War II by the (EDIT!: Imperial) Japanese when discussed in the English language. People of Chinese descent use it in the same context as well. There is no "white power" involved in either of those contexts.
Seems to be too narrow of a definition of the term.
EDIT!: I also realized after initially posting this that prejudice is also appropriately used in my aforementioned contexts.
A Link to the Past
Banned
I read a post detailing an anonymous confession from a NeoGAF member sent by email of a white supremacist member of the KKK who, as a teacher, changed an answer on a black student's test to ensure that he failed.
I don't really want to get into the discussion of whether that definition is true or accurate (I certainly believe that there is merit to the point of racism having a certain meaning), but I mean, THIS being the worst thing you've ever read when we actually have had literal white nationalists, anti-LGBT people, etc., it just makes it seem like you're either exaggerating or that you are sheltered from truly awful posters on NeoGAF.
Sheesh, I remember back when an admin gave someone a tag that had a transphobic slur in it! NeoGAF has had some pretty dark days.But anyway, in general, people need to ~chill out~. Even if you disagree with kame-sennin on this matter, this is beyond normal, civil discourse and is veering too far into flame wars.
Says the person attempting to peel away the racist label from a murderer who deliberately targeted a single race.
There's only two being being desperate here and you're one of them.
The definition of racism used in academia is not applicable here. The common definition is different, the way average people use the word is different, the forum we're posting on uses a different definition.
Jawbreaker
Member
Defining racism with such rigidity just seems like a socially constructed way to cause unnecessary confusion. Instead of concocting a "definitive" definition using racism as a base with two separate variables attached, we should be looking at it as base racism, and also racism in its more odious form when those variables are also added in. This is already very clear, so I don't understand the need to complicate matters. This is only serving to define who can and can't be racist, rather than understanding what racism is and that racism can be much more harmful when coupled with other variables.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
Vicetrailia
Member
He was emboldened to kill white people, especially the police because he felt that they were racist against black people. He's a racist.
Or at least that is the label people will call him and that is label that he probably deserves.
Or at least that is the label people will call him and that is label that he probably deserves.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
This is a great post, and should be bolded somehow.
That's literally what most social work classes are describing racism as. Sociology too. The common use of the term will eventually come to change as more people study racism and understand it further. The arguments in this thread are beyond petty.
Nah. The only confusion comes about when people are trying to conflate systemic racism with the general term of racism. That's its really. So let's not do that anymore ok?
It's completely academic in this case anyway.
I'd like to see anyone argue in good faith that a person who is a) armed and b) willing to commit lethal violence against the object of his bigotry purely because of his bigotry... doesn't hold power to be called racist in this scenario.
I'd like to see anyone argue in good faith that a person who is a) armed and b) willing to commit lethal violence against the object of his bigotry purely because of his bigotry... doesn't hold power to be called racist in this scenario.
The academic definition will never become common because it does not describe one minority calling another by a racial slur as racism.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
Thank you, hun. Yes, I am still learning and open to changing my mind. Always learning, and loving to learn. I will pose the question to one of my advisors just to see what they think of the definition.
Slay me, I will be sure not to do that
That there is probably why you'll do very well.
A Link to the Past
Banned
I think it should be noted that the reason why a lot of people believe that racism inherently refers to institutional racism is because in the US (and elsewhere), racism does have its origins in institutional practices, and much of the racial prejudice perpetuated by white people against non-white people is the product of institutional racism.
Yes, institutional racism. It's a thing. So is the more general term of racism that can be applied across all races. A more narrowed but still general definition under the umbrella of prejudice.
Most seemingly have had college courses. We aren't idiots. Narrowing a term down doesn't always make you look smarter. It often makes a person look like a parrot. Incapable of showing they understand the full breathe of the argument surrounding the rigid assertion they are sticking too.
It's weird, not a single dictionary I have looked at subscribes exclusively to this narrow definition of racism.
Not sure if this has been posted earlier, but I'm gong to drop a link to the Russ Martin Show Listener's Foundation:
http://www.russmartin.fm/donate/
Russ Martin is a local radio DJ who started this foundation and here is there Mission Statement:
"The RMS Listeners Foundation supports the families of Dallas / Fort Worth Police officers and Firefighters who have courageously fallen in the line of duty."
Here is an article from earlier in the year in regards to a donation the RMS Listeners Foundation made for a fallen officer:
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Ru...30000-to-Slain-Officers-Family-370839981.html
http://www.russmartin.fm/donate/
Russ Martin is a local radio DJ who started this foundation and here is there Mission Statement:
"The RMS Listeners Foundation supports the families of Dallas / Fort Worth Police officers and Firefighters who have courageously fallen in the line of duty."
Here is an article from earlier in the year in regards to a donation the RMS Listeners Foundation made for a fallen officer:
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Ru...30000-to-Slain-Officers-Family-370839981.html
Of course not. Because what they are doing is appealing to narrow definitions of the term as defined by narrow schools of thought within narrowed academic disciplines.
Which serve their purpose in that discipline but eventually a person needs to understand that the winding path they have gone down academically does not govern all of the human race. Especielly on subjective matters like this. That they need to recognize other schools of thought have legitimacy in their own right and simply because you are strong in your convictions doesn't mean you are objectively infallible in your beliefs.
The "more general meaning" must be a *relatively* recent.
I doubt people of African descent were being called "racist" while they were slaves in the New World, were considered property, and had no agency. So to me, the concept is still tied to the ability to exercise power. Once they became people and had some personal or politcal power then the idea that they could be "reverse racists" became a thing. Conveniently.
Sorry, I was being facetious. Although I did look at about 10+ dictionary entries, just to be sure.
We have a term and an agreed upon definition. Reference any dictionary.
You want to ignore that and substitute for what you define it as. That's fine. I took sociology classes too. But you don't get to then say my definition I prefer from a narrowed academic field covers everyone when that's not how society has defined the term at large. What you are describing generally speaking is institutional racism.
Frankly I have to wonder why people like you and that other poster are going to such lengths to defend this killer from being called a racist? I mean you are aware very agreed upon definitions of the term would fit him under that umbrella? Why exactly is this such a sticking issue for you? All races can be deeply prejudiced.
Fallout-NL
Member
Have to agree. People are too quick to dismiss what Kame-Sennin was trying to say here.
Dictionaries are descriptive of the general use of a term, yes. So if the idea that everyone could be racist gained currency then I expect dictionary definitions to reflect common usage. But such usage would have been ludicrous in the not too distant past.
Just as you never heard about a "powerful homosexual agenda" before gay rights made strides "reverse racism" could never have been a thing when black people were property. It seems to be a common tactic of the side with the power, when faced with challenges to its status, to widen the definition of oppression to include the act of fighting against it.
Vicetrailia
Member
Maybe it makes the killers story seem simple, or undermines why he felt the way he did. Perhaps is black lives mattered he wouldn't be. Regardless, it's fitting to call him racist.
Is that what happened here? Wasn't the Dallas police actually supporting the protest?
See i'd like to think that murdering five people is a pretty fucking opressive act. You should try to remember that before asserting that calling this dude a racist murderer is an "attempt to widen the definition of opression to include the act of fighting against it".
...that minorities can't possibly be racist because they are not in a position of power? Yeah, that is definitely a point worth dismissing.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Without discussing the subject of racism as a system of institutional racial oppression? That doesn't seem like it makes your point seem very strong if your goal is to ignore/dismiss the points being made and not to actually address it.
Yeah, they are basically perpetuating the whole, "black people can't be racist" nonsense. I guarantee you that if some Mexican or Asian dude walked up to them and called them racial slurs and other racial shit their rigid definition of racist would change instantly.
This is just an appeal to emotion. If you want to call him names go ahead. My post was not an attack on anyone's freedom of speech but an explanation.
So now it's merely a conspiracy for how the agreed upon term that is not unique to this country came about?
Seriously, the mental gymnastics you all are doing to shield this killer from being called a racist is really quite the feat.
The man held a general hatred for white people. One in which he was willing to kill any and all white people that wore a police uniform. There is zero justification for that. Zero. You give me a term for that but while you are concocting some term that you can come up with out of your sociology 101 textbook I am going to just call him a person that fits the Oxford/American Heritage/Webster/Merriam definition of a racist. Or better yet a piece of human scum.
Vicetrailia
Member
Institutional racism or caste system of racism is different than racial prejudice, I got the point being made.
But I don't think that it's worth fighting over calling him racist, because people aren't using prejudice instead. You know what they mean.
But I don't think that it's worth fighting over calling him racist, because people aren't using prejudice instead. You know what they mean.
Uh what? You were suggesting that these murders was "an act of fighting against opression". That's not an explanation, that's just gross.
And i'm pretty sure i didn't accuse you of attacking freedom of speech. And calling him a racist murderer isn't "calling him names", it's just stating the obvious.
My point is that there are several definitions of racism, one of which is institutional racism. However just because institutional racism exists does not negate the broader more widely accepted interpretation of the term.
It's an explaination of how you define the term and an assumption for why we should dismiss the western world's agreed upon general definition. It's not an explaination other then to explain your rigidity and unwillingness to accept alternative definitions that have plenty of credence to them. For a purpose I am still a bit lost on?
- Status