Zimmerman Trial

[ASUMountaineer]

When did I give her a reason not to?

You could ask that question about anyone when dealing with a complete stranger, race aside.

Because when people treat you like ****, you don't trust them by default.

I've never treated her like shit. In fact, I've never met her...although, I was probably in Florida once during her lifetime.

I wish she wouldn't profile me like that.

[93henfan]

Because when people treat you like ****, you don't trust them by default.

I've never treated her like shit. In fact, I've never met her...although, I was probably in Florida once during her lifetime.

I wish she wouldn't profile me like that.

[youngterrier]

My position put simply is yes it is prejudiced, but racism is more than just prejudice. Racism is prejudice + power. And white people have all the power.

So, every comment that's racially insensitive is prejudiced, but not necessarily racist. follow? I'll admit I was inconsistent right there but I only made the concession because people focus more on the question of whether or not it's racist (ie hateful, and so on) and I'm trying to communicate a broader point and I don't want to be stuck on that one little tidbit which is basically and etymological miscommunication.

White people have all the power.

OK.

That makes sense.

Social power, political power, economic power, yep.

You can quantify the political power by seeing an overwhelming majority of politicians in office are white.
You can quanity the most economic power by seeing that most of the money and capital is with white people.
You can see that whites have the most social power because most prominent movies/TV shows have an overwhelming if not unanimous white cast, most media personalities, news anchors, and so on are white.

[93henfan]

White people have all the power.

OK.

That makes sense.

Social power, political power, economic power, yep.

You can quantify the political power by seeing an overwhelming majority of politicians in office are white.
You can quanity the most economic power by seeing that most of the money and capital is with white people.
You can see that whites have the most social power because most prominent movies/TV shows have an overwhelming if not unanimous white cast, most media personalities, news anchors, and so on are white.

Psssst.

The President is black.

[ASUMountaineer]

White people have all the power.

OK.

That makes sense.

Social power, political power, economic power, yep.

You can quantify the political power by seeing an overwhelming majority of politicians in office are white.
You can quanity the most economic power by seeing that most of the money and capital is with white people.
You can see that whites have the most social power because most prominent movies/TV shows have an overwhelming if not unanimous white cast, most media personalities, news anchors, and so on are white.

Does the president have power? If he called Boehner a "cracker" would that just be prejudice or would it rise the level of racist based on his level of power?

[youngterrier]

My position put simply is yes it is prejudiced, but racism is more than just prejudice. Racism is prejudice + power. And white people have all the power.

So, every comment that's racially insensitive is prejudiced, but not necessarily racist. follow? I'll admit I was inconsistent right there but I only made the concession because people focus more on the question of whether or not it's racist (ie hateful, and so on) and I'm trying to communicate a broader point and I don't want to be stuck on that one little tidbit which is basically and etymological miscommunication.

I follow what you're saying, but I disagree with it. I'm sure you hold it as indisputable fact, but I do not.

I do not agree that in order for a person to be a racist that they have to have power. By that standard, in America, only white people can be racists. That's complete and utter nonsense. Deep down, you probably know that, but you'd never admit it.

Actually, I do know that, it's called internalized racism. people of color can be racist against themselves and perpetuate harmful social norms that originated in white culture. They also can be prejudiced against white people. I just don't glorify what prejudice they hold against white people as racism because A)it's a reaction to oppression more than anything and B ) it's not nearly on the level of racism they themselves suffer.

You guys are getting hung up on the term racism here and skipping out on the important bits.

[youngterrier]

They have a deep-seeded hatred of white people because white people have treated them so unjustly.

The average black person in this country has been raised to think that way. People like you are the first ones to decry the "hate" under which Klukkers' kids or Skinheads' kids are raised, thus perpetuating the hate, but those black kids are somehow being raised in a fakking Currier and Ives landscape and only hate white people because there were slaves in their family tree and their great grandaddy got called "boy" down in Selma in 1957.

Reuben Greenberg once famously said that "if every white person disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow, black people would still have precisely the same problems." Yeah yeah, imperialism, colonialism, blah blah.

this post^^^ is 100% wrong

[93henfan]

Let's bring this circle jerk back on topic.

The defense has just requested an outright acquittal based on self defense. Interesting development.

[youngterrier]

No, because there are statistics about law enforcement, poverty, and so on that substantiate their claims.

Yet my experience is unsubstantiated. Sorry kid, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. Both blacks and whites are discriminated against and it's wrong.

Sure it's morally wrong, but the discrimination disproportionately effects not-white people

[youngterrier]

Social power, political power, economic power, yep.

You can quantify the political power by seeing an overwhelming majority of politicians in office are white.
You can quanity the most economic power by seeing that most of the money and capital is with white people.
You can see that whites have the most social power because most prominent movies/TV shows have an overwhelming if not unanimous white cast, most media personalities, news anchors, and so on are white.

Psssst.

The President is black.

Yeah and that's remarkable

[93henfan]

Psssst.

The President is black.

Yeah and that's remarkable

And I voted for him in 2008 because I thought he was the best person for the job. That's sort of how I live my life.

[ASUG8]

Yeah and that's remarkable

And I voted for him in 2008 because I thought he was the best person for the job. That's sort of how I live my life.

Imagine if we applied affirmative action to professional sports:
72% white guys
12% black guys
6% Asians
10% other

[youngterrier]

Social power, political power, economic power, yep.

You can quantify the political power by seeing an overwhelming majority of politicians in office are white.
You can quanity the most economic power by seeing that most of the money and capital is with white people.
You can see that whites have the most social power because most prominent movies/TV shows have an overwhelming if not unanimous white cast, most media personalities, news anchors, and so on are white.

Does the president have power? If he called Boehner a "cracker" would that just be prejudice or would it rise the level of racist based on his level of power?

It would be prejudiced. The power that the president has is both political and social. the distinction being that political power is something clearly outlined and strictly procedural whereas social power is much much different.

Social power is the ability for individuals to act in a certain way and it be socially acceptable ie we consent to someone doing something because of the social power they have. the office of the president and the icon that the president represents is an immense amount of social power. At the same time, there's a difference between him executing his power in his own privacy as opposed to the public eye. For instance, he was pro-gay marriage and single payer as a senator in the Illinois state house, but when running for president he didn't support those things. As president, he supported gay marriage but he wouldn't have done so unless he was sure that it wouldn't punch him in the face politically.

To that extent, he had to wait until the concept of gay rights had an extent of social power to where it wouldn't be politically toxic for himself. When he did so, it didn't hurt him, and it probably strengthened the concept of gay rights in our nation's psychie.

Now, back to your question about Boehner, if he were to do such a thing, it would be on the level of prejudice not racism because the concept of white people being called crackers is extremely weak in terms of social power. If he did such a thing he would have to apologize and it would be impossible for him to govern because no one would want to work with him. Him advocating that position would not undermine racist culture as racist culture is something beyond a single man, regardless of his political power.

individuals are the manifestation of culture, not the dictators. Political leaders only advocate perspective that only goes as far as social power deems okay.

[93henfan]

And I voted for him in 2008 because I thought he was the best person for the job. That's sort of how I live my life.

Imagine if we applied affirmative action to professional sports:
72% white guys
12% black guys
6% Asians
10% other

That would be almost as wrong as my decision in the 2008 election.

[GrizFanStuckInUtah]

And I voted for him in 2008 because I thought he was the best person for the job. That's sort of how I live my life.

Imagine if we applied affirmative action to professional sports:
72% white guys
12% black guys
6% Asians
10% other

You are welcome for the "Other" category as I often fill out my forms and check other and put "American" in it. I had a professor try to nail me down on it and I refused multiple times. I simply stated I was born in America and was an American, I didn't need nor want any other disticiton.

[youngterrier]

And I voted for him in 2008 because I thought he was the best person for the job. That's sort of how I live my life.

Imagine if we applied affirmative action to professional sports:
72% white guys
12% black guys
6% Asians
10% other

Yeah, but that's not why we do affirmative action. Affirmative action isn't about employing unqualified people. it's a (key word) government initiative to give a greater chance for employment and advancement for minorities for (key word) government jobs to alleviate and microscopically offset the racial discrepancies in employment and income and subsequent sociological condition.

It's not about ~making everyone equal~ in terms of ability, it's primarily about alleviating economic and employment hardship

[youngterrier]

Because when people treat you like ****, you don't trust them by default.

I've never treated her like shit. In fact, I've never met her...although, I was probably in Florida once during her lifetime.

I wish she wouldn't profile me like that.

btw everyone profiles on a personal basis (and that's actually been shown in studies and i think it's also common sense). The problem is that most of the employers are of a certain distinct background and don't realize that they do so and that leaves people of a certain look out of the job.

[ASUMountaineer]

Does the president have power? If he called Boehner a "cracker" would that just be prejudice or would it rise the level of racist based on his level of power?

It would be prejudiced. The power that the president has is both political and social. the distinction being that political power is something clearly outlined and strictly procedural whereas social power is much much different.

Social power is the ability for individuals to act in a certain way and it be socially acceptable ie we consent to someone doing something because of the social power they have. the office of the president and the icon that the president represents is an immense amount of social power. At the same time, there's a difference between him executing his power in his own privacy as opposed to the public eye. For instance, he was pro-gay marriage and single payer as a senator in the Illinois state house, but when running for president he didn't support those things. As president, he supported gay marriage but he wouldn't have done so unless he was sure that it wouldn't punch him in the face politically.

To that extent, he had to wait until the concept of gay rights had an extent of social power to where it wouldn't be politically toxic for himself. When he did so, it didn't hurt him, and it probably strengthened the concept of gay rights in our nation's psychie.

Now, back to your question about Boehner, if he were to do such a thing, it would be on the level of prejudice not racism because the concept of white people being called crackers is extremely weak in terms of social power. If he did such a thing he would have to apologize and it would be impossible for him to govern because no one would want to work with him. Him advocating that position would not undermine racist culture as racist culture is something beyond a single man, regardless of his political power.

individuals are the manifestation of culture, not the dictators. Political leaders only advocate perspective that only goes as far as social power deems okay.

Wow. I seriously don't even know how to reply to this. Unreal.

Two people commit the same action:

One only rises to the level of "prejudice" based on increased pigment, and the other rises to the level of "racism" because of a lack of pigment.

[ASUMountaineer]

I've never treated her like ****. In fact, I've never met her...although, I was probably in Florida once during her lifetime.

I wish she wouldn't profile me like that.

btw everyone profiles on a personal basis (and that's actually been shown in studies and i think it's also common sense). The problem is that most of the employers are of a certain distinct background and don't realize that they do so and that leaves people of a certain look out of the job.

Right, but according to you profiling is only justified for non-whites. That's utter nonsense.

[youngterrier]

It would be prejudiced. The power that the president has is both political and social. the distinction being that political power is something clearly outlined and strictly procedural whereas social power is much much different.

Social power is the ability for individuals to act in a certain way and it be socially acceptable ie we consent to someone doing something because of the social power they have. the office of the president and the icon that the president represents is an immense amount of social power. At the same time, there's a difference between him executing his power in his own privacy as opposed to the public eye. For instance, he was pro-gay marriage and single payer as a senator in the Illinois state house, but when running for president he didn't support those things. As president, he supported gay marriage but he wouldn't have done so unless he was sure that it wouldn't punch him in the face politically.

To that extent, he had to wait until the concept of gay rights had an extent of social power to where it wouldn't be politically toxic for himself. When he did so, it didn't hurt him, and it probably strengthened the concept of gay rights in our nation's psychie.

Now, back to your question about Boehner, if he were to do such a thing, it would be on the level of prejudice not racism because the concept of white people being called crackers is extremely weak in terms of social power. If he did such a thing he would have to apologize and it would be impossible for him to govern because no one would want to work with him. Him advocating that position would not undermine racist culture as racist culture is something beyond a single man, regardless of his political power.

individuals are the manifestation of culture, not the dictators. Political leaders only advocate perspective that only goes as far as social power deems okay.

Wow. I seriously don't even know how to reply to this. Unreal.

It's not about political power exclusively. Power isn't just political or economic. Social power is what gives economic and political power their power. By calling Boehner a cracker he would be writing a check his social power couldn't cash. The litmus test for racism is distinctly social power, because if one has power socially one will undoubtedly have power either politically or economically.

[youngterrier]

btw everyone profiles on a personal basis (and that's actually been shown in studies and i think it's also common sense). The problem is that most of the employers are of a certain distinct background and don't realize that they do so and that leaves people of a certain look out of the job.

Right, but according to you profiling is only justified for non-whites. That's utter nonsense.

What's your definition of "justification" because I think being angry people based on injustice or perceived injustice is "natural" and thus not something to shame. (Which is why I'm not going to shame 93hen for being anti-affirmative action--its an issue that has directly effected his life and he's going to have natural backlash to it).

I'm saying we prioritize who we shame for their views as priority indicates what we see as more important, and blacks distrusting/disliking whites is not as bad as whites distrusting/disliking blacks. The latter has lead to some rough stuff in the present day and the past, whereas the latter has not so much.

This isn't necessarily a universal rule of prioritization, but it is in the U.S. and places where there is great discrepancy in socio-economic-political circumstances....which thanks to history is a lot of places.

What we should do is point out a BS perspective and call it out as such. the idea that blacks receive special treatment in our culture is demonstrably not true. We have policies that show special treatment, but those are government policies and there's a great difference between the government and society. the government policy is a reaction of the societal condition. It's no way indicative of how employment practices work throughout the majority of society.

[Ibanez]

With all due respect, fuck your metaphysical sense. Dion on the street corner isn't using cracker in a metaphysical sense. He's calling a white person a cracker out of a deep seeded hate. You have so much to learn, don't allow a year of college make you think you're a wise in the ways of the world.

No, I've actually talked to black people who have used that term. this isn't philosophy or some academic assertion (I mean, yeah it is, but that's not the source of it all).

They have a deep-seeded hatred of white people because white people have treated them so unjustly.

Do you even know what you're saying anymore? There is hatred passed through the family. And out of that hatred words like "cracker" and "honkie" have come out as a means of ridicule.


Sent from my iPhone

[Ibanez]

Me either. I've involuntarily been denied opportunities in life so lesser qualified blacks could take the opportunity. My son with special needs gets less resources than a black kid in Head Start. I have black people make racist comments in front if me at work on a daily basis and I just have to bite my tongue. Saying anything would implicate me as a racist. I watch black managers hire disproportionate numbers of black employees. Hmmmm. I guess I've given black people so many reasons to hate me.

White tears lol

Again, the unemployment numbers for blacks and people of color are much higher, the average income both individually and by household is much lower for blacks/other people of color than white people. There are more racist jokes against black people both in media and throughout culture than jokes about white people.

and still, a black person is more likely to get stopped by cops (who are predominately white), most of the senators and congressmen are white, most business owners are white, most media personalities are white. Everywhere you look in the social and economic positions of power (with the exception of the president thankfully) you see white faces perpetuating injustices against people of color, whether it be directly through things such as police brutality and killing of unarmed people of color, or subliminally through media representations and caricatures of race.

Being white in our society is a position of privilege in comparison to being black.

(though I agree your special needs child should have better funding and the reasoning is similar but different)

You're done, you've already contradicted yourself. Face it, your 2 black friends are no match for the 100+ years of life experiences and friendships that many of have over you. My best friend is black, but his hatred of the term nigger and his embarrassment of the black cultural is anecdotal. You need to look at the group from a socio-economic standpoint. The civil war was over 148 yrs ago, JimCrow has been over for decades. Those that lived during that time are the minority of the black population. History only gets you so far


Sent from my iPhone

[Ibanez]

It would be prejudiced. The power that the president has is both political and social. the distinction being that political power is something clearly outlined and strictly procedural whereas social power is much much different.

Social power is the ability for individuals to act in a certain way and it be socially acceptable ie we consent to someone doing something because of the social power they have. the office of the president and the icon that the president represents is an immense amount of social power. At the same time, there's a difference between him executing his power in his own privacy as opposed to the public eye. For instance, he was pro-gay marriage and single payer as a senator in the Illinois state house, but when running for president he didn't support those things. As president, he supported gay marriage but he wouldn't have done so unless he was sure that it wouldn't punch him in the face politically.

To that extent, he had to wait until the concept of gay rights had an extent of social power to where it wouldn't be politically toxic for himself. When he did so, it didn't hurt him, and it probably strengthened the concept of gay rights in our nation's psychie.

Now, back to your question about Boehner, if he were to do such a thing, it would be on the level of prejudice not racism because the concept of white people being called crackers is extremely weak in terms of social power. If he did such a thing he would have to apologize and it would be impossible for him to govern because no one would want to work with him. Him advocating that position would not undermine racist culture as racist culture is something beyond a single man, regardless of his political power.

individuals are the manifestation of culture, not the dictators. Political leaders only advocate perspective that only goes as far as social power deems okay.

Wow. I seriously don't even know how to reply to this. Unreal.

Two people commit the same action:

One only rises to the level of "prejudice" based on increased pigment, and the other rises to the level of "racism" because of a lack of pigment.

YT is like Ralph. He needs to go home to daddy and let preacher man tell him there is evil on everyone. We all have the ability to discriminate and be discriminated against. METAPHYSICALLY, aka fundamentally, that's racism.

YT, we don't need your essays. You use words to sound smart but you don't every day anything. Be short and to the point.


Sent from my iPhone

[youngterrier]

No, I've actually talked to black people who have used that term. this isn't philosophy or some academic assertion (I mean, yeah it is, but that's not the source of it all).

They have a deep-seeded hatred of white people because white people have treated them so unjustly.

Do you even know what you're saying anymore? There is hatred passed through the family. And out of that hatred words like "cracker" and "honkie" have come out as a means of ridicule.


Sent from my iPhone

You're not reading what I'm saying and you're stating obvious things that I don't contradict what I'm saying