University of Delaware: All Whites in U.S. are Racist

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Do you want a cookie for coming to that conclusion? Of course whites are the root of the problem.

What an incredible bigot you are.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Aeson
The point you are making is ignorant of reality and intolerant.

Why do you call a simple observation that there is a difference between having prejudice feelings and thoughts and doing something like terrorizing someone because of their race. You don't understand the difference? Why the hell not? What is wrong with you?

It's also not intolerant at all. I tolerate everyone, even racist whites even though they make my stomach turn.

You don't think it's wrong to group people together and judge them not based on what they actually do, but what color their skin is? I find that very wrong. Sorry.

I don't care if you think it's wrong. Stop ignoring my point. If you insist on ignoring it just stop responding. There is a difference between thinking about someone in a certain way and treating them in a certain way.

It is racist to be prejudiced against a person based on the color of their skin, ethnicity, or ancestral line. When you say that "whites are the only ones who are racist" you are illustrating to the rest of us that your personal views in this matter are racist.

I know what the dictionary says. Why does that prevent you from understanding how different it is that whites are racist from blacks are prejudice? There is clearly a great difference in the effect on society. Do you agree or disagree with that?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Caligastia


What an incredible bigot you are.

Back at you.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Why do you call a simple observation that there is a difference between having prejudice feelings and thoughts and doing something like terrorizing someone because of their race. You don't understand the difference? Why the hell not? What is wrong with you?

I guess what is wrong with me is I was addressing what you said, and not something else entirely like you're trying to portray now. Sorry for dealing with reality, I should know better than to try that in a discussion with you.

Here's what you said btw:

"That is prejudice, not racism."

"White people are much more likely to terrorize another race. In fact, I think they are in an exclusive club in that regard."

"I'm prejudice like most people. I'm not a racist because I don't do anything wrong to other people who are not the same color as me."

You are clearly wrong in how you are using the terms "prejudice" and "racism" as mutually exclusive. Prejudice based on race is racism.

It's also not intolerant at all. I tolerate everyone, even racist whites even though they make my stomach turn.

It's very tolerant of you to claim whites as a race are different than other races in that they're the only ones who can be racist.

I don't care if you think it's wrong.

Oh, but you do. That's why you felt compelled to address it.

Stop ignoring my point. If you insist on ignoring it just stop responding. There is a difference between thinking about someone in a certain way and treating them in a certain way.

That's not the point we were discussing. Your point that we've been discussing is that only whites are racist. Of course now you're trying to pretend we've been talking about something else, because I (or rather easily accessable reality) annihilated your claims.

I know what the dictionary says.

Obviously not, since you are saying that only whites can be racist... while saying minorities can only be prejudiced based on race... WHICH IS THE DEFINITION OF RACISM.

Why does that prevent you from understanding how different it is that whites are racist from blacks are prejudice?

And just like that you're back to misusing the terms again to support your own ignorant viewpoint.

Prejudice based on race is racism. Stop trying to pretend otherwise. It just makes you look silly.

There is clearly a great difference in the effect on society. Do you agree or disagree with that?

Sure there's a difference. Majority populations, or those populations who are in power, have more of an effect in general. Case by case though there is no difference. If someone attacks someone else based on racial prejudices (racism) then that's what it is, racially inspired assault, regardless of what the attacker's and victim's skin colors are.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Aeson
Sure there's a difference. Majority populations, or those populations who are in power, have more of an effect in general. Case by case though there is no difference. If someone attacks someone else based on racial prejudices (racism) then that's what it is, racially inspired assault, regardless of what the attacker's and victim's skin colors are.

Kid's already on record saying that that just doesn't happen, and that whites are the only people capable of attacking someone else based on their race. He laughed at the mere suggestion that a black guy might beat up a white guy because he was white.

[Kidlicious]

Let's just skip to the chase. We are in general agreement.

Issue: Can only whites be racist?
My claim: Yes, only whites are racist.

That's why I was trying to explain to you the difference between being prejudice and being racist THE WAY THAT I DEFINED THE TERMS. Have you ever heard of defining terms for the purpose of the conversation? It's quite common. Unfortunately you chose to be obtuse.

Originally posted by Aeson
Sure there's a difference. Majority populations, or those populations who are in power, have more of an effect in general. Case by case though there is no difference. If someone attacks someone else based on racial prejudices (racism) then that's what it is, racially inspired assault, regardless of what the attacker's and victim's skin colors are.

Anyway, yes case by case there is no difference. However, let's take the example of a black person on trial with an all white jury and a white person on trial with an all black jury. I think the white person will get a much fairer trial.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Let's just skip to the chase. We are in general agreement.

Issue: Can only whites be racist?
My claim: Yes, only whites are racist.

That's why I was trying to explain to you the difference between being prejudice and being racist THE WAY THAT I DEFINED THE TERMS. Have you ever heard of defining terms for the purpose of the conversation? It's quite common. Unfortunately you chose to be obtuse.

Yeah, but if your definition disagrees with everyone else's it doesn't mean much of anything. Especially since, AFAICT, your argument is that only whites are racist because only whites are racist. Way to beg the question.

Anyway, yes case by case there is no difference. However, let's take the example of a black person on trial with an all white jury and a white person on trial with an all black jury. I think the white person will get a much fairer trial.

Why? Because of the higher incidence of the "fairness" gene in black people or something? Nuh-uh. The fairness is likely to depend on the attitudes of the individual jurors, the nature of the charges, and a bunch of other things. You could get twelve reasonable black guys, or twelve members of the Nation of Islam, or any combo in between.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Let's just skip to the chase. We are in general agreement.

Not in the slightest. You want to stereotype based on skin color. I want to show your arguments in that regard for what they are... intellectually defunct bull****.

If you want to agree with me about that, feel free. But I definitely do not agree with you that whites are somehow the only ones capable of being racist.

Issue: Can only whites be racist?
My claim: Yes, only whites are racist.

See. Here you clearly accept this is the issue we've been discussing. I do not agree with your claim. Not on any level.

That's why I was trying to explain to you the difference between being prejudice and being racist THE WAY THAT I DEFINED THE TERMS.

You say only whites are racist. You say minorities are only prejudiced based on race. You try to support the differentiation by saying only whites act on their racial prejudices.

Even if we were to accept your misuse of the terms "prejudice" and "racist", your claim is still clearly wrong. Because for your claim to hold up, there can't be any racially motivated attacks by minorities, and that claim you made has been shown to be utterly falacious.

Have you ever heard of defining terms for the purpose of the conversation? It's quite common. Unfortunately you chose to be obtuse.

Of course I choose to be obtuse when dealing with your racist stereotyping. Especially since you are attempting to misuse terms to promote your bigoted tripe.

Perhaps if you would like to be shown some consideration and given leeway, you shouldn't go about it by spouting off racist drivel.

Anyway, yes case by case there is no difference. However, let's take the example of a black person on trial with an all white jury and a white person on trial with an all black jury. I think the white person will get a much fairer trial.

That's because you're racist. The fairness of the trial will depend on the individual viewpoints of those in the jury, not upon their skin color.

[Kuciwalker]

Not in the slightest. You want to stereotype based on skin color. I want to show your arguments in that regard for what they are... intellectually defunct bull****.

Why are you even bothering with Kid? "Intellectually defunct bull****" is all he's ever posted.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Elok
Yeah, but if your definition disagrees with everyone else's it doesn't mean much of anything.

Of course it does. You creating rules that allow you to pretend that you don't understand.

Especially since, AFAICT, your argument is that only whites are racist because only whites are racist. Way to beg the question.

Isn't that redundant? You are just saying that I can't define terms again.

Why? Because of the higher incidence of the "fairness" gene in black people or something? Nuh-uh. The fairness is likely to depend on the attitudes of the individual jurors, the nature of the charges, and a bunch of other things. You could get twelve reasonable black guys, or twelve members of the Nation of Islam, or any combo in between.

I wouldn't call it fairness. Let's just say the blacks understand how things work differently, and that will allow them to be fairer.

[Elok]

So begging the question is no longer a fallacy? Okay, then: you're a racist because you're a racist. I win!

Seriously, though, if I define "axe murderer" as "person who does not live in Somalia," then I can certainly call you an axe murderer, no? But since nobody else that I know of uses that definition of the term, it's pretty meaningless. And if the other people in an argument don't agree with your definition-for-the-sake-of-argument, you're wasting your time arguing from it. We don't agree with the very basis of your argument.

[Kidlicious]

...

[Riesstiu IV]

KKKidicious just got pwned.

[Patroklos]

Lets go get a beer Kid, it looks like you could use it.

[Caligastia]