Hillary Clinton calls Bosnia sniper story a mistake

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
Oppression isn't required in order for someone to be a racist.

Yes, it is.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Yes, it is.

Rather a narrow definition of racism, out of many possibilities, imho.

[chequita guevara]

It's a better one though. That's why academics and those struggling against racism for the past several generations have used it in a very specific way. The fight against racism isn't the fight against whether or not we like people based on skin color, it's based on ending oppression based on skin color (or however race may be defined in a particular society). Calling Black kids racist because they mostly sit together at a few lunch tables in high school divorces the word from its social and historical contexts, which is very typical for Americans, actually.

[Aeson]

English is a language in which words are allowed to have more than one specific meaning, and these meanings, and even the words themselves, have even evolved over time. We have books which give the valid definitions of terms. They are often called dictionaries.

If you want to specify which definition you are using, English also allows for that. If you want to talk about racial oppression, it's not difficult. If you want to talk about racial prejudices, it isn't difficult either. "Racist" and "racism" can apply to both. Relying on ambiguous terms to reference your subject matter is futile. Use more specific terminology to convey your thoughts and you can avoid delving into semantic arguments which only serve to obfuscate the issue. (Especially important when your semantic argument is fallacious and easily refuted by the aforementioned "definition books".)

[SlowwHand]

There's not a lot of different definitions or use for "ducking sniper fire".

[Aeson]

Which may be part of the reason why the word "allowed" differs from "required".

[SlowwHand]

quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker

You didn't answer my question: is Jesse Jackson a racist for being apprehensive about walking down an alley at night occupied by several black men?



No, because he isn't oppressing them.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


No, because he isn't oppressing them.

His attitude, since he's black, is less oppressive to the stereotype? Bull****.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
No, because he isn't oppressing them.

No, but he's helping with the oppression, making it more acceptable.

You say you want to stop oppression, fine, that's a very good thing, but you have to change the climate where the oppression is allowed before you can change the oppression.

ACK!

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Aeson
If you want to specify which definition you are using, English also allows for that. If you want to talk about racial oppression, it's not difficult. If you want to talk about racial prejudices, it isn't difficult either. "Racist" and "racism" can apply to both. Relying on ambiguous terms to reference your subject matter is futile. Use more specific terminology to convey your thoughts and you can avoid delving into semantic arguments which only serve to obfuscate the issue.

QFMFT

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
She's 60 right now. I'm not sure she'll have much of an oppertunity to run later on. I guess she could run in 4 years if McCain ends up being President, but I don't see her as a McCain, running in her 70s.

If that fossil McCain can run then why can't Hillary? I mean he'll be 73.5 years old by election day so if he does a full two terms then he'll be almost 82 by the time he leaves office. That's just to old.

[Jon Miller]

women generally live longer then men anyways

JM

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Aeson
English is a language in which words are allowed to have more than one specific meaning, and these meanings, and even the words themselves, have even evolved over time. We have books which give the valid definitions of terms. They are often called dictionaries.

If you want to specify which definition you are using, English also allows for that. If you want to talk about racial oppression, it's not difficult. If you want to talk about racial prejudices, it isn't difficult either. "Racist" and "racism" can apply to both. Relying on ambiguous terms to reference your subject matter is futile. Use more specific terminology to convey your thoughts and you can avoid delving into semantic arguments which only serve to obfuscate the issue. (Especially important when your semantic argument is fallacious and easily refuted by the aforementioned "definition books".)

You're the one making a semantic argument. To avoid getting into one we should put you on ignore.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It's a better one though. That's why academics and those struggling against racism for the past several generations have used it in a very specific way. The fight against racism isn't the fight against whether or not we like people based on skin color, it's based on ending oppression based on skin color (or however race may be defined in a particular society).

I'm a bit confused here, help me out. Do you consider specific white individuals to be "racist" or are you referring to the policies etc as being racist?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
Racism - Is a societal level manifestation of Bigotry, a system that relegates a race to a second class citizen status.

I don't understand why people object to this definition.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I don't understand why people object to this definition.

eh?