Race Activist hijacks Orlando Vigil

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

51 minutes ago, SKANK said:

 

That isn't entirely true. It's obviously more complex then just saying they were not always white. If we are using the modern definition of Caucasian (white-skinned; of European origin), there is no question the Irish were always white. But because race is really just a social construct, it is important to look at the way the Irish were viewed in a historical context. They were nicked named the "white-negro" which implies that they fell into a racial grey area, but were regarded as "white." I believe it was sometime after the Civil War when the "whiteness" or Irish Americans was accepted socially.

But this is semantics. When someone says "you can't be racist against white people" - that is a factually incorrect statement .

I don't necessarily agree 100% with the whole "you can't be racist against white people!" thing because, definitions have different usages and are more or less appropriate in different contexts. That being said, your example didn't really disprove this notion. Irish people (which weren't even the only group of immigrants who were not immediately considered to be "white") were not considered white in a colloquial, social context, which is what is important when we are talking about Racism as a force in society... we aren't discussing their legal status. It is true that Irish people along with pretty much all Europeans were considered white by definition, but they were not treated as such and I think that distinction is what makes the whole "against white people" bit still applicable. It is a bit confusing I guess

Throughout the 19th century as immigrants from Europe began to come over, most of them were not immediately considered white and were treated as lesser than white; they weren't always seen as as bad as "black", but they weren't white. Irish people just experienced a much more severe case of racism than other immigrants like White-Hispanics, Germans, etc. where like you said they were seen as almost as bad as if not just as bad as black people "white negroes", "negroes turned inside out", etc.  Jews and Italians faced struggles becoming "white" in America as well, though their journeys are totally different and to this day not all Jews are considered "white", and some Italians are not "white-passing" based on skin color alone, so while they may be legally white, they may not have "white privilege" necessarily or be treated like "white" people.

Racism as looked at in behavioral studies is a hierarchy essentially, and who all gets to sit up at the top of it has changed and continues to change throughout history. What hasn't really changed though (post the definition of race and concept of classifying human beings based on it) is that "White" refers to the people on top. At least in Western contexts. This is all pretty America/European centric though, racism is different in places where the group of people with the most social power is different than what we would call "white", and the power imbalances today are different as well because of history. White people do not have social power in China or Japan for example, and they (along with black people) are often seen as "foreigners", but they aren't necessarily looked down upon or discriminated against in a way thats always analogous to Western style Racism. Sometimes it is, but many times its different. I would argue that in Japan for example, Nativism and maybe Xenophobia are really big problems, and those have serious ties to Racism, but I don't think that white people or even black people are systematically oppressed the way that black people are in America. It's a different kind of racism if it is racism at all. Asia as a whole, including South Asia and the Middle-East deals with racism in a way that's not always comparable (but sometimes is) with how most of the West does, so its important to note.

Also, sorry for all the quotation marks, i should've emphasized better
I guess what I'm trying to say is that that definition is subjective based on location, historical context, and in what manner you are examining things (like legally, sociologically, anthropologically, etc.) Legally, "white people" could be racist to "white people", but socially people could not be racist to "white people" in America and most of the West on a systematic or institutional level. It's not entirely factually incorrect, but its not always correct either. 

I guess if you really wanted to, you could say "This is factually incorrect" if someone says that "People can NEVER be racist to white people on individual or institutional levels anywhere in the world", but I don't think most people think that far ahead when they say 'you can't be racist to white people!''

It's also semantics  

[SKANK 14,288]

3 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

I don't necessarily agree 100% with the whole "you can't be racist against white people!" thing because, definitions have different usages and are more or less appropriate in different contexts. That being said, your example didn't really disprove this notion. Irish people (which weren't even the only group of immigrants who were not immediately considered to be "white") were not considered white in a colloquial, social context, which is what is important when we are talking about Racism as a force in society... we aren't discussing their legal status. It is true that Irish people along with pretty much all Europeans were considered white by definition, but they were not treated as such and I think that distinction is what makes the whole "against white people" bit still applicable. It is a bit confusing I guess

Throughout the 19th century as immigrants from Europe began to come over, most of them were not immediately considered white and were treated as lesser than white; they weren't always seen as as bad as "black", but they weren't white. Irish people just experienced a much more severe case of racism than other immigrants like White-Hispanics, Germans, etc. where like you said they were seen as almost as bad as if not just as bad as black people "white negroes", "negroes turned inside out", etc.  Jews and Italians faced struggles becoming "white" in America as well, though their journeys are totally different and to this day not all Jews are considered "white", and some Italians are not "white-passing" based on skin color alone, so while they may be legally white, they may not have "white privilege" necessarily or be treated like "white" people.

Racism as looked at in behavioral studies is a hierarchy essentially, and who all gets to sit up at the top of it has changed and continues to change throughout history. What hasn't really changed though (post the definition of race and concept of classifying human beings based on it) is that "White" refers to the people on top. At least in Western contexts. This is all pretty America/European centric though, racism is different in places where the group of people with the most social power is different than what we would call "white", and the power imbalances today are different as well because of history. White people do not have social power in China or Japan for example, and they (along with black people) are often seen as "foreigners", but they aren't necessarily looked down upon or discriminated against in a way thats always analogous to Western style Racism. Sometimes it is, but many times its different. I would argue that in Japan, Nativism and maybe xenophobia are really big problems, and those have serious ties to Racism, but I don't think that white people or even black people are systematically oppressed the way that black people are in America. It's a different kind of racism if it is racism. Asia as a whole, including South Asia and the Middle-East deals with racism in a way that's not always comparable (but sometimes is) with how most of the West does, so its important to note.

Also, sorry for all the quotation marks, i should've emphasized better
I guess what I'm trying to say is that that definition is subjective based on location, historical context, and in what manner you are examining things (like legally, sociologically, anthropologically, etc.) Legally, "white people" could be racist to "white people", but socially people could not be racist to "white people" in America and most of the West on a systematic or institutional level. It's not entirely factually incorrect, but its not always correct either. 

I guess if you really wanted to, you could say "This is factually incorrect" if someone says that "People can NEVER be racist to white people on individual or institutional levels anywhere in the world", but I don't think most people think that far ahead when they say 'you can't be racist to white people!''

It's also semantics  

 

I didn't see anything in your post that I disagree with.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

1 minute ago, SKANK said:

 

I didn't see anything in your post that I disagree with.

Good  

Pleasure doing business with you  

[Sakrai 4,759]

8 hours ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

It's controversial, and mostly used in sociological circles (which has expanded to Social Justice spaces  ) because of it. The definition you are talking about is actually closer to the maybe historical, scientific definition? Racism has a lot of history in science and well, history but I would argue that most academic discussion about it is being done in sociology and anthropology these days.There are several definitions btw

http://sociology.about.com/od/R_Index/fl/Racism.htm 

There are several modern academic papers that discuss the power + prejudice model of racism, which was coined by Pat Bidol in 1970, and its generally kind of accepted amongst those circles, but its not definitive. I think the issue is honestly more tied into the nuances of descriptive and prescriptive language and definitions, where people think that "dictionary definition of their choice" is the only real answer and that all other answers are just some "SJW myth creation" or whatever, even though the terms aren't new at all.
What ends up happening is that people who are versed on academic definitions of racism, or into sociology and race relations, gender theory, women's studies, etc. (all of which have some kind of basis in Sociology) use this definition because they believe it has more clout and is more important in the big picture (These interdisciplinary studies all tend to examine society in a macro way, structuralism and all that jazz.) than the colloquial definition used to define everyday events and situations. In my opinion, its not important which definition you use as long as you can realize that are several with appropriate meanings and usages. Sometimes its more important to talk about racism in an academic setting than in a colloquial one for example; while calling a white person a "cracker" may be a racially motivated (and by some definitions "Racist") slur, it doesn't hold the power to affect policy or influence social standards, stereotypes, mores, etc. so many people use the academic definition almost exclusively.

Even before the "Power + Prejudice" Model came into popular use, there was already discourse that described and heavily alluded to a similar model and definition. Several foreigners and critical thinkers wrote books about slavery and racism in America that go back to the 1800s that in my opinion, very heavily allude to the modern power + prejudice definition or a structural, institutional one. Some of the most prominent authors and thinkers were french men. If you want to know more, I can point you in the right direction.

Thank you very much for pointing me towards some academic discussion on the subject. I was kinda surprised to find someone throw such a controvertial definition of racism in a place like GagaDaily, as if it was common knowlede.

Usually when you want to make a point using controvertial definitions you would first frame it as such, to avoid misunderstanding. 'According to X, racism is also...' Or 'although this is considered a controvertial definition, racism...'. So I was left a bit surprised at the matter-of-factly tone of the definitions.

So apparently these ideas of racism as 'prejudice + power' are quite widespread in american movements such as SJW and BLM, so much as to being part of common everyday discourse, outside of academic discussion and even into pop forums. This is a dangerous thing.

Anyway I'll look more into it. My area of research is focused on Asia and specifically Japan, so I'm not entirely aware of the issues of America and the ideologies that inform their movements. But I have several friends researching issues of racism here and I'd like to discuss this with them. Thank you!

[Brian Ryan 1,468]

2 hours ago, SKANK said:

 

That isn't entirely true. It's obviously more complex then just saying they were not always white. If we are using the modern definition of Caucasian (white-skinned; of European origin), there is no question the Irish were always white. But because race is really just a social construct, it is important to look at the way the Irish were viewed in a historical context. They were nicked named the "white-negro" which implies that they fell into a racial grey area, but were regarded as "white." I believe it was sometime after the Civil War when the "whiteness" or Irish Americans was accepted socially.

But this is semantics. When someone says "you can't be racist against white people" - that is a factually incorrect statement .

You just said what I said. lol They were not white and now they are. It's simple. When someone says that you can't be racist against white people. It may be factual correct, but in real life yehhh it won't get you far. Anyways, I'm done. Everything isn't that deep.

[Rebel Heart 5,142]

6 hours ago, SKANK said:

 

White people have never been suppressed as a racial group? I think the Irish might disagree with you. Even if we set aside "The Famine" which fits the legal definition of genocide...

I'm fairly certain the thousands of Irish slaves shipped to America by King James II would disagree with you. The thousands of Irish slaves Oliver Cromwell bound and took to the Caribbean might also disagree with you. The hundred thousand Irish children taken from their parents in the 1600's and sold as slaves in the West Indies might disagree with you. The African slaves who revolted along side the Irish slaves in Barbados, might defend their pale brothers against that little bit of history Social Justice Warriors like yourself want to sweep under the rug in the name of preserving the Great Pyramid of Oppression. Now even if you want to dismiss the Irish slave trade as "indentured servitude" - which would be obscene, as the difference between the two was marginal at the time - the discrimination that followed them into the 1800's surely is an example of, as you said, "a racial group being suppressed:"

Political cartoons depicting Irish Americans as monkeys was as common as African Americans being depicted as monkeys.

Anti-Irish Immigrant Cartoon, a popular sentiment at the time.

"The most recently discovered wild beast. Sign reads: Irish Americans." In other words, the Irish are animals.

Signs in business windows commonly read Help Wanted: INNA (Irish Need Not Apply.)  The popular Know-Nothing political party was formed to protest Irish Immigration. The term "paddy wagon" is coined - denoting the idea that the Irish were criminals.

 

The Irish faced those hardships because of their ethnicity, religion and because of imperialism, arguably the same reasons issues with black people started (if you swap ethnicity with race) but the Irish had the benefit of having European features. Within a few generations the Irish assimilated into whiteness and in earlier times most often by going against black people. The Irish were still white and could easily fit into the Eurocentric standard set at the time so as long as they sounded American who would have know they were Irish? And plus it's not like being of Irish descent in modern day America brings people any hardship as compared to being of African descent. I'd recommend watching this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmHct5IHxrA

 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

1 hour ago, Resquid said:

Thank you very much for pointing me towards some academic discussion on the subject. I was kinda surprised to find someone throw such a controvertial definition of racism in a place like GagaDaily, as if it was common knowlede.

Usually when you want to make a point using controvertial definitions you would first frame it as such, as to avoid misunderstanding. 'According to X, racism is also...' Or 'although this is considered a controvertial definition, racism...'.

So apparently these ideas of racism as 'prejudice + power' are quite widespread in american movements such as SJW and BLM, so much as to being part of common everyday discourse, outside of academic discussion and even into pop forums. This is a dangerous thing.

Anyway I'll look more into it. My area of research is focused on Asia and specifically Japan, so I'm not entirely aware of the issues of America and the ideologies that inform their movements. But I have several friends researching issues of racism here and I'd like to discuss this with them. Thank you!

Incoming thesis paper length post, so I'll put it in a spoiler  Where are you from btw, I'm interested
 

Spoiler

 

I don't think that people using it as their main definition is any more dangerous than people using a colloquial definition and believing that it MUST hold more meaning or importance than other definitions actually. I mean, we can make the argument that academic jargon is used in academic settings BECAUSE its referring to things in a non colloquial setting, so to assume all people should know and understand this definition is a bit presumptuos. That's a fair argument, which is why I'm open to discussion and reference different meanings in different contexts whenever I can.

It's an unfortunate and interesting phenomenon to me, because people accept academic definitions as reasonable, factual alternatives to colloquial ones all of the time. Think of the word "theory" and how it is used in science compared to how it used in colloquial speech. I don't think people would seriously argue that a theory, along with being an idea or hypothesis is NOT also "a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena" even though parts of this definition are markedly different or even conflicting with the colloquial.

The problem here I think is that Racism is a thing that exists in society. In science, we trust (albeit too much  ) that scientists are experts on their crafts, and everyone believes they are an expert in "society", even though sociologists and anthropologists, (critical) race theorists etc. actually kind of are our version of experts in a sense. I say experts, its really just to say that they dedicate the time and effort to professionally study the phenomenon of racism. We don't realize that many of these definitions of understandings come from academic study, and even when we do, we reject their credibility. 

I think "SJWs" and maybe "BLM" (which is really only a few years old and not as concrete as people think it is) are trying to push people to understand and accept the sociological academic definition of racism specifically because SO few people know of it and many of those who do think it is somehow false or contrived. Most of the criticism against the sociological definition comes from some kind of belief that its a modern creation by "SJWs" on Tumblr or whatever to try to guilt white men into feeling bad or that comes from some kind of asinine victim complex or whatever, which is really just factually inaccurate. 

Also, maybe I wasn't clear... This definition of racism did not originate in "SJW" circles or "BLM" at all, it originated in early sociology, anthropology, and history and became popularized in a kind of cult manner. The term "SJW" as a pejorative only became popular in the last few years even though "Social Justice Warrior" as an idea or concept has existed in at least SOME form since the mid 1800s. "SJW" was a term that tended to refer to almost exclusively feminists, especially third-wave feminists and radical feminists and it became exceedingly more popular post Gamergate around 2011. Now (2016) the term usually means anyone who attempts to speak on or about social justice and civil rights issues, especially for groups of people that the speaker does not belong to or speaks very passionately about. (So like, white people talking about racism black people face and things like that - this isn't inherently problematic, but it can be at times) Originally even minus the obligatory feminist targetting, it referred to someone who talked about Social Justice in an excessive way. This sometimes manifested in the situations I talked about above, where people who didn't belong to minority groups felt some kind of savior/guilty complex compelled them to speak on behalf of minorities who couldn't. Again, that wasn't always the motivation, in fact because of the pejorative nature of calling someone an "SJW" I'd argue that just because this was the reasoning doesn't mean that its actually why people spoke about social justice for groups they didn't belong to at all  (In other words, it can often be a misplaced label)

BLM is an even newer movement, if you mean the movement to try to change people's opinions about black people in regards to black culture and depoliticize their existence. Some main focuses are on things like Police brutality and incarceration rates, but this movement is not like, "The Civil Rights Movement", though you could argue its kind of a Part 2, lol.

Interestingly enough, there is kind of a correlation between the people that may be called "SJWs" pejoratively and Black Lives Matter followers or activists but BLM is not predicated on it by any means and I'm entirely sure that many people are uneducated about it. You don't have to know it or even believe in it to follow BLM basically. I think its mostly because the people who are called "SJWs" has greatly expanded since the term's pejorative use has come into the mainstream. (A natural side effect of language being spread via a medium like the internet  )

Now that I've explained that more in depth, I don't think its really fair to assign any sort of responsibility to them for using or popularizing the modern sociological definition of racism; its older than both of them by several decades. 

~~~~

Back to the matter of it being "dangerous", I disagree.

On a colloquial level, black people can be racist to white people in America. That's the only benefit of using that definition in these discussions. It's entirely useless for actually describing racism on a systematic or institutional level and it says nothing about the power imbalance and structures in place in society, which are what are important for talking about how racist attitudes contribute to racist societies and hierarchy in general. I think some people believe that because certain people use a different definition of racism, they do not see prejudicial acts as "bad". (I say prejudicial because under this definition, a black person being what is colloquially thought of as "racism" is just prejudice because it lacks power) I don't think that's true though; realizing that some all problems are not equal in impact, depth, etc. does not necessarily imply that they do not think that all problems are still problems. No one is defending any kind of prejudice, and it is only important to point out the power imbalance between the two kinds of racism being discussed here because ignoring the kind that affects people on a massive scale historically leads to (or rather does not prevent or fight against) systematic and institutional oppression. 

For example, groups like BLM might campaign against police brutality and violence and the disproportionate arrests of black people, especially for non violent drug crimes; This is an example of systematic racism, and someone saying something like generalizing all black people as "thugs" and people around them agreeing reinforces the stereotype that this is true and feeds into general anti-black sentiment; people also use things like this to reinforce their own biases and prejudices. That's quite an oversimplification of things, but I digress. I'd say because of the colloquial nature of how people generally define Racism, they have a lot of trouble seeing the academic or sociological definition of racism as being "correct", which leads to conflating of issues. Because of privilege, many people may think that these racisms are entirely equal, which is why white people may find things like "Black Lives Matter" to be controversial or offensive or even "racist" statements. They are conflating individual acts of prejudice (that we may sometimes call "racism") based on skin color with overarching oppression which greatly affects large portions of society. This can lead to white people and people who don't just in general understand to not actively campaign for true "equality" in terms of treatment. I would honestly argue that most people believe all people are "created equal", identify as "Egalitarians", believe in some kind of good will towards ALL people regardless of race, sexual orientation, gender ( + identity), etc. But people that don't see a problem won't try to fix it. I have had people literally tell me that black people, women, white men, minorities, etc. are ALL treated the same with full certainty and then go on to say that movements like Feminism, BLM, are entirely unneeded. I find it incredibly unnerving personally and more "dangerous" than a colloquial definition that's not adequate in lessening the effects of racism or even improving race relations that much either. That definition gave birth to ideas like "color blindness", which in my and many others opinions do so much more harm than good. 

This parts just extra... It's just my opinion with a bit of fact underneath it:

I would argue that in America, People of Color don't have to understand academic definitions or sociological concepts to grasp that the racism they face is in some ways different from the individual acts of racism that are applicable to all people of different races because of the nature of socialization mixed with the reality of our unequal power relations. Because American society historically (and even currently) heavily favors and prioritizes the experience and lives of White people, People of Color know what that experience is like. It's in everything from the day people are born to the day they die. (To what extent varies individually, especially when we examine a couple of key factors, one major one being Demography and neighborhood or environment in general, another being access to resources like media) They don't personally know what it's like to be white, but they are socialized with "White" as the is the norm which relegates their identities to exist at many different intersections that make them "different". Because of this, most white people do not know the experiences of black people or people of color in general. What they do know is informed by interpersonal relationships with people of different races and media. This is similar with other intersections such as sex, gender (identity), sexual orientation, ableness, etc. This is another reason representation in media is soo important, it can raise generations that are entirely intolerant of others or generations with much empathy and understanding for others. Media isn't the only medium of socialization obviously, there are things like social mores, social cues, cultural practices and traditions, religion, etc. that all contribute to informing a person's experiences from a very young age. On Demography for a second, Minorities often congregate in ghettos or ethnic neighborhoods that contain either entirely their minority, or just a few in close spaces. This happens for various reasons, (racism included), but it makes the livelihoods of minorities different; when they are segregated like this and keep to themselves (by choice or not) their youth are socialized differently and it greatly impacts future generations. This can kind of change to what extent people in minority groups are socialized like majority groups, but in general Id still say that this kind of reverse transaction occurs incredibly often, compared to majority groups being socialized like minority groups. 

This is a personal example that I think demonstrates this : Let's look at the black kid who goes to the ghetto but was raised in an entirely white neighborhood (This is me, though I never lived in any kind of ghetto, I've only been to them because I have family in them and they MAJORLY disapprove of my "white" lifestyle) I've always been called "white" as a pejorative, not necessarily because of racism against white people, but because I was overwhelmingly socialized in a stereotypically "white" way.  (Note the word "raised" and "socialized" are often synonyms)

My grandparents grew up "black" and in poverty with several children (Baby boomers, yay) in deep Chicago, but my dad kind of broke that cycle and we are like, "Affluent" middle class now. We lived in an entirely white neighborhood. When we go back to Chicago to visit our relatives, our experiences are so vastly different. Even the English we speak is different. When I was younger I remember being confused because I legitimately could not understand my cousins who were my age were saying and what they were saying at all, my aunts and uncles had to "translate" for me essentially. They could always PERFECTLY understand me though; not because of clarity or enunciation or anything as prescriptivist as that, but because the language I spoke was what they heard on TV, in school (sometimes), what the white kids spoke like basically. I've had to learn several different ways of speaking and navigating just to be able to relate to my own family. Being Gay didn't help at all btw

I got off topic  My point was that in this example we have me, who was socialized or "raised" in a white neighborhood, along with my relatives who were raised in a "black" neighborhood. I didn't understand their culture, despite being black, but they entirely understood my "white" culture because of how pervasive it was, even living in an all black neighborhood from birth-college. There were VERY few black kids who went to school with me, from preschool to high school (all in the same town) and media is media, there was very little opportunity for me to be exposed to black culture the way there was AMPLE opportunity for them to be exposed to white culture. I think this demonstrates my point, abit in a long-winded roundabout way  My parents honestly sometimes felt a bit of shame about their upbringings (internalized racism? Perhaps...) so while they were raised as lower-middle class to poor black children, they speak "white" now and they didn't try to maintain any sort of cultural or traditional practices or beliefs that their parents instilled upon them to me or my brothers. They were raised very very christian as well, but they gave us the choice to go to Church or not and lo and behold they raised 3 agnostic/atheist kids  Maybe this was because they thought it was the only way to give us a "good" life, or whatever, but tbh thats kind of ****ed up  

This was unnecessary, but I took a good ~30 minutes writing it, so I'm not erasing it  

 

 

[SKANK 14,288]

1 hour ago, BrianxRyan said:

You just said what I said. lol They were not white and now they are. It's simple. When someone says that you can't be racist against white people. It may be factual correct, but in real life yehhh it won't get you far. Anyways, I'm done. Everything isn't that deep.

 

Slavery and racial discrimination aren't that deep? 

Pro tip: If you don't have the desire or mental capacity to engage someone in conversation, don't quote them. 

 

 

57 minutes ago, Rebel Heart said:

The Irish faced those hardships because of their ethnicity, religion and because of imperialism, arguably the same reasons issues with black people started (if you swap ethnicity with race) but the Irish had the benefit of having European features. Within a few generations the Irish assimilated into whiteness and in earlier times most often by going against black people. The Irish were still white and could easily fit into the Eurocentric standard set at the time so as long as they sounded American who would have know they were Irish? And plus it's not like being of Irish descent in modern day America brings people any hardship as compared to being of African descent. I'd recommend watching this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmHct5IHxrA

 

 

There is no doubt that ethnicity and religion played a role in the hardships faced by Irish Americans, but I think it's fair to say race also played a role. This is a political cartoon of the time which explains how the Irish race was regarded as a grey area between the Black and White race.

 

I would never suggest that Irish America's faced the same degree of discrimination as African Americans. That is some neo-nazi nonsense. That wasn't my point. My point was, as I reiterated a thousand times, the statement "you can't be racist against white people" is factually incorrect.

As for the video, I would love to watch it but the woman in the video is wearing a skirt with an elastic waist band, which is a vulgarity I can not condone.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

1 hour ago, SKANK said:

I would never suggest that Irish America's faced the same degree of discrimination as African Americans. That is some neo-nazi nonsense. That wasn't my point. My point was, as I reiterated a thousand times, the statement "you can't be racist against white people" is factually incorrect.

As for the video, I would love to watch it but the woman in the video is wearing a skirt with an elastic waist band, which is a vulgarity I can not condone.

I love Kat Blaque, and I thought you were being facetious with the waist band comment, but it actually is quite atrocious  

[Evan Peters 10,776]

13 hours ago, Resquid said:

Wow. I find this idea very interesting. Also very wrong at first glance. Do you have any academic document that discusses this idea further? I'd like to look at the development of this notion of racism.

as far as I know racism is not about historical oppression. That would be a consequence of racism, not racism as a concept. Racism would be the ideology that humans can be subdivided into races, some of which are superior and some inferior. I thought this was the academic definition of racism.

it's  called "i like to twist the definition of racism to fit my agenda" you can be racist against any race. that's why it's called racism. honestly, i don't take anyone who says a certain race can't experience racism/be racist seriously because all it shows is a lack of reading comprehension in regards to the definition of racism. 

here's the defintion: 

rac·ism

ˈrāˌsizəm/

noun

the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

nowhere does it talk about being 'oppressed' in order to experience racism. i swear, how do ya'll function in the real world when you get your knowledge from tumblr social justice warriors. 

this isn't an attack on you, but rather an explanation on the ignorance that exists in this thread. i don't even know why this turned into a white people vs. black people thing but i forgot people like to demonize white people any chance they get.

as for the annoying people in this thread (ya know who you are) don't quote me because i don't like arguing with people who can't even understand the definition of a word. 

ot: this just screams "i'm very uncomfortable when people aren't talking about me." reminds me of the black americans who were bitching about people caring about people dying in the Paris bombings but not paying attention to the black teens getting shot by police in america. everything is a competition, apparently. 

[Yanko 9,860]

On 6/15/2016 at 10:55 PM, PopThatArt said:

They can go away. A few black kids shot dead or whatever crap they're complaining about doesnt hold a candle to the 50 people shot dead in Orlando. I'm so over hearing black people complaining about everything and classifying every little damn thing that happens to a black person as white man's fault and pulling out the race card. 

this is extremely offensive  ggd is so racist 

-

the girl was out of line this is not a competition 

[SKANK 14,288]

37 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

I love Kat Blaque, and I thought you were being facetious with the waist band comment, but it actually is quite atrocious  

 

Haha It was actually a pretty informative video. That skirt though...

[Sudarshana 581]

they should change their name to "only black lives matter" 

[TheJackMonster 1,857]

21 hours ago, Himeros26 said:

You cannot be racist to a white person

Is this a joke?

[Himeros26 1,688]

11 minutes ago, Jacwa said:

Is this a joke?

Nope