This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
[RaP] Congressional White Caucus: Racist?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Jubilee
to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs
rather than according to actual merit
; show partiality: The new law discriminates against foreigners. He discriminates in favor of his relatives.
Being a girl
is
a merit. They act and think in a way that I want to be around when I'm talking about girl things.
Similarly, re: the topic at hand, being black
is
a merit when trying to discuss and deal with black issues.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Being a girl
is
a merit. They act and think in a way that I want to be around when I'm talking about girl things.
Similarly, re: the topic at hand, being black
is
a merit when trying to discuss and deal with black issues.
Ok, I'll buy that. Would being white be a merit when discussing issues that apply to white people? So, based on that, would a Congressional White Caucus be non discriminatory because it has merit?
MyTie, if you WANT to be involved in a girls' night out, I'm sure Jubilee will happily show you just how far out of your depth it would make you feel.Errr... I lived with just women before my son was born. I have a daughter older than my son. I never felt "out of my depth". I'm not sure what you mean by that. Were you trying to construct a point? If so I'm not understanding it. Or was your point an ad hominem based mockery? If that is the case, it's really really funny. I really laughed. A lot.
Post by
gnomerdon
MyTie, if you WANT to be involved in a girls' night out, I'm sure Jubilee will happily show you just how far out of your depth it would make you feel.
I want to be involved in a girls night out. :( So bad
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
xaratherus
Is a group of people that excludes other people based on sex a sexist organization?
It depends - entirely - on your definition of "sexist".
You folks keep talking about this stuff as if racism and sexism were observable quantities. When you argue about whether an activity "is sexist", you're not talking about the activity but about the term. So unless you start listing definitions and why you think they're good or bad definitions, you're guaranteed to go in circles.
That was why I offered the UN definition of "racial discrimination" (the closest thing I could find to an international definition of something akin to 'racism').
Post by
MyTie
I'm getting really tired of the whole "this fits this definition" arguing. The point was never to be able to label the actions.
I was really expecting to have a discussion about the double standard in society accepting the racism of some people, but not other. What ended up happening was there are people arguing that when people of a certain race do something, it isn't racist. I've lost a bit of respect for humanity as a whole.
Post by
Jubilee
I'm getting really tired of the whole "this fits this definition" arguing. The point was never to be able to label the actions.
I was really expecting to have a discussion about the double standard in society accepting the racism of some people, but not other. What ended up happening was there are people arguing that when people of a certain race do something, it isn't racist. I've lost a bit of respect for humanity as a whole.
You can't walk into a debate assuming everyone agrees with your starting point. If your starting point is that there is a double standard, then people are going to challenge that.
Ok, I'll buy that. Would being white be a merit when discussing issues that apply to white people? So, based on that, would a Congressional White Caucus be non discriminatory because it has merit?
What white issues?
Post by
MyTie
Ok, I'll buy that. Would being white be a merit when discussing issues that apply to white people? So, based on that, would a Congressional White Caucus be non discriminatory because it has merit?
What white issues?Are you seriously asking me to research problems that persist in the white community, or was your question a rhetorical reference to the lack of problems?
Post by
MyTie
You can't walk into a debate assuming everyone agrees with your starting point. If your starting point is that there is a double standard, then people are going to challenge that.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. That's what is so disheartening.
In order to discuss the double standard first we must decide if a double standard exists. To begin, we must first define what a double standard is, and the underlying issue 'racism'. To find that, we must define what 'race' is, and then deep in the definition, we must define 'merit'. We have to also define 'discrimination'. We should probably define 'sexism', and then 'sex', and also 'group'. We need to define 'category' and 'some'. We should probably define 'is' somewhere along the lines, not to mention 'and'. After we build a dictionary, then we can start telling each other what does and doesn't fit the definitions.
The whole point of discussing the double standard is lost completely. A double standard quite obviously exists: Some people can do something and others can't. Maybe we can start talking about that... in 4 or 5 years...
Post by
xaratherus
You stated earlier in the thread that you already had made up your mind on the issue. Now you throw out a "woe is me, humanity sucks" statement when you realize that not everyone agrees with you.
To me, that's a clear indication that you weren't looking for discussion; you were looking for ego-stroking in the form of people agreeing with you. That's not "debate" - or, if it is, it's so limited in scope (debating the nuances of what you've already decided to be true) that it's worthless.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
You stated earlier in the thread that you already had made up your mind on the issue. Now you throw out a "woe is me, humanity sucks" statement when you realize that not everyone agrees with you.
To me, that's a clear indication that you weren't looking for discussion; you were looking for ego-stroking in the form of people agreeing with you. That's not "debate" - or, if it is, it's so limited in scope (debating the nuances of what you've already decided to be true) that it's worthless.
I wasn't looking for people to agree with me on the double standard. I was looking for people to discuss the merits of the double standard, and whether or not it has a place in society. What happened was we got into a semantical discussion, which is disheartening, because it never goes anywhere.
The 'woe is me' and 'ego stroking' statements will not help us reach an amicable conclusion. Please keep flaming to a minimum.
Post by
MyTie
there are people arguing that when people of a certain race do something, it isn't racist.Nobody has said any such thing.Ok. Then I vastly misunderstand your previous statement. Let's take a look:Back to substance ;) I largely agree, but but I don't think the CBC is quite "racist" per se. They exclude whites because they have a political agenda and they feel including whites would weaken their ability to further that agenda (and I imagine they're right). Presumably if the world ever becomes such that it's politically advantageous for the CBC to include whites I imagine they'd do it. So I'm not sure "racist" is the right term for a political group doing what's politically expedient.I have a question for you:
If a group called the Congressional White Caucus were to exclude blacks because they have a political agenda, and they feel including blacks would weaken their ability to further that agenda, would that be racist?
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Jubilee
A double standard quite obviously exists: Some people can do something and others can't. Maybe we can start talking about that... in 4 or 5 years...
It
only
obviously exists if you think if it in terms of absolute black and white. Many people like myself view the world as a huge system of circumstances and motives that is much more complicated than just following a single dictum. If the rule really is "treat all races exactly the same in all circumstances" then there is indeed a double standard, but if the rule is "treat every person according the circumstances that you find them, but never treating them worse than their humanity entitles them to" which is closer to what I believe, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing things differently for different people in different circumstances.
Post by
MyTie
This just in: defining terms in a debate so that everyone is clear what is being debated is a Bad Thing.Semantics is necessary, but doesn't need to be the main focus, as it is here. The term "Did the Nazi's kill Jews", doesn't need to have a preface argument about what a Jew actually is, and whether the people qualified or not, and further more whether the semantical argument of the Nazi's defining 'people'. We can just use common understandings of terms to a certain point. I mean, a while back someone brought up the point that we need to define what a black person is, as if this is really necessary. Semantical arguments can go on FOREVER, but aren't entirely necessary. I'm not saying we shouldn't define terms, I'm just saying that was fast becoming the entire discussion.
Would it be ok with you if I used sarcasm back at you from now on? The temptation is overwhelming. I promise, I'm much better at it than you are. I'm afraid it would devolve into a flame war. I am being respectful to you. Please return the favor.
Post by
MyTie
A double standard quite obviously exists: Some people can do something and others can't. Maybe we can start talking about that... in 4 or 5 years...
It
only
obviously exists if you think if it in terms of absolute black and white. Many people like myself view the world as a huge system of circumstances and motives that is much more complicated than just following a single dictum. If the rule really is "treat all races exactly the same in all circumstances" then there is indeed a double standard, but if the rule is "treat every person according the circumstances that you find them, but never treating them worse than their humanity entitles them to" which is closer to what I believe, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing things differently for different people in different circumstances.
1) You are twisting my words around.
2) You need to define "black", "people", and "is"... because I can't understand a word you are saying.
Ah, payback.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.