What's up everybody! Just a quick message. We will be relaunching AllHipHop.com with the goal of keeping the community front and center. I have worked with Jamal and select moderators, to make sure The Illl Community's needs are being addressed as we evolve. We are encouraging you to use the new platform.

We will NOT be closing the current community, but we will be porting user data over to the new system over time, so please get used to using the new community!

We will be working on it every single day until it's exactly what you want!

Please feel free to join now, test, as we are in beta:

https://www.allhiphop.com

Real talk... if there are coons, biracial 'black' women are the worst

16791112

Replies

  • jonojono Right fist = power, left fist = unity Posts: 30,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

    You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

    There are competing views and alternative definitions to the ones presented by charles
    There are always "competing views" that doesn't mean it's correct.

    jono wrote: »
    Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

    You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

    Bruh, I am actually quite knowledgeable on the subject. The idea that blacks can't be racist is compellingly rejected in this book (chapter 2).
    So? You can reject whatever you like but that doesn't make untrue.

    Those are two way streets.

    Not really. There is a roundly excepted definition then there is "I think the definition should be", you can think what you want when it becomes generally excepted then holla at me.

    Appeal to majority.

    Keep in mind that the 3/5ths ideology was once generally accepted
    Colloquial usage of the term is one thing but criticism of the sociological definition because you don't like it is another.

    3/5th rule was put in place for the purposes of limiting the power of slave states in the House of Representatives, not because it was believed to be true.

    Something isn't true just because it is generally accepted. Word to geocentricity.

    Prove the sociological definition of racism is untrue.

    If prejudice + power = racism then you do not need to have power through the primary institutions of a society to be racist as there are many forms of power.

    Case in point Oprah has far more money than a homeless White man and money is a form of power.

    In what way would oprah express said prejudice and power?

    If it is racist when a White employer hires a White employee over a Black one because he is White how would it be any less racist if a Black employer hired a Black employee over a White one because he is Black?

    The latter example is rarer but not impossible as implied by some
    So...what does this have to do with your oprah analogy? It's far from proving the sociological definition of racism wrong as well.

    I thought it was obvious

    Oprah owns a TV network, magazine and production company. Since she has capacity act as those in that example do then she cannot be incapable of racism.

    I like how you threw the burden of proof on me though. Well played.

    Definitions are subjective so disproving one would be impossible. If you call a tiger a koala how can I prove that the tiger is not a Koala? It wouldn't be possible.
    But I thought the sociological definition was wrong?

    You went on a tangent to disprove it and ended up proving it correct. Smh you type just to type apparently.

    And as far as your koala/tiger analogy is concerned you can call a koala whatever you like, that's YOUR business but that has nothing to do with the field of Zoology which has already defined each animal.

    Same issue here, you don't like the sociological definition of racism? Fine but don't engage in sociological discussion because the arguments are framed on what words mean within that field not "I'm going to make my own definitions up because I can".

    Whatever college you go to that allows you to make up definitions must be lousy as fuck. You probably get to make your own tests as grade them yourself too.

    How did it prove it right at all when the definition claims Black Americans can never be racist and the example shows otherwise?
    Ideology. Racism is a systematic set of ideas and actions associated with “the idea of the superiority of one racial category or one ethnic group to other racial categories or ethnic groups” (Isajiw, p. 149). That is, racism is not just a haphazard negative view that an individual has or expresses about a minority group – the latter might be considered prejudice, although this may be the basis for racism. But racism is a more systematic set of interconnected ideas that form an overall ideology. For example, members of a particular race may be regarded as inferior based on views that the group is less capable. This may be based on the view that the group has an inferior culture or is destined by biology to be inferior.

    What there prevents Black Americans from being racist? If there was one standard definition like in zoology this would be gravy. This is not a real science field, it's a BS arts discipline that seldom tests its hypotheses.
    1) I never said that
    2) Oprah is not indicative of the black experience in the United States she is an outlier and as such is exempt from a lot of generalized comments b

    As far as the second bolded:
    Prove it...
    @SoulTrain4 *FMOT*

    For blogs on hip-hop & entertainment:
    http://www.shobizcentral.wordpress.com

    For blogs on politics and other things:
    http://www.jonoaries.blogspot.com

    All blog written by me. If you like what I post on here you should dig the blogs too. I also accept suggestions on blog topics, so feel free to suggest things and also if you are a reader tell others, spread the word. I'll try not to be so lazy and actualy get some writing done.
    Purr
  • A Talented OneA Talented One stew Posts: 4,202 ✭✭✭
    edited April 2014
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

    You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

    There are competing views and alternative definitions to the ones presented by charles
    There are always "competing views" that doesn't mean it's correct.

    jono wrote: »
    Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

    You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

    Bruh, I am actually quite knowledgeable on the subject. The idea that blacks can't be racist is compellingly rejected in this book (chapter 2).
    So? You can reject whatever you like but that doesn't make untrue.

    Those are two way streets.

    Not really. There is a roundly excepted definition then there is "I think the definition should be", you can think what you want when it becomes generally excepted then holla at me.

    Appeal to majority.

    Keep in mind that the 3/5ths ideology was once generally accepted
    Colloquial usage of the term is one thing but criticism of the sociological definition because you don't like it is another.

    3/5th rule was put in place for the purposes of limiting the power of slave states in the House of Representatives, not because it was believed to be true.

    Something isn't true just because it is generally accepted. Word to geocentricity.

    Prove the sociological definition of racism is untrue.

    If prejudice + power = racism then you do not need to have power through the primary institutions of a society to be racist as there are many forms of power.

    Case in point Oprah has far more money than a homeless White man and money is a form of power.

    In what way would oprah express said prejudice and power?

    If it is racist when a White employer hires a White employee over a Black one because he is White how would it be any less racist if a Black employer hired a Black employee over a White one because he is Black?

    The latter example is rarer but not impossible as implied by some
    So...what does this have to do with your oprah analogy? It's far from proving the sociological definition of racism wrong as well.

    I thought it was obvious

    Oprah owns a TV network, magazine and production company. Since she has capacity act as those in that example do then she cannot be incapable of racism.

    I like how you threw the burden of proof on me though. Well played.

    Definitions are subjective so disproving one would be impossible. If you call a tiger a koala how can I prove that the tiger is not a Koala? It wouldn't be possible.
    But I thought the sociological definition was wrong?

    You went on a tangent to disprove it and ended up proving it correct. Smh you type just to type apparently.

    And as far as your koala/tiger analogy is concerned you can call a koala whatever you like, that's YOUR business but that has nothing to do with the field of Zoology which has already defined each animal.

    Same issue here, you don't like the sociological definition of racism? Fine but don't engage in sociological discussion because the arguments are framed on what words mean within that field not "I'm going to make my own definitions up because I can".

    Whatever college you go to that allows you to make up definitions must be lousy as fuck. You probably get to make your own tests as grade them yourself too.

    There is no commonly accepted definition of racism in Sociology, as far as I know. And even if there is one, and it something like what Dyson said, what would that prove? That sociologists have embraced a faulty definition of racism. Sociologists have no special expertise to tell us what racism is.

    Individuals can be racists, and they if they lack power that doesn't make them any less racist. So blacks can be racists too.

  • jonojono Right fist = power, left fist = unity Posts: 30,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

    You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

    There are competing views and alternative definitions to the ones presented by charles
    There are always "competing views" that doesn't mean it's correct.

    jono wrote: »
    Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

    You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

    Bruh, I am actually quite knowledgeable on the subject. The idea that blacks can't be racist is compellingly rejected in this book (chapter 2).
    So? You can reject whatever you like but that doesn't make untrue.

    Those are two way streets.

    Not really. There is a roundly excepted definition then there is "I think the definition should be", you can think what you want when it becomes generally excepted then holla at me.

    Appeal to majority.

    Keep in mind that the 3/5ths ideology was once generally accepted
    Colloquial usage of the term is one thing but criticism of the sociological definition because you don't like it is another.

    3/5th rule was put in place for the purposes of limiting the power of slave states in the House of Representatives, not because it was believed to be true.

    Something isn't true just because it is generally accepted. Word to geocentricity.

    Prove the sociological definition of racism is untrue.

    If prejudice + power = racism then you do not need to have power through the primary institutions of a society to be racist as there are many forms of power.

    Case in point Oprah has far more money than a homeless White man and money is a form of power.

    In what way would oprah express said prejudice and power?

    If it is racist when a White employer hires a White employee over a Black one because he is White how would it be any less racist if a Black employer hired a Black employee over a White one because he is Black?

    The latter example is rarer but not impossible as implied by some
    So...what does this have to do with your oprah analogy? It's far from proving the sociological definition of racism wrong as well.

    I thought it was obvious

    Oprah owns a TV network, magazine and production company. Since she has capacity act as those in that example do then she cannot be incapable of racism.

    I like how you threw the burden of proof on me though. Well played.

    Definitions are subjective so disproving one would be impossible. If you call a tiger a koala how can I prove that the tiger is not a Koala? It wouldn't be possible.
    But I thought the sociological definition was wrong?

    You went on a tangent to disprove it and ended up proving it correct. Smh you type just to type apparently.

    And as far as your koala/tiger analogy is concerned you can call a koala whatever you like, that's YOUR business but that has nothing to do with the field of Zoology which has already defined each animal.

    Same issue here, you don't like the sociological definition of racism? Fine but don't engage in sociological discussion because the arguments are framed on what words mean within that field not "I'm going to make my own definitions up because I can".

    Whatever college you go to that allows you to make up definitions must be lousy as fuck. You probably get to make your own tests as grade them yourself too.

    There is no commonly accepted definition of racism in Sociology, as far as I know. And even if there is one, and it something like what Dyson said, what would that prove? That sociologists have embraced a faulty definition of racism. Sociologists have no special expertise to tell us what racism is.

    Individuals can be racists, and they if they lack power that doesn't make them any less racist. So blacks can be racists too.
    Faulty based on what? Your opinion or do you have a study?
    If it's your opinion then just hang it up, If you have a study I'd love to see it.

    Second bolded: didnt say they couldn't be.
    @SoulTrain4 *FMOT*

    For blogs on hip-hop & entertainment:
    http://www.shobizcentral.wordpress.com

    For blogs on politics and other things:
    http://www.jonoaries.blogspot.com

    All blog written by me. If you like what I post on here you should dig the blogs too. I also accept suggestions on blog topics, so feel free to suggest things and also if you are a reader tell others, spread the word. I'll try not to be so lazy and actualy get some writing done.
  • A Talented OneA Talented One stew Posts: 4,202 ✭✭✭
    jono wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

    You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

    There are competing views and alternative definitions to the ones presented by charles
    There are always "competing views" that doesn't mean it's correct.

    jono wrote: »
    Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

    You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

    Bruh, I am actually quite knowledgeable on the subject. The idea that blacks can't be racist is compellingly rejected in this book (chapter 2).
    So? You can reject whatever you like but that doesn't make untrue.

    Those are two way streets.

    Not really. There is a roundly excepted definition then there is "I think the definition should be", you can think what you want when it becomes generally excepted then holla at me.

    Appeal to majority.

    Keep in mind that the 3/5ths ideology was once generally accepted
    Colloquial usage of the term is one thing but criticism of the sociological definition because you don't like it is another.

    3/5th rule was put in place for the purposes of limiting the power of slave states in the House of Representatives, not because it was believed to be true.

    Something isn't true just because it is generally accepted. Word to geocentricity.

    Prove the sociological definition of racism is untrue.

    If prejudice + power = racism then you do not need to have power through the primary institutions of a society to be racist as there are many forms of power.

    Case in point Oprah has far more money than a homeless White man and money is a form of power.

    In what way would oprah express said prejudice and power?

    If it is racist when a White employer hires a White employee over a Black one because he is White how would it be any less racist if a Black employer hired a Black employee over a White one because he is Black?

    The latter example is rarer but not impossible as implied by some
    So...what does this have to do with your oprah analogy? It's far from proving the sociological definition of racism wrong as well.

    I thought it was obvious

    Oprah owns a TV network, magazine and production company. Since she has capacity act as those in that example do then she cannot be incapable of racism.

    I like how you threw the burden of proof on me though. Well played.

    Definitions are subjective so disproving one would be impossible. If you call a tiger a koala how can I prove that the tiger is not a Koala? It wouldn't be possible.
    But I thought the sociological definition was wrong?

    You went on a tangent to disprove it and ended up proving it correct. Smh you type just to type apparently.

    And as far as your koala/tiger analogy is concerned you can call a koala whatever you like, that's YOUR business but that has nothing to do with the field of Zoology which has already defined each animal.

    Same issue here, you don't like the sociological definition of racism? Fine but don't engage in sociological discussion because the arguments are framed on what words mean within that field not "I'm going to make my own definitions up because I can".

    Whatever college you go to that allows you to make up definitions must be lousy as fuck. You probably get to make your own tests as grade them yourself too.

    There is no commonly accepted definition of racism in Sociology, as far as I know. And even if there is one, and it something like what Dyson said, what would that prove? That sociologists have embraced a faulty definition of racism. Sociologists have no special expertise to tell us what racism is.

    Individuals can be racists, and they if they lack power that doesn't make them any less racist. So blacks can be racists too.
    Faulty based on what? Your opinion or do you have a study?
    If it's your opinion then just hang it up, If you have a study I'd love to see it.

    Second bolded: didnt say they couldn't be.

    Faulty based on sound reasoning.

    If a white man who hates blacks goes to live in Nigeria, where blacks have the power, would he count as non-racist because his group is relatively powerless there? No.

    Again, suppose that there is a white kid in an otherwise all-black school. Let's say that he hates blacks. He is relatively powerless in that context, and yet he still seems to be racist.

    Racism doesn't require power. Just a little reflection is enough to show that.

    Bazz-B
  • jonojono Right fist = power, left fist = unity Posts: 30,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    jono wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

    You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

    There are competing views and alternative definitions to the ones presented by charles
    There are always "competing views" that doesn't mean it's correct.

    jono wrote: »
    Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

    You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

    Bruh, I am actually quite knowledgeable on the subject. The idea that blacks can't be racist is compellingly rejected in this book (chapter 2).
    So? You can reject whatever you like but that doesn't make untrue.

    Those are two way streets.

    Not really. There is a roundly excepted definition then there is "I think the definition should be", you can think what you want when it becomes generally excepted then holla at me.

    Appeal to majority.

    Keep in mind that the 3/5ths ideology was once generally accepted
    Colloquial usage of the term is one thing but criticism of the sociological definition because you don't like it is another.

    3/5th rule was put in place for the purposes of limiting the power of slave states in the House of Representatives, not because it was believed to be true.

    Something isn't true just because it is generally accepted. Word to geocentricity.

    Prove the sociological definition of racism is untrue.

    If prejudice + power = racism then you do not need to have power through the primary institutions of a society to be racist as there are many forms of power.

    Case in point Oprah has far more money than a homeless White man and money is a form of power.

    In what way would oprah express said prejudice and power?

    If it is racist when a White employer hires a White employee over a Black one because he is White how would it be any less racist if a Black employer hired a Black employee over a White one because he is Black?

    The latter example is rarer but not impossible as implied by some
    So...what does this have to do with your oprah analogy? It's far from proving the sociological definition of racism wrong as well.

    I thought it was obvious

    Oprah owns a TV network, magazine and production company. Since she has capacity act as those in that example do then she cannot be incapable of racism.

    I like how you threw the burden of proof on me though. Well played.

    Definitions are subjective so disproving one would be impossible. If you call a tiger a koala how can I prove that the tiger is not a Koala? It wouldn't be possible.
    But I thought the sociological definition was wrong?

    You went on a tangent to disprove it and ended up proving it correct. Smh you type just to type apparently.

    And as far as your koala/tiger analogy is concerned you can call a koala whatever you like, that's YOUR business but that has nothing to do with the field of Zoology which has already defined each animal.

    Same issue here, you don't like the sociological definition of racism? Fine but don't engage in sociological discussion because the arguments are framed on what words mean within that field not "I'm going to make my own definitions up because I can".

    Whatever college you go to that allows you to make up definitions must be lousy as fuck. You probably get to make your own tests as grade them yourself too.

    There is no commonly accepted definition of racism in Sociology, as far as I know. And even if there is one, and it something like what Dyson said, what would that prove? That sociologists have embraced a faulty definition of racism. Sociologists have no special expertise to tell us what racism is.

    Individuals can be racists, and they if they lack power that doesn't make them any less racist. So blacks can be racists too.
    Faulty based on what? Your opinion or do you have a study?
    If it's your opinion then just hang it up, If you have a study I'd love to see it.

    Second bolded: didnt say they couldn't be.

    Faulty based on sound reasoning.

    If a white man who hates blacks goes to live in Nigeria, where blacks have the power, would he count as non-racist because his group is relatively powerless there? No.

    Again, suppose that there is a white kid in an otherwise all-black school. Let's say that he hates blacks. He is relatively powerless in that context, and yet he still seems to be racist.

    Racism doesn't require power. Just a little reflection is enough to show that.

    Who's reasoning? These are opinions I'm reading here. Not anything scholarly and nobody is racist in either case you mentioned.
    @SoulTrain4 *FMOT*

    For blogs on hip-hop & entertainment:
    http://www.shobizcentral.wordpress.com

    For blogs on politics and other things:
    http://www.jonoaries.blogspot.com

    All blog written by me. If you like what I post on here you should dig the blogs too. I also accept suggestions on blog topics, so feel free to suggest things and also if you are a reader tell others, spread the word. I'll try not to be so lazy and actualy get some writing done.
  • LUClENLUClEN Absence makes the heart grow fonder of someone else Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

    You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

    There are competing views and alternative definitions to the ones presented by charles
    There are always "competing views" that doesn't mean it's correct.

    jono wrote: »
    Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

    You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

    Bruh, I am actually quite knowledgeable on the subject. The idea that blacks can't be racist is compellingly rejected in this book (chapter 2).
    So? You can reject whatever you like but that doesn't make untrue.

    Those are two way streets.

    Not really. There is a roundly excepted definition then there is "I think the definition should be", you can think what you want when it becomes generally excepted then holla at me.

    Appeal to majority.

    Keep in mind that the 3/5ths ideology was once generally accepted
    Colloquial usage of the term is one thing but criticism of the sociological definition because you don't like it is another.

    3/5th rule was put in place for the purposes of limiting the power of slave states in the House of Representatives, not because it was believed to be true.

    Something isn't true just because it is generally accepted. Word to geocentricity.

    Prove the sociological definition of racism is untrue.

    If prejudice + power = racism then you do not need to have power through the primary institutions of a society to be racist as there are many forms of power.

    Case in point Oprah has far more money than a homeless White man and money is a form of power.

    In what way would oprah express said prejudice and power?

    If it is racist when a White employer hires a White employee over a Black one because he is White how would it be any less racist if a Black employer hired a Black employee over a White one because he is Black?

    The latter example is rarer but not impossible as implied by some
    So...what does this have to do with your oprah analogy? It's far from proving the sociological definition of racism wrong as well.

    I thought it was obvious

    Oprah owns a TV network, magazine and production company. Since she has capacity act as those in that example do then she cannot be incapable of racism.

    I like how you threw the burden of proof on me though. Well played.

    Definitions are subjective so disproving one would be impossible. If you call a tiger a koala how can I prove that the tiger is not a Koala? It wouldn't be possible.
    But I thought the sociological definition was wrong?

    You went on a tangent to disprove it and ended up proving it correct. Smh you type just to type apparently.

    And as far as your koala/tiger analogy is concerned you can call a koala whatever you like, that's YOUR business but that has nothing to do with the field of Zoology which has already defined each animal.

    Same issue here, you don't like the sociological definition of racism? Fine but don't engage in sociological discussion because the arguments are framed on what words mean within that field not "I'm going to make my own definitions up because I can".

    Whatever college you go to that allows you to make up definitions must be lousy as fuck. You probably get to make your own tests as grade them yourself too.

    How did it prove it right at all when the definition claims Black Americans can never be racist and the example shows otherwise?
    Ideology. Racism is a systematic set of ideas and actions associated with “the idea of the superiority of one racial category or one ethnic group to other racial categories or ethnic groups” (Isajiw, p. 149). That is, racism is not just a haphazard negative view that an individual has or expresses about a minority group – the latter might be considered prejudice, although this may be the basis for racism. But racism is a more systematic set of interconnected ideas that form an overall ideology. For example, members of a particular race may be regarded as inferior based on views that the group is less capable. This may be based on the view that the group has an inferior culture or is destined by biology to be inferior.

    What there prevents Black Americans from being racist? If there was one standard definition like in zoology this would be gravy. This is not a real science field, it's a BS arts discipline that seldom tests its hypotheses.
    1) I never said that
    2) Oprah is not indicative of the black experience in the United States she is an outlier and as such is exempt from a lot of generalized comments b

    As far as the second bolded:
    Prove it...

    I never said you claimed that. Charlie dropped that idea here and that is exactly what I have been saying is ridiculous. Oprah is an easily accessible example but power exists outside of the police and courts. Being capable of forcibly having sex with someone is a form of power, so likewise simply striking someone on the basis of race is racist. How could one argue that Black Americans can not do that or have no ability to do so?

    Can't prove something doesn't exist, it's a fallacy

    Consider this though:

    http://sociology.about.com/od/Sociology101/tp/List-Of-Major-Sociological-Studies-And-Publications.htm

    That is a list of 17 important soc texts and only one is a study. Soc deals primarily with correlative data and causation is seldom testable.
    The rapper from linkin park would body the dudes in the xxxtentacion cypher
  • Darth SidiousDarth Sidious ..in the grim darkness of the far future, there is only warPosts: 2,507 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • LUClENLUClEN Absence makes the heart grow fonder of someone else Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
    180px-Arguing-on-the-internet.jpg


    Not really. I am a determinist because someone on this forum proved me wrong.

    035881e6461fe73a18ea137785f254b96d9b385e_m.jpg
    The rapper from linkin park would body the dudes in the xxxtentacion cypher
    Darth SidiousBodhiCopper
  • jonojono Right fist = power, left fist = unity Posts: 30,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

    You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

    There are competing views and alternative definitions to the ones presented by charles
    There are always "competing views" that doesn't mean it's correct.

    jono wrote: »
    Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

    You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

    Bruh, I am actually quite knowledgeable on the subject. The idea that blacks can't be racist is compellingly rejected in this book (chapter 2).
    So? You can reject whatever you like but that doesn't make untrue.

    Those are two way streets.

    Not really. There is a roundly excepted definition then there is "I think the definition should be", you can think what you want when it becomes generally excepted then holla at me.

    Appeal to majority.

    Keep in mind that the 3/5ths ideology was once generally accepted
    Colloquial usage of the term is one thing but criticism of the sociological definition because you don't like it is another.

    3/5th rule was put in place for the purposes of limiting the power of slave states in the House of Representatives, not because it was believed to be true.

    Something isn't true just because it is generally accepted. Word to geocentricity.

    Prove the sociological definition of racism is untrue.

    If prejudice + power = racism then you do not need to have power through the primary institutions of a society to be racist as there are many forms of power.

    Case in point Oprah has far more money than a homeless White man and money is a form of power.

    In what way would oprah express said prejudice and power?

    If it is racist when a White employer hires a White employee over a Black one because he is White how would it be any less racist if a Black employer hired a Black employee over a White one because he is Black?

    The latter example is rarer but not impossible as implied by some
    So...what does this have to do with your oprah analogy? It's far from proving the sociological definition of racism wrong as well.

    I thought it was obvious

    Oprah owns a TV network, magazine and production company. Since she has capacity act as those in that example do then she cannot be incapable of racism.

    I like how you threw the burden of proof on me though. Well played.

    Definitions are subjective so disproving one would be impossible. If you call a tiger a koala how can I prove that the tiger is not a Koala? It wouldn't be possible.
    But I thought the sociological definition was wrong?

    You went on a tangent to disprove it and ended up proving it correct. Smh you type just to type apparently.

    And as far as your koala/tiger analogy is concerned you can call a koala whatever you like, that's YOUR business but that has nothing to do with the field of Zoology which has already defined each animal.

    Same issue here, you don't like the sociological definition of racism? Fine but don't engage in sociological discussion because the arguments are framed on what words mean within that field not "I'm going to make my own definitions up because I can".

    Whatever college you go to that allows you to make up definitions must be lousy as fuck. You probably get to make your own tests as grade them yourself too.

    How did it prove it right at all when the definition claims Black Americans can never be racist and the example shows otherwise?
    Ideology. Racism is a systematic set of ideas and actions associated with “the idea of the superiority of one racial category or one ethnic group to other racial categories or ethnic groups” (Isajiw, p. 149). That is, racism is not just a haphazard negative view that an individual has or expresses about a minority group – the latter might be considered prejudice, although this may be the basis for racism. But racism is a more systematic set of interconnected ideas that form an overall ideology. For example, members of a particular race may be regarded as inferior based on views that the group is less capable. This may be based on the view that the group has an inferior culture or is destined by biology to be inferior.

    What there prevents Black Americans from being racist? If there was one standard definition like in zoology this would be gravy. This is not a real science field, it's a BS arts discipline that seldom tests its hypotheses.
    1) I never said that
    2) Oprah is not indicative of the black experience in the United States she is an outlier and as such is exempt from a lot of generalized comments b

    As far as the second bolded:
    Prove it...

    I never said you claimed that. Charlie dropped that idea here and that is exactly what I have been saying is ridiculous. Oprah is an easily accessible example but power exists outside of the police and courts. Being capable of forcibly having sex with someone is a form of power, so likewise simply striking someone on the basis of race is racist. How could one argue that Black Americans can not do that or have no ability to do so?

    Can't prove something doesn't exist, it's a fallacy

    Consider this though:

    http://sociology.about.com/od/Sociology101/tp/List-Of-Major-Sociological-Studies-And-Publications.htm

    That is a list of 17 important soc texts and only one is a study. Soc deals primarily with correlative data and causation is seldom testable.

    17 important soc texts according to who?
    @SoulTrain4 *FMOT*

    For blogs on hip-hop & entertainment:
    http://www.shobizcentral.wordpress.com

    For blogs on politics and other things:
    http://www.jonoaries.blogspot.com

    All blog written by me. If you like what I post on here you should dig the blogs too. I also accept suggestions on blog topics, so feel free to suggest things and also if you are a reader tell others, spread the word. I'll try not to be so lazy and actualy get some writing done.
    Purr
  • Darth SidiousDarth Sidious ..in the grim darkness of the far future, there is only warPosts: 2,507 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Elrawd wrote: »
    180px-Arguing-on-the-internet.jpg


    Not really. I am a determinist because someone on this forum proved me wrong.

    035881e6461fe73a18ea137785f254b96d9b385e_m.jpg


    I happen to support what you are saying but read the 'poster' again. You don't have to be the internet police, spend the time on something else constructive instead of trying to change the opinions of persons whose minds are already made up.


    someone-is-wrong-on-the-internet-300x300.jpg


    349213HorusRisingbyNeilRoberts.jpg

    poster-horus-rising.jpg
    Kat
  • LUClENLUClEN Absence makes the heart grow fonder of someone else Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

    You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

    There are competing views and alternative definitions to the ones presented by charles
    There are always "competing views" that doesn't mean it's correct.

    jono wrote: »
    Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

    You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

    Bruh, I am actually quite knowledgeable on the subject. The idea that blacks can't be racist is compellingly rejected in this book (chapter 2).
    So? You can reject whatever you like but that doesn't make untrue.

    Those are two way streets.

    Not really. There is a roundly excepted definition then there is "I think the definition should be", you can think what you want when it becomes generally excepted then holla at me.

    Appeal to majority.

    Keep in mind that the 3/5ths ideology was once generally accepted
    Colloquial usage of the term is one thing but criticism of the sociological definition because you don't like it is another.

    3/5th rule was put in place for the purposes of limiting the power of slave states in the House of Representatives, not because it was believed to be true.

    Something isn't true just because it is generally accepted. Word to geocentricity.

    Prove the sociological definition of racism is untrue.

    If prejudice + power = racism then you do not need to have power through the primary institutions of a society to be racist as there are many forms of power.

    Case in point Oprah has far more money than a homeless White man and money is a form of power.

    In what way would oprah express said prejudice and power?

    If it is racist when a White employer hires a White employee over a Black one because he is White how would it be any less racist if a Black employer hired a Black employee over a White one because he is Black?

    The latter example is rarer but not impossible as implied by some
    So...what does this have to do with your oprah analogy? It's far from proving the sociological definition of racism wrong as well.

    I thought it was obvious

    Oprah owns a TV network, magazine and production company. Since she has capacity act as those in that example do then she cannot be incapable of racism.

    I like how you threw the burden of proof on me though. Well played.

    Definitions are subjective so disproving one would be impossible. If you call a tiger a koala how can I prove that the tiger is not a Koala? It wouldn't be possible.
    But I thought the sociological definition was wrong?

    You went on a tangent to disprove it and ended up proving it correct. Smh you type just to type apparently.

    And as far as your koala/tiger analogy is concerned you can call a koala whatever you like, that's YOUR business but that has nothing to do with the field of Zoology which has already defined each animal.

    Same issue here, you don't like the sociological definition of racism? Fine but don't engage in sociological discussion because the arguments are framed on what words mean within that field not "I'm going to make my own definitions up because I can".

    Whatever college you go to that allows you to make up definitions must be lousy as fuck. You probably get to make your own tests as grade them yourself too.

    How did it prove it right at all when the definition claims Black Americans can never be racist and the example shows otherwise?
    Ideology. Racism is a systematic set of ideas and actions associated with “the idea of the superiority of one racial category or one ethnic group to other racial categories or ethnic groups” (Isajiw, p. 149). That is, racism is not just a haphazard negative view that an individual has or expresses about a minority group – the latter might be considered prejudice, although this may be the basis for racism. But racism is a more systematic set of interconnected ideas that form an overall ideology. For example, members of a particular race may be regarded as inferior based on views that the group is less capable. This may be based on the view that the group has an inferior culture or is destined by biology to be inferior.

    What there prevents Black Americans from being racist? If there was one standard definition like in zoology this would be gravy. This is not a real science field, it's a BS arts discipline that seldom tests its hypotheses.
    1) I never said that
    2) Oprah is not indicative of the black experience in the United States she is an outlier and as such is exempt from a lot of generalized comments b

    As far as the second bolded:
    Prove it...

    I never said you claimed that. Charlie dropped that idea here and that is exactly what I have been saying is ridiculous. Oprah is an easily accessible example but power exists outside of the police and courts. Being capable of forcibly having sex with someone is a form of power, so likewise simply striking someone on the basis of race is racist. How could one argue that Black Americans can not do that or have no ability to do so?

    Can't prove something doesn't exist, it's a fallacy

    Consider this though:

    http://sociology.about.com/od/Sociology101/tp/List-Of-Major-Sociological-Studies-And-Publications.htm

    That is a list of 17 important soc texts and only one is a study. Soc deals primarily with correlative data and causation is seldom testable.

    17 important soc texts according to who?

    Sociologist Ashley Crossman
    The rapper from linkin park would body the dudes in the xxxtentacion cypher
  • PurrPurr Evil Chuck Season. Jumpman jumpman Jumpman dat girl up to something!!!Posts: 32,382 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

    You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

    There are competing views and alternative definitions to the ones presented by charles
    There are always "competing views" that doesn't mean it's correct.

    jono wrote: »
    Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

    You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

    Bruh, I am actually quite knowledgeable on the subject. The idea that blacks can't be racist is compellingly rejected in this book (chapter 2).
    So? You can reject whatever you like but that doesn't make untrue.

    Those are two way streets.

    Not really. There is a roundly excepted definition then there is "I think the definition should be", you can think what you want when it becomes generally excepted then holla at me.

    Appeal to majority.

    Keep in mind that the 3/5ths ideology was once generally accepted
    Colloquial usage of the term is one thing but criticism of the sociological definition because you don't like it is another.

    3/5th rule was put in place for the purposes of limiting the power of slave states in the House of Representatives, not because it was believed to be true.

    Something isn't true just because it is generally accepted. Word to geocentricity.

    Prove the sociological definition of racism is untrue.

    If prejudice + power = racism then you do not need to have power through the primary institutions of a society to be racist as there are many forms of power.

    Case in point Oprah has far more money than a homeless White man and money is a form of power.

    In what way would oprah express said prejudice and power?

    If it is racist when a White employer hires a White employee over a Black one because he is White how would it be any less racist if a Black employer hired a Black employee over a White one because he is Black?

    The latter example is rarer but not impossible as implied by some
    So...what does this have to do with your oprah analogy? It's far from proving the sociological definition of racism wrong as well.

    I thought it was obvious

    Oprah owns a TV network, magazine and production company. Since she has capacity act as those in that example do then she cannot be incapable of racism.

    I like how you threw the burden of proof on me though. Well played.

    Definitions are subjective so disproving one would be impossible. If you call a tiger a koala how can I prove that the tiger is not a Koala? It wouldn't be possible.
    But I thought the sociological definition was wrong?

    You went on a tangent to disprove it and ended up proving it correct. Smh you type just to type apparently.

    And as far as your koala/tiger analogy is concerned you can call a koala whatever you like, that's YOUR business but that has nothing to do with the field of Zoology which has already defined each animal.

    Same issue here, you don't like the sociological definition of racism? Fine but don't engage in sociological discussion because the arguments are framed on what words mean within that field not "I'm going to make my own definitions up because I can".

    Whatever college you go to that allows you to make up definitions must be lousy as fuck. You probably get to make your own tests as grade them yourself too.

    How did it prove it right at all when the definition claims Black Americans can never be racist and the example shows otherwise?
    Ideology. Racism is a systematic set of ideas and actions associated with “the idea of the superiority of one racial category or one ethnic group to other racial categories or ethnic groups” (Isajiw, p. 149). That is, racism is not just a haphazard negative view that an individual has or expresses about a minority group – the latter might be considered prejudice, although this may be the basis for racism. But racism is a more systematic set of interconnected ideas that form an overall ideology. For example, members of a particular race may be regarded as inferior based on views that the group is less capable. This may be based on the view that the group has an inferior culture or is destined by biology to be inferior.

    What there prevents Black Americans from being racist? If there was one standard definition like in zoology this would be gravy. This is not a real science field, it's a BS arts discipline that seldom tests its hypotheses.
    1) I never said that
    2) Oprah is not indicative of the black experience in the United States she is an outlier and as such is exempt from a lot of generalized comments b

    As far as the second bolded:
    Prove it...

    I never said you claimed that. Charlie dropped that idea here and that is exactly what I have been saying is ridiculous. Oprah is an easily accessible example but power exists outside of the police and courts. Being capable of forcibly having sex with someone is a form of power, so likewise simply striking someone on the basis of race is racist. How could one argue that Black Americans can not do that or have no ability to do so?

    Can't prove something doesn't exist, it's a fallacy

    Consider this though:

    http://sociology.about.com/od/Sociology101/tp/List-Of-Major-Sociological-Studies-And-Publications.htm

    That is a list of 17 important soc texts and only one is a study. Soc deals primarily with correlative data and
    causation is seldom testable.

    Youre an idiot.

    Oprah is an outlier dumbass; however, she has faced racial discrimination even as a black woman of power.



    "The most disrespected person in America is the Black woman, the most unprotected person in America is the Black woman. The most neglected person in America is the Black woman."- Malcolm X
  • jonojono Right fist = power, left fist = unity Posts: 30,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

    You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

    There are competing views and alternative definitions to the ones presented by charles
    There are always "competing views" that doesn't mean it's correct.

    jono wrote: »
    Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

    You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

    Bruh, I am actually quite knowledgeable on the subject. The idea that blacks can't be racist is compellingly rejected in this book (chapter 2).
    So? You can reject whatever you like but that doesn't make untrue.

    Those are two way streets.

    Not really. There is a roundly excepted definition then there is "I think the definition should be", you can think what you want when it becomes generally excepted then holla at me.

    Appeal to majority.

    Keep in mind that the 3/5ths ideology was once generally accepted
    Colloquial usage of the term is one thing but criticism of the sociological definition because you don't like it is another.

    3/5th rule was put in place for the purposes of limiting the power of slave states in the House of Representatives, not because it was believed to be true.

    Something isn't true just because it is generally accepted. Word to geocentricity.

    Prove the sociological definition of racism is untrue.

    If prejudice + power = racism then you do not need to have power through the primary institutions of a society to be racist as there are many forms of power.

    Case in point Oprah has far more money than a homeless White man and money is a form of power.

    In what way would oprah express said prejudice and power?

    If it is racist when a White employer hires a White employee over a Black one because he is White how would it be any less racist if a Black employer hired a Black employee over a White one because he is Black?

    The latter example is rarer but not impossible as implied by some
    So...what does this have to do with your oprah analogy? It's far from proving the sociological definition of racism wrong as well.

    I thought it was obvious

    Oprah owns a TV network, magazine and production company. Since she has capacity act as those in that example do then she cannot be incapable of racism.

    I like how you threw the burden of proof on me though. Well played.

    Definitions are subjective so disproving one would be impossible. If you call a tiger a koala how can I prove that the tiger is not a Koala? It wouldn't be possible.
    But I thought the sociological definition was wrong?

    You went on a tangent to disprove it and ended up proving it correct. Smh you type just to type apparently.

    And as far as your koala/tiger analogy is concerned you can call a koala whatever you like, that's YOUR business but that has nothing to do with the field of Zoology which has already defined each animal.

    Same issue here, you don't like the sociological definition of racism? Fine but don't engage in sociological discussion because the arguments are framed on what words mean within that field not "I'm going to make my own definitions up because I can".

    Whatever college you go to that allows you to make up definitions must be lousy as fuck. You probably get to make your own tests as grade them yourself too.

    How did it prove it right at all when the definition claims Black Americans can never be racist and the example shows otherwise?
    Ideology. Racism is a systematic set of ideas and actions associated with “the idea of the superiority of one racial category or one ethnic group to other racial categories or ethnic groups” (Isajiw, p. 149). That is, racism is not just a haphazard negative view that an individual has or expresses about a minority group – the latter might be considered prejudice, although this may be the basis for racism. But racism is a more systematic set of interconnected ideas that form an overall ideology. For example, members of a particular race may be regarded as inferior based on views that the group is less capable. This may be based on the view that the group has an inferior culture or is destined by biology to be inferior.

    What there prevents Black Americans from being racist? If there was one standard definition like in zoology this would be gravy. This is not a real science field, it's a BS arts discipline that seldom tests its hypotheses.
    1) I never said that
    2) Oprah is not indicative of the black experience in the United States she is an outlier and as such is exempt from a lot of generalized comments b

    As far as the second bolded:
    Prove it...

    I never said you claimed that. Charlie dropped that idea here and that is exactly what I have been saying is ridiculous. Oprah is an easily accessible example but power exists outside of the police and courts. Being capable of forcibly having sex with someone is a form of power, so likewise simply striking someone on the basis of race is racist. How could one argue that Black Americans can not do that or have no ability to do so?

    Can't prove something doesn't exist, it's a fallacy

    Consider this though:

    http://sociology.about.com/od/Sociology101/tp/List-Of-Major-Sociological-Studies-And-Publications.htm

    That is a list of 17 important soc texts and only one is a study. Soc deals primarily with correlative data and causation is seldom testable.

    17 important soc texts according to who?
    And she is....?
    Sociologist Ashley Crossman

    @SoulTrain4 *FMOT*

    For blogs on hip-hop & entertainment:
    http://www.shobizcentral.wordpress.com

    For blogs on politics and other things:
    http://www.jonoaries.blogspot.com

    All blog written by me. If you like what I post on here you should dig the blogs too. I also accept suggestions on blog topics, so feel free to suggest things and also if you are a reader tell others, spread the word. I'll try not to be so lazy and actualy get some writing done.
  • black caesarblack caesar Posts: 12,036 ✭✭✭✭✭
    There was this mixed chick at my old job. I asked what she was and she said half and half. I told her she's black and she got mad as hell. SMH
    awq1l4.png


    xp0aqu.png
  • LUClENLUClEN Absence makes the heart grow fonder of someone else Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

    You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

    There are competing views and alternative definitions to the ones presented by charles
    There are always "competing views" that doesn't mean it's correct.

    jono wrote: »
    Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

    You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

    Bruh, I am actually quite knowledgeable on the subject. The idea that blacks can't be racist is compellingly rejected in this book (chapter 2).
    So? You can reject whatever you like but that doesn't make untrue.

    Those are two way streets.

    Not really. There is a roundly excepted definition then there is "I think the definition should be", you can think what you want when it becomes generally excepted then holla at me.

    Appeal to majority.

    Keep in mind that the 3/5ths ideology was once generally accepted
    Colloquial usage of the term is one thing but criticism of the sociological definition because you don't like it is another.

    3/5th rule was put in place for the purposes of limiting the power of slave states in the House of Representatives, not because it was believed to be true.

    Something isn't true just because it is generally accepted. Word to geocentricity.

    Prove the sociological definition of racism is untrue.

    If prejudice + power = racism then you do not need to have power through the primary institutions of a society to be racist as there are many forms of power.

    Case in point Oprah has far more money than a homeless White man and money is a form of power.

    In what way would oprah express said prejudice and power?

    If it is racist when a White employer hires a White employee over a Black one because he is White how would it be any less racist if a Black employer hired a Black employee over a White one because he is Black?

    The latter example is rarer but not impossible as implied by some
    So...what does this have to do with your oprah analogy? It's far from proving the sociological definition of racism wrong as well.

    I thought it was obvious

    Oprah owns a TV network, magazine and production company. Since she has capacity act as those in that example do then she cannot be incapable of racism.

    I like how you threw the burden of proof on me though. Well played.

    Definitions are subjective so disproving one would be impossible. If you call a tiger a koala how can I prove that the tiger is not a Koala? It wouldn't be possible.
    But I thought the sociological definition was wrong?

    You went on a tangent to disprove it and ended up proving it correct. Smh you type just to type apparently.

    And as far as your koala/tiger analogy is concerned you can call a koala whatever you like, that's YOUR business but that has nothing to do with the field of Zoology which has already defined each animal.

    Same issue here, you don't like the sociological definition of racism? Fine but don't engage in sociological discussion because the arguments are framed on what words mean within that field not "I'm going to make my own definitions up because I can".

    Whatever college you go to that allows you to make up definitions must be lousy as fuck. You probably get to make your own tests as grade them yourself too.

    How did it prove it right at all when the definition claims Black Americans can never be racist and the example shows otherwise?
    Ideology. Racism is a systematic set of ideas and actions associated with “the idea of the superiority of one racial category or one ethnic group to other racial categories or ethnic groups” (Isajiw, p. 149). That is, racism is not just a haphazard negative view that an individual has or expresses about a minority group – the latter might be considered prejudice, although this may be the basis for racism. But racism is a more systematic set of interconnected ideas that form an overall ideology. For example, members of a particular race may be regarded as inferior based on views that the group is less capable. This may be based on the view that the group has an inferior culture or is destined by biology to be inferior.

    What there prevents Black Americans from being racist? If there was one standard definition like in zoology this would be gravy. This is not a real science field, it's a BS arts discipline that seldom tests its hypotheses.
    1) I never said that
    2) Oprah is not indicative of the black experience in the United States she is an outlier and as such is exempt from a lot of generalized comments b

    As far as the second bolded:
    Prove it...

    I never said you claimed that. Charlie dropped that idea here and that is exactly what I have been saying is ridiculous. Oprah is an easily accessible example but power exists outside of the police and courts. Being capable of forcibly having sex with someone is a form of power, so likewise simply striking someone on the basis of race is racist. How could one argue that Black Americans can not do that or have no ability to do so?

    Can't prove something doesn't exist, it's a fallacy

    Consider this though:

    http://sociology.about.com/od/Sociology101/tp/List-Of-Major-Sociological-Studies-And-Publications.htm

    That is a list of 17 important soc texts and only one is a study. Soc deals primarily with correlative data and causation is seldom testable.

    17 important soc texts according to who?
    And she is....?
    Sociologist Ashley Crossman

    A published author and professor of soc at Arizona State
    The rapper from linkin park would body the dudes in the xxxtentacion cypher
  • PurrPurr Evil Chuck Season. Jumpman jumpman Jumpman dat girl up to something!!!Posts: 32,382 ✭✭✭✭✭
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

    You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

    There are competing views and alternative definitions to the ones presented by charles
    There are always "competing views" that doesn't mean it's correct.

    jono wrote: »
    Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

    You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

    Bruh, I am actually quite knowledgeable on the subject. The idea that blacks can't be racist is compellingly rejected in this book (chapter 2).
    So? You can reject whatever you like but that doesn't make untrue.

    Those are two way streets.

    Not really. There is a roundly excepted definition then there is "I think the definition should be", you can think what you want when it becomes generally excepted then holla at me.

    Appeal to majority.

    Keep in mind that the 3/5ths ideology was once generally accepted
    Colloquial usage of the term is one thing but criticism of the sociological definition because you don't like it is another.

    3/5th rule was put in place for the purposes of limiting the power of slave states in the House of Representatives, not because it was believed to be true.

    Something isn't true just because it is generally accepted. Word to geocentricity.

    Prove the sociological definition of racism is untrue.

    If prejudice + power = racism then you do not need to have power through the primary institutions of a society to be racist as there are many forms of power.

    Case in point Oprah has far more money than a homeless White man and money is a form of power.

    In what way would oprah express said prejudice and power?

    If it is racist when a White employer hires a White employee over a Black one because he is White how would it be any less racist if a Black employer hired a Black employee over a White one because he is Black?

    The latter example is rarer but not impossible as implied by some
    So...what does this have to do with your oprah analogy? It's far from proving the sociological definition of racism wrong as well.

    I thought it was obvious

    Oprah owns a TV network, magazine and production company. Since she has capacity act as those in that example do then she cannot be incapable of racism.

    I like how you threw the burden of proof on me though. Well played.

    Definitions are subjective so disproving one would be impossible. If you call a tiger a koala how can I prove that the tiger is not a Koala? It wouldn't be possible.
    But I thought the sociological definition was wrong?

    You went on a tangent to disprove it and ended up proving it correct. Smh you type just to type apparently.

    And as far as your koala/tiger analogy is concerned you can call a koala whatever you like, that's YOUR business but that has nothing to do with the field of Zoology which has already defined each animal.

    Same issue here, you don't like the sociological definition of racism? Fine but don't engage in sociological discussion because the arguments are framed on what words mean within that field not "I'm going to make my own definitions up because I can".

    Whatever college you go to that allows you to make up definitions must be lousy as fuck. You probably get to make your own tests as grade them yourself too.

    Got damn @jono

    "The most disrespected person in America is the Black woman, the most unprotected person in America is the Black woman. The most neglected person in America is the Black woman."- Malcolm X
  • LUClENLUClEN Absence makes the heart grow fonder of someone else Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
    LaQueefa wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

    You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

    There are competing views and alternative definitions to the ones presented by charles
    There are always "competing views" that doesn't mean it's correct.

    jono wrote: »
    Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

    You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

    Bruh, I am actually quite knowledgeable on the subject. The idea that blacks can't be racist is compellingly rejected in this book (chapter 2).
    So? You can reject whatever you like but that doesn't make untrue.

    Those are two way streets.

    Not really. There is a roundly excepted definition then there is "I think the definition should be", you can think what you want when it becomes generally excepted then holla at me.

    Appeal to majority.

    Keep in mind that the 3/5ths ideology was once generally accepted
    Colloquial usage of the term is one thing but criticism of the sociological definition because you don't like it is another.

    3/5th rule was put in place for the purposes of limiting the power of slave states in the House of Representatives, not because it was believed to be true.

    Something isn't true just because it is generally accepted. Word to geocentricity.

    Prove the sociological definition of racism is untrue.

    If prejudice + power = racism then you do not need to have power through the primary institutions of a society to be racist as there are many forms of power.

    Case in point Oprah has far more money than a homeless White man and money is a form of power.

    In what way would oprah express said prejudice and power?

    If it is racist when a White employer hires a White employee over a Black one because he is White how would it be any less racist if a Black employer hired a Black employee over a White one because he is Black?

    The latter example is rarer but not impossible as implied by some
    So...what does this have to do with your oprah analogy? It's far from proving the sociological definition of racism wrong as well.

    I thought it was obvious

    Oprah owns a TV network, magazine and production company. Since she has capacity act as those in that example do then she cannot be incapable of racism.

    I like how you threw the burden of proof on me though. Well played.

    Definitions are subjective so disproving one would be impossible. If you call a tiger a koala how can I prove that the tiger is not a Koala? It wouldn't be possible.
    But I thought the sociological definition was wrong?

    You went on a tangent to disprove it and ended up proving it correct. Smh you type just to type apparently.

    And as far as your koala/tiger analogy is concerned you can call a koala whatever you like, that's YOUR business but that has nothing to do with the field of Zoology which has already defined each animal.

    Same issue here, you don't like the sociological definition of racism? Fine but don't engage in sociological discussion because the arguments are framed on what words mean within that field not "I'm going to make my own definitions up because I can".

    Whatever college you go to that allows you to make up definitions must be lousy as fuck. You probably get to make your own tests as grade them yourself too.

    How did it prove it right at all when the definition claims Black Americans can never be racist and the example shows otherwise?
    Ideology. Racism is a systematic set of ideas and actions associated with “the idea of the superiority of one racial category or one ethnic group to other racial categories or ethnic groups” (Isajiw, p. 149). That is, racism is not just a haphazard negative view that an individual has or expresses about a minority group – the latter might be considered prejudice, although this may be the basis for racism. But racism is a more systematic set of interconnected ideas that form an overall ideology. For example, members of a particular race may be regarded as inferior based on views that the group is less capable. This may be based on the view that the group has an inferior culture or is destined by biology to be inferior.

    What there prevents Black Americans from being racist? If there was one standard definition like in zoology this would be gravy. This is not a real science field, it's a BS arts discipline that seldom tests its hypotheses.
    1) I never said that
    2) Oprah is not indicative of the black experience in the United States she is an outlier and as such is exempt from a lot of generalized comments b

    As far as the second bolded:
    Prove it...

    I never said you claimed that. Charlie dropped that idea here and that is exactly what I have been saying is ridiculous. Oprah is an easily accessible example but power exists outside of the police and courts. Being capable of forcibly having sex with someone is a form of power, so likewise simply striking someone on the basis of race is racist. How could one argue that Black Americans can not do that or have no ability to do so?

    Can't prove something doesn't exist, it's a fallacy

    Consider this though:

    http://sociology.about.com/od/Sociology101/tp/List-Of-Major-Sociological-Studies-And-Publications.htm

    That is a list of 17 important soc texts and only one is a study. Soc deals primarily with correlative data and
    causation is seldom testable.

    Youre an idiot.

    Oprah is an outlier dumbass; however, she has faced racial discrimination even as a black woman of power.

    I never said being capable of racism means one can't be affected by it
    The rapper from linkin park would body the dudes in the xxxtentacion cypher
    A Talented One
  • jonojono Right fist = power, left fist = unity Posts: 30,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

    You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

    There are competing views and alternative definitions to the ones presented by charles
    There are always "competing views" that doesn't mean it's correct.

    jono wrote: »
    Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

    You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

    Bruh, I am actually quite knowledgeable on the subject. The idea that blacks can't be racist is compellingly rejected in this book (chapter 2).
    So? You can reject whatever you like but that doesn't make untrue.

    Those are two way streets.

    Not really. There is a roundly excepted definition then there is "I think the definition should be", you can think what you want when it becomes generally excepted then holla at me.

    Appeal to majority.

    Keep in mind that the 3/5ths ideology was once generally accepted
    Colloquial usage of the term is one thing but criticism of the sociological definition because you don't like it is another.

    3/5th rule was put in place for the purposes of limiting the power of slave states in the House of Representatives, not because it was believed to be true.

    Something isn't true just because it is generally accepted. Word to geocentricity.

    Prove the sociological definition of racism is untrue.

    If prejudice + power = racism then you do not need to have power through the primary institutions of a society to be racist as there are many forms of power.

    Case in point Oprah has far more money than a homeless White man and money is a form of power.

    In what way would oprah express said prejudice and power?

    If it is racist when a White employer hires a White employee over a Black one because he is White how would it be any less racist if a Black employer hired a Black employee over a White one because he is Black?

    The latter example is rarer but not impossible as implied by some
    So...what does this have to do with your oprah analogy? It's far from proving the sociological definition of racism wrong as well.

    I thought it was obvious

    Oprah owns a TV network, magazine and production company. Since she has capacity act as those in that example do then she cannot be incapable of racism.

    I like how you threw the burden of proof on me though. Well played.

    Definitions are subjective so disproving one would be impossible. If you call a tiger a koala how can I prove that the tiger is not a Koala? It wouldn't be possible.
    But I thought the sociological definition was wrong?

    You went on a tangent to disprove it and ended up proving it correct. Smh you type just to type apparently.

    And as far as your koala/tiger analogy is concerned you can call a koala whatever you like, that's YOUR business but that has nothing to do with the field of Zoology which has already defined each animal.

    Same issue here, you don't like the sociological definition of racism? Fine but don't engage in sociological discussion because the arguments are framed on what words mean within that field not "I'm going to make my own definitions up because I can".

    Whatever college you go to that allows you to make up definitions must be lousy as fuck. You probably get to make your own tests as grade them yourself too.

    How did it prove it right at all when the definition claims Black Americans can never be racist and the example shows otherwise?
    Ideology. Racism is a systematic set of ideas and actions associated with “the idea of the superiority of one racial category or one ethnic group to other racial categories or ethnic groups” (Isajiw, p. 149). That is, racism is not just a haphazard negative view that an individual has or expresses about a minority group – the latter might be considered prejudice, although this may be the basis for racism. But racism is a more systematic set of interconnected ideas that form an overall ideology. For example, members of a particular race may be regarded as inferior based on views that the group is less capable. This may be based on the view that the group has an inferior culture or is destined by biology to be inferior.

    What there prevents Black Americans from being racist? If there was one standard definition like in zoology this would be gravy. This is not a real science field, it's a BS arts discipline that seldom tests its hypotheses.
    1) I never said that
    2) Oprah is not indicative of the black experience in the United States she is an outlier and as such is exempt from a lot of generalized comments b

    As far as the second bolded:
    Prove it...

    I never said you claimed that. Charlie dropped that idea here and that is exactly what I have been saying is ridiculous. Oprah is an easily accessible example but power exists outside of the police and courts. Being capable of forcibly having sex with someone is a form of power, so likewise simply striking someone on the basis of race is racist. How could one argue that Black Americans can not do that or have no ability to do so?

    Can't prove something doesn't exist, it's a fallacy

    Consider this though:

    http://sociology.about.com/od/Sociology101/tp/List-Of-Major-Sociological-Studies-And-Publications.htm

    That is a list of 17 important soc texts and only one is a study. Soc deals primarily with correlative data and causation is seldom testable.

    17 important soc texts according to who?
    And she is....?
    Sociologist Ashley Crossman

    A published author and professor of soc at Arizona State

    So one person?
    @SoulTrain4 *FMOT*

    For blogs on hip-hop & entertainment:
    http://www.shobizcentral.wordpress.com

    For blogs on politics and other things:
    http://www.jonoaries.blogspot.com

    All blog written by me. If you like what I post on here you should dig the blogs too. I also accept suggestions on blog topics, so feel free to suggest things and also if you are a reader tell others, spread the word. I'll try not to be so lazy and actualy get some writing done.
    Purr
  • Bazz-BBazz-B Reaching For Success The Dirty SouthPosts: 1,185 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I know a lot of black women period that are more "cultural opening" then black men. it aint enough six's in the world

    T.Taylor wrote: »
    it aint enough six's in the world

    Deserves a re-quote

    Thank you, folks. That's why Black people, male and female, MUST be committed to creating families with one another. Yes, some biracial people can be decent people in the Black community once they make the correct choice that their Black half reigns supreme. Yet, it is a bittersweet victory in that their blood is diluted.

    This is why I am always horribly baffled when I see one of us senselessly hand over one of our most prized genetic possessions: egg and seed. *glances at Plap's dumb mutt creating ass*

    If I couldn't procreate with a Black man, I'd die childless. I refuse to be a cog in the wheel of creating mutts.
    How much black blood a person have to have to be with you?
    Chef_Taylor blacktux
  • A Talented OneA Talented One stew Posts: 4,202 ✭✭✭
    jono wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

    You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

    There are competing views and alternative definitions to the ones presented by charles
    There are always "competing views" that doesn't mean it's correct.

    jono wrote: »
    Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

    You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

    Bruh, I am actually quite knowledgeable on the subject. The idea that blacks can't be racist is compellingly rejected in this book (chapter 2).
    So? You can reject whatever you like but that doesn't make untrue.

    Those are two way streets.

    Not really. There is a roundly excepted definition then there is "I think the definition should be", you can think what you want when it becomes generally excepted then holla at me.

    Appeal to majority.

    Keep in mind that the 3/5ths ideology was once generally accepted
    Colloquial usage of the term is one thing but criticism of the sociological definition because you don't like it is another.

    3/5th rule was put in place for the purposes of limiting the power of slave states in the House of Representatives, not because it was believed to be true.

    Something isn't true just because it is generally accepted. Word to geocentricity.

    Prove the sociological definition of racism is untrue.

    If prejudice + power = racism then you do not need to have power through the primary institutions of a society to be racist as there are many forms of power.

    Case in point Oprah has far more money than a homeless White man and money is a form of power.

    In what way would oprah express said prejudice and power?

    If it is racist when a White employer hires a White employee over a Black one because he is White how would it be any less racist if a Black employer hired a Black employee over a White one because he is Black?

    The latter example is rarer but not impossible as implied by some
    So...what does this have to do with your oprah analogy? It's far from proving the sociological definition of racism wrong as well.

    I thought it was obvious

    Oprah owns a TV network, magazine and production company. Since she has capacity act as those in that example do then she cannot be incapable of racism.

    I like how you threw the burden of proof on me though. Well played.

    Definitions are subjective so disproving one would be impossible. If you call a tiger a koala how can I prove that the tiger is not a Koala? It wouldn't be possible.
    But I thought the sociological definition was wrong?

    You went on a tangent to disprove it and ended up proving it correct. Smh you type just to type apparently.

    And as far as your koala/tiger analogy is concerned you can call a koala whatever you like, that's YOUR business but that has nothing to do with the field of Zoology which has already defined each animal.

    Same issue here, you don't like the sociological definition of racism? Fine but don't engage in sociological discussion because the arguments are framed on what words mean within that field not "I'm going to make my own definitions up because I can".

    Whatever college you go to that allows you to make up definitions must be lousy as fuck. You probably get to make your own tests as grade them yourself too.

    There is no commonly accepted definition of racism in Sociology, as far as I know. And even if there is one, and it something like what Dyson said, what would that prove? That sociologists have embraced a faulty definition of racism. Sociologists have no special expertise to tell us what racism is.

    Individuals can be racists, and they if they lack power that doesn't make them any less racist. So blacks can be racists too.
    Faulty based on what? Your opinion or do you have a study?
    If it's your opinion then just hang it up, If you have a study I'd love to see it.

    Second bolded: didnt say they couldn't be.

    Faulty based on sound reasoning.

    If a white man who hates blacks goes to live in Nigeria, where blacks have the power, would he count as non-racist because his group is relatively powerless there? No.

    Again, suppose that there is a white kid in an otherwise all-black school. Let's say that he hates blacks. He is relatively powerless in that context, and yet he still seems to be racist.

    Racism doesn't require power. Just a little reflection is enough to show that.

    Who's reasoning? These are opinions I'm reading here. Not anything scholarly and nobody is racist in either case you mentioned.

    How could they not be racists? They hate blacks.
  • LUClENLUClEN Absence makes the heart grow fonder of someone else Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Not sure how one could say that Weber, Durkheim, Goffman, Milgram and Marx's works are not important to Soc
    The rapper from linkin park would body the dudes in the xxxtentacion cypher
  • fuc_i_look_likefuc_i_look_like Posts: 9,190 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Elrawd wrote: »
    I'm happy for you and your fiance

    oa0uw0.png

    Lol whoa. Is this really the poster laqueefa?
    StewPurrMeta_Conscious
  • jonojono Right fist = power, left fist = unity Posts: 30,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    jono wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Elrawd wrote: »
    jono wrote: »
    Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

    You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

    There are competing views and alternative definitions to the ones presented by charles
    There are always "competing views" that doesn't mean it's correct.

    jono wrote: »
    Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

    You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

    Bruh, I am actually quite knowledgeable on the subject. The idea that blacks can't be racist is compellingly rejected in this book (chapter 2).
    So? You can reject whatever you like but that doesn't make untrue.

    Those are two way streets.

    Not really. There is a roundly excepted definition then there is "I think the definition should be", you can think what you want when it becomes generally excepted then holla at me.

    Appeal to majority.

    Keep in mind that the 3/5ths ideology was once generally accepted
    Colloquial usage of the term is one thing but criticism of the sociological definition because you don't like it is another.

    3/5th rule was put in place for the purposes of limiting the power of slave states in the House of Representatives, not because it was believed to be true.

    Something isn't true just because it is generally accepted. Word to geocentricity.

    Prove the sociological definition of racism is untrue.

    If prejudice + power = racism then you do not need to have power through the primary institutions of a society to be racist as there are many forms of power.

    Case in point Oprah has far more money than a homeless White man and money is a form of power.

    In what way would oprah express said prejudice and power?

    If it is racist when a White employer hires a White employee over a Black one because he is White how would it be any less racist if a Black employer hired a Black employee over a White one because he is Black?

    The latter example is rarer but not impossible as implied by some
    So...what does this have to do with your oprah analogy? It's far from proving the sociological definition of racism wrong as well.

    I thought it was obvious

    Oprah owns a TV network, magazine and production company. Since she has capacity act as those in that example do then she cannot be incapable of racism.

    I like how you threw the burden of proof on me though. Well played.

    Definitions are subjective so disproving one would be impossible. If you call a tiger a koala how can I prove that the tiger is not a Koala? It wouldn't be possible.
    But I thought the sociological definition was wrong?

    You went on a tangent to disprove it and ended up proving it correct. Smh you type just to type apparently.

    And as far as your koala/tiger analogy is concerned you can call a koala whatever you like, that's YOUR business but that has nothing to do with the field of Zoology which has already defined each animal.

    Same issue here, you don't like the sociological definition of racism? Fine but don't engage in sociological discussion because the arguments are framed on what words mean within that field not "I'm going to make my own definitions up because I can".

    Whatever college you go to that allows you to make up definitions must be lousy as fuck. You probably get to make your own tests as grade them yourself too.

    There is no commonly accepted definition of racism in Sociology, as far as I know. And even if there is one, and it something like what Dyson said, what would that prove? That sociologists have embraced a faulty definition of racism. Sociologists have no special expertise to tell us what racism is.

    Individuals can be racists, and they if they lack power that doesn't make them any less racist. So blacks can be racists too.
    Faulty based on what? Your opinion or do you have a study?
    If it's your opinion then just hang it up, If you have a study I'd love to see it.

    Second bolded: didnt say they couldn't be.

    Faulty based on sound reasoning.

    If a white man who hates blacks goes to live in Nigeria, where blacks have the power, would he count as non-racist because his group is relatively powerless there? No.

    Again, suppose that there is a white kid in an otherwise all-black school. Let's say that he hates blacks. He is relatively powerless in that context, and yet he still seems to be racist.

    Racism doesn't require power. Just a little reflection is enough to show that.

    Who's reasoning? These are opinions I'm reading here. Not anything scholarly and nobody is racist in either case you mentioned.

    How could they not be racists? They hate blacks.

    How do you know this? And furthermore who cares?
    @SoulTrain4 *FMOT*

    For blogs on hip-hop & entertainment:
    http://www.shobizcentral.wordpress.com

    For blogs on politics and other things:
    http://www.jonoaries.blogspot.com

    All blog written by me. If you like what I post on here you should dig the blogs too. I also accept suggestions on blog topics, so feel free to suggest things and also if you are a reader tell others, spread the word. I'll try not to be so lazy and actualy get some writing done.
  • jonojono Right fist = power, left fist = unity Posts: 30,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Elrawd wrote: »
    Not sure how one could say that Weber, Durkheim, Goffman, Milgram and Marx's works are not important to Soc

    You got a list from "about.com" it's not trustworthy. But hey you said "sociology is BS it's an arts program" which is far more egregious than me challenging the word of a single person within a huge field. Nahmean?
    @SoulTrain4 *FMOT*

    For blogs on hip-hop & entertainment:
    http://www.shobizcentral.wordpress.com

    For blogs on politics and other things:
    http://www.jonoaries.blogspot.com

    All blog written by me. If you like what I post on here you should dig the blogs too. I also accept suggestions on blog topics, so feel free to suggest things and also if you are a reader tell others, spread the word. I'll try not to be so lazy and actualy get some writing done.
    Purr
Sign In or Register to comment.