Your second paragraph answers the questions in your first paragraph. I highlighted the key phrases.
Racist, or just careful?
- Thread starter One Brow
- Start date
Your second paragraph answers the questions in your first paragraph. I highlighted the key phrases.
This bold part is nowhere near what you have explained bigotry to be. You have explained that the thoughts and intents of the person being labeled a bigot had absolutely nothing to do with it, the only thing that matters in your opinion is that someone views their actions as bigotry, so therefore... bigot.
If this were really true of how you view yourself, you would do more listening, and less arguing and spinning.
Oh, hi One Brow. I sure missed you and your fresh take on things.
Bull****.
If this is truly your position, you are misguided. That's my opinion and it is every bit as valid as your opinion.
The use of "full blown" was meant to illustrate the ridiculousness of your standards for racism... hyperbole of a sort. Then again, I have enough experience discussing these types of issues with you that I should expect and anticipate that you will take the most minor and irrelevant pieces of my posts and turn them into your arguing points. Historically, this is your method.
One more thing: Racism isn't ever a good thing. I would love see a world where it never came into play. There are ways to fight it, but your way isn't one. What you do is fan the flames. A position like yours does more to aggravate tensions than to alleviate them. I'm not suggesting that racism should be ignored. It should be acknowledged, but with constructive discussion about how it can be corrected.
Oh, but humans age just going to act human, so back to square one.
From what One Brow has written I can only conclude that because we are all inherently racist it is extremely important for us to always consider our race and the race of the people we interact with so that we can pre-identify the ways we would have been racist and act in the completely opposite non-racist way.
Is that what we're shooting for here, One Brow?
Is that what we're shooting for here, One Brow?
I'm not sure you and Bronco70 us the terms the same way. However, using the terms as you indicate, I've never claimed this was a case of "full-blown racism", as my initial post made clear.
I think you have bigotry and racism reversed from how I have identified them. Hopefully not deliberately.
Nice to see you as well. I recognize my own unenlightened nature, but also still recognize very basic denial of reality. They are not incompatible.
Well, except my position is backed up by research; that is, people who apparently harbor no ill will still engage in differential treatment; and denying that is denying the evidence. But as long as you don't care about evidence, every opinion is equally valid.
Since neither Stoked nor I took it hyperbollically, your effort seems to have failed. Nor am I sure what was supposed to be hyperbolic. Could you explain it further?
I would say that since my understanding differs, that means that what I see as major may be what you see as minor, and vice-versa. I don't deliberately focus on what I see as irrelevancies without an inital disclaimer.
Again, there are posters in this thread with whom I am having a constructive discussion, and those with whom I am not. I'm the same poster in both cases.
That would be an ideal. In my classes, I try to make an effort to overcome all sorts of biases I have on gender, skin color, etc. in order to treat students equally. For example, I grew up in classrooms where boys were typically called on twice as often as girls, on the average (according to the various studies on the subject). I assimilated that pattern into my own behaviors. So now, I make an effort to call on the women in my class, because without such an effort, I'll fall back into a pattern of calling on the men twice as often.
I do not have them reversed at all. You were calling me a bigot based on my actions and specifically stated that my intents and thoughts had nothing to do with it and that it had everything to do with how anyone other than myself viewed those actions that defined me as a bigot. You repeatedly stated that I was hung up on the word "hatred". You have as yet to accuse me of being a racist. You have either changed your opinion and now both views are backed up by extensive research, or you have lost the thread of your character. Have you changed your mind already?
I'll give you a minute to reread your script, collect yourself, and get back into character. I think you forgot your role.
OIC, "unenlightened" is the new enlightened. I get it, the very nature of you recognizing your unenlightened state is the switch that makes you enlightened and able to speak for all. Similar to, once you think you are humble you are not. That is some very Christian thinking of you. Bravo.
one of your primary problems, One Brow, is that you try too hard to live up to your own definition of perfect - it'd be nice if you'd just let yourself be a ****ing imperfect human being every once in a while
edit: excuse me, it's not your problem, it's my problem with you...
edit: excuse me, it's not your problem, it's my problem with you...
I recall calling people bigots in threads about gay marriage, because they openly advocate for discrimination. I know I recall saying that to colton, and I may have said it to you. I make no apologies for that.
I don't recall saying anyone on this forum was a bigot regarding race. I don't recall anyone on this forum advocating for discrimination or otherwise openly displaying prejudice or hate regarding other races, and specifically, I don't recall you doing so. So, if I called you a bigot regarding race, I was wrong. To be frank, I don't believe I did that. It wouldn't be the first time someone misunderstood what I said.
Regarding racism, I have indeed said hatred or other forms of open prejudice are not relevant. In fact, that was the point of starting this thread. The person who is being treated differently doesn't really care if the different treatment is from hatred, ignorance, or indifference. Why should they?
I don't use the term "racist" of people because, to the degree it applies at all, it applies to everyone, and thus serves to make no distinction. I reserve it for ideas, habits, cultural understandings, etc. So, I would never use the term "racist" of you, in particular. I might use it of thoughts you offer, or understandings you have, but not of you.
As a human, I'm capable of accepting twenty seemingly contrary things all at once. However, I've been relatively consistent in all of this.
We all have our little internal flatteries. We all have our ideals; we all fail to live up to them.
I don't try hard enough in some areas, and too hard in others.
Latest example of racebending (and spoiler for the new Star Trek movie):
Khan Noonian Singh is played by an incredibly pale-skinned man. After all, can't have some Indian actor playing a powerful, charismatic hero, just because the character is an Indian Sihk.
Khan Noonian Singh is played by an incredibly pale-skinned man. After all, can't have some Indian actor playing a powerful, charismatic hero, just because the character is an Indian Sihk.
Glad to see you properly baited this reply.
Could you please post an image of this actor as well as an image of a Sikh that you consider the proper color for a Sikh? Please.
Last edited:
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
I have no problem believing that Obama's White House Guards discriminated based on skin color. They are liberals following the example set by their liberal boss. Skin color is all important to liberals.
The conclusions I have a problem with come from the beautiful doctor (picture below) is that she claims:
Despite being a native English speaker who was born in New Orleans and a physician who trained at a prestigious institution, all people see is the color of my skin.
Wrong! I'll see her beautiful facial features. I'll see her trim little body. I'll notice her clothing and hairstyle in a glance. I'll see her facial expressions and try to judge her mood from that. For me her skin color is the least important aspect to what I see.
All these things are part of what "people" see even if we put aside her behavior and what she says and how she says it.
Some "people" may only see the color of her skin as important, but not most or all.
The career interview questions were woefully inappropriate. Who were those people?
The conclusions I have a problem with come from the beautiful doctor (picture below) is that she claims:
Despite being a native English speaker who was born in New Orleans and a physician who trained at a prestigious institution, all people see is the color of my skin.
Wrong! I'll see her beautiful facial features. I'll see her trim little body. I'll notice her clothing and hairstyle in a glance. I'll see her facial expressions and try to judge her mood from that. For me her skin color is the least important aspect to what I see.
All these things are part of what "people" see even if we put aside her behavior and what she says and how she says it.
Some "people" may only see the color of her skin as important, but not most or all.
The career interview questions were woefully inappropriate. Who were those people?
When you beg you cannot be to picky.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
I can't help it if I recognize the beauty inherent in women's bodies.
Flat hairy chests ain't that impressive. Men are all too proud of their vulnerable dangley parts (that can easily be replaced). We have ours all tucked up inside. Nice and neat for the most part.
Flat hairy chests ain't that impressive. Men are all too proud of their vulnerable dangley parts (that can easily be replaced). We have ours all tucked up inside. Nice and neat for the most part.
What was your point?