White Students Kicked From Meeting For Not Being Racialized - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;47349431]Aren't they doing that right now by excluding people from spaces because of their race?[/QUOTE] No, because apparently unless it's done in a widespread manner racism is not an issue.

[QUOTE=Smallheart;47349443]I thought you were trying to argue the central/core definition...?[/QUOTE] that was a misunderstanding on my part. I wasn't considering the European perspective. [QUOTE=_Axel;47349453]Even if by believing in your definition, you could engage in actually racist behavior without thinking you're behaving in a racist manner?[/QUOTE] of course one can be racist without acknowledging his own privilege. it's really up to whomever is being subjected to the racism to determine whether it's racist or not (in a justified manner, of course). [QUOTE=Impact1986;47349478]So white people can't be racist against yellow people because there are more yellow people than white people on earth?[/QUOTE] this is just my perspective as an American on American society.

[QUOTE=Boaraes;47349501]of course one can be racist without acknowledging his own privilege. it's really up to whomever is being subjected to the racism to determine whether it's racist or not (in a justified manner, of course).[/QUOTE] I don't see the point in that. Racism has a pretty clear cut definition. It's not up to the perpetrator or the victim to determine whether something is racist or not, it objectively is or isn't.

[QUOTE=Levithan;47348813]I get cheesed off when cisgender people try to comment on what it means to be transgender when they've [I]never experienced the hardships or struggles of being transgender[/I]. I would think it's the same thing when white folk try to fit themselves into discussions like that when they have no actual experience of being black or asian or etc. When I comes to certain topics or groups, privileged people's opinion literally does not matter since their opinions are formed from experiences that [I]lack[/I] whatever they're trying to talk about. I wouldn't expect the opinion of someone who tries to explain what it's like to be suicidal and how difficult it can be, when that person hasn't ever been suicidal, to be regarded nearly as legitimate as someone who has actually been suicidal. Sure, they can describe what other people have felt and the symptoms of depression and such, but the most they can do is sympathize rather than truly empathize, and they run the risk of providing advice or a position that is unhelpful or even harmful.[/QUOTE] This is the same mentality that racists use, "Oh they're just black, they're all dumb they don't matter", "Oh they're just Italian, they're all lazy they don't matter", "Oh they're just Irish, they're all drunks they don't matter". It's a very childish, siege mentality where you'd rather use ad hominem to assert the opposition literally can't comprehend instead of actually listening to what they have to say. Sure most cis people probably don't understand what transgender people go through, but if you exclude every individual on that notion you are missing every opportunity to meet someone who does. Maybe you'll end up learning it's less dependent on being cis and more dependent on being educated, etc.

[QUOTE=_Axel;47349557]I don't see the point in that. Racism has a pretty clear cut definition. It's not up to the perpetrator or the victim to determine whether something is racist or not, it objectively is or isn't.[/QUOTE] that's why I clarified if it's in a justified manner or not

[QUOTE=Boaraes;47349566]that's why I clarified if it's in a justified manner or not[/QUOTE] And how do you justify it if there's no objective definition to base it on?

[QUOTE=_Axel;47349571]And how do you justify it if there's no objective definition to base it on?[/QUOTE] that's what I meant, though. the justification is based on the definition.

Why can't we all just be friends?

[QUOTE=Boaraes;47349591]that's what I meant, though. the justification is based on the definition.[/QUOTE] ...And the definition is subjective according to you. Thus you can't justify that someone is objectively racist? That doesn't hold up.

[QUOTE=wraithcat;47347064]I still find the North American definition of racism to just be bloody weird.[/QUOTE] in north america only white people can be racist apparently, which is reinforced by everything being pointed out as racist or hateful these days.

[QUOTE=_Axel;47349606]...And the definition is subjective according to you.[/QUOTE] it definitely does depend on circumstances within a society.

[QUOTE=Boaraes;47349623]it definitely does depend on circumstances within a society.[/QUOTE] Why? That means in a certain society you can act racist towards someone and not be considered a racist, and then do the exact same thing in another society and you're a racist and should be ashamed of it?

[QUOTE=Boaraes;47349623]it definitely does depend on circumstances within a society.[/QUOTE] "I fucking hate these whites/yellows/blacks, polluting my sight with their ugly skin and subhuman intelligence." "Just a minute, let me check the demographics of the local area so I can find out if that's racist or not." do you not see how fucking ridiculous you've made this

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;47349650]"I fucking hate these whites/yellows/blacks, polluting my sight with their ugly skin and subhuman intelligence." "Just a minute, let me check the demographics of the local area so I can find out if that's racist or not." do you not see how fucking ridiculous you've made this[/QUOTE] So wait, he's basically arguing in favour of the polar opposite of "it's fine as long as they're not around?" and thus becomes "It's fine as long as they are the majority demographic." I actually find it kind of funny how popular culture essentially says, "Hey it's okay to be racist to whites, they've not suffered enough to be people like us."

[QUOTE=Boaraes;47349623]it definitely does depend on circumstances within a society.[/QUOTE] You're saying you have your own definition of racism, claiming racism is subjective hence you don't have to abide to dictionary definitions because everybody has a different interpretation. But then you go on and say people should still justify their point of view when they perceive something as racist. To do that you need an objective definition of racism, and then you claim such an objective definition is the one you gave before, the exact same one you justified by saying it's just your definition of racism? In essence, you're simply stating the objective definition of racism is the one you gave, yet it isn't according to every single dictionary I could find.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;47349650]"I fucking hate these whites/yellows/blacks, polluting my sight with their ugly skin and subhuman intelligence." "Just a minute, let me check the demographics of the local area so I can find out if that's racist or not." do you not see how fucking ridiculous you've made this[/QUOTE] no fucking shit your example is racist, that isn't what I'm saying. let me break this down. there is indeed an objective definition of racism. I am not denying that. in the circumstance that a person is being subjected to racism, what I was saying was that it's up to the person in question to react to it.

[QUOTE=wraithcat;47347064]I still find the North American definition of racism to just be bloody weird.[/QUOTE] You'll find that it changes every couple of years; have to keep up as the trendsetter for social mores after all.

[QUOTE=Boaraes;47349706]no fucking shit your example is racist, that isn't what I'm saying. let me break this down. there is indeed an objective definition of racism. I am not denying that. in the circumstance that a person is being subjected to racism, what I was saying was that it's up to the person in question to react to it.[/QUOTE] But in order for it to have any significance when it comes to ethics, you need racism to have an objective definition. Otherwise everybody could react to anything by saying it's racist and there would be no way to prove that wrong. [editline]18th March 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Boaraes;47349706]there is indeed an objective definition of racism. I am not denying that.[/QUOTE] And what is this objective definition? Could it be... This one, which doesn't state anything about systematic oppression whatsoever? [QUOTE]Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Moustacheman;47349409]What about the Irish, or the Jews, or Russians/ Poles?[/QUOTE] Irish, Jews and Poles were discriminated against by white protestants, generally of english, lowland scottish, [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Reivers"]"scots-irish"[/URL] or german/dutch ancestry. It's not as if jews, poles and irish were being institutionally discriminated against by blacks and latinos, so I'm not exactly sure what your point is. If they were of irish, jewish or polish ancestry and stated that their families had been institutionally discriminated against, they probably would have been able to enter the pity-party meeting. They identified as "white" rather than an actual ethnicity, and proceeded to state that nobody had discriminated against their family members, ergo they weren't allowed in. How is this complicated? This might also be a good time to bring up the fact that "white" people rarely have homogeneous irish/jewish/polish backgrounds in north america, it's far more common that "white" people have a wide array of family backgrounds, because their ancestors only intermingled with other white-skinned people. Nobody really cares that your grandfather was 1/4 irish descendant with a last name that has been anglicized to the point where it can barely be recognized, doesn't give you much grounds or purpose to identity as "x/whatever ethnicity."

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;47349721]Irish, Jews and Poles were discriminated against by white protestants, generally of english, lowland scottish, [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Reivers"]"scots-irish"[/URL] or german/dutch ancestry. It's not as if jews, poles and irish were being institutionally discriminated against by blacks and latinos, so I'm not exactly sure what your point is. If they were of irish, jewish or polish ancestry and stated that their families had been institutionally discriminated against, they probably would have been able to enter the pity-party meeting. They identified as "white" rather than an actual ethnicity, and proceeded to state that nobody had discriminated against their family members, ergo they weren't allowed in. How is this complicated? This might also be a good time to bring up the fact that "white" people rarely have homogeneous irish/jewish/polish backgrounds in north america, it's far more common that "white" people have a wide array of family backgrounds, because their ancestors only intermingled with other white-skinned people. Nobody really cares that your grandfather was 1/4 irish descendant with a last name that has been anglisized to the point where it can barely be recognized.[/QUOTE] Are you still defending kicking people out of meetings because of their race? I thought we already established that, no matter the goal of the meeting, outsiders shouldn't be barred from assisting to it.

[QUOTE=_Axel;47349716]But in order for it to have any significance when it comes to ethics, you need racism to have an objective definition. Otherwise everybody could react to anything by saying it's racist and there would be no way to prove that wrong. [editline]18th March 2015[/editline] And what is this objective definition?[/QUOTE] what I've been using is the sociological interpretation [QUOTE]"culturally sanctioned beliefs, which, regardless of intentions involved, defend the advantages whites have because of the subordinated position of racial minorities"[/QUOTE] of the broadest definition [QUOTE]"belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races" and the expression of such prejudice[/QUOTE] in other words, there are multiple definitions. xenophobia, supremacism, segregation, legal, etc.

why do women-only gyms/gymtime still exist :v: the only ones I can understand are the women-and-children only ones where the idea not to make the women feel less oppressed but so the guys aren't so annoyed noise-blocking headphones tho

[QUOTE=_Axel;47349745]Are you still defending kicking people out of meetings because of their race? I thought we already established that, no matter the goal of the meeting, outsiders shouldn't be barred from assisting to it.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=sloppy_joes;47349079]It wasn't because they were white though, it was because they were there to report on it. Basically the organizers didn't want any journalists there. [QUOTE]"It is a space where folks share some very vulnerable stories and are less inclined to share their stories when they know it will be the front page of an upcoming newspaper," Hoilett said[/QUOTE] [URL]http://globalnews.ca/news/1885540/white-students-asked-to-leave-anti-racism-event-at-ryerson/[/URL][/QUOTE] sounds like a pretty valid reason to me [editline]18th March[/editline] even one of the reporters is okay with it [QUOTE]But during an interview with Global News she said she has since changed her mind, saying she understands why people “want a safe space.”[/QUOTE] this really has been an awful lot of fuss over basically nothing

[QUOTE=_Axel;47349745]Are you still defending kicking people out of meetings because of their race? I thought we already established that, no matter the goal of the meeting, outsiders shouldn't be barred from assisting to it.[/QUOTE] They weren't kicked out because of their race, they were kicked out because they literally professed no reason for being in the meeting [quote]She asked them if they had been marginalized or racialized, and when they both responded ‘no,[/quote] If they were of a historically marginalized white ethnic group such as jewish, polish or irish and stated that fact, they probably would have been let in.

[QUOTE=Boaraes;47349783]what I've been using is the sociological interpretation of the broadest definition in other words, there are multiple definitions. xenophobia, supremacism, segregation, legal, etc.[/QUOTE] You're using a (biased) interpretation, not the definition itself. The definition it's based on doesn't mention any form of systematic oppression anywhere.

Call me old fashioned, but I see racism as discriminating against people on the basis of their race.

[QUOTE=Boaraes;47349783]what I've been using is the sociological interpretation of the broadest definition in other words, there are multiple definitions. xenophobia, supremacism, segregation, legal, etc.[/QUOTE] If there were several definitions, then which one is the objective one? You can't have a concept be simultaneously several different things.

[QUOTE=_Axel;47349800]You're using a (biased) interpretation, not the definition itself. The definition it's based doesn't mention any form of systematic oppression anywhere.[/QUOTE] do you find the sociological interpretation not applicable?

[QUOTE=Boaraes;47349820]do you find the sociological interpretation not applicable?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]"culturally sanctioned beliefs, which, regardless of intentions involved, defend the advantages whites have because of the subordinated position of racial minorities"[/QUOTE] It simply mentions a specific example of racism, not its definition. There is no mention of whites, power or advantage in the definition. It simply defines racism as being prejudice based on beliefs that some races are inferior or superior, something non-whites can be guilty of as well.

I thought Racism was Prejudiced against someone because of their racial background. According to this professor I guess I am not racist any more. :rolleyes: Edit: According to Google rac·ism noun racism the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.