Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

So what do you guys think about the idea that the requirements for racism and sexism are a system of power and oppression.

I think that it's fucking dumb and that its just a way for people to take the moral high-ground. And somehow exempt themselves of wrong doings.

It's wrong, as both are likely just the results of the events that happen to people throughout their lives, and their effects on their thoughts.
Read: Every opinion ever.

This whole "debate" is just semantics turned right up to ten. Useless linguistic warfare. In the real world, it doesn't matter whether a black person insulting whites is "racist" or "prejudiced", because actions should matter far, far more than words.

If I had to pick a side, though, I would say that any person is capable of being racist or sexist. However, it should be made very clear that such a position does not translate into rejection of the existence of systematic inequality. Systematic racism and to a smaller extent, systematic sexism (especially in undeniably patriarchal systems such as many denominations of the Mormon Church) certainly exist and are waiting to be addressed.

TL;DR racism may not require the racist to be powerful, but systematic racism does

That definition was made up by sociology departments from universities.

Want to "win" arguments without constructing any sound logical arguments? Simple! Just change the definition of commonly accepted words into ones that inherently assume your position on an issue, thus expertly disguising the fact that you're begging the question!

I think Particle Mare said everything that I could say, but I had to chime in anyway.
 
There is a difference between systematic oppression and prejudice mindsets leading to racist actions. But the definitions aren't meant to excuse either. They're simply different. So I don't think it's quite a matter of mincing words or using semantics to justify isolated instances of injustice.
 
Regarding OP's stance, I think it just depends on the background of who you're talking to.

If you talk to a sociologist, then recognize that their training and bent is to social forces. They honestly aren't nearly as interested in isolated instances of "reverse racism," because it can't be addressed or discussed through broader, systematic changes. That's what their expertise is in. You have to change a system to drastically reduce injustice.

If you talk to someone who has a very detail-oriented bent (I find that to be the case for many in STEM fields,) then they see what's right there in front of them. The most understandable explanation is the most direct one. That's how code, equations, and reactions work. Fix individual problems here and there, and you fixed everything.
 
So when you have egregious examples of individual, isolated injustices, your gender studies/sociologists/anthropologists aren't going to be as concerned. There's a system that affects many more beyond individuals.

And when you have something where people are wanting to do something remove the word "bossy" and the like from common use, your average Joe/STEM folks aren't going to be as concerned. They see a problem that's obvious right in front of them that's much more directly identified. Individuals just need to treat people fairly.
 
 
My degree is in sociology, so that's why I'm sympathetic to "systems of oppression". I find that both sides usually have awful debaters though, because they can't argue with both perspectives in mind.

Because I'm fond of my own creations.

Its like this. "Cracker" is considered to be nowhere near as inflammatory as "nigger". Does this mean it is acceptable to use it? No. What is even worse is when people who use cracker regularly get all puffed up and self righteous when called a nigger. Do on to others yadda yadda.

Food for thought, by the way:

"Cracker" is not likely to come from being white as a Saltine or soda cracker.
 
There are other theories, but it's historically suggested that the term may come from those who cracked whips on slaves.
 
By calling someone a cracker, you're essentially saying they have power over blacks like a slaveowner.
 
 
…back to you, Jim.

And by calling someone a faggot, you're essentially saying that they are heavy smokers, right?

No, you're saying that you want to burn them to death without the 'dignity' of even being tied to a stake.

I see racism very simplistically: if you hate (as in despise, hold utter disdain, wish violence upon them, etc.) another person for being part of x ethnic/cultural group then you are in fact a racist. A white guy who hates another guy for being black is racist. A black guy who hates another guy for being white is racist and so on and so forth.

I similarly see the idea of "race" simplistically: it's bullshit. Race is in and of itself a social construct utilized to divide and differentiate people based on the rather insignifiant aspect of skin pigmentation. the basis of the word is that "we are of entirely different species (or race) from them", hence "race" and "racism".

Just because your ancestors happened to live in areas that lead to you being tanner or less tan then those around you doesn't make you any superior or inferior.

TLDR Racism = hating other assholes for skin/culture/whatever and Race = bullshit social construct

Not quite.

See, "faggot" in those two senses have entirely different meanings. The meaning changed entirely.

"Cracker" has always been tied to white people with some unfairly gained social status, now and then. That never changed.

I agree wholeheartedly with OP. Racism already has a very plain, very obvious definition.

Caramel said:

No, you’re saying that you want to burn them to death without the ‘dignity’ of even being tied to a stake.

That's not actually the etymology of faggot. Per the Online Etymology Dictionary:

"male homosexual," 1914, American English slang, probably from earlier contemptuous term for "woman" (1590s), especially an old and unpleasant one, in reference to faggot (n.1) "bundle of sticks," as something awkward that has to be carried (compare baggage "worthless woman," 1590s)… The explanation that male homosexuals were called faggots because they were burned at the stake as punishment is an etymological urban legend.