[Northern Monkey]

racism
ˈreɪsɪz(ə)m/
noun
the 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.
"theories of racism"
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
"a programme to combat racism"
synonyms: racial discrimination, racialism, racial prejudice/bigotry,


"someone of a different race".Does'nt say here that you have to be white to be racist

[Kizzy]

Aw well you keep facepalming yourself I couldn't make my point any clearer

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I didn't say it's "less" of a word, I pointed out that it's not descriptive enough, there are a million different varieties of prejudice. Prejudice on the grounds of age is ageism, prejudice on the grounds of sex is sexism, prejudice on the grounds of race is racism.

The type of racism you are talking about, both with historical context and with regards to there being an element of power / control today, is called institutional racism. The adjective is important, it's what let's you know what sort of racism we're talking about. It doesn't dilute or whitewash the term "racism". If anything, it adds to the implied severity?

I am aware what institutional racism is thankyou, by the same token would you say women could be accused of sexism against men?

[arista]

Not all Latinos will be Deported


Only the Illegal ones

So they can carry on Cleaning Celebs Bogs

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I am aware what institutional racism is thankyou, by the same token would you say women could be accused of sexism against men?

If a woman discriminates against a man purely because he is male, then yes, that woman is being sexist.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

If a woman discriminates against a man purely because he is male, then yes, that woman is being sexist.

Not institutional sexism then?...

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Not institutional sexism then?...

If a random woman says "all men are stupid arrogant pigs" then she is being casually sexist.

If a recruiter is hiring for a company with a mandate that says they will automatically reject any male candidate, or if a government introduces a law that applies only to men, then that is institutional sexism.

It's the position of power that makes the distinction and that's why the distinction is important.

Women can be and frequently are sexist.

Ethnic minorities can be and frequently are racist.

It is still relatively rare that either women or ethnic minorities are collectively in positions of power in order to be able to engage in institutional sexism / racism. That is the problem. That's what highlights the imbalance and that's why defining the difference is actually important... So that the actual discrepancies don't get lost under the nonsensical ideas that black people "can't be" racist and women "can't be" sexist.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

If a random woman says "all men are stupid arrogant pigs" then she is being casually sexist.

If a recruiter is hiring for a company with a mandate that says they will automatically reject any male candidate, or if a government introduces a law that applies only to men, then that is institutional sexism.

It's the position of power that makes the distinction and that's why the distinction is important.

Women can be and frequently are sexist.

Ethnic minorities can be and frequently are racist.

It is still relatively rare that either women or ethnic minorities are collectively in positions of power in order to be able to engage in institutional sexism / racism. That is the problem. That's what highlights the imbalance and that's why defining the difference is actually important... So that the actual discrepancies don't get lost under the nonsensical ideas that black people "can't be" racist and women "can't be" sexist.

Hmmm we appear to have gone full circle. I believe due to years of oppression that neither is possible in the truest sense of the word. However I appreciate the pedant viewpoint on the definition.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Hmmm we appear to have gone full circle. I believe due to years of oppression that neither is possible in the truest sense of the word. However I appreciate the pedant viewpoint on the definition.

Accuracy is not pedantic, especially not when there is a perfectly acceptable term for what you're describing. But yes, we do appear to be going in circles.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Accuracy is not pedantic, especially not when there is a perfectly acceptable term for what you're describing. But yes, we do appear to be going in circles.

'a person who adheres rigidly to book knowledge without regard to common sense.'

Seeing as you like dictionary definitions you might like this

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pedant

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

'a person who adheres rigidly to book knowledge without regard to common sense.'

Seeing as you like dictionary definitions you might like this

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pedant

But he is speaking(or typing) common sense.Racism from a position of power is 'institutional racism' any other racism is just plain old racism(by the dictionary definition)
Racism can be experienced by anyone,Institutional racism can only be experienced by someone who has people who hold some kind of power over them.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

'a person who adheres rigidly to book knowledge without regard to common sense.'

Seeing as you like dictionary definitions you might like this

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pedant

I don't really think anyone who would argue that one person (of any race) making prejudiced remarks to another person (of any other race), with specific referrence to characteristics of that race or utilising racial stereotypes, is "not being racist"... is really in any position to start lecturing others on "common sense"

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I don't really think anyone who would argue that one person (of any race) making prejudiced remarks to another person (of any other race), with specific referrence to characteristics of that race or utilising racial stereotypes, is "not being racist"... is really in any position to start lecturing others on "common sense"

prejudiced? yeah I'll go for that.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Not institutional sexism then?...

yes it is, if the woman owns a company, and discriminates against male employees for being male, that is absolutely institutional sexism.

or if we are talking about a school with majority female teachers and male students are treated differently because they are male in that school which has majority females in power, that is institutional sexism.

minorities can still have institutional power, and be an institutional majority.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by lostalex

yes it is, if the woman owns a company, and discriminates against male employees for being male, that is absolutely institutional sexism.

or if we are talking about a school with majority female teachers and male students are treated differently because they are male in that school which has majority females in power, that is institutional sexism.

minorities can still have institutional power, and be an institutional majority.

I don't think schools are a good example, schools are not institutions which have historically been the sole premise of Women are they?

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Hmmm we appear to have gone full circle. I believe due to years of oppression that neither is possible in the truest sense of the word. However I appreciate the pedant viewpoint on the definition.

oppression where? were not in the middle east. there is no oppression of women in the UK at all. There is however massive oppression of men and especially fathers here and has been for decades.

[Thotmas]

EXCLUSIVE: 'Kiss my a**!' Rosie Perez QUITS The View early in heated spat with ABC execs after being forced to apologize over her anger at Kelly Osbourne's racist Latino remark
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...dailymailceleb

White privilege is you being forced to apologize when the other person is the one that made the racist comment against your people.

You go booboo you quit that show. From what I hear it sucks anyways.

[the truth]

this is more about the wealth and power of Sharon osbourne

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I don't think schools are a good example, schools are not institutions which have historically been the sole premise of Women are they?

umm, yes they are.

[ChristmasNeeve]

:/

[Braden]

That's awful that they made her apologise.

I don't think her reaction was bad at all.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Braden

That's awful that they made her apologise.

I don't think her reaction was bad at all.

yea, Saying that Mexicans should be allowed in this country because they are good at cleaning toilets isn't offensive at all...

ummm, wtf.

put it in context dude, she was talking about donald trumps anti-mexican words, the best she could come up with is that we need them to clean toilets?

of course it's offensive. and there was a latina there when she said it that spoke up right away. rosie perez. and kelly has since apologized because she realized how offensive it was to say.

it's just cringe worthy and offensive...

Youtube video

[Braden]

I was talking about Rosie being forced to apologise.

[the truth]

I cantbelieve rosie was forced to apologise , just shows how scared they are of Sharon osbourne

[Headie]

Rosie has QUIT the show

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...dailymailceleb