(As an aside, there actually is a lot of persecution of albinos in Africa. It's thought the bones of albinos cure various diseases. Cue...hunting the most dangerous game, for fake medicine.)
So your position is that any generalization that has to do with race is racist? If I say "black people xyz". It's a racist statement because there exists a non-zero amount of black people that the statement is not true for? Do we seriously have to put "in general" into every statement? "In general black people are...." "In general women prefer..."? Or is that still racist/sexist?
How can you not understand this when it's been explained to you repeatedly?
Read these two statements:
black people eat meat.
black people are better at eating meat than white people.
These two statements are generalizations. One is racist, one is not racist. It seems its impossible for you to tell the difference between the two statements. If you can not tell the difference between these two statements, you should bow out of the discussion instead of perpetuating your straw man about "any generalization".
Let's try to make a distinction between wild xenophobic allegations on the one hand and political complaints about the President's actual political actions on the other. Using race to dismiss the former is reasonable; using race to dismiss the latter is just an excuse not to have a real conversation about them.
The problem with this is that the most vehement opposition to the President's policies is coming from the same people as the Birther movement, or the Tea Party. It's where all the radicalism is coming from. One need only look at US politics as a whole to see it for what it is. There are political systems designed to be racist. The GOP is five seconds away from having a reconstitution of slavery as a party platform. It's systemic and a black man being elected President is an open challenge to those systems.
So of course it's racism. It's a deliberate delusion to call it anything but.
I'm wondering if you think this is the consensus. If I was a conservative working in politics I'd be skeptical working with the people who think this, especially after the grotesquely absurd slavery comment. At least to me, it'd be rather obvious the other sides only intention is vilify me. In most cases the race card used by liberals is nothing more than an attempt to score political points and win votes, Pursuer post is just another example of it.
Here's the salient point that you're missing: The Washington NFL team is named after the derogatory word (whether or not they want it to be derogatory, they are still using that same word). They are quite obviously not named after a potato (if they were their mascot would be, a potato not a guy in Native American dress). Cracker Jack is not named after the derogatory term "cracker", it's named after a separate word altogether ("crackajack") with a completely different meaning.
Right, you do not object to an organization using a racial slur in their name, they just cant be named after a racial slur.
Man, you guys go to some elaborate mental gymnastics to try and justify what is obviously racist to any functional human being. "Cracker" is not equitable to any other racial slur because it's not a racial slur. It's effectively meaningless for a white person to called that, since its meaning derives from the owners of plantations and other slave industries. It's kind of like calling someone "the boss," just used in a slightly more derogatory way. Slurs like the n-word, redskin, etc. have overtones of historical violence and oppression to them.
You do understand that "Cracker Jack" isn't marketed as a name of the kid on the box being Jack and him being a "cracker" right? His name is actually "Sailor Jack" (and the dog is Bingo for completeness of trivia).
You do understand the Washington Redskins is a name for a football team, right?
As for "Redskins" I can't, as white person, say how much the word hurts to hear - I have no sense of the experience behind how painfully the word is used
I think if you think of a Native American when you hear the word, the problem is on your end.
Billy, how on earth do you think "homonyms are unrelated words and completely irrelevant to this discussion" is supposed to imply "these product names using homonyms are relevant to this discussion"? That is exactly the opposite of what I said. For your own sake, dude, please just stop this. At this point you're only grasping at straws and embarrassing yourself.
First, because you say they are irrelevant, does not make them irrelevant. Second, Cracker Jack is no more or less of a homonym than Redskins. We know when someone talks about Redskins they are talking about a football team. We know when someone says cracker jack they are talking about a snack. We as humans are smart enough to tell the difference between the regular and derogatory use of the words.
Like "cracker", "redskin" is also a term for a food item. Like "cracker", this is a simple homonym, accidental and completely irrelevant to this discussion.
According to your logic, these are offensive (especially the second one):
Both uses a white person's caricature to identify their product and both have a typical white racial slur in their name. The cracker jack ad is almost a perfect comparison to Redskins because the product it identifies is not a cracker but uses both a white cartoon character and a racial slur in its name.
Gentle reminder that white Americans weren't the target of a genocidal campaign and have not lived through hundreds of years of unrelenting cruelty. What you're doing is just stupid.
Yes, I understand. You hold people of different origins to two different standards based on what other people in the history books did. I'm sorry, I'm not that stupid. What, white people can be insulted because nothing happened to them a long time ago? Or, its not the same thing? Its okay to use a white racial slur but not a Native Americans slur?
You going to have to spell it out and explain to me why its okay to use a white racist slur as means to identify a product. The entire argument thus far has centered around Redskins being a racist slur and should not be used. Now the likes of you want to pivot away from that. Which is it? Its okay to use racist slurs in names just as long as they are not native american or is it okay as long as you take in account history?
"White people are better than any other race, at being white supremacists."
Go ahead, argue it's not true.
What makes white people better at it? What metrics are you using to make this determination? My guess is you think white people are better at it for no other reason than because they are white. I would venture to guess you have zero scientific evidence that suggest whiteness makes you a better supremacist. What makes better supremacist, if there is a such a thing, is probably entirely achieved through environmental considerations such as peer pressure. How do we know all supremacist just don't suck at it? How do we know if a black person became a supremacists they would do any worse or better than white person?
It's rather easy to debunk racist ideas.
You're saying that to make any comparison based on race that suggests literally anything at all, is racist.
Nope. You still have it wrong. I'll point you to several other post I've made. I've made no argument that suggest comparing races is racist. I've clearly made the argument that making judgments on those comparisons is where the racism comes in.
Apparently you see me as a racist you like pointing the finger at. I'm not saying racist things though.
No. I personally believe no on can be racist but rather they have racist ideas and take racist actions.
BTW, you say facts are meaningless
Are you even reading my post?
I would argue the world is not flat anymore > we use facts to prove/argue things. Denying facts them doesn't make them less true when it doesn't serve your argument.
I'm not denying the facts you've presented, I'm disputing the relevance. I've explained why. Are you even reading my post?
If your heritage is East African (e.g. Ethiopian), you have a better chance than most of being a faster long-distance runner.
And if you have west-African heritage (e.g. Jamaican), your chances of being a decent sprinter are also good compared to the general population.
So, what you are saying about the sprinting records has little to do with what color you are but rather where you come from, amirite?
"White people suck worse than black people at running because Ethiopians and Jamaicans are good at it"
Makes a lot of sense...really a convincing argument with "facts" and everything.
It most cases, if not all cases, it can be shown it is irrational and illogical to use race as a metric to determine raical superiority over another at any given activity. I can conclude there is a reason people keep doing it and it has nothing to do with facts or truth much to their chargin. You can intelligently and correctly point to their facts and truths not supporting their examples of their position, repeatedly, and they will continue to assert its completely rational and logical to rank races.
I suppose it would not be racist to say something or someone is racist but I thought we were talking about the kinect. Of course you would not care if it's true...most people who measure accomplishment via race could care less either.
Generalities are ok... yes there may exist some number of black people that have lighter skin than some number of white people... but that does not invalidate that in general, for cases where skin color is a factor, activities that favor darker skin will favor black people and activities that favor lighter skin will favor white people.
I know plenty of black people who use a the kinect with out issue and I know plenty of white people who cant. This tells me your primary means of determining the best race to use with kinect is not sound nor does it prove race should be a primary consideration. It may or may not be racist. In some situations black people using kinect are not getting picked up, it does not prove the xbox is better at picking up white people.
I see no useful purpose for your example other than using it as a way to measure blacks against whites.
EDIT: I should note that your entire argument is predicated on anecdotal evidence.
EDIT: from consumer report
The Kinect recognized both players at adequate light levels and failed to recognize both players at levels that were too low. At no time did it recognize one player and not the other...
....To sum up, the Kinect recognition issues affect automatic logins to the Xbox it's attached to if it's being used in poorly lit environments. But even without facial recognition, players can still log in to their personal avatars using simple hand-gestures or with standard Xbox controllers.
Besides that, do you notice that you find it a flawed that system can only pick of certain race? I'm not sure anyone would say its "okay" for a system to do this.
What I got is it's ok to say "The xbox can see jimmy better than jonny in this room because jimmy's skin is lighter", but not ok to say "The xbox can see jimmy better than jonny in this room because jimmy is white". Even though that statement pretty clearly implies that complexion is the reason the xbox doesn't treat both boys the same way.
Okay, but so you know your statement can be both true and false. .
I see... so basically you are saying if I say "black people" it's racist but if I say "people with darker skin" it's not racist?
Is that all you got? I think the critical flaw in your statement is the broad generalizations you've made, focus on that instead of demonstrating your inability to distinguish between race and complexion.
[quote from="billydaman »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/outside-magic/debate/561793-thats-racist-what-racism-means-today?comment=66"] I would also say they are all true statements.
You sure you want to say this?
sunburn: First, some black people do sun burn and some worse than some white people. Second, race has little to do with weather or not someone sun burns. Complexion is a much stronger indicator of tendency to sun burn.
dressing up like black people for costume parties: Says you. This is completely subjective.
Xbox camera: I would argue the xbox has no idea what race someone is and second, I bet this is not universally true. I'm willing to bet there are other factors that contribute to this such a low light and very little color differentiation in the back ground. Complexion is also a bigger factor than race.
Finally, none of your statements are universally true. All of them depend on other much more significant factors and the reason we know this is because your statements are not universally true.
All you've done is make broad generalizations that could be true under right circumstances.
Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence—essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables.
So you're suggesting that attributing anything (positive, negative or otherwise) to anyone, based on facts or something else that is even slightly race-orientated, is racist?
Better or worse, i.e. white people are better than black people @ xyz because of xyz is by definition racist.
You think by adding in "facts" it validates a statement as a fact. Correlation does not imply causation. Every "fact" one uses to try and prove one race is better than another is making this mistake.
Based on that stand-point, every single person, and every single government in the world is racist.
I do not think you understand my position.
I have no argument that race is not a gauge for accomplishment.
apparently you do.
To admit we're different doesn't have to be considered racist. Or do you feel it is?
You creating a straw-man. As I've said before when you assert a racial superiority, its by definition racist. When you say black people are better sprinters than white people you are measuring accomplishment by race, you are taking an additional step after identifying a disparity in results based on race. Further, you cite facts that correlate with your premise but when examined there is very little evidence that race causes black people to be better sprinters.
Wow, now that you've boiled down the characters to their skin color and age, I realize MTG really is filled with identical characters. I hope WotC becomes populated with more people like you who understand the quality of characters and the game are based mostly on the ratio of people with different skin color and genitals. After all, how will our progressive audience be able to enjoy the game without having a character that matches their combination of age, sex, gender identity, skin color, political beliefs, disability, nationality, and otherskin species. Thank you for the eye-opening analysis.
Pretty sure you're being sarcastic here, but the people being underrepresented do seem to care about it. Why shouldn't women be represented more evenly than 1:2? Why would 50/50 representation, and making female gamers feel more welcome, be a bad thing?
Why doesn't BET have more racial diversity in its content? If the demand is there, the market will do everything it can to meet that demand.
Like "cracker", "redskin" is also a term for a food item. Like "cracker", this is a simple homonym, accidental and completely irrelevant to this discussion.
According to your logic, these are offensive (especially the second one):
Both uses a white person's caricature to identify their product and both have a typical white racial slur in their name. The cracker jack ad is almost a perfect comparison to Redskins because the product it identifies is not a cracker but uses both a white cartoon character and a racial slur in its name.
How can you not understand this when it's been explained to you repeatedly?
Read these two statements:
black people eat meat.
black people are better at eating meat than white people.
These two statements are generalizations. One is racist, one is not racist. It seems its impossible for you to tell the difference between the two statements. If you can not tell the difference between these two statements, you should bow out of the discussion instead of perpetuating your straw man about "any generalization".
I'm wondering if you think this is the consensus. If I was a conservative working in politics I'd be skeptical working with the people who think this, especially after the grotesquely absurd slavery comment. At least to me, it'd be rather obvious the other sides only intention is vilify me. In most cases the race card used by liberals is nothing more than an attempt to score political points and win votes, Pursuer post is just another example of it.
Right, you do not object to an organization using a racial slur in their name, they just cant be named after a racial slur.
It is a racist slur:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracker_(pejorative)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cracker
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cracker
You do understand the Washington Redskins is a name for a football team, right?
I think if you think of a Native American when you hear the word, the problem is on your end.
First, because you say they are irrelevant, does not make them irrelevant. Second, Cracker Jack is no more or less of a homonym than Redskins. We know when someone talks about Redskins they are talking about a football team. We know when someone says cracker jack they are talking about a snack. We as humans are smart enough to tell the difference between the regular and derogatory use of the words.
Yes, I understand. You hold people of different origins to two different standards based on what other people in the history books did. I'm sorry, I'm not that stupid. What, white people can be insulted because nothing happened to them a long time ago? Or, its not the same thing? Its okay to use a white racial slur but not a Native Americans slur?
You going to have to spell it out and explain to me why its okay to use a white racist slur as means to identify a product. The entire argument thus far has centered around Redskins being a racist slur and should not be used. Now the likes of you want to pivot away from that. Which is it? Its okay to use racist slurs in names just as long as they are not native american or is it okay as long as you take in account history?
Your move.
What makes white people better at it? What metrics are you using to make this determination? My guess is you think white people are better at it for no other reason than because they are white. I would venture to guess you have zero scientific evidence that suggest whiteness makes you a better supremacist. What makes better supremacist, if there is a such a thing, is probably entirely achieved through environmental considerations such as peer pressure. How do we know all supremacist just don't suck at it? How do we know if a black person became a supremacists they would do any worse or better than white person?
It's rather easy to debunk racist ideas.
Nope. You still have it wrong. I'll point you to several other post I've made. I've made no argument that suggest comparing races is racist. I've clearly made the argument that making judgments on those comparisons is where the racism comes in.
No. I personally believe no on can be racist but rather they have racist ideas and take racist actions.
Are you even reading my post?
I'm not denying the facts you've presented, I'm disputing the relevance. I've explained why. Are you even reading my post?
So, what you are saying about the sprinting records has little to do with what color you are but rather where you come from, amirite?
"White people suck worse than black people at running because Ethiopians and Jamaicans are good at it"
Makes a lot of sense...really a convincing argument with "facts" and everything.
I know plenty of black people who use a the kinect with out issue and I know plenty of white people who cant. This tells me your primary means of determining the best race to use with kinect is not sound nor does it prove race should be a primary consideration. It may or may not be racist. In some situations black people using kinect are not getting picked up, it does not prove the xbox is better at picking up white people.
I see no useful purpose for your example other than using it as a way to measure blacks against whites.
EDIT: I should note that your entire argument is predicated on anecdotal evidence.
EDIT: from consumer report
Besides that, do you notice that you find it a flawed that system can only pick of certain race? I'm not sure anyone would say its "okay" for a system to do this.
Okay, but so you know your statement can be both true and false. .
Is that all you got? I think the critical flaw in your statement is the broad generalizations you've made, focus on that instead of demonstrating your inability to distinguish between race and complexion.
You sure you want to say this?
sunburn: First, some black people do sun burn and some worse than some white people. Second, race has little to do with weather or not someone sun burns. Complexion is a much stronger indicator of tendency to sun burn.
dressing up like black people for costume parties: Says you. This is completely subjective.
Xbox camera: I would argue the xbox has no idea what race someone is and second, I bet this is not universally true. I'm willing to bet there are other factors that contribute to this such a low light and very little color differentiation in the back ground. Complexion is also a bigger factor than race.
Finally, none of your statements are universally true. All of them depend on other much more significant factors and the reason we know this is because your statements are not universally true.
All you've done is make broad generalizations that could be true under right circumstances.
Better or worse, i.e. white people are better than black people @ xyz because of xyz is by definition racist.
You think by adding in "facts" it validates a statement as a fact. Correlation does not imply causation. Every "fact" one uses to try and prove one race is better than another is making this mistake.
I do not think you understand my position.
apparently you do.
You creating a straw-man. As I've said before when you assert a racial superiority, its by definition racist. When you say black people are better sprinters than white people you are measuring accomplishment by race, you are taking an additional step after identifying a disparity in results based on race. Further, you cite facts that correlate with your premise but when examined there is very little evidence that race causes black people to be better sprinters.
Why doesn't BET have more racial diversity in its content? If the demand is there, the market will do everything it can to meet that demand.
According to your logic, these are offensive (especially the second one):
http://www.tias.com/stores/whimzytreasures/origpics/002102a.jpg
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTgvk-CsTdcj7Qy_OyKWIQl2pWa88nTPDOBX4yjLoVnNbvri59y-Q
Both uses a white person's caricature to identify their product and both have a typical white racial slur in their name. The cracker jack ad is almost a perfect comparison to Redskins because the product it identifies is not a cracker but uses both a white cartoon character and a racial slur in its name.