NationStates Jolt Archive

Open and shut question.

*edit*

And, I guess, if so, when?

Yes.

No.

Maybe

No. The only acceptable way to act is to judge people as individuals, irregardless of race and other things which they cannot control.

Only when you have to prove that by somebody guessing that you are racist that they themselves are assuming someone of a race is likely racist then they themselves are.

How could it ever be acceptable?

Absolutely not.

I sure can't think of an acceptable use for it.

Only when you have to prove that by somebody guessing that you are racist that they themselves are assuming someone of a race is likely racist then they themselves are.

:confused:

I guess if you were trapped in an underground cave and being viciously attacked by little goblin-men things. They've already killed two of your friends and eaten them. It may well be racist to assume that little goblin-men things are going to be vicious murderers at this point... but, for the purpose of survival, it's also a wise assumption based on available information.

Of course that's kinda different from arbitrarily dividing up humans into races and then not selling your car to someone cuz you don't like their 'race.'

Nope.

How could it ever be acceptable?

That's what I'm thinking, my guess is that people think its alright for someone who was attacked or wronged by a member of a certain race to be prejudiced against that race.

To hate some because of their skin colour is strictly for moronic fools.

A stereotype could be used reasonably if there was no time to gather information so as to make the best choice. For example, if you were walking down a street at night and you saw a group of whatever ethnicity heading towards you, wearing gangster apparel and otherwise appearing dangerous, would it be more reasonable to give them a fair chance and walk on by them or would you avoid them? Now, if this group of said ethnicity were instead wearing three-piece suits and talking about finance, would you be any more inclined to walk by them as opposed to avoid them? I'm not sure if this is racism per se, because it doesn't involve actively hating an arbitrary group of people, but it serves a point to show that some decisions based on stereotype may be acceptable if there is risk and little to no time to adequately gain information.

That being said, I think that racism is plain stupid if you have the opportunity to get to know a person. Not only is it harmful to treat someone like this when they don't deserve it, but you could also be harming yourself by not getting to know someone who you may very well like.

A stereotype could be used reasonably if there was no time to gather information so as to make the best choice. For example, if you were walking down a street at night and you saw a group of whatever ethnicity heading towards you, wearing gangster apparel and otherwise appearing dangerous, would it be more reasonable to give them a fair chance and walk on by them or would you avoid them? Now, if this group of said ethnicity were instead wearing three-piece suits and talking about finance, would you be any more inclined to walk by them as opposed to avoid them? I'm not sure if this is racism per se

It's not, because what is being judged is behaviour. People appearing dangerous, wearing gangster clothing. They could as you said, be any ethnicity. What if I saw a Latino in a business suit versus a Latino in gang colors? Well, I might not avoid the former but I might the latter, neither is racist.

A stereotype could be used reasonably if there was no time to gather information so as to make the best choice.

Yes, stereotypes are a real time-saver (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33210?issue=4228&special=2002). :p

It's not, because what is being judged is behaviour. People appearing dangerous, wearing gangster clothing. They could as you said, be any ethnicity. What if I saw a Latino in a business suit versus a Latino in gang colors? Well, I might not avoid the former but I might the latter, neither is racist.

True, I agree.

discriminating against someone for any reason relating to anything they can not change or are not responsible for is never acceptable.

people can not choose how they are born, black, white, gay, straight, male female..... etc

you choose to be left or right wing, liberal or conservative, religious or not, biggoted or not.......... those things are open for debate and decsion making about people.

not what they are born, but who they become.

Yes, stereotypes are a real time-saver (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33210?issue=4228&special=2002). :p

That's taking it to the absurd level. :P

Useful in profiling (when that is the only informationa known), not acceptable in judging (in conjunction with other information).

Ex:

acceptable/useful: (This otherwise unknown person or group is X, so I should consider A, B, C to be more or less likely and plan accordingly)

unacceptable: (John seems like a good guy, but he is X, so A, B, C)

That's what I'm thinking, my guess is that people think its alright for someone who was attacked or wronged by a member of a certain race to be prejudiced against that race.Intresting thats what happened with Hitler for the most part.

*edit*

Though I do think it is reasonable to be racist sometimes, such as if its been proven that most black teens in one area are in vilent street gangs in your city and you go to that city and you see a big group of teens walking down the street for your own safety you wouldnt walk down that road unless your very life or someone elses depended on because it would be putting you in unnessecary danger.

But yes for the most part racism is unacceptable, and is acceptable even within religous beliefs as long as it doesnt escalate to biolence and the religous groups are still respectable to each other when having to discuss things for buisness reasons or otherwise.

Intresting thats what happened with Hitler for the most part.

Uh, What?

(BTW: from your tone I take it you think I approve of this sort of thing, I assure you I don't.)

Only when it is against Crackers and Muslims.

I guess if you were trapped in an underground cave and being viciously attacked by little goblin-men things. They've already killed two of your friends and eaten them. It may well be racist to assume that little goblin-men things are going to be vicious murderers at this point... but, for the purpose of survival, it's also a wise assumption based on available information.

That's profiling, not racism, minimal technical difference.

After taking my Anthropology courses, we've learned that the concept of racism is stupid. There is only one race of people, it dosent matter if are skin is different or if we talk differently, we're all the same people. What defines a person are the circumstances and events which surround the person during his or her life. A black person can have the same upbringing as a white or hispanic person and they still won't be different because of their skin color. The concept of racism is one of the stupidest ideas ever concieved by man and i detest anyone who can possibly supports such an ideal

I can't think of any situation in which it would be necessary or acceptable so.....no.

Stereotypes are valid, answer this question:

If no one ever was that stereotype, why would it be in existence.

Only when it is against Crackers and Muslims.

My friend has this joke about "outsourcing gang activity."

Basically, he makes a little gun with his finger and says "Get out of here yoo crackers!" in an exaggerated Indian accent.

Open and shut question.

*edit*

And, I guess, if so, when?


I attempted to think of a scenario where it is acceptable, and cannot. Therefore, I must say no.

Only if you're racist against nothing. Or Jews. No one cares about the Jews.

Only if you're racist against nothing. Or Jews. No one cares about the Jews.

Nothing in the USA is more politically incorrect than being racist against jews.

How could it ever be acceptable?

Answer: It couldn't.

Nothing in the USA is more politically incorrect than being racist against jews.

This is true. You don't even have to be really racist against jews. It is honestly more politically correct to advocate using black babies as sex toys and mexican babies as snacks, and it is more politically correct than saying Israel might maybe kinda perhaps be doing something wrong.

Nothing in the USA is more politically incorrect than being racist against jews.

I like to joke about anti-Semitism a lot, so it might be a bad idea for me to live in California. Nazis have become common in some of my more recent stories.

I like to joke about anti-Semitism a lot, so it might be a bad idea for me to live in California. Nazis have become common in some of my more recent stories.

Ditto, the key is just to do it among people with thick skins and good senses of humor.

I like to joke about anti-Semitism a lot, so it might be a bad idea for me to live in California. Nazis have become common in some of my more recent stories.

Most anti-semitic joke ever:

Two jews walk into the bar. The beer spoils and everyone dies.


Or something to that effect. My friend had a joke that basically consisted of "A jew walks into a bar and later everyone dies"

Most anti-semitic joke ever:

Two jews walk into the bar. The beer spoils and everyone dies.


Or something to that effect. My friend had a joke that basically consisted of "A jew walks into a bar and later everyone dies"

Person A: I’m going to kill a million Jews and one clown.
Person B: Why the clown?
Person A: See! No one cares about the Jews!

Person A: I’m going to kill a million Jews and one clown.
Person B: Why the clown?
Person A: See! No one cares about the Jews!

You are my hero.

I've also heard you're one of the people who agrees with me that Mahmoud Ahmenijad (Or however the hell you spell it) is hot.

Wow, I can't believe that 25% of the people on here think Racism is acceptable.

Only in a humorous context.

Of course I'm a Jew so I love self depricating humor. Just watch "Hebrew Hammer" to get what I mean.

Ditto, the key is just to do it among people with thick skins and good senses of humor.

i.e. most Jews. The worst anti-Jewish jokes were written by guess who? Jews!

We invented self depricating humor.

Wow, I can't believe that 25% of the people on here think Racism is acceptable.

I can.

You are my hero.

I've also heard you're one of the people who agrees with me that Mahmoud Ahmenijad (Or however the hell you spell it) is hot.

Indeed I am. If only he was homosexual, I might have a slightly better chance with him.

Only in a humorous context.

Of course I'm a Jew so I love self depricating humor. Just watch "Hebrew Hammer" to get what I mean.

Possibly one of the least funniest movies ever.

Andy Dick was in it for fuck sake. :headbang:

Possibly one of the least funniest movies ever.

Andy Dick was in it for fuck sake. :headbang:

How about the scenes minus Andy Dick?

The problem with all the good Jewish humor is that you have to know something about the culture to get the jokes. The best Jewish jokes are sort of like inside jokes. I watch Mel Brooks films with goy friends of mine and I'm rolling on the ground laughing and the joke went right over their heads.

I can think of a few instances in which mild racism may be acceptable.

Like, say you're in a group of people (half of them black, half of them white) stranded in the middle of a desert and you've got no shelter and only a very small amount of sunscreen. Assume that someone's on the way to rescue you, but that it'll be a few hours before they show up. I think it would be pretty reasonable not to let the black people have any of the sunscreen, since they aren't going to need it nearly as much as the white people.

This is an unusual situation of course, but still one in which discriminating based on race would be perfectly acceptable. I'm voting yes.

I got some good JAP jokes.

What is a JAP's favorite position?

Inside Bloomingdales.

Where does the husband hide money from his JAP wife?

Under the vacuum cleaner.

Why did the JAP get a gold diaphragm?

She wanted her husband to cum in the money.

Why does a JAP close her eyes during sex?

She can't stand it to see her husband enjoy himself.

Have you seen the newest JAP horror movie ?

It's called "Debbie Does Dishes".

*A Jewish boy comes home from school and tells his mother he's been given a part in the school play.
*"Wonderful. What part is it?"
*The boy says,"I play the part of the Jewish husband."
*The mother scowls and says, "Go back and tell the teacher you want a speaking part."

What's the difference between a Jewish American Princess and an Italian
American Princess?
-With the Italian American Princess, the jewels are fake, and the
orgasms are real.

Open and shut question.

*edit*

And, I guess, if so, when?

Yes. Like drugs based on race. It's also necessarry for better treatment.

Racism doesn't always mean hatred. I say yes, simply for this fact, Israel singles out Muslims. How often do they get attacked (from inside their own nation)?

I'm not trying to imply that all Muslims are terrorists, because somebody will say I am!

Racism doesn't always mean hatred. I say yes, simply for this fact, Israel singles out Muslims. How often do they get attacked (from inside their own nation)?

Are you saying all muslims are terrorists? You bigot...:D

I called it! :D

Are you saying all muslims are terrorists? You bigot...:D

Knock Knock
Whose there?
Muslim
MUSLIM! QUICK HUN! CALL THE FBI AND I'LL GET THE SHOTGUN!

Racism doesn't always mean hatred. I say yes, simply for this fact, Israel singles out Muslims. How often do they get attacked (from inside their own nation)?

See: civil war in Iraq.

See: civil war in Iraq.

It's not civil war! It's the...

FOMENTATION OF SECTARIAN VIOLENCE (bum...bum...buuuummm!)
(Now read this while listening to something dramatic.)

erm...all muslims are not terrorists. They are however, all evil.



*sneaks out of room before sky falls and volcanoes erupt*:p



seriously now. An anthropologist would happily tell you taht there is no RACE. Only ETHNICITY. And with that I will happily refuse to provide links or any other form of proof, because you can look it up. The point is simply that genetically teh differences between the "races" are minimal at best. The argument that some "races" are subject to particular diseases or special "organic" particularities is BS. they are simply familial similarities, not racial differences.
Therefore racism is never acceptable. Ethnocentrism is not only acceptable but neccessary.

Hooray for sectarian violence! If they just fought it out themselves the best would win! For the record, I am not being sarcastic.

erm...all muslims are not terrorists. They are however, all evil.



*sneaks out of room before sky falls and volcanoes erupt*:p



seriously now. An anthropologist would happily tell you taht there is no RACE. Only ETHNICITY. And with that I will happily refuse to provide links or any other form of proof, because you can look it up. The point is simply that genetically teh differences between the "races" are minimal at best. The argument that some "races" are subject to particular diseases or special "organic" particularities is BS. they are simply familial similarities, not racial differences.
Therefore racism is never acceptable. Ethnocentrism is not only acceptable but neccessary.

Then why is it that mostly blacks have sickle cell?

because it is a convenient trait for people living in warm regions to have. That doesn't make it a racial feature, it makes it a genetic trait caused by envoronment.
they are simply familial similarities, not racial differences

particular traits generally become common in a group of people for two reasons: the environment encourages it (sickle cell aids in malaria resistance--if you don't die from the disease it helps you becoime resistant to malaria due to the sickle cell's shape) reason number two is taht human beings are naturally attracted to people who look like the group of people they grew up with. If you take an asian kid and raise him in a balck community he is more likely to marry a black woman than an asian. This causes particular traits to become emphasised but still doesn't mean they are racial, or speciation (we use the term race to mean subspecies generally but it's no where near taht clearcut. More like a sub sub sub sub species. Which is so slim a margin of difference taht it is literally no difference. geddit?

Then why is it that mostly blacks have sickle cell?

Cracka lies.


:D

Understandable.

Cracka lies.


:D

I think it's funny when people call me a cracker! Why can't we all just get along!?:D

After taking my Anthropology courses, we've learned that the concept of racism is stupid....

After having a less then average amount of common sense I came to the same conclusion and I didn't need a course.

Stereotypes are valid, answer this question:

If no one ever was that stereotype, why would it be in existence.

Stereotypes aren't invalid because nobody ever meets them. They are invalid because there are always those who do not meet them.

No.

Ideally, we wouldn't have racism, discrimination, sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance, etc. and we would hate each other for good reasons, not stupid ones. We wouldn't hate Jamal because he's black we would hate Jamal because he's a first-rate asshole. We would hate Ahmed because he kicks puppies, not because he worships Allah. We would hate Goldstein for using his chainsaw at 4 AM and waking us up, not for being able to insert the word "verklempt" into casual conversation. And, of course, we would hate John for driving like a maniac down Main Street at 150 MPH, not for being a majority in his own country.

It's much easier to stereotype. It's something we all have to wrestle with. And it's something we will inadvertently pass on to our children.

"Race" is a difficult concept to define, but if the question is altered to say "Is unfounded prejudice based on association ever acceptable", I would probably be inclined to say no.

possibly.

Under my personal definatition of racism (discriminating purely or largely because of ethnicity, with no valid reason for your views), never. However, many people think that ethnicly dividing and categorising people based on legitimate reasons (they're less likely to get sunburn, they'll be less conspicious, the book this movie is based on says he's black) is also racism. If that's your view, yes, if their is a valid reason. Even if it's being done mostly because the person doing it is racist. By their fruits ye shall know them.