White people have the same license to use that term as Chris Rock has to use the N word. It's not about race at all. It's about a state of mind.
So is it racism to mock "rednecks"?
Well done. You've gone and demonstrated exactly what I'm talking about. You can't just make up definitions to suit your personal world view. Show me a single credible source that would support the claim that policies designed to combat racism are themselves racist. You can't. Why, because of exactly what I was stating when I gave this example. Such policies are not rooted in the belief that one race is inferior to another, but are instead motivated to compensate for the racism experienced by certain minority groups.Your definition is too strict and thus fails to cover the whole gamut of scenarios.
For example, an Indian business owner may only hire east Asian scientists and Jewish accountants on the belief that those races are naturally gifted over all others in such areas. That doesn't fit your definition, but is certainly racism.
Or you could have a white supremacist that sees Jews and Aryans as adversaries locked in a zero sum game, where violence against Jews is necessary not because some innate inferiority but rather because their specific strengths make them a threat.
And you also have racists that argue for a certain group getting preferential treatment to compensate for their inferiority.
I'd simply define racism as the belief that one's race overridingly determines their characteristics, or at least their behaviour and intelligence. Eg. that the range of racial variability is greater than the range of individual variability, and therefore it is proper to treat people based on their racial identity first and foremost.
Sorry, it looks like I misunderstood what you were saying. I certainly agree, any dictionary definition is going to be too narrow in scope. But it is a good starting point, and at least a means of establishing basic criteria.Note that I didn't say that all preferential treatment is due to racist beliefs, just that it's possible to think or say that one group is inherently inferior and therefore needs a boost, and that is indeed racism. Of course you can support discriminatory policies for non-racist reasons and vice versa.
For example, an Indian business owner may only hire east Asian scientists and Jewish accountants on the belief that those races are naturally gifted over all others in such areas. That doesn't fit your definition, but is certainly racism.
So is it racism to mock "rednecks"?
Or you could have a white supremacist that sees Jews and Aryans as adversaries locked in a zero sum game, where violence against Jews is necessary not because some innate inferiority but rather because their specific strengths make them a threat.
And you also have racists that argue for a certain group getting preferential treatment to compensate for their inferiority.
Well done. You've gone and demonstrated exactly what I'm talking about. You can't just make up definitions to suit your personal world view. Show me a single credible source that would support the claim that policies designed to combat racism are themselves racist. You can't. Why, because of exactly what I was stating when I gave this example. Such policies are not rooted in the belief that one race is inferior to another, but are instead motivated to compensate for the racism experienced by certain minority groups.
How could it be?
Redneck is a description of a person who acts, thinks and treats others in a certain way; not a race or ethnic group.
Is it racist to mock assholes?
Is it racist to mock pedophiles?
Is it racist to mock drunken fools?
How about liberals or conservatives?
Same difference...not a race nor ethnicity.
Too diffuse. That's not about a particular ethnic group or white people as a whole.
Accents/dialect can be just as significant in judgment of others as lookism is. But people negatively judging intelligence from a Southern accent isn't what I would call racism. That would be similar to lookism within a race.
They're not really fighting over the strengths but the white genocide! thing.
You also have people racist against their own race. XD
I love how whenever there's some policy or whatever that's perceived as privileging whites due to unequal outcomes, it's "systemic racism", yet when it's about intentionally privileging certain minorities, we always have the bullshit excuses for why it needs to be done.
Here's an example for you
https://twitter.com/tedlieu/status/1007653383732375553
Dear @Harvard: Your admissions policies against Asian-Americans are racist. Take your "personality trait" crap and shove it. How's that for "courage." -- Ted Lieu
The definition of redneck is...
a working-class white person, especially a politically reactionary one from a rural area.
It's the equivalent of saying you hate ghetto people. It's not all black people, just a particular sub culture of black people. How is it not equivalent?
The definition of redneck is...
a working-class white person, especially a politically reactionary one from a rural area.
It's the equivalent of saying you hate ghetto people. It's not all black people, just a particular sub culture of black people. How is it not equivalent?
Your definition is too strict and thus fails to cover the whole gamut of scenarios.
For example, an Indian business owner may only hire east Asian scientists and Jewish accountants on the belief that those races are naturally gifted over all others in such areas. That doesn't fit your definition, but is certainly racism.
Or you could have a white supremacist that sees Jews and Aryans as adversaries locked in a zero sum game, where violence against Jews is necessary not because some innate inferiority but rather because their specific strengths make them a threat.
And you also have racists that argue for a certain group getting preferential treatment to compensate for their inferiority.
I'd simply define racism as the belief that one's race overridingly determines their characteristics, or at least their behaviour and intelligence. Eg. that the range of racial variability is greater than the range of individual variability, and therefore it is proper to treat people based on their racial identity first and foremost.
Oh for fuck's sake. It's not "too strict." It is the LITERAL DEFINITION.
Oh for fuck's sake. It's not "too strict." It is the LITERAL DEFINITION:
(and you proved his point)
rac·ism
/ˈrāˌsizəm/
noun
- prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
I think it can be an indicator for broad discriminatory or prejudicial behavior against white people, and it's somewhat racialized, but not as much as cracker or white trash. It depends on who is saying it. A white person doing it isn't doing it to attack white people broadly or discriminate against a particular ethnic group. "Redneck" is a mishmash of Celtic, Germanic, French and so on ancestry.
Hate is a strong word, so this could be an indicator of prejudicial and discriminatory behavior. It's rational to "dislike" them in general, but if this in turn means discriminatory behavior against individuals, that's certainly racism against black people, and a lot of times it won't matter what they claim -- it's all black people.
How can it be rational to dislike traits and behaviors, but wrong to discriminate against those rational feelings?
Also, why do you separate regional differences of white people, but not black people? Was there a reason or was there nothing to that?
Check the definition again. It's a ethnic sub group of white.
Thus it fits with environment.
I know @werepossum said he’s been real busy with work a few months ago, I know Doc rage quit. Where are the others?
Have the responsible members gotten tired of defending an obviously corrupt & incompetent administration? Have they accepted that the current batch of Republican Congress critters are not willing to do any hard work plus totally caved regarding the deficit?
Something else?
What do you think?
(Please keep it courteous)
Trying to reply to a whiny butthurt liberal who still plays in is safe room with playdoh because Clinton lost in 2016.... well it is a waste of time. They cannot think beyond throwing out an insult... grabbing their playdoh and going home. Frankly I am surprised you all are still here circle jerking over every negative Trump story from the MSM. It has become way more enjoyable to lay down smack towards unhinged leftists on twitter.
/check rudder forum history of lols galore..........
I would do the same for you... surely finding plenty of structured debate.... ah hell who am I kidding. I don't even know you and I am reasonably sure that 98% of your replies are simply the word idiot or hitler.
Voted early, voted often (3 times), voted Republican.
Go vote. It's important.
It has become way more enjoyable to lay down smack towards unhinged leftists on twitter.
Where are the others? Have the responsible members gotten tired of defending an obviously corrupt & incompetent administration? Have they accepted that the current batch of Republican Congress critters are not willing to do any hard work plus totally caved regarding the deficit?
Something else?
You can't have a meaningful discussion with people when the place is censored, and the censorship is worshipped by the remaining users/losers like this is some sort of drugged up orwellian mental hospital. What is the point? You made your bed, and the day will come when you lay in it. I for one and not going to defend you. Better keep a diaper under those Pjs.