Why is racism considered such a major problem, shouldn't we be tackling bullying as a

0byme75341jo28

Racism is nothing but race-related bullying, why is it considered such a big issue when compared to bullying people for their behaviour, music taste, hairstyle, opinions, mistakes, voice etc.? Often the response people give when you admit to being affected by these kinds of bullying is along the lines of "words will never hurt you", why isn't the same advice given to those affected by racial bullying?

Birneybau

Words never hurt but segregation, lynching etc sure as fcuk did.

tomwaterford

Racism is a hatred of a person Purely based on their race...a big step from bullying!


(Not to demean people who are/have been bullied)

riffmongous

Racism isn't just bullying, not giving a job to someone because of their skin colour isn't bullying

0byme75341jo28

riffmongous wrote: »

Racism isn't just bullying, not giving a job to someone because of their skin colour isn't bullying

So you agree with it?

moc moc a moc

Savanna Odd Syllable wrote: »

So you agree with it?

Putting words in people's mouths is a childish method of argument.

El Weirdo

Savanna Odd Syllable wrote: »

So you agree with it?

For fuck's sake.

BunkMoreland

I'm 25% racist

osarusan

Savanna Odd Syllable wrote: »

So you agree with it?

Jesus wept, that is f**king embarrassing.

Eugene Norman

Birneybau wrote: »

Words never hurt but segregation, lynching etc sure as fcuk did.

That happened in a different country.

But racism is a particularly bad form of bullying because skin colour can't be changed. I used to wear red trousers in my bohemian days and got verbal abuse and physical attacks (these morons don't like any differences). I can change my trousers. A gay couple can not hold hands (I'm not saying they should have to but they could), a red head can wear a hat.

KERSPLAT!

El Weirdo wrote: »

For fuck's sake.

Slow night :rolleyes:

yoke

"words will never hurt you" is possibly the worst advice you could give anyone who is affected by bullying.

you might as well say to someone standing in front of a firing squad "don't worry, their rifles can't hurt you" - that's right, because the rifles don't hurt you, the bullets do that part.

"The words" always lead up to something that WILL hurt you, similar to pulling the trigger on the rifle in my analogy. You should react with a lot of force at the first sight of these words, to nip the problem in the bud, even if you take some damage at the time - it's far less damage than if you leave it alone.

Problems don't go away if you ignore them.

Howard the Duck

Neither racism nor bullying should be tolerated.

Esel

Sinn Féin are against bullying racism.

yoke

Eugene Norman wrote: »

That happened in a different country.

So what? By that logic we shouldn't talk about the moon landing, because it didn't happen in Ireland

Tigger

Birneybau wrote: »

Words never hurt but segregation, lynching etc sure as fcuk did.

Segregation is bullying
Words do hurt people
Lynching people is wrong whether they are racially different or not did South Park teach us nothing

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Racism is a belief, bullying is an act.

Esel

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Racism is a belief, bullying is an act.

Murder is a crime,
Before and after the fact.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Racism is a belief, bullying is an act.

Yes.

I think the OP really needs to take a long hard look at his grasp of racism.

The bespectacled people were not subject to colonisation and subjugation, dehumanised and enslaved for centuries. Calling someone "spekky 4 eyes" is not drawing on a deep well of institutionalised hatred that led to the deaths of tens of millions of people wearing glasses over centuries.

Contrast with the treatment by different races of each other, particularly Europeans treatment of Africans, Asians and South Americans, the poverty gap between the coloniser and the oppressed, the attempts to depict the conquered as savages and less than human, the echoes in racism...and just marvel at the OPs effort.

Lurkio

Savanna Odd Syllable wrote: »

Racism is nothing but race-related bullying, why is it considered such a big issue when compared to bullying people for their behaviour, music taste, hairstyle, opinions, mistakes, voice etc.? Often the response people give when you admit to being affected by these kinds of bullying is along the lines of "words will never hurt you", why isn't the same advice given to those affected by racial bullying?

No one on Voat, eh?

Eugene Norman

yoke wrote: »

So what? By that logic we shouldn't talk about the moon landing, because it didn't happen in Ireland

The reason racism shouldn't be tolerated in Ireland isn't because of segregation in the US. It's bad because it's bad.

The us isn't Ireland. People should try and remember that.

Potatoeman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes.

I think the OP really needs to take a long hard look at his grasp of racism.

The bespectacled people were not subject to colonisation and subjugation, dehumanised and enslaved for centuries. Calling someone "spekky 4 eyes" is not drawing on a deep well of institutionalised hatred that led to the deaths of tens of millions of people wearing glasses over centuries.

Contrast with the treatment by different races of each other, particularly Europeans treatment of Africans, Asians and South Americans, the poverty gap between the coloniser and the oppressed, the attempts to depict the conquered as savages and less than human, the echoes in racism...and just marvel at the OPs effort.

Why should all Europeans feel guilty? Why should someone be treated differently because their ancestors were colonised? Ireland was colonised, is it different because we were both white? You would think Europeans were the only ones to ever do anything bad.

Maguined

yoke wrote: »

"words will never hurt you" is possibly the worst advice you could give anyone who is affected by bullying.

you might as well say to someone standing in front of a firing squad "don't worry, their rifles can't hurt you" - that's right, because the rifles don't hurt you, the bullets do that part.

"The words" always lead up to something that WILL hurt you, similar to pulling the trigger on the rifle in my analogy. You should react with a lot of force at the first sight of these words, to nip the problem in the bud, even if you take some damage at the time - it's far less damage than if you leave it alone.

Problems don't go away if you ignore them.

That's all nonsense. A bullet will objectively hurt you but words cannot objectively hurt you as they are completely subective, words can only hurt you if you let them. You can't choose not to be hurt by a bullet but you can choose not to be hurt by the words of some bully.

Eugene Norman

Potatoeman wrote: »

Why should all Europeans feel guilty? Why should someone be treated differently because their ancestors were colonised? Ireland was colonised, is it different because we were both white? You would think Europeans were the only ones to ever do anything bad.

It's a stupid argument too because it would exempt Eastern Europeans. Or south Eastern Europeans. Mostly these areas were colonised.

Street racism shouldn't be considered bad because of history, it's just bad.

Potatoeman

Potatoeman wrote: »

Why should all Europeans feel guilty? Why should someone be treated differently because their ancestors were colonised? Ireland was colonised, is it different because we were both white? You would think Europeans were the only ones to ever do anything bad.

I didn't say all Europeans should feel guilty at all, European was simply shorthand, I really didn't want to construct a 1000 word sentence specifying the Spanish Conquistadores, Leopold's Belgium, Victorian England and so on and on and on. I am quite aware that there is racism between Europeans as well. The main point of my post, which you seem to have missed completely, is that racism is completely different to bullying based on other issues. It wasn't, as you seem to think "the only bad things that ever happened in the world were done by all the people of Europe together".

yoke

Maguined wrote: »

That's all nonsense. A bullet will objectively hurt you but words cannot objectively hurt you as they are completely subective, words can only hurt you if you let them. You can't choose not to be hurt by a bullet but you can choose not to be hurt by the words of some bully.

You're completely missing my point. As I said before, the words (if left unchallenged) are always followed by direct actions by the bully that will hurt you, whether it's hitting the bullied person (in the case of a schoolyard bully), or something else. It's as sure as pulling the trigger on a rifle will lead to the bullet being fired.

Samaris

Maguined wrote: »

That's all nonsense. A bullet will objectively hurt you but words cannot objectively hurt you as they are completely subective, words can only hurt you if you let them. You can't choose not to be hurt by a bullet but you can choose not to be hurt by the words of some bully.

Also bull****, and leading on from the bullish "no-one can give offence, only take it" school of lazy thinking, propagated by people who can't be arsed treating their fellow humans with some form of courtesy and kindness.*

Take responsibility for your own actions and words. "Grow a thicker skin" is horrible advice.

*No idea if this applies to you as a person or not; it's the school of thought I'm attacking rather than you directly.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Esel wrote: »

Murder is a crime,
Before and after the fact.

Eh... how are you working that one out? Been watching Minority Report?

Speedwell

OK, I want to address this. I think the OP is actually asking, more or less, The problem is that some people are unjust to other people. Why should we focus on one particular sort of injustice (racism) at the expense of other sorts of injustice?.

The best answer I know to that (seemingly) well-meaning question is that overwhelmingly large problems are often best handled by breaking them down into relatively manageable component issues. No one effort, no single person, can be effective if their efforts are not targeted.

Here's an analogy. Even though everyone has to work to support themselves, you couldn't try to do all the jobs at once. You would go out looking for a job within a range of jobs that suited your capabilities, interests, and circumstances. Your efforts would be dissipated and wasted if you tried to spread them too thinly. People are most effective when they can bring all, or nearly all, their resources to bear on a target project.

Racism is just one of the "target projects" in the overall effort to promote social justice. Some people focus on it. Other people prefer to lend the bulk of their time and energy to other "target projects" within the framework of promoting social justice and individual freedoms. Occasionally the goals of these projects appear to conflict, for example when someone of a disadvantaged race is competing for resources with someone of another disadvantaged status (such as sex or disability). Well-meaning people consistently keep the ideals of justice, compassion, and liberty in mind when attempting to resolve such apparent conflicts.

MilesMorales1

Why can't we do both?

ScumLord

Eugene Norman wrote: »

That happened in a different country.

Segregation and lynching happened all the time in this country.

Speedwell wrote: »

OK, I want to address this. I think the OP is actually asking, more or less, The problem is that some people are unjust to other people. Why should we focus on one particular sort of injustice (racism) at the expense of other sorts of injustice?.

Because of every situation is different. A nail and a screw are both fasteners but you wouldn't use a hammer on a screw.

I get the point of the OP, why differentiate between two evils? But we have to because what works for stopping bullying won't be effective against racism.

Cathy.C

It'd be really great if non-whites being racist was as socially unacceptable as it is for whites to be racist.

If Azealia Banks was white there is no question she would be seen in the same light as Bernard Manning was seen, but yet there is never much rumblings. Nobody really calls her out. Jada Pinkett Smith hates racism so wonder if she'll call Azealia out on her latest offerings.

https://twitter.com/AZEALIABANKS/status/730145518198902784


https://twitter.com/AZEALIABANKS/status/730273038541926400


https://twitter.com/AZEALIABANKS/status/730174725536747520


https://twitter.com/AZEALIABANKS/status/730196062791716866

RWCNT

Cathy.C wrote: »

It'd be really great if non-whites being racist was as socially unacceptable as it is for whites to be racist.

Plenty of backlash about that from what I understand, she's also been dropped from a festival she was headlining in the UK. That suggests this sort of thing isnt socially acceptable.

Edit: Fair enough, you said "as unacceptable".

Maguined

yoke wrote: »

You're completely missing my point. As I said before, the words (if left unchallenged) are always followed by direct actions by the bully that will hurt you, whether it's hitting the bullied person (in the case of a schoolyard bully), or something else. It's as sure as pulling the trigger on a rifle will lead to the bullet being fired.

Not all bullying results in physical actions. In fact the biggest growing trend these days is cyber bullying. No physicality at all just mental bullying so I don't agree with you that it is always immediately followed by physical hurt and I do not think that is the relevant point.

Samaris wrote: »

Also bull****, and leading on from the bullish "no-one can give offence, only take it" school of lazy thinking, propagated by people who can't be arsed treating their fellow humans with some form of courtesy and kindness.*

Take responsibility for your own actions and words. "Grow a thicker skin" is horrible advice.

*No idea if this applies to you as a person or not; it's the school of thought I'm attacking rather than you directly.

I do not believe it is lazy thinking, even if the motivation and goal of someone is to give offence in what they say why should anyone care about that person? Kids should be taught to not care about the opinions of mean people that just want to bully them and to only value the opinions of those people they believe have merit. It will be far more effective than relying on over 6 billion people not to be mean to the child in the first place.

I view it the same as the old saying "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime". It is better to teach kids not to be bothered by the words of others rather than hope others don't say mean words.

Gbear

yoke wrote: »

"words will never hurt you" is possibly the worst advice you could give anyone who is affected by bullying.

you might as well say to someone standing in front of a firing squad "don't worry, their rifles can't hurt you" - that's right, because the rifles don't hurt you, the bullets do that part.

"The words" always lead up to something that WILL hurt you, similar to pulling the trigger on the rifle in my analogy. You should react with a lot of force at the first sight of these words, to nip the problem in the bud, even if you take some damage at the time - it's far less damage than if you leave it alone.

Problems don't go away if you ignore them.

The idea behind this is about who has the power in the situation.

If I'm shot, the person shooting me has the power to inflict harm. I can't avoid it. It exists independant of my thinking.

Emotional abuse is something that the recipient controls. While it's not as simple as saying you decide whether you're offended or not, you can exert far more control over how it effects you.

Irrespective of what someone says to hurt you, the issue is that you're either insecure about it (you're fat, you're short or whatever) and your pain comes not from the words but from being forced to face the thing that makes you feel bad about yourself, or it's nonsense (your mother's a whore, you're a stupid paddy and live in a house made of potatoes) and you're being a fool for letting it irritate you.

Eugene Norman

ScumLord wrote: »

Segregation and lynching happened all the time in this country.

What now?

If you mean discrimination against Irish Catholics, sure. What lynchings?

Eugene Norman

Cathy.C wrote: »

It'd be really great if non-whites being racist was as socially unacceptable as it is for whites to be racist.

If Azealia Banks was white there is no question she would be seen in the same light as Bernard Manning was seen, but yet there is never much rumblings. Nobody really calls her out. Jada Pinkett Smith hates racism so wonder if she'll call Azealia out on her latest offerings.

https://twitter.com/AZEALIABANKS/status/730145518198902784


https://twitter.com/AZEALIABANKS/status/730273038541926400


https://twitter.com/AZEALIABANKS/status/730174725536747520


https://twitter.com/AZEALIABANKS/status/730196062791716866

She deleted her tweets. Look it's a Twitter spat. Big deal.

A_Sober_Paddy

tomwaterford wrote: »

Racism is a hatred of a person Purely based on their race...a big step from bullying!


(Not to demean people who are/have been bullied)

Well I think that there are two types of people in relation to bullying/racism

The person who is an actual racist, and a person who may use a derogatory term, out of anger, frustration or whatever it may be...but not neveryone who says the n word is automatically a racist despite what the media will tell you

Cathy.C

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Look it's a Twitter spat. Big deal.

What are you on about?

What is so special about Twitter that would mean people that say things there should be exempt compared to if they had said them elsewhere?

Michael Richards, Ron Atkinson, to name but two, haven't worked since they were deemed to have uttered racist remarks and so why should Azealia Banks be given a free pass to call someone a 'sand n*gger', a 'paki', that they're 'curry scented' and that their mother is a 'dirty refugee'? People have been jailed for less.

You response proves my point in fairness. Non-whites can pretty much say what they like and the consequences are never close to what they would be had they been white. Had Taylor Swift said these things about black people, i doubt she'd work again.

Eugene Norman

Cathy.C wrote: »

What are you on about?

What is so special about Twitter that would mean people that say things there should be exempt compared to if they had said them elsewhere?

Michael Richards, Ron Atkinson, to name but two, haven't worked since they were deemed to have uttered racist remarks and so why should Azealia Banks be given a free pass to call someone a 'sand n*gger', a 'paki', that they're 'curry scented' and that their mother is a 'dirty refugee'? People have been jailed for less.

You response proves my point in fairness. Non-whites can pretty much say what they like and the consequences are never close to what they would be had they been white. Had Taylor Swift said these things about black people, i doubt she'd work again.

My response doesn't prove your point at all because I would say the same about Atkinson et al.

And I did defend Adams recently on his Twitter outrage and I don't like Sinn Fein. Easily searchable.

This has nothing to do with reverse racism vs racism just an aversion to the perennially offended on Twitter.

And she has been unbooked from a U.K. festival.

Cathy.C

Eugene Norman wrote: »

This has nothing to do with reverse racism vs racism just an aversion to the perennially offended on Twitter.

There is no such thing as 'reverse racism'. Racism is racism.

And she has been unbooked from a U.K. festival.

It's nice to see but still nothing close to the reaction that there would have been she been a white artist, which was my point. This is not the first time she has posted racist comments on Twitter either. People need to own their words and if they amount to inciting racial hatred, then they should face the consequences for that. There should be no dispensation because that person is also in a minority. Saying something is just a Twitter spat is ridiculous. There is nothing special about that platform which should make it exempt from the laws which would apply if the comments were made elsewhere.

yoke

Maguined wrote: »

Not all bullying results in physical actions. In fact the biggest growing trend these days is cyber bullying. No physicality at all just mental bullying so I don't agree with you that it is always immediately followed by physical hurt and I do not think that is the relevant point.

It's still the same thing. Your cyber bully is trying to change other people's perception of you into something bad, that can stop you from making new friends, and you shouldn't just ignore it. You should choose a course of action that is most likely to stop them - sometimes this means physically confronting them about it (if you can), or getting them banned off the website (if you can), or taking legal action (once again, if you can). Definitely don't ignore a problem if you actually want it to go away.

yoke

Gbear wrote: »

Emotional abuse is something that the recipient controls.
[...]
Irrespective of what someone says to hurt you, the issue is that you're either insecure about it (you're fat, you're short or whatever) and your pain comes not from the words but from being forced to face the thing that makes you feel bad about yourself, or it's nonsense (your mother's a whore, you're a stupid paddy and live in a house made of potatoes) and you're being a fool for letting it irritate you.

...assuming that the person making the nasty comments is never going to take it any further, which is a dangerous assumption to make.

ScumLord

Eugene Norman wrote: »

What now?

If you mean discrimination against Irish Catholics, sure. What lynchings?

You think it's unlikely a person has never been hung by the neck in Ireland without due process? I guess most of the time here, it would have been state sanctioned which technically makes it a hanging.

Maguined

yoke wrote: »

It's still the same thing. Your cyber bully is trying to change other people's perception of you into something bad, that can stop you from making new friends, and you shouldn't just ignore it. You should choose a course of action that is most likely to stop them - sometimes this means physically confronting them about it (if you can), or getting them banned off the website (if you can), or taking legal action (once again, if you can). Definitely don't ignore a problem if you actually want it to go away.

Sometimes sure all of those responses are appropriate but other times the best response is to effectively ignore them as they feed off reaction and escalation. If you don't give it to them then it goes away. Not all the time but in plenty of situations this is the best response. If someone is being petty or mean to me on Facebook the best response for most occassions is to not engage them.

Hence we have the phrase "don't feed the trolls" and not "initiate litigation aginst the trolls"

Chips Lovell

Cathy.C wrote: »

It'd be really great if non-whites being racist was as socially unacceptable as it is for whites to be racist.

If Azealia Banks was white there is no question she would be seen in the same light as Bernard Manning was seen, but yet there is never much rumblings. Nobody really calls her out.

ORLY?

Rapper Azealia Banks has been suspended from Twitter following a series of racially charged tweets attacking singer and former One Direction star Zayn Malik.