What is racism in the 21st century?

flazio

It's a big bone of contention at the moment as to how much love we can show our fellow human depending on the country they came from, the religion (if any) they pertain to profess, the language they can or cannot speak.
Racism has come along much further than colour of skin.
So I ask you, where do you draw the line in how you treat a person?

Winterlong

flazio wrote: »

So I ask you, where do you draw the line in how you treat a person?

Treat them as I would like them to treat me.
Unless they are a prick. And the funny thing about pricks is they exist in all shapes, colors, sizes, nationalities and religions. Been a prick is equal opportunities.

desbrook

As I see it racism is racism - it's simply prejudging someone purely by their race and using it as a reason to treat them differently. It is morally wrong imho because a person cannot change their race and race does not necessarily define a persons attitudes.

Religion is a different matter. Religious belief by definition defines a persons attitudes.

Grayson

It's a point that raises itself in nearly every discussion about discrimination. Someone says "I hate Muslims" Someone says "that's racist". Someone replies "Muslims aren't a race".

It's the same difference no matter what it's called. It's discrimination against a person without actually knowing them. It's just that racism has a ugly association with it. So people feel better when they can dismiss the claims of racism.

To discriminate against someone because of their ethnic, racial cultural or religious background uis generally wrong.

I say generally because take discrimination against muslims. That's wrong. There are so many different types with such variation of beliefs that you are probably misjudging them. If however someone was a follower of ISIS then that's different. Yes, they are muslim but they subscribe to a radical subsect. The same goes for christians. You can hate the westboro baptist church because they are a subsection which hold abhorrent beliefs but to extend that to christians is wrong.

PARlance

A little bit is grand, everything in moderation as they say.

zSparc

Don't confuse racism with bigotry and xenophobia.

jmayo

Grayson wrote: »

It's a point that raises itself in nearly every discussion about discrimination. Someone says "I hate Muslims" Someone says "that's racist". Someone replies "Muslims aren't a race".

It's the same difference no matter what it's called. It's discrimination against a person without actually knowing them. It's just that racism has a ugly association with it. So people feel better when they can dismiss the claims of racism.

To discriminate against someone because of their ethnic, racial cultural or religious background uis generally wrong.

I say generally because take discrimination against muslims. That's wrong. There are so many different types with such variation of beliefs that you are probably misjudging them. If however someone was a follower of ISIS then that's different. Yes, they are muslim but they subscribe to a radical subsect. The same goes for christians. You can hate the westboro baptist church because they are a subsection which hold abhorrent beliefs but to extend that to christians is wrong.

Who decides though when it is ok to discriminate or hate some group as you put it.
You are getting into the subjective realm here.

Does the person have to admit they are supporter of ISIS or do you have to be an actual member ?
Then how much of a supporter ?
Likewise with Westboro baptist church, KKK, Nazi party, etc.

Is it then ok to discriminate ?

When does it become ok to hate people who may hate you and what you stand for ?

Who gets to decide for you ?

EDIT: and when does it become a phobia ?

Seriously I want to know because that term is bandied about ad nauseam.

flazio

zSparc wrote: »

Don't confuse racism with bigotry and xenophobia.

But you see, to your average working class Joe "racism" is the only word they've ever heard of, or understand the meaning of. That's why it's been used as a blanket term.

PARlance

flazio wrote: »

But you see, to your average working class Joe "racism" is the only word they've ever heard of, or understand the meaning of. That's why it's been used as a blanket term.

Are you saying the working class are thick?

beach_walker

Grayson wrote: »

You can hate the westboro baptist church because they are a subsection which hold abhorrent beliefs but to extend that to christians is wrong.

I think hate is poison.

Mr McBoatface

Generally its when caucasian males voice legitimate concerns over the direction society is taking.

They're just racist or sexist or someother*ist

jmayo

PARlance wrote: »

Are you saying the working class are thick?

Of course.
Aren't they the ones at fault for Brexit, the credit bubble, global warming, etc, etc. :rolleyes:

flazio

PARlance wrote: »

Are you saying the working class are thick?

Not at all. Just reflecting on the education system that society has provided them through no fault of their own.

Realt Dearg Sec

PARlance wrote: »

Are you saying the working class are thick?

Ib would call that classism but since we don't want to muddy the waters I'm just going to call it racism.

rubadub

PARlance wrote: »

Are you saying the working class are thick?

and he was being sexist, should be fcuking ashamed of himself, why not average jane :rolleyes:

jmayo

rubadub wrote: »

and he was being sexist, should be fcuking ashamed of himself, why not average jane :rolleyes:

Ehh there are no average Janes.

Now Sharons, Jacintas, jordan's are a different matter.

Grayson

jmayo wrote: »

Who decides though when it is ok to discriminate or hate some group as you put it.
You are getting into the subjective realm here.

Does the person have to admit they are supporter of ISIS or do you have to be an actual member ?
Then how much of a supporter ?
Likewise with Westboro baptist church, KKK, Nazi party, etc.

Is it then ok to discriminate ?

When does it become ok to hate people who may hate you and what you stand for ?

Who gets to decide for you ?

EDIT: and when does it become a phobia ?

Seriously I want to know because that term is bandied about ad nauseam.

You raise good points. See, it's ok to dislike an individual because they hold a believe that is harmful to others. I say harmful because although some views may seem stupid that alone wouldn't qualify.

Take religion. I'm an atheist. I think all religions are stupid. That doesn't mean I judge someone on their beliefs. There are plenty of smart religious people. We disagree on something but besides that I can recognise them as being decent human beings.

Likewise a christian or Muslim can think that homosexuality is wrong and at the same time not hate homosexuals. They can still see them as individuals and judge them on the type of person they are.

You also bring up an interesting point about supporting. There is a difference between setting people on fire (ISIS) and just supporting those that do. I think however that supporting an act like that is still bad. And I think that it is rational to dislike someone based on that.

flazio

After Hours, of course.
Look, as I see it. When a person is just a face on TV, like refugees from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq etc, a section of the general public from low middle and high class, who feel let down by what they are getting from their elected representatives find it easier to generalise that face on the telly as a potential terrorist, potential job thief, you know all the names.
It's when that person arrives on the doorstep that some people soften their approach after seeing the human in front of them and some maintain it, usually as a reflection on their own hard times.

getzls

I believe that the ones that throw the words racist and fascists are usually the ones that are the racist and fascist

Eramen

What is called 'racism' by some people could also be classified as a legitimate social, economic or cultural concern by native/naturalised people in whatever country the issue is raised in.

We should definitely not be using 'racism' as a blanket term, or as a smear word to 'solve' or silence a problem into submission as so often happens today. Ideally we should weigh every allegation fairly and have an open mind on both sides of the issue.

Alas, in my experience it's often those who shout racist the loudest that may be considered that biggest racists of all. I also find that native people are almost universally blamed for problems regarding integration and the failure of some migrants to culturally acclimatise. Of course this to some is mere 'racist talk'. Note their ideological features and move on.

wakka12

Racism falls under the same umbrella as all prejudices for me, judging somebody you don't know, in a negative, for a trait they cannot change such as race or how they look in general.

darkpagandeath

Being a white male.

super_furry

I honestly can't tell sometimes. I would have defined it at least internally as treating someone worse than you'd treat another person solely on the basis of their race. But sometimes it seems so nebulous. I listened to a friend of mine being called a racist because she said that she "generally isn't attracted to Asian men".

wakka12

super_furry wrote: »

I honestly can't tell sometimes. I would have defined it at least internally as treating someone worse than you'd treat another person solely on the basis of their race. But sometimes it seems so nebulous. I listened to a friend of mine being called a racist because she said that she "generally isn't attracted to a Asian men".

god I hate that so much! As if we should force ourselves to attracted to people of a race we arent attracted to just so we arent racist, apparently

Sweetemotion

wakka12 wrote: »

Racism falls under the same umbrella as all prejudices for me, judging somebody you don't know, in a negative, for a trait they cannot change such as race or how they look in general.

Including CIS white males?

Yeh I hope. You'd have to be a pretty sad person to genuinely be proud of being straight.

wakka12

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Including CIS white males?

I would say so yeh. Maybe you cant be whatever-ist to cis white males but really people who are mean to a person just because he's a cis white male is a ****ty person and its laughable that they call themselves rights activists when they treat people they don't know badly for no other reason than a few physical traits they have no control over either

Sweetemotion

wakka12 wrote: »

I would say so yeh. Maybe you cant be whatever-ist to cis white males but really people who are mean to a person just because he's a cis white male is a ****ty person and its laughable that they call themselves rights activists when they treat people they don't know badly for no other reason than a few physical traits they have no control over either

In another thread you say you would have to be sad, to be proud and straight


Sorry to edit actually you said pretty sad.

You judge racism as describing someone negatively for something they can not change, but also say being proud and straight is pretty sad.

This by your own very definition, describes you as a racist.

wakka12

Sweetemotion wrote: »

In another thread you say you would have to be sad, to be proud and straight


Sorry to edit actually you said pretty sad.

Yes I still stand by that? I think its bad to treat a cis straight white male badly for no reason other than those biological traits. But a cis white male who is PROUD of those traits is ignorant in my opinion, he has never faced any prejudice for being any of those things so its offensive to people who face discrimination on a daily basis for not possessing the traits he is so 'lucky' to. He has no reason to feel pride for them

Sweetemotion

wakka12 wrote: »

Yes I still stand by that? I think its bad to treat a cis straight white male badly for no reason other than those biological traits. But a cis white male who is PROUD of those traits is ignorant in my opinion, he has never faced any prejudice for being any of those things so its offensive to people who face discrimination on a daily basis for not possessing the traits he is so 'lucky' to. He has no reason to feel pride for them

So a bigot and racist.

you are discriminating against white males


Should he feel ashamed?

Junkyard Tom

Usain Bolt is my favourite racist.

wakka12

Sweetemotion wrote: »

So a bigot and racist.

you are discriminating against white males


Should he feel ashamed?

Im not. He should feel neither pride nor shame. I think its possible to not feel either, I don't feel it anything about being gay. Im sure a straight cis white male can too

Sweetemotion

Did it ever occur to anyone, that cis white males don't care about your colour, race, gender.

Most just want to get on with their lives the best they can, the same as everybody.

wakka12

Sweetemotion wrote: »

In another thread you say you would have to be sad, to be proud and straight


Sorry to edit actually you said pretty sad.

You judge racism as describing someone negatively for something they can not change, but also say being proud and straight is pretty sad.

This by your own very definition, describes you as a racist.

Being proud is different to having know feelings about being straight cis white etc
I am not discriminating against a person for being solly a straight white cis male but I am discriminating against men who are proud of possessing those traits. I think being proud of those traits is ignorant, thats why Im 'discriminating :roll eyes: ' , not just because of those biological traits.

Sweetemotion

wakka12 wrote: »

Being proud is different to having know feelings about being straight cis white etc
I am not discriminating against a person for being solly a straight white cis male but I am discriminating against men who are proud of possessing those traits. I think being proud of those traits is ignorant, thats why Im 'discriminating :roll eyes: ' , not just because of those biological traits.

So you wouldn't discriminate a cis black male being proud?

Robsweezie

telling someone of colour that they're lucky to be flying first class

http://news.google.com/news/url?sr=1&sa=t&ct2=en_ie%2F0_0_s_15_0_t&usg=AFQjCNHMNVNogfPUF7c1YWkBX_oBZ8Yfhg&did=8111dcad553ff3fc&cid=52779144666602&ei=neZ2V7L1J8Gy1Qboy4KIAg&rt=STORY&vm=STANDARD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nydailynews.com%2Fentertainment%2Ftv%2Foitnb-star-danielle-brooks-offended-comment-airport-article-1.2694022

Heckler

I don't get this at all. So because peoples skin colour is different there is grief.

We all bleed the same, we are all subject to the vageries of life and death. We all live, learn, grow mate procreate, die.

Robsweezie

I've heard someone take offense at being referred to as Chinese when they were in fact Vietnamese, and claimed it could be seen as racist. the person who called them Chinese didn't know any better.

theres Chinese, Asian, Korean, Japanese, Thai, and of course Vietnamese , yet a lot still do just stick with ''the Chinese lad''

desbrook

Robsweezie wrote: »

I've heard someone take offense at being referred to as Chinese when they were in fact Vietnamese, and claimed it could be seen as racist. the person who called them Chinese didn't know any better.

theres Chinese, Asian, Korean, Japanese, Thai, and of course Vietnamese , yet a lot still do just stick with ''the Chinese lad''

Irish people are well used to being thought of as British when abroad. I get a bit peed off but not offended. As for racist ? There's no way its racist.