Conrad_73 You are truely the impersonification of contradiction.

i rest my case..

OK,Doctor Phil!

This debate reminds me of that scene in The Incredibles in which Frozone is trying to find his super suit . . .



It didn't matter that the city was being destroyed by a maniacal giant robot, Frozone's wife just had to be emotionally satisfied by having things her way.

The topic of this thread is the anti-white racism acted out by black kids telling other black kids, "Don't do that because white people do that."

It isn't emotionally pleasing to admit that such racism is occurring and is harming black kids. So, it is easier to deny the problem's existence (like Frozone's wife) than it is to solve the problem (like Frozone).


Thankfully, Frozone's wife finally admitted to reality and gave back Frozone's suit.

BTW,the Piece you find so appalling,and blame me for, was actually written by Bill Cosby,a wellknown black Comedian and Educator,so go and complain to him,if you have Issues with what he is observing daily!


and if you had read it all,you would have seen who the Author was!

Dr. Cosby (he has a doctorate in education) was also criticized when he dared to talk about the self-inflicted problems occurring in some black American homes.

In 2008, while President Obama was running for his first term as POTUS, he, too, dared to mention such self-inflicted problems; Jesse Jackson responded by claiming that Obama was talking down to black Americans (except that Jackson used the "N" word).


Folks, I do not object to someone questioning the size of the problem of anti-white bigotry. However, I shake my head whenever someone denies the existence of the problem.

@ Dodo_David

Despite the good intentions that you have with this topic. I do not think it
is the right place. I think that when you would be standing in front of a classroom.
And warning the children there. In a fashion that is not patronizing and that they can comprehend, then
it would be better. You adress people on a forum that are already educated. And
some will feel hurt. Because they did everything to make a change in their life.
And now feel like they have to defend themselves.

@ Conrad_73

Your quote "BTW,the Piece you find so appalling,and blame me for, was actually written by Bill Cosby,a wellknown black Comedian"
Well Conrad_73... Your a white Comedian... Only, you just do not know that yet...

You really think that Cosby thinks that of all Afro Americans ?

In Forensic profiling most white men are serial killers.
Does that make everyone on this forum a serial killer then ?

Stop quoting famous people. And then hide behind their names.

Yeah, there are people on all sides who are so intent on their agendas that they will not even acknowledge basic facts. Its crucial to them to try to control the public conversation, shame and discredit people who disagree with them, and stamp out any mention of facts which are not consistent with their agendas.

Unfortunately, a huge part of the so called 'anti-racist' and 'social justice' movements of today operate this way. That doesn't make them wrong about everything, but it definitely creates credibility issues for many of them.

Edit: What I was trying (and failed) to say was: I don't know how important this issue is (of black youth discouraging other black youth from doing well in school). Obviously there are people trying to make this into a bigger problem than it is, and people trying to pretend that it doesn't happen at all. The main issue I see, though, is not "How important is this problem?" but rather "Why doesn't the anti-racist movement even have the integrity to admit that this problem, however small or large, even _exists_?"

To me, this is very important.

This is interesting. I think what I hear you saying is: "To reach your audience, you need to employ some level of tact and diplomacy, otherwise the negative feelings created by careless words will get in the way of your goals" ?

Am I understanding you?

As it turns out, some people who complain about racism also refuse to say that racism is absolutely wrong.

who denied that bigotry against whites exist


speaking for myself, I criticized the logic the op used in jumping from a correlation to a causation,, repeatedly, even in contradiction to previous statements in his own piece

and racism is too broad a subject to be an 'absolute' wrong,,,

Clearly you know nothing about forensic profiling. BTW, every thing you hear in Criminal Minds is not true. Just sayin'

@ Massagetrade

Yes you understood me :)

@ Lpdon

Quote wikipedia:
"The racial demographics regarding serial killers are often subject to debate. In the United States, the majority of reported and investigated serial killers are white males"

As i already said earlier. Is that Psychologists over the course of years change their point of view. So maybe serial killers will be outnumbered by lets say Asians in 2019 in the USA for example.

But when i put a quote on a forum. And stating that most serial killers are white. Based on what many psychologists have published before. As shown in the quote of Wikipedia. And i adress a group of people. In this case "white males" And state that the majority is a serial killer. Then they will feel the urge to defend themselves. Which was my way of showing what this topic initially was all about.

No, it isn't.

Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man's genetic lineage the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.

Racism claims that the content of a man's mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man's convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control. This is the caveman's version of the doctrine of innate ideas or of inherited knowledge which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.

Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man's life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination.


Racism,
The Virtue of Selfishness,



A genius is a genius, regardless of the number of morons who belong to the same race,and a moron is a moron, regardless of the number of geniuses who share his racial origin.



Racism,
The Virtue of Selfishness,


Like every other form of collectivism, racism is a quest for the unearned. It is a quest for automatic knowledge,for an automatic evaluation of men's characters that bypasses the responsibility of exercising rational or moral judgment,and, above all, a quest for an automatic self-esteem (or pseudo-self-esteem).


Racism,
The Virtue of Selfishness

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/racism.html

based upon these limited definitions,, racism is often falsely labeled so,, including in this thread,,,asking if someone is 'acting white',, isn't an indication of a belief in an 'inherent' difference


but just as likely a belief in a social/cultural difference,, which is quite a different thing,,,



and it certainly doesn't involve an idea of being 'superior'

but just as likely an idea of being 'different' (culturally)

but if we break the word down further , we all know what 'race' refers to and an ism is

an oppressive and especially discriminatory attitude or belief



so, though the mind will naturally process things in a discriminatory way (to discriminate means to notice one thing is different from another,,,a little trick our educational system instills in us from a very young age)

not everyone can have power to 'oppress' others


in which case to notice that IN AMERICA white and black have 'differences' historically and therefore socially,, is not an ABSOLUTE WRONG

but to assume that difference is INHERENT rather than historically produced,, is a matter of ignorance,,,,sometimes WRONG if its oppressive , hateful, or hurtful,,,, and sometimes simply ignorant

like believing , if you have never been to Africa, that they live in huts and don't speak English,,,,,,one can not know what one is not exposed to and therefore cannot be 'wrong' to not know,,,,just ignorant,,,

so, when I refute the idea that 'all racism is wrong',,,,it is because I decline to pass moral judgments on what knowledge people may or may not have and rather upon their intent and effect upon others


if someone says to me I 'act white', they are not 'morally' wrong, unless they mean it to say that whites act better or worse,, something I cant know without knowing them or at least hearing their tone

but they are IGNORANT,, to believe that actions are about race instead of environment,,,,,but people are rarely that precise in speech,,,,to say something more accurate like 'you speak very clearly and properly',,,,,without assigning it a racial component,,,,

but again, if this is what they were exposed to and genuinely believe,, with no hate or sense of superiority,, there is no moral judgment in it,,,

as in my example before, If I say Hugh Laurie speaks like an American,, its not because I think americans are better or worse,, just because I believe their speech is different than british,,,

since any human word, can be used with a condescending intent, than as long as human words, which humans them selves made up, are peered at through a lens of good or evil words, discrimination or racism will always exist...

for the very word discrimination creates discrimination...

the existence and belief in a "racism", create more racism...

if a white man declare that it self be not called "white", and deem it a "put down", than this one does not like it self being "white"...

it is no different for a person of color...

why is their color in their own eyes so despicable, to hate to hear any word describing it...

why is it not a compliment for a sports team to be named after the "redskins"...

it is to show the absolute despise an indian has for it's own "indian culture", to take offense at any words that could be used to describe one self, especially the word "redskins"...

but this is thrown to the masses hungry to prove them self wise over something, while the rulers/owners of the redskins on both counts party together and watch the games...

a strong person will turn every word heard into a positive compliment...

but what we have now, is a complete and total system that is making the societies of earth emotionally weaker and weaker, unto the desired effect...

the desired effect indeed, as a weak society, need STRONG leaders, and embrace an IRON FIST, thinking that which say it protect ones self from offense, is it's friend, not seeing the iron fist shall be used upon it self...

and then abracadabra Hitler was able to be created and embraced by the many many many millions of followers...

and they were just that, blind followers...

for all followers are blind...

or they would not follow...

so hitler slung around rhetoric into weak insecure peoples minds to incite their willingness to maim, torture, and destroy, to follow him?

its how you create "followers"...

but of course, he got "them", the "followers", to do his dirty work...

a system built to keep divide between peoples, utilizes this natural insecurity in humans, to bolster it's own power, and to keep it self in power, by declaring it looks after the offended, so there must be a group guilty of offenses, or no need for the iron fist management...

a PERFECT self perpetuating system...

any society that makes laws to protect against insecurity is totally doomed to it's own demise...

if any words are outlawed, anarchy will be created, then after anarchy, chaos and war...

but, then i am not the only one who recognizes such matters...

for the powerful know the same, and carefully and expertly wield the sword of purported racism to create a "need for stricter laws and it self to reign perpetually"...

for if one wishes to see whom own's one self, see who one self is not allowed to critique or criticize...

the "racism" card is the perfect unvalidator, "destroyer" of all outside critique as unvalid...

why do you think we have a "black" president, married, with two adoring children?

PERFECT direct score for management...

absolute BRILLIANCE...

i bow at the feet of such brilliance...

Obama was "used", to create or sow the discord, to perpetuate the need for the coming "new and improved" iron fist system...

our entire human systems are built upon discriminatory practices...

with a tier system, a hierarchy, social classes, the very naming of something or anything as BETTER, create discrimination against anything or everything else as LESS.

the peoples who are ruled who believe in racism, shall bring down hells mortal wrath upon the their own shoulders enough to crush out that which deemed it self discriminated against.

Michelake:

" Yes you understood me :) " There was another point I wanted to make when I asked, but now I've forgotten. I any case I agree with what you said, though its another area where I don't always know where to draw the line. If I try TOO hard not to hurt other people's feelings, then I may fail to treat them like an intelligent, capable adult.


MissHarmony:

" who denied that bigotry against whites exist "

No one in this thread, I'm criticising the SJ movement at large. Also, its more common that people will downplay bigotry and insist that 'racism' (per their selective definition) is all that matters, and therefore anti-white bigotry is always irrelevant.


" and racism is too broad a subject to be an 'absolute' wrong,,, "

I have to agree, at least based on how the word is used in everyday speech.(Though we could define it in a way to make it an absolute wrong.) For example, I think that many programs that exist to promote, encourage, support, and fund black education and achievement are usually technically 'racist' programs, but are generally righteous programs.


DodoDavid:

While I find those definition given above to be more honest and more useful than the social justice re-definition of 'racist', I still feel there is more.

For example, just using those definitions I don't see how I can say that the black youth we previously discussed were necessarily being racist, as long as their views were not based on belief in 'inherent' differences, nor included outright hatred. (If Bob thinks that white and black people 'ought' to behave in certain ways doesn't mean that he thinks they inherently behave those ways).

Also, if I'm the principal of a school and I decide that all of the kids of a certain race should get a certain benefit, and only them... Well to me that's definitely a racist policy, and yet might not fit the definitions you give above.

I know that this is more properly called "racial prejudice" and "racial discrimination", but in everyday use its common to use 'racism' for those phrases.


Edit: Maybe I should have read the whole thread first. MsHarmony already said this: "based upon these limited definitions,, racism is often falsely labeled so,, including in this thread,,,asking if someone is 'acting white',, isn't an indication of a belief in an 'inherent' difference "

>> to say something more accurate like 'you speak very clearly and properly'

I've actually met many people who would say that this is an offensive and oppressive thing to say.

Like you, I associate clear speech with education, not race.

But they associate clear speech with white people and they believe that to say anything positive about white-sounding speech is to imply that black people and black culture are intrinsically less than white people and white culture, and so NO form of celebration of 'clear speech' or 'good diction' or anything like that should be allowed.


My point is mostly that some people (many in california) take parts of the anti-racist movement way too far.

We hold these truths to be self evident!

I recall a time when someone on this website told me that I could not make up my own definition of racism, that I had to use the dictionary definitions that everyone else uses. Otherwise, I would be arbitrarily moving the proverbial "goal posts".

Well, in this discussion thread, I have cited a dictionary definition, while some others have arbitrarily moved the goal posts.

No, one does not have to have power over another in order for one to practice racism. That failed excuse has been used by black racists to claim that black Americans can't commit racism.

Yes, using a person's race to determine what benefits that person receives is a form of racism.

It is one thing to acknowledge a person's physical characteristics and a person's ethnic background. That's not racism.

It is another thing to judge a person's character, abilities and acceptability according to that person's race. That is racism.

What msharmony has been describing is the former thing, not the latter thing.

In the situation described in the OP, some black kids had judged that it was unacceptable to be associated with white people, and thus, according to the kids, it was wrong for other black kids to do things that white people do.

Using the dictionary definition of racism, racism is absolutely wrong.

I can't prevent anyone from arbitrarily moving the goal posts by making up their own definition of racism, but I don't have to accept that made-up definition.