Quiz: Racism vs Discrimination vs Prejudice

It can be. However, that type of racism is not the main problem right now.

Wrong! That is prejudice. Not racism. Even though white supremacists in the last few years have been pushing that narrative among non-racists to try to dilute their racism. What you describe was not considered racism until relatively recently when the extreme-right media decided to cater to their white supremacist audience by enlisting the aid of right wingers who are not necessarily racists.

For objective definition of racism, Anthropology and Sociology are the relevant fields that study the matter.

Of course! One of the main purposes of this thread is to demonstrate that.

 

The meaning of words has nothing to do with what you agree or disagree with. They are determined by a tacit agreement among speakers with an average level of education.

 

Absolute nonsense! My definition neither says nor implies any such thing. In fact, it SAYS the opposite. I will address your comments when and if you READ what I said.

 

No clue what you're talking about. I hear the word "liberal" all the time on MSM.

Sure. Because he worked in a news organization that FIRES pundits for lying. Unlike right wing media like Fox where lying is a job requirement.

Which of the two would YOU expect to get more lies from? One that fires reporters who lie, or the one that DEMANDS that their reporters lie?

 

The questions are all very loaded, but here are my answerers without looking at the politically correct responses:

1. Prejudice - Hiring someone because they come from the same "clan" as you is not racism since skin color is not involved.

2. Discrimination - This is an example of government enforced rules against certain racial groups to "make up for years of discrimination."

3. Racism - Refusing to hire someone simply because of their skin color is racial discrimination.

 

That's true. They are determined by what people agree they mean and use and understand them to mean.

So where is your data showing people only use and agree the words mean what you listed above? Do you have survey data from the general public? If you did you would see that you are wrong. Both about prejudice and racism. Neither are defined only as you demand.

Most people will tell you that saying Asians are good at math or that black people can dance are prejudice. They also agree that anyone can be racist regardless of what race they are.

Racism is actually most often used to mean what you say it means by those motivated to excuse racism of non-white people. We can all see through you.

The real question here is to why is there this racist demand from so-called anti-racists to redefine racism to make it exclusive to white people. I don't think it will help defeat or dampen racism from white people. I think it will make it worse.

 

Thinking over the OP definitions... It makes me realize that their entire faux "anti-racist" movement is hinged on equivocation.

They are trying to take us backwards.

 

Of course, you left out the other "becauses".

The black person wasn't hired because the employer's experience with black workers has consistently been unsatisfactory.
Same as would apply with hiring anyone from any group that demonstrated consistent undesirable conduct. If I see MS-13 tats on you, you will not work for me.
That's judgement based on an earned reputation, not baseless discrimination.

The black applicant made it clear that his race entitled him to the job, and that if he didn't get it he would cry racism.

The company needs a team of people who will work together. Anyone who brings a disruptive element to that is a bad choice.
To know that before you are stuck with it, you have to apply judgment, and you have to use all the experiences you have.
It's sounds nice to ignore the elements that cultures create in groups, but it's poor business. I've lost deals because I wasn't of the right religion.
Black people in a position of power will typically discriminate against white people far more and with less cause than whites discriminate against blacks.
I've been there too.

The reasons to hire anyone are meritocracy, and attitude- and their impact on the harmony of the team environment. Lack of either one is a cause to pass.
Color neither disqualifies nor qualifies- except as they make it.

 

Maybe you should tell your psychiatrist you are hearing voices.

Rather was fired because the folks using computers proved he was lying. He denied it over several newscasts even when presented with the evidence. And he continued to defend the "journalist" who fabricated the fake letter about Bush. CBS executives finally had to fire him. Had it not been for smart people checking his liberal reporting he might still be putting out fake news.

Tell me who you are referring to and then back up your claim. Maybe you're referring to all the liberal news outlets that claimed for two years that Trump colluded with the Russians -- LOL

 

OP had to make this thread because there haven't been enough white on black crimes lately so he decided to honor us with a LESSON
Ahh, i am so grateful!

 

I think OP is on to a very fun concept here. I'd like to join in.

Stupid race baiting scenario # 1
Black hiring manager has 2 resumes with pretty much same exact experience and education.
One is named TYRONE. The other is named ALFRED.
She hires the TYRONE. Is it racism? if so, how can you even prove it?

Stupid race baiting scenario # 2
White hiring manager has 2 resumes with pretty much same exact experience and education.
One is named TYRONE. The other is named ALFRED.
She hires the ALFRED. Is it racism? if so, how can you even prove it?

Stupid race baiting scenario #3
Black hiring manager for a corporate firm (he also happened to be in the Marines but military experience is a non-factor for this job)
2 resumes, one black, one white
The black candidate is slightly more experienced per the resume but the manager notices a marine tattoo on the white applicant's wrist
He hires the white guy
Is this racism? favoritism? Can you prove it? YOU can't. He can just say he thought the other guy was a better fit and although not as experienced, liked his answers. you can't really prove this stuff. Just witness how DUMB it all is


Do you all see how stupid this is? According to the OP minorities should be hired for THAT being a reason and not MERIT.

 

Question for Golem: If I tell you I'm white and would never marry a black woman what does that make me?

 

Someone who is attracted to white women? Don't let these people tell you that PREFERENCES are racist. I date outside my race often but that is my preference.

 

Wrong 2 is systemic 1&3 are some random guy being an *******. Jim Crow is systemic racism, affirmative action as currently practiced is systemic racism.

 

WTF? In reality! If you don't interact with average educated English speakers, you might want to ask someone who does.

This, of course, does not necessarily apply to technical terms.

If they say it in some negative context.

No idea how you reached that idiotic conclusion.

I don't know who you're talking about, so I can't comment. I have never heard of any anti-racist redefining "racism".

 

Other "becauses" are irrelevant to the words I wanted to illustrate.

But go ahead...

Ok. And in which of the three categories would you say that falls? A, B or C?

If it's relevant to this thread, then which is it. If it's none of those, than it's irrelevant to this topic.

It's not baseless discrimination. So what? What the hell is your point?

Oh God!

Please cut the nonsense. Did you have a point that is relevant to this thread, or not?

 

Yep! That's what happens in REAL news networks. You knowingly lie, you're out! Not in Fox, though. In Fox, actually, that their presenters are EXPECTED to lie was their defense in a trial against Tucker Carlson. And the judge agreed.

 

Golem is only using the word prejudice, to have a negative connotation, however I think it's true that a preference for, or against, something, could technically be called a prejudice. More likely, though, it would be referred to as a "bias" or, in the positive mode, as a "partiality."

 

Anyone can turn reason and logic on any subject upside down by narrowing the scope to their specific limit.
That's what you are doing- limiting the reasons to those you can then attack.

That's NOT discussion. Better understanding is NOT your objective. And the rest of the picture is not nonsense- but you know that.

 

Correct. It is prejudice to presume a Chinese guy is good at math and knows Karate, or that a black guy can dance.

 

Golem, please answer my simple question.

 

I was trying to get Golem to differentiate between preference and prejudice, which is why I used some additional information to make that argument. I do think sometimes preference and prejudice can be one of the same, and then there are times they are not. However, I think Golem is trying another attempt to show that Racism doesn't exist but prejudice does. To me, prejudice and racism can be one and the same. One is just more irrational than the other.

 

Human beings are born with certain characteristics. Parents, religion, teachers, bosses, law enforcement, etc., act upon us to be good people and do the right thing. But even so we will always have criminals and racists. Luckily, they are in the minority of the general population. Imagine the jungle we would live in without religion or the police.

 

As I think @HonestJoe already commented, @Golem does seem to be parsing things too finely, to apply to all cases, generally, especially considering that he was not backing up his distinctions, with any authoritative sources. While I can see the logic behind his neatening up of those terms, language is not always so tidy.

He recently had another thread, claiming that races don't exist. Even if, from a biologist's perspective-- which would be to consider any different "race" to be a different subspecies-- this would be true, nevertheless, words are defined by their usage, and if you ask anyone about someone's "race," the meaning is universally understood as, what was his skin color? Golem had tried to include that general characteristic as a part of ethnicity, but just because you can tell that someone is brown-skinned, does not mean you can know whether he is Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, or Afghan, all of which are different ethnicities. So that was a similar instance of, I then thought, him having a political or philosophical motive, for wanting to assert his point.

When I add this thread into the evidence, however, I have to consider the alternate possibility, that he is just a conceptual neat-freak; that is, that he may feel, to a borderline obsessive degree, the compulsion to box up all ideas, separately.

I am surprised that I haven't noticed any of those arguing against Golem's thesis, take this basic step, of looking up any more academic definitions of "racism." Google search, uses the Oxford English Dictionary:

<Snip>

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages

rac·ism
/ˈrāˌsiz(ə)m/

noun
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
"a program to combat racism"


Similar:
racial discrimination
racialism
racial prejudice
xenophobia
intolerance
bigotry
chauvinism
fascism
Nazism
apartheid
the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.
"theories of racism"
<End Snip>

 

Why, in your hypothetical example, would the white you, "never marry a black woman?"