BLM leader calls whites "subhumans"

[Seperates]

Let's not start the "prejudice + power" bullshit again. You can't redefine words to make certain actions acceptable or not based on who the victim of it is.

Like I said in that post, whites that are harmed by black bigotry are victims too and black bigots are awful people. My point was that racism in sociology indisputably requires a systemic component.

Sure. But wouldn't that just be a different category of racism, as opposed to individual racism? Such as, I don't know, 'Structural Racism'?

[Neanderthaland]

This is BLM Toronto. The same group of morons who demanded that Toronto Police be banned from participating in the annual Toronto Pride Parade, and will block all Pride Parades forever unless that ban is carried out. Of course they're led by a lunatic racist.

You really have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find deeply dissatisfied people in Canada. Not surprising all they can find are nutjobs.

[Sciongrad]

Like I said in that post, whites that are harmed by black bigotry are victims too and black bigots are awful people. My point was that racism in sociology indisputably requires a systemic component. When white people cry about how blacks are racist, they obfuscate what racism really is.

We're not talking your bullshit redefinitions.

Racism, here in the real world, requires no systemic component.

It's not a redefinition, it is the accepted definition in most academic contexts, and I say that an actual, real life academic.

[SP Rebellion]

I mean the whole of the BLM movement, not just this one delusional Canadian. Yet it is funny how these Delusional Canadians proceeded to elect the worst Prime Minister in Canadian History, Trudeau to power.

You misspelled Steven Harper.

---

As for BLM, this is unforgivable. I no longer can support this shity oginastion.

If I can shit on Trump for all the unforgivable shit he said on Twitter, I can now shit on you for this.

>USD/CAD fucked up like 15 times under Harper, usually resolved within a month on each occasion, and CAD ends up a few cents stronger
>USD/CAD fucked up once under Trudeau as he took office, still not resolved to this day.

The amount of CAD I have lost thanks to Trudeau due to my trading with US Companies down South is bloody insane.

[Kubra]

I thought cotton candy flavour came as pink a blue
if it's just blue you'd think it's bubble gum wouldn't you

but of course I'm an adult, my favourite ice cream is black coffee flavour.

I suppose bubble gum could be true blue too.
But ah, the topic tunnel we go back through.
They claim to be 'left' I know that to be true.
Yet the sect is unknown to me and you.


ASIDE:
Wouldn't that be gritty?
Ok, maybe not that shitty
But why change the ditty?
Doesn't the cream make the package pretty?

I don't care to determine sect, only what flavours of ice cream correspond to what colours.

[Major-Tom]

Racism refers to a system, not someone's beliefs. Blacks in America can't be "racist" because they lack the component of systemic power over another group. Cry all you want that some black Americans are terrible and hate whites or other populations - and don't get me wrong, that's a bad thing - but you can't argue that blacks are racist towards whites when whites hold all the cards in society.

Hear hear.

No. Racism is racism. If a black man calls a white man "cracker" in a malicious way, that is racism. If a Native calls an Asian a "chink" in a malicious way, that is racism. If a white man calls a Mexican a "wetback" that is racism.

Redefining racism to suit ones political agenda is in and of itself detrimental to the advancement of civil rights and race relations in this country. If you make the argument that racism is a system, or that BLM is ultimately a progressive movement, then you too are a net detriment to the advancement of civil rights in this country.

[Sciongrad]

Like I said in that post, whites that are harmed by black bigotry are victims too and black bigots are awful people. My point was that racism in sociology indisputably requires a systemic component.

Sure. But wouldn't that just be a different category of racism, as opposed to individual racism? Such as, I don't know, 'Structural Racism'?

My point is that words matter. When racism is used to refer to every mean act based on race, we no longer fully appreciate how awful racism actually is. When whites start complaining that being called a "cracker" is racist, then the term racism is indistinguishable from other pedestrian forms of meanness.

[Mavorpen]

No, it isn't stupid. If you turn on the news or if you live in an area with a BLM presence and see rioting, looting, and behavior such as the one displayed here, you will likely have a negative image of BLM.

Which is pretty stupid, or at the very least, incredibly lazy.

Yes, yes they have. Doesn't excuse shit like this, though.

Never said it did.

We(I too am supportive of advancing civil rights), need to distance ourselves from this sort of stupidity. Call it disorganized, call it whenever, but when few members of the movement fail to condemn this sort of behavior, it shows that people who care about civil rights need to take a different approach.

Why should a different approach be taken by the general because not everyone condemns it?

Quite frankly, I think BLM has harmed the image of the black community. Prior to all this race relations bullshit, we had some of the best race relations in our country's history. Perfect? Not at all. But the protests and whatnot carried out in the name of BLM has been horrible.

Yeah, no, this is a load of shit. Race relations haven't gotten worse or better since BLM. The only thing that's changed is that black people have once again made it so that white people can no longer ignore them, which is precisely what the Civil Rights Movement also did. Race relations have always been shitty, and black people know this. It's just that now we're being payed attention to again.

[Sciongrad]

Hear hear.

No. Racism is racism. If a black man calls a white man "cracker" in a malicious way, that is racism. If a Native calls an Asian a "chink" in a malicious way, that is racism. If a white man calls a Mexican a "wetback" that is racism.

Redefining racism to suit ones political agenda is in and of itself detrimental to the advancement of civil rights and race relations in this country. If you make the argument that racism is a system, or that BLM is ultimately a progressive movement, then you too are a net detriment to the advancement of civil rights in this country.

This is just a factual inaccuracy. This is literally one of the very first things you'll learn in any social science class on race. One of the reasons race relations have gotten so bad in the US in recent years is because whites have totally failed to understand what racism means.

[The Black Forrest]

Sure. But wouldn't that just be a different category of racism, as opposed to individual racism? Such as, I don't know, 'Structural Racism'?

My point is that words matter. When racism is used to refer to every mean act based on race, we no longer fully appreciate how awful racism actually is. When whites start complaining that being called a "cracker" is racist, then the term racism is indistinguishable from other pedestrian forms of meanness.

I would be more worried about actions. Really bad racists are actually pleasant in person. Even Canada has a shady past.

[Catochristoferson]

Are you implying because I am a right-winger I support racist policies? No, actually I support getting rid of racism in it's full. But for that to happen, the left has to acknowledge that non-white racism can actually happen, and work at getting rid of it aswell.

Racism refers to a system, not someone's beliefs. Blacks in America can't be "racist" because they lack the component of systemic power over another group. Cry all you want that some black Americans are terrible and hate whites or other populations - and don't get me wrong, that's a bad thing - but you can't argue that blacks are racist towards whites when whites hold all the cards in society.

On your first point, that blacks can't be racist:

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.

The mainstream accepted definition of racism is universal. Yes, racism can be institutionalised, but that doesn't mean racism can only exist institutionally.

On your second point, about whites having more privilage in society:

That largely depends on the nation. Countries with more white people will usually have biases toward white people. But places like Japan or China have more of an Asian bias/privilage, and are extremely strict on non-asian immigration.
It's not the case everywhere, and it isn't the case for every country.

[Seperates]

We're not talking your bullshit redefinitions.

Racism, here in the real world, requires no systemic component.

It's not a redefinition, it is the accepted definition in most academic contexts, and I say that an actual, real life academic.

Depends on where you are, I suppose. Maybe a difference in field. I remember 'Structural Racism' being defined that way as a part of my undergrad, but not the whole word in it's entirety. And by it's scope and grasp, structural racism has far more pertinent and reaching consequences than individual racism. But the whole thing is a mess of complex relationships. It's certainly not a simple topic.

[Galloism]

We're not talking your bullshit redefinitions.

Racism, here in the real world, requires no systemic component.

It's not a redefinition, it is the accepted definition in most academic contexts, and I say that an actual, real life academic.

Which is part of the reason academia is getting looked down upon these days.

Many academics, yourself included, are inventing bullshit definitions to defend people against bigoted racist actions by redefining words so you can say "oh it's not real racism when a black man kills a white man because he's white", and "a woman can't be sexist against men because he's a man", and "a man can't be raped by a woman because she didn't penetrate him, and the victim must be penetrated".

You are undercutting yourself and engaging in your own form of institutional classification based on having the acceptable identity to suffer bigotry. YOU are trying to institutionalize counteroppression and the people are rebelling against it because it's full of shit.

[Uiiop]

Sure. But wouldn't that just be a different category of racism, as opposed to individual racism? Such as, I don't know, 'Structural Racism'?

My point is that words matter. When racism is used to refer to every mean act based on race, we no longer fully appreciate how awful racism actually is. When whites start complaining that being called a "cracker" is racist, then the term racism is indistinguishable from other pedestrian forms of meanness.

So one side thinks your definition makes people saying "Cracker" is okay when you don't mean to do it and the you think the common definitions diminishes what the institutions do?

[Major-Tom]

No, it isn't stupid. If you turn on the news or if you live in an area with a BLM presence and see rioting, looting, and behavior such as the one displayed here, you will likely have a negative image of BLM.

Which is pretty stupid, or at the very least, incredibly lazy.

Yes, yes they have. Doesn't excuse shit like this, though.

Never said it did.

We(I too am supportive of advancing civil rights), need to distance ourselves from this sort of stupidity. Call it disorganized, call it whenever, but when few members of the movement fail to condemn this sort of behavior, it shows that people who care about civil rights need to take a different approach.

Why should a different approach be taken by the general because not everyone condemns it?

Quite frankly, I think BLM has harmed the image of the black community. Prior to all this race relations bullshit, we had some of the best race relations in our country's history. Perfect? Not at all. But the protests and whatnot carried out in the name of BLM has been horrible.

Yeah, no, this is a load of shit. Race relations haven't gotten worse or better since BLM. The only thing that's changed is that black people have once again made it so that white people can no longer ignore them, which is precisely what the Civil Rights Movement also did. Race relations have always been shitty, and black people know this. It's just that now we're being payed attention to again.

It has very arguably gotten worse. I will concede that I'm not black, but from what I see, the tension has really, really gotten higher. We see a lot more hate crimes on both sides, we see a lot more protests, BLM is growing, as is the "alt right." It is very problematic.

No. Racism is racism. If a black man calls a white man "cracker" in a malicious way, that is racism. If a Native calls an Asian a "chink" in a malicious way, that is racism. If a white man calls a Mexican a "wetback" that is racism.

Redefining racism to suit ones political agenda is in and of itself detrimental to the advancement of civil rights and race relations in this country. If you make the argument that racism is a system, or that BLM is ultimately a progressive movement, then you too are a net detriment to the advancement of civil rights in this country.

This is just a factual inaccuracy. This is literally one of the very first things you'll learn in any social science class on race. One of the reasons race relations have gotten so bad in the US in recent years is because whites have totally failed to understand what racism means.

How? Frankly, I don't give a damn what some social science class taught by a white, Subaru driving, latte sipping professor says about racism, you cannot redefine the term to fit your agenda.

[Sciongrad]

My point is that words matter. When racism is used to refer to every mean act based on race, we no longer fully appreciate how awful racism actually is. When whites start complaining that being called a "cracker" is racist, then the term racism is indistinguishable from other pedestrian forms of meanness.

I would be more worried about actions. Really bad racists are actually pleasant in person. Even Canada has a shady past.

Again, this argument I'm making is pretty semantic but very important. I fully appreciate that rotten people are rotten and that's a bad thing and in the actual world, we should prioritize stamping out all kinds of hate. My only claim here is that we need to be more careful with how we use the word "racism."

[SP Rebellion]

Racism refers to a system, not someone's beliefs. Blacks in America can't be "racist" because they lack the component of systemic power over another group. Cry all you want that some black Americans are terrible and hate whites or other populations - and don't get me wrong, that's a bad thing - but you can't argue that blacks are racist towards whites when whites hold all the cards in society.

On your first point, that blacks can't be racist:

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.

The mainstream accepted definition of racism is universal. Yes, racism can be institutionalised, but that doesn't mean racism can only exist institutionally.

On your second point, about whites having more privilage in society:

That largely depends on the nation. Countries with more white people will usually have biases toward white people. But places like Japan or China have more of an Asian bias/privilage, and are extremely strict on non-asian immigration.
It's not the case everywhere, and it isn't the case for every country.

I fully agree with you on this point, and wish more people would see it as so.

[Sciongrad]

How? Frankly, I don't give a damn what some social science class taught by a white, Subaru driving, latte sipping professor says about racism, you cannot redefine the term to fit your agenda.

It has always, always meant what it means in the sociological context. It's whites like us that have changed the meaning to fit a political agenda. When all mean actions based on race are racist, the term is diluted when it's use to criticize actual structural racism.

[Uiiop]

It's not a redefinition, it is the accepted definition in most academic contexts, and I say that an actual, real life academic.

Which is part of the reason academia is getting looked down upon these days.

Many academics, yourself included, are inventing bullshit definitions to defend people against bigoted racist actions by redefining words so you can say "oh it's not real racism when a black man kills a white man because he's white", and "a woman can't be sexist against men because he's a man", and "a man can't be raped by a woman because she didn't penetrate him, and the victim must be penetrated".

You are undercutting yourself and engaging in your own form of institutional classification based on having the acceptable identity to suffer bigotry. YOU are trying to institutionalize counteroppression and the people are rebelling against it because it's full of shit.

While i find his view of it wrong...i'd doubt someone calling what happens "Bad things" are actually defending it.

[Catochristoferson]

No. Racism is racism. If a black man calls a white man "cracker" in a malicious way, that is racism. If a Native calls an Asian a "chink" in a malicious way, that is racism. If a white man calls a Mexican a "wetback" that is racism.

Redefining racism to suit ones political agenda is in and of itself detrimental to the advancement of civil rights and race relations in this country. If you make the argument that racism is a system, or that BLM is ultimately a progressive movement, then you too are a net detriment to the advancement of civil rights in this country.

This is just a factual inaccuracy. This is literally one of the very first things you'll learn in any social science class on race. One of the reasons race relations have gotten so bad in the US in recent years is because whites have totally failed to understand what racism means.

There are many black people who would disagree with you on what racism means.

[Mavorpen]

It has very arguably gotten worse. I will concede that I'm not black, but from what I see, the tension has really, really gotten higher.

Tension? I mean, I guess. But race relations as a whole? No, it's not arguable that it's always been shitty. The subconscious disdain for black people has always existed and that's been maintained perpetually through various forms.

We see a lot more hate crimes on both sides, we see a lot more protests, BLM is growing, as is the "alt right." It is very problematic.

BLM growing isn't a problem. The REASONS why it's growing is.

[Sciongrad]

This is just a factual inaccuracy. This is literally one of the very first things you'll learn in any social science class on race. One of the reasons race relations have gotten so bad in the US in recent years is because whites have totally failed to understand what racism means.

There are many black people who would disagree with you on what racism means.

And they would be just as wrong. But again, this is a semantic digression. Calling someone a cracker is wrong, but doesn't have the same weight as calling someone the n word. All violence is wrong when it's based on hate. My only argument is that we need to use language more carefully, not that some victims are less worthy than others.

[Galloism]

Which is part of the reason academia is getting looked down upon these days.

Many academics, yourself included, are inventing bullshit definitions to defend people against bigoted racist actions by redefining words so you can say "oh it's not real racism when a black man kills a white man because he's white", and "a woman can't be sexist against men because he's a man", and "a man can't be raped by a woman because she didn't penetrate him, and the victim must be penetrated".

You are undercutting yourself and engaging in your own form of institutional classification based on having the acceptable identity to suffer bigotry. YOU are trying to institutionalize counteroppression and the people are rebelling against it because it's full of shit.

While i find his view of it wrong...i'd doubt someone calling what happens "Bad things" are actually defending it.

Manslaughter is a bad thimg, but I think you would find it suspicious if when a black man was killed in cold blood I called it manslaughter but only whites could be truly murdered.

[SP Rebellion]

There are many black people who would disagree with you on what racism means.

And they would be just as wrong. But again, this is a semantic digression. Calling someone a cracker is wrong, but doesn't have the same weight as calling someone the n word. All violence is wrong when it's based on hate. My only argument is that we need to use language more carefully, not that some victims are less worthy than others.

Thank god people with such views are not in any meaningful political position.

I can only pray Europe does not succumb to it, and elects Populist parties whilst there is still time. Well, that's just imo.

[Seperates]

Sure. But wouldn't that just be a different category of racism, as opposed to individual racism? Such as, I don't know, 'Structural Racism'?

My point is that words matter. When racism is used to refer to every mean act based on race, we no longer fully appreciate how awful racism actually is. When whites start complaining that being called a "cracker" is racist, then the term racism is indistinguishable from other pedestrian forms of meanness.

They do. Which is exactly it is also important not to mush together meanings and definitions. Racism, it all of it's varying forms, is incredibly harmful. You need to distinguish between the 'structural racism' of police brutality and the 'individual racism' of calling someone a 'cracker' or 'subhuman'. They are all just varying flavors of the same shit, with some of the shit being far more toxic.

You can't just not call one 'racist', otherwise you are missing out on a slew of human behavior. How else are we to talk about the individual racist acts that develop during gang warfare, that can ultimately become integral structural elements to the gang, if we can't distinguish different levels?