• Square Elite
  1. If you are having trouble logging in, check the box, "stay logged in" to fix the issue. Thanks! —KHP Staff
  2. Hi Guest, you may have noticed that we aren't khplanet.com anymore. For more information on why these changes are happening, check out our thread, Site Re-Brand Updates

Can Black People Be Racist?

Discussion in 'Mature Discussion' started by Angel, May 18, 2016.

  1. Ezol

    Ezol New Member

    History bares this out. Whites have racist names for just about everyone. Wet back, spic, kike, etc
    That's a racist, someone who hates on the basis of race.

    Black do not hate solely on the basis of race. How do I know? Because I'm black.
    We hate on a historical basis.
    If what I was saying wasn't true Chris Rock wouldn't have been able to make the movie "good hair" about the black community as a whole.

    And we'd also have more race names than just cracker.
    We would have them for Mexicans Jews and Arabs too. But our SO CALLED racism is directed at the source of our oppression and no one else. That's how I can say we don't hate on the basis of race. If we did Wed never have wanted to integrate into western society we would not be able to watch white TV shows and play games like Kingdom hearts etc.
    Black people love these things.

    We even love anime and manga despite the fact the Japanese manga Caters to western audience.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2016
    jazzphenom likes this.
  2. Angel

    Angel Lion Heart Staff Member Administrator

    @Ezol And if I told you I'm black and hate white people because of their skin color? What then?
     
    Taboo Sho likes this.
  3. Ezol

    Ezol New Member

    Like I just said we don't hate on the basis of just racial features like that. That's why you don't think of saying blacks hate Asians because of their small eyes or Mexicans because of whatever because even you know blacks don't hate on a racial basis but if you did say that online ID say 1 I don't think u black 2 I'd say if you are black you are only saying that to win an argument.
    3 I'd tell you unless you lived 300 or 400 years ago you can't even say that. Too much has happened.

    Whites hated blacks off jump and dresses up in black face to make fun of blacks
    When did a black person dress up in white face to make fun of whites?

    You yourself argued black people can't be racist and your arguments were pathetic and now that I come in arguing on YOUR SIDE you attack me? Im not sure but I smell intellectual dishonesty I think you got a problem with what I said in my first post about black people thinking they are inferior but hey that's just my opinion.
     
  4. Angel

    Angel Lion Heart Staff Member Administrator

    1,2, and 3 are all your opinions. They aren't facts. In the end you're just plain wrong when you speak for all black people!

    God forgives that you're the spokesman for the black race. I refuse to be apart of this foolish and if you want to continue posting. You go ahead. I will not humor you.
     
  5. Ezol

    Ezol New Member

    You said in this thread earlier it's no point In talking Hypotheticals now you bring up some hypothetical question.

    You can not produce one instance of a black person saying they hate white people just because. I have a link I can post right now or a white guy saying quote, "we don't have to have a reason to hate them just because they breath we hate them"



    Show me the opposite of this!
    He said we hate nigg ers spics and Jews!
    We don't need a reason! Go ahead show me a black person saying this or the equivalent! The burden of proof is on you!

    Also 3 is fact not opinion unless you've never had a history lesson it's IMPOSSIBLE for you to hate whites JUST because of their skin. They have given you too many other good reasons

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 14, 2016
  6. Nova

    Nova A Ghost Staff Member Administrator

    I fail to understand how this post relates to the topic....
     
    EtherealSummoner likes this.
  7. Ezol

    Ezol New Member

    It relates because it's impossible to show me the opposite of this. It also shows black people have a predisposition through the media to European features and it's flat out ignorant to think black people grow up hating white people because of their racial features when that's the standard of beauty we are all predisposed to. It's one of the reasons black people grow up hating themselves because they feel inadequate because they are not represented in the media and western society.
    In simple terms the media glorifies European features and under represents black features of course black people grow up liking European features over their own.
    When I was a kid I use to run around the house with a wet rag on my head because I wanted hair like namek saga gohan.

    And you KNOW everyone wants to be a super saying with the hair and everything.
    There was even a black guy on YouTube who tried to go super sayien lol

    You can imagine how hard that is for black people

    And encase you didn't notice the guy who made that post is asian
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2016
  8. Taboo Sho

    Taboo Sho The Math Emperor Staff Member Moderator Content Writer

    Look, Ezol, if you're gonna post in a Mature discussion thread, please stick to the topic at hand, if you have nothing intellectual to add to the discussion don't post. It's that simple. Thanks in advance. (I'm posting this here since you ignore any and all vms)
     
  9. NeRo

    NeRo Your Supreme Lord And Savior Staff Member Administrator

    Yacob is back, brb getting the ban hammer
     
    Taboo Sho likes this.
  10. Ezol

    Ezol New Member

    That had everything to do with the topic but you should take your own advice
     
  11. Angel

    Angel Lion Heart Staff Member Administrator

    Alright. After a short hiatus. I'm ready to come back.
    Agreed.

    Yeah. :/. I still don't get what @EtherealSummoner was trying to prove to me using the "orange" example. Pointless really. Anywho, you unfortunately fell back into the trap of this thread.

    I remember, you saying that.
    I believe if we don't define racism, we can't identify it, so...

    That would be a conversation for another group of people, not myself. :).

    More like those are the only examples that we can commonly agree on as racism. Whether something is racist is debatable and hard to prove. If a politician says something racist. They can easily say that was not their intentions and since we can't claim to know anyone's intentions but our own we can't "prove" that they are racist. If you understood those to be common ground examples, why bring up what we individually think racism is? We already established that you and I, individually have different views on what constitute racism. That's common knowledge; because that's what we've been debating this entire time. I simply stated what we commonly classified racism as. You can think of any type of scenario that is racism to you, but that wasn't the point. I narrowed it down to what we agreed on. (Oh should've read the next paragraph. Disregard.)

    No, I'm pretty sure that most if not all real life examples of racism are institutional (in the context of NA or CA).

    Something that can't be implemented (to have an effect) isn't really effective or efficient. It's all well and good, but it's not a good argument. Feminist would do better tackling gender indifference and a judicial system that allow men to serve only 3 months in jail for rape that instills people with ideas that its okay and isn't an significant offense.

    It could. It's subjective so it really is an opinion.

    Sure but what doesn't. Let's read further.

    Not a quota, but go on.

    -Facepalm- You just contradicted yourself then AA isn't a quota if clearly isn't enforced.

    To comply with AA, places of work set goals and make a good effort to diversify their employment. As long as they make an effort everything is fine. Whether people hire minorities (just anybody) to avoid the actual effort isn't the law's fault. Shouldn't blame the law for what clearly is human error in judgement.

    I completely disagree. Education is for everyone. And if anyone says otherwise, then clearly they haven't been given a quality education that fits their needs.

    Like I said, poor education systems.

    1). Race is a factor not a say all be all in consideration. 2). The white person can get admissioned anywhere without bias compared to a black person. 3). One white person being denied based solely on race doesn't affect his social standing while a black person clearly needs help to overturn a system that keeps him/her from attending the school in the first place. 4). AA still isn't a quota and that example didn't prove it to be.

    It's not severe. To be equal, we we have to take from others.

    I guess 245 years of slavery didn't cross your mind on why the word is so severe. Did you consider that Asian, Mexican, and White slurs aren't associated with a history of discrimination and slavery. Did you consider, slave masters called their slaves "niggers" rather than "coons". Which is my whole point why its so offensive.

    Well, you know how I "stand".

    ^_^

    That's incorrect. A statement doesn't have to hold in all conditions to be true. If I make a general statement that "The time is 5 o clock" just because you say "It's 2 o clock in California" doesn't disapprove my statement. Clearly, 5 o clock doesn't hold true in every time zone ( every situation according to you ), but clearly it could be true under the time zone in which it was stated in. I don't know where you get this idea from that things must hold in every situation to be true.

    Dude, you're wrong (at least partially, review the first 5 posts).My second post in this thread. I explicitly said minorities can't be racist where whites are predominant and you quoted me, saying I was too focused on America, so clearly there was no misconceptions that in fact, it was America. You didn't disapprove a thing and if your recollection of events are any indicator, you're wrong about disapproving it.

    I got you another example.

    Clearly, the systems of Zimbabwe and America are different. Therefore being racist in one place and not the other makes perfect sense. In Zimbabwe, the black person would be contributing to a system that keeps blacks on top and he would be racist but if he came to America. He wouldn't be contributing to a system like the one in Zimbabwe.


    Well, it's easy to say that.

    No, it's definitely because they are black. There's research. You should look at it. They compare not only the sentencing of black and white people but also their criminal history and still blacks are sentenced longer. You might want to hold onto your hints.

    Yup, I'm pretty sure; I made a similar statement at one point. That right is right and wrong is wrong. I don't think I said, a "wrong" deserves the same punishment across the board regardless of circumstance though.

    Well, law enforcement / judicial system / legislation system. The system in general. Black people being shot unarmed. Black people being profiled by law enforcement. When black people call 911 to report a crime and the caller is shot because of profiling. I'm not making crap up. Clearing, there is racism with law enforcement and even if racist legislation doesn't represent the whole. It is still is represented.

    Simple, they have power. AKA Pull in society.

    Actually, it is. It's actually in the name. Equal. There's inequality meaning someone has more than someone else. And if we want equality. That person who has more has to have a "loss" and that person who has less must have a "gain". Balancing to zero which is the whole point.
     
  12. Desert Warrior

    Desert Warrior Well-Known Member

    I was wondering if you forgot about this thread or if Ezol had killed it.

    I think I understand what he was shooting for. Going for a reduction into absurdity argument. But yeah, I sadly fell into the trap.

    Well, while on the talk of how to define it, here's a 15 or so minute long video explaining why defining racism as (Basically) prejudice + power is an incorrect way to define it.



    I know. Like I mentioned before, I unfortunately start to point my arguments against that group of people and not you. I suppose why I fall into this trap is because you are starting to have their arguments but fall short of their complete argument.

    Well to be a tad more specific, those examples are what we can commonly agree on as being able to occur within our separate definitions. Probably mostly due to my definition encompassing cases of racism provided by your definition plus other examples your definition not considering as falling underneath.

    I disagree. I would argue that the majority of all real life examples of racism are not institutional. I suppose an important distinction would be that the examples that are institutional have a greater effect on society compared to the non-institutional examples.

    Not really. I mean, pretty much the only time the claim of the ends justifying the means comes up is when someone is trying to justify some terrible means used for some end. The general rule of thumb is that if there is a claim of "the ends justify the means" then usually the ends do not justify the means. I'm finding it difficult to find proper examples where the ends do in fact justify the means. Hell, the one example I can think of that would fit is an example people would argue the end did not justify the means (The atomic bombs being dropped on Japan, if you're wondering).

    Yes it is. There are historical examples where it has been used as a quota.

    Ironically enough, the Supreme Court ruling didn't actually get rid of the quotas. Setting goals and timetables are simply unofficial quotas.

    Where did you find that quote? I reread my last post several times and I did not say that. So no, I did not contradict myself.

    Goals are unofficial quotas. They may not be defined quotas in the sense of "We need X number of people from this group" but they are still quotas.

    No. Not everyone is made for education. Education should be available for everyone, but that does not mean education is for everyone. I suppose if you want to get into the finer details of this argument, there arises a need to specify the type of education. In this context I am referring to education as our current system of education. Really this idea is intended to go towards Nietzsche's idea of the Übermensch. Develop every person to the greatest they can be developed to. With our system of education this development is not possible for every person.

    1). Race may only be a factor, but if that one factor overrides every other factor in consideration (As was the case in my example) then you know something is wrong. 2). A black person can get admission anywhere without bias just as well. Legally there is no bias between admission based on race. So if you're going to argue about somebody involved who has a personal bias against black people then I can just as well argue that somebody involved can have a personal bias against white people, which is something that is becoming more and more common in this day and age. 3). Same thing; one black person being denied based solely on their race doesn't effect their social standing. The problem with your statement is that you're working under the assumption that schools are set up to deny black people from entering school. Again, legally that is not allowed. So if there is somebody involved in the process who is working to deny somebody simply because applicants are black, then there is an issue with the person involved and not the system itself. 4). If a person gets admission into something based on their race and not their individual merits then yes, affirmative action is a quota.

    The statement you quoted for this reply was part of my comment on the severity of racial slurs. Not sure why you're talking about equality in that statement. It is incorrect to say that we have to take from others in order to be equal, but I'll get to that with your last point.

    Well actually I'm pretty sure slave masters called their slaves "coons" along with calling them "niggers." I mean, you don't honestly think that slave masters only ever used one single word to talk down to their slaves, do you? Also, when I talk about that word being severe, I am talking about a modern context. Yes, there is terrible history behind it (As there is for discriminatory words towards other groups). My point was to imply how people treat the word. The reason why "nigger" is so much more severe a word these days compared to other slurs is because people still let that word have power over them.

    I know. At the same time I would hope that you would, when provided with what is a very obvious example of racism, you would agree that somebody can be racist regardless of their race or the society they are in.

    No, a general statement of "The time is 5 o'clock" is wrong without specification as to where the statement applies. Also if you wanna be nitpicky, if you say it is 5 o'clock and it is X:35, then you're wrong entirely no matter where in the world you are referring to. The reason why I say something must hold in every situation is logical consistency, simple as that. Which I why I then later commented on adding restrictions to limit the situations it must hold in.

    Ok. I will admit that I either forgot or ignored that part of your post. The point of my disproving it still stands. Someone cannot be racist in one situation and not the other if the only thing that changes is the environment outside of the person. A racist in America is still a racist everywhere else in the world regardless of what group makes up the majority.

    You don't need to contribute to a system in order to be racist. Someone being a racist in one place and not another place is absurd. You can't be a racist in one place and not a racist in another place if the only thing that is changing is your location.

    Well when you say that whites should be given more severe punishments than blacks and things will be equal because averages and therefore the ends justify the means, you make it incredibly easy for me to say the ends don't justify the means.

    Can you provide the evidence for that? From what you said it sounds like there are plenty of cases where they messed up their research or didn't account for something. Statistics and studies are incredibly misleading when people don't understand the statistic they are looking at (When I say this I'm referring to the people looking at the statistic or the study, not the people who performed the study to come up with the statistic).

    To be specific it is was more towards the wrong itself. I believe you made a statement along the lines of all cases of stealing are equally wrong, regardless of what was stolen or the reasons behind the stealing. I may or may not be remembering your statement correctly. Assuming I am though, that is where my surprise comes from. The fact that you're treating the same thing differently.

    Black people being shot unarmed. Well you have to get into specifics. Did they have a gun and threatened the police and then proceeded to drop the gun and become unarmed? Did they do something, such as reach inside their pocket, that might give an officer cause to think they may be armed? Did they assault an officer with or without a weapon?

    Black people being profiled. Well profiling shouldn't happen. But when 13% or so of the population is the cause for over 50% of the crimes... I mean if you're going to look for something (Which is what police officers on patrol do) you look towards where something is more likely to be.

    Black people who call 911 and then get shot. How often does that actually happen? Seriously. I'm pretty certain the rate at which that happens is statistically insignificant to how often black people call 911.

    Don't you think it would be easier to see that racism in law enforcement is there because of racist people and not because of a racist system?

    I'm tempted to type out the knee-jerk "No they don't" reply, but that would be easily misunderstood. So to explain, the idea that every white person has a pull in society that a minority does not is incorrect. The majority of white people don't have any greater pull in society than a person of the minority does. You know the people who do have pull in society? The people with the wealth. So there are people who are part of the minority who have greater pull in society compared to a random white person because they are wealthier than the white person.

    No. You do not have to take away from one and give to another in order to be equal. You do not need to lower one group in order to raise another group. It is much better to instead raise the lower group to the higher group.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2016
    Kitty likes this.
  13. mensa

    mensa New Member

    i also think that because of the predisposition minorities have to whites in the media that we grow up liking them and their features more than we would otherwise. the TV dictates what is trendy or whats official what is the standard and when i was a kid, i ONLY like white girls. it wasnt until i grew up i like other girls....well i did like other girls when i saw them but because of the plethora of pretty white girls on TV its easy to begin to think they are the most beautiful. it wasnt until i grew up that i changed my opinion on this. now my favorite girls are definitely indian or Mexican OMG
     

Share This Page