Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Students barred from anti-racism meeting for being insufficiently racialized

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Students barred from anti-racism meeting for being insufficiently racialized

    Here's a term I've never heard before.

    Does anyone know what it means to be "racialized"? Because it sure sounds like the students were forbidden from entering purely based on the color of their skin.
    I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

  • #2
    My heart bleeds for these powerful majorities being so persecuted yet again. If only the oppressed minorities knew what it was to suffer true oppression and persecution like well-off white Christian heterosexual male Americans do.

    The oppressed minorities should stop with their whinging and just get over it. The true victims of racism and persecution and oppression are the white men, and we need them to tell us loudly about the interminable suffering they have endured their whole lives.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      whinging
      Projection. It's the 'oppressed' minorities that whine, along with their liberal supporters.

      Zymologist isn't whining, only pointing out the massive inconsistencies in the liberal programme. As can be expected, response is screaming as loudly as possible to distract from the points raised.

      Comment


      • #4
        Someone explain this to me because I am confused. Is it okay to discriminate based on race or not? I wish those of the left-wing persuasion would be a little consistent with this. Take a position and stick with it. Or am I asking too much?
        "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Paprika View Post
          Zymologist isn't whining, only pointing out the massive inconsistencies in the liberal programme.
          Originally posted by Jesse View Post
          Is it okay to discriminate based on race or not? I wish those of the left-wing persuasion would be a little consistent with this. Take a position and stick with it. Or am I asking too much?
          You both seem to be making the common mistake of putting a diverse group of people into a single category and giving them a single label and then demanding that the diverse group of people have a united and coherent position and view on any issue you choose to name.

          Tempting as it is to think generally in terms of "us" vs "them", the "them" is almost always actually lots of different "thems" and they need not all be alike or agree on everything. There is no united "liberal programme" or a single "position" held by "those of the left-wing persuasion". So yes, you are absolutely "asking too much" to demand that a diverse group of people be in complete agreement with one another about everything.

          If I was to say that "conservatives" were "totally inconsistent" because libertarians didn't agree with other conservatives over marijuana legalization, you guys would rightly call me out on it.

          Some people who call themselves liberals think restorative justice is particularly important and would favor giving special treatment to historically oppressed groups for the purposes of helping fully undo the lingering historical effects of oppression. Other people who call themselves liberals think it's important to treat everyone equally and always include everyone, and thus would be annoyed by the events described in the article.

          Speaking for myself, I think restorative justice is important and have no issue with special treatment being given to historically oppressed groups. But I don't see any obvious reason why that should necessitate the exclusion of genuinely curious, interested, and sympathetic people from the particular club. Although I would note, the guy was a reporter, and clearly sufficiently non-sympathetic to write an article slamming them for kicking him out (someone in the club may well have known he was an unsympathetic audience and believed his purpose in being there was to do a negative story on them), and their main motivation for kicking him out may well have been that they didn't want any potentially-less-than-sympathetic reporter printing a story about any less-than-carefully-worded statements their members happened to make about racial issues during the course of discussing their grievances with each other, or had reason to believe that his presence would inhibit free and honest discussion of the issues.

          Overall I think this particular instance is such a tiny and insignificant slight that it really just doesn't matter: What matters is when there is regular and systemic persecution and when it is serious in nature. The tiny tiny slight that this guy received is in no way comparable to the continued discrimination that various minorities continue to suffer, and I think conservatives look stupid when they try and falsely pretend there is some sort of equivalency between the two.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Starlight View Post
            You both seem to be making the common mistake of putting a diverse group of people into a single category and giving them a single label and then demanding that the diverse group of people have a united and coherent position and view on any issue you choose to name.
            Not at all. While noting a specific instance that certain liberals are hypocritical by being 'rayciss' despite their condemnation of 'racism', we keep in mind the reality that it is really common amongst liberals.

            Some people who call themselves liberals think restorative justice is particularly important and would favor giving special treatment to historically oppressed groups for the purposes of helping fully undo the lingering historical effects of oppression...

            Speaking for myself, I think restorative justice is important and have no issue with special treatment being given to historically oppressed groups.
            How racist.

            Overall I think this particular instance is such a tiny and insignificant slight that it really just doesn't matter: What matters is when there is regular and systemic persecution and when it is serious in nature.
            No, you won't get away with trying to tell us what type of racism really matters, but nice try.

            Comment


            • #7
              I think you are using the word 'racist' very differently to how I would use it.

              On any moral issue, my primary concern is the difference between helping people and harming people. Because that is what I consider morality to be about: Treating others well.

              Deliberately harming people is morally wrong, and doing so on the basis of race is what I consider 'racism' (in any negative sense of that word) to be about.

              Helping people who have been historically oppressed is morally right. If historically it was a certain race of people who were victimized, then obviously in helping the victims you will be helping a certain race of people. That's not 'racism' (or at least, not in any negative sense of that word) because 'racism' is a subcategory of behavior that is harmful rather than helpful.

              While you are, of course, free to use words in whatever ways you personally feel like, and can use the word 'racism' to mean 'any kind of racial distinction whatsoever for any purpose' if that's what floats your boat, I don't feel it's a useful way of looking at it.

              No, you won't get away with trying to tell us what type of racism really matters, but nice try.
              Do you also feel that 1 and 1 trillion are numbers of the same size? Perhaps this guy not getting to join a group he wasn't eligible for is just as serious as slavery? Maybe Jesus not being depicted as white is just as serious as gay people not being allowed to marry? It must be strange living in your imaginary world where all slights and injustices real and perceived matter equally as much as each other and nobody is able to judge the difference between the serious and the frivolous.
              Last edited by Starlight; 03-17-2015, 07:48 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Starlight View Post

                While you are, of course, free to use words in whatever ways you personally feel like, and can use the word 'racism' to mean 'any kind of racial distinction whatsoever fora any purpose' if that's what floats your boat, I don't feel it's a useful way of looking at it.
                This just won't do. It's simply just not convincing to first admit that many liberals 'think it's important to treat everyone equally and always include everyone, and thus would be annoyed by the events described in the article', then trying to imply that my usage of 'racism' - in line with said view - is arbitrary.

                Try again.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                  It's simply just not convincing to first admit that many liberals 'think it's important to treat everyone equally and always include everyone, and thus would be annoyed by the events described in the article', then trying to imply that my usage of 'racism' - in line with said view - is arbitrary.
                  Er, so some people who I don't agree with, might use the word 'racism' the same as you... so what?

                  I have a feminist friend who pulls the same trick with the word 'sexist' and that equally grates on my nerves.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                    Er, so some people who I don't agree with, might use the word 'racism' the same as you... so what?
                    See below.

                    It's simply just not convincing to first admit that many liberals 'think it's important to treat everyone equally and always include everyone, and thus would be annoyed by the events described in the article', then trying to imply that my usage of 'racism' - in line with said view - is arbitrary.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      As always, it's not really discrimination if a liberal approves of it.

                      The fact that these students were barred is silly. The fact that there was an "anti-racism meeting" at all is also pretty silly.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                        You both seem to be making the common mistake of putting a diverse group of people into a single category and giving them a single label and then demanding that the diverse group of people have a united and coherent position and view on any issue you choose to name.

                        Tempting as it is to think generally in terms of "us" vs "them", the "them" is almost always actually lots of different "thems" and they need not all be alike or agree on everything. There is no united "liberal programme" or a single "position" held by "those of the left-wing persuasion". So yes, you are absolutely "asking too much" to demand that a diverse group of people be in complete agreement with one another about everything.

                        If I was to say that "conservatives" were "totally inconsistent" because libertarians didn't agree with other conservatives over marijuana legalization, you guys would rightly call me out on it.

                        Some people who call themselves liberals think restorative justice is particularly important and would favor giving special treatment to historically oppressed groups for the purposes of helping fully undo the lingering historical effects of oppression. Other people who call themselves liberals think it's important to treat everyone equally and always include everyone, and thus would be annoyed by the events described in the article.

                        Speaking for myself, I think restorative justice is important and have no issue with special treatment being given to historically oppressed groups. But I don't see any obvious reason why that should necessitate the exclusion of genuinely curious, interested, and sympathetic people from the particular club. Although I would note, the guy was a reporter, and clearly sufficiently non-sympathetic to write an article slamming them for kicking him out (someone in the club may well have known he was an unsympathetic audience and believed his purpose in being there was to do a negative story on them), and their main motivation for kicking him out may well have been that they didn't want any potentially-less-than-sympathetic reporter printing a story about any less-than-carefully-worded statements their members happened to make about racial issues during the course of discussing their grievances with each other, or had reason to believe that his presence would inhibit free and honest discussion of the issues.

                        Overall I think this particular instance is such a tiny and insignificant slight that it really just doesn't matter: What matters is when there is regular and systemic persecution and when it is serious in nature. The tiny tiny slight that this guy received is in no way comparable to the continued discrimination that various minorities continue to suffer, and I think conservatives look stupid when they try and falsely pretend there is some sort of equivalency between the two.
                        You took the long way just to say that you believe it is okay to discriminate based on race so long as you get to pick and choose. You said pretty much what any racist would say. Thanks for proving the point.
                        "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                          I

                          Helping people who have been historically oppressed is morally right.
                          So, how far back is "too far" for a historical oppression to count? Because literally EVERY people group has been oppressed by another in the past.
                          That's what
                          - She

                          Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                          - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                          I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                          Stephen R. Donaldson

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            This college also banned a pro-life group from forming.

                            http://www.ryersonian.ca/ryerson-stu...pro-life-club/

                            Actually, my state is pursuing legislation right now so that college groups can discriminate against people. The rationale being so that religious groups don't have to allow people in who don't believe the same thing. Is religion a different issue than race because it's freely chosen? Possibly so.
                            "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                              You both seem to be making the common mistake of putting a diverse group of people into a single category and giving them a single label and then demanding that the diverse group of people have a united and coherent position and view on any issue you choose to name.
                              You mean like lumping all Caucasians into a group called "White" and claiming they are all the same, "privileged" and banning them from meeting with others because they have not been "racialized?"

                              Yeah, I thought so.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 08:17 AM
                              2 responses
                              46 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by LiconaFan97, 10-23-2020, 04:56 PM
                              29 responses
                              188 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Starlight  
                              Started by Juvenal, 10-23-2020, 11:08 AM
                              10 responses
                              101 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Juvenal
                              by Juvenal
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 10-23-2020, 08:52 AM
                              6 responses
                              64 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Ronson, 10-22-2020, 10:59 PM
                              68 responses
                              543 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Starlight  
                              Working...
                              X