I don't understand racism or homophobia

[Tosno]

I don't even understand the point you're now trying to make. Because I didn't/forgot to captalise the W in white. I'm not even sure I should have been captalising any of it.

But the post you originally quoted wasn't singling out any race so I just don't understand how you came to your conclusion

You're twisting my words. Both of the examples I said can be used to show a black/brown/yellow/green person being racist. Your hang up seems to be the world colour.

I'll assume for the sake of argument that you are not using classic sophistical techniques. "People of colour" is a distinction from white people. (Hey don't just take my words for it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_color) When he is saying they (the racists) live in an area with little to no people of colour, he means white people.

 

[Chojin]

But our physical state is not fully determined by our genetics. Circumstance determines what mood we are in more so than anything else. If you put people in circumstances which generally have them producing chemicals which make them angry and violent, you wouldn't say they are born angry or violent or that those people are angry due to genes. If it was really that simple, scientists would have categorised races by personality, as that has been studied in great depth for years far before this push for political correctness.

It's still our physical state, how we perceive the world through our senses, that determines our life decisions. Genetics predispose people to certain things. Same goes for dog breeds, when someone says their pitbull wouldn't hurt a fly but the breed was originally created for blood sports. We can't properly measure neurotransmitters in the brain to say how people react differently, and it's not possible to quantify vague descriptions like personality and anger.

 

[Junglist]

I'll assume for the sake of argument that you are not using classic sophistical techniques. "People of colour" is a distinction from white people. (Hey don't just take my words for it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_color) When he is saying they live in an area with little to no people of colour, he means white people.

For you perhaps. But I don't, neither do I know of any of my family, who identify ourselves as coloured. We say we are black (as far as colour goes). I'll go as far to say that we actually see white people as coloured.

Regardless, I've taken what he says as it can be used for any race. But if you want to keep believing only white people can be racists then more power to you.

 

[Tosno]

For you perhaps. But I don't, neither do I know of any of my family, who identify ourselves as coloured. We say we are black (as far as colour goes). I'll go as far to say that we actually see white people as coloured.

Regardless, I've taken what he says as it can be used for any race. But if you want to keep believing only white people can be racists then more power to you.

So my assumption is wrong, you are using classic sophistical techniques. Trying to trip me up by catching me in a contradiction by means of equivocation, using the same term to mean radically different things, and then trying to force me to accept the changed definition. Well I do not accept your redefinition. I defined the real terms. I will repeat as necessary and call you out when you try to substitute to your definition.

 

[Junglist]

You're giving me far too much credit. But thank you.

Firstly, your 'real term' is an American term. So unless we are talking American English that link wasn't worth it.

Secondly, I'm not trying to force you to do anything or even trying to redefine something. I'm telling you that I not my family identify as being coloured. I was just pointing out, that like the famous poem does, you can argue that white people are far more coloured than other races.

And lastly, just because the term was once used definitions can change and some people would get offended by the word coloured. People don't like it as it suggests that white is the only normal skin tone and everyone else has been coloured in.

may as well agree to disagree as it's obvious we won't see eye to eye on this one. You see it as the OP saying only whites can be racists whereas I don't. No biggie.

Basically people of all races/genders/ages can be dicks. I just hope I never become one of the people to condemn entire races/religions because of statistics

 

[drs101]

I lived in Asia for about 10 years on and off and experienced plenty of racism as a white person, anyone of any colour can be a racist,

I would say its based on a number of things, politics, ignorance and low self worth / fear or envy.

In Asia a lot of it was political manipulation of largely under-educated people to foster some kind of nationalism and then exploit that.

 

[Six6siX]

In Asia a lot of it was political manipulation of largely under-educated people to foster some kind of nationalism and then exploit that.

That's probably the root cause for the vast majority of true racism - not just in Asia.

 

[Junglist]

I lived in Asia for about 10 years on and off and experienced plenty of racism as a white person, anyone of any colour can be a racist,

I would say its based on a number of things, politics, ignorance and low self worth / fear or envy.

In Asia a lot of it was political manipulation of largely under-educated people to foster some kind of nationalism and then exploit that.

My partner is currently working in Malaysia and said there is quite a division over there between Malaysian nationals of Indian or Chinese decent. Apparently it's really bad but in subtle ways.

 

[Drizmod]

Couldn't the roots for both of these be evolutionary?

 

[manic_man]

Coming from the slightly unique perspective of someone who inherently works with people of all races and religions (an academic) but lives in the North-West of England where racism (and homophobia, though I think this is more general to all parts of the country really) is rife and normal in many smaller towns and cities, I think about this quite a bit.

I have come to the conclusion that the issue is far too complex to put into a single sentence. Some people, typically younger, say/do racist/homophobic things to appear as the "big I am" but then that begs the question, why are doing these things seen as big and clever? The reason I think is similar to why some people bully others in the playground.

Other people (typically older) have more deep-seated issues, some have been brought up on the idea and no matter how hard they try and convince themselves modern society is right, there is always that doubt that what their parents and grand-parents did and said was still right.

There are also people who find themselves incensed towards the ideas as they live in parts of the country where what they knew slowly becomes something else. Where I live is a great example of this with large areas becoming home for new cultures and the old people finding themselves displaced away from those areas because they don't fit. I tend to find these people have the most reasoned arguments to hand but ultimately they still lay blame on skin colour as it's an easy marker when in fact things are more deep rooted and come more from culture differences and a desire to hang onto what they have grown up with and what feels normal.

Then there are people who are just thugs and use it as an excuse, typical EDL types etc.

What I find equally as annoying are those on the other side who refuse to believe the issue has any shades of grey and that people are either racist or not and if they are then they are automatically a terrible person. This attitude is completely nonconstructive and just leads to greater gulfs in society between those that have and those that have less and feel what they do have is being taken away.

I don't know what the answer is mind you!

 

[drs101]

My partner is currently working in Malaysia and said there is quite a division over there between Malaysian nationals of Indian or Chinese decent. Apparently it's really bad but in subtle ways.

I found Malaysia to be ok, Thailand was the worst and then India,

but then at the time I could speak and read a little thai so understood what was being said about me and some of the political billboards.

 

[Tosno]

You're giving me far too much credit. But thank you.

Firstly, your 'real term' is an American term. So unless we are talking American English that link wasn't worth it.

Secondly, I'm not trying to force you to do anything or even trying to redefine something. I'm telling you that I not my family identify as being coloured. I was just pointing out, that like the famous poem does, you can argue that white people are far more coloured than other races.

And lastly, just because the term was once used definitions can change and some people would get offended by the word coloured. People don't like it as it suggests that white is the only normal skin tone and everyone else has been coloured in.

may as well agree to disagree as it's obvious we won't see eye to eye on this one. You see it as the OP saying only whites can be racists whereas I don't. No biggie.

Basically people of all races/genders/ages can be dicks. I just hope I never become one of the people to condemn entire races/religions because of statistics

Really I am not...

Firstly, diamount, brought the term "people of colour" to the table, if he is talking American English or not is neither here or there. You tried to redefine his term and I defined it.

Secondly, you are arguing against me that diamount is not suggesting that only white people are racist, ergo using classic sophistical techniques forcing your redefinition to make it appear that diamount is not suggesting that only white people are racist.

And lastly, You can "define" a dog as a sparrow but it will still be a dog. If you have enough power you can force people with your sophistical techniques to call dogs sparrows, but they will still be dogs, sadly you are too low energy to redefine what person of colour means.

 

[datalol-jack]

So my assumption is wrong, you are using classic sophistical techniques. Trying to trip me up by catching me in a contradiction by means of equivocation, using the same term to mean radically different things, and then trying to force me to accept the changed definition. Well I do not accept your redefinition. I defined the real terms. I will repeat as necessary and call you out when you try to substitute to your definition.

No, you took offence at diamont's original summary of the kind of racism predominant in countries with a history of colonialism and slavery, then tried to stitch together an argument from JunglistE's lack of capitalisation -- very beta; this does not magically infer an anti-white sentiment.

The kind of dynamic discussed in this thread can easily be different if the majority and the historical context is altered, as pointed out above, and, naturally, the terminology will differ. The terms in Asia can be quite colourful indeed, if you pardon the pun.

 

[ebilcake]

It's human nature, easy to understand.

 

[IvanDobskey]

Plenty of morons out there.

That is all.

 

[linktoinsanity]

I literally don't understand how or why people are racist or homophobic. It just doesn't make sense to me and it sickens me to think some people are.

Can somebody please enlighten me?

Mostly it's due to stereotyping or fear.

However the other side are those people who call out racism or various other types of prejudice to suit their agenda, which I believe is becoming more of a problem.

 

[tom_e]

However the other side are those people who call out racism or various other types of prejudice to suit their agenda, which I believe is becoming more of a problem.

This is a massive problem these days, it's a go to get out clause.

 

[datalol-jack]

This is a massive problem these days, it's a go to get out clause.

No more so than calling out 'SJWs', or asserting conspiracy, to shut down discussions of social injustice and regression, and avoid addressing their arguments.

Welcome to the effects of social polarisation and political forces that benefit from it, with us since the dawn of organised society!

 

[Chris.]

People are racist or homophobic because they are more likely to behave differently. Gay people are more prone to putting on funny voices and being drama queens and black people more prone to violence as examples.

People aren't racist just because, but from provable differences in culture and values. Black men more likely to abandon children, gay people more likely to flaunt their values for negative effect to wind people up.

How you can't see some people would hold this against them (even though they're not all guilty of this) is a little dumb to be honest.

I cant quite get my head around this comment.

You are talking as if you are calling out racism or homophobia but then have become a prime example of it yourself.

And OP no I Don't understand racism, and I don't understand Homophobia. I wasn't brought up with it. I have never seen either a homosexual, or someone of a different race as any different than me other than the obvious sexual preferences.

Its stupid. And talking about it makes it worse. The best thing to stop prejudice is to stop talking about it and start judging people on their personal merits.

 

[ScoTTyBEEE]

What I find equally as annoying are those on the other side who refuse to believe the issue has any shades of grey and that people are either racist or not and if they are then they are automatically a terrible person. This attitude is completely nonconstructive and just leads to greater gulfs in society between those that have and those that have less and feel what they do have is being taken away.

I can tell you're an academic. That's actually a rather sensible comment.