Real talk... if there are coons, biracial 'black' women are the worst

[A Talented One]

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

There are competing views and alternative definitions to the ones presented by charles

There are always "competing views" that doesn't mean it's correct.

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

Bruh, I am actually quite knowledgeable on the subject. The idea that blacks can't be racist is compellingly rejected in this book (chapter 2).

So? You can reject whatever you like but that doesn't make untrue.

Those are two way streets.

Not really. There is a roundly excepted definition then there is "I think the definition should be", you can think what you want when it becomes generally excepted then holla at me.

Appeal to majority.

Keep in mind that the 3/5ths ideology was once generally accepted

Colloquial usage of the term is one thing but criticism of the sociological definition because you don't like it is another.

3/5th rule was put in place for the purposes of limiting the power of slave states in the House of Representatives, not because it was believed to be true.

Something isn't true just because it is generally accepted. Word to geocentricity.

Prove the sociological definition of racism is untrue.

If prejudice + power = racism then you do not need to have power through the primary institutions of a society to be racist as there are many forms of power.

Case in point Oprah has far more money than a homeless White man and money is a form of power.

In what way would oprah express said prejudice and power?

If it is racist when a White employer hires a White employee over a Black one because he is White how would it be any less racist if a Black employer hired a Black employee over a White one because he is Black?

The latter example is rarer but not impossible as implied by some

So...what does this have to do with your oprah analogy? It's far from proving the sociological definition of racism wrong as well.

I thought it was obvious

Oprah owns a TV network, magazine and production company. Since she has capacity act as those in that example do then she cannot be incapable of racism.

I like how you threw the burden of proof on me though. Well played.

Definitions are subjective so disproving one would be impossible. If you call a tiger a koala how can I prove that the tiger is not a Koala? It wouldn't be possible.

But I thought the sociological definition was wrong?

You went on a tangent to disprove it and ended up proving it correct. Smh you type just to type apparently.

And as far as your koala/tiger analogy is concerned you can call a koala whatever you like, that's YOUR business but that has nothing to do with the field of Zoology which has already defined each animal.

Same issue here, you don't like the sociological definition of racism? Fine but don't engage in sociological discussion because the arguments are framed on what words mean within that field not "I'm going to make my own definitions up because I can".

Whatever college you go to that allows you to make up definitions must be lousy as fuck. You probably get to make your own tests as grade them yourself too.

There is no commonly accepted definition of racism in Sociology, as far as I know. And even if there is one, and it something like what Dyson said, what would that prove? That sociologists have embraced a faulty definition of racism. Sociologists have no special expertise to tell us what racism is.

Individuals can be racists, and they if they lack power that doesn't make them any less racist. So blacks can be racists too.

 

[jono]

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

There are competing views and alternative definitions to the ones presented by charles

There are always "competing views" that doesn't mean it's correct.

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

Bruh, I am actually quite knowledgeable on the subject. The idea that blacks can't be racist is compellingly rejected in this book (chapter 2).

So? You can reject whatever you like but that doesn't make untrue.

Those are two way streets.

Not really. There is a roundly excepted definition then there is "I think the definition should be", you can think what you want when it becomes generally excepted then holla at me.

Appeal to majority.

Keep in mind that the 3/5ths ideology was once generally accepted

Colloquial usage of the term is one thing but criticism of the sociological definition because you don't like it is another.

3/5th rule was put in place for the purposes of limiting the power of slave states in the House of Representatives, not because it was believed to be true.

Something isn't true just because it is generally accepted. Word to geocentricity.

Prove the sociological definition of racism is untrue.

If prejudice + power = racism then you do not need to have power through the primary institutions of a society to be racist as there are many forms of power.

Case in point Oprah has far more money than a homeless White man and money is a form of power.

In what way would oprah express said prejudice and power?

If it is racist when a White employer hires a White employee over a Black one because he is White how would it be any less racist if a Black employer hired a Black employee over a White one because he is Black?

The latter example is rarer but not impossible as implied by some

So...what does this have to do with your oprah analogy? It's far from proving the sociological definition of racism wrong as well.

I thought it was obvious

Oprah owns a TV network, magazine and production company. Since she has capacity act as those in that example do then she cannot be incapable of racism.

I like how you threw the burden of proof on me though. Well played.

Definitions are subjective so disproving one would be impossible. If you call a tiger a koala how can I prove that the tiger is not a Koala? It wouldn't be possible.

But I thought the sociological definition was wrong?

You went on a tangent to disprove it and ended up proving it correct. Smh you type just to type apparently.

And as far as your koala/tiger analogy is concerned you can call a koala whatever you like, that's YOUR business but that has nothing to do with the field of Zoology which has already defined each animal.

Same issue here, you don't like the sociological definition of racism? Fine but don't engage in sociological discussion because the arguments are framed on what words mean within that field not "I'm going to make my own definitions up because I can".

Whatever college you go to that allows you to make up definitions must be lousy as fuck. You probably get to make your own tests as grade them yourself too.

There is no commonly accepted definition of racism in Sociology, as far as I know. And even if there is one, and it something like what Dyson said, what would that prove? That sociologists have embraced a faulty definition of racism. Sociologists have no special expertise to tell us what racism is.

Individuals can be racists, and they if they lack power that doesn't make them any less racist. So blacks can be racists too.

Faulty based on what? Your opinion or do you have a study?

If it's your opinion then just hang it up, If you have a study I'd love to see it.

Second bolded: didnt say they couldn't be.

 

[A Talented One]

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

There are competing views and alternative definitions to the ones presented by charles

There are always "competing views" that doesn't mean it's correct.

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

Bruh, I am actually quite knowledgeable on the subject. The idea that blacks can't be racist is compellingly rejected in this book (chapter 2).

So? You can reject whatever you like but that doesn't make untrue.

Those are two way streets.

Not really. There is a roundly excepted definition then there is "I think the definition should be", you can think what you want when it becomes generally excepted then holla at me.

Appeal to majority.

Keep in mind that the 3/5ths ideology was once generally accepted

Colloquial usage of the term is one thing but criticism of the sociological definition because you don't like it is another.

3/5th rule was put in place for the purposes of limiting the power of slave states in the House of Representatives, not because it was believed to be true.

Something isn't true just because it is generally accepted. Word to geocentricity.

Prove the sociological definition of racism is untrue.

If prejudice + power = racism then you do not need to have power through the primary institutions of a society to be racist as there are many forms of power.

Case in point Oprah has far more money than a homeless White man and money is a form of power.

In what way would oprah express said prejudice and power?

If it is racist when a White employer hires a White employee over a Black one because he is White how would it be any less racist if a Black employer hired a Black employee over a White one because he is Black?

The latter example is rarer but not impossible as implied by some

So...what does this have to do with your oprah analogy? It's far from proving the sociological definition of racism wrong as well.

I thought it was obvious

Oprah owns a TV network, magazine and production company. Since she has capacity act as those in that example do then she cannot be incapable of racism.

I like how you threw the burden of proof on me though. Well played.

Definitions are subjective so disproving one would be impossible. If you call a tiger a koala how can I prove that the tiger is not a Koala? It wouldn't be possible.

But I thought the sociological definition was wrong?

You went on a tangent to disprove it and ended up proving it correct. Smh you type just to type apparently.

And as far as your koala/tiger analogy is concerned you can call a koala whatever you like, that's YOUR business but that has nothing to do with the field of Zoology which has already defined each animal.

Same issue here, you don't like the sociological definition of racism? Fine but don't engage in sociological discussion because the arguments are framed on what words mean within that field not "I'm going to make my own definitions up because I can".

Whatever college you go to that allows you to make up definitions must be lousy as fuck. You probably get to make your own tests as grade them yourself too.

There is no commonly accepted definition of racism in Sociology, as far as I know. And even if there is one, and it something like what Dyson said, what would that prove? That sociologists have embraced a faulty definition of racism. Sociologists have no special expertise to tell us what racism is.

Individuals can be racists, and they if they lack power that doesn't make them any less racist. So blacks can be racists too.

Faulty based on what? Your opinion or do you have a study?

If it's your opinion then just hang it up, If you have a study I'd love to see it.

Second bolded: didnt say they couldn't be.

Faulty based on sound reasoning.

If a white man who hates blacks goes to live in Nigeria, where blacks have the power, would he count as non-racist because his group is relatively powerless there? No.

Again, suppose that there is a white kid in an otherwise all-black school. Let's say that he hates blacks. He is relatively powerless in that context, and yet he still seems to be racist.

Racism doesn't require power. Just a little reflection is enough to show that.

 

[jono]

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

There are competing views and alternative definitions to the ones presented by charles

There are always "competing views" that doesn't mean it's correct.

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

Bruh, I am actually quite knowledgeable on the subject. The idea that blacks can't be racist is compellingly rejected in this book (chapter 2).

So? You can reject whatever you like but that doesn't make untrue.

Those are two way streets.

Not really. There is a roundly excepted definition then there is "I think the definition should be", you can think what you want when it becomes generally excepted then holla at me.

Appeal to majority.

Keep in mind that the 3/5ths ideology was once generally accepted

Colloquial usage of the term is one thing but criticism of the sociological definition because you don't like it is another.

3/5th rule was put in place for the purposes of limiting the power of slave states in the House of Representatives, not because it was believed to be true.

Something isn't true just because it is generally accepted. Word to geocentricity.

Prove the sociological definition of racism is untrue.

If prejudice + power = racism then you do not need to have power through the primary institutions of a society to be racist as there are many forms of power.

Case in point Oprah has far more money than a homeless White man and money is a form of power.

In what way would oprah express said prejudice and power?

If it is racist when a White employer hires a White employee over a Black one because he is White how would it be any less racist if a Black employer hired a Black employee over a White one because he is Black?

The latter example is rarer but not impossible as implied by some

So...what does this have to do with your oprah analogy? It's far from proving the sociological definition of racism wrong as well.

I thought it was obvious

Oprah owns a TV network, magazine and production company. Since she has capacity act as those in that example do then she cannot be incapable of racism.

I like how you threw the burden of proof on me though. Well played.

Definitions are subjective so disproving one would be impossible. If you call a tiger a koala how can I prove that the tiger is not a Koala? It wouldn't be possible.

But I thought the sociological definition was wrong?

You went on a tangent to disprove it and ended up proving it correct. Smh you type just to type apparently.

And as far as your koala/tiger analogy is concerned you can call a koala whatever you like, that's YOUR business but that has nothing to do with the field of Zoology which has already defined each animal.

Same issue here, you don't like the sociological definition of racism? Fine but don't engage in sociological discussion because the arguments are framed on what words mean within that field not "I'm going to make my own definitions up because I can".

Whatever college you go to that allows you to make up definitions must be lousy as fuck. You probably get to make your own tests as grade them yourself too.

There is no commonly accepted definition of racism in Sociology, as far as I know. And even if there is one, and it something like what Dyson said, what would that prove? That sociologists have embraced a faulty definition of racism. Sociologists have no special expertise to tell us what racism is.

Individuals can be racists, and they if they lack power that doesn't make them any less racist. So blacks can be racists too.

Faulty based on what? Your opinion or do you have a study?

If it's your opinion then just hang it up, If you have a study I'd love to see it.

Second bolded: didnt say they couldn't be.

Faulty based on sound reasoning.

If a white man who hates blacks goes to live in Nigeria, where blacks have the power, would he count as non-racist because his group is relatively powerless there? No.

Again, suppose that there is a white kid in an otherwise all-black school. Let's say that he hates blacks. He is relatively powerless in that context, and yet he still seems to be racist.

Racism doesn't require power. Just a little reflection is enough to show that.

Who's reasoning? These are opinions I'm reading here. Not anything scholarly and nobody is racist in either case you mentioned.

 

[LUClEN]

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

There are competing views and alternative definitions to the ones presented by charles

There are always "competing views" that doesn't mean it's correct.

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

Bruh, I am actually quite knowledgeable on the subject. The idea that blacks can't be racist is compellingly rejected in this book (chapter 2).

So? You can reject whatever you like but that doesn't make untrue.

Those are two way streets.

Not really. There is a roundly excepted definition then there is "I think the definition should be", you can think what you want when it becomes generally excepted then holla at me.

Appeal to majority.

Keep in mind that the 3/5ths ideology was once generally accepted

Colloquial usage of the term is one thing but criticism of the sociological definition because you don't like it is another.

3/5th rule was put in place for the purposes of limiting the power of slave states in the House of Representatives, not because it was believed to be true.

Something isn't true just because it is generally accepted. Word to geocentricity.

Prove the sociological definition of racism is untrue.

If prejudice + power = racism then you do not need to have power through the primary institutions of a society to be racist as there are many forms of power.

Case in point Oprah has far more money than a homeless White man and money is a form of power.

In what way would oprah express said prejudice and power?

If it is racist when a White employer hires a White employee over a Black one because he is White how would it be any less racist if a Black employer hired a Black employee over a White one because he is Black?

The latter example is rarer but not impossible as implied by some

So...what does this have to do with your oprah analogy? It's far from proving the sociological definition of racism wrong as well.

I thought it was obvious

Oprah owns a TV network, magazine and production company. Since she has capacity act as those in that example do then she cannot be incapable of racism.

I like how you threw the burden of proof on me though. Well played.

Definitions are subjective so disproving one would be impossible. If you call a tiger a koala how can I prove that the tiger is not a Koala? It wouldn't be possible.

But I thought the sociological definition was wrong?

You went on a tangent to disprove it and ended up proving it correct. Smh you type just to type apparently.

And as far as your koala/tiger analogy is concerned you can call a koala whatever you like, that's YOUR business but that has nothing to do with the field of Zoology which has already defined each animal.

Same issue here, you don't like the sociological definition of racism? Fine but don't engage in sociological discussion because the arguments are framed on what words mean within that field not "I'm going to make my own definitions up because I can".

Whatever college you go to that allows you to make up definitions must be lousy as fuck. You probably get to make your own tests as grade them yourself too.

How did it prove it right at all when the definition claims Black Americans can never be racist and the example shows otherwise?

Ideology. Racism is a systematic set of ideas and actions associated with “the idea of the superiority of one racial category or one ethnic group to other racial categories or ethnic groups” (Isajiw, p. 149). That is, racism is not just a haphazard negative view that an individual has or expresses about a minority group – the latter might be considered prejudice, although this may be the basis for racism. But racism is a more systematic set of interconnected ideas that form an overall ideology. For example, members of a particular race may be regarded as inferior based on views that the group is less capable. This may be based on the view that the group has an inferior culture or is destined by biology to be inferior.

What there prevents Black Americans from being racist? If there was one standard definition like in zoology this would be gravy. This is not a real science field, it's a BS arts discipline that seldom tests its hypotheses.

1) I never said that

2) Oprah is not indicative of the black experience in the United States she is an outlier and as such is exempt from a lot of generalized comments b

As far as the second bolded:

Prove it...

I never said you claimed that. Charlie dropped that idea here and that is exactly what I have been saying is ridiculous. Oprah is an easily accessible example but power exists outside of the police and courts. Being capable of forcibly having sex with someone is a form of power, so likewise simply striking someone on the basis of race is racist. How could one argue that Black Americans can not do that or have no ability to do so?

Can't prove something doesn't exist, it's a fallacy

Consider this though:
http://sociology.about.com/od/Socio...jor-Sociological-Studies-And-Publications.htm

That is a list of 17 important soc texts and only one is a study. Soc deals primarily with correlative data and causation is seldom testable.

 

[Darth Sidious]

 

[LUClEN]

Not really. I am a determinist because someone on this forum proved me wrong.

[/img]

 

[jono]

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

There are competing views and alternative definitions to the ones presented by charles

There are always "competing views" that doesn't mean it's correct.

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

Bruh, I am actually quite knowledgeable on the subject. The idea that blacks can't be racist is compellingly rejected in this book (chapter 2).

So? You can reject whatever you like but that doesn't make untrue.

Those are two way streets.

Not really. There is a roundly excepted definition then there is "I think the definition should be", you can think what you want when it becomes generally excepted then holla at me.

Appeal to majority.

Keep in mind that the 3/5ths ideology was once generally accepted

Colloquial usage of the term is one thing but criticism of the sociological definition because you don't like it is another.

3/5th rule was put in place for the purposes of limiting the power of slave states in the House of Representatives, not because it was believed to be true.

Something isn't true just because it is generally accepted. Word to geocentricity.

Prove the sociological definition of racism is untrue.

If prejudice + power = racism then you do not need to have power through the primary institutions of a society to be racist as there are many forms of power.

Case in point Oprah has far more money than a homeless White man and money is a form of power.

In what way would oprah express said prejudice and power?

If it is racist when a White employer hires a White employee over a Black one because he is White how would it be any less racist if a Black employer hired a Black employee over a White one because he is Black?

The latter example is rarer but not impossible as implied by some

So...what does this have to do with your oprah analogy? It's far from proving the sociological definition of racism wrong as well.

I thought it was obvious

Oprah owns a TV network, magazine and production company. Since she has capacity act as those in that example do then she cannot be incapable of racism.

I like how you threw the burden of proof on me though. Well played.

Definitions are subjective so disproving one would be impossible. If you call a tiger a koala how can I prove that the tiger is not a Koala? It wouldn't be possible.

But I thought the sociological definition was wrong?

You went on a tangent to disprove it and ended up proving it correct. Smh you type just to type apparently.

And as far as your koala/tiger analogy is concerned you can call a koala whatever you like, that's YOUR business but that has nothing to do with the field of Zoology which has already defined each animal.

Same issue here, you don't like the sociological definition of racism? Fine but don't engage in sociological discussion because the arguments are framed on what words mean within that field not "I'm going to make my own definitions up because I can".

Whatever college you go to that allows you to make up definitions must be lousy as fuck. You probably get to make your own tests as grade them yourself too.

How did it prove it right at all when the definition claims Black Americans can never be racist and the example shows otherwise?

Ideology. Racism is a systematic set of ideas and actions associated with “the idea of the superiority of one racial category or one ethnic group to other racial categories or ethnic groups” (Isajiw, p. 149). That is, racism is not just a haphazard negative view that an individual has or expresses about a minority group – the latter might be considered prejudice, although this may be the basis for racism. But racism is a more systematic set of interconnected ideas that form an overall ideology. For example, members of a particular race may be regarded as inferior based on views that the group is less capable. This may be based on the view that the group has an inferior culture or is destined by biology to be inferior.

What there prevents Black Americans from being racist? If there was one standard definition like in zoology this would be gravy. This is not a real science field, it's a BS arts discipline that seldom tests its hypotheses.

1) I never said that

2) Oprah is not indicative of the black experience in the United States she is an outlier and as such is exempt from a lot of generalized comments b

As far as the second bolded:

Prove it...

I never said you claimed that. Charlie dropped that idea here and that is exactly what I have been saying is ridiculous. Oprah is an easily accessible example but power exists outside of the police and courts. Being capable of forcibly having sex with someone is a form of power, so likewise simply striking someone on the basis of race is racist. How could one argue that Black Americans can not do that or have no ability to do so?

Can't prove something doesn't exist, it's a fallacy

Consider this though:
http://sociology.about.com/od/Socio...jor-Sociological-Studies-And-Publications.htm

That is a list of 17 important soc texts and only one is a study. Soc deals primarily with correlative data and causation is seldom testable.

17 important soc texts according to who?

 

[Darth Sidious]

Not really. I am a determinist because someone on this forum proved me wrong.

[/img]

I happen to support what you are saying but read the 'poster' again. You don't have to be the internet police, spend the time on something else constructive instead of trying to change the opinions of persons whose minds are already made up.

 

[LUClEN]

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

There are competing views and alternative definitions to the ones presented by charles

There are always "competing views" that doesn't mean it's correct.

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

Bruh, I am actually quite knowledgeable on the subject. The idea that blacks can't be racist is compellingly rejected in this book (chapter 2).

So? You can reject whatever you like but that doesn't make untrue.

Those are two way streets.

Not really. There is a roundly excepted definition then there is "I think the definition should be", you can think what you want when it becomes generally excepted then holla at me.

Appeal to majority.

Keep in mind that the 3/5ths ideology was once generally accepted

Colloquial usage of the term is one thing but criticism of the sociological definition because you don't like it is another.

3/5th rule was put in place for the purposes of limiting the power of slave states in the House of Representatives, not because it was believed to be true.

Something isn't true just because it is generally accepted. Word to geocentricity.

Prove the sociological definition of racism is untrue.

If prejudice + power = racism then you do not need to have power through the primary institutions of a society to be racist as there are many forms of power.

Case in point Oprah has far more money than a homeless White man and money is a form of power.

In what way would oprah express said prejudice and power?

If it is racist when a White employer hires a White employee over a Black one because he is White how would it be any less racist if a Black employer hired a Black employee over a White one because he is Black?

The latter example is rarer but not impossible as implied by some

So...what does this have to do with your oprah analogy? It's far from proving the sociological definition of racism wrong as well.

I thought it was obvious

Oprah owns a TV network, magazine and production company. Since she has capacity act as those in that example do then she cannot be incapable of racism.

I like how you threw the burden of proof on me though. Well played.

Definitions are subjective so disproving one would be impossible. If you call a tiger a koala how can I prove that the tiger is not a Koala? It wouldn't be possible.

But I thought the sociological definition was wrong?

You went on a tangent to disprove it and ended up proving it correct. Smh you type just to type apparently.

And as far as your koala/tiger analogy is concerned you can call a koala whatever you like, that's YOUR business but that has nothing to do with the field of Zoology which has already defined each animal.

Same issue here, you don't like the sociological definition of racism? Fine but don't engage in sociological discussion because the arguments are framed on what words mean within that field not "I'm going to make my own definitions up because I can".

Whatever college you go to that allows you to make up definitions must be lousy as fuck. You probably get to make your own tests as grade them yourself too.

How did it prove it right at all when the definition claims Black Americans can never be racist and the example shows otherwise?

Ideology. Racism is a systematic set of ideas and actions associated with “the idea of the superiority of one racial category or one ethnic group to other racial categories or ethnic groups” (Isajiw, p. 149). That is, racism is not just a haphazard negative view that an individual has or expresses about a minority group – the latter might be considered prejudice, although this may be the basis for racism. But racism is a more systematic set of interconnected ideas that form an overall ideology. For example, members of a particular race may be regarded as inferior based on views that the group is less capable. This may be based on the view that the group has an inferior culture or is destined by biology to be inferior.

What there prevents Black Americans from being racist? If there was one standard definition like in zoology this would be gravy. This is not a real science field, it's a BS arts discipline that seldom tests its hypotheses.

1) I never said that

2) Oprah is not indicative of the black experience in the United States she is an outlier and as such is exempt from a lot of generalized comments b

As far as the second bolded:

Prove it...

I never said you claimed that. Charlie dropped that idea here and that is exactly what I have been saying is ridiculous. Oprah is an easily accessible example but power exists outside of the police and courts. Being capable of forcibly having sex with someone is a form of power, so likewise simply striking someone on the basis of race is racist. How could one argue that Black Americans can not do that or have no ability to do so?

Can't prove something doesn't exist, it's a fallacy

Consider this though:
http://sociology.about.com/od/Socio...jor-Sociological-Studies-And-Publications.htm

That is a list of 17 important soc texts and only one is a study. Soc deals primarily with correlative data and causation is seldom testable.

17 important soc texts according to who?

Sociologist Ashley Crossman

 

[Purr]

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

There are competing views and alternative definitions to the ones presented by charles

There are always "competing views" that doesn't mean it's correct.

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

Bruh, I am actually quite knowledgeable on the subject. The idea that blacks can't be racist is compellingly rejected in this book (chapter 2).

So? You can reject whatever you like but that doesn't make untrue.

Those are two way streets.

Not really. There is a roundly excepted definition then there is "I think the definition should be", you can think what you want when it becomes generally excepted then holla at me.

Appeal to majority.

Keep in mind that the 3/5ths ideology was once generally accepted

Colloquial usage of the term is one thing but criticism of the sociological definition because you don't like it is another.

3/5th rule was put in place for the purposes of limiting the power of slave states in the House of Representatives, not because it was believed to be true.

Something isn't true just because it is generally accepted. Word to geocentricity.

Prove the sociological definition of racism is untrue.

If prejudice + power = racism then you do not need to have power through the primary institutions of a society to be racist as there are many forms of power.

Case in point Oprah has far more money than a homeless White man and money is a form of power.

In what way would oprah express said prejudice and power?

If it is racist when a White employer hires a White employee over a Black one because he is White how would it be any less racist if a Black employer hired a Black employee over a White one because he is Black?

The latter example is rarer but not impossible as implied by some

So...what does this have to do with your oprah analogy? It's far from proving the sociological definition of racism wrong as well.

I thought it was obvious

Oprah owns a TV network, magazine and production company. Since she has capacity act as those in that example do then she cannot be incapable of racism.

I like how you threw the burden of proof on me though. Well played.

Definitions are subjective so disproving one would be impossible. If you call a tiger a koala how can I prove that the tiger is not a Koala? It wouldn't be possible.

But I thought the sociological definition was wrong?

You went on a tangent to disprove it and ended up proving it correct. Smh you type just to type apparently.

And as far as your koala/tiger analogy is concerned you can call a koala whatever you like, that's YOUR business but that has nothing to do with the field of Zoology which has already defined each animal.

Same issue here, you don't like the sociological definition of racism? Fine but don't engage in sociological discussion because the arguments are framed on what words mean within that field not "I'm going to make my own definitions up because I can".

Whatever college you go to that allows you to make up definitions must be lousy as fuck. You probably get to make your own tests as grade them yourself too.

How did it prove it right at all when the definition claims Black Americans can never be racist and the example shows otherwise?

Ideology. Racism is a systematic set of ideas and actions associated with “the idea of the superiority of one racial category or one ethnic group to other racial categories or ethnic groups” (Isajiw, p. 149). That is, racism is not just a haphazard negative view that an individual has or expresses about a minority group – the latter might be considered prejudice, although this may be the basis for racism. But racism is a more systematic set of interconnected ideas that form an overall ideology. For example, members of a particular race may be regarded as inferior based on views that the group is less capable. This may be based on the view that the group has an inferior culture or is destined by biology to be inferior.

What there prevents Black Americans from being racist? If there was one standard definition like in zoology this would be gravy. This is not a real science field, it's a BS arts discipline that seldom tests its hypotheses.

1) I never said that

2) Oprah is not indicative of the black experience in the United States she is an outlier and as such is exempt from a lot of generalized comments b

As far as the second bolded:

Prove it...

I never said you claimed that. Charlie dropped that idea here and that is exactly what I have been saying is ridiculous. Oprah is an easily accessible example but power exists outside of the police and courts. Being capable of forcibly having sex with someone is a form of power, so likewise simply striking someone on the basis of race is racist. How could one argue that Black Americans can not do that or have no ability to do so?

Can't prove something doesn't exist, it's a fallacy

Consider this though:
http://sociology.about.com/od/Socio...jor-Sociological-Studies-And-Publications.htm

That is a list of 17 important soc texts and only one is a study. Soc deals primarily with correlative data and

causation is seldom testable.

Youre an idiot.

Oprah is an outlier dumbass; however, she has faced racial discrimination even as a black woman of power.

 

[jono]

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

There are competing views and alternative definitions to the ones presented by charles

There are always "competing views" that doesn't mean it's correct.

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

Bruh, I am actually quite knowledgeable on the subject. The idea that blacks can't be racist is compellingly rejected in this book (chapter 2).

So? You can reject whatever you like but that doesn't make untrue.

Those are two way streets.

Not really. There is a roundly excepted definition then there is "I think the definition should be", you can think what you want when it becomes generally excepted then holla at me.

Appeal to majority.

Keep in mind that the 3/5ths ideology was once generally accepted

Colloquial usage of the term is one thing but criticism of the sociological definition because you don't like it is another.

3/5th rule was put in place for the purposes of limiting the power of slave states in the House of Representatives, not because it was believed to be true.

Something isn't true just because it is generally accepted. Word to geocentricity.

Prove the sociological definition of racism is untrue.

If prejudice + power = racism then you do not need to have power through the primary institutions of a society to be racist as there are many forms of power.

Case in point Oprah has far more money than a homeless White man and money is a form of power.

In what way would oprah express said prejudice and power?

If it is racist when a White employer hires a White employee over a Black one because he is White how would it be any less racist if a Black employer hired a Black employee over a White one because he is Black?

The latter example is rarer but not impossible as implied by some

So...what does this have to do with your oprah analogy? It's far from proving the sociological definition of racism wrong as well.

I thought it was obvious

Oprah owns a TV network, magazine and production company. Since she has capacity act as those in that example do then she cannot be incapable of racism.

I like how you threw the burden of proof on me though. Well played.

Definitions are subjective so disproving one would be impossible. If you call a tiger a koala how can I prove that the tiger is not a Koala? It wouldn't be possible.

But I thought the sociological definition was wrong?

You went on a tangent to disprove it and ended up proving it correct. Smh you type just to type apparently.

And as far as your koala/tiger analogy is concerned you can call a koala whatever you like, that's YOUR business but that has nothing to do with the field of Zoology which has already defined each animal.

Same issue here, you don't like the sociological definition of racism? Fine but don't engage in sociological discussion because the arguments are framed on what words mean within that field not "I'm going to make my own definitions up because I can".

Whatever college you go to that allows you to make up definitions must be lousy as fuck. You probably get to make your own tests as grade them yourself too.

How did it prove it right at all when the definition claims Black Americans can never be racist and the example shows otherwise?

Ideology. Racism is a systematic set of ideas and actions associated with “the idea of the superiority of one racial category or one ethnic group to other racial categories or ethnic groups” (Isajiw, p. 149). That is, racism is not just a haphazard negative view that an individual has or expresses about a minority group – the latter might be considered prejudice, although this may be the basis for racism. But racism is a more systematic set of interconnected ideas that form an overall ideology. For example, members of a particular race may be regarded as inferior based on views that the group is less capable. This may be based on the view that the group has an inferior culture or is destined by biology to be inferior.

What there prevents Black Americans from being racist? If there was one standard definition like in zoology this would be gravy. This is not a real science field, it's a BS arts discipline that seldom tests its hypotheses.

1) I never said that

2) Oprah is not indicative of the black experience in the United States she is an outlier and as such is exempt from a lot of generalized comments b

As far as the second bolded:

Prove it...

I never said you claimed that. Charlie dropped that idea here and that is exactly what I have been saying is ridiculous. Oprah is an easily accessible example but power exists outside of the police and courts. Being capable of forcibly having sex with someone is a form of power, so likewise simply striking someone on the basis of race is racist. How could one argue that Black Americans can not do that or have no ability to do so?

Can't prove something doesn't exist, it's a fallacy

Consider this though:
http://sociology.about.com/od/Socio...jor-Sociological-Studies-And-Publications.htm

That is a list of 17 important soc texts and only one is a study. Soc deals primarily with correlative data and causation is seldom testable.

17 important soc texts according to who?

And she is....?

Sociologist Ashley Crossman

 

[black caesar]

There was this mixed chick at my old job. I asked what she was and she said half and half. I told her she's black and she got mad as hell. SMH

 

[LUClEN]

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

There are competing views and alternative definitions to the ones presented by charles

There are always "competing views" that doesn't mean it's correct.

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

Bruh, I am actually quite knowledgeable on the subject. The idea that blacks can't be racist is compellingly rejected in this book (chapter 2).

So? You can reject whatever you like but that doesn't make untrue.

Those are two way streets.

Not really. There is a roundly excepted definition then there is "I think the definition should be", you can think what you want when it becomes generally excepted then holla at me.

Appeal to majority.

Keep in mind that the 3/5ths ideology was once generally accepted

Colloquial usage of the term is one thing but criticism of the sociological definition because you don't like it is another.

3/5th rule was put in place for the purposes of limiting the power of slave states in the House of Representatives, not because it was believed to be true.

Something isn't true just because it is generally accepted. Word to geocentricity.

Prove the sociological definition of racism is untrue.

If prejudice + power = racism then you do not need to have power through the primary institutions of a society to be racist as there are many forms of power.

Case in point Oprah has far more money than a homeless White man and money is a form of power.

In what way would oprah express said prejudice and power?

If it is racist when a White employer hires a White employee over a Black one because he is White how would it be any less racist if a Black employer hired a Black employee over a White one because he is Black?

The latter example is rarer but not impossible as implied by some

So...what does this have to do with your oprah analogy? It's far from proving the sociological definition of racism wrong as well.

I thought it was obvious

Oprah owns a TV network, magazine and production company. Since she has capacity act as those in that example do then she cannot be incapable of racism.

I like how you threw the burden of proof on me though. Well played.

Definitions are subjective so disproving one would be impossible. If you call a tiger a koala how can I prove that the tiger is not a Koala? It wouldn't be possible.

But I thought the sociological definition was wrong?

You went on a tangent to disprove it and ended up proving it correct. Smh you type just to type apparently.

And as far as your koala/tiger analogy is concerned you can call a koala whatever you like, that's YOUR business but that has nothing to do with the field of Zoology which has already defined each animal.

Same issue here, you don't like the sociological definition of racism? Fine but don't engage in sociological discussion because the arguments are framed on what words mean within that field not "I'm going to make my own definitions up because I can".

Whatever college you go to that allows you to make up definitions must be lousy as fuck. You probably get to make your own tests as grade them yourself too.

How did it prove it right at all when the definition claims Black Americans can never be racist and the example shows otherwise?

Ideology. Racism is a systematic set of ideas and actions associated with “the idea of the superiority of one racial category or one ethnic group to other racial categories or ethnic groups” (Isajiw, p. 149). That is, racism is not just a haphazard negative view that an individual has or expresses about a minority group – the latter might be considered prejudice, although this may be the basis for racism. But racism is a more systematic set of interconnected ideas that form an overall ideology. For example, members of a particular race may be regarded as inferior based on views that the group is less capable. This may be based on the view that the group has an inferior culture or is destined by biology to be inferior.

What there prevents Black Americans from being racist? If there was one standard definition like in zoology this would be gravy. This is not a real science field, it's a BS arts discipline that seldom tests its hypotheses.

1) I never said that

2) Oprah is not indicative of the black experience in the United States she is an outlier and as such is exempt from a lot of generalized comments b

As far as the second bolded:

Prove it...

I never said you claimed that. Charlie dropped that idea here and that is exactly what I have been saying is ridiculous. Oprah is an easily accessible example but power exists outside of the police and courts. Being capable of forcibly having sex with someone is a form of power, so likewise simply striking someone on the basis of race is racist. How could one argue that Black Americans can not do that or have no ability to do so?

Can't prove something doesn't exist, it's a fallacy

Consider this though:
http://sociology.about.com/od/Socio...jor-Sociological-Studies-And-Publications.htm

That is a list of 17 important soc texts and only one is a study. Soc deals primarily with correlative data and causation is seldom testable.

17 important soc texts according to who?

And she is....?

Sociologist Ashley Crossman

A published author and professor of soc at Arizona State

 

[Purr]

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

There are competing views and alternative definitions to the ones presented by charles

There are always "competing views" that doesn't mean it's correct.

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

Bruh, I am actually quite knowledgeable on the subject. The idea that blacks can't be racist is compellingly rejected in this book (chapter 2).

So? You can reject whatever you like but that doesn't make untrue.

Those are two way streets.

Not really. There is a roundly excepted definition then there is "I think the definition should be", you can think what you want when it becomes generally excepted then holla at me.

Appeal to majority.

Keep in mind that the 3/5ths ideology was once generally accepted

Colloquial usage of the term is one thing but criticism of the sociological definition because you don't like it is another.

3/5th rule was put in place for the purposes of limiting the power of slave states in the House of Representatives, not because it was believed to be true.

Something isn't true just because it is generally accepted. Word to geocentricity.

Prove the sociological definition of racism is untrue.

If prejudice + power = racism then you do not need to have power through the primary institutions of a society to be racist as there are many forms of power.

Case in point Oprah has far more money than a homeless White man and money is a form of power.

In what way would oprah express said prejudice and power?

If it is racist when a White employer hires a White employee over a Black one because he is White how would it be any less racist if a Black employer hired a Black employee over a White one because he is Black?

The latter example is rarer but not impossible as implied by some

So...what does this have to do with your oprah analogy? It's far from proving the sociological definition of racism wrong as well.

I thought it was obvious

Oprah owns a TV network, magazine and production company. Since she has capacity act as those in that example do then she cannot be incapable of racism.

I like how you threw the burden of proof on me though. Well played.

Definitions are subjective so disproving one would be impossible. If you call a tiger a koala how can I prove that the tiger is not a Koala? It wouldn't be possible.

But I thought the sociological definition was wrong?

You went on a tangent to disprove it and ended up proving it correct. Smh you type just to type apparently.

And as far as your koala/tiger analogy is concerned you can call a koala whatever you like, that's YOUR business but that has nothing to do with the field of Zoology which has already defined each animal.

Same issue here, you don't like the sociological definition of racism? Fine but don't engage in sociological discussion because the arguments are framed on what words mean within that field not "I'm going to make my own definitions up because I can".

Whatever college you go to that allows you to make up definitions must be lousy as fuck. You probably get to make your own tests as grade them yourself too.

Got damn @jono

 

[LUClEN]

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

There are competing views and alternative definitions to the ones presented by charles

There are always "competing views" that doesn't mean it's correct.

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

Bruh, I am actually quite knowledgeable on the subject. The idea that blacks can't be racist is compellingly rejected in this book (chapter 2).

So? You can reject whatever you like but that doesn't make untrue.

Those are two way streets.

Not really. There is a roundly excepted definition then there is "I think the definition should be", you can think what you want when it becomes generally excepted then holla at me.

Appeal to majority.

Keep in mind that the 3/5ths ideology was once generally accepted

Colloquial usage of the term is one thing but criticism of the sociological definition because you don't like it is another.

3/5th rule was put in place for the purposes of limiting the power of slave states in the House of Representatives, not because it was believed to be true.

Something isn't true just because it is generally accepted. Word to geocentricity.

Prove the sociological definition of racism is untrue.

If prejudice + power = racism then you do not need to have power through the primary institutions of a society to be racist as there are many forms of power.

Case in point Oprah has far more money than a homeless White man and money is a form of power.

In what way would oprah express said prejudice and power?

If it is racist when a White employer hires a White employee over a Black one because he is White how would it be any less racist if a Black employer hired a Black employee over a White one because he is Black?

The latter example is rarer but not impossible as implied by some

So...what does this have to do with your oprah analogy? It's far from proving the sociological definition of racism wrong as well.

I thought it was obvious

Oprah owns a TV network, magazine and production company. Since she has capacity act as those in that example do then she cannot be incapable of racism.

I like how you threw the burden of proof on me though. Well played.

Definitions are subjective so disproving one would be impossible. If you call a tiger a koala how can I prove that the tiger is not a Koala? It wouldn't be possible.

But I thought the sociological definition was wrong?

You went on a tangent to disprove it and ended up proving it correct. Smh you type just to type apparently.

And as far as your koala/tiger analogy is concerned you can call a koala whatever you like, that's YOUR business but that has nothing to do with the field of Zoology which has already defined each animal.

Same issue here, you don't like the sociological definition of racism? Fine but don't engage in sociological discussion because the arguments are framed on what words mean within that field not "I'm going to make my own definitions up because I can".

Whatever college you go to that allows you to make up definitions must be lousy as fuck. You probably get to make your own tests as grade them yourself too.

How did it prove it right at all when the definition claims Black Americans can never be racist and the example shows otherwise?

Ideology. Racism is a systematic set of ideas and actions associated with “the idea of the superiority of one racial category or one ethnic group to other racial categories or ethnic groups” (Isajiw, p. 149). That is, racism is not just a haphazard negative view that an individual has or expresses about a minority group – the latter might be considered prejudice, although this may be the basis for racism. But racism is a more systematic set of interconnected ideas that form an overall ideology. For example, members of a particular race may be regarded as inferior based on views that the group is less capable. This may be based on the view that the group has an inferior culture or is destined by biology to be inferior.

What there prevents Black Americans from being racist? If there was one standard definition like in zoology this would be gravy. This is not a real science field, it's a BS arts discipline that seldom tests its hypotheses.

1) I never said that

2) Oprah is not indicative of the black experience in the United States she is an outlier and as such is exempt from a lot of generalized comments b

As far as the second bolded:

Prove it...

I never said you claimed that. Charlie dropped that idea here and that is exactly what I have been saying is ridiculous. Oprah is an easily accessible example but power exists outside of the police and courts. Being capable of forcibly having sex with someone is a form of power, so likewise simply striking someone on the basis of race is racist. How could one argue that Black Americans can not do that or have no ability to do so?

Can't prove something doesn't exist, it's a fallacy

Consider this though:
http://sociology.about.com/od/Socio...jor-Sociological-Studies-And-Publications.htm

That is a list of 17 important soc texts and only one is a study. Soc deals primarily with correlative data and

causation is seldom testable.

Youre an idiot.

Oprah is an outlier dumbass; however, she has faced racial discrimination even as a black woman of power.

I never said being capable of racism means one can't be affected by it

 

[jono]

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

There are competing views and alternative definitions to the ones presented by charles

There are always "competing views" that doesn't mean it's correct.

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

Bruh, I am actually quite knowledgeable on the subject. The idea that blacks can't be racist is compellingly rejected in this book (chapter 2).

So? You can reject whatever you like but that doesn't make untrue.

Those are two way streets.

Not really. There is a roundly excepted definition then there is "I think the definition should be", you can think what you want when it becomes generally excepted then holla at me.

Appeal to majority.

Keep in mind that the 3/5ths ideology was once generally accepted

Colloquial usage of the term is one thing but criticism of the sociological definition because you don't like it is another.

3/5th rule was put in place for the purposes of limiting the power of slave states in the House of Representatives, not because it was believed to be true.

Something isn't true just because it is generally accepted. Word to geocentricity.

Prove the sociological definition of racism is untrue.

If prejudice + power = racism then you do not need to have power through the primary institutions of a society to be racist as there are many forms of power.

Case in point Oprah has far more money than a homeless White man and money is a form of power.

In what way would oprah express said prejudice and power?

If it is racist when a White employer hires a White employee over a Black one because he is White how would it be any less racist if a Black employer hired a Black employee over a White one because he is Black?

The latter example is rarer but not impossible as implied by some

So...what does this have to do with your oprah analogy? It's far from proving the sociological definition of racism wrong as well.

I thought it was obvious

Oprah owns a TV network, magazine and production company. Since she has capacity act as those in that example do then she cannot be incapable of racism.

I like how you threw the burden of proof on me though. Well played.

Definitions are subjective so disproving one would be impossible. If you call a tiger a koala how can I prove that the tiger is not a Koala? It wouldn't be possible.

But I thought the sociological definition was wrong?

You went on a tangent to disprove it and ended up proving it correct. Smh you type just to type apparently.

And as far as your koala/tiger analogy is concerned you can call a koala whatever you like, that's YOUR business but that has nothing to do with the field of Zoology which has already defined each animal.

Same issue here, you don't like the sociological definition of racism? Fine but don't engage in sociological discussion because the arguments are framed on what words mean within that field not "I'm going to make my own definitions up because I can".

Whatever college you go to that allows you to make up definitions must be lousy as fuck. You probably get to make your own tests as grade them yourself too.

How did it prove it right at all when the definition claims Black Americans can never be racist and the example shows otherwise?

Ideology. Racism is a systematic set of ideas and actions associated with “the idea of the superiority of one racial category or one ethnic group to other racial categories or ethnic groups” (Isajiw, p. 149). That is, racism is not just a haphazard negative view that an individual has or expresses about a minority group – the latter might be considered prejudice, although this may be the basis for racism. But racism is a more systematic set of interconnected ideas that form an overall ideology. For example, members of a particular race may be regarded as inferior based on views that the group is less capable. This may be based on the view that the group has an inferior culture or is destined by biology to be inferior.

What there prevents Black Americans from being racist? If there was one standard definition like in zoology this would be gravy. This is not a real science field, it's a BS arts discipline that seldom tests its hypotheses.

1) I never said that

2) Oprah is not indicative of the black experience in the United States she is an outlier and as such is exempt from a lot of generalized comments b

As far as the second bolded:

Prove it...

I never said you claimed that. Charlie dropped that idea here and that is exactly what I have been saying is ridiculous. Oprah is an easily accessible example but power exists outside of the police and courts. Being capable of forcibly having sex with someone is a form of power, so likewise simply striking someone on the basis of race is racist. How could one argue that Black Americans can not do that or have no ability to do so?

Can't prove something doesn't exist, it's a fallacy

Consider this though:
http://sociology.about.com/od/Socio...jor-Sociological-Studies-And-Publications.htm

That is a list of 17 important soc texts and only one is a study. Soc deals primarily with correlative data and causation is seldom testable.

17 important soc texts according to who?

And she is....?

Sociologist Ashley Crossman

A published author and professor of soc at Arizona State

So one person?

 

[Bazz-B]

I know a lot of black women period that are more "cultural opening" then black men. it aint enough six's in the world

it aint enough six's in the world

Deserves a re-quote

Thank you, folks. That's why Black people, male and female, MUST be committed to creating families with one another. Yes, some biracial people can be decent people in the Black community once they make the correct choice that their Black half reigns supreme. Yet, it is a bittersweet victory in that their blood is diluted.

This is why I am always horribly baffled when I see one of us senselessly hand over one of our most prized genetic possessions: egg and seed. *glances at Plap's dumb mutt creating ass*

If I couldn't procreate with a Black man, I'd die childless. I refuse to be a cog in the wheel of creating mutts.

How much black blood a person have to have to be with you?

 

[A Talented One]

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

There are competing views and alternative definitions to the ones presented by charles

There are always "competing views" that doesn't mean it's correct.

Also, what he said about blacks cant be racist is stupid. Any group can be racist, whether they are in dominant position or a subordinate one.

You just ignorant as fuck. If you don't know bout sociological definitions just be quiet.

Bruh, I am actually quite knowledgeable on the subject. The idea that blacks can't be racist is compellingly rejected in this book (chapter 2).

So? You can reject whatever you like but that doesn't make untrue.

Those are two way streets.

Not really. There is a roundly excepted definition then there is "I think the definition should be", you can think what you want when it becomes generally excepted then holla at me.

Appeal to majority.

Keep in mind that the 3/5ths ideology was once generally accepted

Colloquial usage of the term is one thing but criticism of the sociological definition because you don't like it is another.

3/5th rule was put in place for the purposes of limiting the power of slave states in the House of Representatives, not because it was believed to be true.

Something isn't true just because it is generally accepted. Word to geocentricity.

Prove the sociological definition of racism is untrue.

If prejudice + power = racism then you do not need to have power through the primary institutions of a society to be racist as there are many forms of power.

Case in point Oprah has far more money than a homeless White man and money is a form of power.

In what way would oprah express said prejudice and power?

If it is racist when a White employer hires a White employee over a Black one because he is White how would it be any less racist if a Black employer hired a Black employee over a White one because he is Black?

The latter example is rarer but not impossible as implied by some

So...what does this have to do with your oprah analogy? It's far from proving the sociological definition of racism wrong as well.

I thought it was obvious

Oprah owns a TV network, magazine and production company. Since she has capacity act as those in that example do then she cannot be incapable of racism.

I like how you threw the burden of proof on me though. Well played.

Definitions are subjective so disproving one would be impossible. If you call a tiger a koala how can I prove that the tiger is not a Koala? It wouldn't be possible.

But I thought the sociological definition was wrong?

You went on a tangent to disprove it and ended up proving it correct. Smh you type just to type apparently.

And as far as your koala/tiger analogy is concerned you can call a koala whatever you like, that's YOUR business but that has nothing to do with the field of Zoology which has already defined each animal.

Same issue here, you don't like the sociological definition of racism? Fine but don't engage in sociological discussion because the arguments are framed on what words mean within that field not "I'm going to make my own definitions up because I can".

Whatever college you go to that allows you to make up definitions must be lousy as fuck. You probably get to make your own tests as grade them yourself too.

There is no commonly accepted definition of racism in Sociology, as far as I know. And even if there is one, and it something like what Dyson said, what would that prove? That sociologists have embraced a faulty definition of racism. Sociologists have no special expertise to tell us what racism is.

Individuals can be racists, and they if they lack power that doesn't make them any less racist. So blacks can be racists too.

Faulty based on what? Your opinion or do you have a study?

If it's your opinion then just hang it up, If you have a study I'd love to see it.

Second bolded: didnt say they couldn't be.

Faulty based on sound reasoning.

If a white man who hates blacks goes to live in Nigeria, where blacks have the power, would he count as non-racist because his group is relatively powerless there? No.

Again, suppose that there is a white kid in an otherwise all-black school. Let's say that he hates blacks. He is relatively powerless in that context, and yet he still seems to be racist.

Racism doesn't require power. Just a little reflection is enough to show that.

Who's reasoning? These are opinions I'm reading here. Not anything scholarly and nobody is racist in either case you mentioned.

How could they not be racists? They hate blacks.

 

[LUClEN]

Not sure how one could say that Weber, Durkheim, Goffman, Milgram and Marx's works are not important to Soc