Customer Discussions > Politics forum

Is the Liberal Media kind of racist?

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 167 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Nov 26, 2012 7:23:07 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Jan 1, 2013 7:44:27 PM PST]

Posted on Nov 26, 2012 9:10:16 PM PST
Roger says:
The racism comes from the Cultivation Theory presented on a seemingly daily basis. As with anything, the less you expose yourself to something, the less likely it is to influence you.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 26, 2012 9:14:30 PM PST
KMA says:
Roger, you need to be more polite. You used about 12 words there that Paine doesn't understand.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 26, 2012 9:41:03 PM PST
Katrina says:
Have you thought of seeing a psychiatrist?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 26, 2012 9:50:21 PM PST
Lonya says:
But there were only 12 words in his post.!!!

oh nevermind

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 26, 2012 9:56:49 PM PST
KMA says:
Phew! For a moment there, I thought I miscounted!

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 27, 2012 1:37:44 AM PST
Nat says:
The definition used in anti-racist circles is the accepted sociological definition (which is commonly used in academic research, and has been used for more than a decade now): "racism is prejudice plus power". What this means, in easy language:

A. Anyone can hold "racial prejudice" -- that is, they can carry positive or negative stereotypes of others based on racial characteristics. For example, a white person thinking all Asians are smart, or all black people are criminals; or a Chinese person thinking Japanese people are untrustworthy; or what-have-you. ANYONE, of any race, can have racial prejudices.

B. People of any race can commit acts of violence, mistreatment, ostracizing, etc., based on their racial prejudices. A black kid can beat up a white kid because he doesn't like white kids. An Indian person can refuse to associate with Asians. Whatever, you get the idea.

C. However, to be racist (rather than simply prejudiced) requires having institutional power. In North America, white people have the institutional power. In large part we head the corporations; we make up the largest proportion of lawmakers and judges; we have the money; we make the decisions. In short, we control the systems that matter. "White" is presented as normal, the default. Because we have institutional power, when we think differently about people based on their race or act on our racial prejudices, we are being racist. Only white people can be racist, because only white people have institutional power.

D. People of color can be prejudiced, but they cannot be racist, because they don't have the institutional power. (However, some people refer to intra-PoC prejudice as "lateral racism". You may also hear the term "colorism", which refers to lighter-skinned PoC being prejudiced toward darker-skinned PoC.) However, that situation can be different in other countries; for example, a Japanese person in Japan can be racist against others, because the Japanese have the institutional power there. But in North America, Japanese people can't be racist because they don't hold the institutional power.

E. If you're in an area of your city/state/province that is predominantly populated by PoC and, as a white person, you get harassed because of your skin color, it's still not racism, even though you're in a PoC-dominated area. The fact is, even though they're the majority population in that area, they still lack the institutional power. They don't have their own special PoC-dominated police force for that area. They don't have their own special PoC-dominated courts in that area. The state/province and national media are still not dominated by PoC. Even though they have a large population in that particular area, they still lack the institutional power overall.

F. So that's the definition of racism that you're likely to encounter. If you start talking about "reverse racism" you're going to either get insulted or laughed at, because it isn't possible under that definition; PoC don't have the power in North America, so by definition, they can't be racist. Crying "reverse racism!" is like waving a Clueless White Person Badge around.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 27, 2012 1:41:01 AM PST
Axiomatic!!! says:

My dictionary doesn't mention "institutional power".

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 27, 2012 1:47:06 AM PST
KMA says:
Somehow, I'm having trouble visualizing Scanlon with "institutional power". Maybe it's just me.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 27, 2012 2:10:21 AM PST
Nat says:
You must not know what the meaning of "institutional power" refers to.
If you are going to dismiss the fact that African American slaves were only to be considered 3/5ths a person in the constitution by by our FF's shows without a doubt proves my point. They literally constitutionally were "inferior".

definition of racism

[mass noun]
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races: theories of racism

prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior: a programme to combat racism

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 27, 2012 2:47:37 AM PST
Axiomatic!!! says:
What I know is that some of the founders pulled a fast one one the slave states by getting the 3/5ths clause. Remember, the 3/5tslhs clause didn't mean that slaves were "considered" 3/5ths a person. No no no no. The slave states didn't consider them any portion a person. But they wanted them to count for a whole person for "representation". The northern states would have been a minority in congress if that were allowed. The 3/5ths clause actually helped lead to emancipation by keeping slave states from dictating policy for nearly 100 years. All the while African Americans in free states were not only counted as a whole person, but in many cases could vote and own land.

My point is that any person, regardless of race, can be racist. To try to say that someone who is of a race that doesn't have "institutional power" can't be racist is bs of the highest magnitude.

The example of the Japanese is a perfect example. They can be racists in Japan, but not here? What kind of sociological bs is that? It makes zero sense. A definition is a definition, and it appears that redefining to a more PC victim mentality is what's going on.

Until we recognize racism for what it is, instead of trying to redefine it to exclude certain groups of haters, we'll never get past it.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 27, 2012 2:57:48 AM PST
Good nutshell explanation of the 3/5th clause. The common misunderstanding of it is one of my pet peeves.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 27, 2012 3:03:18 AM PST
Nat says:
I don't want to be rude but I must say you have no idea what you are talking about.

They were indeed considered 3/5ths a person. 26 of our FF's owned slaves.

No one was eligible to vote unless they were white and property/land owners. Not only did you have to be white but also a land owner.
Poor, white, and not possessing land couldn't vote either.

If you had bothered to actually read my entire comment and allowed it comprehension you would have noticed that there is racism and prejudice. You are confusing them as the same definition.
They do not have the same meaning.

It's not bs when to this day institutional power remains in the hands of caucasians.
What do you think institutional power is?

Japanese can be racist towards those who are not asian. Because it is the Asians that maintain the institutional power there. No, Japansee cannot be racist in this country. In thier country caucasions do not have institutional power.

No one is redefining anything, you just simply did not know the definition in the first place.

You don't even know what the definition is of "political correctness". This has nothing to do with it.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 27, 2012 3:05:34 AM PST
Nat says:
The 3/5 Compromise stated that a slave would count as 3/5 of a person in terms of both taxation and representation. It was called a compromise because it settled the ongoing arguments over regional power between the North and South. Therefore, they compromised that a slave would be counted as 3/5 of a person towards the total population.

Posted on Nov 27, 2012 3:18:21 AM PST
KMA says:
The entire "'X' can't be a racist because......." is crap of the highest order. Anyone can be a racist.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 27, 2012 3:19:35 AM PST
Nat says:
Correction. Anyone can be prejudice. Not everyone can be racist

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 27, 2012 3:27:26 AM PST
But you're using it to "prove a point" about racism. It doesn't do that. It "proves the point" that slavery was one of the most difficult controversies during the founding of our nation and that the North was desperate for a way to limit the voting power of the South. But it doesn't mean that anybody involved ever looked at a black person and made the determination that they were worth 3/5th of a white person in the way that people usually mean when they bring it up.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 27, 2012 3:28:18 AM PST
KMA says:
So you say. I disagree.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 27, 2012 3:37:36 AM PST
Nat says:
Are you actually suggesting that making an american citizen count less than another on the premise of inferiority is not racist?

If the white property owning men were not in 100% in power it would not have been signed into law. That is "institutional power"

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 27, 2012 3:38:59 AM PST
Nat says:
Since when are facts arguable?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 27, 2012 3:40:23 AM PST
The 3/5th compromise was never about determining the actual worth of a black person. It was about the North seeking to limit the voting power of the South. To represent it as anything else is just a perversion of history. The 3/5th compromise was actually a win for the anti-slavery forces in that it limited the power of the slave owning states.

If slaves had been counted as one person, it wouldn't have done a single good thing for black people. It wouldn't have ended slavery one day earlier or improved the conditions of a single person's life. All it would have done was increase the representation accorded to the (white) voters in the South.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 27, 2012 3:41:17 AM PST
It's a definition, not a fact. Actually, it's a definition that I tend to agree with, but you can't just declare it to be fact. People can disagree with the definition.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 27, 2012 3:41:56 AM PST
ET says:

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 27, 2012 3:46:01 AM PST
Nat says:
Don't you wish.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 27, 2012 3:54:43 AM PST
ET says:
No, I don't. The person who wrote this is entitled to his opinion, but it's not fact. Sorry.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in


This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  27
Total posts:  167
Initial post:  Nov 26, 2012
Latest post:  Nov 29, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions