"Reverse-Racism," from what I understand, is a term that describes people whom act differently around people of a "different origin" (not my phrase) for fear of being labeled a racist. At least, that's what I've been told today.

 

Now, the misunderstanding we had, which resulted in a pretty heated argument, came from the fact that I thought he was saying anyone discriminating against white people was "reverse racism" and white people discriminating against others was called racism. Obviously you could see why that would be so offensive.

 

Anyway, racism is one of those taboo subjects, like politics and religion, that not a lot of people like to talk about. However, I like to think that we have a lot of intelligent people here and I like to think that we can have the conversation without it deteriorating into petty name-calling and whatnot.

 

Not to single people out (although that's really exactly what I'm doing) but with OhThatVixen, Flyboy and CJ here, amongst others, I'm sure, I know that we'd have both sides of the debate covered. I'm sure Loss knows all about discrimination as well, albeit from different means.

 

This thread kind of built-up due to the uproar that came from Three-Six Mafia winning a Grammy and the thoughts that took place in the Grammy thread and the Thoughts... thread. It seemed like the logical progression in the way the forums have been leering recently. I don't want to say too much right now, so that I can say more later (one thing that RRR taught me ) but I wanted to get the thread started and see what discussion would arise from it.

 

This was also brought up the other day and it's a term that I'd never heard before, although I've seen it applied before. Just wanted to get this out there in-case the thread takes a turn in that direction:

A straw-man argument is the practice of refuting a weaker argument than an opponent actually offers. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to your opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is also a logical fallacy, since the argument actually presented by your opponent has not been refuted, only a weaker argument.

 

One can set up a straw man in the following ways:

 

   1. Present the opponent's argument in weakened form, refute it, and pretend that the original has been refuted.

   2. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.

   3. Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.

   4. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.

Reverse racism is more of a holding back a group of people in order to show favor upon another group that had in the past been held back by racism. Like say you went out and said only 1 white person could get a certain type of job because black people weren't allowed to work there in the past. That's how it's typically argued.

All I know is I'd never heard the term before and it brought me a lot of confusion when it was explained to me.

 

Reverse-racism, from what you said, sounds like people are really worried about affirmative action. My goodness, I haven't felt this ignorant in a long time. Is this a pretty common term?

The main topic about AA is if it's just forcing companies to use quotas for minorities. Some people feel that's what it does and others feel it's just more of a hiring guidelines thing. It's more focused on college AA though. Many feel, as I do, that it's been corrupted and is allowing inferior students into big programs, law, at the expense of better ones due to skin color. That's mostly because being of a certain race gets you more points on entrance exams.

I think racism is racism, no matter what color you happen to be.

 

I think the term is way overused, and used mostly to squelch true debate about certain "hot topic" issues...especially those issues involving ethnicity, and perceptions and truths, about society.

I'm sure Loss knows all about discrimination as well, albeit from different means.

I have, but I think everyone has. I would imagine that you've probably encountered discrimination based on your income, your physical appearance or any other number of factors. I appreciate you acknowledging that gays are often discriminated against, but gays are not really special in that regard. Some people have labeled me as someone attempting to be a "professional victim" for pointing that out in the past, but I really don't see myself that way at all.

 

As far as racism goes, all I can say is that in total honesty, most of us do have racist tendencies. It's not how I decide who I befriend, and it's not a case where I think it should determine who gets what job, or anything major like that, but I'll admit to being surprised when meeting an Asian person that isn't good at math, or experiencing frustration when calling a customer service line and getting an employee from India that I wish spoke better English. I'm not saying that somehow that's "acceptable" or anything like that, in fact it's something I am ashamed of, but I do think I'm a work in progress and am constantly learning the dangers in making surface judgments toward other people. We've all experienced big or small adversity based on those preconceived notions, and I'd venture to say most of us have contributed to the adversity of others as well. All I think I can do is be aware that I'm not perfect and strive to be a better person.

 

Open dialogue can only help. I think the key to society becoming a little more colorblind is openly discussing our fears and perceptions with those that we think are the least like us and learning from them. This is actually something I've given a lot of thought to lately. There is very much a "White Is Right" mindset in society, where everyone is expected to conform to a very white idea of professionalism and even ethics in some cases. And some who should know better have been sucked in by all of it. The first person I think of is Bill Cosby, who seems to think that a black man who is drug free, works hard, takes care of his family and follows the law is somehow contributing to society's decay if he occasionally says "axe" when he means to say "ask". The double standards don't really stop there. I remember back in '92 when Ice-T came out with "Cop Killer" and how there was so much controversy and shock over the lyrics. You didn't find the same mainstream media firestorm in the late 70s when punk music was raging against the machine, or when Johnny Cash shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.

 

Anyway, this discussion isn't going to do anything to change society or improve the world we live in, but it could challenge some of our core beliefs and if one person is positively affected by any debate or discussion that arises, then this discussion has accomplished something. I do think we need to approach subjects like racism with a certain delicacy, but I also think that the more honest we can be with each other, the more beneficial a topic like this is going to be.

The main topic about AA is if it's just forcing companies to use quotas for minorities.  Some people feel that's what it does and others feel it's just more of a hiring guidelines thing.  It's more focused on college AA though.  Many feel, as I do, that it's been corrupted and is allowing inferior students into big programs, law, at the expense of better ones due to skin color.  That's mostly because being of a certain race gets you more points on entrance exams.

You know, there's a lot of other things that will get people extra points on entrance exams that are not based on merit.

Being a veteran usually will give you bonus points on those kinds of exams too, and the people who have a problem with AA allowing the "inferiors" in never seem to have a problem with the veterans having an edge when in theory it's the same procedure just with a different recipient.

And almost all of them are stupid. Colleges should be accepting students who are of a certain calibur. It should be entirely merit based. It's a real kick in the ass to someone to work hard and miss getting in somewhere because the college decided to take someone based on something other than they qualifications.

Has any qualified white person ever not gone to college or got a job because a lesser qualified minority or veteran got pushed ahead of them? I hear a lot of people complain about it, but it's almost like an urban legend (no pun intended).

Colleges should be accepting students who are of a certain calibur.  It should be entirely merit based.

I'm an idealist so I pretty much agree with that. But my experience in the UK is that universities are a business first and foremost which means that there is heavy pressure on departments to accept a lot of foreign students because they pay higher fees. And these students may be clever enough to do the course, but sometimes their English isn't at a high enough level to write reports competently, which is a bit of a problem really for the students who have to work with them and lecturers who have to teach them.

This is great that this topic was brought up because this semester I'm taking Intercultural Communication, and it's been really enlightening, but not for the reasons you might think.

 

I'm not sure about the rest of the country, but there are no longer any affirmative action policies allowed anywhere, in any institution in California, for about a decade now. There were so many complaints about reverse racism when affirmative action was legal that California passed Proposition 209 in 1996 making affirmative action, or showing preferencce in any form illegal.

 

I do firmly believe in meritocracy, however, because of the pervasiveness of racism/sexism/heterosexism/classism all throughout our country, (despite beliefs that racism no longer exists, interestingly) there would never be any such thing as a complete and total meritocracy. It's the human condition to want to "be better", and to complain about what's not "fair". We all did it in elementary school whenever an adult shows favor to someone else. "It's not FAIR!" you scream. "Why does HE get that, and *I* don't? I'm better!" You've always got to be better than someone else, because who wants to be that person that everyone is better than, right?

 

I don't think there were ever any actual findings on a job or entrance to an institution given to a minority rather than a white person. Interestingly enough, when there were studies done on affirmative action, 70% of the people that benefitted from it were white women. Not blacks, not Latinos, not Asians, but white women. After all, affirmative action was created to help marginalized people, NOT JUST minorities.

 

Affirmative action to me, is like Communism. Good idea in theory, but difficult to execute properly. It would require much bigger HR departments than exist now in any company, and diversity training would have to be mandatory in every corporation. That MIGHT be a start, but there would always have to be people making sure that no one was discriminated against and that people that are in charge of hiring would look at people's resumes objectively. Perhaps something that could be done is that when a job opening occurs at a company, all resumes could have the names deleted from them, and assigned a #. It's a little impersonal, but perhaps that way whoever was screening the resumes would only screen for skills and ability. Same with college applications. I did something like that myself when I worked in HR at Warner Brothers.

 

As far as being racist, Loss is right, we all are to a certain extent. However, I think I can safely say that I hate everyone equally. There are shitty people of every kind, whether your're basing your criticism on race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation. I think I CAN say with a clean conscience is that all of my "racist" tendencies are because of direct association with whatever group. I base all of my feelings on personal experience. If I've never experienced some negative quality in someone of a certain group, then I don't automatically label them even though other people might. *shrugs*

 

What it all boils down to, for me, is that people suck. Most people these days don't give a fuck about you, all they care about is themselves. Whenever I try and help people that are my friends, other people ask me why as if I'm crazy. "Why help them? Who cares? What did they ever do for you?" Perhaps it's because I'm from a collectivistic culture, I don't know. What I DO know is that more and more I wonder if I ever even want to have children. I don't really think I want to bring a child into this world when there's so much shittiness in it. Yes, there's some good, but there's a whole lotta bad out there. I'm sorry if I sound cynical and jaded, but...hey. It all comes from my own life experiences. I can only speak for myself.

You've always got to be better than someone else, because who wants to be that person that everyone is better than, right?

 

That's what makes me wonder about the people who complain about AA. It's like they think the only way a woman or minority could have been hired instead of them is because there was some shenanigans afoot.

I don't like AA but it's because I believe it should be entirely merit based. I also heavily favor race not being on college applications. Why not just let everyone be a blank slate for the most part coming in.

 

Though my main problem with racism in our society is that words seem to mean more than action. Take Bill Watts as a good example. Probably no other promoter has treated black wrestlers better and he's been labelled a racist by a lot of people. Probably because he uses a lot of un-PC language. So what matters more in the end? Treating black wrestlers with respect or the fact that he maybe uses some bad language. Maybe the guy is a racist but I'm just going by the guy's actions over the years.

There's an argument to be made that some folks use racist language because of how they grew up but weren't actually racist in their beliefs. My dad was known to drop the N bomb once in a while and referred to blacks as "colored" but he was born in 1932 and those sort of things weren't frowned upon as much when he was a kid.

 

I hate the whole "PC" concept too. It seems that the people who complain about being "PC" are mad that they can't use racial language in public anymore. It's not "PC" to expect people to not use language that anyone with common sense would recognize as racist.

That's just the quickest way to describe it. There are a lot of layers of PC though. Some are common sense like that and there are the stupid part like the "everyone's a winner" crap we have going on in schools now but that's not part of this conversation.

 

I agree you can't really judge older people. My grandmother says the same thing but isn't a racist. She's just 80 years old.

That's what makes me wonder about the people who complain about AA. It's like they think the only way a woman or minority could have been hired instead of them is because there was some shenanigans afoot.

I agree. After all, if anyone hasn't noticed, I myself am a minority AND a woman. I like to think I've got some skills and intelligence, somewhere in this brain. But for someone to complain that *I* got something just because of the fact that I'm a minority female? Fuck that. I've worked hard my whole life, and striven against plenty of adversity. No one ever gave me shit, (not even my parents) I've always worked my ass off to get whatever I might have gotten thus far.

 

About the PC thing, even though I have liberal tendencies I am against people being PC. It's why I think mindreading would be an awesome thing to be able to do. There are no lies when there's no filter between your mouth and your mind. Fuck being PC. I've told people plenty of times that I never talk any shit about someone that I would not be willing to say to their face.

 

One last comment. In my Intercultural class we did an exercise last week. All of us stood in a line, and my teacher asked us questions. Depending on our answers we had to take one step forward or one step backwards. The questions were the kind to see what your racial/socioeconomic/gender/sexual orientation background was. You know, "If you were ever discriminated against because of your race/class/gender/sexual orientation take one step back." or "If your parents ever took you to the theatre or art galleries growing up, take one step forward."

 

At the end of the exercise, everyone was about 25 feet in front of me. The only person near me was an older Latino man. It felt very, very odd, because I realized in comparison to my classmates that I never really was privileged, nor was I exposed to "upper class" values.

About the PC thing, even though I have liberal tendencies I am against people being PC. It's why I think mindreading would be an awesome thing to be able to do. There are no lies when there's no filter between your mouth and your mind. Fuck being PC

Yes. God, yes.

 

It's hilarious how PC people have become or expect others to be. As long as you're respecting those who deserve it, I don't think you need to do anything else. Hell with tiptoeing around certain words, phrases or ideas that aren't really offensive just for the sake of those thin-skinned maroons out there we're suddenly working so hard to appease.

Can anyone really give a definition of what's "PC" other than one that tends to circulate AM talk radio?

Basically not offending anyone or hurting anyone's feelings at any cost. As I mentioned before the "everybody wins" attitude a lot of youth leagues have taken is a form of being PC.

Can you actually give any concrete examples, because all I ever see anyone offering is vauge generalities.

 

As far as the "everybody wins" mindset in kids sports, that's a different argument because you're talking about kids rather than adults, which is what "PC" is about.

Look at Looney Tunes. Those are barely on tv anymore and when they were still on regular channels there were a lot of them like Speedy Gonzalez that weren't played anymore. There was a time on Cartoon Network where they would only show the unedited cartoons late at night. They did the same thing with Cookie Monster recently.

 

You can find a lot of it in schools. It's been discussed about removing the honor roll because it might hurt the feelings of the kids not on it.

 

There's also been a lot of attempts to remove "To Kill A Mockingbird" from schools because the word "nigger" appears in it.

 

The kids argument does work though because it's adults who are pushing their problems into the realm of children.

 

If you want to get more language based let's look at disabilities. I'm no longer blind but visually impaired.

I forgot the recent one. The NCAA banning Native American mascots from post season play. Most of the teams had deals with various Tribes and those teams were still banned because it was deemed offensive.

 

Look at Looney Tunes. Those are barely on tv anymore and when they were still on regular channels there were a lot of them like Speedy Gonzalez that weren't played anymore. There was a time on Cartoon Network where they would only show the unedited cartoons late at night.

 

 

A few things were at play there. First off, Ted Turner started not running cartoons like the Speedy in the mid 90s when there were things like the LA riots and OJ going on and he didn't want Speedy arribia'ing on one of his channels when half of LA was on fire.

 

Secondly, once Cartoon Network started making their own programming, stuff like Looney Tunes was regulated to late night then to Boomerang.

 

 

They did the same thing with Cookie Monster recently.

 

 

It probably wasn't the best idea to have a character who gobbles cookies on a kids show, even more so considering the epidemic of youth obesity.

 

 

There's always going to be people upset with something they deem offensive, and that in itself isn't "PC". Just because someone says "X is offensive" doesn't mean a law was passed banning it. That NCAA ruling is just screaming to be challenged in court, if it hasn't already been so.

 

The whole concept of "PC" seems to only exist so people who have no right to play the victim can do just that.

I think they backed off on at least FSU because they were going to sue for monetary damages had they gone through with it. Though before that the actual Seminole Tribe protested the ban and the NCAA completely ignored them while saying it was offensive to Native Americans.