6 votes

Is This Racial, or Racist?

Racial or Racist?

1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of race or races.
2. Arising from or based on differences among human racial groups

having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another.
a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

See the twist?

It might just be racial,
But they make it racist.

But get this:

Seeing different sexes
Doesn't make one sexist.

Seeing different ages,
Don't make you an agist.

Reading different books ain't
necessar'ly pagist.

Why do we

Stop talking bout races,
Start hiding our faces,
Get put in our places,
Cause they say it's racist?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

They're back...


Pandacentricism will be our downfall.

The actual use of the term is what gives it meaning.

"The UN does not define “racism”; however, it does define “racial discrimination”: According to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,

"the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."

This definition does not make any difference between discrimination based on ethnicity and race, in part because the distinction between the two remains debatable among anthropologists. Similarly, in British law the phrase racial group means "any group of people who are defined by reference to their race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origin". (Wikipedia)

This inclusion of such things as ethnicity and national identity is why the term "racist" is so widely used to shut down debate on sensitive issues.

The idea itself, that one should not judge a person, whether pejoratively or laudatorily, on the grounds of their racial, ethnic or national group identity, is in fact a libertarian principle. Unfortunately this principle has been stood on its head by the academic and political mood setters so that virtually all discussion of social justice is grounded in these group identities and certain groups are set apart for privileged treatment on the basis of the historical grievances of their group. The individuals involved are then entirely absorbed into their group identity and view all criticism of their privileges as "racist" when in reality it is their privileges that are racist.

"O what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive."

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

good thought excercse..

I have been thinking lately that most things they call 'racist' are not related to race at all. I think they try and tie it to race when really it's just differences in cultural norms.

Then again... maybe I'm just a racist. [sarc]

proverbs 20:15
There is gold, and an abundance of jewels;
But the lips of knowledge are a more precious thing.

Racism is just a divide and

Racism is just a divide and conquer tactic. Keep the peasents bickering, distracted and divided. It was never about racism, it has always been about classism. The haves and the have nots. What would happen if everyone woke up tomorrow and realized that no matter what group you might identify with, we are all the same......broke? We are the hard working, some of us may be government mooching, have nots and the haves are running away with our freedoms and our money through policies and practices set in motion to benefit the upper class at the expense of the rest of us.

Redneck, cracker, honkey, white trash, trailer trash, ni©@er, spic, gook, chink, etc all means the same thing in the eyes of the elitist upper classs,,,,,,poor. In fact , all racist terminology derived from, ( can you guess?).......slavery.

The race merchants will

The race merchants will continue to prosper as long as there are large numbers of people who have difficulty distinguishing between culture and race (or ethnicity).

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

Refiled under 'art.'

This started out as an essay on how mentioning or pointing out differences between races is labeled as 'racist' by the ptb. Why do we let them do this to us?

Pandacentricism will be our downfall.

probably inappropriate for the DP

Because if the differences between races are more than skin deep--and they are--then you have to deal with biological inequality. This is a can of pretty scary worms if one's goal is to promote the liberty philosophy in the present egalitarian-communist-retard political climate.

"Racist" doesn't mean anything. It's like anti-semite or homophobe. Just a trick to keep the discussion at a kindergarten level.

We've had lengthy and multi-paged conversations on race here

on the DP:

Pandacentricism will be our downfall.

Could be

But larger statistical/historical trends and demographic realities indicate something a little less encouraging than you get from a libertarian love-in on the DP.

Libertarians of certain minority groups are likely to have higher IQs and better impulse control than the group averages...which is why they're libertarians. But if you want to deal with the (un)likelihood of libertarianism overcoming the sophistry of the political class, you have to look at the mentalities--and capacities--of the larger groups. On average.

We're making many millions of Mexican Indians with average IQs of 90 or so into US voters and policy-influencers. They have no cultural intellectual tradition. They have never developed any technology. They have no respect for, nor even any concept of, the European traditions that created the US (and libertarianism). They resent, very often, white/European success, and don't much care if the Western way of life (including libertarian principles) ends up in the dustbin of history.

Black Americans, according to group averages, bring a similar dynamic to modern politics.

But European traditions, developed by people with a certain average IQ, a certain average level of restraint, type of character, etc., are the only thing that could, realistically, counter the present slide to tyranny.

I think, therefore, you could actually undermine the cause of liberty when you insist that other races are the same as or equal to white Europeans. Anyone who wants to improve themselves and the world most likely needs to emulate the white people who developed all relevant philosophy and technology.

The majority of people are below average.

Especially the ones that gather in groups. Their IQs go down causing the herd mentality. This is not the same as the herb mentality.

The only smart people are the ones who stay away from other people and only communicate with others through ouija boards or, failing that, online forums.

Stay smart, kid. And don't talk to stranglers...

Pandacentricism will be our downfall.

Artful copout

Like I said...there's a good reason why the topic is best let lie. I find it pretty interesting myself, but racial IQ averages, and other racial tendencies, are precisely where free speech goes out of fashion around here.

It makes sense...We must compete for votes. But I strongly suspect that there won't be many advantages in the long-run to embracing PC fantasies.

D-503 - that's a strange name. Where are you from?

It sounds robot to me. I don't mean anything like that - I'm not botist.

Pandacentricism will be our downfall.

because it's easy

First impressions are typically based on physical appearance, and there's nothing more obvious than one's skin color.

Also, alarmism, conditioning, and guilt.

At the risk of coming off as a racist myself, it's mostly whites who perpetuate this crap, but not in the "herp derp SWM oppressor" way that social justice types like to whine about. More like condoning actual bigotry and racism by constantly rationalizing it whenever a member of a protected group does something wrong, while shutting down those who point out obvious double standards. To the 'anti-racist' progressives, it's a one way street. They will ALWAYS use "power+privilege=racism" to justify their extremely hypocritical and hateful views.

It's also done to create voting blocs, which is why you almost never see anyone bothering to pander to Asian/Hindi communities within the US. Only the largest and therefore most exploitable groups get the attention. Lucky us!

A signature used to be here!

Up north here when someone's all bundled up you notice...

how tall they are, and usually which gender they are, way before you see their skin color.

But otherwise your premises are there.

Pandacentricism will be our downfall.