CDZ POLL: The "Is It Racist" Quiz

[Dogmaphobe]

I was told here, once, that I was racist for suggesting all people be treated the same and all held to the same standards. Therein lies the problem with the term in that to an increasing degree, anybody who does not show a complete deference to other races is now called racist by p.c. snowflakes. Any objection of the considerable degree of hatred blacks display towards whites is now racist. Rejecting bad behavior is now racist. Refusing to apologize for the accident of birth that resulted in pale skin is now racist.

As Joeb has shown, just about EVERYHING is racist if it falls even the slightest bit short of a system of beliefs that places blacks above reproach, and ascribes a race-based sense of original sin to whites. People have become so anti-racist that they have become completely racist by promoting these double standards.

Yep. It's such an important word, and such an important thing, that it's a shame it has been weaponized, trivialized and diluted in this way.

Another poster, earlier in this thread, flat-out denied that arguments like Joe's exist. And yet, right on cue, there they are, clear as day for all to see.
.

The word has been weaponized to such a degree that it has created a group phobia. Some in this thread have pointed out that it's overuse has made it meaningless, but that is only for some. For the large portion of the left, it's use has resulted in a very rigid and self-reinforcing system where people will do just about anything to avoid being called racist. We see it in this forum on a daily basis, where very authoritarian people do not question the double standards they proffer, but merely take them as gospel.

... all the while giving significant cover to the REAL racism that does still exist...
.

Yep. When a person who rejects the behavior and point of view of BLM is lumped together with neo nazis parading about with swasticas, the only real accomplishment is to move the bar to a very ridiculous place.

Beyond that, much of the left SUPPORTS racism as long as it works in the opposite direction. Take affirmative action, for instance. Here you have a system of racial privilege being mandated by the state which is the very definition of racism even according to the most stringent qualifiers. This has been occurring for two full generations, now, yet much of the left is supportive. They simply don't care that it punishes Asians and Jews disproportionally to others because all that matters is the emotional benefits derived from virtue signaling.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I was told here, once, that I was racist for suggesting all people be treated the same and all held to the same standards. Therein lies the problem with the term in that to an increasing degree, anybody who does not show a complete deference to other races is now called racist by p.c. snowflakes. Any objection of the considerable degree of hatred blacks display towards whites is now racist. Rejecting bad behavior is now racist. Refusing to apologize for the accident of birth that resulted in pale skin is now racist.

As Joeb has shown, just about EVERYHING is racist if it falls even the slightest bit short of a system of beliefs that places blacks above reproach, and ascribes a race-based sense of original sin to whites. People have become so anti-racist that they have become completely racist by promoting these double standards.

Yep. It's such an important word, and such an important thing, that it's a shame it has been weaponized, trivialized and diluted in this way.

Another poster, earlier in this thread, flat-out denied that arguments like Joe's exist. And yet, right on cue, there they are, clear as day for all to see.
.

The word has been weaponized to such a degree that it has created a group phobia. Some in this thread have pointed out that it's overuse has made it meaningless, but that is only for some. For the large portion of the left, it's use has resulted in a very rigid and self-reinforcing system where people will do just about anything to avoid being called racist. We see it in this forum on a daily basis, where very authoritarian people do not question the double standards they proffer, but merely take them as gospel.

... all the while giving significant cover to the REAL racism that does still exist...
.

Yep. When a person who rejects the behavior and point of view of BLM is lumped together with neo nazis parading about with swasticas, the only real accomplishment is to move the bar to a very ridiculous place.

Beyond that, much of the left SUPPORTS racism as long as it works in the opposite direction. Take affirmative action, for instance. Here you have a system of racial privilege being mandated by the state which is the very definition of racism even according to the most stringent qualifiers. This has been occurring for two full generations, now, yet much of the left is supportive. They simply don't care that it punishes Asians and Jews disproportionally to others because all that matters is the emotional benefits derived from virtue signaling.

to an increasing degree, anybody who does not show a complete deference to other races is now called racist

Fealty, deference...nobody's asking for or expecting that. What's sought and expected is

• Consistently exhibited racial indifference in the majority race's prospective decision/policy making,
• Acknowledgement and action with regard to the fact that hundreds of years of race-based subjugation cannot be eradicated in the hearts and minds of all or preponderantly most of the polity, and that until that goal has been met, more heavy-handed modes of attenuating the potential and actual impact of whatever residual racist attitudes remain among people having power -- social, legal and/or political -- to enforce their bias
  
  Quite simply, attitudes passed down through families and communities and that took hundreds of years to culturally inculcate will not in sixty years expire. Thinking otherwise is profoundly naive.

Period.

When a person who rejects the behavior and point of view of BLM

Looking at what BLM have stated as their goals, I don't see much that's objectionable:

• Ending "broken windows" policing, which aggressively polices minor crimes in an attempt to stop larger ones
• using community oversight for misconduct rather than having police decide what consequences officers face
• making standards for reporting police use of deadly force
• independently investigating and prosecuting police misconduct
• having the racial makeup of police departments reflect the communities they serve
• requiring officers to wear body cameras
• providing more training for police officers
• ending for-profit policing practices
• ending the police use of military equipment
• implementing police union contracts that hold officers accountable for misconduct

(Source)
​

Delving more comprehensively than is explained in a bullet-list, I think some of the reparations they seek are unlikely to be realized, but I don't despise BLM for trying to obtain them. A good deal of the stuff they want doesn't even have a " for black folks only" constraint; thus one need not even consider the notions' merits/demerits from a racial standpoint to form a normative or positive stance on them/on implementing them; however, one must actually read them to realize that is the case.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I was told here, once, that I was racist for suggesting all people be treated the same and all held to the same standards. Therein lies the problem with the term in that to an increasing degree, anybody who does not show a complete deference to other races is now called racist by p.c. snowflakes. Any objection of the considerable degree of hatred blacks display towards whites is now racist. Rejecting bad behavior is now racist. Refusing to apologize for the accident of birth that resulted in pale skin is now racist.

As Joeb has shown, just about EVERYHING is racist if it falls even the slightest bit short of a system of beliefs that places blacks above reproach, and ascribes a race-based sense of original sin to whites. People have become so anti-racist that they have become completely racist by promoting these double standards.

Yep. It's such an important word, and such an important thing, that it's a shame it has been weaponized, trivialized and diluted in this way.

Another poster, earlier in this thread, flat-out denied that arguments like Joe's exist. And yet, right on cue, there they are, clear as day for all to see.
.

The word has been weaponized to such a degree that it has created a group phobia. Some in this thread have pointed out that it's overuse has made it meaningless, but that is only for some. For the large portion of the left, it's use has resulted in a very rigid and self-reinforcing system where people will do just about anything to avoid being called racist. We see it in this forum on a daily basis, where very authoritarian people do not question the double standards they proffer, but merely take them as gospel.

... all the while giving significant cover to the REAL racism that does still exist...
.

Yep. When a person who rejects the behavior and point of view of BLM is lumped together with neo nazis parading about with swasticas, the only real accomplishment is to move the bar to a very ridiculous place.

Beyond that, much of the left SUPPORTS racism as long as it works in the opposite direction. Take affirmative action, for instance. Here you have a system of racial privilege being mandated by the state which is the very definition of racism even according to the most stringent qualifiers. This has been occurring for two full generations, now, yet much of the left is supportive. They simply don't care that it punishes Asians and Jews disproportionally to others because all that matters is the emotional benefits derived from virtue signaling.

to an increasing degree, anybody who does not show a complete deference to other races is now called racist

Fealty, deference...nobody's asking for or expecting that. What's sought and expected is

• Consistently exhibited racial indifference in the majority race's prospective decision/policy making,
• Acknowledgement and action with regard to the fact that hundreds of years of race-based subjugation cannot be eradicated in the hearts and minds of all or preponderantly most of the polity, and that until that goal has been met, more heavy-handed modes of attenuating the potential and actual impact of whatever residual racist attitudes remain among people having power -- social, legal and/or political -- to enforce their bias
  
  Quite simply, attitudes passed down through families and communities and that took hundreds of years to culturally inculcate will not in sixty years expire. Thinking otherwise is profoundly naive.

Period.

When a person who rejects the behavior and point of view of BLM

Looking at what BLM have stated as their goals, I don't see much that's objectionable:

• Ending "broken windows" policing, which aggressively polices minor crimes in an attempt to stop larger ones
• using community oversight for misconduct rather than having police decide what consequences officers face
• making standards for reporting police use of deadly force
• independently investigating and prosecuting police misconduct
• having the racial makeup of police departments reflect the communities they serve
• requiring officers to wear body cameras
• providing more training for police officers
• ending for-profit policing practices
• ending the police use of military equipment
• implementing police union contracts that hold officers accountable for misconduct

(Source)
​

Delving more comprehensively than is explained in a bullet-list, I think some of the reparations they seek are unlikely to be realized, but I don't despise BLM for trying to obtain them. A good deal of the stuff they want doesn't even have a " for black folks only" constraint; thus one need not even consider the notions' merits/demerits from a racial standpoint to form a normative or positive stance on them/on implementing them; however, one must actually read them to realize that is the case.

That sure is a lot of words to indicate that you support an authoritarian state imposing race based systems of privilege.

 

[flacaltenn]

Agree look at his poll, Obama care? I don't think Obama was born in the US?


What kind of racist poll is this? And in the CDZ?????

That was his point man. People call it racism over the dumbest crap. Crap that isnt even CLOSE to being racist.

Bingo, thanks.

Hopefully we can keep the trolling to a minimum here.
.

Answer my question what does I hate Obama care have to do with racism?

Implication of the affirmative...

Seriously I want to know why would the OP put as choices Obama care and if obama was a natural born citizen in his poll..


What does those two have to deal with racism?

How about 100 links to essays and articles whining about how RACIST those claims are? Would that answer your question? You act you've never seen folks accused of racism for uttering those words.

Besides -- the PROOF is right there in his poll. Each of those statements got THREE VOTES as being racist. Go take it up with the members who CONCLUDED those statements were racist. OBVIOUSLY -- from this "very accurate internet poll" --- SOME PEOPLE consider those racist statements.

 

[Mac1958]

That was his point man. People call it racism over the dumbest crap. Crap that isnt even CLOSE to being racist.

Bingo, thanks.

Hopefully we can keep the trolling to a minimum here.
.

Answer my question what does I hate Obama care have to do with racism?

Implication of the affirmative...

Seriously I want to know why would the OP put as choices Obama care and if obama was a natural born citizen in his poll..


What does those two have to deal with racism?

How about 100 links to essays and articles whining about how RACIST those claims are? Would that answer your question? You act you've never seen folks accused of racism for uttering those words.

Methinks he completely misunderstands the point of the thread.

I explained it to him clearly, and he called it "gibberish".

Oh, and then reported me. Heh.
.

 

[flacaltenn]

Bingo, thanks.

Hopefully we can keep the trolling to a minimum here.
.

Answer my question what does I hate Obama care have to do with racism?

Implication of the affirmative...

Seriously I want to know why would the OP put as choices Obama care and if obama was a natural born citizen in his poll..


What does those two have to deal with racism?

How about 100 links to essays and articles whining about how RACIST those claims are? Would that answer your question? You act you've never seen folks accused of racism for uttering those words.

Methinks he completely misunderstands the point of the thread.

I explained it to him clearly, and he called it "gibberish".

Oh, and then reported me. Heh.
.

Patience required to do this message board thingy is daunting sometimes. How about this? When you create a poll about "what is racist" --- SHOULD you include examples of things that MIGHT be considered racist by some even it that's not the consensus viewpoint?. The NUMBERS are supposed to tell the "wisdom of the crowd"..

BTW -- you've managed to marginalize a LOT of leftists with your choice of examples.. Must have a GREAT talent for poll construction...

 

[JoeB131]

Yep. When a person who rejects the behavior and point of view of BLM is lumped together with neo nazis parading about with swasticas, the only real accomplishment is to move the bar to a very ridiculous place.

Okay, lets look at that.

When did 'The police shouldn't shoot unarmed black" become a ridiculous place.

But every time one of these incidents happens, you have the same pattern. Show that the person who was shot was less than an ideal person, and therefore it was acceptable to shoot him.

Right now, in Chicago, the judge presiding over Jason Van Dyke's trial says he MIGHT allow evidence about the victim, LaQuan McDonald and his juvenile record. Has nothing to do with the fact that Van Dyke shot him sixteen times, most when he was lying on the ground, and then lied about what went down in official reports.

Beyond that, much of the left SUPPORTS racism as long as it works in the opposite direction. Take affirmative action, for instance. Here you have a system of racial privilege being mandated by the state which is the very definition of racism even according to the most stringent qualifiers. This has been occurring for two full generations, now, yet much of the left is supportive. They simply don't care that it punishes Asians and Jews disproportionally to others because all that matters is the emotional benefits derived from virtue signaling.

Ohhhh, Virtue Signaling? Really.

Leaving aside the the main beneficiaries of AA have been white women, not black men, the thing is that the reason why it is still necessary after two generations is that there is still a racial bias. Not because the HR guy is a person who goes to cross burnings on the weekends, but because people are more likely to hire people they can identify with.

I cited this early, but they've done studies showing that resumes with "black" sounding names are less likely to get called for interviews.

Do job-seekers with 'white' names get more callbacks than 'black' names?

They responded to help-wanted ads for a variety of positions in the fields of sales, administrative support, clerical services and customer services posted in The Boston Globe and Chicago Tribune with fake resumes. The researchers plugged in made-up names on the resumes that are associated with African-Americans (they used Lakisha Washington and Jamal Jones as examples) or whites (Emily Walsh and Greg Baker) based on naming data for babies born between 1974-79 in Massachusetts. The name on each resume was randomly assigned, so the same resume in some cases had a black name and in others had a white name.

Then they counted the callbacks.

The resumes with white-sounding names spurred 50 percent more callbacks than the ones with black-sounding names.

After responding to 1,300 ads with more than 5,000 resumes, the researchers found that the job applicants with white names needed to send 10 resumes to get one callback, but the black candidate needed to send 15 for one.

It didn’t matter whether the employer was a federal contractor or was described as an "equal opportunity employer," as those also discriminated like the others.

"We find little evidence that our results are driven by employers inferring something other than race, such as social class, from the names," their paper states. "These results suggest that racial discrimination is still a prominent feature of the labor market."

And this is from the resume. I suspect the black guy named Greg probably gets weeded out when you do the phone interview and the ebonic dialect is obvious, or he shows up for the interview,and.... you know.

All that said, if you can find a way to fix the above problems without affirmative action, I would really love to hear it.

 

[Mac1958]

Answer my question what does I hate Obama care have to do with racism?

Implication of the affirmative...

Seriously I want to know why would the OP put as choices Obama care and if obama was a natural born citizen in his poll..


What does those two have to deal with racism?

How about 100 links to essays and articles whining about how RACIST those claims are? Would that answer your question? You act you've never seen folks accused of racism for uttering those words.

Methinks he completely misunderstands the point of the thread.

I explained it to him clearly, and he called it "gibberish".

Oh, and then reported me. Heh.
.

Patience required to do this message board thingy is daunting sometimes. How about this? When you create a poll about "what is racist" --- SHOULD you include examples of things that MIGHT be considered racist by some even it that's not the consensus viewpoint?. The NUMBERS are supposed to tell the "wisdom of the crowd"..

BTW -- you've managed to marginalize a LOT of leftists with your choice of examples.. Must have a GREAT talent for poll construction...

Well, I tried to give answers that were all across the spectrum. The lefties don't like them because they know the silly ones are often used. The couple of righties who got angry, holy cow, I wasn't expecting!
.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Implication of the affirmative...

Seriously I want to know why would the OP put as choices Obama care and if obama was a natural born citizen in his poll..


What does those two have to deal with racism?

How about 100 links to essays and articles whining about how RACIST those claims are? Would that answer your question? You act you've never seen folks accused of racism for uttering those words.

Methinks he completely misunderstands the point of the thread.

I explained it to him clearly, and he called it "gibberish".

Oh, and then reported me. Heh.
.

Patience required to do this message board thingy is daunting sometimes. How about this? When you create a poll about "what is racist" --- SHOULD you include examples of things that MIGHT be considered racist by some even it that's not the consensus viewpoint?. The NUMBERS are supposed to tell the "wisdom of the crowd"..

BTW -- you've managed to marginalize a LOT of leftists with your choice of examples.. Must have a GREAT talent for poll construction...

Well, I tried to give answers that were all across the spectrum. The lefties don't like them because they know the silly ones are often used. The couple of righties who got angry, holy cow, I wasn't expecting!
.

All I can figure out is that the righties somehow thought these were your own actual beliefs, and simply saw red.

It's tough to be a moderate, here. The leftists call you right wing and the righties call you left.

 

[Coyote]

I was told here, once, that I was racist for suggesting all people be treated the same and all held to the same standards. Therein lies the problem with the term in that to an increasing degree, anybody who does not show a complete deference to other races is now called racist by p.c. snowflakes. Any objection of the considerable degree of hatred blacks display towards whites is now racist. Rejecting bad behavior is now racist. Refusing to apologize for the accident of birth that resulted in pale skin is now racist.

As Joeb has shown, just about EVERYHING is racist if it falls even the slightest bit short of a system of beliefs that places blacks above reproach, and ascribes a race-based sense of original sin to whites. People have become so anti-racist that they have become completely racist by promoting these double standards.

Yep. It's such an important word, and such an important thing, that it's a shame it has been weaponized, trivialized and diluted in this way.

Another poster, earlier in this thread, flat-out denied that arguments like Joe's exist. And yet, right on cue, there they are, clear as day for all to see.
.

The word has been weaponized to such a degree that it has created a group phobia. Some in this thread have pointed out that it's overuse has made it meaningless, but that is only for some. For the large portion of the left, it's use has resulted in a very rigid and self-reinforcing system where people will do just about anything to avoid being called racist. We see it in this forum on a daily basis, where very authoritarian people do not question the double standards they proffer, but merely take them as gospel.

... all the while giving significant cover to the REAL racism that does still exist...
.

I think we have to be careful here. Because racism DOES exist....and it's convenient for some to pretend it doesn't....

 

[sartre play]

Would the fact that number 7 on the list has 27 votes, say something about racism?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I think we have to be careful here. Because racism DOES exist....and it's convenient for some to pretend it doesn't....

He WAS careful. He acknowledged that there was racism quite clearly.

Very few people pretend it doesn't exist. The problem is that few use it in a consistent fashion, while huge numbers do not acknowledge it when it arises from a minority and have enormous double standards by way of applying it. Only ONE group is assailed as racist, and they have to withstand a veritable witch hunt when it comes to the expression of impure thoughts whereas anything goes for the pet groups who are free say whatever they damn well please.

 

[Coyote]

I think we have to be careful here. Because racism DOES exist....and it's convenient for some to pretend it doesn't....

He WAS careful. He acknowledged that there was racism quite clearly.

Very few people pretend it doesn't exist. The problem is that few use it in a consistent fashion, while huge numbers do not acknowledge it when it arises from a minority and have enormous double standards by way of applying it. Only ONE group is assailed as racist, and they have to withstand a veritable witch hunt when it comes to the expression of impure thoughts whereas anything goes for the pet groups who are free say whatever they damn well please.

You should read some of the “Africa shithole” threads....they are disturbing.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Which comments are racist?

Generally speaking, people are racist; comments aren't racist. Remarks can indicate a person has racist leanings or is a racist, but no single comment is, by itself, a probative indicator of one's being thus. Some remarks are more probative in that regard than are others.

At the end of the day, I doubt that many folks in the U.S. will attest to being racist; consequently, in determining whether any given individual is a racist, observers must use one's statements -- what one has said, how one said them, the circumstances in which one said them, what be the foreseeable implications of the statements, etc. -- to determine the nature and extent to which one is a racist. That said, slightly racist and overwhelmingly racist are both racist.

Pah! You haven't experienced cultsmasher yet!

Someday you may, you won't forget it, either.

 

[Coyote]

Which comments are racist?

Generally speaking, people are racist; comments aren't racist. Remarks can indicate a person has racist leanings or is a racist, but no single comment is, by itself, a probative indicator of one's being thus. Some remarks are more probative in that regard than are others.

At the end of the day, I doubt that many folks in the U.S. will attest to being racist; consequently, in determining whether any given individual is a racist, observers must use one's statements -- what one has said, how one said them, the circumstances in which one said them, what be the foreseeable implications of the statements, etc. -- to determine the nature and extent to which one is a racist. That said, slightly racist and overwhelmingly racist are both racist.

Pah! You haven't experienced cultsmasher yet!

Someday you may, you won't forget it, either.

All 400 or so incarnations of him

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I think we have to be careful here. Because racism DOES exist....and it's convenient for some to pretend it doesn't....

He WAS careful. He acknowledged that there was racism quite clearly.

Very few people pretend it doesn't exist. The problem is that few use it in a consistent fashion, while huge numbers do not acknowledge it when it arises from a minority and have enormous double standards by way of applying it. Only ONE group is assailed as racist, and they have to withstand a veritable witch hunt when it comes to the expression of impure thoughts whereas anything goes for the pet groups who are free say whatever they damn well please.

You should read some of the “Africa shithole” threads....they are disturbing.

They are no less disturbing than having black posters attack other poster's children simply because they are white.

When are YOU going to acknowledge it when it arises from a protected group?

 

[Coyote]

I think we have to be careful here. Because racism DOES exist....and it's convenient for some to pretend it doesn't....

He WAS careful. He acknowledged that there was racism quite clearly.

Very few people pretend it doesn't exist. The problem is that few use it in a consistent fashion, while huge numbers do not acknowledge it when it arises from a minority and have enormous double standards by way of applying it. Only ONE group is assailed as racist, and they have to withstand a veritable witch hunt when it comes to the expression of impure thoughts whereas anything goes for the pet groups who are free say whatever they damn well please.

You should read some of the “Africa shithole” threads....they are disturbing.

They are no less disturbing than having black posters attack other poster's children simply because they are white.

When are YOU going to acknowledge it when it arises from a protected group?

My position is and always has been that racism is not exclusive nor the domain of any one group.

Is that something YOU can agree on?

Can we also agree that these Africa shithole threads are disturbing?

 

[Mac1958]

Seriously I want to know why would the OP put as choices Obama care and if obama was a natural born citizen in his poll..


What does those two have to deal with racism?

How about 100 links to essays and articles whining about how RACIST those claims are? Would that answer your question? You act you've never seen folks accused of racism for uttering those words.

Methinks he completely misunderstands the point of the thread.

I explained it to him clearly, and he called it "gibberish".

Oh, and then reported me. Heh.
.

Patience required to do this message board thingy is daunting sometimes. How about this? When you create a poll about "what is racist" --- SHOULD you include examples of things that MIGHT be considered racist by some even it that's not the consensus viewpoint?. The NUMBERS are supposed to tell the "wisdom of the crowd"..

BTW -- you've managed to marginalize a LOT of leftists with your choice of examples.. Must have a GREAT talent for poll construction...

Well, I tried to give answers that were all across the spectrum. The lefties don't like them because they know the silly ones are often used. The couple of righties who got angry, holy cow, I wasn't expecting!
.

All I can figure out is that the righties somehow thought these were your own actual beliefs, and simply saw red.

It's tough to be a moderate, here. The leftists call you right wing and the righties call you left.

I think they were seeing red before they got to third paragraph, which actually makes the point.

Pretty funny.
.

 

[Mac1958]

I think we have to be careful here. Because racism DOES exist....and it's convenient for some to pretend it doesn't....

Absolutely, exactly. And that's why I hate seeing such an important word, and thing, trivialized and diluted like this.
.

 

[Marion Morrison]

I think we have to be careful here. Because racism DOES exist....and it's convenient for some to pretend it doesn't....

Absolutely, exactly. And that's why I hate seeing such an important word, and thing, trivialized and diluted like this.
.

It gets used so often, when a real racist shows up, the sting of calling them out on it is gone. You're right, it's been watered down, I wonder by whom, mostly? I ain't mentionin' no names, y'all figure that one out fer yurselves.