Black guy walks into a store in an area hes not from and gets followed by management? Racism or prejudice?

Black guy believes his daughter should only date black men. Racism or prejudice?

Yes

Both are examples of prejudice

Yeah until i tell you the manager didnt like black people and was from the deep woods of georgia and the black guy hates all white people. You didnt have sufficient information to answer my questions yet you think you know.

That's still prejudice though...

Both cases show a person being judged on skin color/judging others on skin color. Racism it is.
But of course it's also prejudice because that's how words work.

Anyone see this yet?

https://www.facebook.com/ATTNVideo/v...YxNTI3NTI0MzM/

most ppl would say chocolate to not sound racist but ok

also u can have light skin and not be white fyi

Maybe it was Marilyn Manson with a gun?
Bloody police: taking the law into their own hands!
Sexism: what if she wants to date black (or white) girls?

Again, no. You dont have any information.

Suppose I told you the manager wasn't even following the guy but was instead blocking the aisles at the end of the night and ran into them a few times? Or that the store follows random people as part of a pre-emptive security plan? Both scenarios happen in real life.

And for the second case, the family is 100% Ugandian(?) and would like to continue the trend. It's nothing more than selfish parenting and pride.

The correct answer is always I DONT KNOW, unless you know. You don't get to stumble into a scenario with 0 context or information and make assumptions about truth.

Unless the owner of the franchise instructed the manager to follow black customers, or follows every black person, then it's not systemic and therefore not racism, but rather prejudiced behavior.

The second hypothetical doesn't even make sense nor does it illustrate your own point lol.

And how are you going to bring truth into a battle of semantics.

Well, strictly speaking, if I'm to take your scenario that literally, yeah. But what's the point? I might have missed the origins of this particular exercise and therefore also what it is you're getting at.

So let me modify what I said before and say that both scenarios look a hell of a lot like racist motivations are at play, but it could be some other weird reason. Like the black guy who walks into a store happens to also wear a t-shirt saying "shoplifting is fun!".

Are there similar semantic constructs around sexism and homophobia as well?

****, I didn't realize you really meant it. Why even have the phrase "systemic racism" then, if all racism is systemic by default.

First, off there are no semantics here...

You claimed: "You don't think you could identify racism or prejudice without someone spelling out their intentions? That's silly."

I gave you scenarios, and you proceeded to identify each persons intention (which is a truth claim). The point of my questioning was to demonstrate that it's not simple to distinguish between racism and prejudice. I don't know what line of reasoning you have to think otherwise. You could try explaining instead of simply disagreeing.

and racism doesn't need to be systemic to exist.

It demonstrates an action which may appear to be racist or prejudice could be completely innocent. That's pretty much exactly my point, you don't know.

Ah, now I get what this whole thing is about. Yeah, you'd have to know on what basis someone is judged to be able to recognize it as, for example, racism.

Because the commonly understood definition of racism is outdated and wrong, and implies that racism goes in all directions. While prejudice is a symptom of racism, it's not the same thing so it's important to make that distinction.

Racism does absolutely go in all directions. Depending on when and where; some directions more than others.

Racism does go in all directions. I'd like to hear your reasoning otherwise.

How does a black person hating a white person because they are white not count as racism?

Editted: to be less jerky.

Not that I can think of, but there are certainly misunderstandings within those topics not unlike the racism vs prejudice issue. F.ex concepts of privilege.

I could also be cheeky and suggest that "benevolent racism" can't be a thing according to this strange definition of the word, since it's kinda hard to imagine most uses of the phrase "benevolent racism" passing as in any way referring to cases of institutionalized racism (and therefore apparently not racism).

So if I assume a black guy has a great sense of rhythm and can run fast because he's black, then I'm not a racist.

When I hold a door for a woman because she's a woman, it's not benevolent sexism either - at least not if we should start giving the word "sexist" the same treatment.


EDITED for generally being poorly written, which it still is.

You didn't need to edit, I don't care if you're jerky or not.

I feel like I'm talking in circles here so this is the last time I'll say it: racism refers to a system of oppression based on the presumption that the oppressors' race is superior to those being oppressed. There has never been a system of oppression in this country in which white people have been oppressed by any minority group systemically, so it is not correct to say that a black person hating a white person is racist. It is prejudiced, bigoted, etc., but racism is about power and policy.

This is the point where the chain jumps off. People object to this definition because it takes a well known and widely used word hostage, radically redefines it and muddles most discussion where it is used (outside of very particular circles where this version is apparently the norm). Why not just go with a new word or phrase? I mean, "institutionalized racism" actually does the job really well. It's when you clip it down to just "racism" that things get funky.

Under your definition sure I agree with you that it can't go both ways, but that's simply not how the word is used or understood colloquially. Idc if you don't agree with the definition, when in conversation or in writing racism is commonly understood as "prejudice based on skin color". The same as every other ISM that isn't a considered a system, until people wanna start using it to bate bullshit conversations. It's only a "system" because that makes it convenient to sling shit and not be held accountable.

and I care if I'm jerky.

I mean ketchup is defined as being spicy.

I mean if you wanna start another topic about the dictionary not being an authority on words and how its a reference for colloquial usage we can. Definitions don't matter much as long as we agree on the usage of a words while in discussion. If you and I both agree that "jibberwollywootzenshnazen" means love when speaking to one another that's all that matters. The problem occurs when you decide to interject your own meaning that no one else agrees with and start arguing on it's behalf. Until now it wasn't made clear that you were arguing based on a different understanding of the word.. and if it was I apologize for missing it, and it's my fault.

It's not my own definition, I'm not making this up lol. This is how I've understood it for 10+ years and seems to be the consensus within my cohort and in academia so idk.

Seems awfully dishonest and snowflakey to me.. for reasons already stated.

.

Racism isn't a system of oppression, it is prejudice based in beliefs of racial superiority. There are certainly systems of oppression based in racism but racism itself isn't the system.

Lesson three: sometimes Frownland is wrong.

Most of the time.

So you people are appropriating linguistics now? Check your verbal privilege.

Sorry guys but I'm pretty sure I'm the only one that's right and it's all of you that are incorrect.

This is how every single family function at my house goes.

Woah, lots of pages while I was at work. I don't know if I have enough popcorn for this.

I heard this same **** when I was in college. Black people can’t be racist. Racism = prejudice + power. Whatever variations.

A higher percentage of black people are racist against other black people than white people who never interact with black people.

The first thing black people do when they find success is to segregate themselves from other blacks.

Were you taught that all isms are literal systems? Sexism, Ablism, etc..

Eh not really. Systems of the patriarchy, sure, but not in the same league as racism.


I'm jking with my last comment btw, for those of y'all who don't know me well.

So why is it that you think racism should be separated from the other isms? As I understand it, they are all the same thing with the noun changed.