I was willing to give people the benefit of the doubt when I was younger but now I'm older and wiser I no longer rely on preconceptions to judge them but personal experience. That's why I think only young people can be racist, the older ones know the score.
Poll
Does this fit your political leanings/age?
| Yes | 32% | 32% - 31 | ||||
| No | 52% | 52% - 49 | ||||
| Unsure | 14% | 14% - 14 | ||||
| Total: 94 | ||||||
That's just plain and simple bullshit.RicardoBlanco wrote:
I was willing to give people the benefit of the doubt when I was younger but now I'm older and wiser I no longer rely on preconceptions to judge them but personal experience. That's why I think only young people can be racist, the older ones know the score.
From my personal experience most younger people that lean to the left or extreme right do not really understand any of their believes, they just "feel" it in an attempt to "rebel" against their parent generation. Later on when they make peace with the establishment they lean more towards the right/centre because they still do not understand anything but that's just where the mainstream is. Would the mainstream be communist they would say "Only young people believe in market economy, but when you get older and wiser you see that Marxism-Leninism is the best system."
Of course there are also the people that educate themselves and know WHY they have such and such believes and these people usually stay the way they are when they are older.
Doesn't fit for me. My views have a changed over time, but are still generally to the right.
I hadn't heard that capitalism was un-Christian. That's a new one, CPoe.
I hadn't heard that capitalism was un-Christian. That's a new one, CPoe.
I guess you skipped the moneylenders in the temple bit.Stingray24 wrote:
Doesn't fit for me. My views have a changed over time, but are still generally to the right.
I hadn't heard that capitalism was un-Christian. That's a new one, CPoe.
I suppose it is accurate in my case, though only through coincidence. I base my political decisions on observed practice per subject, not on general theories.
Last edited by jonsimon (2007-05-11 06:29:06)
So Imus and Sharpton are just joking around?RicardoBlanco wrote:
I was willing to give people the benefit of the doubt when I was younger but now I'm older and wiser I no longer rely on preconceptions to judge them but personal experience. That's why I think only young people can be racist, the older ones know the score.
Communism is more about communal government and the elimination of class war or class superiority. Marxist communism simply made the assumption that capitalism would fail on its own (which it could without reforms) and the proletariat would be forced to rise to power like the burgeoise had. Communism in the Soviet Union only crashed because of the separation of the individual states. Without the 'revolutions' communism was still strong in the Soviet Union thanks to the reforms of the likes of Gorbachov and the public support of Yeltsin. Frankly, there is no known reason communism can't succeed.Varegg wrote:
And why has communism failed, ask yourself that question before you judge it.
Communism as intended and this is only the short version: Equal rights and benefits for all, share everything with everybody.
The reason communism have failed is because those in charge are not really communists, they are rather the prime example of a hard core capitalist, communism as it worked in the Sovjet Union was only for the people not for the leaders and that crashed even though it took many years.
They're old enough to make decisions and be able to back them up with a certain amount of life experience. Maybe Imus had a bad experience everytime he met a black person? Who am I to call someone racist when I have no idea whether they base their opinions on. That would be ignorant and patronising.jonsimon wrote:
So Imus and Sharpton are just joking around?RicardoBlanco wrote:
I was willing to give people the benefit of the doubt when I was younger but now I'm older and wiser I no longer rely on preconceptions to judge them but personal experience. That's why I think only young people can be racist, the older ones know the score.
Regardless of justification, racism is racism. Besides, you don't know what experiences young people have, so your theory is silly.RicardoBlanco wrote:
They're old enough to make decisions and be able to back them up with a certain amount of life experience. Maybe Imus had a bad experience everytime he met a black person? Who am I to call someone racist when I have no idea whether they base their opinions on. That would be ignorant and patronising.jonsimon wrote:
So Imus and Sharpton are just joking around?RicardoBlanco wrote:
I was willing to give people the benefit of the doubt when I was younger but now I'm older and wiser I no longer rely on preconceptions to judge them but personal experience. That's why I think only young people can be racist, the older ones know the score.
16 year old socialist here, so it fits.
No, but I do know they have less experience from which to draw judgement. How can you call someone who's dealt with black people all his life a racist? Maybe he does fucking hate them and perhaps for good reason, who are you to say that's based on prejudice (prejudice being fundamental to racism)?jonsimon wrote:
Regardless of justification, racism is racism. Besides, you don't know what experiences young people have, so your theory is silly.RicardoBlanco wrote:
They're old enough to make decisions and be able to back them up with a certain amount of life experience. Maybe Imus had a bad experience everytime he met a black person? Who am I to call someone racist when I have no idea whether they base their opinions on. That would be ignorant and patronising.jonsimon wrote:
So Imus and Sharpton are just joking around?
Jesus, are you this stupid or do you just want to piss of people (i guess its the last).RicardoBlanco wrote:
No, but I do know they have less experience from which to draw judgement. How can you call someone who's dealt with black people all his life a racist? Maybe he does fucking hate them and perhaps for good reason, who are you to say that's based on prejudice (prejudice being fundamental to racism)?
Racism is prejudgement by definition, because you judge a certain person by race.
If someone hates someone else because he's black than that's racism no matter how much experience he has with black people or not.
I don't agree with Churchhill. Its a statement created to easily dismiss opposing views in public opinion.
Demonization of anyone with different opinions.
Demonization of anyone with different opinions.
Well if said person has plenty of experience with black people where does the prejudice come in? He's making a value judgement on what he's seen and experienced so there is no prejudice and therefore he isn't a racist.derstralle wrote:
Jesus, are you this stupid or do you just want to piss of people (i guess its the last).RicardoBlanco wrote:
No, but I do know they have less experience from which to draw judgement. How can you call someone who's dealt with black people all his life a racist? Maybe he does fucking hate them and perhaps for good reason, who are you to say that's based on prejudice (prejudice being fundamental to racism)?
Racism is prejudgement by definition, because you judge a certain person by race.
If someone hates someone else because he's black than that's racism no matter how much experience he has with black people or not.
You speak to the vast majority of whites living in South Africa and they'll say the same.
What the hell arre you talking about?RicardoBlanco wrote:
No, but I do know they have less experience from which to draw judgement. How can you call someone who's dealt with black people all his life a racist? Maybe he does fucking hate them and perhaps for good reason, who are you to say that's based on prejudice (prejudice being fundamental to racism)?jonsimon wrote:
Regardless of justification, racism is racism. Besides, you don't know what experiences young people have, so your theory is silly.RicardoBlanco wrote:
They're old enough to make decisions and be able to back them up with a certain amount of life experience. Maybe Imus had a bad experience everytime he met a black person? Who am I to call someone racist when I have no idea whether they base their opinions on. That would be ignorant and patronising.
That is one of the most ludicrous statements I've ever read.
Regardless of anyones experiences with people of a particular race, treating people of that race differently to people of other races is racist. If you have had negative experiences with people of a certain race and you base your decisions about an individual of that race on those previous experiences, that is racist - you are pre-judging the individual based on their race, which is racist.
There are lots of forms of racism and lots of degrees to which it can occur, many of which are harmless.
"How can you call someone who's dealt with black people all his life a racist?" Really fucking easily!
I don't know how you can even begin to justify that statement.
That IS prejudice!RicardoBlanco wrote:
Well if said person has plenty of experience with black people where does the prejudice come in? He's making a value judgement on what he's seen and experienced so there is no prejudice and therefore he isn't a racist.derstralle wrote:
Jesus, are you this stupid or do you just want to piss of people (i guess its the last).RicardoBlanco wrote:
No, but I do know they have less experience from which to draw judgement. How can you call someone who's dealt with black people all his life a racist? Maybe he does fucking hate them and perhaps for good reason, who are you to say that's based on prejudice (prejudice being fundamental to racism)?
Racism is prejudgement by definition, because you judge a certain person by race.
If someone hates someone else because he's black than that's racism no matter how much experience he has with black people or not.
You speak to the vast majority of whites living in South Africa and they'll say the same.
He is making a judgement about an individual not based on that individual but on their race. That is prejudice and since race comes into it, it is racist too.
lol
South Africa - No problem with racism there at all.
I remember that quite well and it had nothing to do with capitalism. Rather it was about merchants who literally stole from people by inflating the price of converting their currency to the Temple currency.CameronPoe wrote:
I guess you skipped the moneylenders in the temple bit.Stingray24 wrote:
I hadn't heard that capitalism was un-Christian. That's a new one, CPoe.
In my hypothetical example he has plenty of experience with black people so it's a judgement based on what he's experienced they were like as opposed to the colour of their skin. No prejudice there.Bertster7 wrote:
That IS prejudice!RicardoBlanco wrote:
Well if said person has plenty of experience with black people where does the prejudice come in? He's making a value judgement on what he's seen and experienced so there is no prejudice and therefore he isn't a racist.derstralle wrote:
Jesus, are you this stupid or do you just want to piss of people (i guess its the last).
Racism is prejudgement by definition, because you judge a certain person by race.
If someone hates someone else because he's black than that's racism no matter how much experience he has with black people or not.
You speak to the vast majority of whites living in South Africa and they'll say the same.
He is making a judgement about an individual not based on that individual but on their race. That is prejudice and since race comes into it, it is racist too.
lol
South Africa - No problem with racism there at all.
You've obviously never been to SA but assuming you do one day, and you're white, try walking through one of the townships or hell, even to the shops in Jo'Burg. Do this for a year and then come back and tell me how great they all are, provided you're still alive/sane after the experience!
Well everything and everyone is unique so judging something or someone before further examination is just prejudgement. It is not necessarily a bad thing, as it is just impossible to examine everything into detail and you have to make use of generalizations and experience.RicardoBlanco wrote:
Well if said person has plenty of experience with black people where does the prejudice come in? He's making a value judgement on what he's seen and experienced so there is no prejudice and therefore he isn't a racist.
You speak to the vast majority of whites living in South Africa and they'll say the same.
If you base these generalizations on race than that's racism for me ("racialism is a form of discrimination based on race").
But this is beginning to derail the thread, if you feel the need for further discussion I invite you to open a new one.
THAT IS PREJUDICE!RicardoBlanco wrote:
In my hypothetical example he has plenty of experience with black people so it's a judgement based on what he's experienced they were like as opposed to the colour of their skin. No prejudice there.Bertster7 wrote:
That IS prejudice!RicardoBlanco wrote:
Well if said person has plenty of experience with black people where does the prejudice come in? He's making a value judgement on what he's seen and experienced so there is no prejudice and therefore he isn't a racist.
You speak to the vast majority of whites living in South Africa and they'll say the same.
He is making a judgement about an individual not based on that individual but on their race. That is prejudice and since race comes into it, it is racist too.
lol
South Africa - No problem with racism there at all.
It doesn't matter how much experience he has with black people, it's still prejudice based on race and hence still racist.
Any judgments on an individual that are not based specifically on that individual, are prejudicial. There are no two ways about it, your hypthetical example shows racist behaviour.
Say the man in your example owns a shop, a shop which has been robbed daily by black people since it was opened. No one of any other race has ever robbed the shop. If the man pays closer attention to black customers fearing they will rob his shop, that IS racist, it is minor and it is fairly justifiable, but it is racist.
Prejudice deals with INDIVIDUALS. You cannot make an unprejudiced judgement on someone unless you have specific information about them or experience with them and only those factors influence your decision. Everything else is prejudice.
I don't think you know what prejudice means.Bertster7 wrote:
THAT IS PREJUDICE!RicardoBlanco wrote:
In my hypothetical example he has plenty of experience with black people so it's a judgement based on what he's experienced they were like as opposed to the colour of their skin. No prejudice there.Bertster7 wrote:
That IS prejudice!
He is making a judgement about an individual not based on that individual but on their race. That is prejudice and since race comes into it, it is racist too.
lol
South Africa - No problem with racism there at all.
It doesn't matter how much experience he has with black people, it's still prejudice based on race and hence still racist.
Any judgments on an individual that are not based specifically on that individual, are prejudicial. There are no two ways about it, your hypthetical example shows racist behaviour.
Say the man in your example owns a shop, a shop which has been robbed daily by black people since it was opened. No one of any other race has ever robbed the shop. If the man pays closer attention to black customers fearing they will rob his shop, that IS racist, it is minor and it is fairly justifiable, but it is racist.
Prejudice deals with INDIVIDUALS. You cannot make an unprejudiced judgement on someone unless you have specific information about them or experience with them and only those factors influence your decision. Everything else is prejudice.
What about the general Christian abhorance of usary?Stingray24 wrote:
I remember that quite well and it had nothing to do with capitalism. Rather it was about merchants who literally stole from people by inflating the price of converting their currency to the Temple currency.CameronPoe wrote:
I guess you skipped the moneylenders in the temple bit.Stingray24 wrote:
I hadn't heard that capitalism was un-Christian. That's a new one, CPoe.
That seems to have died down a bit over the past few centuries.
Also does this mean Jesus would disapprove of the international currency market?
30CameronPoe wrote:
I think Winston got it wrong. Where is the middle ground?
Yes. I'm 21 and anti-socialist, but I'm pretty much devoid of compassion.
To Ty
That thing is like saying "If you don't agree with me you're stupid"
That thing is like saying "If you don't agree with me you're stupid"
