TTYNKAM (TYPDCAA) IV

myownsatellite · Post by **myownsatellite** » 4/1/2008, 1:04 pm

Aha! See, I didn't read it that way - I read it as the person who must not be named that she wants to block updates from!

Johnny · Post by **Johnny** » 4/1/2008, 1:35 pm

Why is it ok for black people to call us white folk crackers whereas its unacceptable for white folk to call them niggers?

myownsatellite · Post by **myownsatellite** » 4/1/2008, 1:44 pm

Reverse discrimination.

Post by **saman** » 4/1/2008, 1:50 pm

or just regular ol' discrimination. people don't have to be white to discriminate against someone.

myownsatellite · Post by **myownsatellite** » 4/1/2008, 4:33 pm

But when the general societal idea is that white people can't be discriminated against because of their whiteness, then I would call it reverse discrimination.

We were talking about this last night in one of my classes - since white people have refused to recognize the color "white" as a race, then white people have logically given up the right to claim racism. I don't technically agree with that because there is actually a lot of reference to the color white being a race, but I do think that there is a stigma that white people can't be discriminated against because they are in the majority. Hence the term "reverse discrimination."

Johnny · Post by **Johnny** » 4/1/2008, 5:45 pm

Some black teens kept calling me and a buddy dumb crackers while we were playing some Call of Duty. Every time one of us spoke, we'd be called a dumb cracker. It didn't bug me or my friend, but it was getting old and annoying and we both were coming close to saying nigger. We held our tongues though because it would have probably caused hell for us.

Lando · Post by **Lando** » 4/1/2008, 5:58 pm

reverse discrimination sounds like doing the opposite of discriminating... It sounds like you're accepting or not judging someone... or something along those lines.

Post by **saman** » 4/1/2008, 6:46 pm

myownsatellite wrote:But when the general societal idea is that white people can't be discriminated against because of their whiteness, then I would call it reverse discrimination.

We were talking about this last night in one of my classes - since white people have refused to recognize the color "white" as a race, then white people have logically given up the right to claim racism. I don't technically agree with that because there is actually a lot of reference to the color white being a race, but I do think that there is a stigma that white people can't be discriminated against because they are in the majority. Hence the term "reverse discrimination."

i think the main problem i have with that is the belief that how white people perceive themselves actually changes the truth of what's going on. white people can claim non-racial status all they want, but just because there are a lot of them doesn't mean that they actually aren't a race. what about places other than north america and europe? in japan and korea, for example, white people are ostrasized all the time. they're a minority over there, so is that still reverse discrimination? why would they be considered a race over there but not over here?

in my opinion, discrimination is discrimination, and calling it reverse discrimination allows white people to simultaneously have an elevated status, because by doing so we're agreeing that they've transcended from being a race, and be victimized at the same time. really, if white people aren't a race, then what are they? the ultimate ideal for how humanity is meant to be? and going back to johnny's original statement, it shouldn't be okay for black people to call white people crackers. "nigger" carries a lot of weight, and just because "cracker" doesn't, doesn't mean it should be acceptable.

Random Name · Post by **Random Name** » 4/1/2008, 8:15 pm

I WANT TO MAKE A THREAD ON THIS. WHO'S WITH ME?

Random Name · Post by **Random Name** » 4/1/2008, 8:17 pm

I tried to split this topic and it failed. so screw you guys.

discussion topics are so 04.

Lando · Post by **Lando** » 4/1/2008, 8:36 pm

damn son.

Post by **saman** » 4/1/2008, 8:44 pm

Random Name wrote:I tried to split this topic and it failed. so screw you guys.

discussion topics are so 04.

i heart you, but you fail as a mod

myownsatellite · Post by **myownsatellite** » 4/2/2008, 8:01 am

saman wrote:
myownsatellite wrote:But when the general societal idea is that white people can't be discriminated against because of their whiteness, then I would call it reverse discrimination.

We were talking about this last night in one of my classes - since white people have refused to recognize the color "white" as a race, then white people have logically given up the right to claim racism. I don't technically agree with that because there is actually a lot of reference to the color white being a race, but I do think that there is a stigma that white people can't be discriminated against because they are in the majority. Hence the term "reverse discrimination."

i think the main problem i have with that is the belief that how white people perceive themselves actually changes the truth of what's going on. white people can claim non-racial status all they want, but just because there are a lot of them doesn't mean that they actually aren't a race. what about places other than north america and europe? in japan and korea, for example, white people are ostrasized all the time. they're a minority over there, so is that still reverse discrimination? why would they be considered a race over there but not over here?

in my opinion, discrimination is discrimination, and calling it reverse discrimination allows white people to simultaneously have an elevated status, because by doing so we're agreeing that they've transcended from being a race, and be victimized at the same time. really, if white people aren't a race, then what are they? the ultimate ideal for how humanity is meant to be? and going back to johnny's original statement, it shouldn't be okay for black people to call white people crackers. "nigger" carries a lot of weight, and just because "cracker" doesn't, doesn't mean it should be acceptable.

Well, how you perceive yourself does change the truth of what is going on. If you don't perceive yourself as belonging to a race, how can you then claim racism against yourself?

I think white people don't WANT to be part of a racial argument, but no matter what they think, they ARE part of it. (I don't know why I'm saying they, I'm white myself. I guess just to talk about society as a whole...I'm not really with them on the whole race thing)

If white people can't call black people 'nigger' then black people shouldn't be allowed to call white people 'cracker' or 'whitey' or any of those terms. I agree with you. I'm not really disagreeing with you, just trying to explain why society coined the term 'reverse discrimination' - and yes, I think it was to elevate white people above the suffering masses.

Henrietta · Post by **Henrietta** » 4/2/2008, 9:20 am

Ok about the facebook....its the person's status's the bug me. However, we ended on good terms and are still friends. So I'd like to be able to just not see them for a couple months until I'm back to normal

I guess it won't work that way.

And....that is not ok for them to call you that. You treat other people as you want to be treated. Calling someone else a racial slur is just asking to be called one yourself. I'm white and I think I'm part of a race. Why not? That doesn't even make sense. I never thought about it that way, but I can see how it would be reverse discrimination here. However, in other countries it wouldn't be reverse discrimination. It would be plain old discrimination because they're in the minority. So it should be a term in reference to who is in the majority and where you are, and not just in reference to which race you belong to worldwide.

crustine · Post by **crustine** » 4/2/2008, 5:21 pm

so is reverse discrimination based on who is the majority? this means this is static and could conceivably flip flop in a community.

Henrietta · Post by **Henrietta** » 4/2/2008, 6:51 pm

Yup. It could. And does.

Random Name · Post by **Random Name** » 4/2/2008, 7:05 pm

saman wrote:
Random Name wrote:I tried to split this topic and it failed. so screw you guys.

discussion topics are so 04.

i heart you, but you fail as a mod

I clicked the button and nothing happened.
ima cry now.
ps friday is now wednesday. good? I kind of want to go see 21 if your up for it?

Lando · Post by **Lando** » 4/2/2008, 7:14 pm

I am!

Post by **saman** » 4/2/2008, 7:33 pm

no. you're not allowed.

i should be good for wednesday, unless i'm working. hopefully i'm not. even if i am, though, we can still do what we did last time for cloverfield. i'll let you know for sure.

Henrietta · Post by **Henrietta** » 4/2/2008, 8:34 pm

Why don't any of you love near me? It's not fair.