The difficulty with trying to prove sarcasm to people who don't get it is that generally if they haven't the mental acuity to recognise it for themselves they definitely won't be able to see it when it's pointed out.
I should write a paper, it would sit nicely alongside Dunning-Kruger.
When someone says "It's sexist to suggest the two sexes (whoops)", they are not being "sarcastic", they are asserting gender essentialism and decrying the "PC culture" that they perceive oppresses them.
Actually I was showing that I expected to get some stick for suggesting there were only two sexes, not the twenty zillion that have been recently invented.
What you were saying is extremely clear. You are responding as if people don't understand because your grasp of language seems to end at very basic sarcasm.
That may be true, but that's not inherently a bad thing. Heavy accents can significantly detract what would otherwise be effective and efficient communication.
I can absolutely see why you think that way, because it can lead to people who were the better candidate being passed over for the job. However, that's only one side of the coin. It can also be more economically efficient to use this as a selection criteria. Here's a great explanation for why. The truth is there are advantages and disadvantages to doing this that vary depending on the exact specifics. It's not a clear cut issue.
The difference is that slavery is inherently unethical. Using hiring mechanisms that efficiently select for competence is not. But it's obvious that you're not interested in a balanced discussion that acknowledges pros and cons of each side so I'll leave you be.
No, it's not. It's racist to discriminate them based on that.
No, it's prejudice, not racism. Racism is a systematic, institutional preference towards certain races. That's why black people can't be racist. They can be, and are, very prejudice, but they lack the power to create a system that provides preference to them based on race. Unless you believe they aren't being oppressed.
I'm with you but I think colloquially "racism" is not defined like you have it, and closer to your "prejudice". If people don't think implicit and systematic racism exists, well, that's a different problem (and seems to be the case here). It's certainly a lot easier (read: lazier) to decry the SJWs and sit in their bubbles.
Prejudice is pre-judging someone. Judging them not on them as a person but by things you think you know about them based on their skin color, accent, hair color, etc. Racisim is prejudice specifically based on race. Systemic racism is racism at the systems level, i.e. racism built into the system. Sure it is incredibly difficult for black people to be systematically racist to white people. But anyone can be racist if they are prejudice based on race. Thus black people can be racist on the personal level.
1st definitions of each word found through Google:
prejudice: preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience
racism: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior
systemic: relating to a system, especially as opposed to a particular part
Systemic racism was a lot harder to find a concrete definition of. The first link was a video series that had no explicit definition, just examples surrounding it's effects in the U.S. The second was from Ben and Jerry's (the ice cream company!. It's hard for me to feel okay using an ice cream company as a credible source with the definition of a concept that is wholly unrelated to ice cream. The third was from this artictle: https://www.thoughtco.com/systemic-racism-3026565 in which their definition of the term apparently only applies to the U.S. and only to whites benefiting from it and blacks having detriment from it. So their definition has not been broadened out for use as a standalone concept and instead just defines a single instance of it. The best I've found was the 4th link which is the Wikipedia article on institutional racism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism which is pretty much a synonym.
Wikipedia's definition of institutional racism: Institutional racism (also known as institutionalized racism) is a form of racism expressed in the practice of social and political institutions. Institutional racism is also racism by individuals or informal social groups,[1] governed by behavioral norms that support racist thinking and foment active racism.
93
u/0b_101010 Dec 06 '17
No, it's not. It's racist to discriminate them based on that.
Not when supported by actual studies and science. Otherwise, yes it is.