Jezer's forum posts

#1 Posted by Jezer (3096 posts) - - Show Bio

@cloakx14 said:

@saint_wildcard: Bradley cooper ain't got sh*t on Scarlett johansson.

Look him in those eyes and say that.

In all seriousness at best Lucy has better/more special effects. The story in Limitless was interesting and I doubt that it could be better just by the looks of the amount of cheese in the trailer

The story in Lucy takes an entirely different turn from that of Limitless.

I like Limitless. But, I think Lucy's story was actually better(though, I think I like the movie Limitless better).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was unimpressed by Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. *kanye shrug*

#2 Posted by Jezer (3096 posts) - - Show Bio

I thought it was good. Not amazing, but good.

Liked it better than Dawn and Transformers.

#3 Posted by Jezer (3096 posts) - - Show Bio

@lunacyde said:

@jezer:

I appreciate the engaging discussion though.

Likewise.

#4 Edited by Jezer (3096 posts) - - Show Bio

@lunacyde said:

@jezer said:

@lunacyde said:

@jezer:

Racism is racism regardless of whom is victim and who is perpetrator, do you not agree?

Yes.... but that's circular reasoning. The issue is what is racism lol and some people believe the victim must be a minority and cannot be a majority.

I agree with you, though others do not(institutional racism vs racism).

Not all racism is institutional racism, but all institutional racism is racism. It's not circular, its definite. Eating is eating whether it's meat or vegetables.

Institutional racism is a subsection of racism. By some it may be the only racism that they actually accept as racism, but that is just them narrowing their definition of racism to only include a subsection of what racism could be defined as.

Yep.

As long as you've acknowledged that for some people its not eating vegetables vs meat, its more like chewing on gum versus eating a meal.

And that they don't see it as a "subsection of racism" to which they're narrowing, they see it as the only pertinent "racism" with individual encounters being the narrowing down from the widespread. As well as some seeing the institutional, majority vs. minority aspect as fundamentally necessary to their concept of racism.

#5 Edited by Jezer (3096 posts) - - Show Bio

@lunacyde said:

@jezer:

Racism is racism regardless of whom is victim and who is perpetrator, do you not agree?

Yes.... but that's circular reasoning. The issue is what is racism lol and some people believe the victim must be a minority and cannot be a majority.

I agree with you, though others do not(institutional racism vs racism). But I agree to the degree that I acknowledge there are different levels.

#6 Posted by Jezer (3096 posts) - - Show Bio

@lunacyde said:

@jezer said:

@lunacyde said:

@jezer said:

@lunacyde said:

Just for the record there is no such thing as reverse racism or reverse discrimination. They are simply racism and discrimination. Giving them the title "reverse" implies that there is a certain definition where specific groups are considered differently than others.

There is a definition where a specific group is considered differently from another. Systematic racism/discrimination focuses on majority vs minority, with the system benefiting the majority. This is what sociology looks at. And Sociology would agree with you, saying there is no "reverse racism" or "reverse discrimination" for a different reason---that the minority cannot systematically oppress/discriminate against the majority.

At the same time, there is a definition of racism for the individual level, from the individual point of view.

I realize this. What I am saying is that reverse racism....is racism. There is no need to go further with the definition. It is simply racism. Racism is prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism against an individual of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. This definition applies no matter who the victim is and no matter who the perpetrator is. The term reverse racism in and of itself perpetuates racist ideas because it implies one group's superiority/inferiority in comparison to another's.

Separating racism into different teirs or categories may be an academically useful endeavor in sociological theory , but in real life serves no purpose and only furthers the underlying problems and issues plaguing humanity.

No, I can't say I agree. Most would argue that racism at the institutional level is more pertinent and more important to affecting racism at an individual level. Attacking larger scopes of society that naturally promote racism, inequality, etc., as opposed to focusing on individuals. Fighting a war vs insignificantly local battles.

That is why a lot of people disregard racism at the individual level. I see it in this thread and in real life. For the record, there are many definitions of "racism" and tenets; you actually can't simplify it as you did to the definition you gave(this is the struggle, people claiming a single definition of racism instead considering all its nuances/"tiers".)

I fail to see an example of racism that does not fit my definition, but I would be more than happy to learn something if you can explain to me a situation that does not. Obviously there are many nuances and complexities to racism, but that does not mean that racism cannot be described by a definition under which all subsets and nuances fit. For the record also it is not my own definition, but one taken from a dictionary.

For example:

Some may see this as racist in a way. Yet, no where does it imply "belief in the superiority of one's race" lol

Some think race-based stereotypes are racist--i.e. asians being good at math, blacks being good at sports. In no way does that imply that the person behaving in a way that acknowledges this believes in superiority of their own race. If someone assumes a black person is good at sports, and wants them to join their team specifically for that reason, and the black person is not and considers that racist--where does "belief in the superiority of one's race" come in?

Etc etc.

The definition you found is too narrow for it to fit all the subsets and nuances. I suggest you read the wikipedia entry to see all the tangents and nuances, as well as different definitions....You're doing the same thing my Sociology friends do(except with a different definition, slightly ironic)

#7 Edited by Jezer (3096 posts) - - Show Bio

@lunacyde said:

@jezer said:

@lunacyde said:

Just for the record there is no such thing as reverse racism or reverse discrimination. They are simply racism and discrimination. Giving them the title "reverse" implies that there is a certain definition where specific groups are considered differently than others.

There is a definition where a specific group is considered differently from another. Systematic racism/discrimination focuses on majority vs minority, with the system benefiting the majority. This is what sociology looks at. And Sociology would agree with you, saying there is no "reverse racism" or "reverse discrimination" for a different reason---that the minority cannot systematically oppress/discriminate against the majority.

At the same time, there is a definition of racism for the individual level, from the individual point of view.

I realize this. What I am saying is that reverse racism....is racism. There is no need to go further with the definition. It is simply racism. Racism is prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism against an individual of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. This definition applies no matter who the victim is and no matter who the perpetrator is. The term reverse racism in and of itself perpetuates racist ideas because it implies one group's superiority/inferiority in comparison to another's.

Separating racism into different teirs or categories may be an academically useful endeavor in sociological theory , but in real life serves no purpose and only furthers the underlying problems and issues plaguing humanity.

No, I can't say I agree. Most would argue that racism at the institutional level is more pertinent and more important to affecting racism at an individual level. Attacking larger scopes of society that naturally promote racism, inequality, etc., as opposed to focusing on individuals. Fighting a war vs insignificantly local battles.

That is why a lot of people disregard racism at the individual level. I see it in this thread and in real life. For the record, there are many definitions of "racism" and tenets; you actually can't simplify it as you did to the definition you gave(this is the struggle, people claiming a single definition of racism instead considering all its nuances/"tiers".)

#8 Posted by Jezer (3096 posts) - - Show Bio

@dngn4774 said:

@nick_hero22 said:

@dngn4774 said:

@nick_hero22 said:

@racob7 said:

Racism definitely goes both ways.

How so? African American aren't really in any position (socio-economical) to institute widespread discrimination against a particular ethnic group.

This assumes that racism has to be an institutional and widespread form of discrimination. Racism can exist on an individual level with any person, regardless of ethnic background.

Keywords: widespread discrimination

In addition to that racism would have to be institutionalize or systematic in order to oppress an entire ethnic group, so I don't really see your point here.

My point is that I'm disagreeing with you. You don't have to oppress every member of an ethnic group to be a racist, just like you don't have to oppress every woman to be a chauvinist, or every homosexual to be homophobic. Widespread discrimination is only one type of racism not all of racism, so yes, it is possible for racism to go both ways, or any way for that matter (because black people and white people are often treated as the only two groups in the discussion). I'd agree that black people as a group cannot institutionally opress the white majority in America (nor any other minority group), but that doesn't mean that no other race is capable of racism at times.

Correct.

#9 Posted by Jezer (3096 posts) - - Show Bio

@lunacyde said:

Just for the record there is no such thing as reverse racism or reverse discrimination. They are simply racism and discrimination. Giving them the title "reverse" implies that there is a certain definition where specific groups are considered differently than others.

There is a definition where a specific group is considered differently from another. Systematic racism/discrimination focuses on majority vs minority, with the system benefiting the majority. This is what sociology looks at. And Sociology would agree with you, saying there is no "reverse racism" or "reverse discrimination" for a different reason---that the minority cannot systematically oppress/discriminate against the majority.

At the same time, there is a definition of racism for the individual level, from the individual point of view.

#10 Posted by Jezer (3096 posts) - - Show Bio

I remember my Law class where we talked about how the amount of African Americans accepted in colleges after AA was implemented is equivalent to the amount of African Americans that were accepted prior to the enactment of the policy in a school.

It was Asians in The UC system and in IVY league schools that suffer because their attendance has to be capped off so that they don't dominate those universities. No AA and Havard, Yale and other IVY leagues become overan by Asians, Indians and Nigerians mostly.

Lol, I feel like its becoming a recurring thing for me to hear that Nigerians are stealing spots from African Americans