White teacher wins discrimination lawsuit

The kid who you said is not a racist used his type of prejudice to kill people while your racist boss used his type of prejudice to write a bad performance review.

 

Bump for VolDad. We can keep running this circle all night, if necessary.

 

... as you have also validated my "with water" clause.

 

Not really. Water has nothing to do with prejudices, it's just some nonsense you pulled from your ass. "With power" is actually related to the effectiveness and application of prejudice.

 

I've yet to see him minimize something a minority does with this definition. I do see the potential for doing so, but Uni has been fair about it. He even gave an example where a white person was a racist and a black person was a racist.

 

Sounds simple to me.

 

But we ve also come to the conclusion that everyone has it. Or have we?

 

So if he kills whitey with a gun he is racist. If he drowns whitey in the water he is not. Gotcha.

 

And how often are these "hate whitey" parties (which, even for a hate whitey professor, totally suck) as opposed to a boss writing a bad report because they don't like the employee? Sounds like the arguments people come up with to avoid wearing seatbelts as they heard one guy who was cut in half by one.

 

I thought we had; making the "with power" caveat useless.

 

So now racism is defined by how often a situation happens - Racism is various types of prejudice "with power held by all" and "frequency".

Anything else you want to add?

 

Holy shit, this isn't that difficult to understand.

 

I didn't add any definitions, just made an observation to your willful obstinacy.

 

If you have the ability to take life based off hate (driven by color or lack thereof) does that give you "with power"?

 

VolDad or Droski, a question.

If all things are equal, in terms of racism and social status, as you see it, then why does it matter that it is defined "with power"? Are you implicitly saying, in your opposition to the idea, that there is a group that it favors and society is still unequal? If it's simply a matter of position of authority and not race based (or race earned), then why is this concept such a problem, unless you are stating that it favors one group over another because they are inherently able to use their authority due to their race? Because, as I have stated numerous times, I'm quite capable of applying my definition equally.

 

I'm not sure that everyone has this ability within themselves to kill someone, but it is an interesting question and one where I say that the concept of racism as a manifestation of power is open to evolving.

 

You mean in this thread

 

I think the concept of racism starts with hate and societal standing does not change that in my mind because "with power" is available to anyone. Hate can trigger a lot of very differing but negative reactions.

 

Because as we have discussed "with power" is asinine as everyone has "with power" so why add it to the definition?

 

Who the hell has ever said that all is equal in life? If you are seriously trying to tell me the "racism isn't racism without power" hasn't the calling card of racist minority apologists forever then you are just full of shit.

The top google result for "racism without power:"

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/15/884649/-Why-there-s-no-such-thing-as-Reverse-Racism