Can you be a racist while rooting for a player of a different race?

[Spider-Dan]

I think everyone in this thread pretty much agrees with this post. However, I'm wondering what the point is. You're saying that someone can still be a racist if they use the excuse that "I can't be a racist because I root for Dak, I fucked Rihanna, or I have black offspring/family. By the same token though, someone could say or do something that could be interpreted as racist and that person not be a racist.

I prefer to avoid calling a specific person (in the current era) "a racist"; that is more of a judgment of someone's total character.  I prefer to say "That is a racist statement" or "That position is racist."

And that speaks to the original question.  We can argue all day about what threshold needs to be met for a person to qualify as A Racist, but I don't really think that's helpful when the threshold is so drastically different from person to person.  I think it's much more useful to talk about specific ideas.

So if you're talking about how blacks are inherently less intelligent than other races, or about how we need to protect white culture from the corrupting influence of immigrants, you're espousing racism.  Whether people want to say that espousing racism makes you a racist is up to the person, I suppose.

If the kid has two friends and they are different races, race is probably the easiest way to identify them.  And is no more prejudice than using short vs tall, or the one wearing a blue shirt vs the one in a stiped shirt.

There's an easy way to avoid this kind of ambiguity on "racism," and I'll admit that I am not as consistent about following this advice as I would like.

"Racism" is really a misleading description of the problem.  The problem in America is actually white supremacy.  (In Japan, the problem would be Japanese supremacy, because white supremacy is not a problem in Japan; white people aren't in control there.)  When you replace "racism" with "white supremacy," it becomes clear why the supervisor overreacted: describing coworkers by their race does not, in itself, work to further white supremacy. 

I've been trying - with limited success - to use the term "racism" less and "white supremacy" more (in the context of American politics).

[pondwater]

I prefer to avoid calling a specific person (in the current era) "a racist"; that is more of a judgment of someone's total character.  I prefer to say "That is a racist statement" or "That position is racist."

And that speaks to the original question.  We can argue all day about what threshold needs to be met for a person to qualify as A Racist, but I don't really think that's helpful when the threshold is so drastically different from person to person.  I think it's much more useful to talk about specific ideas.

So if you're talking about how blacks are inherently less intelligent than other races, or about how we need to protect white culture from the corrupting influence of immigrants, you're espousing racism.  Whether people want to say that espousing racism makes you a racist is up to the person, I suppose.

So DeSantis used the word "Monkey". Hyde-Smith said "Hanging" and both were labeled racist. Now, I guess they could have been racist or espousing racism, but maybe not. There is no way to tell and the only people who will ever truly know is them. However, in cases like that where it's not obvious you simply ask them and take them at their word. Hell, Hillary said "They all look the same" in reference to black people. Obviously a racist remark, much more than an ambiguous use of the word "monkey" or "hanging". Yet, not much was made of it. There's a common sense line and then there is an agenda line and they are very far apart from each other.

There's an easy way to avoid this kind of ambiguity on "racism," and I'll admit that I am not as consistent about following this advice as I would like.

"Racism" is really a misleading description of the problem.  The problem in America is actually white supremacy.  (In Japan, the problem would be Japanese supremacy, because white supremacy is not a problem in Japan; white people aren't in control there.)  When you replace "racism" with "white supremacy," it becomes clear why the supervisor overreacted: describing coworkers by their race does not, in itself, work to further white supremacy. 

I've been trying - with limited success - to use the term "racism" less and "white supremacy" more (in the context of American politics).

Is that really a problem though? I think we can all agree that racism is bad. However, what you call  supremacy is more of a product of where you are, whether it's White/Black/Hispanic/Asian. A more appropriate term would be majority supremacy. In my opinion, anywhere you go, if you are are the minority there will be some degree of supremacy going the other direction. Some places more than others, but it's still there. It's how humans are in most things. The votes of the majority outweigh the votes of the minority and things go their way. No different from politics, a shareholder vote, or or anything else in life. Everyone has different values, opinions, and preferences. Race and culture are no different. I'm not sure that there is any race or group of people that overall doesn't want to protect its culture.

[Phishfan]

I really need to see the Hillary video before I comment. The context is as important as content in a case like that. It could be that the words were used as a jab at people who believe that rather than as a personal belief.

[CF DolFan]

I really need to see the Hillary video before I comment. The context is as important as content in a case like that. It could be that the words were used as a jab at people who believe that rather than as a personal belief.

This might have been just a joke in the 70s and 80s but a person would be hard pressed to find this as anything but a racist comment under today's politically correct terms.

https://youtu.be/FjuNTBuE9qE

[pondwater]

I really need to see the Hillary video before I comment. The context is as important as content in a case like that. It could be that the words were used as a jab at people who believe that rather than as a personal belief.

Sure, it was a joke. A racist joke. Are racist jokes OK now? Or are racist jokes only OK depending on who said the racist joke? My point isn't actually that Hillary is a racist. It's that if Trump would have said the same thing it would have been a shit storm. We all watched what happened when DeSantis and Hyde-Smith ambiguously used normal everyday words. They both were labeled racists in the middle of elections. But yet Hillary can tell racist jokes and nothing but crickets. Now I ask again. Are racist jokes OK? You can't have it both ways.

This might have been just a joke in the 70s and 80s but a person would be hard pressed to find this as anything but a racist comment under today's politically correct terms.

https://youtu.be/FjuNTBuE9qE

I bet that same crowd that laughed at Hillary's joke would have went ape shit crazy if Trump said it instead. The hypocrisy is unbelievable.

[CF DolFan]

I bet that same crowd that laughed at Hillary's joke would have went ape shit crazy if Trump said it instead. The hypocrisy is unbelievable.

I don't even think that is debatable.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Context does matter. And that joke wasn’t racist.  Hillary wasn’t claiming she couldn’t tell the difference between Holder and Booker because all black people look a like.  She was poking fun at the interviewer for getting them mixed up.  

It really is sick what to what extent Trump supporters will go to defend his horrible behavior.  Trump has made multiple blantly racist comments but that doesn’t matter. because look here is a comment that pokes fun at the interviewer for mixing up two black politians but we are going to claim that this is the moral equivalency of mexico is sending criminals, his attack on the muslin father of a MoH winner, his false claims of cheering on 9.11, his refusal to condemn David Duke and other white supremacist, etc.

i asked several black people if clintons comment was offensive.  They all said, no, she wasn’t being racist if anything she was making fun of racists.  The only people up in arms over this supposed racist comments are the same people who cheer at Trumps obviously racist comments.

[Spider-Dan]

It seems rather silly that we have to say this out loud, but here goes:

The reason why Hillary (and other Democrats) "get to" make jokes like that is because they spend their professional time proposing and passing policies to help minorities.  We didn't jump on her for the same reason you guys didn't jump on Sarah Palin for "kowtowing to political correctness" when she criticized people for using the "r-word", or why there were not widespread riots across the nation when the Republican President of the United States said, "Take the guns first, go through due process second."

Humans are not that stupid.  We know that Hillary wasn't trying to appeal to racists when she made that joke, and we also know that Palin doesn't actually care about political correctness, nor does Trump care about reducing the availability of guns.  We are capable of recognizing prior events and assigning meaning based on past actions.

[CF DolFan]

The only people up in arms over this supposed racist comments are the same people who cheer at Trumps obviously racist comments.

You love being dramatic. First off ... I don't cheer Trump when he says stupid stuff and honestly ... I don't have issue with her saying it. The only thing I disagree with is that it isn't a racist comment by today's standards. For God's sake you libtards are attacking Rudolph the Red nose Reindeer for not being politically correct and the Huffington Post has gone so far as to say saying Merry Christmas is offensive. It's like you loose all sense of rationale thought when it comes to anything political.

[CF DolFan]

It seems rather silly that we have to say this out loud, but here goes:

The reason why Hillary (and other Democrats) "get to" make jokes like that is because they spend their professional time proposing and passing policies to help minorities.  We didn't jump on her for the same reason you guys didn't jump on Sarah Palin for "kowtowing to political correctness" when she criticized people for using the "r-word", or why there were not widespread riots across the nation when the Republican President of the United States said, "Take the guns first, go through due process second."

Humans are not that stupid.  We know that Hillary wasn't trying to appeal to racists when she made that joke, and we also know that Palin doesn't actually care about political correctness, nor does Trump care about reducing the availability of guns.  We are capable of recognizing prior events and assigning meaning based on past actions.

Did you seriously just say that? The Clintons have put more blacks in jail than anyone. Trump has been working to get them out. BTW ... "It seems rather silly that we have to say this out loud" but Trump has awards for supporting minorities. Oddly enough I guess running as a Republican supposedly cancels out anything that helps minorities.

[pondwater]

Context does matter. And that joke wasn’t racist.  Hillary wasn’t claiming she couldn’t tell the difference between Holder and Booker because all black people look a like.  She was poking fun at the interviewer for getting them mixed up.  

It really is sick what to what extent Trump supporters will go to defend his horrible behavior.  Trump has made multiple blantly racist comments but that doesn’t matter. because look here is a comment that pokes fun at the interviewer for mixing up two black politians but we are going to claim that this is the moral equivalency of mexico is sending criminals, his attack on the muslin father of a MoH winner, his false claims of cheering on 9.11, his refusal to condemn David Duke and other white supremacist, etc.

i asked several black people if clintons comment was offensive.  They all said, no, she wasn’t being racist if anything she was making fun of racists.  The only people up in arms over this supposed racist comments are the same people who cheer at Trumps obviously racist comments.

So let me get this straight. It's OK for Clinton to say it, but not OK for Trump to say it?

[pondwater]

It seems rather silly that we have to say this out loud, but here goes:

The reason why Hillary (and other Democrats) "get to" make jokes like that is because they spend their professional time proposing and passing policies to help minorities.  We didn't jump on her for the same reason you guys didn't jump on Sarah Palin for "kowtowing to political correctness" when she criticized people for using the "r-word", or why there were not widespread riots across the nation when the Republican President of the United States said, "Take the guns first, go through due process second."

Humans are not that stupid.  We know that Hillary wasn't trying to appeal to racists when she made that joke, and we also know that Palin doesn't actually care about political correctness, nor does Trump care about reducing the availability of guns.  We are capable of recognizing prior events and assigning meaning based on past actions.

So going by your standard. Lyndon B Johnson habitually using the word "N!G@ER" was justified because he signed the Civil Rights Act?

These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.

They're not helping minorities, they're buying votes with handouts. And will keep you voting Democrat for 200 years. By my math you owe LBJ another 146 years worth of votes. The bad part about it is that you guys swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

So let me get this straight. It's OK for Clinton to say it, but not OK for Trump to say it?

Completely wrong.  In the context what she said was not racist.  It was poking fun at the reporter messing up.  In context many of Trump statements are extremely racist. 

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

So going by your standard. Lyndon B Johnson habitually using the word "N!G@ER" was justified because he signed the Civil Rights Act?

Nope. It doesn’t justify his use of the word.  However, he was considerably better than most of his contemporaries.  By today’s standards Abe Lincoln was extremely racist.  However, for his day he was vastly better than most. 

By today’s standards Trump is more racist and sexist than most of his contemporaries.  Although he is less homophobic than his VP and much of the republican party.

[CF DolFan]

  Although he is less homophobic than his VP and much of the republican party.

The liberal extremes love throwing around derogatory names. How exactly is disagreeing with homosexuality being homophobic? By definition homophobic is having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people. I myself disagree with it, just as I do divorce and even some of the things I do or have done but I associate with all and treat them equally. From what I know of Mike Pence he is no different.

I talk to liberals all the time who say they wish their politicians would move past these stupid rhetoric and fight politically for change. They feel too much is being spent on the dramatic things like impeaching the president (Republicans would never support it even if justified like in the case of Bill Clinton) and not enough on working to get policy changed. Seems to me politicians and the like are more worried about being reelected than doing a job. This is the same thing I think of when I see or hear extremists labeling people for having a different opinion.