[RaP] Congressional White Caucus: Racist?

Сообщение от 134377

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Сообщение от 168916

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Сообщение от MyTie

Сообщение от xaratherus

The United Nations defines racial discrimination (i.e, racism) as

"any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life"

Based on that definition, the answer to the question is indeterminate.

A "Congressional white caucus" would not, by simply existing or acting, infringe upon or impair those rights or freedoms for any particular race or ethnicity.

Now, if the "Congressional white caucus" were given certain political rights or powers that could not be exercised by anyone save members of that caucus? That would be a different story.

Сообщение от 134377

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Сообщение от Jubilee

Yes, any organization based around skin colour is racist by definition.

Not by the definition in dictionaries...

According to dictionary.com it says that racism is the 'intolerance of another race'. I'm not sure why this keeps turning into a semantic argument, and a bad one at that (nut-uh). Can't you see how it could be understood that an organization that doesn't tolerate certain races to enter would be considered intolerant of certain races?

We don't let guys into our girls' nights, that's not sexism nor is it intolerant of certain sexes. We just want to spend time with other members of our own sex.

Сообщение от MyTie

Сообщение от 168916

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Сообщение от MyTie

Сообщение от Azazel

Сообщение от Jubilee

We don't let guys into our girls' nights, that's not sexism nor is it intolerant of certain sexes.

Yes, it is sexist. It is exclusion based on sex. It's accepted sexism, but it is still sexist. Men only clubs get a lot of heat for this same thing. Here is a Time article on a law that ends sexist segregation in men only clubs. Thanks for this opportunity to point out yet another double standard in society!

I did not say anything about clubs, that's a totally different issue. You keep doing that, and it's annoying.

Actually, it is sexist. But everybody is ok with it, so it isn't a problem.

How is it sexist in the least? I want to spend time with other girls, so I do it. If you spend some days out with your dad, does that mean you love your mom any less? If I take the time to learn and use one of the languages in my heritage, am I'm being biased against English? There is nothing "-ist" about participating in a group.

Сообщение от 168916

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Сообщение от MyTie

I did not say anything about clubs, that's a totally different issue. You keep doing that, and it's annoying.What the hell difference does it make? Your group of people, who exclude other people based on sex, is a sexist group of people. The only difference between your group of people, and a club, is that you do not have a charter that is legally recognizable. A charter isn't what makes those clubs that exclude based on sex, sexist, but the fact that they reject people based on sex. My example of groups of people rejecting based on sex is EXTREMELY APPLICABLE to compare to your group that excludes based on sex.

Why do you keep finding some tiny semantic bit in my argument to argue against? Is it because you can't make a constructive argument against the substance of my point? HsR used to do that all the time.

You: We reject people based on sex. Is that sexist?
Me: Yes, it is sexist. Clubs in Britain got in trouble for that.
You: We aren't a club.
Me: *tears hair out*

Сообщение от xaratherus

That definition says "in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life", not just political. Based on your logic, people who have no political power can't be racist?

No, nor did I imply that with anything that I said. Your original question had to do with a political caucus, and so that's the subject in which I couched my repsonse. A congressional caucus is, first and foremost, a political organization.

Any power that it has will then, by extension, be political in nature. It may be able to influence matters of society and economy, but it would do so through political power.

Thus why I said, "if the "Congressional white caucus" were given certain political rights or powers that could not be exercised by anyone save members of that caucus..."

If we were instead speaking of, say, a committee of investment bankers, then the source of its power would be economic in nature, and my statement instead would be that a committee of investment bankers, limited by race but with no rights or powers restricted to only members of that committee, would not inherently be racially discriminatory, based on the United Nations definition of the term.

Сообщение от Jubilee

You: We reject people based on sex. Is that sexist?
-______________-

You did it again. You took what I said, twisted it around to match whatever point you happen to be making, and then posted it as a response. Are you done being obtuse, or should I wait a while before posting a reply? When I said it was annoying, I meant it.

Сообщение от 91278

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Сообщение от MyTie

Wanting to spend time with your peers is not a discriminatory act.

Yes it is. You are alloting your time to people you have preference for. Look at the definition of discriminate:to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality: The new law discriminates against foreigners. He discriminates in favor of his relatives.The people you put into the category of "friend" you are showing a partiality to.

Discrimination isn't always a negative thing. When you pick something on a resteraunt menu you are discriminating between the items and showing a partiality for one thing.

Now, logically, if you have discriminated your peers based on sex (a girl's night out), then that is a sexist based discrimination. Is it wrong? Not in my opinion. But, this is still discrimination.

Сообщение от Jubilee

Not necessarily. If there is an ethical obligation to include both sexes (voting for instance) then to not include one sex is discriminatory (sexist in this case). If there is no ethical obligation (my choice to got over to a girlfriend's house with some other girls) then it is not discriminatory (not sexist in this case).

Сообщение от MyTie

Wanting to spend time with your peers is not a discriminatory act.

Yes it is. Look at the definition of discriminate:to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality: The new law discriminates against foreigners. He discriminates in favor of his relatives.Discrimination isn't always a horrible negative thing. When you choose an item on a restaurant menu, you are discriminating between the items to show a partiality for one item.

When you spend time with your peers, you are discriminating between the people you encounter and showing a partiality for some. If this discrimination is based on sex (a girls night out), then it is a sexist discrimination. Is that wrong? No, but it is by definition discrimination.

[RaP] Congressional White Caucus: Racist?

Ответить