"I'm not racist. I stereotype - it's faster."

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

i believe it makes them superior to all other races. that's not racist?

Well then YOU'RE racist for believing it, but it doesn't make 'black people like watermelon' a racist statement.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

What you allow is what you teach

Huh.

I guess you can control what other people say or do.

Smooth Criminal

 

[john!]

Well then YOU'RE racist for believing it, but it doesn't make 'black people like watermelon' a racist statement.

then how would you know i'm racist if it's not a racist statement?

you're saying that i can believe that races have different traits and it's not racist, but if i believe that the differences make one race better than another then it IS racist? i don't think so. both are racist, although not necessarily wrong or bad to say.

by claiming that there are differences between two things, you are implying that one must be better than the other. it's the same argument used for the existence of tiers: two characters are not the same, so one MUST be better than the other.

 

[StealthyGunnar]

then how would you know i'm racist if it's not a racist statement?

you're saying that i can believe that races have different traits and it's not racist, but if i believe that the differences make one race better than another then it IS racist? i don't think so. both are racist, although not necessarily wrong or bad to say.

by claiming that there are differences between two things, you are implying that one must be better than the other. it's the same argument used for the existence of tiers: two characters are not the same, so one MUST be better than the other.

it only becomes racist when superiority is a factor.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

then how would you know i'm racist if it's not a racist statement?

you're saying that i can believe that races have different traits and it's not racist, but if i believe that the differences make one race better than another then it IS racist? i don't think so. both are racist, although not necessarily wrong or bad to say.

by claiming that there are differences between two things, you are implying that one must be better than the other. it's the same argument used for the existence of tiers: two characters are not the same, so one MUST be better than the other.

Honestly are you daft?

If you believe 'black people like watermelon' means that black people are inferior than other races through some strange personal connotation, then you are stating something racist. If I say 'black people like watermelon' without the connotation and just as a statement, it is not racist. Also, just because things are different does not mean one is better than the other at all. If I say I like hamburgers and you like hot dogs, that's saying that there's a 'tier' system at all, it's just personal preference and that really doesn't have anything with the argument at hand.

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

Like I said, people take racism and stereotypes differently.

Spoiler

¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯

Sorry bro. I just had to do it.

 

[john!]

Honestly are you daft?

If you believe 'black people like watermelon' means that black people are inferior than other races through some strange personal connotation, then you are stating something racist. If I say 'black people like watermelon' without the connotation and just as a statement, it is not racist. Also, just because things are different does not mean one is better than the other at all. If I say I like hamburgers and you like hot dogs, that's saying that there's a 'tier' system at all, it's just personal preference and that really doesn't have anything with the argument at hand.

hmm so you think one statement can be racist, and another identical statement with the same meaning and context is not racist? you think connotation and intent determine whether something is racist or not? if that's true then i guess the argument is over, because we have two different ideas of what constitutes racism. your criteria for racism are far too subjective for my tastes.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

hmm so you think one statement can be racist, and another identical statement with the same meaning and context is not racist? you think connotation and intent determine whether something is racist or not? if that's true then i guess the argument is over, because we have two different ideas of what constitutes racism. your criteria for racism are far too subjective for my tastes.

Okay **** my last post, I'll make this more simple. 'Black people like watermelon' is in no ****ing way a racist statement. There is nothing in that statement that implies one race is superior to another, if there's something in there that implies otherwise, please, ****ing show it to me. Until then I'm just going to conclude that you're an idiot.

 

[Vinylic.]

Enough. This thread needs no more arguements.
In my conclusion, Stereotypes are treated the same as Racism. People will be offended by any sentences that has to do with these two.

Now stop it.

 

[StealthyGunnar]

Enough. This thread needs no more arguements.
In my conclusion, Stereotypes are treated the same as Racism. People will be offended by any sentences that has to do with these two.

Now stop it.

the debate will always remain, but i admire ur ponyclusion.

 

[Vinylic.]

You are making this situation worse. Trying to keep this open for more problems is NOT THE WAY TO GO.

 

[Flutter NiTE]

Tl;dr .

it's funny when someone claims something is racist when it isn't, but i think the principal of the matter is that you offended them. Racism or stereotypical, one person will take something like a grain of salt, and another person will want to hurt you.

 

[john!]

Okay **** my last post, I'll make this more simple. 'Black people like watermelon' is in no ****ing way a racist statement. There is nothing in that statement that implies one race is superior to another, if there's something in there that implies otherwise, please, ****ing show it to me. Until then I'm just going to conclude that you're an idiot.

from what premises did you draw that conclusion? where is your deductive line of reasoning?

 

[Falconv1.0]

Apparently whether or not a thread should stay open is up to TokyoGamer, so uh, you better listen up, kids.

 

[:mad:]

Apparently whether or not a thread should stay open is up to TokyoGamer, so uh, you better listen up, kids.

You're only starting more arguments, Tokyo would appreciate it if you'd just stop being mean.

 

[Falconv1.0]

You're only starting more arguments, Tokyo would appreciate it if you'd just stop being mean.

As long as they aren't breaking any rules they're pretty much free to do whatever the ****, and uh, I really don't think two people in a debate GIVE A **** ABOUT HIM WANTING THEM TO END IT.

 

[Spelt]

Taco is da rulez



Also pretty sure :m:a:d::::::::: was joking.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Also pretty sure :m:a:d::::::::: was joking.

I'm aware of that. The response was still aimed at TokyoGamer.

 

[:mad:]

Splet knows.

 

[Spelt]

I'm aware of that. The response was still aimed at TokyoGamer.

Oh.
Well you'd still make more of an impact mowing a lawn with a bag of fertilizer.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Oh.
Well you'd still make more of an impact mowing a lawn with a bag of fertilizer.

You could say that about almost any forum post in the history of mankind.

 

[Spelt]

No I couldn't because that is a lot of mowing and I hate mowing.

 

[Falconv1.0]

You're gonna mow that ****ing lawn, boy.

 

[Spelt]

Yes, Ma'am! :zangoose:

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

from what premises did you draw that conclusion? where is your deductive line of reasoning?

Because saying that a certain race likes a certain food isn't racist, or are you too ****ing thick to see that? Is saying that asians like mangoes racist? How about white people like strawberries? Mexicans like pears?

Let's use our reading skills and look at the definition I posted. Racism means that a statement is implying that one group is inferior to others. I'm going to ****ing say this again, because you clearly ****ing missed it earlier: until you show me how 'black people like watermelon' implies that black people are inferior, you're wrong and an idiot in my book. You aren't helping your case.

 

[john!]

Because saying that a certain race likes a certain food isn't racist, or are you too ****ing thick to see that? Is saying that asians like mangoes racist? How about white people like strawberries? Mexicans like pears?

Let's use our reading skills and look at the definition I posted. Racism means that a statement is implying that one group is inferior to others. I'm going to ****ing say this again, because you clearly ****ing missed it earlier: until you show me how 'black people like watermelon' implies that black people are inferior, you're wrong and an idiot in my book. You aren't helping your case.

so if i showed how 'black people like watermelon' implies that black people are SUPERIOR... then i am still wrong and that is not racist? really?

according to your definition, all the black people who voted for obama based ENTIRELY on his race were not being racist.

...actually, lots of people DO think that... lol

let's try wikipedia's definition:

Racism is the belief that there are inherent differences in people's traits and capacities that are entirely due to their race, however defined, and that, as a consequence, racial discrimination (i.e. different treatment of those people, both socially and legally) is justified.

liking watermelon is a trait. if you treat them differently based off that trait (getting them a gift card to The Watermelon Shoppe for Christmas because you assume they like watermelon), then that's racist, even if you are their friend and even if you were doing it with the best of intentions.

also, why insult my intelligence? the odds of you having a higher iq than me are astronomically small.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

so if i showed how 'black people like watermelon' implies that black people are SUPERIOR... then i am still wrong and that is not racist? really?

You're grasping at straws. Inferior, superior, doesn't ****ing matter, you haven't showed me it implies either one, so I don't care about the rest of this post, but I'll respond anyway.

according to your definition, all the black people who voted for obama based ENTIRELY on his race were not being racist.

Explain to me how it is any way racist. It's ignorant, yes, but it's not racist. For someone who doesn't follow politics, who would you vote for: the guy who looks like you and could be the first person of your kind to lead the country or the random other guy?

...actually, lots of people DO think that... lol

Really? I'd like to meet these people. Have any nearby?

let's try wikipedia's definition:

Again, you're missing the last part of the definition.

and that, as a consequence, racial discrimination (i.e. different treatment of those people, both socially and legally) is justified.

Conveniently miss that part, did you?

Or maybe you were trying to make your terrible example an example of racial discrimination? What you explained a) never happens and b) is ignorant and stereotypical, but not discriminatory, because for the third ****ing time, saying 'black people like watermelon' does not imply inferiority or superiority.

Please start making sense or shut the **** up.

 

[john!]

You're grasping at straws. Inferior, superior, doesn't ****ing matter, you haven't showed me it implies either one, so I don't care about the rest of this post, but I'll respond anyway.



Explain to me how it is any way racist. It's ignorant, yes, but it's not racist. For someone who doesn't follow politics, who would you vote for: the guy who looks like you and could be the first person of your kind to lead the country or the random other guy?



Really? I'd like to meet these people. Have any nearby?



Again, you're missing the last part of the definition.

and that, as a consequence, racial discrimination (i.e. different treatment of those people, both socially and legally) is justified.

Conveniently miss that part, did you?

Or maybe you were trying to make your terrible example an example of racial discrimination? What you explained a) never happens and b) is ignorant and stereotypical, but not discriminatory, because for the third ****ing time, saying 'black people like watermelon' does not imply inferiority or superiority.

Please start making sense or shut the **** up.

- it does matter because your definition encompasses one but not the other.

- people who don't follow politics shouldn't vote... but if they do vote, and vote only based on skin color, then that is racist, at least based on wiki's definition.

- nope, and i don't need 'em to prove my point

- racial discrimination (i.e. different treatment of those people, both socially and legally)

it's defined right there. you treated your black friend differently because you would have gotten them something else for Christmas if you didn't buy into the stereotype. it fits the definition of discrimination.

and where did you get "inferiority or superiority"? i thought it was just "inferiority"? did you just change your definition of racism? so sneaky...

you seem personally invested in this issue for whatever reason. i'm not looking to get you all emotional here, i was just pointing out that racism extends beyond the traditional sense of "black people suck hurr durr".

 

[Indigo Jeans]

the debate will always remain, but i admire ur ponyclusion.

I admire your use of the word "ponyclusion".

 

[Vinylic.]

I'm going to wait this off. I'll find a way to end this nonsense myself.

 

[StealthyGunnar]

I admire your use of the word "ponyclusion".

i still need to finish the 1st episode, LOL.

I'm going to wait this off. I'll find a way to end this nonsense myself.

U CANT WAIT OFF A THREAD THAT WILL BE OPEN FOREVER.

 

[Vinylic.]

No. It will not be open forever.
This discussion is something that was already discussed before and has ended in many ways.
It is pure blank. This should've never came back.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

- it does matter because your definition encompasses one but not the other.

Are you ****ing stupid? For one race to be superior another has to be inferior. Just because the definition doesn't say both words doesn't mean it's not included.

- people who don't follow politics shouldn't vote... but if they do vote, and vote only based on skin color, then that is racist, at least based on wiki's definition.

This is a different debate.

- nope, and i don't need 'em to prove my point

Your point is ****ing stupid and wrong.

- racial discrimination (i.e. different treatment of those people, both socially and legally)

it's defined right there. you treated your black friend differently because you would have gotten them something else for Christmas if you didn't buy into the stereotype. it fits the definition of discrimination.

Your example was ****ing terrible and doesn't happen. If this person were truly your friend you wouldn't buy into a stereotype to get them a gift.

and where did you get "inferiority or superiority"? i thought it was just "inferiority"? did you just change your definition of racism? so sneaky...

WHY ARE YOU SO STUPID? Inferiority and superiority go hand in hand you halfwit.

you seem personally invested in this issue for whatever reason. i'm not looking to get you all emotional here, i was just pointing out that racism extends beyond the traditional sense of "black people suck hurr durr".

I'm not personally invested in this at all, I just want to make you smarter. It's not working.

Teran can you infract me for flaming or something? That's probably the only way I'll end this argument short of blasting my damn brains out.

 

[john!]

i think i'll just say that we have different definitions of what constitutes racism and leave it at that, since you're not really in any condition to debate rationally. where did you get your definition, btw? just wondering.

and my example may not have been "realistic" but it still serves its purpose. this isn't story time, i'm not trying to tell you a captivating tale, i'm trying to provide a useful anecdote.

also, the odds of you being "smarter" than me are virtually zero, judging by how hastily you proceeded to insults instead of actual debate.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Solid tbh you're getting more hostile than I usually get LOL.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Dictionary.com.

An anecdote isn't useful if it isn't realistic. I could tell you a story about a racist dragon named Squarshinx but that's ****ing stupid too so it's not useful.

Honestly the reason I proceeded to insults so quickly is because you seemed to be unable to grasp what I asked you to do 3 times; which was provide a compelling reason as to why you think 'black people like watermelon' is a racist statement. You still have not done so. This is the fourth and last time I'm going to ask you to do this, or you could just back down if you can't.

I know Falcon, I'm not proud of it.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

also, the odds of you being "smarter" than me are virtually zero, judging by how hastily you proceeded to insults instead of actual debate.

Actually, Solid is a pretty good debater.

I'd be annoyed too if someone didn't address my question on three (or four) different occasions.

Smooth Criminal

 

[john!]

Actually, Solid is a pretty good debater.

I'd be annoyed too if someone didn't address my question on three (or four) different occasions.

Smooth Criminal

if he's such a good debater, then why does he get so hostile?

i provided a reason why i thought it was racist, but he didn't agree with my reason because we are operating under two different definitions of racism (many many debates occur due to differences in definition as opposed to an actual lack of agreement/understanding; the most frequent example i can think of are the two definitions of "atheism", which portray it as either a belief or a lack of belief).

anecdotes are useful as long as they prove a point and can conceivably happen.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

I'd be annoyed too if someone didn't address my question on three (or four) different occasions.

Derp

Smooth Criminal

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

if he's such a good debater, then why does he get so hostile?

With nobility comes hostility.

i provided a reason why i thought it was racist, but he didn't agree with my reason because we are operating under two different definitions of racism (many many debates occur due to differences in definition as opposed to an actual lack of agreement/understanding; the most frequent example i can think of are the two definitions of "atheism", which portray it as either a belief or a lack of belief).

I mean I don't think the two definitions were really different at all. Your reasoning was an implausible anecdote, unless I missed something. My reasoning makes sense.

anecdotes are useful as long as they prove a point and can conceivably happen.

And I highly doubt your anecdote would ever happen. I'd say anecdotes shouldn't be used at all to prove points, but rather to back them up.

I apologize for being an ***, sometimes I get mad.

Thanks Smooth(ie)