Election 2012

[sexobon]

Ibby, English is a living language with streamlining changes often occurring to suit a particular purpose; unfortunately, sometimes at the loss of specificity. Frankly, you haven't been living long enough for your endorsement of such changes to carry much weight.

Go back to Webster's New World Dictionary Second College Edition, Copyright 1976 and we find:

ra.cial.ism n. 1. a doctrine or teaching, without scientific support, that claims to find racial differences in character, intelligence, etc., that asserts the superiority of one race over another or others, and that seeks to maintain the supposed purity of a race or the races. 2. same as RACISM (sense 2) ---ra'cial.ist n., adj.

The first sense of the above word is where the "institutionalized" aspect comes from as doctrines and teachings are primarily the purview of the prevailing culture.

ra.cism n. 1. same as RACIALISM (sense 1) 2. any program or practice of racial discrimination, based on racialism ---rac'ist n., adj.

This is the word that was intended to describe "any" (i.e. institutional and individual) racial discrimination.

In the good ol' USA, the word "racialism" fell out of popularity with "racism" being substituted for it while maintaining its application for describing individuals as racists. The definition you presented seems to drop that application which, as Clod said, would preclude any individual from being called racist; unless, their whole cultural social structure exhibited the same behavior. This reeks of agenda. I don't buy it; but, I can see how it would appeal to a connoisseur of poppycock.

[Ibby]

I'm'a believe the huge body of scholarly/academic literature written by PoC over a dictionary written by (very very likely racist) white people.

[Ibby]

Not particularly bovvered i gotta say.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by sexobon

In the good ol' USA, the word "racialism" fell out of popularity with "racism" being substituted for it while maintaining its application for describing individuals as racists. The definition you presented seems to drop that application which, as Clod said, would preclude any individual from being called racist; unless, their whole cultural social structure exhibited the same behavior. This reeks of agenda. I don't buy it; but, I can see how it would appeal to a connoisseur of poppycock.

I agree and disagree.

I disagree because the definition of racism implies a social doctrine. Even though discrimination and racism are considered synonymous in our society, I would argue that there has to be some social structure behind a racist. This social structure does not have to be very severe, but I believe it has to exist.

I agree because I believe a person can be racist by attempting to promote a prejudice in society. If I somehow promote that Mongolians are lazy and try to get society to embrace that view, I would consider that racism because of the interaction with society. If you discriminate without promoting the behavior I would not consider that racism. It is semantics at this point but I think, for definition sake, they should be separate.


I think this addresses your point?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Ibby

Psychology Today - Colorblind Ideology is a Form of Racism

I got the impression Monnica T. Williams, Ph.D., was directing this article at fellow clinical therapists, trying to establish strict definitions of the concept/practice associated with several terms. The terms they use to communicate with each other both personally, and in their research papers they publish to share their findings with their peers.

This has little to do with the great unwashed, and how they use these words to communicate with their bros, as you will learn once you leave academia for the real world. If you berate people about their position, which you determined from your definitions, you may discover a surprisingly hostile resistance.

[maineiac04631]

Originally Posted by Adak

Unfortunately, we have a two party system.

Can you cite any constitutional amendment or any legislation to back this up?

The GOP deserves to lose and I hope they learn some hard lessons, that way after 4 more years of Obama and not having to run against an incumbent, that they nominate a better candidate. If the GOP nominates another whack job from a weird religious cult like Rick Santorum, you will get Nancy Pelosi in the White House.

Right now Richard Mourdock is down 11 points in a very red state because of his "pregnancy by rape is god's will" BS.

This is the "social conservative" crap that drives the younger people away from the GOP in droves and it's killing the party.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by maineiac04631

Can you cite any constitutional amendment or any legislation to back this up?

Of course not, none exists, but I believe he was addressing the reality that the two parties have locked up sufficient control to squash a third party run for anything but a local post.

I agree with this reality and think it will continue as long as people are fat, dumb, and happy. Christ, look at the turnouts on election days, especially at mid-terms. People that won't be bothered voting are hardy engaged in shaping the selection.

Maybe, just maybe, if we can get people fired up enough to get involved on a local level, with shit that they can actually see affects them directly, they'd be more inspired to pay attention at higher levels. It might dispel the feeling of helplessness, and their vote is meaningless.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by maineiac04631

Can you cite any constitutional amendment or any legislation to back this up?

Oh, you can have more than two political parties, (and we do), but the way our gov't is set up by the Constitution, only two parties are ever likely to dominate any election.

It's like cars - nothing says they have to have 4 wheels, but the function of them makes 4 wheels by far the most popular choice. There have been 3 axle 6 wheel cars, and 3 wheel cars, but they never became popular.

The GOP deserves to lose and I hope they learn some hard lessons, that way after 4 more years of Obama and not having to run against an incumbent, that they nominate a better candidate. If the GOP nominates another whack job from a weird religious cult like Rick Santorum, you will get Nancy Pelosi in the White House.

Santorum or Pelosi in the White House?

Right now Richard Mourdock is down 11 points in a very red state because of his "pregnancy by rape is god's will" BS.

Richard is a whack job, and the party asked him to quit the race, but he wouldn't. When you open your mouth and stuff your whole leg down your throat, you need to get out of politics, clearly. IMO, Richard is toast in politics.

This is the "social conservative" crap that drives the younger people away from the GOP in droves and it's killing the party.

Yes, I agree. The Republicans wanted a platform and a candidate more conservative than last time. At the same time, the whack jobs have to be cut from the herd - they're a mess, and sickening.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

... I think this addresses your point?

I believe there is also induced individual racism. A victim of racism, who has not been a racist, may become a racist if there's no remedy after being victimized due to a dominant racist social structure behind the perpetrator. The victim's social support structure may become racist in response to the victim's situation rather than the other way around. It's a learned behavior that can be taught both ways.

I don't believe discrimination and racism are synonymous. Racism is just one of many forms of discrimination and its relative importance varies among societies around the world.

I do believe that promoting racial prejudice in any way, words (e.g. defamation) or actions (e.g. discrimination), is racism in any instance since even if we had a racism free social structure there would always be individuals who buck the system.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by Ibby

Attachment 41507

Not particularly bovvered i gotta say.

In particular, the all-important Ohio:

[DanaC]

Nice post pierce.

The thing with race and racism is it isn't half as simple as it first appears to be.

Life is messy. Society is messy.

Race is one factor in a nexus of factors that defines an individual's experience of and place in the world. Race, class and gender in particular work together to produce a particular experience in society.

If a middle-class black manager passes over a working-class, white woman because he prefers to employ/promote black workers then she is experiencing racism. The power differential isn't coming from race, it's coming from a combination of class and gender, but the act of passing over is an expression of racism.

[xoxoxoBruce]

True Dana, 35 years ago at Westinghouse Steam Turbine, complaints by civil rights groups prompted the hiring of a black man to head up personnel. But after he'd hired over 150 black people and no whites or Asians, they found out it isn't that simple.

[maineiac04631]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Of course not, none exists, but I believe he was addressing the reality that the two parties have locked up sufficient control to squash a third party run for anything but a local post.

Originally Posted by Adak

Oh, you can have more than two political parties, (and we do), but the way our gov't is set up by the Constitution, only two parties are ever likely to dominate any election.

The day will come when elections will not have primaries but there will be runoff elections, people will choose between 5 or 6 parties in the first round and then between the top two finishers in the second round.

This will probably happen after we start driving flying cars that run on sunlight, America is not that advanced yet.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I've been disappointed in Obamas lack of aggressiveness, and unwillingness to go back to the voters for support before the reelection campaign. I'll still vote for him.
This article sums up pretty how I feel about this election.

Here are the facts. The majority does not want war, it does not want unnecessary intrusions, and it wants to be humane toward the poor and sick and immigrants and gays. The other side is running out of angry white men to win elections. If this historic election goes to Obama, then the Republicans will never again mount a campaign based on such extremism, because the limited electoral appeal of this repressive ideology will have been exposed.
If even conditions of economic distress (though they’re much exaggerated by the Republicans) can’t secure a national election, then the Tea Party will be dead, extremism will be dead, and the Republicans might start contemplating moderation again, a la Jeb Bush or Jon Huntsman. They will pull back from the brink of extinction.

[ZenGum]

Well I hope so, but we shouldn't underestimate the tenacity of power-hungry shysters.

On the other hand ... Christie-Huntsman 2016!

Seriously, Christie is about as good a leader as I can see anywhere in the US. Huntsman seems sane, despite coming from Utah.