Ok, so, continuing this thing without derailing Images again.Chamomile wrote:Okay, so technically you're correct, but Prak is clearly referring here to women, who are a protected class.Pixels wrote:Yes, actually, it is, with a few exceptions. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment ... ted_States. Your example of discrimination based on sex is a protected category, but paying people who have annoying laughs less would be perfectly fine.Chamomile wrote:
No, actually, it isn't. If you can prove that you're being paid less for no other reason than that you are a woman, you can sue for that. Trouble is, how are you supposed to prove that? Also: Sexism, not racism.
I'm specifically using racism to point out that by the Tumblr definition there is no racism in America, a clearly ridiculous assertion which therefore invalidates the Tumblr definition.Prak wrote:Also, I was talking about the use of [x]ism to mean "Institutionalized [X]ism," in general, not specifically racism.
I don't need you to come up with cases where the Castle Doctrine effectively only protects white people, Prak. I need you come up with cases where the Castle Doctrine explicitly only protects white people. If there is no actual law or legal precedent, meaning the actual explicit word of a judge on a case and not just what we can infer about why he ruled the way he did, then there is no racism in United States law itself. There is only racism in the people who enforce United States law, and who ignore the law in subtle or in some cases blatant ways to serve their repugnant ideologies. But that still has nothing to do with what is actually the law, because the law is what's written, not what's done. Except the Tumblr definition of racism says that it doesn't count as racism unless it is a system of oppression in law and attitude which means that only explicit legal oppression of certain races qualifies as racism. And that is stupid.If you want, and give me a bit, I can come up with other cases where Castle Doctrine type laws only protect white men.
I recognized that I had incorrectly summed up the tumblr social justice proponents' definition of racism, but lacked any real way to find a bit better summation.
Fortunately, I stumbled upon one tonight (because white supremacists are bawing about black people having a "selfie for black pride" day)-
So, I incorrectly included law in the matter, when I meant systemic. The point is that racism is institutionalized in America to the point where you don't even have to be the kind of person who believes in the superiority of Caucasians to benefit from, or even hold racist beliefs or attitudes. The deck is stacked against non-whites in America, simply being white means that you are less disadvantaged than someone who is not, and it doesn't really require the president to be racist himself, it just requires that it be possible for racist people to hold any amount of power.dimensionaal wrote:Racism is a systemic form of oppression that benefits the dominant class. This is why you can’t be racist towards white people in America - because they benefit from this system. You can be discriminatory towards white people, but if you think this blackout event, which celebrates black beauty, is discriminatory towards white people, you’re wrong.