Racism, Prejudice and Such in America

Ironic. I'll slip this here, rather than derail further. " Since the only other topic on this is being led by a mad man, here's a topic for *intelligent* discussion of racism and prejudice in America." Noooooooope, no passive aggression here.

" Since the only other topic on this is being led by a mad man, here's a topic for *intelligent* discussion of racism and prejudice in America." Noooooooope, no passive aggression here. http://a.nime.me/0082/5172/obama-laughing-at-america.jpg

- I think the speech is protected period, political office or not because some statements that are true are also debatably racist. - I believe you should be removed from your place of power if it can be proven you've done something based solely on race and it should be documented to let other employers know your history of racial bias - I don't have the answer nor does anybody, different cultures clash. It'll never not happen unless everyone shares the same culture but there will still be groups within that same cultures that are slightly different and will also clash. You either learn to tolerate eachother or you stay seperate and it's up to the individual groups to decide which to do. I'd prefer tolerance but if another group hated a group I was in so much that they wanted to seperate, I'd have to agree.

I think there's a lack of evidence on something being *solely* on race anymore and the standard seems to be in the Court of Public Opinion where the accused has to prove they aren't racist. The burden of proof should be on the accuser to prove the racism is occurring. I also think there should be something that happens to a person who engages in an false accusation or a trivial accusation. I agree something should be noted to an actual proven racist but that also means that false accusers should have demerits against them as well and there should be a record of that. If we were able to press charges on someone for racism then we would need something in place to punish false accusations otherwise our courts would be flooded with these cases en mass. Also if it is found out the person(s) in question simply have a prejudice they should not be punished in the legal system as simple prejudice in my opinion isn't enough to substantiate justification of punishment. This is because with prejudice alone the person(s) aren't doing anything to harm anyone else in any way they just simply have a less than favorable belief and they would more likely avoid the group of people they have the (racial) prejudice against. Only once the threshold of discrimination is crossed should there be litigation. Also would these charges be filed in Criminal or Civil Court exclusively or either or? This would change the dynamic drastically as there is no jail time in Civil Court (although the standard of proof is lesser). It would have to be noted also that the racist in question was convicted of such in Civil or Criminal Court since the burdens of proof are substantially different. Civil Court burden of proof - preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not; the scales tipping even slightly) Criminal Court burden of proof - proof beyond a reasonable doubt (extremely likely and/or essentially a certainty) In order to substantiate a claim in either court here is a framework (not meant to be posed as a finalized or complete) of what one would have to prove in order to bring a Racism claim in Court 1. Prove that the person(s) or organization in question has a prejudice AND based off of that prejudice is engaging in discriminatory behavior. 2. This behavior or action(s) are based SOLELY on race and NO other factor 3. Prove that as a result of the behavior or action(s) harm (or damage) of some sort has happened (this means something beyond simple hurt feelings) Note: proving something based solely on race is a difficult task since with human interaction other factors come into play and singling out based on race is going to require clear and concise evidence and even then there could be reasonable doubts.

I mean the highly debated "N word" (I'm white so I have to say it like that because Racism) has seemingly no consensus in the Black community. Some view it as a negative term and some a term of endearment (based mostly on the er or ga at the end I think as well as who is using the term) I think the black community needs to come up with a concrete consensus on this just for the sake of continuity. I think it is hypocritical on some level to lament and blast a white person who even utters "Nig-" without even letting them finish the word but a black person could spew the word all day long and not one peep. Is it a horrible and highly degrading term or not? Is it only wrong if a white person uses the term? What about other races other than black or white ... is it acceptable for someone hispanic to use the term? Also if it is the case that it is wrong for a white person to use that word but just about every other race is fine - isn't there racism or some prejudice/discrimination in that since the acceptability is based purely on race? All I'm really trying to say here is the black community really needs to come up with some clear and (mostly) universal definiteness on when the term is acceptable or when it isn't. Otherwise it in my opinion does degrade the argument some if there's no real consensus or concrete logic to it. (Yes I am aware of the highly harmful way the term was used from white people to black people in the past and how it is definitely reasonable for a black person to be immediately offended if hearing the word with either ending (er or ga) on the basis that it is inherently a very hateful word)

I just want to elaborate a bit, when I say some debatably racist thing are true, I mean things that differ between races like IQ and crime stats. What we do with that information is up to us. I personally think it's info that's good to know in order to start a conversation and look for a solution, not a means to hate.