feels discrimination or prejudice

VicNicSor

Banned
Russian
A racist is defined as someone who feels discrimination or prejudice to people of a different race, or feels that one race is superior to another.
We All Have Racial Bias, video by Mic

The red part just doesn't make sense. I mean, you can't use "feel" with those words. Do you agree?
Thank you.
 
  • Packard

    Senior Member
    USA, English
    He feels as though he and his race are superior to others. The reality may be right in front of him proving that he is wrong, but that does not alter how he feels about this subject.
     

    VicNicSor

    Banned
    Russian
    He feels as though he and his race are superior to others. The reality may be right in front of him proving that he is wrong, but that does not alter how he feels about this subject.
    But I'm talking about the grammar of the red part, not the last part of the sentence..
     

    lingobingo

    Senior Member
    English - England
    A racist is defined as someone who feels discrimination or prejudice to people of a different race, or feels that one race is superior to another.

    Yes, I agree. In both cases "against" is more logical than "to". Also, you don't "feel discrimination" against, you simply discriminate against.

    (On the other hand, this text was spoken, not written, presumably? And we all get things wrong in speech!)
     

    VicNicSor

    Banned
    Russian
    Yes, I agree. In both cases "against" is more logical than "to". Also, you don't "feel discrimination" against, you simply discriminate against.
    Or, if we leave the nouns as they are: practise discrimination against / have prejudice against.
    (On the other hand, this text was spoken, not written, presumably? And we all get things wrong in speech!)
    It was spoken, of course, but in this kind of videos the speech is usually written in advance, not improvisation.

    Thank you, both.
     

    MattiasNYC

    Senior Member
    Swedish
    On the topic of the actual question I agree that "feel discrimination" makes no sense here.

    Regarding what lingobingo said though I disagree that "against" is a good word to use. Just because you can discriminate against someone doesn't mean you can't also discriminate in favor of someone, either based on race. It surely points to a much larger issue which is whether or not racism can only be discrimination based on race that treats one group negatively or if it can also be when you choose your own group and discriminate favorably/positively for that group, all others being equal. I would argue that they're both equally bad because they both rely on the concept of race justifying discrimination (in any "direction").
     

    VicNicSor

    Banned
    Russian
    On the topic of the actual question I agree that "feel discrimination" makes no sense here.

    Regarding what lingobingo said though I disagree that "against" is a good word to use. Just because you can discriminate against someone doesn't mean you can't also discriminate in favor of someone, either based on race. It surely points to a much larger issue which is whether or not racism can only be discrimination based on race that treats one group negatively or if it can also be when you choose your own group and discriminate favorably/positively for that group, all others being equal. I would argue that they're both equally bad because they both rely on the concept of race justifying discrimination (in any "direction").
    But in the OP it is specified that "discrimination or prejudice" is toward "a different race". So if we're talking about racism, it can only be "against":)
     

    Packard

    Senior Member
    USA, English
    "Towards" might be better than "to", but neither work as well for me as "against".

    I don't think I would object to "towards" however. Toward meaning "in relation to".

    Racial discrimination can cut both ways, it should be noted. You can also have a positive feeling towards a racial group (other than your own). It gains less notoriety though and is rarely mentioned.
     

    Packard

    Senior Member
    USA, English
    So positive that you may start "discriminating" your own racial group (sometimes happens:))
    My experience working with Chinese born merchants has always been good. In addition my roommate in college was from Shanghai, and three of my doctors have been Chinese. As some subconscious level I am probably biased toward the Chinese merchant (over Anglo-Saxon merchants).

    I brought my Movado gold watch in for a new battery. The jewelry store was owned by a Chinese merchant. He said, "Come back in one hour." So I went to lunch and came back and picked up my watch. At that point I realized that I never asked him to make up a ticket (receipt), something I would normally do. I think it was racial bias.

    I am not sure it means discriminating against my own group but it does show some bias. Now if Li Bingbing would just stop by one day...:D
     

    lingobingo

    Senior Member
    English - England
    Regarding what lingobingo said though I disagree that "against" is a good word to use. Just because you can discriminate against someone doesn't mean you can't also discriminate in favor of someone, either based on race.
    All I was doing was addressing a question in a word/language/grammar forum about a particular sentence on the subject of racism – which very specifically means discriminating against other people. Not for one moment was I suggesting that you can't discriminate for rather than against. Really!!
     

    MattiasNYC

    Senior Member
    Swedish
    I know lingobingo, I wasn't disputing what you were saying or criticizing you, I just to add to it. In a sense I just think that what I said is more inclusive, including both for and against.
     

    MattiasNYC

    Senior Member
    Swedish
    But in the OP it is specified that "discrimination or prejudice" is toward "a different race". So if we're talking about racism, it can only be "against":)
    I think Packard explained it fairly well. But since you asked me I'll just give you examples of what I mean:

    Suppose I don't like white people. I think the white race is inferior to all other races. The only discrimination I have chosen to do (in this hypothetical example) is against white people. That, to me, is discrimination against a race, based on race.

    Now suppose that I don't mind white people, or black people, but I think my race (let's say "Asian") is the best. So I don't single out a different race for negative treatment, instead I single out my own race for positive treatment. This means that I think that my daughter (for example) should only marry someone of our race. I only hire people of my race to my company. All because of race. Nothing else.

    So in the first example above the discrimination is generally viewed (in the west) as negative, and is clearly "racism". But many people have no problem with the second type of discrimination. The way I see it, the issue with that is that it's still a matter of dividing humans according to this (stupid) concept of "race", and then discriminate based on it. It really doesn't matter much if you single out one group for negative treatment relative to your own group, or if you 'single out' all other races except your own for negative treatment relative to your own group; in either case it's based on the same view on race.

    Since words have meaning and have an effect on human beings, on how we think and behave, I would argue that it is important to describe racism as discrimination based on race, regardless of whether it's against one race or in favor of one, because it's all based on the same nonsense. If we make exceptions for our own group - maybe in the name of pride or whatever - we will never get rid of racism on this planet, or even improve significantly I think.....
     

    VicNicSor

    Banned
    Russian
    You're avoiding mentioning that historically, racism is ascribed to whites. So disliking whites -- ok. For anybody to consider them "inferior to all other races" -- very unlikely.

    Your second example. An Asian thinking their race is the best -- may be (as you said "many people have no problem with the second type of discrimination") But a white thinking the whites are the best -- definitely a "racist".

    That is, I guess you're white and you had to avoid saying something like: "Suppose I don't like black people", or "suppose I think my race -- white -- is the best", so that there wouldn't be even the slightest possibility that someone will think you might have any racial bias.

    The way I see it, the issue with that is that it's still a matter of dividing humans according to this (stupid) concept of "race", and then discriminate based on it.
    I think it was and will always be, whether you like it or not. See, if you're a white, and a black got accepted as a student instead of you even though you had a higher pass mark, but the dean had a certain quota of blacks being accepted -- it's a type of racism too (judging by your definition:))
     

    MattiasNYC

    Senior Member
    Swedish
    You're avoiding mentioning that historically, racism is ascribed to whites. So disliking whites -- ok. For anybody to consider them "inferior to all other races" -- very unlikely.
    Who it's ascribed to is irrelevant to what it means in my opinion. The word and concept means what it means.

    That is, I guess you're white and you had to avoid saying something like: "Suppose I don't like black people", or "suppose I think my race -- white -- is the best", so that there wouldn't be even the slightest possibility that someone will think you might have any racial bias.
    When it comes to what the words mean I'm irrelevant and so is whatever someone else determines that my race is. I won't be defined by it because it's a stupid concept, but either way that doesn't change whether or not what I say makes sense.

    , if you're a white, and a black got accepted as a student instead of you even though you had a higher pass mark, but the dean had a certain quota of blacks being accepted -- it's a type of racism too (judging by your definition:))
    That would be correct if discrimination based on race is racism regardless of why it's done. I think it's arguable that that's the case. Different dictionaries have different definitions. Some will seemingly require that the cause of discrimination is that one views races as being of different values. Others will say that simply discriminating based on race is enough for it to be racism, regardless of the cause (which could be to increase diversity).
     

    VicNicSor

    Banned
    Russian
    So when it comes to increasing diversity the concept is not so stupid. When you increase one thing, another thing is decreased. Some benefit from it, some suffer. If it's always fair is arguable too.
    I won't be defined by it because it's a stupid concept
    Gender discrimination is a bad thing and prejudice. Nobody argues. But identifying yourself by gender on WRF is not a stupid concept I think. (No, I don't seek to know your gender and race!!! No. And I'm against any kind of discrimination.)
     

    MattiasNYC

    Senior Member
    Swedish
    Apologies if this is too off topic. Mods feel free to delete if that's the case.

    So when it comes to increasing diversity the concept is not so stupid. When you increase one thing, another thing is decreased. Some benefit from it, some suffer. If it's always fair is arguable too.
    Well, at the risk of making the thread somewhat drift, my point is that you have to look at different parts of different issues. Often we use words to lump a bunch of things together, and we think we all know what it all means, but when we look at those different components we can sometimes reach different conclusions.

    In this case - sticking to the discussion of the meaning of the words in the first post - the different issues are if there is discrimination, if there has been discrimination, if there is an unreasonable and "immoral" lack of diversity or not. So in the case of having a quota of one minority in a school for example, it isn't done just because it looks nice, and it isn't done just because people are racist, it's actually done because people were racist, and that previous racism caused the segregation we still experience today. That's why I'm saying that it's debatable whether or not this affirmative action (based on race) is racism by itself, because it isn't done because those who do it are racists, it's done because people who were racists created the segregation we see today. That's the difference.

    So, if discriminating based on race is all it takes for it to be called racism, regardless of what the motive is, then yes, it applies here. It's just being honest. If it doesn't apply, then it doesn't. So "the concept" of race is still idiotic in my opinion, and I think that anyone who reads up on biology and the genome will come to the same conclusion.

    Gender discrimination is a bad thing and prejudice. Nobody argues. But identifying yourself by gender on WRF is not a stupid concept I think. (No, I don't seek to know your gender and race!!! No. And I'm against any kind of discrimination.)
    I didn't mean that identifying yourself one way or another is a stupid concept, I meant that the concept of race is stupid. Since I should try to stick to the thread topic(s) I urge you (since we're having this discussion) to try to research the definition and see if you can find consensus among educated intelligent biologists as to what it is. Really all it is is a social construct which can't be properly backed by scientific evidence (in biology). If you have the energy you can start with Wikipedia's entry on it and you'll see pretty quickly how nonsensical it is.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top