Racist Wrestling Fans

[Hammerlock3]

4 hours ago, 1032004 said:

It means that while racism is not as blatant and widespread as it was in the 1960s, it is also not as nonexistent as many claim. There are unfortunately a not insignificant number of racist assholes out there. So blacks in particular are likely going to run into someone or multiple people in their lives that they can’t just ignore that does not give them a “fair shake,” moreso than they would have if they were white. Such as a hiring manager, boss, salesperson, landlord, home seller, maybe even wrestling coach or referee, etc.

Your turn.  What is your definition of racism?

ok so when you say "fair shake" you mean as long as there is a racist person somewhere you get to preach and moralize based on anecdotal nonsense and we have to listen. my hero. 

[Paul158]

42 minutes ago, Red Blades said:

You should read The Power Broker, by Robert A. Caro.  Robert Moses adopted some very interesting strategies and policies in developing the highway systems around NYC!

I appreciate your suggestion but you're asking me to go buy a book ( that has 1336 pages) and read it. Even if I were to do so, it would not change the definition of racism. Racism by definition is making arbitrary judgements about people based on race. Please explain how a road can make an arbitrary judgement about a person based on race. So are you attempting to change the definition of racism?

[Hammerlock3]

2 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

I appreciate your suggestion but you're asking me to go buy a book ( that has 1336 pages) and read it. Even if I were to do so, it would not change the definition of racism. Racism by definition is making arbitrary judgements about people based on race. Please explain how a road can make an arbitrary judgement about a person based on race. So are you attempting to change the definition of racism?

is this a "driving while black" discussion? Thats been debunked.

[Jim L]

3 hours ago, ionel said:

 

But some are claiming this is racist.

Some people are claiming all sorts of crazy stuff. That fact that you can find outliers does not mean this is what the genreal consensus is.

[Jim L]

20 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

I appreciate your suggestion but you're asking me to go buy a book ( that has 1336 pages) and read it. Even if I were to do so, it would not change the definition of racism. Racism by definition is making arbitrary judgements about people based on race. Please explain how a road can make an arbitrary judgement about a person based on race. So are you attempting to change the definition of racism?

It is silly to think that people truly believe that the roads are actively acting in racist manner.

Also, it is naïve to believe that minority communities were not discriminated against when these roads were built. There are decisions that are made when major infrastructure are planned that benefit some communities and harm others. 

[ionel]

7 minutes ago, Jim L said:

Some people are claiming all sorts of crazy stuff. That fact that you can find outliers does not mean this is what the genreal consensus is.

A professor at a top university few years ago claimed that math was racist.  Different professor at same university claimed Engineering was sexist.  

[Paul158]

2 minutes ago, Jim L said:

It is silly to think that people truly believe that the roads are actively acting in racist manner.

Also, it is naïve to believe that minority communities were not discriminated against when these roads were built. There are decisions that are made when major infrastructure are planned that benefit some communities and harm others. 

Well said. If a term is properly used it makes it easier to discuss and maybe resolve the problem.

[Paul158]

2 minutes ago, ionel said:

A professor at a top university few years ago claimed that math was racist.  Different professor at same university claimed Engineering was sexist.  

When terms aren't used in the proper context it causes chaos and division.

[1032004]

2 hours ago, Hammerlock3 said:

ok so when you say "fair shake" you mean as long as there is a racist person somewhere you get to preach and moralize based on anecdotal nonsense and we have to listen. my hero. 

You're kinda proving my point.   Saying "as long as there is a racist person somewhere" implies the racism that exists is minimal.  But my point in starting this thread was that 4+ out of 28 comments under that video were racist, suggesting that racism is more prevalent than some like to think.

You mean "preaching and moralizing based on anecdotal nonsense" like when you said some guys taking a picture was "racist and stupid"?

On 12/22/2023 at 11:40 AM, Hammerlock3 said:

yeah i think that was rascist and stupid. No harm was intended or inflicted, but if you embody the ideology that recommends such action your a really bad person.

 

[Hammerlock3]

2 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

You're kinda proving my point.   Saying "as long as there is a racist person somewhere" implies the racism that exists is minimal.  But my point in starting this thread was that 4+ out of 28 comments under that video were racist, suggesting that racism is more prevalent than some like to think.

You mean "preaching and moralizing based on anecdotal nonsense" like when you said some guys taking a picture was "racist and stupid"?

 

 

You're proving my point (its not hard to just this in front of post)

No. I wasnt posturing as morally superior like you are. I was giving an opinion that i knew idiots would try to blow me up for.

And you've already shown you're posturing because you stopped caring what my definition of racism was the moment i said i'd tell you in a context where you couldn't grandstand. 

[Jim L]

1 hour ago, ionel said:

A professor at a top university few years ago claimed that math was racist.  Different professor at same university claimed Engineering was sexist.  

I did not know that. I guess that proves that you cannot trust any professors

[ionel]

14 minutes ago, Jim L said:

I did not know that. I guess that proves that you cannot trust any professors

Like the public in general, you can trust some.

[Hammerlock3]

2 hours ago, Jim L said:

Some people are claiming all sorts of crazy stuff. That fact that you can find outliers does not mean this is what the genreal consensus is.

its not a crazy outlier of an opinion, there are many mainstream articles getting put about how shes a victim.

heres the NYTimes giving her a platform to pretend she's a victim

Edited January 4 by Hammerlock3

[1032004]

1 hour ago, Hammerlock3 said:

 

You're proving my point (its not hard to just this in front of post)

No. I wasnt posturing as morally superior like you are. I was giving an opinion that i knew idiots would try to blow me up for.

And you've already shown you're posturing because you stopped caring what my definition of racism was the moment i said i'd tell you in a context where you couldn't grandstand. 

Uh, saying someone is potentially a bad person is posturing as morally superior.  I’d also argue you were posturing as morally superior when you said “who cares” in response to the question about Bartlett’s race.

Like I said, I do care what your definition is, but if you weren’t going to share it with everyone I wasn’t going to ask you separately.  Thank you for finally providing it, my main curiosity was around the fact that you were complaining about other people making up definitions for it, but as I suspected, your definition was very similar to one of the poster’s you were complaining about.

On 12/22/2023 at 12:03 PM, TNwrestling said:

That doesnt make it racist. Being racist is being prejudice towards a different race. 

 

4 hours ago, Hammerlock3 said:

Racism is making arbitrary judgments about people based on race. 

 

But I do still find it funny the guy essentially saying racism isn’t much of a problem today was calling guys taking a picture racist and stupid…

[Hammerlock3]

2 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

But I do still find it funny the guy essentially saying racism isn’t much of a problem today was calling guys taking a picture racist and stupid…

Well sense I repeatedly said I didn't think this example of racism intended or caused harm your comparison doesn't hold in any way.

But on to your point. You are clearly thinking about these issues in a very serious way so please tell me a few things...

1)How are you quantifying the amount of racism in society? Whats your metric, surely its not if you can find an internet troll...

2) how much racism do you think there is? 

3)How much racism do you think I think there is?

4) at what point in your racism scale would it pass from significant to insignificant?

[mspart]

On 12/22/2023 at 12:11 PM, Bardamu911 said:

honestly I'd rather drink paint

That works!

mspart

[1032004]

1 hour ago, Hammerlock3 said:

Well sense I repeatedly said I didn't think this example of racism intended or caused harm your comparison doesn't hold in any way.

But on to your point. You are clearly thinking about these issues in a very serious way so please tell me a few things...

1)How are you quantifying the amount of racism in society? Whats your metric, surely its not if you can find an internet troll...

2) how much racism do you think there is? 

3)How much racism do you think I think there is?

4) at what point in your racism scale would it pass from significant to insignificant?

I know you are grandstanding, but I’ll do my best to answer your questions anyway.

Again, my reason for starting this thread was more of a question about whether there is more racism among wrestling fans than society as a whole (I’d lean yes).

While x/twitter posts are likely overstating that number, I don’t think it’s drastic.  Even though many of the people making racist posts on x/twitter probably wouldn’t say them to a black person’s face, they’re still racist, and could be that hiring manager or landlord that discriminates against them without making the reason known.

So, to answer your questions:

 1/2.  Backing into it, 14%+ of the replies in the post from the OP were racist.  I’d guess that’s probably about double the real world, so I’d estimate about 7% of wrestling fans to be racist.  I think that’s a little higher than the country as a whole, which I’d estimate at maybe around 5%.

3.  I think you think it’s more like 1% or less, but feel free to provide your estimate

4.  I think it crosses from insignificant to significant at around 2%.

Edited January 5 by 1032004

[Hammerlock3]

6 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

I know you are grandstanding, but I’ll do my best to answer your questions anyway.

Again, my reason for starting this thread was more of a question about whether there is more racism among wrestling fans than society as a whole (I’d lean yes).

While x/twitter posts are likely overstating that number, I don’t think it’s drastic.  Even though many of the people making racist posts on x/twitter probably wouldn’t say them to a black person’s face, they’re still racist, and could be that hiring manager or landlord that discriminates against them without making the reason known.

So, to answer your questions:

 1/2.  Backing into it, 14%+ of the replies in the post from the OP were racist.  I’d guess that’s probably about double the real world, so I’d estimate about 7% of wrestling fans to be racist.  I think that’s a little higher than the country as a whole, which I’d estimate at maybe around 5%.

3.  I think you think it’s more like 1% or less, but feel free to provide your estimate

4.  I think it crosses from insignificant to significant at around 2%.

ok, and you're definition of racist is people who actively discriminate against others because of their race, which is different than mine because I think arbitrary positive associations are also bad. Is that consistent? Maybe we can distill this down. 

[1032004]

21 minutes ago, Hammerlock3 said:

ok, and you're definition of racist is people who actively discriminate against others because of their race, which is different than mine because I think arbitrary positive associations are also bad. Is that consistent? Maybe we can distill this down. 

All the definitions I see (Merriam-Webster, Cambridge dictionary, dictionary.com, etc) include some verbiage about a race being superior, so no I wouldn’t say that “positive associations” are part of the definition.

@Paul158, did you plagiarize @Hammerlock3’s definition?  I see you literally used the same definition word for word yet I’m not seeing this specific phrase anywhere, but feel free to provide the source if there is one (either of you).

6 hours ago, Hammerlock3 said:

Racism is making arbitrary judgments about people based on race. 

 

5 hours ago, Paul158 said:

Racism by definition is making arbitrary judgements about people based on race.

 

[Lipdrag]

5 hours ago, Jim L said:

There are decisions that are made when major infrastructure are planned that benefit some communities and harm others. 

So, in a mono-racial country (say Japan or Germany) those road commissions must make decision on roadways, routes, etc which benefit some communities and harm others.  Are Japanese and German roads non-racist because there is only one race and there is no opportunity to be racist?  Or is it just possible that the road decisions are really made on mostly the same criteria in every country? 

I am sure our noted transportation scientist/engineer/historian Petey B.  knows the answer and admonishes his Japanese, German, and every other Minister of Transportation whenever he gets the chance about their racist roads.

[Hammerlock3]

1 minute ago, 1032004 said:

All the definitions I see (Merriam-Webster, Cambridge dictionary, dictionary.com, etc) include some verbiage about a race being superior, so no I wouldn’t say that “positive associations” are part of the definition.

 

 

 

So would say that if a black person is admitted to harvard despite being much less qualified than the japanese student he bumped out that its not racism? 

Favoring one race is inherently disciminating against all others.

[Lipdrag]

5 hours ago, Paul158 said:

When terms aren't used in the proper context it causes chaos and division.

Like . . . Woman.  Marriage.  Eligible voter.  Insurrection.  Vaccine.  Science.   To name just a few.

[Jim L]

1 minute ago, Lipdrag said:

So, in a mono-racial country (say Japan or Germany) those road commissions must make decision on roadways, routes, etc which benefit some communities and harm others.  Are Japanese and German roads non-racist because there is only one race and there is no opportunity to be racist?  Or is it just possible that the road decisions are really made on mostly the same criteria in every country? 

I am sure our noted transportation scientist/engineer/historian Petey B.  knows the answer and admonishes his Japanese, German, and every other Minister of Transportation whenever he gets the chance about their racist roads.

Germany is mono-racial, but that is besides the point. In other countries I would assume that the poorer communities get the worst results form new developments. There was very clear document evidence of how urban development has disproportionally hurt minority communities, whether that is just because they were poor or because the developers did not have the same concern for their need doesn't really matter.

Your last paragraph is just silly 

[Lipdrag]

8 minutes ago, Jim L said:

Your last paragraph is just silly 

Yes.  I was using silly to highlight our silly TranspoSec Petey B.  Thanks for noticing.

Edited January 5 by Lipdrag

[Paul158]

11 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

All the definitions I see (Merriam-Webster, Cambridge dictionary, dictionary.com, etc) include some verbiage about a race being superior, so no I wouldn’t say that “positive associations” are part of the definition.

@Paul158, did you plagiarize @Hammerlock3’s definition?  I see you literally used the same definition word for word yet I’m not seeing this specific phrase anywhere, but feel free to provide the source if there is one (either of you).

 

 

I must confess. I googled it and got it straight off the internet. I hadn't even seen Hammerlocks response. But if I had according to the former President of Harvard, Mrs. Gay it's not plagiarism when you copy other people's work and you claim as your own. Just so  you know.