Crooked Cracker

Elden Ring hadde ikke mye dialog men en del minneverdige sitater, Mass Effect 1 var generelt godt skrevet og hadde noen flotte dialoger, Portal spillene hadde morsomme gullkorn og såvidt jeg husker hadde også Metal Gear spilllene mye interessante utvekslinger baket inn i moroa.

Rett skal jo være rett. Veldig random spørsmål å slenge inn her. Like standarer uavhengig av hudfarge tror jeg vil skape en bedre og mer rettferdig verden, således har jeg argumentert for det. Det gjør meg ikke til en helgen akkurat men det får så være. Egentlig er slike kommentarer som dette det faktiske gnålet ettersom det bidrar særdeles lite til selve diskusjonen.

Bra, det var dog noen andre her med annen oppfatning. Wrong, but I won't bother going through this discussion again.

Angående alkoholkonsum er det egentlig en ukultur med en ukultur i seg. Det er jo et sosialt press for å 'drekka' samtidig som folk aldri lærer seg kunsten av å nyte alkohol på en god måte, det vil si å holde seg på et berusningsnivå der en kan kose seg uten å miste sans og samling fullstendig. Selv etter gedigne smeller i fylla så er det samme krampeaktige opplegget neste helg. Dessverre blir dette alkoholtilnærmingen ungdom introduseres for, og da øker risikoen for at kjedelig ting kan skje.

Du har jo ved flere anledninger knyttet hudfarge og maktforhold uten nærmere forbehold, det er ikke noen andre sin jobb å presisere nærmere hva du egentlig mener enn deg. Som igjen ikke endrer at -Ikke hvite kan være rasistiske. -Ikke hvit rasisme kan være like grov, alvorlig og kritikkverdig selvom den finnes i mindre omfang.

Nå har jo koggan kommet med dette ved flere anledninger samt vært heller påståelig på det, og den logiske konsekvensen av det er jo åpenbar. Det kan jo hende at han ikke forstod alle implikasjonene av hans argumentasjon, og da er det jo greit å gå det litt etter sømmene. Jeg er dog enig at diskusjonen har trekt ut og blitt heller repeterende, så det er vel på tide å wrappe det opp.

La oss ta et eks fra denne diskusjonen. Jeg skriver: 'Selvfølgelig skal vi ikke la hudfarge diktere hvordan interaksjoner mellom folk skal være, om du setter spørsmålstegn ved lik linje er du i dårlig selskap rent historisk.' Hvorpå koggan svarer: 'It's not morally equivalent to attack people that belong to marginalized groups as it is for marginalized groups to attack those who marginalize them. ' Her ser vi klart og tydelig koggan blander sammen hudfarge og maktforhold, det kan vi godt å gjøre i tilfeller der det er relevant, men det bør selvsagt ikke være premiss for all bruk av ordet rasisme.

Sure, but you shoulda clarified this when you first used the word institution. Okay, but we have many areas in Europe where non-white people are the majority and set the cultural norms, as such it's fair to say these places can have socially instituted racism against whites or others by the same mechanism as you described. Well, to be honest I think modern western countries have the least amount of racism embedded in their culture. If racism was deeply rooted in these countries there wouldn't be much immigration or aid to non-western countries. For example, in Norway we certain immigration groups basically only marry among their own group while Norwegians are way less discriminatory. This why I stress the importance of individual cases. Okay. Yet you have claimed that racism against one group is less serious than others, that's your words. The point is how we define racism as an act, behaviour or attitude. My argument is that it should be an independent term not influenced by other circumstances as no other circumstances should be a premise than it's based on race or skin-color. That doesn't mean you can't focus on different scales of racism in different societies, or the impact on groups as a whole. However, what we been going around in circles about is that racist conditions in some societies shouldn't determine the term racism in itself as that would lead to inconsistencies. Surely we can see the big picture without bending meaning of words to whatever is convinient. Even if women are less violent than men we don't say that women ar incapable of violence or their violence is a less serious offense.

Alko-kulturen kan vel diskuteres som helhet også, men det er kanskje blasfemi for nordmenn.

jaja, alle er gangstere inntil Millehaugen får perm..

I'll stick with the dictionary definiton. Well I suppose institutions by your definition wants them dead, so a tad racism there maybe. With todays demographics it may be more widepread than you perhaps think. To me that sound like common racism but I never went to sociology class tho. Is that really how you would describe an incident where one little kid gets beaten up for being white? That's a bit disturbing. So you would think it's moral to beat up or harass individuals who shares an arbitrary trait with the actual oppressors? You claimed it was obvious we talked about the west, yet we never stipulated that. Going by you oppressor\majority\power reasoning there will be assumptions about skin color tho, it's why I argued against it. You are conflating like crazy, and even when limited to the western countries there will be discrepancies. it's why it's not a good idea to attribute certain power\influence\oppressiveness to skin color, something you clearly did.

Well according to the dictionary the word means 'of, in, or like an institution or institutions'. Also, if you want to define it as you do it's fair to say that institutional racism also occurs against white people as seen with many articles and other outlets that straight up problematize white people. This is a dangerously bad take, some scrawny and lonesome white kid getting harassed or beaten up for his skin color is not a defendable reaction to oppression, it's just crude thuggery with racist motives. As said countless times to you aready, the slave\owner relation can't be applied to every white and non-white person in the world. Not, the term racism is not restricted to the western world. That means racism can exist without any white people involved. Glad we sorted that out. That is successful and rich privilige, you keep making the same logical fallacy of conflating certain conditions to race in absolute terms. I've tried to explain this repeatedly to you yet you insist on making this error. There are certain correlations between race and wealth but defining enire races accordingly will always lead to a clear inconsistency in the real world.

Ser at flere jubler over dette, men jeg er ikke spesielt fan av slik gatejustis som fort kan eskalere og gå utover uskyldige, det er sikkert skremmende for folk som bor i området som såvidt jeg vet stort sett består av barnefamiler og eldre. Et mer tilspisset kriminelt miljø mens myndighetene står på sidelinja er ikke bra for noen.

Institutional means it's coming from certain places with influence, not everyday commoners. Yes, and it should be adressed as such. Obviously not the case for the world, where whites are a minority themselves. Like I said you can't conflate certain societal conditions on to entire races, it will simply be wrong. I suggest you may call it majorityism or powerism and seperate these terms from racism.

Certain white people are capable of this, and sometimes they do it to other white people as well. However not all racism is institutional. That doesn't change that an intention of using 'honkie' can be racist. I think this is more due to fact that generally white people are not being encouraged to feel like a victim over words, however racism may manifest in other ways like violence that surely will be felt equally on the body, less you think white people have some superpower there aswell.

Du gjør nok det ser det ut til. Hvem i huleste har sagt at falske saker om rasime skal overføres til alle saker om rasisme?

Why not? Do you think white people are som kind of magical creatures that's inherently immune to what other races are not?

Jeg postet jo akkurat noen lenker som beskrev forskjellen på disse. Nå gjør du deg selv unødvendig tverr. Det var nå du som trakk inn menneskelig natur her, og de er simpelthen hva den er på godt og vondt. I mediene er jo dette helt klart hvite mennesker, det er ingen andre farger noen andre steder i verden som får kritikk for å være homogent. Stråmann, ingen har sagt at menneskelig natur ikke kan eller bør forbedres via utvikling. Det er dog ikke gjort over natten som du kanskje skjønner.

Maybe generally in some societies, but obviously not universally nor every incident. The mistake you're making is trying to conflate certain societal conditions onto entire races, that's not only bad logic but morally rather dubious as well.

That's ingroup preference, "the tendency to favor members of one’s own group over those in other groups—is well documented". https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4327620/ However this is neither based on or confined to race. https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/beautiful-minds/in-group-favoritism-is-difficult-to-change-even-when-the-social-groups-are-meaningless/

As I told you pages ago, you can't apply power relations within certain societies to entire races across the world, or each individual case.

De var dog ikke alene om det. https://www.fairplanet.org/dossier/beyond-slavery/forgotten-slavery-the-arab-muslim-slave-trade-sex-trafficking/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade Nå unnskylder selvsagt ikke det europeiske ugjerninger på kontinentet, det er bare litt merkelig at kun denne parten må bære en kollektiv skyld mens den andre knapt nevnes.