The debate "The terms racist and sexist have been blown out of proportion" was started by
July 22, 2019, 1:17 am.
22 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 17 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Repent_4_The_End_Is_Near posted 1 argument, mwest0097 posted 2 arguments, Light posted 3 arguments to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 2 arguments, Allirix posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
Light, Repent_4_The_End_Is_Near, A, Steelheart, jrardin12 and 17 visitors agree.
Nemiroff, mwest0097, historybuff, Allirix, sk25, jbusey, Sumit082, codyray16 and 9 visitors disagree.
That makes sense
I obviously don't have details about your example since I don't know anyone involved. But this sort of thing is unfortunately often necessary.
For example If you are in an area where there is a significant level of racism in the general populace, then the judges will very likely be biased in their choice. Even if a black student has a good project, the judges may be more harsh in their criticisms of it because the student is black. Often this isn't even conscious. For example if you see a black guy walking toward you on the street you might be more likely to assume he has a negative intent than if it were a white guy. This isn't a conscious discrimination, but it is still racism. Therefore having such a separate category helps minority students be accepted as capable of winning in a science fair. After awhile less people will question whether minority students should win at a science fair and the special prize would no longer be needed.
You can see similar subconscious bias if you look at sentencing for crimes. Black people are much more likely to get a harsher sentence than a white person for the same crime, even if they have a similar criminal history. I don't think most judges actively try to be harder on black people, but they have a subconscious bias that makes them more likely to think that they need to harshly punish black people than white people.
Like the form identified by resume studies
Because advantaging disadvantaged groups helps equalise the playing field. It feels unfair because it's overtly discriminatory, but it's a necessary evil to counter covert discrimination
I was asking this because recently I attended a state science fair awards ceremony and their were prizes given out by organizations that to receive it you had to be a female or part of a minority. There was not a single prize for only males or only whites. This is because if they did they did they would most likely be called racist or sexist. Why is it accepted to exclude males or non minorities but the instant its reversed it's no longer acceptable?
Conceded, I change my answer.
There were a lot of Nazi's who didn't want to ethnically cleanse people. That isn't the defining characteristic of a Nazi. So limiting the definition of a Nazi to 1 characteristic exhibited by a small subset of the group is not helpful. You are trying to define the term to be applicable to as few people as possible. When someone says someone is a Nazi, they usually mean fascist, which is what the Nazi's were.
I see the same thing happening with racists. People who are low to medium level racists don't want to see themselves as being in the same group as extreme racists. So they try to define racist as someone who wants to does something more racist than themselves. They want to change the definition of the word to not include themselves and their own actions, rather than changing their own actions and stop being racist. You can see this in action right now where republicans refuse to call Trump a racist when he told US born, american citizens to go back to their own country. That is obviously racist, but the right now says it isn't. The definition of racist on the right is changing every day.
You see the reverse happening with how the right refers to progressives. If you want any kind of meaningful reform to the system, they automatically label you as the most extreme term they can think of (socialist, communist etc) even though there are very few, if any at all, socialists or communists in america.
I agree, tentatively. I think racism and sexism are real problems in our society and that there is a lot of it going around. However, I think people are much too loose with what they label prejudice of one kind or another. And this is important because if we push too hard all at once, overstepping into calling any little perceived slight racism or sexism, even people who oppose those things will stop taking it seriously. It's like calling people who you dislike Nazi's. Nazi's were a very real thing, and calling anything other than someone who wants to ethnically cleanse their lands is not someone you should call a Nazi because that term needs to be reserved for the level of horrible we know people can reach. otherwise, when they get there, no amount of calling them a Nazi will matter because everyone is so used to hearing it.
I'd agree if I didn't believe I was ignorant about a lot of the discrimination out there
I agree but only to a certain extent
I don't think that is true. i think that as a society we are just actually trying to fight a problem that has been systemic until now. It isn't that the terms are being over blown, it is that racist and sexist behavior that was tolerated before is being called out.
Outright racism, like shouting racist slurs in someone's face, were seen as unseemly 20 years ago, but slightly more subtle racism, like telling people of color to go back to their own country, was largely ignored. Now as the slightly more subtle racist behavior is becoming unseemly as well, the term gets thrown around more, not because the term is over blown, but because there is a lot of racist behavior still going on.
And the election of a raging racist as president is emboldening a lot of closet racists to be more active in their racism. So that is also causing the term to be used more the last few years.
In what way do you mean?