@Baden Well,given the context I saw different.
Any other contexts?
Because it seems that if its one of yours the context is stretched to incredulity.
If that reference would have been to black jesus you would have deleted it. Tell me you wouldn't have?

Some more context. From the National Catholic Reporter.

https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/editorial-why-white-jesus-problem

Educate yourself.

Not being racist is a lot easier. — Baden

Easier, yes. Easy, no.

"As a Palestinian Jew, Jesus was not white, and the ubiquitous depiction of Jesus as not only white, but often blonde-haired and blue-eyed as in the famous Warner Sallman illustration "Head of Christ," is not without consequences, both theological and psychological.

An exclusively white Jesus not only narrows our understanding of him, it sends a message that connects Jesus to the powerful, not the oppressed."

@Baden So by the same token black jesus is racist as well?

@Baden And there are no powerful oppressive black leaders?

At this point, if I were you, I would be apologizing for your false accusations of racism instead of scrambling for absurd hypotheticals concerning things that were never said.

What did Jesus really look like?

@Baden Absurdity hypotheticals?! Have you seen some of the governments in Africa?
False? It's that you didn't agree mate. Nothing was false.

You admit yourself in Holland people are puzzled. — Zenny

Yes, I can see you're having trouble grasping simple concepts like most people. I expect more from someone on a philosophy forum though. Unlike you I have no problem understanding what 180 Proof or Baden is saying, despite general language use around me. But that requires you to listen to what's being said, instead of insisting your use of words has to be how it's used everywhere.

It's also entirely normal that specialised debate or professions use words differently than in their common meaning. For law, think about the meaning of "stay". Or if I file something at work, I'm putting it in the archive. If I file something at court, I'm presenting or submitting a document for consideration by such court. So in fact, your insistence on a specific use of these words really has no place here.

What's even more troublesome is that you go from "I disagree with how words are used" to "therefore those posters are racist". I'll leave you to figure out why that doesn't follow.

More brilliance! Such nuance!

So by the same token black jesus is racist as well? — Zenny

The phrase "black Jesus" is neither racist nor not racist in itself. It's meaningless without context. Jesus wasn't black or white, he was a Palestinian Jew.

Absurdity hypotheticals?! Have you seen some of the governments in Africa?
False? It's that you didn't agree mate. Nothing was false. — Zenny

Your accusation was. And if you can't handle that, your loss. You don't get to run around like a twat shouting stuff you can't back up.

@Banno And?
You know they have Korean and black jesus. Is that racist as well?

Zenny, are you OK?

You admit yourself in Holland people are puzzled. — Zenny

Benkei is famously from Norway. Well one of those hurdy flurdy countries anyway.

@Baden I've backed up everything and you and your cronies are just dancing around the issue.
It's seems to me you think YOU are the arbiter of what is and isn't racism. The rest is posturing and sophistry.

and bert1 likes to pretend he's one of those clueless Americans that will point at Antarctica on a map when asked where the USA is.

As OP of this post I will keep the debate under rational control. — Tiberiusmoon

...popcorn...

@Benkei Yep. So specialised that you can hide behind the definition when it suits. Its called lawyer double speak. Go and clarify with 180 if he thinks black people can't be racist but only prejudiced.

It's seems to me you think YOU are the arbiter of what is and isn't racism. — Zenny

On this site, the whole mod team are, including, yes, me. Anyway, the nonsense stops now. You've had your run. From here on in, it gets deleted, so that a more serious conversation may be faciliated.

@Baden Scared of truth.

I've merged Tiberiusmoon's thread into this one. No need to open a third thread with Zippy not offering an argument.

MERGED OP BY TIBERIUSMOON:

Replying to Zenny's "The new Racism" post that was closed. :/
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11046/the-new-racism
Given the nature of the topic it is difficult to support the topic if you don't understand debate fallacies.
As OP of this post I will keep the debate under rational control.


"What is the reason behind this acceptance of blatant racism?"
Good question and I can explain it in detail.
I will use my fundamental philosophy to break down and explain:

What we see as a result of racism can be a physical/verbal attack, explicit discriminative treatment or implicit towards a race.

Break those down and we have:
Physical/verbal attack that is influenced by immoral behaviour.
Explicit discrimination to judge someone because of their ethnicity.
Implicit discrimination to influence judgement on a subconcious level.
The word race which on observation is classified as a social group.

Then simplfy them to establish fundamentals to racism:
We have "judge", "Influence", "behaviour" and "observation" that can be described as a person's way of thinking or "Judgement".
Given that this is immoral behaviour, research into law shows there are levels of murder not just the singular level; as such the terms; implicit, explicit, and attack can be a measure of immoral behaviour, since we are using the context of social groups the word "Culture" is needed.
Then we have "Social group which was explained in the previous paragraph.

Inspecting the fundamentals:
As philosopher's we know about our fair share of debating skills, as such "Judgement" can be inspected.
Looking at fallacies we see many logical flaws: Bandwagon, Genetic, Personal incredulity and Ad Hominem fallacies depending on the scenario.

Then there is "Culture", for good or for bad a culture is the accumilation of experiences, influences, traditions and other historical teachings to an identifying social group. (or an individual if they wish to change their culture)

A "Social Group" can range from the whole of humanity to an individual and his friend, it is the identity of a group of more than one person.

Bias evaluation:
From observation we see that flawed judgement can influence a "Culture" or "Social Group" bias, the influence of social bias can be seen as: Political, Religious, Sport, Country and many others that influence a "us vs them ideology".
When you accept an ideology without considering the other ideologies it can become a implicit/explicit bias.

Conclusions: (the answer to OP's post)
So if a social group was influenced by social bias in a accepting way it can lead to an influence in their culture, then when the next generation in that group is raised they are also raised with the same ideology.
This would create social bias tendencies towards other social groups, the outcome of which depends on their "Judgement". (or can be how accepting of immoral behaviour they were raised to accept)

This can create a paradox of accusations
If you have two social groups accusing each other of racism or social bias that is based on culturally biased influenced assumptions, you end up with one side assuming they are socially biased/racist and another the same when they are both blind to their own cultural biases.

There is three solutions to sovle this paradox:
Religious education:
Pro's; reducing social assumptions of another social group.
Con's; will reduce the assumptions of a specific social group only.

Cultural interaction:
Pro's; interacting with other social groups can reduce the assumptions of other social groups.
Con's; Will reduce the assumptions of only those social groups you have met.

Awareness of cultural/social bias itself:
Pro's; An understanding of your own culture and how it is influenced by social bias can give you awareness to the judgement you make explicity and in time implicitly. (creating good habits)
Con's; It can be difficult to teach others as it requires a certain level of open mindedness/will power.

@Benkei How about putting the original post from tiberiusmoon?
No argument?
You mean no answer!

That's better!

@Tiberiusmoon So your assuming people want to change. And assuming everyone has been corrupted by their culture. Any proof of either?

I would say anyone stating that oppressed minorities cannot be racist are deluded. There are many deluded people though, just move on. Delusions are delusions. You cannot ‘fix’ them directly, you can only suggest and be the best you can and hope by example others ask themselves to question themselves and their hard beliefs/views rather than adhere to what is comforting. — I like sushi

Isn't it just wild how some OPs answer themselves. You may think you're the majority, and you probably are. This guy who likes basketball is basically me though I like baseball, we all like balls. Therefore, we are the majority. This is wonderful. He would kill me (philosophically, perhaps?) at any disagreement but nonetheless, we remain. Unless he kills me. Hurrah for us.

Low key.. some people, who you may wish to identify as.. have been extinct here for many years. But that's racist now isn't it.

Zip it Zippy. A technical glitch that Baden fixed.

So your assuming people want to change — Zenny

Nope, its to generate understanding.
The desire to change is entirely up to the person, It would be a socially biased assumption to think so.

assuming everyone has been corrupted by their culture. Any proof of either? — Zenny

Each individual and culture is different so it would also be a social bias to assume so.

The proof being your actual comment, as mentioned in my post; is your assumption that I was socially biased to assume that everyone has been corrupted and that everyone wanted change.
Which in itself demonstrates your cultural influence of social bias.
Do you see how this works?

@Tiberiusmoon The problem with your theory is once again it makes a mockery of words,and assumes its conclusion without warrant. If everyone is socially biased then what does the word really refer to? Degrees of bias?
There is no proof that people are influenced carte blanche to the point of all being biased by social influence.
And I didn't assume you were culturally biased,I.just thought you are wrong in your theory,mistaken.

@I like sushi

When it comes to racism I go by: the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.
"theories of racism" — BitconnectCarlos

I concur. Racism boils down to one race considering and treating other races as inferior.

On the other hand we have prejudice. A Google search of the word's definition yields:

1. To form a judgement before one has all the facts.
2. Hostility towards certain groups, including but not limited to race.

When one hears the word "racism" one isn't sure whether it's justified or not. However if one encounters the word "prejudice" it's very clear that whatever the belief, attitude, or philosophy is, it's a product of poor judgement or that it's unjustified.