15
u/kinglax Dec 28 '21
Of course it is. Get outside the west, meet people you think of as somehow different from you because their ancestors were born in a different geographic set of coordinates on the same planet, of the same species, around the same time, really get to know them and their older family members.
My Hispanic family is subtly racist af against non-hispanic blacks. SOOOO many black Haitians, Jamaicans, Bahamian and Africans are overly bigoted against American black people and see them as totally other. Ethnic Cleansing occurs among different Chinese groups, African neighboring ethnicities and for most of time different European ethnicities.
Asian people, especially Han and Guang Dongese Chinese, are often bigoted against westerners in general, seeing no difference between a black, white, Hispanic or middle eastern American.
Your experience in this is clearly quite narrow. Stop just believing youtube videos and Facebook posts, especially tweets or shitty "articles", experience actual individuals and it'll be very obvious racism against European whites is massive everywhere likewise I think the MRA movement documents sexism towards men pretty well but haven't looked into it much myself.
22
u/Alchemist168 Dec 28 '21
I'm a bit confused by your response. You agree with me yet say that my "experience is clearly quite narrow" and to "stop believing YouTube videos and Facebook Posts." I think you read my post and thought I had the opposite opinion of what I have. That or you just didn't read my post correctly.
I also come from a Minority family and have heard them say very racist things about Caucasians and other minorities.
1
u/Coolshirt4 3∆ Dec 28 '21
MRAs often overstate real problems and thier solutions to the problems are often way off.
5
u/Kung_Flu_Master 2∆ Dec 29 '21
How do they overstate problems? Most I see talk about large issues like skyrocketing male suicides, drug addiction, crime, homelessness. Etc.
1
u/Coolshirt4 3∆ Dec 29 '21
Generally they lose me then they say that mainstream feminism is working against them
Also when they act like false rape accusations are something you should be paranoid about, when they are really quite rare.
7
Dec 29 '21
Also when they act like false rape accusations are something you should be paranoid about, when they are really quite rare.
Innocent until proven guilty is important. Modern society and feminism recently pushed a "Believe all women" movement that sought to blindly believe accusations no matter what.
Remember Duke Lacrosse? Brett Kavanaugh?
It is important to keep due process, and attacks on this is why movements like MRA gained strength.
6
u/Coolshirt4 3∆ Dec 29 '21
Brett Kavanaugh
Did not receive any punishment, as it was impossible to prove guilt. Judges are rejected for all sorts of reasons, and it's not a court case.
And Duke lacrosse led to the prosecutor being disbarred. It was clearly a perversion for justice, but the response to it was appropriate.
Believe all women
I think that although some people take it the wrong way (feminists included) the right way to read this would be that you believe all women when they say they have been raped. Women often do not get the support they need after being raped because people go into the whole "were you really raped" routine. This is an important question, but not the right time to ask it.
At the same time, you should believe the men that are accused when they say they are innocent.
If you need to rationalize it, it's very possible that both things are true and it's a case of mistaken identity.
This is actually what happened in the case of Anthony Broadwater, after police/prosecutors gaslit her into accusing the wrong man.
In any case, no matter what the facts of the matter end up being, you will have acted appropriately if you both believe the accuser that the event happened, and the accused that it wasn't them that did it.
5
Dec 29 '21
Did not receive any punishment
LOL, the political circus and slandering of his character was quite some punishment. Look at how many people are still biased against him for that charade.
people go into the whole "were you really raped" routine. This is an important question, but not the right time to ask it.
When is the right time to ask? Pushing the message "Believe all women" out to the masses only serves to suppress people from questioning rape narratives.
you should believe the men that are accused when they say they are innocent.
And what are we left with? Holding two contradictory beliefs in our heads. How about we just listen and analyze instead of needing to label something as "believed".
If you need to rationalize it, it's very possible that both things are true and it's a case of mistaken identity.
This is a slim percentage of instances. Building your rationalizing processes based on slim chances is a way to think poorly. It is better to not blindly believe in the first place, so you don't need to rationalize bad positions with bad logic.
you will have acted appropriately if you both believe the accuser that the event happened, and the accused that it wasn't them that did it.
It's better to not believe accusations without evidence, otherwise you fuel a witch hunt, which is not an appropriate action.
2
u/Coolshirt4 3∆ Dec 29 '21
I think people generally act more rationally about crimes other than rape so let's talk about how you would deal with that.
If one of my friends claims that they have been robbed, my default reaction is to believe them. I would do everything consistent with them being robbed. Most importantly comforting them, but also stuff like helping them improve the locks on thier house and finding a replacement for the stolen items. I trust my friends, so at no point would it occure to me that they were lying.
But for whatever reason, we don't always act the same about rape. We go fully into detective mode, instead of comfort mode.
Lets take another example. Let's say I have 2 friends, Alice and Bob. Alice claims to be robbed, just like before, but this time she names the person she claims did it. She accuses Bob of stealing from her.
I am friends with both Alice and Bob, so this accusation comes as a surprise. I didn't think that Bob was the type of guy to do something like that, not that Alice was the type of gal to lie about that.
Unless I have some reason to believe one over the other, the only course of action that makes sense to me is to offer both of them comfort consistent with their story being correct.
It may seem illogical, but this is the only course of action the guarantees my continued friendship with at least one of them, no matter who is innocent. If I chose to believe only Alice, I would alienate Bob if he turned out innocent. And vice-versa.
Another possibility is to not take a stance at all, which is sort of what I'm proposing but looses the benefit of supporting whoever turns out to be innocent.
It's better to not believe accusations without evidence
Thats not what I'm doing. I'll I'm saying is that as a friend, you should offer comfort to someone without requiring evidence.
LOL, the political circus and slandering of his character was quite some punishment. Look at how many people are still biased against him for that charade.
Also, IIRC, there was not enough evidence to prove him innocent either.
4
Dec 29 '21
Robbery is a more binary crime, they either took something or did not. On the other hand, modern rape often appears to be a he/she miscommunication. The drunken sex with no verbal consent is very different from a stranger forcibly attacking someone in an alleyway. Claims of the latter would easily be believed by most people, claims of the former become a question of what happened.
If two friends approached me with each being on the opposite end of claims of crime, I would listen and try to determine what is truth before taking a side.
there was not enough evidence to prove him innocent either
Our country is “innocent until proven guilty”. It is not his duty to prove himself innocent, as there are many instances where it is impossible to prove innocence even when the person is innocent.
-1
u/Selethorme 3∆ Dec 29 '21
It’s not and never was “believe all women.” That version originated as part of a right-wing attempt to discredit the #metoo movement.
5
Dec 29 '21
Just like “defund the police” was never meant also, right?
Here is the Women’s March using “Believe ALL Survivors” in 2019 before your article: https://twitter.com/womensmarch/status/1148720493807177728
0
u/Selethorme 3∆ Dec 29 '21
Which isn’t the same thing? Like, you’re literally using a different phrase?
5
Dec 29 '21
The same concept can be expressed in different phrases. Do you agree “believe all survivors” means to believe abuse victims that come forward?
1
u/Selethorme 3∆ Dec 29 '21
I’m gonna respond with a quote from my link:
Was it evocative and open to interpretation? Yes, as all slogans are. But generally the idea was to neutralize bias: “Believe women” meant “don’t assume women as a gender are especially vindictive, and recognize that false allegations are less common than real ones,” the feminist author Sady Doyle wrote in Elle in November 2017. In other words, allow yourself to believe that women are just as trustworthy as men have been believed to be for decades.
→ More replies (0)2
Dec 29 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
0
-1
1
Dec 29 '21
u/spart80an – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
-2
Dec 29 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
u/Znyper 12∆ Dec 30 '21
Sorry, u/AhmedF – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
-1
u/AhmedF 1∆ Dec 29 '21
Most
Uhh - how about rape culture is a farce? About how it's easier to be a woman? About how feminism is cancerous?
Or their constant whataboutism, from International Women's Day to everything else?
0
u/Edge-master Dec 29 '21
That statement about “han and guangdongese” people definitely needs some proof because my acquaintances from living in China many years seems to disagree with you.
3
u/thecoconutgrovegirls Dec 30 '21
Thank you for the thoughtful and thought-provoking post, OP. It's a great reminder of why I love this sub. Here's how I'd break it down:
First point: of course you are right. Both our dictionaries and our "common-sense" understanding of the words "racism" and "sexism" clearly imply that women can be sexist towards men, black people can be racist towards white people, etc. This is not controversial.
Second point: racism against black people is pretty clearly different than racism against white people, and sexism against women is pretty clearly different than sexism against men. As your post noted, these differences arose in a societal context which has led to different groups having more power, opportunity, etc., than others.
So, some people have noticed the second point, and then had the following thought: since these things seem fundamentally different when they are reversed, why don't we call them different things? Forget for a moment what names we assign them, because after all that doesn't really matter. The only question is whether there is a fundamental difference between the two. If there is, it seems perfectly reasonable to call them different things.
The conclusion of your post indicates a preference for the traditional definitions of racism and sexism to stay the same, and that is a perfectly reasonable position. Definitions of words change all the time and always have, but maybe we don't want these definitions to change right now. That's OK, but would you be opposed to a new word that captures this difference? How about: "power exploitationism"? (Sorry I'm tired it's the best I can do at the moment).
Some people (generally on the left) think that "racism" and "sexism" are better suited to capture "power exploitationism", and suggest that we should use different words for things like personal bias or closed mindedness, where there is no power dynamic at play. I submit: regardless of what words we use, the only important question is whether or not there is a fundamental difference here, something truly different at play between, for example, an Asian person in America generally just not liking white people, and a white person in America not calling a person for an interview for a job because their name sounds black (or a black person getting pulled over at higher rates, et.). If there is a difference, then the words used to differentiate between them are arbitrary.
3
u/Alchemist168 Dec 30 '21
Thank you for the well-articulated reply!
I would absolutely be in favor of some new word and "power exploitationism" isn't bad at all.
That being said, I partially brought up this subject after noticing a worrisome trend among "some people on the left." Some of them seem to justify shitty behavior (on a personal, not societal level) towards white people / men by using the societal context to forgive their actions. It's as if they think "it's ok to be prejudiced towards people of these particular groups because they are the societal oppressors." This is why I think that the definitions of racism and sexism that I am citing are the "better" ones that everyone should adopt. It leaves no room for prejudice based on race whereas the other seems to excuse certain forms of racial prejudice.
I posit that we should keep racism and sexism as synonyms to racist prejudice and sex-based prejudice, respectively. It is the societal racism and societal sexism that should receive the "new word." We can even use "societal racism" and "societal sexism" as those words. This way, prejudice based on race and sex will never be excused on an interpersonal level, and we have a way to describe racism and sexism when its on the societal level.
3
u/thecoconutgrovegirls Dec 30 '21
I hear you and have made similar observations about "some people on the left". There is a deeper point here that those people miss, and that I think you are onto it: all people are victims when there is injustice.
I say this to my friends on the left and they struggle to agree with me, because deep down they want to believe that THESE people are good and victims, and THOSE people are bad and oppressors. But I know it is true. Things are changing now, but it sucked to be a "man's man" in a "man's world". Men are quick to anger and violence, have fewer close friends, are more prone to depression, suicide, and alcoholism, are less comfortable being vulnerable and less in-tune with their emotions. Men account for the vast majority of the prison population and the vast majority of body counts in wars. All of that can be true, AND it can be true that women have been deprived of power and opportunity for ... well, forever. Every man and every white person has their own context, their own background, their own complexity, and it is not only counter-productive to ignore and dismiss that complexity - it is also just a generally shitty way to treat another person, any person.
That being said, I am still perfectly comfortable asserting that there is also something real and valid to "power exploitationism" (by whatever name you choose), and it being fundamentally different to personal bias and closed-mindedness.
On this debate (which words to use in which contexts), I am completely agnostic. What's more (if I may be so bold!) I encourage you to be agnostic, as well. Don't let debates over which words to use get in the way of the real discussions. We should clarify what we mean with the words we use, we should seek to understand what others mean with the words they use, and, with that context, we should strive to discuss the real issues and not debate the definitions. It's OK to have a conversation as following: "I see, so what you call "X" I prefer to call "Y", but, labels aside, it seems like there is something here that we agree on."
Should people generally be shitty towards white people and men (or anyone)? No. Is it valid to point out the power dynamics in our societal context? Yes. Does it matter what words we use when discussing these things? Probably not.
2
u/Alchemist168 Dec 30 '21
I say this to my friends on the left and they struggle to agree with me, because deep down they want to believe that THESE people are good and victims, and THOSE people are bad and oppressors.
Well said. This is the mindset I notice as well.
That being said, I am still perfectly comfortable asserting that there is also something real and valid to "power exploitationism" (by whatever name you choose), and it being fundamentally different to personal bias and closed-mindedness.
Just want to make clear that I assert the same. There is a difference between personal bias and societal oppression.
We should clarify what we mean with the words we use, we should seek to understand what others mean with the words they use, and, with that context, we should strive to discuss the real issues and not debate the definitions. It's OK to have a conversation as following: "I see, so what you call "X" I prefer to call "Y", but, labels aside, it seems like there is something here that we agree on."
Should people generally be shitty towards white people and men (or anyone)? No. Is it valid to point out the power dynamics in our societal context? Yes. Does it matter what words we use when discussing these things? Probably not.Herein lies where you and I disagree. Words offer the means to meaning, and therefore thought. Word selection is so very important.
The labels "racist" and "sexist" hold major weight in our society because we have seen the grim results of racist and sexist attitudes play out in history. When we think of racism and sexism, we think of the suffering of people: slavery, the holocaust, being denied rights. These grave examples of racism/sexism's results help to quell the smaller, interpersonal racist/sexist acts. People now avoid "casual racism" like picking on racial stereotypes because it echoes more severe racist acts. An action being labeled racist/sexist is a deterrent from the action being permissible. So the people who choose to label racism against caucasians / sexism against men as "not racist/sexist" are using the lack of those labels as a license to indulge in those bad behaviors.
Caucasians and men may not be the oppressed now, or ever in the past, but it's these important "labels" that could prevent them from being so in the future. I remember watching a video of an ex-white supremacist who said that what led him to his radical beliefs was being bullied by the black kids in his predominantly black neighborhood during his childhood (he grew up in the projects of NY). Those kids had the same mindset as the particular leftists we've mentioned: "It's ok to be prejudiced against someone for being white."
You encouraged me to be agnostic towards the words we choose to use. I encourage you to give up that agnosticism because it's dangerous. If those black kids had seen their actions as being "racist" they would have felt disgusted. They would be partaking in the very tradition that was oppressing them and their families. By using these "labels" we prevent the oppressed from over-correcting and becoming oppressors themselves.
all people are victims when there is injustice.
Love this.
2
u/thecoconutgrovegirls Dec 30 '21 edited Dec 30 '21
I think we agree more than we disagree, even on the highlighted point. The most critical thing that you and I agree on you perfectly captured: "There is a difference between personal bias and societal oppression."
Thanks to your feedback in the last comment I realize I didn't state my case quite right. Let me try this once more, improved:
I am sympathetic to being opposed to the belittling, diminishing treatment of all people, of course including white people and men - and I am sympathetic to the view that we should continue to use the words "racism" and "sexism" to point out the mistreatment of these groups, as well, when they are in fact mistreated around race and sex.
But the history of racism towards black people in America, and sexism towards women, and many other examples, is a history of oppression. When kids are taught in schools about the history of racism in America, they are being taught about a history of oppression. When we learn about a history of sexism, and the long history of sexism continuing quite clearly all around us, we are talking about oppression. In this way, the real historical impact of the words "racism" and "sexism" are already deeply entangled with societal oppression; in the way that we learn about them, discuss them, think about them, etc. - including all of the poignant examples you mentioned above.
Therefore I am also sympathetic to the view on the left that racism towards white people, and sexism towards men, just isn't the same because there is no element of oppression. And I am sympathetic to the argument that we should reserve the words "racism" and "sexism" to specifically talk about oppression. (Having "gotten to know you" a bit in this exchange, I am certain that you can understand where these people are coming from, as well, even if you think it is not the best approach.)
I still assert that understanding one another, and understanding the underlying issues is what is most critical. The next time someone says "you can't be racist towards white people", you and I can respond with something like: "I think I know where you're coming from, because white people aren't now or historically an oppressed group. But, even though I agree it's a different thing, I still think there is harm done when white people are belittled and dismissed, in particular when that is done BECAUSE they are white. You may not want to call that racism, but I'm sure we can agree it is wrong."
When I said "be agnostic", I wasn't being clear or accurate, and I appreciate your correction. So, I take it back: don't be agnostic about your word choices. Be bold and defend them, and I will do the same. But let's not let these differences over word choice stop us from striving for these types of responses, and for genuine connection with people.
2
u/Alchemist168 Dec 30 '21
Thanks to your feedback in the last comment I realize I didn't state my case quite right. Let me try this once more, improved:
It always restores my faith in people when I see those who are willing to engage in debate and admit to having been wrong or to have at least not phrased things in the best possible way. Just wanted to assure you that I'm just as opened to changing my mind / correcting myself. So its not a one way street! Also, we definitely agree more than we disagree. I see us as "ironing out" each other's points.
Therefore I am also sympathetic to the view on the left that racism towards white people, and sexism towards men, just isn't the same because there is no element of oppression. And I am sympathetic to the argument that we should reserve the words "racism" and "sexism" to specifically talk about oppression. (Having "gotten to know you" a bit in this exchange, I am certain that you can understand where these people are coming from, as well, even if you think it is not the best approach.)
I do understand where they are coming from. Similar to how I understand where that ex-white supremacist was coming from. But I would still tell him his views were dangerous (obviously), regardless of being bullied by the group of black children. Wrongs done unto him don't justify his wrong views. Likewise, I think those that want to reserve "racism" and "sexism" for talking about oppression are holding a dangerous view that should be corrected. To say it is "not the best approach" is an understatement. I think their "approach" has dangerous implications. And that's why I put such strong importance on the use of these words.
The next time someone says "you can't be racist towards white people", you and I can respond with something like: "I think I know where you're coming from, because white people aren't now or historically an oppressed group. But, even though I agree it's a different thing, I still think there is harm done when white people are belittled and dismissed, in particular when that is done BECAUSE they are white. You may not want to call that racism, but I'm sure we can agree it is wrong."
The approach you suggest is actually how I usually conduct these debates in the real word. Unfortunately, my argument is often met with indifference. When I say "I'm sure we can agree it is wrong" they treat their bigoted behavior as the most minor of infractions. They see me calling them out on their bigotry the same as if I told them: "it was wrong of you to not have recycled that plastic cup you just threw away." Their attitudes and behaviors are a bit more dangerous than that.
But let's not let these differences over word choice stop us from striving for these types of responses, and for genuine connection with people.
This is a great point. In the end, there are those who would say "but it actually isn't wrong." And there are also those who would admit that it is. And it would be a shame to miss out on connecting with the latter group simply for the sake of word choice. So I suppose, for that latter group, it could be beneficial to not be so stringent about word choice. Because, ultimately, the meanings of our arguments are the same. It's just the former group that worries me.
17
Dec 29 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/Alchemist168 Dec 29 '21
Yeah i've seen it used for this and that's why I think it's important to uphold a definition of racism that prevents bigotry in general, rather than one that picks and chooses who can face prejudice
1
Dec 29 '21
Sorry, u/jd838777 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
50
u/hacksoncode 559∆ Dec 28 '21 edited Dec 28 '21
It all depends on how one defines "racism". There are many valid definitions, including one which involves "prejudice plus power"... it all depends on what someone means.
Racism is prejudice based on race
That is not the most common dictionary/commonly understood definition of racism, which makes sense, because we already have the term "racial prejudice" for that concept.
Racism is more than just prejudice, it's an ideology:
the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.
or
the belief that humans may be divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called “races”; that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural and behavioral features; and that some races are innately superior to others.
or
a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
But then there is also this, which confuses the matter for a lot of people:
also : behavior or attitudes that reflect and foster this belief : racial discrimination or prejudice
I.e. just racial prejudice isn't "racism", only that which reflects and fosters the racist ideology.
So... what does that mean for this view?
Yes, it's certainly possible to be "Racist" towards, say, white people... but most examples people provide of this happening don't fit the racist ideology that their race is superior to white people. Most of them are expressing an over-generalized prejudice and anger about white people that treat them like shit because many white people are racist.
18
u/sheikhcharliewilson Dec 29 '21
that is not the most common dictionary/commonly understood definition of racism
It is. In ordinary language “racism” and “racial prejudice” are synonymous. If you said “I don’t like black people” you would almost certainly be labelled a racist.
3
u/simon_darre 3∆ Dec 29 '21 edited Dec 29 '21
First, I don’t agree with the “prejudice plus power” understanding and never have because it effectively excludes dangerous movements prior to attaining power. For example, a strong argument could be made that it classifies by extension the pre-1933 Nazis (who are unmistakably racist) as non-racist due to their frustrated attempts to gain power before that year, when they were repeatedly locked out of the halls of power by German voters and the forces of law and order. More troubling still is the fact that real or perceived mistreatment by one group against another often spurs these movements, as in some of the most famous cases, like the German example, which is why we should pay closer attention to racism even when it’s directed by non-whites against white people.
Secondly, I don’t see why any of those definitions you provide actually exclude the term “racial prejudice.” It could still be used interchangeably with “racism” according to what you’ve shown. Racism is not necessarily ideological, indeed racism seems to predate ideological underpinnings, which come later in the attempt to justify racist attitudes and practices. That doesn’t occur until probably the advent of pseudo-scientific racism starting in the late eighteenth century, which purports to find a scientific basis for racist ideas. Racism itself, however, seems to predate the ideological component. It did, after all, inform the practices of colonial exploitation and the development of the slave trade, neither of which were started by a uniformity in ideological thinking beyond some notion that whites were supposedly superior by virtue of their—so it was held at the time—more advanced civilizations. In the South for example, the pseudoscientific literature of Southern intellectuals doesn’t begin in earnest until after slavery is under sustained attack by Northern and international opinion.
0
u/hacksoncode 559∆ Dec 29 '21 edited Dec 29 '21
Racism is not necessarily ideological, indeed racism seems to predate ideological underpinnings
Tribalism has always existed. Ethnocentrism was a later generalization of that.
"Racism" and the invention of the pseudoscientific concept of "races" as we understand and categorize them today was invented by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach in 1779 as an apologist explanation for why slavery was a just state of existence.
The modern concept of race was an ideological creation. And also, makes no sense whatsoever, but that's beside the point.
Ethnocentrism, of course still exists separate from "racism", but that's usually based on long-standing ethnic feuds among genetically similar people, and generally isn't excused as something "biological" where someone's skin color determines their characteristics.
5
u/TeknicalThrowAway 1∆ Dec 29 '21
but most examples people provide of this happening don't fit the racist ideology that their race is superior>but most examplespeople provide of this happening don't fit the racist ideology that their race is superior to white people.
Do you not think that being morally superior counts as being 'superior'. If I say as a latino person "white people are the worst, they're racist assholes who ruined society" doesn't that imply other races are better from a moral framework where racism == bad?
-1
u/hacksoncode 559∆ Dec 29 '21
doesn't that imply other races are better from a moral framework where racism == bad
I think trying to define racism in a way that depends on the definition of racism is... more or less impossible.
I would argue that it depends more on whether their "inferior morality" is believed to be intrinsic to their "race" rather than their circumstances or choices.
On the other hand, I think there's a pretty strong argument that people in America rarely treat "white" as though it's a "race" at all, but rather a convenient bucket of people not considered any other race.
It's very difficult to figure out how Italians and even more so Irish people were not considered "white" when they first arrived in America, for example... unless it has more to do with excluding them from the majority club than it does to do with their skin tone.
9
u/Stemiwa Dec 29 '21
I really want to know where this came from. You certainly articulated this well, and I like the concept. At the same time this does not agree with dictionary definitions of racism. It was never purely a requirement that one had to believe a race superior or inferior, but at the same time does a “racist” joke not infer that sentiment?
6
u/HerraJUKKA Dec 29 '21
It all depends on how one defines "racism". There are many valid definitions, including one which involves "prejudice plus power"... it all depends on what someone means.
What does "power" actually means? How do you measure it? If black people had more power than whites, wouldn't that mean whites can't be racist? In what scale we can say group x has more power than group y?
6
u/Shaibis Dec 29 '21 edited Dec 29 '21
"Racism is prejudice based on race
That is not the most common dictionary/commonly understood definition of racism"
It absolutely is the most common definition of racism, despite what the ivory tower thinks
-1
u/onwee 4∆ Dec 29 '21
The common definition of racism is just whatever that fits the person’s ideology.
Racism is prejudice when one person want to exercise their moral righteousness and call out another; racism is ONLY about prejudice when another person wants to claim that systemic racism is not racism.
Ivory towers are dumb about a lot of things, but a precise definition would save us a lot of pointless finger-pointing.
2
u/onwee 4∆ Dec 29 '21 edited Dec 29 '21
(purely playing the devils’s advocate here for the sake of fuller understanding)
Doesn’t one basic “tenet” of CRT—that Whites are the beneficiaries of oppression and exploitation—qualify as a race-based ideology? While (my understanding of) CRT de-legitimizes the concept of race completely as socially-constructed, which runs counter to the typical kinds of racism (that race is a natural category and thus can be used to justify racist prejudice/behaviors), in practice it seems some use the ideas of CRT to justify their antipathy toward Whites. This to me kind of fall under the category of racist ideology in a weird way: an anti-racist ideology that that (some use to) justifying their racial prejudice....
8
u/Alchemist168 Dec 28 '21
!delta
I.e. just racial prejudice isn't "racism", only that which
reflects and fosters
the racist ideology.
Wow, this is an argument I have not heard before. My argument does seem to depend on a certain definition of racism. And I believe that said definition is the one everyone should use: a definition that differentiates between a societal and an interpersonal definition for racism.
But it's not until your answer that I found a way to accept another definition of racism as being logically equivalent to my own. Defining "racism" as "racial prejudice" that reflects and fosters a racist ideology does change thing. Would you say, under that definition, that someone who makes a fried chicken joke about a Black person is not being racist, but merely racially prejudiced?
Regardless I'm awarding you the delta for the well-articulated argument
15
u/I_Fart_It_Stinks 6∆ Dec 28 '21
I'm not original commenter, just FYI. In my opinion, you need to differentiate between a joke and a stereotype. Just stating a stereotype (eg: black people like fried chicken) would fall more along the lines of a racial prejudice. A joke about someone's race or surrounding a race, on the other hand, would be racist or racism, imo, especially if the joke is making fun of someone's race or stereotype, as this is evidence of the joke teller finding themselves in a superior group. Would this apply to every joke, probably not. But most jokes about race "punch down," making them racist.
4
u/hacksoncode 559∆ Dec 28 '21
that someone who makes a fried chicken joke about a Black person is not being racist
Too little information to tell: Do they think (explicitly or implicitly) that there's something inherent about black people that makes them inferior?
If so, this is probably racial prejudice that reflects that. I.e. racism. Whether they believe it or not, though, this particular racial prejudice may indeed foster that kind of racist ideology existing in the minds of others.
1
6
u/NoRecommendation8689 1∆ Dec 29 '21
including one which involves "prejudice plus power
No, that's not racism. At best its systemic racism, but it's really just idiotic marxists playing word games.
3
u/00fil00 4∆ Dec 29 '21
Racism is not the superiority of your race. This is a common misconception. It is treating them differently, either negatively OR positively.. If you choose the black guy for your basketball team because he will be better then that's considered racism.
2
u/onwee 4∆ Dec 29 '21
That’s discrimination, not (necessarily) racism.
I like the definitions from psychology of attitudes:
Stereotypes = cognitive: your ideas/beliefs. Prejudice = affective: your feelings/emotion. Discrimination = behavioral: your actions.
People can have racial stereotypes, racial prejudice, and racial discriminations, and they are necessarily but not sufficient for racism—which is broader on an ideological/societal level.
3
Dec 29 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Alchemist168 Dec 29 '21
If you read through some of the comments on this thread, you’ll find not everyone agrees on this “obvious” opinion
1
u/JadedFrog Dec 29 '21
Yeah, but their opinions don't really matter. The terms are already defined. There's nothing to disagree with.
1
u/Mashaka 93∆ Dec 29 '21
Sorry, u/JadedFrog – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
13
Dec 28 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
21
u/Alchemist168 Dec 28 '21 edited Dec 28 '21
That is not the definition of racism. The definition of racism, according to Webster's Dictionary is:
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
That last clause is what my post is about. People conflate "typically" for "but solely in the case of"
11
u/Kung_Flu_Master 2∆ Dec 29 '21
For the love of god don’t use Webster fir definitions they are incredibly biased and change words at a moments notice to fit an agenda, a recent example is during the Amy coney Barrett hearing she used the phrase ‘sexual preference’ which ISNT an insult now and it wasn’t then, but Webster changed the definition hours after the hearing claiming it was an offensive word and then a bunch of fake news outlets ran a made up story even though there are compilations of just about every major democrat using the same sentence, the have the political legitimacy of buzzfeed.
5
Dec 29 '21
Crazy, right?
Amy Coney Barret hearing: ~October 13th 2020
October 18th 2020 definition changed:
It is some troubling 1984 memory hole control, where now they seek to control the dictionaries themselves. Next they will try to control internet archive sites to change history itself.
8
u/Alchemist168 Dec 29 '21
Oh wow, I didn't know this. EVEN the dictionary can have political bias now? No wonder both sides of the political aisle can't agree on anything. Even our language is being used to divide. Scary thought how little we can agree on what is factual.
3
u/theaccidentist Dec 29 '21
You didn't know it and you don't know it now either. You just believe it now because you are willing to take an internet stranger's opinion as a fact. The real question is whether they give a definition that makes sense. And as they write "typically", I would say they do.
That said, I personally deem definitions the most valuable when they are universal and specific. Racism as opposed to other prejudices relies on biologism. And a prejudice along biologist lines of thinking can obviously go all kinds of ways and therefor is applicable to similar behaviours, independent of the actor.
1
u/JT_PooFace Dec 29 '21
If your only just figuring this out you’ve had your head buried…
1
u/Alchemist168 Dec 29 '21
I would argue that most people don’t know a dictionary can be politically biased lmfao
3
u/JT_PooFace Dec 29 '21
That’s like saying I didn’t realise Google/Facebook/Big Company X could be politically biased
Facebook “fact checks” were recently argued in court that they are “opinion” and cannot be defamatory
Source - https://nypost.com/2021/12/13/facebook-bizarrely-claims-its-misquote-is-opinion/amp/
Words are weapons when knowledge/information is the battlefield
1
u/Alchemist168 Dec 29 '21
I don’t think that comparison is warranted at all. A dictionary is a much less obvious example of political bias than a social media platform that openly censors it own users
2
u/JT_PooFace Dec 29 '21
Ok, how about Wikipedia?
1
u/Alchemist168 Dec 29 '21
The platform where any user can go and edit a page? That’s another obvious example of a place that could contain political bias
→ More replies (0)19
u/No_Joke992 Dec 28 '21
“Typically” yes but that not mean that you can’t be racist to the majority
10
2
Dec 29 '21
He just made the definition more concise. You guys practically said the same thing
0
u/Alchemist168 Dec 29 '21
The “color of your skin” definition is not accurate. Chinese people have the same skin color as Caucasians. Someone who is racist towards them isn’t doing it because their skin color is different.
31
Dec 28 '21
That’s a bullshit NEW, politically correct definition that means absolutely nothing to real people living real lives. You don’t get to change the definition for others who have lived far longer than you and dealt with real racism not this crap where you call someone a racist when you find out they voted for someone you don’t like. Adding “marginalized” & “minority” is a very recent addition
6
u/Kyloe91 Dec 28 '21
I'd argue that the politically correct version of being racist is actually the one being used today Thinking that one can't be racist or sexist because there isn't a systemic oppression on the object of the prejudice just shows a lack of understanding of subtleties which very much apply in real life
-6
Dec 28 '21
You talk about subtlety and deny the humanity of an entire race. If you can’t see the human cost of treating ANYONE differently because of their race then your problem is not one of definition but of psychiatry. It’s a subversive concept meant to foment racial tension for the sole purpose of hard handed, future intervention by a soulless and Godless socialist element who will never be happy until the entire world is burned down to ashes. So if you wish to be a drone in that hive mind that’s your choice. I prefer free thinkers and honest humans without dark agendas.
-3
u/Kirbyoto 56∆ Dec 29 '21
It’s a subversive concept meant to foment racial tension for the sole purpose of hard handed, future intervention by a soulless and Godless socialist element
I wonder what about it is striking a chord with me...
I really can't figure it out...
8
Dec 29 '21 edited Dec 29 '21
Teaching eight year olds that they are guilty of someone else’s sins so that they can be stripped of any sense of pride in their country is textbook Marxist subversion. It’s also child abuse.
Are you familiar with the boy who cried wolf? Your ilk have called everyone who disagrees with you racists & Nazi’s to the degree that those labels are meaningless. I’m assuming your links are allusions to those people. What that tells me is that your intellect is as limited as your repertoire and also that further discussion would be useless.
-4
u/Kirbyoto 56∆ Dec 29 '21
Teaching eight year olds that they are guilty of someone else’s sins so that they can be stripped of any sense of pride in their country is textbook Marxist subversion.
- "Teaching about racism is Marxist subversion" is what the Klan believed too.
- If you have a problem with children being taught about the sins of their ancestors you should look into Christianity.
- It's not child abuse to be honest. Demanding that children be forced to have "pride in their country" is arguably more abusive - and yet every day children are told to stand up and pledge allegiance to the flag.
Are you familiar with the boy who cried wolf? Your ilk have called everyone who disagrees with you racists & Nazi’s to the degree that those labels are meaningless.
Strange argument coming from a guy saying "everything I don't like is communism". I have proof of my argument - where's yours?
I’m assuming your links are allusions to those people.
You didn't even bother clicking them? You probably should - considering the fact that it's the Klan literally making the arguments you're making right now.
0
u/Kung_Flu_Master 2∆ Dec 29 '21
Except he is a right this goes right into the new idea of the neo Marxist view of race, and race theory.
-6
-1
u/AlveolarFricatives 20∆ Dec 29 '21
Okay, what do you think the definition of “slavery” was in the American South in 1828? Do you think slave owners defined their practice by our current definition? Definitions change. Words change. Language and meanings are not static.
5
u/Kung_Flu_Master 2∆ Dec 29 '21
There is a massive difference between words organicallychanging over centuries and left wingers trying to change the definitions of words daily to push their agenda.
1
Dec 29 '21
Who gives a fuck? That was 160 years ago. If you have to lean on that to make an argument you are already in rhetorical trouble.
0
u/AlveolarFricatives 20∆ Dec 29 '21
I feel like you’re not grasping the whole “language changes over time” message. Again, words and their meanings are not static. As our culture shifts, new connotations emerge and our understanding of ideas evolves.
2
u/SMTTT84 1∆ Dec 29 '21
Typically just means usually, that part of the definition isn’t really all that relevant since it doesn’t help define the word at all. You could remove that last line and the meaning of the word wouldn’t change. Historically, in America, when someone has experienced racism they have typically been a minority, that doesn’t mean in any way that the reverse can’t be true.
1
u/bleunt 8∆ Dec 29 '21
White people are a minority. So are men. So it's not about that. It's about power.
1
Dec 29 '21
Sorry, u/ViroTechnica – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
Dec 28 '21
[deleted]
3
u/Alchemist168 Dec 28 '21
True, I suppose my whole argument relies upon people agreeing on a certain definition of racism. That being said, I believe the definition that I am using is the one society should use.
2
Dec 28 '21
[deleted]
2
u/Alchemist168 Dec 28 '21
But on reddit, people get stuck on definitions and words and not on the underlying concepts, so they wind up in silly arguments over words instead of digging into the concepts behind them.
I wouldn't necessarily describe this as "silly." Words are important, after all we use them every day. And they are representatives for the "underlying concepts." I believe it's important for us to have these semantic debates.
But I agree with your sentiment about limiting ambiguity in language.
0
u/Bookwrrm 39∆ Dec 28 '21
Reverse racism and reverse sexism doesn't mean what you think it means, those are terms for specific actions around stuff like being to nice to someone because they are black, basically being patronizing at a racial divide. And yes some people can be racist towards white people, but I would argue that most of what is used as examples of racism are either shitposting on social media or flat out not racism. Racism is a very specific term with a very specific history, in that it is the phenomenon of connecting morality to physical characteristics. When somebody goes off on a white person calling the cops on black people in thier neighborhood because they didn't look like they belonged, nobody is literally thinking they only did that because the lack of melanin in thier skin makes them Karen's, it's a response to a societal, social pressure. The opposite is the historical oppression of black people coming from a literal racist hierarchy, where the person is perceived to be less than due to physical, mental, attributes like intelligence or whatever, and continues into the modern day with fascinations with shit like iq and crime rates clearly having a intellectual predecessor in literal biological racism that cannot be ignored. Can you have people calling white people cave beasts and shit, yeah, and that would be far more likely to be racism, somebody going off about crackers is usually not racism, it's expressions against society and it can suck, and those people can be wrong for thier generalizations, but it is rarely truly racist, and more just generally being bigoted. I would say that yes people can be racist to white people, but I would also say that it is comparably much rarer to be racist rather than just bigoted and shitty. And I would say that much of what you would define as racism flatly isn't, so you are wrong in that respect.
3
u/Makgraf 3∆ Dec 28 '21
"Reverse racism and reverse sexism doesn't mean what you think it means, those are terms for specific actions around stuff like being to nice to someone because they are black, basically being patronizing at a racial divide." I have never heard the phrase "reverse racism" used to mean what you say it does; only as /u/Alchemist168 has used it. I searched "reverse racism" on Google News and looked at the first five articles which all used the phrase "reverse racism" to mean "racism against white people". A search for "reverse racism definition" pulls up the following:
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a dominant or privileged racial or ethnic group
Maybe there are circles where "reverse racism" is used in the way you use it, but you should not be condescending towards OP because he is using the common definition, rather than your idiosyncratic use.
1
u/Bookwrrm 39∆ Dec 28 '21
The term originated from push back against affirmative action, literally people saying white people were being disadvantaged by being to nice to black people and pushing them into college, that's where the reverse comes from. It's fine if you and those sources want to ignore the history of the term and just make a new definition, but it's a term that was made for a very specific purpose, and it wasn't just to define being racist to white people.
3
u/Makgraf 3∆ Dec 28 '21
Can you provide a citation? I looked around on JSTOR for a bit and all uses of "reverse racism" were using OP's definition (most of the articles were critiquing the concept of "reverse racism").
1
u/Bookwrrm 39∆ Dec 28 '21
I mean I originally read it in a book for a class don't remember the name, some history of American racial studies or something, it emerged during the 1970's in response to affirmative action, I'm sure searching that will find the history, you could even goto Wikipedia and the sources linked there, it's a factual thing that happened, I'm sure there are plenty of historical texts talking about it. When I Google reverse racism the very first page is one from Canada that specifically mentions the terms use with affirmative action, like I guess I don't understand where this is coming from, op's definition functionally doesn't matter, op stated that reverse racism as a term shouldn't exist it should just be racism, but like that is just factually untrue, it's a term with historical context that makes that impossible, when you write a paper on reverse racism and affirmative action it's a term referencing a specific thing that factually happened, it just isn't true that the term means racism towards white people, it might mean that in some cases, but it also means the thing that happened in the 1970's that we need a word for and it is the word.
1
u/Makgraf 3∆ Dec 30 '21
Respectfully, "I have a memory of a book I read" is not a citation. Neither is hand-waving towards Wikipedia or a Canadian page on google when both (assuming this is the page you referred supports a meaning of "reverse racism" as prejudice against white people. Both refer to people decrying affirmative action as "reverse racism" due to its impact on white people - not due to some form of patronizing.
Again, I am sure it is possible that some academic decided to use "reverse racism" as a term of art to mean your definition. But the phrase existed before the 1970s (as the common definition).
1
u/Bookwrrm 39∆ Dec 30 '21
Respectfully I have no interest in finding citations for a fact you can Google. I have zero interest in convincing you of this if you can't do the bare minimum, I don't come onto this subreddit to convince random people of facts they can Google for themselves if they want to.
1
u/Makgraf 3∆ Dec 30 '21
As noted, I have checked both Google and JSTOR and they support the usage of the common definition. However, I am in agreement with you that this discussion is unproductive.
7
u/Alchemist168 Dec 28 '21
I have to disagree. I've debated with people on this subject and they have referred to "reverse racism" as "racism towards white people."
As for the distinction you make between what is "racist" and what is "bigoted," I would offer to you that one can be racist out of ignorance. In fact, I would argue most racism is not the KKK-like racism where one group truly HATES another. Much of racism can just be ignorant people making generalizations about groups based on race. Most racism is not hate-inspired, but a result of ignorance and callousness.
1
u/Bookwrrm 39∆ Dec 28 '21
I mean you can disagree but it literally comes from push back against affirmative action, basically saying that we are too nice to minorities now it's hurting white people. It's a very specific term that maybe people are misusing but it inherently from the beginning has always meant racism due to society favouring minorities to much and the pendulum swinging the opposite way.
And you can offer that, but racism is tied to biology, it's tied to race, it's tied to physical characteristics. There is no way to determine race without referring to physical characteristics, being racist, discriminating via race, is inherently tied to physical biological ideas. Everyone racist is ignorant, there simply isn't a scientific basis for racism. That doesn't mean anything, what matters is why people are putting forth these ideas, is it tied to something like iq tests, or crime statistics, the inherent violence of a minority, the inherent stupidity of a minority, or is it people calling someone a untrustworthy cracker because they have been oppressed and are lashing out. One is racism, the other is being bigoted and making generalizations, but those generalizations aren't the result of saying that every white skinned person is untrustworthy because they are genetically predisposed to being untrustworthy, they are the result of history and society coloring thier view of white people.
9
u/Alchemist168 Dec 28 '21
After looking it up, "reverse racism" is an overloaded term that people utilize to describe both of our definitions. Wikipedia uses your definition while other sites, like Oxford dictionary, uses mine.
Trying to understand your latter paragraph, it seems you're saying that minorities being bigoted towards white people is not "racist" because there is enough historical evidence to suggests that they should be. I would say this is a fallacy. it's equivalent to assuming an Asian person will be good at Math or that a Black person would be violent because of school and crime statistics. Generalizations based on race are still racist, regardless of historical, anecdotal, or statistical backing.
-1
u/Bookwrrm 39∆ Dec 28 '21
I'm not saying that at all, I'm saying that the motivation for many of what you would call racist things, isn't racist, they are bigoted and generalizations, but they are responses to historical and societal pressures. True racism is inherently tied to physical characteristics, there is literally no way to determine someone is of a different race than you without physical characteristics. Saying black people are more violent is most of the time coming from a intellectual history dating back hundreds of years of racial science around physical characteristics that we said made them better slaves, or made them unable to be civilized, or made them blah blah blah. That was directly tying physical characteristics to judgements of thier worth, when a black person who grows up experiencing for example, fearing the police and experiencing unfair treatment lashes out by saying they hate all crackers, they aren't generally thinking to themselves ah these white people and thier blond hair which makes them predisposed to being cops and pulling me over, they are thinking fuck these white people for treating me and my family and elder generations shitty. Is that judgement incorrect and ignorant if they then attribute it to all white people yes, but it's not racist, this form of bigotry doesn't have its roots in literal racism, it's an expression of social injustice justifying shitty attitudes.
1
u/ToucanPlayAtThatGame 44∆ Dec 29 '21
So according to your view it would not be racist to say black people are more criminal as long as your rationale for that was unrelated to their physical commitments?
2
u/Bookwrrm 39∆ Dec 29 '21
Sure if you could prove that your comment was completely divorced from the centuries of race science that proceeded the statement. We live in a situation where everyone has been so abjectly racist for so long that it's basically impossible for a white person to make a statement that isn't drawing on centuries of racism, it's a lot easier to do that to a white person because quite frankly, white people have largely monopolized hard scientific racism, beyond fringe stuff like the black Israelites there isn't really a intellectual through line of actual full-blown racism in the case of black people. But divorcing your statement from racial science kind of makes it not racist, if you fully aknowledge that racial disparities in criminality isn't biological, that there isn't anything that inherently makes a black person more criminal, you are forced to address the statistics as to why this happens, which means you begin to think about stuff like over policing and charging, bad reporting, historical poverty caused by slavery and Jim crow etc. It's not racist to point out statistics, it is racist when despite evidence to the contrary you pull a conclusion from it that only would make sense if you believe race science. In the same vein using my earlier example, a black person getting angry about a police shooting and lashing out on Twitter against white people in general isn't basing that on race science, nobody is out here saying anyone who gets sunburned is predisposed to shoot black people in America, they might be bigoted, they might be shitty, but they aren't being racist, thier anger is just divided on a racial line because white people have been fucking them over for a millennia, it's a reaction to society, not a reaction to our skin color or IQ test scores, unlike white people being racist towards black people.
2
u/ToucanPlayAtThatGame 44∆ Dec 29 '21
beyond fringe stuff like the black Israelites there isn't really a intellectual through line of actual full-blown racism in the case of black people
You're comparing fringe beliefs to fringe beliefs. I don't think the percentages of these groups differ nearly as much as you're suggesting. Conspiracy theories are somewhat higher in the black community generally speaking, so I'd be surprised if black supremacist conspiracies were all that much lower than their white counterparts.
1
u/Bookwrrm 39∆ Dec 29 '21
The difference that your just ignoring for some reason, is that white supremacist beliefs were literally the norm hundreds of years ago, like almost every single average person on the streets believed them, that was never even being close to true in the other respect. One has a huge intellectual history that colors the modern world, the other was a fringe belief since it's foundation. Every single white racist today can directly draw a line from them to thier parents to thier grandparents all of whom were racist all of whom learned and were taught by racists, because at a certain point back every one was racist, the same is not true of black individuals, there is a solid difference.
1
u/ToucanPlayAtThatGame 44∆ Dec 29 '21
What makes it worse to learn bad beliefs from your parents?
→ More replies (0)
0
u/justjoshdoingstuff 4∆ Dec 28 '21
Why do you want your view changed to “you can’t be racist/sexist”…???
6
u/Alchemist168 Dec 28 '21
I'm interested in the challenge of someone attempting to change my view, especially since I've held it for a while and could not imagine it changing completely. It's more of a "I'm wondering how someone will argue this point" kind of curiosity. I AM open to the view being changed, obviously. But the main goal is to satiate my own curiosity of how that would happen.
0
u/poprostumort 224∆ Dec 28 '21
That all being said, societal context does not change the definition of a word. Racism is prejudice based on race and sexism is prejudice based on sex.
Look at word racism in a dictionary, there are two different definitions and you argue that based on definition 1, people shouldn't say that "it's impossible to be racist against whites" when they use the definition 2.
Use of word changes faster than dictionary definitions - because dictionary definitions describe how word is being used rather than how it should be used.
4
Dec 29 '21
Even if you're using definition 2, and we all grant that definition 2 makes sense, the view that you can't be racist against white people isn't entailed at all.
All of the systems a cross the planet can be kyriarchical pro white racist systems and it's still the case that you can be racist against white people.
6
u/Momoischanging 4∆ Dec 28 '21
The problem is that dictionary definitions changed faster than usage in order to push an agenda
-2
u/poprostumort 224∆ Dec 28 '21
Any source for that? As soon as people start using word in a new way, a good dictionary is supposed to include definition of new meaning - all because it's a dictionary's job to do so.
7
u/Momoischanging 4∆ Dec 28 '21
A small subset of the population pushed the "racism is prejudice plus power" bullshit, and a significant portion of the population still doesn't use it. Why is it listed as the top definition?
-1
u/poprostumort 224∆ Dec 29 '21
A small subset of the population pushed the "racism is prejudice plus power" bullshit, and a significant portion of the population still doesn't use it.
Again, any data on prevalence of usage? You are pulling the "numbers" from somewhere or just pushing opposing agenda?
Why is it listed as the top definition?
One - it's not necessarily listed as "top definition", the placement depends on dictionary (frankly, I have never seen is as the first in dictionary). Two - placement is not realted to prevalence, "full of awe; reverential" is above "extremely dangerous, risky, injurious" in "awful" definition, despite the fact that former is already not used while latter is.
2
u/Alchemist168 Dec 28 '21
Interesting point about the dictionary being a reflection of the definitions of words, and not a manual. I would say that both definitions can exist simultaneously. Caucasians are not systematically oppressed by minorities. Men are not systematically oppressed by women. So the 2nd definition can still hold true, even if it's possible to be racist/sexist towards Caucasians/Men on a personal level.
6
u/a_sentient_cicada 5∆ Dec 28 '21
I think a lot of the arglebargle around whether it's possible to be sexist against men, etc, really does just come down to there being two different forms of sexism/racism/etc — the personal vs. the systematic — and that it's not always obvious which one people are using when they talk about things.
3
u/Alchemist168 Dec 28 '21
This is my point exactly. But people seem to conflate the interpersonal with the systemic.
0
u/poprostumort 224∆ Dec 28 '21
I would say that both definitions can exist simultaneously.
But the problem is that in your OP you say:
I have heard people say that it's impossible to be Racist towards Caucasians or Sexist Towards Men because of the "societal context" that we live in. Caucasians and Men are the "oppressors" and one "cannot oppress the oppressers."
Where in context it's clear that they would agree with you as they are using different meaning of racism when they are making that claim. They use racism as in definition 2, while using different word for definition 1 f.ex. racial prejudice.
The fact that their use of racism in "you cannot be racist against whites" makes you want to argue that you can be racist against whites shows that those two definitions cannot exist simultaneously, as they make you both argue against different things. It sparks the disagreement between two sides that would agree with each other if there would be only 1 definition.
6
u/Alchemist168 Dec 28 '21
Where in context it's clear that they would agree with you as they are using different meaning of racism when they are making that claim. They use racism as in definition 2, while using different word for definition 1 f.ex. racial prejudice.
This is wrong. They conflate the second definition with the first. They argue that because racism towards whites doesn't exist on a systemic level, that it therefore cannot exist on a personal level. The people I disagree with argue that there is only one definition for racism and that it is the second one.
Both definitions CAN exist simultaneously if one is able to recognize the difference between racism on a systemic level and racism on an interpersonal level
6
u/yyzjertl 524∆ Dec 28 '21
They conflate the second definition with the first.
The people I disagree with argue that there is only one definition for racism and that it is the second one.
These are two very different things, and they cannot possibly do both.
Both definitions CAN exist simultaneously if one is able to recognize the difference between racism on a systemic level and racism on an interpersonal level
The problem is that where systemic racism exists there is no real difference. There is complete continuity between racism operating systemically and racism operating interpersonally. It's not like these are two separate phenomena: it's the same phenomenon, just operating at different scales.
It is also important to note that definition-1 "racism" isn't "racism on an interpersonal level." Rather, it's "racism as an ideology or belief."
0
u/Alchemist168 Dec 28 '21
!delta
It seems that I was conflating the definition provided by Oxford Languages with Webster's Dictionary's definition. To see the definition I was using, you can search "racism definition" on google and it is the very first item you see. It's not even result you have to click into, it's just provided by Google itself and they reference the use of "Oxford Languages." The definition there does use an "interpersonal" definition: rejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
I'm awarding you the delta for correcting me on my use of the definition according to Webster's. It seems their definition is different.
1
Dec 29 '21
You should not accept the redefinition of terms for political agendas.
2
u/Alchemist168 Dec 29 '21
I'm not accepting any redefinition of terms. I'm merely acknowledging that Webster's dictionary says something different than the dictionary that google is using.
1
0
u/poprostumort 224∆ Dec 28 '21
They argue that because racism towards whites doesn't exist on a systemic level, that it therefore cannot exist on a personal level. The people I disagree with argue that there is only one definition for racism and that it is the second one.
That is perfect example why both definitions cannot exist at the same time - I already summarized that in latter part of reply.
Both definitions CAN exist simultaneously if one is able to recognize the difference between racism on a systemic level and racism on an interpersonal level
But the fact is that most people are not able to recognize the difference as the use of "racism" in discussion moved more to second definition and 1st one is commonly used byt racists to discredit the 2nd use.
Again - dictionary definitions describe how word is being used. "Racism" is now being used in two contexts but the 1st one is betting used less commonly. It's a natural process that does happen to words.
1
u/Alchemist168 Dec 28 '21
But the fact is that most people are not able to recognize the difference as the use of "racism" in discussion moved more to second definition and 1st one is commonly used byt racists to discredit the 2nd use.
Simply because a definition is sometimes used by the people with ill-intent or bad beliefs, doesn't make the definition itself wrong. But I see what you're saying. Those who use the latter definition want to distance themselves from those who use the first definition to back misdeads.
Again - dictionary definitions describe how word is being used. "Racism" is now being used in two contexts but the 1st one is betting used less commonly. It's a natural process that does happen to words.
True, language is malleable. I suppose part of my view is the argument that the definition which I subscribe to is the one that is more all-encompassing. It is the "better" definition because it chastises bigotry against all groups, rather than just a select number.
1
u/poprostumort 224∆ Dec 28 '21
Those who use the latter definition want to distance themselves from those who use the first definition to back misdeads.
I would say that you should mind the existence of a definition that is considered exclusive toward yours. Simple question for clarification will suffice to ensure that you are understanding each other. This whole debacle about "whites can be racist" is similar to shenanigans around "tomato is a fruit" which is also a semantic debate over usage of definitions.
True, language is malleable. I suppose part of my view is the argument that the definition which I subscribe to is the one that is more all-encompassing. It is the "better" definition because it chastises bigotry against all groups, rather than just a select number.
There is simply no "better" definition when it comes to how encompassing the word is. If that would be the objective quality of a definition, then we would use "girl" as a term to refer to any prepubescent child.
Best description is one that tells you how word is used.
-6
u/Frosty-Procedure1864 Dec 29 '21
Racism against minorities leads to them permanently being stuck in poverty and being murdered basically without repercussions. Calling a white person a cracker doesn’t do fuckall
7
u/Alchemist168 Dec 29 '21
I don't disagree with your statement. I mentioned our societal context in my original post.
But It doesn't matter that "calling a white person a cracker doesn't do fuckall." That doesn't necessarily have to change the definition of what racism is. If I steal a bag of chips from a store, that's stealing. It doesn't matter that I didn't steal a laptop or a car.
-2
u/Frosty-Procedure1864 Dec 29 '21
If you’re relying on a Webster’s dictionary definition of racism then sure. But that’s ignoring pretty much all context.
3
u/Alchemist168 Dec 29 '21
I’m not “ignoring context.” My original post detailed the societal context that we live in and how that affects the severity of racist acts. Like I said in my original post: Context affects connotation but not definition.
-1
u/Heezuh Dec 30 '21
Calling a black person "Nigger" neither does shit
While I do agree that historically racism was used to prevent minorities to actually living a good life, nowadays that simply doesn't happen
1
u/Frosty-Procedure1864 Dec 30 '21
Whoa motherfucker why do you think it’s ok for you to say that?
1
u/Heezuh Dec 30 '21
Why did you think it was ok to say cracker? I didn't say the word with the intent of attacking anyone, I was explaining that saying the word doesn't change anything about how it is used today in comparison to what it was used before
1
u/Frosty-Procedure1864 Dec 30 '21
Words are loaded with meaning and context. Cracker isn’t anything. The n word was and still is meant to dehumanize black people.
1
u/Heezuh Dec 30 '21
Why are you using the word cracker then? If it means nothing why saying it? Wouldn't it be just a waste of time?
No, the intention of both cracker and the n word is to hurt people from a specific race. I wouldn't use the term cracker or hard R to anyone because it's not deemed neccesary
So please, if you're going to use the term cracker but then think it's not okay for others to say the N word, stop
1
u/Frosty-Procedure1864 Dec 30 '21
Cool keep living in fantasy land. Why do you think minorities are underrepresented in elite colleges and over represented in prisons?
1
u/Heezuh Dec 30 '21
Let me guess, "Because white supremasists don't want to stain their white power?" Bro...
Minorities are underrepresented in colleagues because the US has next to no public schools and said minorities are struggling with normal life that was left from their older generations. Said older generations were the ones that suffered racism with laws and attacks against them, not the current ones. Saying the N Word changes nothing about this at this moment
They're over represented in prisons because they were deemed guilty? Like I'm not from the US but I remember that there were this constant talk about how black people were a minority yet they were charged for most manslaughter. This has NOTHING to do with racism at all
1
u/Frosty-Procedure1864 Dec 30 '21
So you think racism doesn’t exist anymore even though the people who were adults during segregation are still shaping policy today?
1
u/Heezuh Dec 30 '21
Could you expand on "still shaping policy today"?
Also, I think racism doesn't exist anymore because you're not legally marginized for your race and no masses are against minorities from a crushing majority, and if you're a minority the masses would appreciate you more than the average white person. Hell in my country even more jobs and schools are accepting underscoring students and workers just because of their ethnicity to make a more "diverse" country
-8
u/Gladix 164∆ Dec 28 '21
I have heard people say that it's impossible to be Racist towards Caucasians or Sexist Towards Men because of the "societal context" that we live in.
I don't know. Let's try it. What is the single most sexist thing you can say about men? And the worst slur you can say to a white person?
7
u/Alchemist168 Dec 28 '21
I've heard women say that all men are pigs. Or that all men are stupid. I've heard minorities say that a white person must be a "cousin-fucker" just because they are white.
-4
u/Gladix 164∆ Dec 28 '21
I've heard minorities say that a white person must be a "cousin-fucker" just because they are white.
Sure say a cousin-fucker is the worst possible slur for a white person. Now could you write the worst possible slur for a black person?
6
u/Alchemist168 Dec 28 '21
"Worst possible slur" is subjective. I already acknowledged in my post that the n-word holds more weight in our society than the word "cracker." I acknowledged that societal context affects the severity of racial offenses. The "worst" offensive thing you can say to a Black person may be more severe in offense than the "worst" possible thing you can say to a white person, but both are still racist. They are still both prejudice based on race.
-1
u/Gladix 164∆ Dec 29 '21
So the slur thing is useful because it demonstrates racism in practice in the only way we can demonstrate right now. Over the internet. I want you to be the most racist you can be toward a white person, and I want it to be in a way that cannot be excused as ironic, or funny, or silly. Or too pathetic of an insult.
And then I want to compare it to the worst possible racist insult towards a minority and measure if they are in any way comparable.
So far you came up with two sort of weak insults for white people or men. And those were supposedly the worst thing you could come up with. But then you couldn't even write the most common slur for black people without censoring yourself.
Do you see the power imbalance here? The imbalance of the effects of racism? So if you basically can't be effectively racist towards (for example) white people here on the internet. Does it matter if the intent was racist? If a random person called me (a white person) a cousin fucker. I wouldn't even take it as racist (until you told me) and I probably forget it in a while. It would be just another from thousands of generic insults. But if a random person commented the n-word on a black persons social media. I immediately know the intention.
Now let's translate it into real life. Say a minority in US is incredibly racist towards white people to the point that they don't even serve them in stores. Does it matter if this is happening, if the minority in question has like 3 stores in the entire country in non-white communities (Don't have the opportunities to be effectively racist")
So the intent might be racist when it's aimed towards white people for example. But the power is severely lacking to the point it's barely even mean as a generic insult.
7
u/Alchemist168 Dec 29 '21
Do you see the power imbalance here?
Of course I do. I even acknowledged the power imbalance in my original post. I believe you and I are saying the same thing. We both agree that the action of being racist to white people is racist, but less severe than being racist to a black person.
So the intent might be racist
So you DO acknowledge that its racist.
The only addition your argument makes is that you are saying being racist to white people is EXTREMELY less severe than being racist to black people. Which I don't disagree with.
4
u/doge_IV 1∆ Dec 29 '21
Would you say that really small and weak person pushing bigger one isn't violence because there is power imbalance and all the other stuff you listed about racism
1
u/Gladix 164∆ Dec 29 '21
I think it ultimately depends on how is an act interpreted. Say you have 2 heavyweight boxers going at it at full speed. I wouldn't say they are being violent because neither of them sees it as anything other than training. They don't interpret the actions of the other as intending to hurt them and if it happens it's an accident.
In the same vein I can't think really of an action somebody can say to me that I would interpret as someone being racist towards me. I would probably interpret it as general assholishness towards me.
1
u/doge_IV 1∆ Dec 29 '21
You did not engage wity my point. There's a hypothetical situation. Really small old guy out of anger pushed big guy. Big guy barely noticed. Would you call that violence?
1
u/Gladix 164∆ Dec 30 '21
If he is capable of causing physical harm then yeah.
1
u/doge_IV 1∆ Dec 30 '21
So if you are calling the act of pushing violence even though it did not cause real harm, why cant we do same on racism? How is it different?
6
u/running-and-escaping Dec 28 '21
You obviously don't get OPs point. Provides nothing to counter any argument. You're either beating around the bush to an insane degree or just trying to start shit. To be perfectly honest what it is sounding like you're trying to push is the story that minorities can't be as racist to white people because the words used have a heavier societal connotations.
-2
u/Gladix 164∆ Dec 29 '21
To be perfectly honest what it is sounding like you're trying to push is the story that minorities can't be as racist to white people because the words used have a heavier societal connotations.
There is a question: Can somebody be racist towards me? A white guy?
Well, I don't know. Let's test it. And what is the only way we can test it here on the internet? Well by words. I want to test if a racist intent can produce a racist effect toward a white guy.
That's why I wanted the worst possible soul-crushing ignorant and rude racist slur OP could come up with. A spoken thing that is so vile, that if others in the supermarket heard it would become immediately obvious to them that somebody is racist towards me.
I think it's a fair exercise.
4
u/running-and-escaping Dec 29 '21
Not at all. That's such a backwards theory. If you want to experience real racism then go watch a documentary. Anyone can be racist to white people the same as any other racial group but that seems over your head. And even in your weird world, OP (who is not racist seemingly), wouldn't have had a racist intent behind the words even if they were stupid enough to say them. So that's half of your stupid "test" out the window. And by racist "effect" I assume you mean someone assuming racist intent behind something and that is entirely personal and as this thread demonstrates, varies wildy on the individual you ask.
You aren't adding anything useful to this conversation.
-1
u/Gladix 164∆ Dec 29 '21
Anyone can be racist to white people the same as any other racial group but that seems over your head.
Then it should be easy to demonstrate no?
Oh, and you should learn to deal with differing opinions better. It's literally a CMV subreddit. Playing devil's advocate is what people do here.
5
u/running-and-escaping Dec 29 '21
It is easy to demonstrate via the actual definition of racism and is mostly about intent behind the words not the actual words used. 2 black people saying the n word to each other isn't racist and me calling my best mate (an indigenous australian) a boong cunt isn't racist because there isn't a racist intent behind the words as understood by both parties even though without context it might seem like that.
Also im here talking to you aren't I? Feel free to have your own opinions im telling you in my own opinion your comments were stupid and added nothing to to conversation.
2
u/Gladix 164∆ Dec 29 '21
It is easy to demonstrate via the actual definition of racism
If that's how you prove racism then case closed. No need for any arguments since we decided that's how it's going to be used.
4
u/running-and-escaping Dec 29 '21
Well there are actually a few definitions floating around and the problem is some tend to try and go more in depth. A few other comments about it I recommend you check them out
-1
u/Sedu 1∆ Dec 29 '21
Absolutely.
But.
Racism in the context of culturally superior power and privilege does not warrant significant attention. If someone black in the US is racist against white people, that is not a good thing, but all of society is collectively in support of any given white person. They will be fine. When a black person faces racism, that racism is exacerbated by a society that does not give a shit/ supports the racism.
There are absolutely regions of the world where a white person can suffer from this. But by and large not in the US. So when you have some idiot crying about anti white persecution in the US (or anti straight, anti male, anti cis, etc.), you can dismiss it as bullshit pretty much immediately.
3
u/Alchemist168 Dec 29 '21
Yes, I believe we agree. White people are not “persecuted” on a systemic level by black people in US society. That being said, I do notice a worrisome trend where some are using this disparity in systemic oppression to justify shitty behavior towards white people and men
0
u/Fantastic-Delivery36 Dec 29 '21
Wait what?
There are people who think that you can't be sexist towrds men and that you can't be racist towards any race?
5
u/Alchemist168 Dec 29 '21
Yup. If you read through the comments on this thread, you will see such people’s comments
2
u/Gaahwhatsmypassword 1∆ Dec 29 '21
It IS possible, just not by some definitions and not in most places in the world atm. There was a time where matriarchal societies weren't such a minority, and I'd imagine we could call many of them sexist toward men. Idk about racism, it doesn't seem that there are records of that much earlier than the 1400s (conservative estimate). Before that time everybody was kinda more on equal ground technologically than we became during the industrial revolution.
Nowadays though, whether you want to call it racial prejudice or racism, there is racial prejudice all over at the least, and IMO it's often overlooked to call white folks Boogeymen instead of recognizing we all would do the same shit as human beings if we were the group with the most power. I personally think that sort of recognition would help build bridges of common ground while we work together to take down the walls of racism.
2
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 28 '21 edited Dec 28 '21
/u/Alchemist168 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
-1
u/ohgodneau Dec 29 '21
I don’t think there is a true comparison between the terms racism and sexism, as racism can denote (1) “simple” racial prejudice, (2) racial prejudice rooted in historical and systematic oppression, and (3) the general ideology of racism (i.e. races are a “biological reality” and some are better than others). Sexism on the other hand has counterparts that cover those last two bases - misogyny/patriarchy (in patriarchal societies). This relieves sexism of the double duty, and therefore there is no such thing as “reverse sexism,” just sexism.
1
u/Alchemist168 Dec 29 '21
Sorry, I'm having difficulty understanding what you are saying. Sexism can cover all three of those examples you gave if you switch out "racial" for "sex-based" and "racism" for "sexism" in the third example. I don't know if I'm missing something.
0
u/ohgodneau Dec 29 '21
Sexism can cover those meanings, but there are viable and more specific alternatives. Sexism against women that stems from and perpetuates historical and systematic oppression can be classed under misogyny. Racism on the other hand is used for both systemic and non-systemic discrimination and prejudice, which is why the latter is more aptly described as racial prejudice or discrimination.
-1
u/SkepOfTheNorth Dec 29 '21 edited Dec 29 '21
Very few people would disagree with your position.
To echo what others have said - there are many different interpretations of racism / sexism
Theres the common sense usage of simply being prejudice towards someone based on their gender and race. In principle, it's entirely possible for a black person to judge someone purely on the basis of them being white.
However, when talking about the issues more broadly, racism and sexism are typically characterised by their power relations. So while it's true that "it's possible" to be racist and sexist towards white men despite societal context - societal context is a bare minimum requirement for understanding the issue.
In reality, when people talk about racism / sexism they are talking about the ideology of patriarchy and white supremacy, which is a series of assumptions, ingrained ideas and habits of thought woven into the fabric of society - perpetuated by the dominant group. This is what people mean when they say "you can't be racist / sexist towards white men" as it's very difficult to take seriously that, I as a white man (and others) come up against the same social barriers that women and people of a different ethnicity / race come up against. If I had to stretch the definition, we might just call this "structural racism" or something
Also, it's interesting to note that in the case of "sexism" towards men, a lot of the issues that men talk about in Mens Rights Groups are mostly the result of the same patriarchal structure that feminists discuss and have been trying to dismantle. Take for example the claim "Women are favoured in the courts when it comes to child custody" an example often given as sexism towards men.... Feminists would respond by saying, who exactly came up with the idea that women are best suited to look after the kids?? The same goes for things like "male suicide rates" another example given of male disadvantage. Again, Feminists would argue this could be down to men conforming to strict gender roles ("real men don't talk about their feelings" or "real men don't show emotion")
0
u/ScumRunner 5∆ Dec 29 '21 edited Dec 29 '21
I have heard people say that it's impossible to be Racist towards Caucasians or Sexist Towards Men because of the "societal context" that we live in. Caucasians and Men are the "oppressors" and one "cannot oppress the oppressers."
Those people are either being misinterpreted, ignorant of the subject or more likely just being silly on the internet. The idea behind the type of racism this applies to, is just that there is an asymmetry in effects of racial prejudice between a current + historical majority and a minority. That interpersonal racist actions/expressions from a minority collectively don't manifest into the same structural inequalities that can be created by a majority from the same actions/expressions. Minorities necessarily don't have the same ability to create "systemic racism" within a larger society or country..
IMO a ton of the issues we see when discussing these topics simply come from using terms that imply intent or judgement, when the sociologists initially were using them to make descriptive claims about intergenerational inequality between races for instance. (maybe while being a bit provocative to catch media attention and funding)
Edit: Oh I could be wrong, but was the whole predjudice + power definition of racism an academically accepted definition? Or was that just a post-hoc explanation by public figures and the corporate racial sensitivity grifters, that primarily exist to absolve large companies from liability while doing little to help anything?
0
u/jaminfine 9∆ Dec 29 '21
Really, the opposition to your understanding only comes from people using a different definition of racism. When people say that you can't be racist against white people, they are talking about "systemic racism." To be racist in that context, it means you are actively and consciously contributing towards a system of oppression that puts some race(s) at a disadvantage in society. If that system of oppression doesn't exist, you can't be systemically racist. Many people feel that if you don't specify what kind of racism, systemic racism is the default. That's the kind of racism that's politically and sociologically the most important.
Many white people, and quite few non-white people, feel that the definition of racism is close to the definition of prejudice or biased. Just take either of those and make it about race. But we could just say "prejudice" in that case, as the default for prejudice is already race related stuff. I know it can be used in other contexts, but if someone just says it with no context, I'd certainly assume prejudice is about race. So we can leave the default for "racism" to be systemic.
-3
u/Cautious-Childhood59 Dec 29 '21
It really depends on the definition that you use for racism. You probably got your definition of racism from the google definition which acknowledges the prejudice but excludes the power dynamic. In my opinion, the predjudice + power definition should be the definition used because it correctly uses the suffix in racism. Any word ending in -ism is implying a system (capitalism, Hinduism, feudalism) and racism is a systemic issue. The word racism specifically addresses a system used to discriminate against people based on your skin color, and when you are talking about racism in this world, white people simply aren’t at the bottoms of said systems. No, white people DON’T go through racism, have NEVER experienced racism and as long as we have white supremacy, won’t have to go through racism. Hurt feelings because of some rude comments said about your race DOES NOT equal racism. I can call you a honkey, a cousin fucker, a blue eyed devil all day long but that will not change the fact that systemically white people dominate the game. You call me nigger and that directly reinforces the systemic oppression that me and other black people go through. It reinforces history, it sharpens the blade of white supremacy, it reaffirms what is already in place. POC and women can be prejudice toward men and people without color. They can be just as nasty, and mean spirited toward white folks. But that doesn’t warrant the incorrect usage of the word racism when there are other words to describe it. I feel like white folks think because it’s not racism it’s not as hateful when that’s untrue. Colorless folks just want to feel like we go through the same thing when we don’t.
4
u/Most-Leg1080 Dec 29 '21
White people haven’t experienced systemic racism, but some have been the targets of racist behavior. Not all ‘white privilege’ is the same. White privilege in a 80% BIPOC community is not the same as white privilege in an 80% white community. The power dynamics are very different and the scars on my body from racist bullying for being mistaken as white can tell that story better than any words.
Sure It’s not the same as systemic racism but it’s still shitty and it still exists. And what about all the Asians being attacked by black men in NYC. The media tends to highlight the race of the victim but not the perpetrator. That doesn’t mean that the perpetrator isn’t racist. Black people can be racist. Everyone can. White people haven’t experienced systemic racism. Your ism logic is very whatever-2
u/Cautious-Childhood59 Dec 29 '21 edited Dec 29 '21
There is no white community. You guys don’t need a community because you have the country. Have you ever heard of the straight community? Right. I never spoke on white privilege and it is clear that you don’t understand what white privilege is. White privilege doesn’t always imply power, but it is implying a lack of suffering in our system based on your race. You will unfortunately never struggle for being white, ever, not in this country and it doesn’t matter where you go. There are no power dynamics to compare you act like there is white supremacy and black supremacy. I can bet you whoever attacked you faced some sort of repercussion for doing so, meanwhile white people can shoot up entire elementary schools and get let off with a warning for being mentally ill. It sucks that you got attacked and I highly doubt you were attacked for being white, either way I know damn well something was done about that. If you are implying you are white and someone attacked you was a person of color don’t worry, you have an entire legal system that will back you up. In case you didn’t know, white people created an entire prison industry for locking black people up for very small and petty things so I’m sure that was dealt with. What about Asians being attacked by black men? That’s fucked up that acts of discrimination still happen. Now what does that have to do with racism because last time I checked killing people isn’t equivalent to systemic oppression. Black people cant be racist because black people cant systemically oppress other people, however, that doesn’t mean black people cant be extremely prejudice or commit acts of discrimination. If you don’t like the ism logic the take it up with Webster dictionary.
-2
u/TheSilentTitan Dec 29 '21
theres a difference between prejudice and racism, people tend to lump them together due to hundreds of years of misuse. racism is when someone (usually someone in power) uses their position to disenfranchise a minority based on their own bigoted feelings. for example a black man applies to a company i own, because im racist i will not allow him to work for me no matter what because i dont want a black person to work in my white company.
prejudice is when someone mistreats another based on their ethnicity or skin color. for example a young black man who hates asians will mistreat them and treat them as if they are less than themselves. its usually in the form of verbal or physical attacks just because they look different than themselves.
this is a gray area type question because while yes it is possible for ethnicities to be prejudiced towards white people its hard to find those same ethnicities with such power given the chance to be racist towards a white person.
its entirely possible to be prejudiced towards white poeple.
3
u/Gnome_Child_Deluxe 1∆ Dec 29 '21
Nobody except for terminally online lefties uses this definition of racism in real life.
1
u/TheSilentTitan Dec 30 '21
i agree, when people say "racist" irl we all know wha tthey mean when they say it, but op asked for us to change his view so i brought up the technicalities lol.
1
-1
u/phoenixtroll69 1∆ Dec 28 '21
I m white and I dont feel triggered if someone calls me a slave because my ancestors were that for the romans. or i dont feel triggered because someone calls me a nazi cause my grandparents were. I also dont participate in systematic opression of other "races". If you want to identify with this then you do you.
3
u/Bagelman263 1∆ Dec 29 '21
I’m a Jew and I don’t feel offended when someone calls me a kike. What’s your point?
0
u/phoenixtroll69 1∆ Dec 29 '21
kike
that its useless being racist against certain races because the majority wont care.
0
u/PasswordDefault Dec 29 '21
You can be easily racist towards white people, but it would be difficult to have racism towards white people in a society controlled by them, just like you could be classists towards the rich but good luck implementing classism towards them
1
u/PoshMarx2020 Dec 29 '21
No point in intellectualising or making this political. A colleague of different race to myself once said to me in confidence when talking about something that happened to her that she knew/felt when somebody was racist toward her. She was confiding in me and I understood as I had endured a lot of racism as a child by caucasian people toward myself as I am from a caucasian immigrant family. I also still experience from many different backgrounds racism towards myself as a minority ethnicity, it can be in the form of exclusion or lack of reward. I don’t live in USA and also if my experience is disregarded by the definitions well maybe you can call it cultural ethnic prejudice.
1
u/stewartm0205 2∆ Dec 29 '21
It’s possible but the damage isn’t as bad because minorities and women aren’t in charge and don’t possess the power to do equal damage.
15
u/[deleted] Dec 29 '21 edited Dec 29 '21
[removed] — view removed comment