A black slave master is a tragity. “You came from our position, you know first hand our plights and were taken in by their games anyway.” A normal person says .
Is he a “black betrayor” or a “betrayor of his own community”?
It feels verry wrong to say these things on racial lines about large groups rather than communal ones.
Same question, diffrent perspective. is he a “white ally” or a “born-again privlaged manager”?
Imagine that I have that kind of imagination even without your wise input, and that I do not change my opinion on " " being racist or not based on whatever you insert for the perceived skin color.
Just the idea that you have that I would make a difference based on what someone inserts there makes it seem like in your mind it does matter who’s being addressed. Because in my world it doesn’t matter.
Also, complaining about some “privileged” is not racism in and of itself, and with the addition of “committing atrocities”, the commenter on reddit outed themselves as a dumbfuck of a troll. And the previous poster clearly took the bait.
If it doesn’t involve oppression of a minority race by an in-power race, it’s not racism. Might be prejudism, not racism though. Racism involves a power imbalance that treats as inferior a minority.
No. It is not systemic or institutionalized racism. That does not mean it’s not racism. If you hate all white people for no reason you’re just as racist as someone who hates all black people for no reason. I wish we would stop conflating the two and pretending they are the same. Either you strive for equity and equality (meaning no one is out here saying any race is doing X Because they’re that race) the world would be a better place, or you create an argument where there shouldn’t be one to validate your own racism and or bias.
You’re talking about the Marxist definition of racism, aka systemic racism. OP is talking about the common definition of racism, as in to judge based on race.
Its annoying the word “systematic” was chopped off because its basically a trueism if you left it.
If it doesn’t not involve oppression of a minority race by an in-power race, it’s not (systematic) racism. Might be prejudism, not (systematic) racism though. (systematic) Racism involves a power imbalance that treats as inferior a minority.
Right, but then you wouldn’t be able to dismiss OPs concerns. OP wasn’t talking about systemic racism, they were talking about the common understanding of racism.
So when it done in average African country with total population 5% of white(definetly a majority, swear on math meth textbook) is ok. Basically racism by non-white people is not a racism and there is nothing racist in this statement.
I’m not sure if I should mark such absurdity as mere sarcasm.
Its about power, completely devoid of racial lines. It matters If you are given the privlage and act apon convincing yourself of lies. It also matters if you chase power at all costs.
Yes, and racism is also a social hierarchy and systemic structure that utilizes tools of oppression to allow the in-group to have power and control over the out-group. Calling it prejudice alone is not acknowledging the full picture.
Yeah, this thread has been fascinating. It’s the most basic concept and people are wild’n out. My last comment at the bottom of this thing I think will summarize it well for anyone who reads through it all. I think the biggest concern is why people are so resistant to understanding the additional power/control and systemic shit within racism. I use “gravity” as an example, but when it comes to racism, these are people’s lives. And I’d hate to think how invalidating it would make someone feel to hear this “no” and “check the dictionary” shit in a conversation outside of the Internet.
Lol mate, you’re being willfully obtuse. As you already know, there is knowledge beyond the confines of the dictionary, and the dictionary is merely attempting to summarize a very complex subject. If you’d like to broaden your perspective, you can turn to the research which is where I’m pulling my definition. If you’d like to understand why it’s so important to include those other things I mentioned in the definition, there’s plenty of reading opportunities to explain that.
The dictionary is not a replacement for the social sciences, friend. It seems like you have a narrative in your head about why I am arguing this point, but I’d like to point out that your argument is currently standing on “but the dictionary though” in the face of decades of research.
Social sciences, and dictionaries are two seperate things. No one is arguing that dictionaries replace social sciences, what people are saying is the common definition still stands.
I don’t know who that is; first time talking with them as far as I know. I don’t mind engaging with someone until they seem disingenuous; but yeah, that’s where I’ve reached with that person. A short reply of “check the dictionary” is not the sign of someone wanting actual conversation. Guessing you’ve had a similar run-in with them.
Imagine if you were to replace “white” with “black” or “asian” or “gay” in the text you quoted. Is it now a racist comment?
Those groups don’t have privilege.
Pff… try being a white guy in Japan…
A black slave master is a tragity. “You came from our position, you know first hand our plights and were taken in by their games anyway.” A normal person says .
Is he a “black betrayor” or a “betrayor of his own community”?
It feels verry wrong to say these things on racial lines about large groups rather than communal ones.
Same question, diffrent perspective. is he a “white ally” or a “born-again privlaged manager”?
Imagine that I have that kind of imagination even without your wise input, and that I do not change my opinion on " " being racist or not based on whatever you insert for the perceived skin color.
Just the idea that you have that I would make a difference based on what someone inserts there makes it seem like in your mind it does matter who’s being addressed. Because in my world it doesn’t matter.
Also, complaining about some “privileged” is not racism in and of itself, and with the addition of “committing atrocities”, the commenter on reddit outed themselves as a dumbfuck of a troll. And the previous poster clearly took the bait.
If it doesn’t involve oppression of a minority race by an in-power race, it’s not racism. Might be prejudism, not racism though. Racism involves a power imbalance that treats as inferior a minority.
No. It is not systemic or institutionalized racism. That does not mean it’s not racism. If you hate all white people for no reason you’re just as racist as someone who hates all black people for no reason. I wish we would stop conflating the two and pretending they are the same. Either you strive for equity and equality (meaning no one is out here saying any race is doing X Because they’re that race) the world would be a better place, or you create an argument where there shouldn’t be one to validate your own racism and or bias.
You’re talking about the Marxist definition of racism, aka systemic racism. OP is talking about the common definition of racism, as in to judge based on race.
Its annoying the word “systematic” was chopped off because its basically a trueism if you left it.
Right, but then you wouldn’t be able to dismiss OPs concerns. OP wasn’t talking about systemic racism, they were talking about the common understanding of racism.
The purpose is to muddy the waters.
I was being semi sarcastic, “an individual on his own is being systematically racist”. I removed context by accedent in a earlier draft
Sure is. But “White” is prejudice at worst, not racism. Racism includes the inherent power dynamics and systemic racism against minorities.
So when it done in average African country with total population 5% of white(definetly a majority, swear on
mathmeth textbook) is ok. Basically racism by non-white people is not a racism and there is nothing racist in this statement.I’m not sure if I should mark such absurdity as mere sarcasm.
Its about power, completely devoid of racial lines. It matters If you are given the privlage and act apon convincing yourself of lies. It also matters if you chase power at all costs.
deleted by creator
Yes, and racism is also a social hierarchy and systemic structure that utilizes tools of oppression to allow the in-group to have power and control over the out-group. Calling it prejudice alone is not acknowledging the full picture.
Oh my gosh, the closest thing to reasonable and you get a “consult your dictionary” comment.
Yeah, this thread has been fascinating. It’s the most basic concept and people are wild’n out. My last comment at the bottom of this thing I think will summarize it well for anyone who reads through it all. I think the biggest concern is why people are so resistant to understanding the additional power/control and systemic shit within racism. I use “gravity” as an example, but when it comes to racism, these are people’s lives. And I’d hate to think how invalidating it would make someone feel to hear this “no” and “check the dictionary” shit in a conversation outside of the Internet.
deleted by creator
Lol mate, you’re being willfully obtuse. As you already know, there is knowledge beyond the confines of the dictionary, and the dictionary is merely attempting to summarize a very complex subject. If you’d like to broaden your perspective, you can turn to the research which is where I’m pulling my definition. If you’d like to understand why it’s so important to include those other things I mentioned in the definition, there’s plenty of reading opportunities to explain that.
Yet dictionaries still exist, and their definitions don’t become invalid just because you want to avoid criticism.
Ive heard gross iterations by others (even in this thread) of what @flamingarms said, he has a fairly reasonable take in comparison
Unfortunately they have to prove it, but won’t be able to… Because you know… They’re wrong.
The dictionary is not a replacement for the social sciences, friend. It seems like you have a narrative in your head about why I am arguing this point, but I’d like to point out that your argument is currently standing on “but the dictionary though” in the face of decades of research.
Social sciences, and dictionaries are two seperate things. No one is arguing that dictionaries replace social sciences, what people are saying is the common definition still stands.
They’re Frodo Douche Baggins. Not much point in feeding them.
I don’t know who that is; first time talking with them as far as I know. I don’t mind engaging with someone until they seem disingenuous; but yeah, that’s where I’ve reached with that person. A short reply of “check the dictionary” is not the sign of someone wanting actual conversation. Guessing you’ve had a similar run-in with them.
It’s more than that, though.
deleted by creator
Racism is my favorate word in any spelling bee because of this. So simple its easy to remember. Especially in comparison to 10 letter words.