I don’t think dropping this without explanation is ever helpful. People use “racist” to mean “prejudiced” and other people use “racist” to mean “act in a way that reinforces institutional racism,” and without specifying which one you mean, you’re just being smug at someone because you use a cooler definition of a word.
I do agree that needing an explanation is good, but.
cooler definition of a word.
I disagree, the systemic definition of racism is the only correct one. Racism reduced down to just personal bigotry is incorrect and it gets spread because it perpetuates the racist system by colloquially reducing its impact.
People who use racist to mean prejudiced or personally unfair are not using the term in good faith.
I don’t understand how this relates to what I said. Words have multiple meanings and don’t have intrinsic meaning but there are ones that are more appropriate than others.
Allowing people to subvert the systemic meaning of racism whitewashes its impact. Black people cannot be racist towards white people because it has no basis systemically. Minorities can perpetuate systems of oppression against themselves but its never becomes a “reverse racism”
In other words, who benefits from the meaning of racism being stripped of it’s systemic meaning? Considering the context is some dbzero user trying to claim white people are oppressed and misandry is real this isnt an issue that’s “lost in translation.”
By arguing black people can be racist against non-whites you’ve already admitted racism exists not merely as a system of oppression, but as prejudice too.
So yes, black people can be racist against white people, just not in the comically evil ways that white conservatives say they can.
By arguing black people can be racist against non-whites you’ve already admitted racism exists not merely as a system of oppression, but as prejudice too.
No, that doesn’t follow. Oppressed people absolutely can be active and even willing participants in the systemic oppression of their own people.
Depends on whether you’re saying that every act of prejudice is comparable to the historic weight of hundreds of years of racism as a system. A slave being prejudiced against the slaveowner is not an act of racism. It holds no difference to a trans person being prejudiced against a terf.
These acts of prejudice shouldn’t be elevated to acts of hate. They’re the oppressed lashing out at their oppressor.
I’m obviously not saying prejudice is on the same level as hundreds of years of oppression. I don’t know how you could even extrapolate that from my comment.
The point is that you do not experience racism the same way at all because there is no system of racism against you nor is there the weight of hundreds of years of systemic racism against you.
If I call you a cracker right now it means nothing to you. It doesn’t affect you one bit. It rolls off you like water because it’s just funny to you. It has none of the history. It has none of the weight. You haven’t been oppressed for your skin colour one single bit in your entire life. You can be called a cracker a hundred times and it causes not even one emotional ripple within you because it isn’t racist. You sincerely do not experience racism as a force, not even one tiny bit, and that is why none of it affects you.
We’d have to get into some extreme cases of actual physical harm before we get close to actual racism committed by black people against white people. But even in those cases I would argue it isn’t racism, it’s the uneducated bubbling of anger expressed by the oppressed against their oppressor in ways that only occurs that way due to a lack of education on how to explain their rage in linguistic ways that do not appear as racism. Take the Palestinian for example, an uneducated Palestinian without the social teaching of phrasing and language that frames their struggle as oppressed vs oppressor, as Palestinian vs the Zionist, would likely default to jew-hate. But would it actually be that or would their rage still fundamentally be just an expression of their oppression without the linguistic framework that provides positive PR over negative PR?
What is accused of being racism by black people against white people is typically just the same. An expression of oppression without the linguistic framework or education to make it palatable to liberals.
Removed by mod
They can be racist but not against white people
I don’t think dropping this without explanation is ever helpful. People use “racist” to mean “prejudiced” and other people use “racist” to mean “act in a way that reinforces institutional racism,” and without specifying which one you mean, you’re just being smug at someone because you use a cooler definition of a word.
I do agree that needing an explanation is good, but.
I disagree, the systemic definition of racism is the only correct one. Racism reduced down to just personal bigotry is incorrect and it gets spread because it perpetuates the racist system by colloquially reducing its impact.
People who use racist to mean prejudiced or personally unfair are not using the term in good faith.
Words don’t have inherent meanings. If they did, there wouldn’t be multiple languages.
I don’t understand how this relates to what I said. Words have multiple meanings and don’t have intrinsic meaning but there are ones that are more appropriate than others.
Allowing people to subvert the systemic meaning of racism whitewashes its impact. Black people cannot be racist towards white people because it has no basis systemically. Minorities can perpetuate systems of oppression against themselves but its never becomes a “reverse racism”
In other words, who benefits from the meaning of racism being stripped of it’s systemic meaning? Considering the context is some dbzero user trying to claim white people are oppressed and misandry is real this isnt an issue that’s “lost in translation.”
By arguing black people can be racist against non-whites you’ve already admitted racism exists not merely as a system of oppression, but as prejudice too.
So yes, black people can be racist against white people, just not in the comically evil ways that white conservatives say they can.
No, that doesn’t follow. Oppressed people absolutely can be active and even willing participants in the systemic oppression of their own people.
Good point
Depends on whether you’re saying that every act of prejudice is comparable to the historic weight of hundreds of years of racism as a system. A slave being prejudiced against the slaveowner is not an act of racism. It holds no difference to a trans person being prejudiced against a terf.
These acts of prejudice shouldn’t be elevated to acts of hate. They’re the oppressed lashing out at their oppressor.
I’m obviously not saying prejudice is on the same level as hundreds of years of oppression. I don’t know how you could even extrapolate that from my comment.
lol ok
Poor white people, they have it so hard :<
Not arguing against white privilege
The point is that you do not experience racism the same way at all because there is no system of racism against you nor is there the weight of hundreds of years of systemic racism against you.
If I call you a cracker right now it means nothing to you. It doesn’t affect you one bit. It rolls off you like water because it’s just funny to you. It has none of the history. It has none of the weight. You haven’t been oppressed for your skin colour one single bit in your entire life. You can be called a cracker a hundred times and it causes not even one emotional ripple within you because it isn’t racist. You sincerely do not experience racism as a force, not even one tiny bit, and that is why none of it affects you.
We’d have to get into some extreme cases of actual physical harm before we get close to actual racism committed by black people against white people. But even in those cases I would argue it isn’t racism, it’s the uneducated bubbling of anger expressed by the oppressed against their oppressor in ways that only occurs that way due to a lack of education on how to explain their rage in linguistic ways that do not appear as racism. Take the Palestinian for example, an uneducated Palestinian without the social teaching of phrasing and language that frames their struggle as oppressed vs oppressor, as Palestinian vs the Zionist, would likely default to jew-hate. But would it actually be that or would their rage still fundamentally be just an expression of their oppression without the linguistic framework that provides positive PR over negative PR?
What is accused of being racism by black people against white people is typically just the same. An expression of oppression without the linguistic framework or education to make it palatable to liberals.
But this is part of white privilege: white people can not be subjected to racism for being white. That’s half the point.
Not against white people no
there are many misandrist women, but the wider ramifications of misandry are largely immaterial