Defining Racism

As a further element of the social trap is the hugely high percentage of single parent families in black communities. Its far out of proportion to their population size and that of any other group. It cant be blamed on racism and children growing up without a father have been proven to be more susceptible to violent and criminal lifestyles and lower academic qualifications again and again.
With the advent of public housing and Great Society antipoverty programs, single-parent families eventually became the norm in the black population because they would no longer be eligible for those benefits if they had a male head of the household present.
 
I think about this a lot these days.

In my opinion, racism is judging people by their racial label and not their actions. That's all. If you are able to treat people of other races as equals when they behave like equals and chastise people of your race when they misbehave, you are not a racist. It's very important to acknowledge that skinfolk are not always kinfolk.

Statistics and facts are never racist. Criticizing a culture is not racist and disagreeing with this implies being okay with things like honor killings and slavery. Whether or not slurs are racist depends on how they're used. Obsessing over which race is best is pointless and dumb but not necessarily racist.

Isn't racism the belief that a particular race is physically or intellectually inferior or otherwise morally corrupt? Or the opposite, that a particular race is superior?
When you divide people up by race, there's inevitably going to be statistical differences in the behavior and performance of different groups. I don't think it's racist to acknowledge that so long as you also acknowledge that on an individual level, we're all different and people who are distant from what's average for their group do exist.

It's more useful to divide people up by personality and ability, imo. Like classrooms. If you want to maximize everyone's happiness and productivity, you don't put a bright kid in special ed and you don't put a Chris-Chan in advanced classes.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: VIVIIXI
I think the word "racism" should never have been invented. It led to deliriously insane identity politics where just about anything can be "racist", and people can be held automatically accountable for the actions of others of their kind - if their kind is "oppressor".

If someone does something "racist" - something otherwise actually bad - it should be called "being a jerk" or the like, without invoking social "justice" bullshit.
 
I think the word "racism" should never have been invented. It led to deliriously insane identity politics where just about everything can be "racist", and people can be held automatically accountable for the actions of others of their kind - if their kind is "oppressor".

If someone does something "racist" - something otherwise actually bad - then it should be called "being a jerk" or the like, without invoking social "justice" bullshit.
It might have been useful in the past, back when discrimination was truly rampant. At this point it seems to be doing more harm than good, though.

There is no such thing as reverse racism...

this was used to "educate" a class of 9 year olds last week at a local school...enjoy!

It's offensive how they assume every member of one race starts at the same point. These things would be completely alien to a wealthy Nigerian immigrant, but according to this animation they'd still be more oppressed than a poor white American.

I wish they'd acknowledge that class and culture are way bigger dividers than race.
 
Last edited:
  • Feels
Reactions: ToroidalBoat
It's offensive how they assume every member of one race starts at the same point.

Like I said, it's that divisive Current Year Clown World "logic" where a person is held automatically accountable for the actions of others of their kind.

I wish they'd acknowledge that class and culture are way bigger dividers than race.
The elite want people divided against eachother, not united against them. And that's why we're stuck in Clown World.
 
It's supposed to mean just hating someone from a different race. You know the normal, common sense definition. But nowadays they changed the meaning so that only white people are racist, which is ridiculous.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: ToroidalBoat
Racism should be arbitrarily judging someone based on factors they cannot control like skin color. Though it has been warped by those who want to use it as a method of no making instutiionally equal, but to destroy hierarchy because that is something folks honestly believe they can destroy.
 
This got long as shit. Sorry. Obviously you're not under any obligation to read it. I appreciate you engaging with me about it nonetheless and reading through the rest of the shit I've thrown out here so far.

Is it that serious an accusation, though? I mean, yeah, people have lost jobs over accusations of racism, but usually after doing something like posting pictures of themselves in blackface on their Facebook profiles. I can't think of someone getting fired or having their life seriously affected over accusations of racism when there's no hard evidence there; it's not like adultery or a closeted sexuality, it doesn't spread around after the person and get talked about behind closed doors in a negative way (at least not where I'm from). A black guy won't get fired for just acting racially prejudiced against white people, maybe, but I'd argue a white guy is just as unlikely (if not more unlikely) to get fired for being racist (or racially prejudiced, I guess makes more sense for the argument I'm about to make) in the workplace.

That sort of speaks to why the distinction is, in my opinion, one worth making. A black person won't get fired for being racist, because what could they really do to white people that would be the inverse equivalent of blackface, or of something like this video? To me, there's a big difference between the weight behind white-on-black racism and its reverse. That's the difference the sociological field is trying to point to.

Now, in the common vernacular, I don't see a problem with people using the term 'racist' the way it's always been used, to refer to any racial prejudice in any direction. I also don't think it's wrong of someone to take the opportunity presented by an accusation of 'reverse racism' to talk about how the terminology is changing, to talk about systemic racism. Saying 'you can't be reverse racist' is just another way of saying 'yeah, a black person may be prejudiced against white people, but there is virtually no viable comparison between that and white-on-black racism, which has a hell of a lot more institutionalized and systemic violently racist ideology backing it.'

As I've said, though, that doesn't mean I think it's reasonable for a white person to use that counter as a trump card to win an argument and then blow the other person off like they've won. Black people, in general, can hold their hands up and say 'it's not my job to educate you.' in my view anyway, because I'm one of those people that thinks it's not on the oppressed group to educate the oppressive majority on how their group's oppression has shaped the modern world. I will say, however, that in my experience, if a black person thinks you'll genuinely hear them when they talk to you about this kind of thing, they will stop and explain it to you calmly and rationally and in great detail despite their lack of obligation, because it matters to them,because they know just how important it is. The people I see going 'you can't be REVERSE RACIST' and using that as a get-out-of-jail-free card in an argument tend to be white people who barely understand the concept themselves.

I mean, in the end, though, no one person can dictate how or when or by whom words ought to be used, so at this point the argument of whether or not the sociological definition should be brought up in everyday conversations seems like a simple matter of opinion. But I could be wrong,especially if you still hold that accusations of racism are more serious than I perceive them.


Part Two Re: Affirmative Action

As for the rest of it, I don't know shit about how or to what extent Affirmative Action is enacted in the rest of the world, but in the US, even if it's not the 'colorblind' style people have been advocating for more recently, I think it's necessary in a lot of areas of the country, particularly the South. For one thing, I'd assume the amount of people that are truly overlooked for less qualified (much less unqualified) candidates is negligible; even if it weren't, I don't see it as inherently wrong that the system has measures in place to correct for the disadvantaged position certain minority groups start out at in applying for jobs/schools, a disadvantage that same system played a large role in establishing for them and, arguably, still does today.

In somewhere like the UK, the lines are a bit fuzzier since they don't necessarily have a directly institutionalized top-down history of systemic racism like the US does (I could try and make the argument if anyone's interested in hacking down that path, I guess). Here, though, you have loads of states that had laws in place specifically designed to disenfranchise black voters, you had segregation and intense local violence (full-out lynchings happened in the US as late as the '60s) keeping past generations from getting educations or better jobs, you have racial prejudice deeply ingrained into the local cultural mindset, you had black schools getting lower quality materials and much less funding, and today's generation of black students are still affected by these setbacks; Affirmative Action is a system attempting to correct its own wrongs, rather than attempting to make the natural way of things more PC-friendly.

You can definitely argue that it's not the government's place to do that, and of course you can argue that it flat out does not work. To the first, I say if a government's going to have the level of authority our government does, this imposition is in no way beyond the scope of what they ought to be doing, and it's hardly beyond any other limitations the government places on businesses and publicly funded schools. As to the second, I'd say that no one who's ever argued for Affirmative Action ever genuinely thought it'd fix all the racial woes of the US, but that it's a small step towards leveling the playing field after centuries of brutal oppression.


EDIT: including this to avoid double-post


I'm not suggesting we give people a pass for treating other people like shit, no matter who they are or what race they're from. I'm suggesting that there's validity to distinguishing between systemic racism and individual instances of racial prejudice. Minorities aren't magically cured of all their woes just because they have a response when someone accuses them of reverse racism.
Norrington, have you ever even been to the South or have any experience with it at all?
 
The problem is that racism/racist essentially has three definitions, that is it is A OR B OR C.

The concepts are:

A) Belief that one group is in some way genetically/hereditarily worse than another. This is like scientific racism, ie “X are dumb and stupid because they have bad genes and are subhumans. >:( .”

B) Belief that you should put your group above another group, or conversely, that the other group should be targeted for something bad.

“Fuck X, fucking Xoids deserve the rope.”
“Y is the master race, all other races were made by Y-ahweh to serve Y.”

C) Personal dislike of another group, or other bad feelings towards them.

“I hate Xers because one stole my bicycle once. >:( .”

Notably, while the probability of having any one of these three traits increases if you have another one, these DO NOT have to go together. For example, modern Leftism tends to have B and C, but not A. Nationalism implies B but not necessarily A and C.

We would do a lot better if we acknowledged that racism is actually an umbrella term for a number of different belief systems. I think you could call A “racialism,” B “ethnocentrism” or “prejudice,” and C “prejudice” or “bigotry.”
 
Back