let's be real here [in america]

racism is a word, and like any word, it can change meaning, usage, intent, emphasis, etc based on who, where, when, and how someone uses the word - it exists in many states

if you're going to reduce it to its essential meaning: a prejudice against a specific race

so, why do some leftists say racism can't be done against white people? it tends to follow that the institutions - the economic, governmental, scholarly, familial, and religious - of society are inherently and averagely biased in favour of white people with various degrees of negative bias towards all other races. the most blatant example of this is that, when controlling for socioeconomic factors in america, black people are put to jail more often and for harsher sentences than white people. unless there is some factor that can be pointed out except an existent societal prejudice against black people, then this shouldn't be happening.

okay, but why do some right wingers say racism doesn't exist anymore? my most viewed example of this argument stems from the lack of state racism - the systems of government and society enforce and strive for racism. it's pretty clear that from the 1970s and on in the us, we've largely eliminated these forms of direct state racism that literally gives you two dots and a line to put between them of how it is racist.

there is a lot lot lot more to this, like colour blindness being something that some claim to work by while others claim it is a way to refuse to examine reality, or implicit racism from someone who had a few bad experiences with a particular race, only those experiences (or worse: their only experience is a few passed down stories and not real experience) and uses that as a foundation for a whole race, but i'm more interested in how -w can or cannot juggle the existence of this word in its broad spectrum and how useful it is to call certain things racism, while not calling others racism.

for the record: i do think that you can be racist as an individual towards any race, but until that is a culturally significant viewpoint, it is a nonissue in discussions of racism because we have much larger problems to solve that will be distracted by fostering individual problems that even more rarely develop into the kinds of violence racism promotes.

This post was last modified: Mar 24, 2017 at 1:55 AM by Aidan. Edit Reason: used racist when i meant racism

i do think that you can be racist as an individual towards any race, but until that is a culturally significant viewpoint, it is a nonissue in discussions of racism

how often are discussions on mw culturally significant
the word "racism" can be brought up in a discussion without the discussion being a broad all-encompassing interaction of human nature and interracial discourse. in those situations, the word means what it means according to the accepted definition, which is something similar to: "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."
src google

yeah, that's what it's saying. if you're gonna come into a discussion of racism and talk about someone calling you whitey or cracker as how white people are oppressed, i personally think you're not contributing to solving racism (and possibly not arguing in good faith). bringing up someone doing bigoted shit and calling it as you see it is still gucci.

fair enuff
i also think it can be difficult to distinguish the two* but maybe that's not a valid excuse
*discussing racism vs a discussion involving racism

This post was last modified: Mar 24, 2017 at 1:49 AM by T-man.

yeah, that's what it's saying. if you're gonna come into a discussion of racism and talk about someone calling you whitey or cracker as how white people are oppressed, i personally think you're not contributing to solving racism (and possibly not arguing in good faith). bringing up someone doing bigoted shit and calling it as you see it is still gucci.

Assuming this was spun off from the JonTron thread, I don't think anyone was equating making generalizations about white people to legitimate oppression, I think they were just equating it to racism. I think anyone painting any race with a broad brush would be seen as racist (unless of course that race is Caucasian.)

> i personally think you're not contributing to solving racism (and possibly not arguing in good faith)

I legitimately do not believe racism is something that can be solved until we're all mixed into one. And at that point I'm sure people will find something else to be cocks about.

it's not; just the general air of things

i mean, the problem with being white in america and dealing with racist experiences is that your life isn't nearly as harmed by it since those experiences are so much more rare and tamer; not that it doesn't happen to the most extremes, but just less common, less malicious, and less affecting.

and that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to have it solved and that such experiences shouldn't be prevented, but equating things is not helpful and only serves to perpetuate the racist society we live in.

i would hope that no one is attempting to equate sjw fuckboys tweeting #whitepeoplesodumb with a kkk grand wizard organizing a rally
it's an assumed element of the discussion that, while both are racist, they're on entirely different levels (different planets really)

i am attempting to equate sjw fuckboys tweeting #whitepeoplesodumb with a kkk grand wizard organizing a rally

- jontron, probably

how harmful is the former there, though? and does everyone understand the implicit distinction between "white people" and "all white people?"

idk drei, did playtonic understand the implicit distinction between "black people" and "all black people" before handing jon a pink slip

it's a culturally acknowledged distinction across minorities in america that unless you specifically say all white people, you're talking specifically about racist af basic bitches

yep i can see the careful laser focused criticism that absolutely only judges people based on their individual personality and merits and not their race from here


still though, i agree with the premise that the people who sold/bought these sweatshirts, despite being dumbfucks, are a very minor problem and mostly serve to distract from actual issues of racism

This post was last modified: Mar 24, 2017 at 3:21 AM by T-man.

it's a culturally acknowledged distinction across minorities in america that unless you specifically say all white people, you're talking specifically about racist af basic bitches

White people weren't invited to the meeting so you'll have to excuse them for not realizing that.

thought-provoking post puddin, but on a related subject, who's allowed to say nig?
i don't know but i have some theories.

who's allowed to say nig?

anyone with a black friend who signs off on it

kinda like a doctors note

And for the record @Draku, "it's called having a conscienceless" is an appeal to emotion too. Come at me with something rational.

that would imply i wanted to argue about the subject, which is pretty far from the truth

I'm allowed to say whatever I want (just not on Minus World.)

Not on the basis that I'm one of those white dudes that's desperate to use the word and get my jollies from saying a taboo word, but on the basis that I hate being told what to do. I have no hatred in my heart toward black people and I don't feel that they're inferior to white people, yet I'm fully prepared to deal with the social consequences of using mean words with zero hateful intent.

i also hate the idea that i'm not allowed to say a word which is why i sing along to DMX songs
however i understand that it really upsets some people if you say nig around them and i respect their feelings enough to not say it if that might be the case

basically i agree that you shouldn't allow someone else to tell you what to do, but i also think it's important to decide, for yourself, what you value and act according to that value set
i really worry about making people sad and shit so i try to avoid that as much as possible
totally fine if your values are different though, nothing wrong with disagreements

do u think ur more of an ayn rand type or albert camus
i think the latter is more accurate but i'm conflicted

basically i agree that you shouldn't allow someone else to tell you what to do, but i also think it's important to decide, for yourself, what you value and act according to that value set
i really worry about making people sad and shit so i try to avoid that as much as possible
totally fine if your values are different though, nothing wrong with disagreements

Word. It's incredibly liberating to be true to yourself and what you believe. The fact is my values can't easily fit into either of the existing "boxes" because they're made up of elements from both. I used to pretend to care about shit I just didn't to avoid ostracization from my friends. Now that I don't have to worry about that anymore, it's like finally being able to breathe deep.

I didn't not know who Albert Campus is but Ayn Rand was a hack. She based her ~philosophy~ on "look how opposite of Marx I can be" and lived off of NEETbux. She's a hypocrite and her ~philosophy~ destroys human empathy; not only does she dislike altruism but she thinks altruism is inherently evil. Yet.. the altruism of others was her means of survival. Really gets your noggin joggin'

camus wrote a book called l'etranger about a guy who doesn't care about anything (his mom dying, losing his job, animal abuse) and lives for meaningless sex with a hot girl and brewskis with the boys, and the climax of the book is him meeting some brown people at the beach and """accidentally""" shooting them because he was tired and the sun was in his eyes
then he goes to jail and gets executed

you would agree with some of the thinking in that book prob