That's just arguing semantics.

The idea behind the "reverse racism doesn't exist" claim is that racism as a term requires all that institutional and cultural backing that you and Aamer are talking about. Your straw-black-man being a jerk example should have a weaker term like "racial discrimination" or something, but not "racism".

At least that's what I learned in my anti-oppression class. Arguing about this point is fun sometimes, but if you can even argue cogently about this we're obviously on the same side. = )

Wait... so when black activists use the word "racism", they include all the institutional and cultural backing? That seems counterproductive, since most whites (myself included) mean the more limited definition of "racism". It seems like they're guaranteeing that they'll be talking past their critics, and their valid points will be lost due to misunderstanding.

Of course, given how resistant many whites are to the idea of institutional or wide-spread cultural racism, maybe semantics is the least of activists' problems.

ITS OKAY TO BE RACIST IF YOU'RE NOT WHITE, GOTCHA

Fucking idiot.

Try to keep up, Gmork.

It's not OK to be racist if you're not white. But it is, by and large, harmless. Occasionally it isn't harmless, and that's when it clearly becomes Not OK. (tm) But most of the time, non-white racism is just something you roll your eyes at and think "That person is wrong".

The world is full of idiots & people who are wrong. It's just something you have to get used to. I'll save my energy (and arguments) for wrong ideas that cause harm.

"It's not OK to be racist if you're not white. But it is, by and large, harmless."

::heavy sigh::

"Occasionally it isn't harmless, and that's when it clearly becomes Not OK."

It's not OK period. That is the whole fucking point.

Holding "allies" (IE non-racists, anti-racists, etc.) responsible for things they have no direct contribution to is pure ignorance. You're basically making the argument that because systemic oppression exists and has largely been instituted by whites, ALL whites even those not involved in said systemic oppression are fair game for racism and should just "have a thicker skin".

Sorry, that's bullshit. Stop making excuses for bad behavior.

Yes yes, but how many racists can dance on the head of a pin?

None, given they are white.

Hey Anax, I wrote back to you in the other thread.

In this thread, I'm going to have to entirely, entirely disagree with you about the definition of racism, and I'm going to have to accuse you of what is one of humanity's favorite cognitive biases to plague itself with.

I am not resistant to accepting the existence of more pervasive, insidious and/or willful kinds of racism that affect different groups disproportionately; sometimes they are 'institutional' or 'systemic' or whatever precise adjective best fits, and they do exponential damage.

That does not mean that wronging/harming a white because of race isn't racism or isn't harmful. If you're pitching a moral system in which this is the case, I'll throw it right back. That sort of special pleading is the heavy-lifter in racism worldwide. It's how racists can stand themselves, after telling themselves one particular story or another about how they don't have the same duty to others if that other person is from a given group. (I'm skipping over 'people without a conscience at all' as not worth discussing here)

I have been affected by racism that was not severe or life-threatening, but was harmful, life-altering and institutional. I'm a middle-class straight white male. This doesn't mean I think it's equivalent to things it's not equivalent to. But to say it wasn't what it was is just pure fucking bullshit of an immoral sort. And I'm as sure as can be that these wrongs were because of race, sex, orientation etc.

5 for evil for this fucking stand-up's racism. The emperor has no clothes. Come on. Really disheartening to hear this from you. Have a deep think on this. Have a long, slow deep think.
While you're at it, think about whether it's at all pragmatic to play "if you're not with us, you're against us" kinds of rhetoric, here or in the Jesse Williams speech. Does a wedge-driving double-standard help anyone to intellectually and emotionally prioritize our common humanity over the many other things we can want (whether for good, bad or indifferent)? How far do you think sheer guilt-throwing can take it?

I hope we don't need to have a definition debate in order to talk and think about this. If you're going to give me a campusy definition of racism that fits a specific metaphysic, I'm going to shrug off that metaphysic.
And I hope that your response doesn't boil down to "what a white thing to say", or at least I'll preempt that by pointing to special pleading again.

good one, mustard

See, Aamer? That's how a joke works.

Wait wait wait.... I agree with your definition of racism. I find the activists' use of the word to be.... peculiar. Which is why I thought (and still think) that this comedian's take is off. But it's only off a little bit, and he goes on to illustrate the power differential that's at the heart of his "Reverse-racism doesn't exist" idea. His idea is (IMO) still wrong, but it's the kind of wrong that doesn't bother me much.

Frankly I don't find generalizations inherently repugnant. Speaking of groups in generalities can actually be useful, or amusing. The problem comes when people hold too firmly to those generalities. And then whether the person is somebody I roll my eyes at or actually get angry about depends on the circumstance: are they pointlessly (and harmlessly) venting, or are they supporting an oppressive structure?

If you want to get angry about this comedian, go nuts, I guess. I haven't heard the rest of his material, so I don't know his take on things.

Hey Gmork, guess what?

The shit you're referring to, ignoring anything that changes the context of racism, has to be done in modesty, otherwise it ends up covering the struggles of others.

A good example would me referring to your history of an absolutely vulgar perspective on the use of the word faggot in this thread, thus derailing any instance that you have a point.

The exact same shit you're doing now.

By the by, you're a nigger fag go cuck some Ayn Rand meat after you read this you fucking neonazi fatty

Anax,
I replied in the other thread too.
Here and there, I don't think we're as far apart as I/we first thought.

But I don't think this video and its idea are a shrugg-off-able as you do. I think it's racist and encourages racism, because it basically says that we don't owe to one race what we owe to others, because of mass generalizations, and as if systemic racism in America benefits all whites and they're all responsible for it. For fuck's sake.

Who cares if he goes on to illustrate a top-down power differential when it's a) not a new idea, b) not unusual for anyone but a white conservative to admit to, and c) there are plenty of wrongs that people do to each other by the minute that don't occur in an 'institutional' way?
Isn't it in his own interest to try to pin anything he can on that power differential, and see if it sticks? How does that deserve any credit?

I'm not trying to make my argument here exist in a vacuum. If you want to work toward reforming the whole country so that life is much better for the bottom 80% of the economy, in terms of wages, education, health and so on, I'm with you. If you want to talk about changing how institutions work so that conscious and sub-conscious racism is mitigated as much as humanly possible, I'm with you.

I have no idea how hostile rhetoric, special pleading and hypocritical racism are going to help with that.

Not to mention I've seen plenty of Louis C.K.-esque uses of the word "faggot" by a large percentage of users on this site. The difference is that those same users (yourself included) lose all sense of humor when they feel it's an easy way to attack someone they disagree with. It's funny when someone you agree with uses it ironically, but unfunny in another context. That is called hypocrisy.

Which, incidentally, is what I am arguing against in this thread. The hypocrisy of saying "it's okay to be racist towards certain races". See what I'm getting at?

"By the by, you're a nigger fag go cuck some Ayn Rand meat after you read this you fucking neonazi fatty"

It's only trolling if you don't mean it. Swing and a miss, shoebox.

Hey Gmork, nice timing. I bet fighting the fear of a trannysoreass dragging you into the men's bathroom keeps you up all night.

Maybe people would take you seriously if hypocrisy wasn't a platform hailed by high school drop outs.

Large percentage? That'd mean something if it wasn't for the fact that you hold onto your keyboard with the iron grip of a conservative finding his lost expedition into paedophilia. Maybe if you did something that wasn't "Louis C.K. esque" of promoting a shitty ideal with an all or nothing regard to self awareness and coverting it as a tense of authority like 99% of fans who jerk off to red haired bimbos crooning dried up turds with an anti-establishment complex, then maybe we'd have a conversation that doesn't have you devoutly pushing an either/or system of dismissal.

Fucking hypocrit

@That Guy
"But I don't think this video and its idea are a shrugg-off-able as you do. I think it's racist and encourages racism, because it basically says that we don't owe to one race what we owe to others, because of mass generalizations, and as if systemic racism in America benefits all whites and they're all responsible for it. For fuck's sake."

Jesus, I just re-watched the first minute before he goes on how to be a reverse racist and I am wondering what the fuck you're even talking about. He never denied what he was doing was racist. He's being absurd about the definition of reverse racism.

And there is a benefit to certain mass generalizations and that's having a cliff notes summary of what is happening around you/them so you have a better clue of where and what to investigate. Yes, mass generalizations can be horrible when horrible people come up with and establish them, but constantly going with a clean slate predominately shoots you in the foot when ever you go into objectivist mode. It doesn't keep you falling into a superficially vindictive and ignorant state of mind. It enables and encourages it. It's essentially an aphrodisiac to any racist cracker who is hoping to grow their ranks.

"Who cares if he goes on to illustrate a top-down power differential when it's a) not a new idea,"

No shit. Next

"b) not unusual for anyone but a white conservative to admit to,"

When you get enough brownie points to get into their circle, yes it is still unusual, but out in the open they must be on some powerful shit to forget that they're trying to rebrand it.

"and c) there are plenty of wrongs that people do to each other by the minute that don't occur in an 'institutional' way?"

So let's forget what bigger system supports those non-institutional bits of racism? I'd be more with you, but the logic you're selling is the same bit an angsty teen uses after being shunned for using the word faggot

"Isn't it in his own interest to try to pin anything he can on that power differential, and see if it sticks? How does that deserve any credit?"

No shit and no shit. The black vs white narrative has been socially engraved to the point where any other minority gets the sympathy glance. It's lauded in high school texts as a grave injustice with an insert that has the words "also Native Americans". You seriously expect something to stick when anything that has ANY active initiative in that power differential (cough cough affirmative action) and can be in concept regarded just as fucking bad as anything else listed as racist?

Seriously, only chodes worry about not being racist when racism is a dynamic, broad concept that can be swung in enough directions to be used for or against any progress in equality. Quit fucking worrying about racism and accept the fact that "whites did this" is a bitter pill to swallow of keeping score and can be a way of understanding other people's misery and suffering.

Also, Gmork, go jam your nuts in a filing cabinet.

"I bet fighting the fear of a trannysoreass dragging you into the men's bathroom keeps you up all night."

Except I have no phobia or hatred of anyone in the LGBT community. Another huge swing and a miss.

"Maybe people would take you seriously if hypocrisy wasn't a platform hailed by high school drop outs."

My argument is against hypocrisy, so your statement is non-sequitur.

"Large percentage? That'd mean something if it wasn't for the fact that you hold onto your keyboard with the iron grip of a conservative finding his lost expedition into paedophilia. Maybe if you did something that wasn't "Louis C.K. esque" of promoting a shitty ideal with an all or nothing regard to self awareness and coverting it as a tense of authority like 99% of fans who jerk off to red haired bimbos crooning dried up turds with an anti-establishment complex, then maybe we'd have a conversation that doesn't have you devoutly pushing an either/or system of dismissal."

I really don't have to do anything, you just sort of destroy your own credibility all on your own. Maybe one day you can explain to me why you dislike my platform of disliking racism and other forms of mass generalization. I doubt it'll make a lick of sense, you seem too invested in trying to be edgy to have a decent conversation.

To be fair, most of the time when people use the term "racism" they aren't even describing racism, they're describing bigotry. Racism implies an actual ideological framework. White supremacists are racist. Neonazis are racist. Historically, some Black Musilim organizations have been racist. The average "racist," though, is just a bigot.

Both are problematic, but the constant, almost universal conflation of the two doesn't do anything to improve the situation. It's not arguing semantics to say that it's impossible to have a meaningful, productive dialogue abut something when don't even have accurate language to describe it.


Institutional/cultural racism is a whole different thing though (and is the cause of a lot of bigotry).

@Gmork
You are complete slime and the fact that you pretend you're being called a bigot because you're disliked is Caninante level of delusion.

When you're done pretending that you've earned anything just for being here then maybe you'll get a chance to work on your self loathing

Shoebox, you are the king of non-sequitur. It's like you're arguing with your own mental projections.

You clearly have no idea who I am or what I stand for, based on your consistently incorrect assumptions.

What do you have against anti-racism? Are you sticking up for racists? That's something that qualifies as "absolute slime" in my book. Perhaps you should check yourself before you wreck yourself.

fuck's sake, Shoebox, your knee-jerking here is making you stupid

I'm glad you see real sophisticated and ironic comedy going on here. It's like Westboro Baptist Church levels of zaniness, isn't it?

"Seriously, only chodes worry about not being racist when racism is a dynamic, broad concept that can be swung in enough directions to be used for or against any progress in equality."

k

no special pleading for you though, right?

"So let's forget what bigger system supports those non-institutional bits of racism?"

This is a conclusion that you've somehow squeezed out of what I said? Simplify it harder, why don't you? Maybe you can simplify it all the way down to a black or white issue.

"no special pleading for you though, right?"

Isn't that what I'm saying? I don't have god damn track record of arbitrarily lumping people into shit as if it's an end all answer, and if anyone says otherwise I'd be more than happy to be called out to discuss it.

@OZ
It is good to acknowledge a concept where ignorance plays a role in the actions, but I'm not really sure it exists. If it's there then it really should have slowed Gmork down.

BWOOSH MOTHA FUCKAN BWOOSH

Also OZ, I think the problem with the word racism is there are people who build up frameworks to people who are not necessarily defined by race. You've seen it on this site in regards to LGBT via exhibits, and to an extent furries. I think it's extremely disingenuous to reside such a concept solely to race and has been problematic for any horrendous person to put aside their viewpoint to acknowledge systematic bigotry

Shoebox, maybe I didn't follow you. Oh well, thread is old now and what's done is done.

S'alright. It's just the problem with anything that's edgy. Need time to find out what is what and it is common and logical to be apprehensive to immediately accept it or let it pass.

wut

The context of "reverse racism" is typically, for example, someone on Fox News saying "look, here's a black person saying a racist thing. But it's okay for them to be racist but it's not okay for whites to be racist? Where are the laws fighting black racism (i.e. reverse-racism)?"

Well it's not okay for individual blacks to be racist any more than it's okay for individual whites to be racist. The difference is, white racists have collectively oppressed blacks for hundreds of years and proven resistant to legal remedy, while black racists have collectively griped among themselves and have been subjected to the full weight of the law when their racism spilled over into action against whites.

There just isn't any comparison.

You've mischaracterized parts of that, and there is some comparison.

Then fucking say it dipshit. Don't fucking leave a cliffhanger like a desperate conspiracy theorist trying to avoid the hecklers in public.

I need to get my orcs account to give me a hummer. Dry as dog shit here.