The SJW definition of racism and dismissal of reverse racism is incredibly racist

[TheGreatA]

Everyone can be "racist", but I do not think that the cries of racism will be drowned out with more cries of racism, even if it is of the opposite kind. That's sort of playing into their narrative. The more it becomes about one's race, the more it becomes about one's identity rather than his or her individual worth, the stronger the collectivists will be in creating the sort of division between the ethnicities, that they wish for.

These "SJW's" should be left to their own devices, and allowed to continue weakening their own argument through the constant utilization of the race card. Inciting one man to hate another based on the color of his skin, will not be judged favourably.

 

[Deleted member 196663]

2- but lack of diversity in positions of power also leads to certain parts of society feeling disenfranchised. I agree that quotas are a bad idea though.(and frankly, dont really have an alternative I can think of off the top of my head)

I don't disagree, but how do you feel about this response...

 

[nostradumbass]

No, it assumes that black people are historically disenfranchised, and it is a tool to help them close the gap in education and wealth attainment.

Basing it on race is pretty damn broad, and it therefore doesn't help the people it's meant to. It helps the black kids from wealthy families who didn't need the help and aren't underprivileged. I've said a lot of times that I don't agree with quotas etc, but if that is what they're going to do, they should at least base it on income instead of just saying skin color and lumping a black lawyer's kid in with kids from poverty. It is short-sighted at best and racist at worst.

BTW, more black immigrants have come here since slavery was abolished than were ever brought here during. Quotas and AA don't help who you think they do.

 

[Leagon]

in my opinion, i dont like any cases of people being judged by their race, due to generalizations about their race

for example, black people are very overrepresented in the NBA, but i dont think that you should tell an asian kid that he is playing from behind if he wants to make it in the NBA and that he probably isnt going to make it, because its a sport for black people.

I also dont like holding individuals accountable for actions done by others of the same race. black people shouldnt have to answer for black criminals and white people shouldnt have to answer for white racists

i think were gonna disagree on things, but you did a good job of explaining your views, so thank you

This isn't my view, I just happen to know a [very little] bit about modern sociology.

I agree with you completely that people should never be judged based on generalizations about race. I've spent my whole life doing things that aren't "typical" of black people and I would never treat or be okay with someone being treated as I was occasionally treated.

 

[forum poster]

I have seen many SJW's and leftist university professors say that reverse racism isn't possible because racism requires privilege+power. They say that blacks cannot be racist to whites because of this "new" definition.

However, to say "racism requires privilege+power so black people cant be racist", relies on the argument that black people are never privileged and black people can never have power. It assumes that ALL black people start out worse than all white people, thus have less privilege. It also argues that no black person can ever become more powerful than a white person.

Can any leftist explain how they reconcile this and still say reverse racism isn't possible?

I don't agree with that definition at all and I doubt all that many subscribe to it. I hate racism towards white's, mainly because it opens the doors to all racism and creates a toxic environment with more and more hate being spewed.

Having said that, saying that blacks being racist towards white's is on the same footing in this day and age is ridiculous. I think people are just looking for something to be offended by. To think that someone on TV mocking white people would leave any sane white person upset and ostracised from society is laughable.

 

[Da Left Cross]

I have seen many SJW's and leftist university professors say that reverse racism isn't possible because racism requires privilege+power. They say that blacks cannot be racist to whites because of this "new" definition.

However, to say "racism requires privilege+power so black people cant be racist", relies on the argument that black people are never privileged and black people can never have power. It assumes that ALL black people start out worse than all white people, thus have less privilege. It also argues that no black person can ever become more powerful than a white person.

Can any leftist explain how they reconcile this and still say reverse racism isn't possible?

 

[SafeSpace]

No such thing as reverse racism... they are the racists generally imo.

 

[touchedbyjab]

No, it assumes that black people are historically disenfranchised, and it is a tool to help them close the gap in education and wealth attainment.

What about colleges favoring african americans with lower test scores and gpa over other races who perform better academically?

To reach true equality, I think we need to rid the system of some built in racism. Affirmative action and the like do nothing but perpetuate the victim culture. No amount of legislation that favors the "historically disenfranchised" is going to help african americans overcome the core of what is ruining their culture, which isn't wealth/education gap, but it's the broken family structures and fatherless children.

 

[Pwent]

By accepting the term "reverse racism", you are also accepting the irrational twisting of definitions to suit ones argument. So implicitly you have already conceded. Reverse racism is something along the lines of acceptance, I guess.

There is only racism. That is really the only starting point. From there, you go forth and apply it consistently. Regarding the supposed "new definition", that simply does not hold up. Entertaining that definition I believe is a mistake. It must be rejected and challenged before moving forward in any discussion.

To anyone that argues for the "new definition", I would simply say that power can indeed make racism more threatening, but the definition will apply even in cases where the two groups hold equal power.

I think reverse racism is saying that another group is better off than your own race, as opposed to racism, saying that other races are beneath yours

Kind of the idea that white people are too far ahead and need a handicap so everyone can catch up

I agree that it should just be called racism though

 

[Lanx]

My wife grew up in a poor neighborhood (about two miles from the local 'projects') and she has many stories of being jumped by 2 or 3 other girls for being the 'white girl' they hated her for being better off than they were. Yet again, they were poor, so racism? Oh wait, nope

why do we always have to see the "flip side of the coin" where white ppl have to tell us of their one instance of perceived racism?

 

[tdluxon]

I have seen many SJW's and leftist university professors say that reverse racism isn't possible because racism requires privilege+power. They say that blacks cannot be racist to whites because of this "new" definition.

However, to say "racism requires privilege+power so black people cant be racist", relies on the argument that black people are never privileged and black people can never have power. It assumes that ALL black people start out worse than all white people, thus have less privilege. It also argues that no black person can ever become more powerful than a white person.

Can any leftist explain how they reconcile this and still say reverse racism isn't possible?

It's just terminology. Oppressed groups discriminating against whites are exercising racial bias/prejudice not racism under its true definition. It's just that most people aren't aware of the actual meaning of the term racism because it gets thrown around so much in media and discussion.

 

[lifelessheap]

White privilege. Those children have it far better than Obama's daughters and Jayden Smith.

Obviously.

 

[lifelessheap]

It's just terminology. Oppressed groups discriminating against whites are exercising racial bias/prejudice not racism under its true definition. It's just that most people aren't aware of the actual meaning of the term racism because it gets thrown around so much in media and discussion.

Definition of racism

1. 1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
   
   
2. 2a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principlesb : a political or social system founded on racism
   
   
3. 3 : racial prejudice or discrimination

Black people can be racist. Just like people like you can be really, really

 

[floivanus]

why do we always have to see the "flip side of the coin" where white ppl have to tell us of their one instance of perceived racism?

Getting singled out and beaten up, and told you are being singled out for being white isn't 'perceived racism' dumb ass

 

[Lanx]

Getting singled out and beaten up, and told you are being singled out for being white isn't 'perceived racism' dumb ass

that's just opportunity

 

[floivanus]

that's just opportunity

My appology, I may have made that statement too eloquently, the definition of racism has basically always been judging or treating people negatively based on race color or creed.

The new definition is that an oppressed minority that is treated negatinegatively by the majority, in that case (school of 2,000 with less than 100 white kids) the new definition of racism also works out