Can you be racist to white people?

[epicmemesbro]

This only applies in America.

I think that can be applied to any place in the world. Take South Africa for example, the rich do get away with alot, and they did and still do plenty of discrimination.

[ENMaker]

This is as ridiculous as the idea you can't be sexist towards men because "sexism=power + privilege". People laugh at the feminists or other idiots who purport this because that's not what sexism is, nor is it what racism is. How anyone can actually think you can't be racist towards a certain race is completely beyond my comprehension.

 

Reverse racism and reverse sexism are, for me, the two worst ideas ever perpetuated, because they imply that racism and sexism can normally only go one way, which is absurd. I just... I really didn't think that people actually believed this idea. If you actually think this is true, I don't know what to tell you. Were "No Irish need apply" signs not racist because there were rich and privileged Irish people that existed at the same time as the emigrants fleeing the famine? I genuinely cannot believe someone could think this way.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Racism is bad. 

 

You can be racist toward any race, as at the end of the day, everyone has their own unfair advantages.

 

No.

 

Some people's advantages drastically outweigh the advantages of others, which is why they're unfair advantages in the first place. 

 

  

Belittling any form of racism just makes the problem worse.

 

Representing the problem proportionately is essential in any attempt to solve it. When someone falls and breaks their limb, it is that limb that needs the immediate and concentrated attention, not the manifold cuts and bruises elsewhere that aren't anywhere close to being as much of an issue. 

[ENMaker]

 

 

No.

 

Some people's advantages drastically outweigh the advantages of others, which is why they're unfair advantages in the first place. 

 

Representing the problem proportionately is essential in any attempt to solve it. When someone falls and breaks their limb, it is that limb that needs the immediate and concentrated attention, not the manifold cuts and bruises elsewhere that aren't anywhere close to being as much of an issue. 

 

I don't think any of this is an actual response to what was said. 

 

Some people's advantages do outweigh the advantages of others unfairly, yes. What's that got to do with race? The black son of a rich black family has an unfair advantage over the white son of an unemployed white family, he is put in a position of status by virtue of nothing but the family into which he is born and he does nothing to get to there. Does this mean the poor white boy cannot be deemed as racist for anything he says or does to the rich black boy because he does not hold the power or the privilege?

 

And that's a rather terrible analogy you use there anyway. The argument made is that you can't be racist against white people. That's not a proportional representation of anything, it's a ridiculous statement, and it dismisses the idea of racial abuse towards whites as non-existent. It is perfectly fair to say that belittling one form of racism, or to use a word I don't like, "normalising" it, does only serve to make the problem worse, because people who don't believe something exists aren't going to be willing to listen to anyone who claims to have experienced it.

 

By extension, the people whose words are being ignored and dismissed are then not going to give a shit what the other side says about their own experiences, because why should they? They're not being taken seriously, so why should they bother? That is undoubtedly an issue because it leaves both sides ignoring the other and no discussion takes place and nothing is done.

[Mr. Hyde]

This thread is cancer.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4pPn1R9VkQ

 

The answer is simple: Yes you can be racist towards white people.  It's not the only race that's discriminated against, and it's probably the least discriminated against as well.  However, whatever form it takes, it is discriminatory. 

[VCR_CAT]

If you're looking at certain actions towards a certain group of people, be it sexism or racism, and your point starts sounding like "But is it TECHNICALLY [racism/sexism] if you define..."

 

You should probably just stop.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

I don't think any of this is an actual response to what was said.

 

Then I can only encourage you to start thinking. It is *actually* impossible for everyone to have unfair advantages, based on race or otherwise, as it's the exclusivity of those advantages that makes them unfair.  

 

Some people's advantages do outweigh the advantages of others unfairly, yes. What's that got to do with race? 

 

The fact that being of a certain race brings innate advantages, which is blatant within America's historical framework. 

 

 

The argument made is that you can't be racist against white people.

 

This is not my argument, nor do I endorse it, nor was my analogy used in its support. I agree that white people can experience racism, just as I agree that "racism is bad". That said, the syllogism that "racism is bad and can happen to white people, therefore racism against white people is bad" discounts that racism against white people is a negligible fraction of the actuality of racism in America, and it is the actualization of racism that makes it bad, not the ideology itself which would in fact be harmless if it went unactualized. Alas, it seems humankind struggles in that regard, which gives the ideology power to harm.

 

The actuality of racism in America is bad as a whole, it is very bad against black people, and it is not so bad against white people. If the degree of racism that black people suffer in America were reduced to the degree that white people suffer, the actuality of racism in America wouldn't be as bad as a whole as it is now. 

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

It's a dangerous path, trying to say one bad thing is worse than another.

Obviously there's more instances of racism against black people as opposed to white

But I don't fully agree with the idea of putting it on a scale. After all, we're all one people, doesn't matter the race. So racism to anyone is equally bad, even if not everyone experiences it as often or as severe.

[The Warden]

Yes, you can be racist to white people. It is in fact racist to say "white people" just as much as it is racist to say "black people", because you are making an assumption based on colour of skin rather than ethnicity. The garbage you are citing is the incessant rhetoric spouted by the incredibly verbose and caustic SJWs who practically scream a bunch of gibberish that only makes sense due to their insane troll logic. Racism by definition is having prejudice against another race. "White people" by definition are classed as a race. If you are prejudiced against white people, guess what? You're racist.

 

Really, all this bullshit about reverse racism and crap is merely just because the general racism card is becoming much less effective nowadays. I'm not saying it always happens, but there are plenty of narcissistic ethnicities out there who pull the racism card on anyone who didn't agree with them, since calling a white person a racist usually shut them up real quick. But since it's proving much less effective due to it being flung around like Yugioh cards, another out is needed. In reality, this entire argument is funking pointless in general, since it blatantly ignores one important lesson: Don't be dicks to other people. It's not funking hard to comprehend this sheet, and yet people in god damn colleges fail to grasp the simplest concepts because they're so far up their own arses they can see out their teeth.

 

Even if a white person complains about people being racist towards them, they're funking allowed to bemoan their own personal grievances despite other people having it worse. Just because someone else has it worse doesn't mean your own pain is funking invalid, and anyone who thinks anyone suffering in general isn't allowed to talk about their pain is an egotistical sheet who needs a cosmic jabronislap from reality.

[TF2_The_Scout]

If racism is privaledge plus power, doesn't that mean only the upper class and government officials can be racist?

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

It's a dangerous path, trying to say one bad thing is worse than another.

 

It really isn't. Killing two people is worse than killing one, and if we can recognize that killing a person is bad, it's a dangerous path not to be able to recognize that killing two people is worse.

 

If racism is privaledge plus power, doesn't that mean only the upper class and government officials can be racist?

 

Being racist is being racist regardless of power, but when racism has power behind it, it has that much worse an impact than if someone without much power were racist. The upper class and government officials are a large contributor to America's racial tensions.

 

 

The garbage you are citing is the incessant rhetoric spouted by the incredibly verbose and caustic SJWs who practically scream a bunch of gibberish that only makes sense due to their insane troll logic.

 

Thank goodness you know better than to spout rhetoric.

 

 

It is in fact racist to say "white people" just as much as it is racist to say "black people", because you are making an assumption based on colour of skin rather than ethnicity.

 

"White people and black people have the same potential." Neither phrase is intrinsically racist.

 

 

but there are plenty of narcissistic ethnicities

 

This, conversely, is racist.

 

 

Just because someone else has it worse doesn't mean your own pain is f***ing invalid

 

Nor does it mean your own pain is equally requisite of attention. Would it be better to invalidate the pains of people suffering worse? That's precisely what happens in America, and by trivializing their pain as "playing the race card" you are actively contributing to the problem and being a dick to other people. 

[VCR_CAT]

It really isn't. Killing two people is worse than killing one, and if we can recognize that killing a person is bad, it's a dangerous path not to be able to recognize that killing two people is worse.

 

Actually, going to step in here by saying "Well, you're not right." But you're not right, either.

 

The model you're going by is called "Utilitarianism". It's an ethical model where the primary drive is to focus on what gives the most benefit in terms of happiness, or in other situations, what causes the least harm. Your example brought to mind the thought experiment of the people tied to the tracks with a train approaching, and you can switch the tracks so that only 2 people die, or leave the switch alone and let 5 people die. The idea of the thought experiment is to find the "right answer", and in my Reasoning class we spent a long time debating as to what would actually be the "right" answer, and of course the reasoning of "2 people dying isn't as bad as 5 people dying" was one of the first to come into play.

 

Ethics aren't that simple, and Utilitarianism isn't always the best model. In fact, it's been used to justify some incredibly atrocious acts and the reasons for those acts were, technically, logically sound; but that didn't mean those acts weren't evil.

 

But, in other models such as the Virtue Model (it's pretty much what you think it is) and Deontology, killing 2 people is just bad as killing 1 person, because you're still killing.

 

And, again, it's not that simple, because there are many factors that come into play as to whom you're killing, why, and what choice you have in the matter. In many cases, utilitarianism can be useful where there is no right answer and the best you can do is minimize casualties; but in many cases it can also cause a lot of harm by dehumanizing the people involved in situations and justify some very awful actions because the reasoning "benefited the most people".

 

So no, you're not wrong, because you are using a legitimate logical model for ethics, but you're not right either. Ethics aren't that simple, and absolute statements like "Killing two people is worse than killing one" are statements you should always avoid (ba-dum-tsshhhhh)

 

 

 

OT: I feel like I should also point out that to say something such as "All white people are privileged/in a position of power" is, kinda, in and of itself racist. It's a generalization of billions of people by assuming they're all in such a position, and as a reason to justify being a dick towards people (which, in my view, there are little to no justifications for such a thing), is not particularly good. Even if the person actually is as privileged as they need to be justify being a dick towards them in one's eyes, that still doesn't justify it to me; they're still being racist.

 

So, to add to what Crab is saying in his post, just don't be a dick to people. Seriously, just don't. be. a. dick.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

There's a huge difference between recognizing one thing is worse than another, and saying that we shouldn't focus on how bad something is because it's not as bad.

I already said I recognized that it's worse for black people than white people.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

 

There's a huge difference between recognizing one thing is worse than another, and saying that we shouldn't focus on how bad something is because it's not as bad.

 

There're people in need of attention and people in dire need of attention, I'm for both receiving the attention they need. 

 

Actually, going to step in here by saying "Well, you're not right." But you're not right, either.

 

So I'm neither right nor right. Gotcha. 

 

Ethics aren't that simple, and Utilitarianism isn't always the best model. In fact, it's been used to justify some incredibly atrocious acts and the reasons for those acts were, technically, logically sound; but that didn't mean those acts weren't evil.

 

Utilitarianism is not a set model, as the hedonic calculus by which it functions is calibrated arbitrarily based on personal deontology. 

 

So, to add to what Crab is saying in his post, just don't be a dick to people. Seriously, just don't. be. a. dick.

 

This is an avoidable absolute statement, as situations could arise in which you're forced to be a dick, in addition to "being a dick" being pretty subjective in that the phrase is figurative and whatnot. 

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

In my opinion, if you start focusing on only what is worse, then the other not as bad things will become worse. I think the correct path is to slowly work on all the problems a little at a time, rather than trying to fix the worse problem and letting the not as bad problems get worse.

[VCR_CAT]

This is an avoidable absolute statement, as situations could arise in which you're forced to be a dick, in addition to "being a dick" being pretty subjective in that the phrase is figurative and whatnot. 

 

No seriously, a singular phallus lacks the organs and biological functions to be a sustainable human being on its own. Really, don't be a dick. You'll die.