I’ve heard it plenty of times from black people themselves. That’s what happens when you say things like “sociological definition” and “if you define the word correctly.” Racism already exists as a word and has a definition. You can add another definition in a certain context and so on but it doesn’t change the most widely accepted and long standing definition of a word.
White people are widely subjected to racism from black people. That’s a fact and is easily supported by any number of violent attacks against them where the perpetrator outright states it was because the victim was white that they attacked them.
Seems like you’re working really hard to try to basically claim “black people can’t be racist” while also stating that’s a silly concept, no one takes it seriously, even if they do it’s rare, and besides… it’s also true. Huh?
This seems to be a sore point but it’s still reality that black people can be racist, have been racist, and will be racist.
Black people can be bigots, and can can be racially prejudiced. Only the dominant group can be racist.
So you can use that to get upset as if I or anyone else were saying black people can’t be bigots, or you can recognize that you are choosing to use two words as if they are synonyms when they are not.
Edit: Full disclosure, I made a shitload of edits to the original comment, which may or may not have overlapped with your reply.
That’s factually untrue. You’re merely attempting to ignore the primary definition of racism and racist. Just because they added a new secondary definition to the word doesn’t negate the long standing and most widely used definition.
It’s ok. Black people can be racist with no concern for anything beyond individual actions or any larger context. That’s how the word is defined and has been defined for over a century. You should accept that. Your statement might be true, in America for example, and if used in a specific context, and if you want to use the much lesser known and very new secondary definition of the word.
You’re merely attempting to ignore the primary definition of racism and racist. Just because they added a new secondary definition to the word doesn’t negate the long standing and most widely used definition.
These are harmful concepts that only further entrench white supremacy as people living in fear won’t be open to higher minded insight.
And if I continue to insist you are wrong, and that you are choosing a different than accepted scholarly definition, I guess I’m pushing you to white supremacy. Not much of a push for some folks, damn.
Ah well, just going to refer you back to OP then I guess.
You can insist I’m wrong all you want but the fact is that black people can be racist. Full stop. This isn’t a discussion occurring in a scholastic environment. We’re on social media talking about chuds. Let’s stick with the century old definition of racism that everyone understands not the few years old scholarly definition.
That’s the whole crux of the problem. You can’t add a new definition to a word, constrain it to a specific context, and then make a broad statement in public like “black people can’t be racist” then when people get upset about it say “Hah! Look, I made a new definition and in this other context what I said is right!” The result of making that statement is harmful. It’s harmful to black people who begin to think they can physically attack, insult, and otherwise be racist towards white people but it’s not true because an academic told them they can’t be racist. It’s also harmful to white people if a black person stabs them and says “I want to kill all white people” and they decry increasing or ongoing racist attacks against white people by black people only to be met with “but black people can’t be racist.”
This shouldn’t be difficult to understand especially if someone claims to be such an academic that they can use a secondary, few years old, alternative definition to a word that has existed for over a century and is already widely used in that context within society. When “academics” do this and try to dismiss the obvious truth of “black people CAN be racist” it merely supports the idea that they’re intentionally trying to bury black racism. Thus like I said, it further entrenches white supremacy. No one who has been attacked by a black person because of their race is going to want to engage in a discussion with someone who keeps telling them black people can’t be racist because there is this new definition.
You’ve still essentially refused to admit that the primary definition of racism is not the one you are using.
It’s harmful to black people who begin to think they can physically attack, insult, and otherwise be racist towards white people but it’s not true because an academic told them they can’t be racist. It’s also harmful to white people if a black person stabs them and says “I want to kill all white people” and they decry increasing or ongoing racist attacks against white people by black people only to be met with “but black people can’t be racist.”
You think drawing this distinction about the word “racist” is going to create “black people who begin to think they can physically attack, insult, and otherwise be racist towards white people?” Because of this relatively minor difference in terminology? You have imagined quite a lot based on this delineation between the word “racist” and the word “bigot” I must say.
I’m gonna let someone else enjoy whatever remains of this discussion with you. I’m not surprised to find what lurks behind the mask, nor interested to continue pretending it’s anything else.
The difference is not “relatively minor” when one context implies black people can’t be racist and the other implies they don’t have the collective power, in America, to be systemically racist on a national level.
It is factually true that black people have attacked and insulted white people, and other races, and when confronted responded with “black people can’t be racist.” That is happening and it is mentioned often by people.
There is just one example but they’re not hard to find. It is a wide spread thing now that black people are openly racist towards white people and use “black people can’t be racist” as a shield for their behavior.
There was another example on Reddit recently from a teacher who said a black student insulted a white student on the basis of race, the teacher told them that was racist, and the student said “black people can’t be racist.” The student continued to argue with them so they sent the student to the principals office and the black principal agreed with the student and reprimanded the teacher for being racist.
This is another thing the whole “black people can’t be racist” argument misses. Black people DO have systemic power in certain areas. There are states, counties, and cities with majority black government, police, schools, and so on. Telling a white student in that kind of environment that they can’t experience racism due to structural power at a national level is also wrong and those black students in an environment where black people do have control over “systemic” or “structural” elements that they can’t be racist is also wrong.
They can be racist using the common definition that does not have the context of power imbalance in the sociological definition. Just like a lay person using theory in a way that would be a hypothesis in a scientific context.
Acting like the sociological definition is the only definition comes across as arrogant when you leave out the context.
And yet I all but guarantee that anyone who has ever said “black people can’t be racist” did not actually mean “black people cannot be discriminatory, racially prejudiced bigots.” (I’ll allow for corner cases where people are idiots - because that happens with anything.)
Anyone at all can plainly see that nothing stops black people from being those things.
So the singular reason to get upset when someone says “black people can’t be racist” is a failure to recognize (and based on this discussion I’m pretty sure it’s a choice for many) the scholarly definition.
No, a black person can be racist. They cannot meet the sociological definition of racist that includes additional context of the power imbalance of western culture.
Leaving out the context means the statement is meaningless. Someone from Saudi Arabia cannot be racist using the sociolocigal definition while in the US, but can in Saudi Arabia doing the exact same thing because of the context. They are still being racist in both situations because the sociological definition did not replace the common definition that does not include that context.
You are like a guy from the US telling someone from the UK that chips can only mean deep fried thinly sliced potatoes and that potatoes cut in strips can only be called fries.
I’ve heard it plenty of times from black people themselves. That’s what happens when you say things like “sociological definition” and “if you define the word correctly.” Racism already exists as a word and has a definition. You can add another definition in a certain context and so on but it doesn’t change the most widely accepted and long standing definition of a word.
White people are widely subjected to racism from black people. That’s a fact and is easily supported by any number of violent attacks against them where the perpetrator outright states it was because the victim was white that they attacked them.
Seems like you’re working really hard to try to basically claim “black people can’t be racist” while also stating that’s a silly concept, no one takes it seriously, even if they do it’s rare, and besides… it’s also true. Huh?
This seems to be a sore point but it’s still reality that black people can be racist, have been racist, and will be racist.
Black people can be bigots, and can can be racially prejudiced. Only the dominant group can be racist.
So you can use that to get upset as if I or anyone else were saying black people can’t be bigots, or you can recognize that you are choosing to use two words as if they are synonyms when they are not.
Edit: Full disclosure, I made a shitload of edits to the original comment, which may or may not have overlapped with your reply.
That’s factually untrue. You’re merely attempting to ignore the primary definition of racism and racist. Just because they added a new secondary definition to the word doesn’t negate the long standing and most widely used definition.
It’s ok. Black people can be racist with no concern for anything beyond individual actions or any larger context. That’s how the word is defined and has been defined for over a century. You should accept that. Your statement might be true, in America for example, and if used in a specific context, and if you want to use the much lesser known and very new secondary definition of the word.
And if I continue to insist you are wrong, and that you are choosing a different than accepted scholarly definition, I guess I’m pushing you to white supremacy. Not much of a push for some folks, damn.
Ah well, just going to refer you back to OP then I guess.
You can insist I’m wrong all you want but the fact is that black people can be racist. Full stop. This isn’t a discussion occurring in a scholastic environment. We’re on social media talking about chuds. Let’s stick with the century old definition of racism that everyone understands not the few years old scholarly definition.
That’s the whole crux of the problem. You can’t add a new definition to a word, constrain it to a specific context, and then make a broad statement in public like “black people can’t be racist” then when people get upset about it say “Hah! Look, I made a new definition and in this other context what I said is right!” The result of making that statement is harmful. It’s harmful to black people who begin to think they can physically attack, insult, and otherwise be racist towards white people but it’s not true because an academic told them they can’t be racist. It’s also harmful to white people if a black person stabs them and says “I want to kill all white people” and they decry increasing or ongoing racist attacks against white people by black people only to be met with “but black people can’t be racist.”
This shouldn’t be difficult to understand especially if someone claims to be such an academic that they can use a secondary, few years old, alternative definition to a word that has existed for over a century and is already widely used in that context within society. When “academics” do this and try to dismiss the obvious truth of “black people CAN be racist” it merely supports the idea that they’re intentionally trying to bury black racism. Thus like I said, it further entrenches white supremacy. No one who has been attacked by a black person because of their race is going to want to engage in a discussion with someone who keeps telling them black people can’t be racist because there is this new definition.
You’ve still essentially refused to admit that the primary definition of racism is not the one you are using.
You think drawing this distinction about the word “racist” is going to create “black people who begin to think they can physically attack, insult, and otherwise be racist towards white people?” Because of this relatively minor difference in terminology? You have imagined quite a lot based on this delineation between the word “racist” and the word “bigot” I must say.
I’m gonna let someone else enjoy whatever remains of this discussion with you. I’m not surprised to find what lurks behind the mask, nor interested to continue pretending it’s anything else.
The difference is not “relatively minor” when one context implies black people can’t be racist and the other implies they don’t have the collective power, in America, to be systemically racist on a national level.
It is factually true that black people have attacked and insulted white people, and other races, and when confronted responded with “black people can’t be racist.” That is happening and it is mentioned often by people.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Teachers/comments/usngi9/how_to_deal_with_racist_minority_students/
There is just one example but they’re not hard to find. It is a wide spread thing now that black people are openly racist towards white people and use “black people can’t be racist” as a shield for their behavior.
There was another example on Reddit recently from a teacher who said a black student insulted a white student on the basis of race, the teacher told them that was racist, and the student said “black people can’t be racist.” The student continued to argue with them so they sent the student to the principals office and the black principal agreed with the student and reprimanded the teacher for being racist.
This is another thing the whole “black people can’t be racist” argument misses. Black people DO have systemic power in certain areas. There are states, counties, and cities with majority black government, police, schools, and so on. Telling a white student in that kind of environment that they can’t experience racism due to structural power at a national level is also wrong and those black students in an environment where black people do have control over “systemic” or “structural” elements that they can’t be racist is also wrong.
Yours is a bad faith bullshit argument if I’ve ever seen one.
You are welcome to your opinion.
They can be racist using the common definition that does not have the context of power imbalance in the sociological definition. Just like a lay person using theory in a way that would be a hypothesis in a scientific context.
Acting like the sociological definition is the only definition comes across as arrogant when you leave out the context.
And yet I all but guarantee that anyone who has ever said “black people can’t be racist” did not actually mean “black people cannot be discriminatory, racially prejudiced bigots.” (I’ll allow for corner cases where people are idiots - because that happens with anything.)
Anyone at all can plainly see that nothing stops black people from being those things.
So the singular reason to get upset when someone says “black people can’t be racist” is a failure to recognize (and based on this discussion I’m pretty sure it’s a choice for many) the scholarly definition.
No, a black person can be racist. They cannot meet the sociological definition of racist that includes additional context of the power imbalance of western culture.
Leaving out the context means the statement is meaningless. Someone from Saudi Arabia cannot be racist using the sociolocigal definition while in the US, but can in Saudi Arabia doing the exact same thing because of the context. They are still being racist in both situations because the sociological definition did not replace the common definition that does not include that context.
They are being bigoted racially prejudiced douchebags in both cases, but only racist in one. Not that hard.
You are like a guy from the US telling someone from the UK that chips can only mean deep fried thinly sliced potatoes and that potatoes cut in strips can only be called fries.