• be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.socialOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    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.

    • isthereany
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

      • be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.socialOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • isthereany
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          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.