Candi Comics Forums

Warrl wrote:

Starline wrote:When people claim that reverse racism is a thing, all that does it downplays the actual consequences of the real thing. It makes it seem like "oh everyone experiences racism/sexism" so "it's not a big deal" when it happens.

Perhaps some people are using that technique to try to say that racism isn't a big deal.

I say it happens in ALL directions and IS a big deal in ALL directions. And that pretending it doesn't happen in certain directions is downplaying it.

I respectfully disagree. This assumes the metaphorical playing field is even and it's just not. Treating it as such is disservice to people who are effected negatively by the established institutions of power.

Starline wrote:

Warrl wrote:

Starline wrote:When people claim that reverse racism is a thing, all that does it downplays the actual consequences of the real thing. It makes it seem like "oh everyone experiences racism/sexism" so "it's not a big deal" when it happens.

Perhaps some people are using that technique to try to say that racism isn't a big deal.

I say it happens in ALL directions and IS a big deal in ALL directions. And that pretending it doesn't happen in certain directions is downplaying it.

I respectfully disagree. This assumes the metaphorical playing field is even and it's just not. Treating it as such is disservice to people who are effected negatively by the established institutions of power.

Which is why it's important to differentiate between just racism and systemic/institutionalized racism. One can happen against those who are in a power position in the culture, one can't in any real way. Racism on its own is not systemic/institutionalized racism.

As a white person who attended a traditionally black college (Tennessee State University) I can absolutely state that racism against white people exists. The Institutional Power part of the equation absolutely applied. So many examples I could list:
-Because I am white, I could not get a paid fellowship in a research project, although any black student with my grades could and did. (What do you suppose would be the result if this happened to a black student at a mostly white college?)
-I experienced many overt instances of hostility from administration, including one person who did all she could to delay/prevent my entering the college.

I don't want to go on, because there were just too many instances where I experienced distressing racism by anyone's definition.

IT DOES TOO EXIST.

No it doesn't. At all. Just stop. You experienced prejudice. Not fucking racism. Just shut the fuck up.

Let's see... racism, we are told, in addition to the common usage which does not include any reference to power structures, also has a technical definition which does have that component.

And in spite of the fact that:

* LadyObvious started using this alleged technical definition in a forum where the common usage should have been expected
* LadyObvious did not point out she was using the technical definition
* LadyObvious did not offer any reason to suspect that she would be using a techical definition, such as any claim of relevant qualifications
* There is not a general consensus that those allegedly qualified in the field have a greater understanding than the general population
* There is not a general consensus that those allegedly qualified in the field are doing anything other than making problems WORSE...

we are just supposed to accept that we are wrong, everyone should ALWAYS expect the technical definition and ALWAYS use it, and that actions which match EVERY part of BOTH the common definition and the alleged technical definition CANNOT be racism... because of... get this...

... race.

This is pretty much WHY some people think the so-called "experts" are making the problem worse.

(That and the conviction that the only way to fight against some people's practice of dividing people into categories and treating the categories differently is by demanding that everyone divide people into categories and treat the categories differently...)

It's gross that the only reason we have to have this argument is because white people culture needs to be equal or superior in all things, including how put-upon we are in white people society. That the culture is so engrained in every facet of white people society that we don't even realize how incredibly myopic it is; and the effort required to break out of that pristine bubble is becoming massive. More to the point, that bubble just gets bigger as time passes and we white people continue to believe our rhetoric in that "we've solved racism forever lol" meanwhile the systemic if not completely ingrained racism in our society continues unabated and we white people are left wondering why that's happening, literally dumbfounded at the idea.

LadyObvious23 wrote:No it doesn't. At all. Just stop. You experienced prejudice. Not fucking racism. Just shut the fuck up.

Prejudice based on race is racism. Whether you believe that or not isn't really a factor because that is what racism means. Telling someone to 'shut the fuck up' because you don't actually have an argument that counteracts the facts they've given is a sign of someone who is in the wrong.

Tuitsuro wrote:It's gross that the only reason we have to have this argument is because white people culture needs to be equal or superior in all things, including how put-upon we are in white people society. That the culture is so engrained in every facet of white people society that we don't even realize how incredibly myopic it is; and the effort required to break out of that pristine bubble is becoming massive. More to the point, that bubble just gets bigger as time passes and we white people continue to believe our rhetoric in that "we've solved racism forever lol" meanwhile the systemic if not completely ingrained racism in our society continues unabated and we white people are left wondering why that's happening, literally dumbfounded at the idea.

Incorrect. We have to have this argument because people are using the incorrect definition of a word to segregate each other. 'This word only applies to us, not them.' That's a form of segregation that anyone actually looking for true equality wouldn't be forcing down everyone else's throats. Racism can occur to everyone because it is prejudice based on race. Systemic racism is different, and that is what people sometimes mean when they say racism. That's what this conversation is about- Systemic racism. It has a term already, so claiming that the word racism on its own means systemic racism in all situations and therefore cannot be applied to a certain race is in itself a form of segregated thinking.

It might surprise you to know that I acknowledge all forms of privilege I experience, and I fight tooth and nail for equality for everyone regardless of race, gender, orientation, or what-have-you. But that's the difference here- I fight for equality. Claiming that racism (the non-systemic kind) can only occur against certain races is a form of inequality and is factually incorrect, so I fight against that idea as much as I fight against the huge number of societal constructs that are negative to other people. There is such a thing as going too far in the other direction. There are radical feminists that claim women should be superior to men in society, that men should be castrated and all other sorts of nonsense. There are extremist racist black people that have no problem claiming openly that the world would be better off with white people all being dead. These are people who fight and argue for inequality just like the people in white hoods do for their form of inequality. Both sides I consider to be equal obstructionists to equality. There is a balancing point where every person is equal, and that's what we should be aiming for. Anything more or less isn't good enough.

Yeah no. You know nothing about racism. Just stop trying. -____-

There needs to be a SCP article about this memetic phenomena, seriously. Keter class.

Campor wrote:It might surprise you to know that I acknowledge all forms of privilege I experience, and I fight tooth and nail for equality for everyone regardless of race, gender, orientation, or what-have-you. But that's the difference here- I fight for equality.

No, it doesn't surprise me in the slightest Campor. I've heard it all before. I hear it a lot now, hell I believed that when I was younger. I know there's no convincing you otherwise, because there's no argument in Elvish, Entish or the tongues of Man which is somehow going to break through that bubble. No, sir, at the end of the day you have to want to break through that crap yourself, there's no one whose going to 'want it' for you. And if you don't want it, then you're in vast company. Hence the problem; but then, it's not your problem... right?

I just wanted to say that just because one is white and/or male doesn't mean one is in a position of power. It is entirely possible for a person who is white and/or male to catch flak for what others of his category are doing or have done historically.

Just stop. You're digging a giant hole for yourself. Don't. -___-

The bubble here is the one that envelops the people who believe that they're better than others because they put other races or genders above another. Luckily out in the real world this opinion actually isn't that common- People who I've met at marches and rallies are people who are fighting for true equality. They don't claim anything like what you guys are, pretending that you're arguing for equality by claiming that racism doesn't exist for one race of people, or that sexism doesn't exist for an entire gender. The people who make the greatest change aren't the ones claiming that special privileges for themselves is the path to equality, they're the ones fighting to ensure no race or gender has privileges over any other. They want the same rights, the same privileges and the same worth to apply to all people regardless of skin colour, gender and orientation. Claiming that a basic form of prejudice doesn't apply to someone based on their skin colour or gender is simply wrong from both a moral and factual standpoint.

If you don't realize that, it might well just be a symptom of the echo chamber you've been buried in.

You've been provided with evidence that your claim is wrong. I'm starting to suspect that you're trolling. -_-

Starline wrote:
Oh no no nono... this is incorrect. So much so.

::sigh::

Racism and Sexism are "Prejudice + Institutional Power". The institutional power part is a BIG factor in the definition.

Everyone experiences prejudices that are unfair and suck, but racism and sexism aren't about individual people... it's more about society as a whole and who generally benefits from those institutions.

I know most of you all mean well when you're talking about stuff like this, but there's a lot of miscommunication that's happening because people aren't aware of the definitions of things. (And not like just the basic dictionary definitions... that doesn't explain the entire context of things.)

Here's a good video about the topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eTWZ80z9EE (Please please watch this.)

Actually the entire Decoded series is worth a watch: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... SKsusjn0Z6

Cool video, I'll have to look at the rest of the series.

So, following some guy's example, if a white person gets beat up by a group of African American people because s/he's white, and says "I was a victim of racism," I (if it's relevant: mixed race, look Mexican) can say to her/him "No you're not a victim of racism. Your experience was bad, but being beaten up because of your race is not racism. That's about institutions, not individuals."

I still think, though, that the people involved would be racists even if the event was not racism (or are they just prejudiced, not racist?). Also, what if he was beaten up by a powerful gang because of his race? Does that make it racism?

You know what, even after having seen the video and read a little about it (I liked these articles on the everyday feminism site: http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/01/rev ... ant-exist/ http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/03/dic ... on-racism/) I'm still not sold. I'll have to read more about this (and maybe even think a little ).

One problem I have is that it feels like denying victims their victimhood -- "Oh, what happened was bad, but it wasn't as bad as all that". (Of course a broad definition of racism like the dictionary has could be argued to dilute the victimhood of people oppressed by institutional racism, which is what this definition is trying to protect.) It also reminds me of when a man couldn't rape his wife, because by definition a man couldn't rape his wife. Here we have the definition of racism developing into something that says, by definition, that white people can't experience it.

Maybe my doubts will wear off. It will be interesting to see if this new definition of racism thrives in the broader culture.

It feels disingenuous and patronizing to ::sigh:: and then lay this out like it's already been decided by some supreme council somewhere. Maybe it's because I'm from a pretty uneducated non-college background, but this is the first time I've seen something like this, and I bet that's true for a lot of folks. Maybe I'm too sensitive: I still remember someone telling me years ago I didn't know what tea was because I thought it came from teabags. By definition, apparently, correct tea is not made with teabags.

One last thing, as long as I'm going on: it's interesting that "...ism" is being used to require involvement of institutional power.

I think this is a really useful distinction, but I can see why it's confusing to folks who first see it (it confused me, at least).

For one thing, I don't think that's really been part of English before. I think "...ism" has meant before something more like a system or way of thinking: for example Buddhism, Marxism, Anarchism, Post Modernism, Deconstructionism, Collectivism, Sufism are all isms, and exist in the United States, but a lot of them don't involve institutional power (in the US at least).

Antisemitism is still a useful concept in situations where it is not backed by institutional power.