4 ms·

> No, its not. Yes, it is. This is the crux of what most white Americans don't get about race in America. Anti-black racism originated from a thesis of racial

> No, its not. Yes, it is. This is the crux of what most white Americans don't get about race in America. Anti-black racism originated from a thesis of racial inferiority. The anti-white "racism" the Breitbart article cites clearly doesn't have a founding thesis that "white people are inherently inferior". It's actually just a critique of the myriad ways white 'culture' perpetuates anti-black (and anti anything but straight white male) sentiments and beliefs. Certainly, I don't think pithy tweets are the best way to advance these critiques, but they're not being written for the benefit of cerebral tech bros like us, they're being written to offer some relief and solidarity for others whose lives are materially affected by white bullshit.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> Yes, it is. No, its not. (Isn't this fun?) > This is the crux of what most white Americans don't get about race in America. Having spent much of my childhood being called a "nigger" by White Americans (and some, though less, being called a "zebra" or "oreo" by Black Americans), I really don't need any lectures from anyone about what "most White Americans" don't get about race in America. And while there are certainly many things that many (or even most) White Americans don't get about race in America, what some (but, IME and AFAICT more generally, not most) Black Americans (and, even more paternalistic white-knighting White Americans) don't get is that negative racial stereotyping both is and promotes racism no matter the race of the proponent of the stereotype or the race targeted by the stereotype. EDIT: I wanted to add a comment on this: > Certainly, I don't think pithy tweets are the best way to advance these critiques, but they're not being written for the benefit of cerebral tech bros like us, they're being written to offer some relief and solidarity for others whose lives are materially affected by white bullshit. The fact that a racist utterance provides some relief to an audience that has had negative experiences doesn't make it any less racist. Heck, one of the main uses of anti-black racism by white economic and political elites in the US has been to offer some relief and (illusion of) solidarity to poorer white Americans suffering from adverse conditions by directing the blame at blacks in general.
- MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
  I apologize. I see that I've made wrong assumptions here. You're right, racial stereotyping of any kind is bad; I was wrong to argue otherwise. I got on my paternalistic white-knighting horse because I made the (racist?) assumption that you were white, and I'm inclined to argue against other white people accusing others of racism. I guess it comes from my own toxic white guilt. But is it a completely wrongheaded impulse, to try to police other white people who are trying to argue that American racism goes equally both ways? That's what the Breitbart article is implying, that Jones was being just as toxic as Milo, isn't it? My argument that anti-white racism is definitionally impossible may be overly radical, but don't you have to somewhere take account of the fact that anti-white racism doesn't have nearly the same material impact on it's targets and isn't really a structural part of political and economic systems in America?
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    No, what the article is implying is that Twitter doesn't actually follow their stated principle of banning people who incite harassment. Instead, Twitter just uses that as a cheap excuse to ban people they don't like while ignoring it when people they do like engage in the same behavior. I.e., twitter isn't against harassment, they are just against Milo and vague hints of harassment are a convenient excuse.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > But is it a completely wrongheaded impulse, to try to police other white people who are trying to argue that American racism goes equally both ways? It is not wrongheaded to attempt to counter arguments that the harms from being targeted by racism [0] in America are equally distributed among racial groups, I would agree. > My argument that anti-white racism is definitionally impossible may be overly radical, but don't you have to somewhere take account of the fact that anti-white racism doesn't have nearly the same material impact on it's targets and isn't really a structural part of political and economic systems in America? Sure, but I think that there is both a problem with any concept of "racism" that goes so far as to say it is not racism (as I discuss more in my response to your post discussing your use of such a definition) and, more tactically, that simply calling anti-white racism "not racism" does more to obscure, rather than effectively addresses, why and how there are significant differences, in the present circumstances that exist in the US, in the impacts of anti-white vs. anti-black racism (which I think you identify quite well.) [0] I was going to say "harms from racism", but given that there are many ways in which (among other non-blacks) poor whites are harmed by anti-black racism manipulated by elites, the harms from racism are probably at least more equally distributed than the direct harms from being targeted by racism are, and the latter is, really, I think the issue of concern here.
adekok 10y ago
> This is the crux of what most white Americans don't get about race in America. The dictionary definition of racism would be the one most people agree with. Which then means that black people making anti-white statements are being racist. The alternative is an Orwellian dystopia in which the meaning of words depends on who says them. > ... they're being written to offer some relief and solidarity for others whose lives are materially affected by white bullshit. Which is itself a racist comment according to the dictionary definition. Engaging in racism in order to stop racism means that you're no better than the racists you oppose. I'm firmly of the belief that the ends don't justify the means. The means help determine the end. To that end, we all should oppose racism. All racism. And not just oppose racism by people we don't like, and support racism by people we like.
breischl 10y ago
Seems like you two are using different definitions of "racism". There seem to be two floating around. 1. "Prejudice on the basis of race or color." Reference: pretty much any dictionary. 2. "Oppression based on racial hierarchy." Harder to find a reference, but here's one: http://www.diversityinc.com/ask-the-white-guy/does-playing-the-race-card-make-you-racist/ http://www.diversityinc.com/ask-the-white-guy/does-playing-t... Note that under definition #1 black people can be racist against white people. Under definition #2 that's not possible, because black people are (or at the very least historically have been) oppressed. I have seen #2 used to make categorical statements like "black people can't be racist." Which may not be an Orwellian dystopia as @adekok said in a sibling comment, but it is inflammatory to people using definition #1.
- MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
  I appreciate you clarifying this distinction. I was aware that I was using a non-normative definition that comes from radical leftist intellectual discourse, and I should have been more clear that I was presenting an alternative understanding of the term. I guess #2 is more readily understood in mainstream discourse under the term "structural racism".
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > I was aware that I was using a non-normative definition that comes from radical leftist intellectual discourse The problem with this definition is that it conflates racism -- which is problematic in any case -- with an external condition which interacts with racism and makes it more damaging (and, worse, it treats that external condition -- which in reality is a continuously-valued property -- as binary.) By doing so it obstructs discussion of the continuum of problems associated with racism and serves to normalize some racism (which may be less harmful racism in the conditions in which it originates, but as those conditions change for what would otherwise be the better, becomes more harmful without the actual content of the racism changing.) It also has the additional unfortunate side effect that people more distantly following the theorists adopting such a radical definition pick up the conclusion "Black people can't be racist" and lose the context of the understanding of the conditions justifying, in the particular definition the theorists are applying, why negative racial stereotyping of whites by blacks isn't racism, and just taking it as a categorical privilege of blacks (regardless of their position and privilege in a particular milieu) to engage in racial stereotyping and discrimination, because "black people can't be racist".

dragonwriter 10y ago

> Yes, it is. No, its not. (Isn't this fun?) > This is the crux of what most white Americans don't get about race in America. Having spent much of my childhood being called a "nigger" by White Americans (and some, though less, being called a "zebra" or "oreo" by Black Americans), I really don't need any lectures from anyone about what "most White Americans" don't get about race in America. And while there are certainly many things that many (or even most) White Americans don't get about race in America, what some (but, IME and AFAICT more generally, not most) Black Americans (and, even more paternalistic white-knighting White Americans) don't get is that negative racial stereotyping both is and promotes racism no matter the race of the proponent of the stereotype or the race targeted by the stereotype. EDIT: I wanted to add a comment on this: > Certainly, I don't think pithy tweets are the best way to advance these critiques, but they're not being written for the benefit of cerebral tech bros like us, they're being written to offer some relief and solidarity for others whose lives are materially affected by white bullshit. The fact that a racist utterance provides some relief to an audience that has had negative experiences doesn't make it any less racist. Heck, one of the main uses of anti-black racism by white economic and political elites in the US has been to offer some relief and (illusion of) solidarity to poorer white Americans suffering from adverse conditions by directing the blame at blacks in general.

MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
I apologize. I see that I've made wrong assumptions here. You're right, racial stereotyping of any kind is bad; I was wrong to argue otherwise. I got on my paternalistic white-knighting horse because I made the (racist?) assumption that you were white, and I'm inclined to argue against other white people accusing others of racism. I guess it comes from my own toxic white guilt. But is it a completely wrongheaded impulse, to try to police other white people who are trying to argue that American racism goes equally both ways? That's what the Breitbart article is implying, that Jones was being just as toxic as Milo, isn't it? My argument that anti-white racism is definitionally impossible may be overly radical, but don't you have to somewhere take account of the fact that anti-white racism doesn't have nearly the same material impact on it's targets and isn't really a structural part of political and economic systems in America?
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  No, what the article is implying is that Twitter doesn't actually follow their stated principle of banning people who incite harassment. Instead, Twitter just uses that as a cheap excuse to ban people they don't like while ignoring it when people they do like engage in the same behavior. I.e., twitter isn't against harassment, they are just against Milo and vague hints of harassment are a convenient excuse.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > But is it a completely wrongheaded impulse, to try to police other white people who are trying to argue that American racism goes equally both ways? It is not wrongheaded to attempt to counter arguments that the harms from being targeted by racism [0] in America are equally distributed among racial groups, I would agree. > My argument that anti-white racism is definitionally impossible may be overly radical, but don't you have to somewhere take account of the fact that anti-white racism doesn't have nearly the same material impact on it's targets and isn't really a structural part of political and economic systems in America? Sure, but I think that there is both a problem with any concept of "racism" that goes so far as to say it is not racism (as I discuss more in my response to your post discussing your use of such a definition) and, more tactically, that simply calling anti-white racism "not racism" does more to obscure, rather than effectively addresses, why and how there are significant differences, in the present circumstances that exist in the US, in the impacts of anti-white vs. anti-black racism (which I think you identify quite well.) [0] I was going to say "harms from racism", but given that there are many ways in which (among other non-blacks) poor whites are harmed by anti-black racism manipulated by elites, the harms from racism are probably at least more equally distributed than the direct harms from being targeted by racism are, and the latter is, really, I think the issue of concern here.

adekok 10y ago

> This is the crux of what most white Americans don't get about race in America. The dictionary definition of racism would be the one most people agree with. Which then means that black people making anti-white statements are being racist. The alternative is an Orwellian dystopia in which the meaning of words depends on who says them. > ... they're being written to offer some relief and solidarity for others whose lives are materially affected by white bullshit. Which is itself a racist comment according to the dictionary definition. Engaging in racism in order to stop racism means that you're no better than the racists you oppose. I'm firmly of the belief that the ends don't justify the means. The means help determine the end. To that end, we all should oppose racism. All racism. And not just oppose racism by people we don't like, and support racism by people we like.

breischl 10y ago

Seems like you two are using different definitions of "racism". There seem to be two floating around. 1. "Prejudice on the basis of race or color." Reference: pretty much any dictionary. 2. "Oppression based on racial hierarchy." Harder to find a reference, but here's one: http://www.diversityinc.com/ask-the-white-guy/does-playing-the-race-card-make-you-racist/ http://www.diversityinc.com/ask-the-white-guy/does-playing-t... Note that under definition #1 black people can be racist against white people. Under definition #2 that's not possible, because black people are (or at the very least historically have been) oppressed. I have seen #2 used to make categorical statements like "black people can't be racist." Which may not be an Orwellian dystopia as @adekok said in a sibling comment, but it is inflammatory to people using definition #1.

MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
I appreciate you clarifying this distinction. I was aware that I was using a non-normative definition that comes from radical leftist intellectual discourse, and I should have been more clear that I was presenting an alternative understanding of the term. I guess #2 is more readily understood in mainstream discourse under the term "structural racism".
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > I was aware that I was using a non-normative definition that comes from radical leftist intellectual discourse The problem with this definition is that it conflates racism -- which is problematic in any case -- with an external condition which interacts with racism and makes it more damaging (and, worse, it treats that external condition -- which in reality is a continuously-valued property -- as binary.) By doing so it obstructs discussion of the continuum of problems associated with racism and serves to normalize some racism (which may be less harmful racism in the conditions in which it originates, but as those conditions change for what would otherwise be the better, becomes more harmful without the actual content of the racism changing.) It also has the additional unfortunate side effect that people more distantly following the theorists adopting such a radical definition pick up the conclusion "Black people can't be racist" and lose the context of the understanding of the conditions justifying, in the particular definition the theorists are applying, why negative racial stereotyping of whites by blacks isn't racism, and just taking it as a categorical privilege of blacks (regardless of their position and privilege in a particular milieu) to engage in racial stereotyping and discrimination, because "black people can't be racist".