3 ms·

Leaving everything else aside, > None the things mentioned ("get off of welfare", "handout", "boy", "change his behavior") is necessarily racism. All of those

by zrail 8y ago

Leaving everything else aside, > None the things mentioned ("get off of welfare", "handout", "boy", "change his behavior") is necessarily racism. All of those are explicitly racist when addressing people of color.

educationdata 8y ago
I think you are the racist to make this kind of comment. Those words can be used on anybody. When you say racism is the only explanation to tell a Black person to "get off of welfare", you are the racist. Only a racist can think this way.
- zrail 8y ago
  You are wrong. Calling out racism is not being racist. "Reverse racism" is not a thing.
  - creaghpatr 8y ago
    >“Reverse racism” is not a thing. You overplayed your hand here.
  - cabaalis 8y ago
    I think you are almost correct. A victim of racism or an advocate for a victim of racism is not being racist for calling out the racism. However, a person blaming racism without evidence and where it does not exist is indeed engaging in racism themselves, because it exposes their own notions of the group they are attacking. Calling out "racism" is not automatically a sainted argument above reproach. This is a general statement, not directed at the case in the article.
orthecreedence 8y ago
> > None the things mentioned ("get off of welfare", "handout", "boy", "change his behavior") is necessarily racism. > All of those are explicitly racist when addressing people of color. Agreed. I read that and cringed pretty hard. For someone to say calling a black man "boy" is not racist is either willfully ignorant to an alarming degree or just plain insincere. I'm all for differing viewpoints, but let's at least call things what they are. If you're going to be racist, at least own up to it.
- iamdave 8y ago
  For someone to say calling a black man "boy" is not racist is either willfully ignorant to an alarming degree or just plain insincere. It's probably as another commenter alluded below: people are taking this weird position of "I haven't personally lived through it so it must be literally any other explanation" when someone who has direct experience with the type of behavior exhibited points to it happening, live and in living color and says "this is a problem for me as a member of this group". I couldn't ever in a hundred years imagine telling a blind person who says "this is my experience as a blind person" they're wrong, or what they live through on a day to day basis isn't valid because I, a person with full vision experience it differently. But here we are. Reading some of the comments in this thread has me cringing just as much as reading the claims alleged in the article [0]. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18495817 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18495817

by zrail 8y ago

educationdata 8y ago

I think you are the racist to make this kind of comment. Those words can be used on anybody. When you say racism is the only explanation to tell a Black person to "get off of welfare", you are the racist. Only a racist can think this way.

zrail 8y ago
You are wrong. Calling out racism is not being racist. "Reverse racism" is not a thing.
- creaghpatr 8y ago
  >“Reverse racism” is not a thing. You overplayed your hand here.
- cabaalis 8y ago
  I think you are almost correct. A victim of racism or an advocate for a victim of racism is not being racist for calling out the racism. However, a person blaming racism without evidence and where it does not exist is indeed engaging in racism themselves, because it exposes their own notions of the group they are attacking. Calling out "racism" is not automatically a sainted argument above reproach. This is a general statement, not directed at the case in the article.

orthecreedence 8y ago

> > None the things mentioned ("get off of welfare", "handout", "boy", "change his behavior") is necessarily racism. > All of those are explicitly racist when addressing people of color. Agreed. I read that and cringed pretty hard. For someone to say calling a black man "boy" is not racist is either willfully ignorant to an alarming degree or just plain insincere. I'm all for differing viewpoints, but let's at least call things what they are. If you're going to be racist, at least own up to it.

iamdave 8y ago
For someone to say calling a black man "boy" is not racist is either willfully ignorant to an alarming degree or just plain insincere. It's probably as another commenter alluded below: people are taking this weird position of "I haven't personally lived through it so it must be literally any other explanation" when someone who has direct experience with the type of behavior exhibited points to it happening, live and in living color and says "this is a problem for me as a member of this group". I couldn't ever in a hundred years imagine telling a blind person who says "this is my experience as a blind person" they're wrong, or what they live through on a day to day basis isn't valid because I, a person with full vision experience it differently. But here we are. Reading some of the comments in this thread has me cringing just as much as reading the claims alleged in the article [0]. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18495817 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18495817