4 ms·

Incredible. You honestly spun it so that the person who is the victim of racism is in fact to blame.

by Eylandos 7y ago

bleriot 7y ago
The person in the article said “white people are so fragile”. That’s a racist statement, so no spinning needed.
- chris_mc 7y ago
  It's a bigoted statement, but holds no power over white people, and so is not racist. Racism is about the systematic oppression of certain groups. White people are not systematically oppressed in America, unlike black people. It's not great to have bigoted views either way, but it's not a threat to whites the same way as blacks due to America's societal structure. I'm sure that doesn't make you feel better to have someone call you fragile, but it doesn't harm your ability to live your life.
  - dagav 7y ago
    This is the Marxist conception of racism, because Marxists believe that any interaction between two people is primarily one of power. People who don't believe that every single interaction they have with someone is predicated on the power struggle between the groups they belong to, have no problem excluding systemic oppression from their definition of racism, because they believe that interactions exist between two individuals. If one individual makes a blanket statement about a person because of a racial group that they belong to, then that's racist, if you believe in the divinity of the individual.
    - jasonhansel 7y ago
      Calling it "Marxist" doesn't make it untrue.
      - dagav 7y ago
        I didn't just call it Marxist, I explained the difference.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > This is the Marxist conception of racism No, it's a concept of racism that originates with people who abandoned Marxism for bourgeois identity politics. The right likes to call it “Marxist” because it originated with former Marxists and exists within a dialectical framework which replaces the Marxist class-conflict framework with a racial-conflict one, but it is very much not—and in some ways fundamentally opposed to—Marxism.
      - dagav 7y ago
        Maybe "Neo-Marxist" is a better label then.
  - tropo 7y ago
    Stop and really think about what it means to be systematically oppressed, and who exactly this is happening to. You can start with the lawsuit attacking Harvard for systematic oppression of Asians, and then notice that there is a whole ranking of races. You can also look at the federal contracting rules which systematically oppress companies that are run by people who happen to be white. So yes, there is systematic oppression, but it doesn't run in the direction you assume it does. If systematic oppression really gives one a get-out-of-racism-free card, then please note who that card belongs to.
whenchamenia 7y ago
Pointing out racisim on both sides is not excusing it from either one.

Incredible. You honestly spun it so that the person who is the victim of racism is in fact to blame.

bleriot 7y ago

The person in the article said “white people are so fragile”. That’s a racist statement, so no spinning needed.

chris_mc 7y ago
It's a bigoted statement, but holds no power over white people, and so is not racist. Racism is about the systematic oppression of certain groups. White people are not systematically oppressed in America, unlike black people. It's not great to have bigoted views either way, but it's not a threat to whites the same way as blacks due to America's societal structure. I'm sure that doesn't make you feel better to have someone call you fragile, but it doesn't harm your ability to live your life.
- dagav 7y ago
  This is the Marxist conception of racism, because Marxists believe that any interaction between two people is primarily one of power. People who don't believe that every single interaction they have with someone is predicated on the power struggle between the groups they belong to, have no problem excluding systemic oppression from their definition of racism, because they believe that interactions exist between two individuals. If one individual makes a blanket statement about a person because of a racial group that they belong to, then that's racist, if you believe in the divinity of the individual.
  - jasonhansel 7y ago
    Calling it "Marxist" doesn't make it untrue.
    - dagav 7y ago
      I didn't just call it Marxist, I explained the difference.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > This is the Marxist conception of racism No, it's a concept of racism that originates with people who abandoned Marxism for bourgeois identity politics. The right likes to call it “Marxist” because it originated with former Marxists and exists within a dialectical framework which replaces the Marxist class-conflict framework with a racial-conflict one, but it is very much not—and in some ways fundamentally opposed to—Marxism.
    - dagav 7y ago
      Maybe "Neo-Marxist" is a better label then.
- tropo 7y ago
  Stop and really think about what it means to be systematically oppressed, and who exactly this is happening to. You can start with the lawsuit attacking Harvard for systematic oppression of Asians, and then notice that there is a whole ranking of races. You can also look at the federal contracting rules which systematically oppress companies that are run by people who happen to be white. So yes, there is systematic oppression, but it doesn't run in the direction you assume it does. If systematic oppression really gives one a get-out-of-racism-free card, then please note who that card belongs to.

whenchamenia 7y ago

Pointing out racisim on both sides is not excusing it from either one.