3 ms·

> For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority Are they serious? So basically racism is OK as long as it's toward people who

by ars 6y ago

> For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority Are they serious? So basically racism is OK as long as it's toward people who are the majority?

syshum 6y ago
Reddit adopts the "Prejudice + Power" definition of racism, not the actual definition of racism
- jimclegg 6y ago
  Reddit's definition seems more contextual, it weighs the dynamics of current economic, cultural, institutional, etc... racism Here is the Oxford dictionary definition: "The inability or refusal to recognize the rights, needs, dignity, or value of people of particular races or geographical origins. More widely, the devaluation of various traits of character or intelligence as ‘typical’ of particular peoples. The category of race may itself be challenged, as implying an inference from trivial superficial differences of appearance to allegedly significant underlying differences of nature; increasingly evolutionary evidence suggests that the dispersal of one original people into different geographical locations is a relatively recent and genetically insignificant matter."
rjohnk 6y ago
If you look at academic definitions, yes, often they will state racism is from the majority to the minority. It is rather odd.
- TravHatesMe 6y ago
  I don't understand this. For all of my life I thought racism = discrimination against someone due to their race. In the same way that sexist = discrimination against someone due to their sex. Ageist = discrimination against someone due to their age. Is this not the clear cut definition anymore? At what point did it diverge?
  - Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
    >Is this not the clear cut definition anymore? People who want to discriminate on the basis of race and sex have contrived a definition of racism/sexism that exempts themselves. >At what point did it diverge? The 1980s apparently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - TheGrim-888 6y ago
    If you haven't noticed, we've spiraled down to the point where group think determines what is real, not facts or logic. If you can convince thousands people to scream that something is racist, then it "becomes" racist, no matter whether it meets any factual concrete definition of what racism is. Once this behavior started, it was then used as justification to change the definition of racism to something it never used to be.
  - rovolo 6y ago
    An '-ism' is an ideology which is used for organizing the world. The big difference is whether it's an individual ideology or a systemic ideology. 1 person renting out property = a rentier. Private ownership of land = capitalism. 1 person not hiring women = a misogynist. Companies not offering parental leave and assuming the primary caregiver is the mother = sexism. Zuckerberg saying "young people are just smarter" = a bigot. Focusing on algorithms in software interviews which new-grads will have an easier time solving = ageism. It's very common to call a prejudiced or discriminatory individual a "-ist" because the individual is subscribing to an ideology. But, that's emphasizing the individual rather than the society. If you only look at individual people as racist, they feel like isolated cases which don't have good solutions. Furthermore, you're absolving people who aren't explicitly discriminatory but who are still supporting systemic discrimination. - This company will hire anyone who's qualified, but they're full of ivy-league graduates because they rely heavily on campus recruiters. Even though they aren't prejudiced when hiring, they are classist because they cater to high-class people. - This bank will offer a mortgage to anyone with a steady paycheck and a safe-investment property. However, due to red-lining and racial covenants, Black people weren't able to purchase safe-investment homes so they didn't get good mortgages. Granted, it's an uphill etymological battle because the individual usage is so common. When people argue for the systemic definition, they're arguing that we should focus on processes rather than individuals.
Avamander 6y ago
Yes. The rule basically says that you can't be racist towards white people.
- genoapol 6y ago
  For Africans to be considered reverse racists, they would have to rob Europeans to the point of poverty/death, enslave them for 400+ years, attempt multiple genocides and mass executions of the European people, deprive Europeans of education and economic equity for centuries based on skin color, engage in state assisted terrorism, THEN continue to promote hatred and acts of violence against them on Reddit. Yes I agree, after all these things occur, we can call it "reverse racism" and drop the ban hammer.
  - Ghjklov 6y ago
    It's just racism dude. Not even white, just tired of the mental gymnastics people go through to justify their actions against white people based sole on their skin color and what they've committed against their people. You're doing the same thing. In the end it's just the tribal, racialist bullshit I'm freaking tired of. It never ends, because we keep justifying evildoing whenever it benefits our side at the given time. If we keep doing this, we have no right to complain when some other group does it to us at some other point in the future.
    - genoapol 6y ago
      No, racism is a system of oppression. You have adopted a narrower and more convenient definition that is not shared by the majority of the people that study this subject and its history. Equating people saying "whites can't dance" with the homicidal criminals engaging in the kind of brutality and dehumanization I described above is intellectual dishonesty, at best. >It never ends, because we keep justifying evildoing whenever it benefits our side at the given time. When did Africans benefit from racism (A European Renaissance invention)? This is an invocation of "both-sides-ism" that human history doesn't agree with you on, as far as I know.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

by ars 6y ago

> For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority Are they serious? So basically racism is OK as long as it's toward people who are the majority?

syshum 6y ago

Reddit adopts the "Prejudice + Power" definition of racism, not the actual definition of racism

jimclegg 6y ago
Reddit's definition seems more contextual, it weighs the dynamics of current economic, cultural, institutional, etc... racism Here is the Oxford dictionary definition: "The inability or refusal to recognize the rights, needs, dignity, or value of people of particular races or geographical origins. More widely, the devaluation of various traits of character or intelligence as ‘typical’ of particular peoples. The category of race may itself be challenged, as implying an inference from trivial superficial differences of appearance to allegedly significant underlying differences of nature; increasingly evolutionary evidence suggests that the dispersal of one original people into different geographical locations is a relatively recent and genetically insignificant matter."

rjohnk 6y ago

If you look at academic definitions, yes, often they will state racism is from the majority to the minority. It is rather odd.

TravHatesMe 6y ago
I don't understand this. For all of my life I thought racism = discrimination against someone due to their race. In the same way that sexist = discrimination against someone due to their sex. Ageist = discrimination against someone due to their age. Is this not the clear cut definition anymore? At what point did it diverge?
- Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
  >Is this not the clear cut definition anymore? People who want to discriminate on the basis of race and sex have contrived a definition of racism/sexism that exempts themselves. >At what point did it diverge? The 1980s apparently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- TheGrim-888 6y ago
  If you haven't noticed, we've spiraled down to the point where group think determines what is real, not facts or logic. If you can convince thousands people to scream that something is racist, then it "becomes" racist, no matter whether it meets any factual concrete definition of what racism is. Once this behavior started, it was then used as justification to change the definition of racism to something it never used to be.
- rovolo 6y ago
  An '-ism' is an ideology which is used for organizing the world. The big difference is whether it's an individual ideology or a systemic ideology. 1 person renting out property = a rentier. Private ownership of land = capitalism. 1 person not hiring women = a misogynist. Companies not offering parental leave and assuming the primary caregiver is the mother = sexism. Zuckerberg saying "young people are just smarter" = a bigot. Focusing on algorithms in software interviews which new-grads will have an easier time solving = ageism. It's very common to call a prejudiced or discriminatory individual a "-ist" because the individual is subscribing to an ideology. But, that's emphasizing the individual rather than the society. If you only look at individual people as racist, they feel like isolated cases which don't have good solutions. Furthermore, you're absolving people who aren't explicitly discriminatory but who are still supporting systemic discrimination. - This company will hire anyone who's qualified, but they're full of ivy-league graduates because they rely heavily on campus recruiters. Even though they aren't prejudiced when hiring, they are classist because they cater to high-class people. - This bank will offer a mortgage to anyone with a steady paycheck and a safe-investment property. However, due to red-lining and racial covenants, Black people weren't able to purchase safe-investment homes so they didn't get good mortgages. Granted, it's an uphill etymological battle because the individual usage is so common. When people argue for the systemic definition, they're arguing that we should focus on processes rather than individuals.

Avamander 6y ago

Yes. The rule basically says that you can't be racist towards white people.

genoapol 6y ago
For Africans to be considered reverse racists, they would have to rob Europeans to the point of poverty/death, enslave them for 400+ years, attempt multiple genocides and mass executions of the European people, deprive Europeans of education and economic equity for centuries based on skin color, engage in state assisted terrorism, THEN continue to promote hatred and acts of violence against them on Reddit. Yes I agree, after all these things occur, we can call it "reverse racism" and drop the ban hammer.
- Ghjklov 6y ago
  It's just racism dude. Not even white, just tired of the mental gymnastics people go through to justify their actions against white people based sole on their skin color and what they've committed against their people. You're doing the same thing. In the end it's just the tribal, racialist bullshit I'm freaking tired of. It never ends, because we keep justifying evildoing whenever it benefits our side at the given time. If we keep doing this, we have no right to complain when some other group does it to us at some other point in the future.
  - genoapol 6y ago
    No, racism is a system of oppression. You have adopted a narrower and more convenient definition that is not shared by the majority of the people that study this subject and its history. Equating people saying "whites can't dance" with the homicidal criminals engaging in the kind of brutality and dehumanization I described above is intellectual dishonesty, at best. >It never ends, because we keep justifying evildoing whenever it benefits our side at the given time. When did Africans benefit from racism (A European Renaissance invention)? This is an invocation of "both-sides-ism" that human history doesn't agree with you on, as far as I know.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]