4 ms·

> So according to this rule, a racial minority can call members of a "majority race" sub-human, but not vice-versa. According to academia, this is correct: rac

> So according to this rule, a racial minority can call members of a "majority race" sub-human, but not vice-versa. According to academia, this is correct: racism only exists in the context of class based oppression. Of course, many people disagree with this definition.

naasking 6y ago
> According to academia, this is correct: racism only exists in the context of class based oppression. Which is silly on its face. If two opposing races that hated each other held equal power, they might not be able to get the upper hand on the other, but they still hate each other solely on the basis of race. Is this the "non-racist" utopia they're after?
logarhythmic 6y ago
I don't know how widespread this belief is but I personally know people who believe this and it seems to be only spreading in the current heavily polarized environment. It is truly astonishing to witness
rayiner 6y ago
What does “academia” have to do with anything?
- nordsieck 6y ago
  > What does “academia” have to do with anything? Well, when people are arguing over the meaning of words - in this case "racism" - it is sometimes useful to reference what the "experts" think. There are entire fields of study within academia dedicated to this topic (often but not always including the word "critical"). Of course, whether or not said people have anything meaningful to say on the topic is not broadly agreed upon.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- naasking 6y ago
  These redefinitions probably grew out of "critical theory" which is taught in social studies. The initial protests citing this line of argument seem to have started on college campuses, so there might be some merit to saying it grew out of academia.
zozbot234 6y ago
But that policy is not even talking about racism, however defined; it's talking about hate. Hate is hate, no matter who it's directed to. Prejudice is prejudice.
- naasking 6y ago
  Except it's apparently fine to hate the haters. Dehumanization is alive and well, even among progressives.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    Yep, hating the new Nazis is just fine. They're still people, no need to dehumanize them.
    - naasking 6y ago
      Hate is innately dehumanising. Also, don't be so casual throwing around "Nazi". I've also seen liberals calling for conservatives to be put into camps.
  - chipotle_coyote 6y ago
    So we can never denounce hatred and bigotry without being hypocritical? We don't want to be hypocritical, right? So we should never denounce hatred and bigotry! Brilliant! I am super, super tired of "if you denounce bigots that makes you just as bad as them."
    - Karunamon 6y ago
      If you can't denounce without getting into dehumanization, you're guilty of exactly the same kind of hate that the most virulent racists in history are guilty of. It's never okay. Not for any reason.
      - chipotle_coyote 6y ago
        I didn't use the word "dehumanize," did I?

naasking 6y ago

> According to academia, this is correct: racism only exists in the context of class based oppression. Which is silly on its face. If two opposing races that hated each other held equal power, they might not be able to get the upper hand on the other, but they still hate each other solely on the basis of race. Is this the "non-racist" utopia they're after?

logarhythmic 6y ago

I don't know how widespread this belief is but I personally know people who believe this and it seems to be only spreading in the current heavily polarized environment. It is truly astonishing to witness

rayiner 6y ago

What does “academia” have to do with anything?

nordsieck 6y ago
> What does “academia” have to do with anything? Well, when people are arguing over the meaning of words - in this case "racism" - it is sometimes useful to reference what the "experts" think. There are entire fields of study within academia dedicated to this topic (often but not always including the word "critical"). Of course, whether or not said people have anything meaningful to say on the topic is not broadly agreed upon.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
naasking 6y ago
These redefinitions probably grew out of "critical theory" which is taught in social studies. The initial protests citing this line of argument seem to have started on college campuses, so there might be some merit to saying it grew out of academia.

zozbot234 6y ago

But that policy is not even talking about racism, however defined; it's talking about hate. Hate is hate, no matter who it's directed to. Prejudice is prejudice.

naasking 6y ago
Except it's apparently fine to hate the haters. Dehumanization is alive and well, even among progressives.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  Yep, hating the new Nazis is just fine. They're still people, no need to dehumanize them.
  - naasking 6y ago
    Hate is innately dehumanising. Also, don't be so casual throwing around "Nazi". I've also seen liberals calling for conservatives to be put into camps.
- chipotle_coyote 6y ago
  So we can never denounce hatred and bigotry without being hypocritical? We don't want to be hypocritical, right? So we should never denounce hatred and bigotry! Brilliant! I am super, super tired of "if you denounce bigots that makes you just as bad as them."
  - Karunamon 6y ago
    If you can't denounce without getting into dehumanization, you're guilty of exactly the same kind of hate that the most virulent racists in history are guilty of. It's never okay. Not for any reason.
    - chipotle_coyote 6y ago
      I didn't use the word "dehumanize," did I?