4 ms·

> There's no conversation to be had here. then why engage in one? If we assume that antiwhie and antiblack are both racism, would you argue that, in the curren

> There's no conversation to be had here. then why engage in one? If we assume that antiwhie and antiblack are both racism, would you argue that, in the current context, political climate, culture etc, that they have the same consequences? If yes, then, well, maybe there is no discussion to be had, it would be an inane claim. If no, some racism has more consequences, then this insistence that "its all racism" is pointless at best - the term is mostly useful to describe harmful relationships and ways to combat that harm.

Dirlewanger 6y ago
This sounds like justification that some forms of racism aren't as racist as others. Sounds a lot like "separate but equal" reasoning. Disgusting.
DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
No. This is simple. Do you believe in treating people differently based on their race? It's a yes-or-no question, and one of them is literally the definition of racism. We can argue about the hypothetical merits of this all you want, but my point is not that it wouldn't work. You know what else works? Death penalty. Nuclear bombs. Pineapple on pizza. No, my point is that it's wrong, regardless of whether it has the intended effect. When I say there's no conversation to be had, I specifically mean about whether or not this is right or whether society should accept it.
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  >Do you believe in treating people differently based on their race? Yes, I do, just like I believe in treating people differently based on all sorts of properties, intrinsic and otherwise. I also lean toward the anti-affirmative-action side of things, despite totally believing that the core rationale has merit. Regardless, you're irrationally insisting that a complex social problem can be distilled into an 11-word yes-or-no question that frames your side of the argument favorably.
  - nojokes 6y ago
    So you are a racist. Plain and simple. A racist. Only 6 letters are needed to define you.
  - DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
    Yes, I agree that affirmative action has some merit on paper, although there's also many good points for why it might not work after all. I'm arguing on a matter of principle here. I think my root-level comment made it more than clear that that's my perspective and it's somewhat annoying that people seem to have no other answer than "but it works". Once again, my point is: Discrimination, regardless of the direction, is morally bad. I'm saying we shouldn't do it even if we think it might work. > you're irrationally insisting that a complex social problem can be distilled into an 11-word yes-or-no question No. I'm just saying this is not the answer. > that frames your side of the argument favorably Yes. And you know what? This wasn't my own idea. I just grew tired of having this kind of thing thrown at me and to see it thrown at others. This is the kind of framing the left uses. So now I'm just throwing it back. You don't agree with me? You're a racist. And suddenly everybody is butthurt because I point out that fulfilling the dictionary-definition of racism makes you a racist. What. A. Joke. So here's an idea: Instead of complaining about my framing, how about you just explain how this could possibly not be racist? Because I haven't seen one good explanation. Not one. And no, "it's complicated" is not an answer.
    - hnracer 6y ago
      Polling shows that a significant majority agrees with you. It just seems like the other stance has more support than it does because SJWs feel confident in voicing their opinion more loudly because it's the opinion held by a majority of journalists and entertainers and is therefore more culturally dominant. But it's totally inorganic. If oil and gas workers controlled the cultural narrative then the loud and obnoxious SJWs would be on the right.
h_anna_h 6y ago
I would argue that while both are just as bad the anti-white racism can have worse consequences as it will increase the distain that whites have for blacks and at the end lead to even more discrimination against black people.
- DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
  One has to be blind to not see that this is already happening.
  - h_anna_h 6y ago
    I remember reading an essay a while ago where someone argued that this played a big part in the 2016 US elections but this is not something that I can verify.
Viliam1234 6y ago
> If we assume that antiwhie and antiblack are both racism, would you argue that, in the current context, political climate, culture etc, that they have the same consequences? Even if they have different consequences, you can still click Delete on both of them. I think you should spend less resources actively searching for the one you consider less serious, because the resources are limited, but if someone else reported them, and you are already spending your attention looking at them anyway, you might as well delete both.

Dirlewanger 6y ago

This sounds like justification that some forms of racism aren't as racist as others. Sounds a lot like "separate but equal" reasoning. Disgusting.

DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago

No. This is simple. Do you believe in treating people differently based on their race? It's a yes-or-no question, and one of them is literally the definition of racism. We can argue about the hypothetical merits of this all you want, but my point is not that it wouldn't work. You know what else works? Death penalty. Nuclear bombs. Pineapple on pizza. No, my point is that it's wrong, regardless of whether it has the intended effect. When I say there's no conversation to be had, I specifically mean about whether or not this is right or whether society should accept it.

happytoexplain 6y ago
>Do you believe in treating people differently based on their race? Yes, I do, just like I believe in treating people differently based on all sorts of properties, intrinsic and otherwise. I also lean toward the anti-affirmative-action side of things, despite totally believing that the core rationale has merit. Regardless, you're irrationally insisting that a complex social problem can be distilled into an 11-word yes-or-no question that frames your side of the argument favorably.
- nojokes 6y ago
  So you are a racist. Plain and simple. A racist. Only 6 letters are needed to define you.
- DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
  Yes, I agree that affirmative action has some merit on paper, although there's also many good points for why it might not work after all. I'm arguing on a matter of principle here. I think my root-level comment made it more than clear that that's my perspective and it's somewhat annoying that people seem to have no other answer than "but it works". Once again, my point is: Discrimination, regardless of the direction, is morally bad. I'm saying we shouldn't do it even if we think it might work. > you're irrationally insisting that a complex social problem can be distilled into an 11-word yes-or-no question No. I'm just saying this is not the answer. > that frames your side of the argument favorably Yes. And you know what? This wasn't my own idea. I just grew tired of having this kind of thing thrown at me and to see it thrown at others. This is the kind of framing the left uses. So now I'm just throwing it back. You don't agree with me? You're a racist. And suddenly everybody is butthurt because I point out that fulfilling the dictionary-definition of racism makes you a racist. What. A. Joke. So here's an idea: Instead of complaining about my framing, how about you just explain how this could possibly not be racist? Because I haven't seen one good explanation. Not one. And no, "it's complicated" is not an answer.
  - hnracer 6y ago
    Polling shows that a significant majority agrees with you. It just seems like the other stance has more support than it does because SJWs feel confident in voicing their opinion more loudly because it's the opinion held by a majority of journalists and entertainers and is therefore more culturally dominant. But it's totally inorganic. If oil and gas workers controlled the cultural narrative then the loud and obnoxious SJWs would be on the right.

h_anna_h 6y ago

I would argue that while both are just as bad the anti-white racism can have worse consequences as it will increase the distain that whites have for blacks and at the end lead to even more discrimination against black people.

DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
One has to be blind to not see that this is already happening.
- h_anna_h 6y ago
  I remember reading an essay a while ago where someone argued that this played a big part in the 2016 US elections but this is not something that I can verify.

Viliam1234 6y ago

> If we assume that antiwhie and antiblack are both racism, would you argue that, in the current context, political climate, culture etc, that they have the same consequences? Even if they have different consequences, you can still click Delete on both of them. I think you should spend less resources actively searching for the one you consider less serious, because the resources are limited, but if someone else reported them, and you are already spending your attention looking at them anyway, you might as well delete both.