6 ms·

> It is obviously associating racism with something not intentionally racist. But does it not strike to you at all problematic, at the moment, that 'black' is a

by Fogest 6y ago

> It is obviously associating racism with something not intentionally racist. But does it not strike to you at all problematic, at the moment, that 'black' is a synonym of 'bad' and 'white' of 'good'? Does it not occur to you that it might improve our language to change that? Honestly, lately I feel like the opposite is the case. Everywhere I go anywhere online all I see is white people being shit on. I see incredibly racist things being said about white people everywhere online and there are zero consequences for it. In fact they often get praised for it. So no, I think what you're saying is far from being true. The people who are looking at a word like "blacklist" and thinking it in a negative racial way are the ones that are the problem. They are the ones grasping at straws trying to find things to be offended by. It's a choice people make and it's only offensive because someone chooses to be offended by the word. You have to remember when being offended by words like this it means ignoring the context. It's just silly is what it is. Language policing is absolutely insane.

sago 6y ago
> all I see is white people being shit on I figured that would be the feel of the objection. Maybe I should be grateful as a white person that that's not the world I find myself in. Happy to pick my variable names. I can't help but feel that the antagonism here is very similar to the antagonism I mentioned about Gendered language. The anger seemed mostly caused by being surprised by being asked to think about something.
- Fogest 6y ago
  The problem is that you're not thinking about the context of the word and instead are using it in a different context to be offended by it. I'd argue that you are the one who needs to think about it a bit more instead of blindly calling others names and trying to police the grammatically correct words someone uses. Just because you think and associate something with a negative racial implication when you see a word doesn't mean others are. I personally am able to look at a word and understand the context surrounding the word. I'm able to think about that word and know that calling my git branch a "master" doesn't mean that I am a slave driver and or that I agree with it. I am able to think on my own.
  - sago 6y ago
    > The problem is that you're not thinking about the context of the word and instead are using it in a different context to be offended by it. Please be a bit more careful. Please don't assume you know what or how much I'm thinking. I think the situation isn't as binary as you seem to be presenting it. The context of the word is a metaphor. The metaphor is commonly used for 'good versus bad'. This being a common metaphor in western language might not be helpful to some people. It's not difficult to be more explicit or to use a different metaphor. > you are the one who needs to think about ... I am able to think on my own. :) You know the classic idea: "I know I'm right, therefore you are either less intelligent or haven't thought hard enough!"? You know how easy that is to think and why our brain gets us to think that way?
    - Fogest 6y ago
      No but that is the problem. It's not really a metaphor if it's a dictionary word that has had it's meaning for centuries. It's a word used to describe something. What you are doing is using an old historical definition for a word that was used in a different context. A word I use is meaningless if you exclude the other words around it. You exclude the context in order to feel offended by the word. And you're using your subconscious racial prejudice to look at a word and feel offended by it. When I look at blacklist I think of the colour black and how the colour is darker. Darkness is commonly a negative thing. Thus if I don't want something I put it on a blacklist. Where as the colour white is the brightest option and is something normally associated with positive. Do you complain when a movie uses darkness to create a scary atmosphere? Would a Slenderman that is white be as scary as a Slenderman that is black to you? No. Because colour is used to trigger different emotional and psychological responses. But this has nothing to do with race. Nowhere did I need to mention or think about race here. You're choosing to associate a word with a negative when others who don't have these kinds of racial prejudices are able to look at the words context and instantly understand what it means without ever thinking about a race. Trust me, your word policing is not going to fix a problem with racism. All it does is reveal how you feel when you see a word. When I see blacklist I'm not thinking about race. When you see blacklist you are. To me that indicates a racist ideology. Do you feel using the phrase "black market" is wrong? If so then what about "grey market"? "White market" isn't a word that is used so there is no opposing "positive" colour to "black market". So is the phrase still bad to you? If somehow black market is okay with you then your logic against blacklist makes no sense. And if black market is not okay with you then it also makes no sense logically because grey market is not based on a race. Interesting how you associate these words with race yet their origins don't relate to race at all but instead a colour.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
m1gu3l 6y ago
List me some “racist things being said about white people” you have seen on the internet so we can all see...
- Fogest 6y ago
  Why? I don't have anything to prove to you. Anytime I have chosen to engage with someone who has given a response like yours and chosen to give sources and examples I am met with a ignorant response saying something like "you can't be racist towards white people". It's just not worth it for me to engage like that anymore. How about bringing a discussion to what I said rather than asking for random proof of what I said. Look literally anywhere on the internet and you'll find it pretty easily. Hell the AP News will capitalize Black but not White: https://apnews.com/article/7e36c00c5af0436abc09e051261fff1f https://apnews.com/article/7e36c00c5af0436abc09e051261fff1f Stuff like that is just one of hundreds of examples. That article is what I'd consider more of a "casual racism" whereas I also see a lot more direct racism as well. I'd personally rather be in a world where someone doesn't feel a need to specify someone's race before everything. People will add in race when it has no relevance or facts behind it. I am sure you have heard the phrase "privileged white male" before. I can't even count on both my hands how many times I've been told that. And I'll be told that without the person even knowing my level of privilege, my gender, or my race. When you oppose the current politically correct fad you'll be called racist and people will assume your gender and race and use it as a derogatory/racist statement. It will be used to dismiss and invalidate an opinion. For me personally my test is often pretty simple. If someone tries to dismiss an opinion by calling someone a "privileged white male" how would that be any better than dismissing someone's opinion for being black? To me they both are racist and just as bad in my mind. Neither is acceptable. Yet in todays society we know which one would be acceptable. As long as it's shitting on a white person or a male you're good to go.
  - onethought 6y ago
    > If someone tries to dismiss an opinion by calling someone a "privileged white male" how would that be any better than dismissing someone's opinion for being black? Context matters... if you are in the position of privilege and saying things that you can only say because of your position. Then I can see why some people would dismiss it. The difference is: if you try to dismiss someone in a minority position for saying things that would be okay to say in a privileged position. Then you are just doubling down on that privilege. This isn't about "white privilege" vs "black privilege" this about privilege in general. Really empathy is the answer and understanding where they are coming from will help you not inadvertently offend them.
onethought 6y ago
I don't really agree that if you're in the social majority you can be upset about racism against your empowered majority position... it just doesn't make sense. That said, if you're white in China/India/Kenya/etc... 100% there is a heap of racism directed at you and I feel for you
- ttt0 6y ago
  The actual power is in the hands of the elites, so a minority. Just because you happen to be a part of the largest demographic group doesn't mean you hold any power. For example, would you say the same thing about Africa back when it was under white rule?
  - onethought 6y ago
    True, I did not mean majority, I meant elite. Thanks for that.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > I don't really agree that if you're in the social majority you can be upset about racism against your empowered majority position... it just doesn't make sense. It makes sense for two reasons. The first is that a huge amount of the "anti-white racism" is directed by "white people" against others nominally in the same group, implying that they aren't actually in the same social group and correspondingly that the targets don't have a majority. As evidence of this, notice that people can be canceled over petty nonsense, e.g. Gina Carano. How could this happen if there was actually a social majority which should nominally be exerting pressure in the opposite direction and winning? The second is that there are plenty of contexts where the majority doesn't even exist on paper, e.g. only 40% of California is "white" so a "white person" who lives in California is a minority. That state is also the place where a disproportionate amount of the attacks happen. And the same is true of many major US cities, e.g. New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Houston.
  - onethought 6y ago
    As was pointed out in another thread: I should have said elite not majority
f430 6y ago
> Honestly, lately I feel like the opposite is the case. Everywhere I go anywhere online all I see is white people being shit on. I see incredibly racist things being said about white people everywhere online and there are zero consequences for it. In fact they often get praised for it. So no, I think what you're saying is far from being true. It's not just whites but east asians, jews as well. The whole idea derives from the notion that its okay to be racist if its upwards. People associate those groups as being affluent and automatically people think its okay to "punch up". There are certain groups that we are not supposed to "punch down". There is a rise in anti-semitism, anti-asian, anti-white imho because wealth gap is increasing and people who are on the bottom tend to be not of those groups so they feel its justified and its okay to be racist not even being conscious of their actions and thoughts. Like many Koreans during the LA riots knew exactly who were looting their stores but its forbidden and "racist" just like the victims of a subset of BLM rioters who decided to loot businesses that can't mention the demographic despite video footage evidence, anecdotes and that overwhelming group behind the protests. It's getting ridiculous like when I was playing Battlefield and was permanently banned for saying "niggardly use of ammo packs" as the person was not cooperating and refusing to drop ammos. The whole thing about master branch, master bedroom also has turned North America into a laughing stock. I can't wait to leave this puritannical shithole.
- Fogest 6y ago
  Oh yes, groups like Asians are being heavily targeted yet they get almost zero attention. We even saw the case at Yale where Asian and White students were being doc'ed points on admissions. There is even research showing how in many different situations Asians actually have many more cases of hate crimes against them compared to black and Hispanic: > In general, hate crimes are most likely targeting young adults at ages 18–34, male, and local residents in all three groups. Asian American victims however, have a higher chance than African Americans and Hispanics to be victimized in places where they are not local residents (24% vs. 16.8% for African Americans and 16.3% for Hispanics). Comparing with Black and Hispanic victims, Asian Americans also have relatively higher chance to be victimized by non-White offenders (25.5% vs. 1.0% for African Americans and 18.9% for Hispanics). > With regard to the incident characteristics, Asian Americans have higher risk to be persecuted by strangers (39.2% vs. 30.7% for African Americans and 30.1% for Hispanics), are less likely to be offended in their residence (23.7% vs. 34.4% for African Americans and 29.5% for Hispanics), and are more likely to be targeted at school/college (17% vs. 8.9% for African Americans and 11.2% for Hispanics). The variables of time, weapon use, injury, and substance show similar patterns for the three groups. Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7790522/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7790522/ I personally do not think movements like BLM are progress inducing at all. In fact I think they do the opposite. I think movements like BLM put the blame on things like white people and police. It's easy for a politician to use the police as a scape-goat and reap in the votes for being a big BLM supporter. But talk doesn't mean anything. I have yet to see many politicians actually do anything to address some of the root causes of problems such nearly 3/4 of black babies being born to an unmarried mother (https://baylor-ir.tdl.org/bitstream/handle/2104/9429/chad_scott_honorsthesis.pdf https://baylor-ir.tdl.org/bitstream/handle/2104/9429/chad_sc...). And there is a lot of research showing how huge the single-parent factor is on crime rates: > States with a lower percentage of single-parent families, on average, will have lower rates of juvenile crime. State-by-state analysis indicates that, in general, a 10 percent increase in the number of children living in single-parent homes (including divorces) accompanies a 17 percent increase in juvenile crime. Source: https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/report/the-real-root-causes-violent-crime-the-breakdown-marriage-family-and https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/report/the-real-r... I find it wild how the blame will be put on police over-policing areas rather than the root of the problem which is the higher rates of crime in these areas due to factors like the one above. Overall it seems like America (and some of Canada) is becoming super sensitive and easily offended. It makes it hard for anyone to ever bring up the serious problems affecting different communities. This data isn't racist, the same effects are seen across racial groups including white people. And this is exactly why I hate seeing the weird anti-white, anti-jew, anti-asian wars that are going on. Because the reality is that this is a problem that can affect anyone who ends up in these kinds of situations. I'd love to see a politician who focused on the roots of problems rather then focusing on making the loud mouth Twitter users happy. It's sad that often times even just mentioning these kinds of stats would be considered a conservative view and probably would end up being called insults and some Twitter users trying to cancel you.

by Fogest 6y ago

sago 6y ago

> all I see is white people being shit on I figured that would be the feel of the objection. Maybe I should be grateful as a white person that that's not the world I find myself in. Happy to pick my variable names. I can't help but feel that the antagonism here is very similar to the antagonism I mentioned about Gendered language. The anger seemed mostly caused by being surprised by being asked to think about something.

Fogest 6y ago
The problem is that you're not thinking about the context of the word and instead are using it in a different context to be offended by it. I'd argue that you are the one who needs to think about it a bit more instead of blindly calling others names and trying to police the grammatically correct words someone uses. Just because you think and associate something with a negative racial implication when you see a word doesn't mean others are. I personally am able to look at a word and understand the context surrounding the word. I'm able to think about that word and know that calling my git branch a "master" doesn't mean that I am a slave driver and or that I agree with it. I am able to think on my own.
- sago 6y ago
  > The problem is that you're not thinking about the context of the word and instead are using it in a different context to be offended by it. Please be a bit more careful. Please don't assume you know what or how much I'm thinking. I think the situation isn't as binary as you seem to be presenting it. The context of the word is a metaphor. The metaphor is commonly used for 'good versus bad'. This being a common metaphor in western language might not be helpful to some people. It's not difficult to be more explicit or to use a different metaphor. > you are the one who needs to think about ... I am able to think on my own. :) You know the classic idea: "I know I'm right, therefore you are either less intelligent or haven't thought hard enough!"? You know how easy that is to think and why our brain gets us to think that way?
  - Fogest 6y ago
    No but that is the problem. It's not really a metaphor if it's a dictionary word that has had it's meaning for centuries. It's a word used to describe something. What you are doing is using an old historical definition for a word that was used in a different context. A word I use is meaningless if you exclude the other words around it. You exclude the context in order to feel offended by the word. And you're using your subconscious racial prejudice to look at a word and feel offended by it. When I look at blacklist I think of the colour black and how the colour is darker. Darkness is commonly a negative thing. Thus if I don't want something I put it on a blacklist. Where as the colour white is the brightest option and is something normally associated with positive. Do you complain when a movie uses darkness to create a scary atmosphere? Would a Slenderman that is white be as scary as a Slenderman that is black to you? No. Because colour is used to trigger different emotional and psychological responses. But this has nothing to do with race. Nowhere did I need to mention or think about race here. You're choosing to associate a word with a negative when others who don't have these kinds of racial prejudices are able to look at the words context and instantly understand what it means without ever thinking about a race. Trust me, your word policing is not going to fix a problem with racism. All it does is reveal how you feel when you see a word. When I see blacklist I'm not thinking about race. When you see blacklist you are. To me that indicates a racist ideology. Do you feel using the phrase "black market" is wrong? If so then what about "grey market"? "White market" isn't a word that is used so there is no opposing "positive" colour to "black market". So is the phrase still bad to you? If somehow black market is okay with you then your logic against blacklist makes no sense. And if black market is not okay with you then it also makes no sense logically because grey market is not based on a race. Interesting how you associate these words with race yet their origins don't relate to race at all but instead a colour.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

m1gu3l 6y ago

List me some “racist things being said about white people” you have seen on the internet so we can all see...

Fogest 6y ago
Why? I don't have anything to prove to you. Anytime I have chosen to engage with someone who has given a response like yours and chosen to give sources and examples I am met with a ignorant response saying something like "you can't be racist towards white people". It's just not worth it for me to engage like that anymore. How about bringing a discussion to what I said rather than asking for random proof of what I said. Look literally anywhere on the internet and you'll find it pretty easily. Hell the AP News will capitalize Black but not White: https://apnews.com/article/7e36c00c5af0436abc09e051261fff1f https://apnews.com/article/7e36c00c5af0436abc09e051261fff1f Stuff like that is just one of hundreds of examples. That article is what I'd consider more of a "casual racism" whereas I also see a lot more direct racism as well. I'd personally rather be in a world where someone doesn't feel a need to specify someone's race before everything. People will add in race when it has no relevance or facts behind it. I am sure you have heard the phrase "privileged white male" before. I can't even count on both my hands how many times I've been told that. And I'll be told that without the person even knowing my level of privilege, my gender, or my race. When you oppose the current politically correct fad you'll be called racist and people will assume your gender and race and use it as a derogatory/racist statement. It will be used to dismiss and invalidate an opinion. For me personally my test is often pretty simple. If someone tries to dismiss an opinion by calling someone a "privileged white male" how would that be any better than dismissing someone's opinion for being black? To me they both are racist and just as bad in my mind. Neither is acceptable. Yet in todays society we know which one would be acceptable. As long as it's shitting on a white person or a male you're good to go.
- onethought 6y ago
  > If someone tries to dismiss an opinion by calling someone a "privileged white male" how would that be any better than dismissing someone's opinion for being black? Context matters... if you are in the position of privilege and saying things that you can only say because of your position. Then I can see why some people would dismiss it. The difference is: if you try to dismiss someone in a minority position for saying things that would be okay to say in a privileged position. Then you are just doubling down on that privilege. This isn't about "white privilege" vs "black privilege" this about privilege in general. Really empathy is the answer and understanding where they are coming from will help you not inadvertently offend them.

onethought 6y ago

I don't really agree that if you're in the social majority you can be upset about racism against your empowered majority position... it just doesn't make sense. That said, if you're white in China/India/Kenya/etc... 100% there is a heap of racism directed at you and I feel for you

ttt0 6y ago
The actual power is in the hands of the elites, so a minority. Just because you happen to be a part of the largest demographic group doesn't mean you hold any power. For example, would you say the same thing about Africa back when it was under white rule?
- onethought 6y ago
  True, I did not mean majority, I meant elite. Thanks for that.
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> I don't really agree that if you're in the social majority you can be upset about racism against your empowered majority position... it just doesn't make sense. It makes sense for two reasons. The first is that a huge amount of the "anti-white racism" is directed by "white people" against others nominally in the same group, implying that they aren't actually in the same social group and correspondingly that the targets don't have a majority. As evidence of this, notice that people can be canceled over petty nonsense, e.g. Gina Carano. How could this happen if there was actually a social majority which should nominally be exerting pressure in the opposite direction and winning? The second is that there are plenty of contexts where the majority doesn't even exist on paper, e.g. only 40% of California is "white" so a "white person" who lives in California is a minority. That state is also the place where a disproportionate amount of the attacks happen. And the same is true of many major US cities, e.g. New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Houston.
- onethought 6y ago
  As was pointed out in another thread: I should have said elite not majority

f430 6y ago

> Honestly, lately I feel like the opposite is the case. Everywhere I go anywhere online all I see is white people being shit on. I see incredibly racist things being said about white people everywhere online and there are zero consequences for it. In fact they often get praised for it. So no, I think what you're saying is far from being true. It's not just whites but east asians, jews as well. The whole idea derives from the notion that its okay to be racist if its upwards. People associate those groups as being affluent and automatically people think its okay to "punch up". There are certain groups that we are not supposed to "punch down". There is a rise in anti-semitism, anti-asian, anti-white imho because wealth gap is increasing and people who are on the bottom tend to be not of those groups so they feel its justified and its okay to be racist not even being conscious of their actions and thoughts. Like many Koreans during the LA riots knew exactly who were looting their stores but its forbidden and "racist" just like the victims of a subset of BLM rioters who decided to loot businesses that can't mention the demographic despite video footage evidence, anecdotes and that overwhelming group behind the protests. It's getting ridiculous like when I was playing Battlefield and was permanently banned for saying "niggardly use of ammo packs" as the person was not cooperating and refusing to drop ammos. The whole thing about master branch, master bedroom also has turned North America into a laughing stock. I can't wait to leave this puritannical shithole.

Fogest 6y ago
Oh yes, groups like Asians are being heavily targeted yet they get almost zero attention. We even saw the case at Yale where Asian and White students were being doc'ed points on admissions. There is even research showing how in many different situations Asians actually have many more cases of hate crimes against them compared to black and Hispanic: > In general, hate crimes are most likely targeting young adults at ages 18–34, male, and local residents in all three groups. Asian American victims however, have a higher chance than African Americans and Hispanics to be victimized in places where they are not local residents (24% vs. 16.8% for African Americans and 16.3% for Hispanics). Comparing with Black and Hispanic victims, Asian Americans also have relatively higher chance to be victimized by non-White offenders (25.5% vs. 1.0% for African Americans and 18.9% for Hispanics). > With regard to the incident characteristics, Asian Americans have higher risk to be persecuted by strangers (39.2% vs. 30.7% for African Americans and 30.1% for Hispanics), are less likely to be offended in their residence (23.7% vs. 34.4% for African Americans and 29.5% for Hispanics), and are more likely to be targeted at school/college (17% vs. 8.9% for African Americans and 11.2% for Hispanics). The variables of time, weapon use, injury, and substance show similar patterns for the three groups. Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7790522/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7790522/ I personally do not think movements like BLM are progress inducing at all. In fact I think they do the opposite. I think movements like BLM put the blame on things like white people and police. It's easy for a politician to use the police as a scape-goat and reap in the votes for being a big BLM supporter. But talk doesn't mean anything. I have yet to see many politicians actually do anything to address some of the root causes of problems such nearly 3/4 of black babies being born to an unmarried mother (https://baylor-ir.tdl.org/bitstream/handle/2104/9429/chad_scott_honorsthesis.pdf https://baylor-ir.tdl.org/bitstream/handle/2104/9429/chad_sc...). And there is a lot of research showing how huge the single-parent factor is on crime rates: > States with a lower percentage of single-parent families, on average, will have lower rates of juvenile crime. State-by-state analysis indicates that, in general, a 10 percent increase in the number of children living in single-parent homes (including divorces) accompanies a 17 percent increase in juvenile crime. Source: https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/report/the-real-root-causes-violent-crime-the-breakdown-marriage-family-and https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/report/the-real-r... I find it wild how the blame will be put on police over-policing areas rather than the root of the problem which is the higher rates of crime in these areas due to factors like the one above. Overall it seems like America (and some of Canada) is becoming super sensitive and easily offended. It makes it hard for anyone to ever bring up the serious problems affecting different communities. This data isn't racist, the same effects are seen across racial groups including white people. And this is exactly why I hate seeing the weird anti-white, anti-jew, anti-asian wars that are going on. Because the reality is that this is a problem that can affect anyone who ends up in these kinds of situations. I'd love to see a politician who focused on the roots of problems rather then focusing on making the loud mouth Twitter users happy. It's sad that often times even just mentioning these kinds of stats would be considered a conservative view and probably would end up being called insults and some Twitter users trying to cancel you.