3 ms·

Sure. But there are different connotations and implications when someone is racist against a white person vs a black person (in America). Go to another country

Sure. But there are different connotations and implications when someone is racist against a white person vs a black person (in America). Go to another country where another race is dominant and the standards and idea of racism change. Having specific adjectives to describe different contextual racism seems useful, as not all racism is equal. Reverse racism is not the best example of a great contextual adjective though, as its meaning wouldn't be obvious to non-Americans. Though it was obvious to you, so it at least did its job. Getting upset about the term itself though is a personal choice that should be examined.

marliechiller 5y ago
I respectfully disagree and would go far as to say that this attitude is counter productive to advancing beyond race. Any acceptance of racism should be shunned irrespective of which ethnic group is doing it. A persons characteristics should not dictate whether an action is more or less morally right.
- amcoastal 5y ago
  You're assuming all discrimination based on race is wrong. Its obviously more nuanced than that, and requires more nuanced language. Unless you think there's a giant stone pad floating in the universe and the 11th commandment on it is 'thall shall not be racist"
  - Sebb767 5y ago
    > You're assuming all discrimination based on race is wrong. Counter question: Which discrimination based on race is right?
    - amcoastal 5y ago
      Your bad faith question implies there could only be one answer to this question, which I would hope you know is untrue, as the answer clearly relies on the authors/readers ethical system, which are relative. For instance, one could imagine a utilitarian ethical system where you could discriminate against someone's race and cause a good much larger than the 'bad' of discrimination. OTOH, someone could have a reductionist moral system and just think 'racial discrimination = bad'. I know which side of the fence I fall on.
      - 7537736638 5y ago
        > For instance, one could imagine a utilitarian ethical system where you could discriminate against someone's race and cause a good much larger than the 'bad' of discrimination. I can't imagine such a scenario. Maybe you could give an example?
    - hihihihi1234 5y ago
      Ibram X Kendi's book How to be an Anti-Racist argues that racial discrimination is not only acceptable but morally necessary if it reduces average-level disparities between racial groups. Well, he doesn't really "argue" it, he just asserts it, and I can't say I'm convinced, but the book is a massive bestseller and these ideas are very influential.
      - curtisblaine 5y ago
        > morally necessary if it reduces average-level disparities between racial groups. How can introducing more disparities reduce the average of disparities?
        hihihihi1234 5y ago
        Let me preface this by saying that I don't think Kendi is a deep thinker and I'm not endorsing his ideas, just describing them. But I don't think we're using the word "discrimination" in the same way as each other. What I mean is this: if (say) black people are underrepresented in academia, Kendi thinks that universities should discriminate in favor of black people to rectify this disparity. And the same logic should apply across all sectors of society - we should actively discriminate everywhere until all races are equally represented in all endeavours. As Kendi puts it, "the only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination." It's a simple philosophy... one might even call it simplistic. Coleman Hughes wrote a good review of the book. I agree fully with Hughes: https://www.city-journal.org/how-to-be-an-antiracist https://www.city-journal.org/how-to-be-an-antiracist
        curtisblaine 5y ago
        Very simplistic indeed. It seems a way to fuel further hate in an already polarized era (at least to me)

marliechiller 5y ago

I respectfully disagree and would go far as to say that this attitude is counter productive to advancing beyond race. Any acceptance of racism should be shunned irrespective of which ethnic group is doing it. A persons characteristics should not dictate whether an action is more or less morally right.

amcoastal 5y ago
You're assuming all discrimination based on race is wrong. Its obviously more nuanced than that, and requires more nuanced language. Unless you think there's a giant stone pad floating in the universe and the 11th commandment on it is 'thall shall not be racist"
- Sebb767 5y ago
  > You're assuming all discrimination based on race is wrong. Counter question: Which discrimination based on race is right?
  - amcoastal 5y ago
    Your bad faith question implies there could only be one answer to this question, which I would hope you know is untrue, as the answer clearly relies on the authors/readers ethical system, which are relative. For instance, one could imagine a utilitarian ethical system where you could discriminate against someone's race and cause a good much larger than the 'bad' of discrimination. OTOH, someone could have a reductionist moral system and just think 'racial discrimination = bad'. I know which side of the fence I fall on.
    - 7537736638 5y ago
      > For instance, one could imagine a utilitarian ethical system where you could discriminate against someone's race and cause a good much larger than the 'bad' of discrimination. I can't imagine such a scenario. Maybe you could give an example?
  - hihihihi1234 5y ago
    Ibram X Kendi's book How to be an Anti-Racist argues that racial discrimination is not only acceptable but morally necessary if it reduces average-level disparities between racial groups. Well, he doesn't really "argue" it, he just asserts it, and I can't say I'm convinced, but the book is a massive bestseller and these ideas are very influential.
    - curtisblaine 5y ago
      > morally necessary if it reduces average-level disparities between racial groups. How can introducing more disparities reduce the average of disparities?
      - hihihihi1234 5y ago
        Let me preface this by saying that I don't think Kendi is a deep thinker and I'm not endorsing his ideas, just describing them. But I don't think we're using the word "discrimination" in the same way as each other. What I mean is this: if (say) black people are underrepresented in academia, Kendi thinks that universities should discriminate in favor of black people to rectify this disparity. And the same logic should apply across all sectors of society - we should actively discriminate everywhere until all races are equally represented in all endeavours. As Kendi puts it, "the only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination." It's a simple philosophy... one might even call it simplistic. Coleman Hughes wrote a good review of the book. I agree fully with Hughes: https://www.city-journal.org/how-to-be-an-antiracist https://www.city-journal.org/how-to-be-an-antiracist
        curtisblaine 5y ago
        Very simplistic indeed. It seems a way to fuel further hate in an already polarized era (at least to me)