4 ms·
Uh, this is like a blatantly reverse-racist article.
by andrewmcwatters 11y ago
Uh, this is like a blatantly reverse-racist article.
- osazuwa 11y agoIronically, your comment is the reason the article was written.
- radu_floricica 11y agoStill doesn't make it wrong. I didn't read the whole thing, but the bias was there. His aunt moved from a "black" neighborhood because it was worse - and yes, there is a correlation between bad neighborhoods and black ones. But this doesn't makes his aunt racist, it just means she doesn't want to live in a shitty place. I'm not american so I don't give a damn about racism, so I can say things which can't be said in public: black culture is inferior (muhaha... I trample on your cultural relativism) and has many toxic elements. It's stupid to blame race, but it's still fact that culture makes a hellof a lot of difference by itself, including more likely to have shitty neighborhoods and white aunts moving out of them. So yes, you could call overly "reverse-racist" a point of view which willfully assigns to racism what can be explained otherwise.
- mister_m 11y agoFeel free to explain why please.
- cmurf 11y agoThis is a transparent ad hominem attack, slandering the author as racist for the sole purpose to reduce his credibility, with the goal of shutting down a rational conversation on racism. I was at first attempted to call your statement hyperbole. But then I realized that's exactly the insidiousness of white privilege that I cut you some slack by thinking you're just being silly.
- _blrj 11y agoNo I mean, factually, it's reverse-racism. It's not an opinion, the author talks about racial issues and then makes prejudicial statements about all white people: > And White people, every single one of you, are complicit in this racism because you benefit directly from it. > every single one of you > complicit in this racism What else is this suppose to say besides, "all white people are racists"? Why is that okay for a black person who identifies as "Black" not black as a descriptor of skin color but Black as a part of community, a culture, not an individual, to say that all, that's all as in every man, woman, and child as a White person, not an individual, but all White people as a part of the white community, are racists? Why is this okay? What does this accomplish? What is the end goal of this conversation the author intends to have with his audience really about? If a message is conveyed here to the White audience, what are white individuals, and White people collectively suppose to do about it? Is the article just about saying White people are racist and that's it, rant over, end of story? What is the solution? > [...] it’s getting harder and harder for me to think about the protection of White people’s feelings when White people don’t seem to care at all about the loss of so many Black lives What? Are you serious? Lets repeat that back: > White people don’t seem to care at all about the loss of so many Black lives Excuse me? Says who?
- scrumper 11y agoWhat else is this suppose to say besides, "all white people are racists"? Re: the complicit because we all benefit, I'm not sure that your argument holds. The author isn't calling all white people racist; he's saying that all white people benefit from racism. That is subtly different. You may have a case to build around whether we all directly benefit from racism, or whether we simply don't suffer because of it. The latter position is surely close to axiomatic but the former requires more thought.
- wangii 11y agoThe phrase "reverse-racist" is racism.