Humor or Racist?

That analysis implies that one can't be racist against Asians. The power dynamic is different between varied races, but your conclusion is myopic to think racism can only flow in one direction.

Rex wrote: That analysis implies that one can't be racist against Asians. The power dynamic is different between varied races, but your conclusion is myopic to think racism can only flow in one direction.

But there WAS racism towards Asians. It was a long time ago. It happened because American were actively fighting/competing against the Japanese so Japanese Americans became distrusted. So when competition and distrust get married the baby is typically xenophobia as those who have the power seek to maintain it against the group they're competing against. And then, left unchecked, the xenophobia evolves into racism.

Not just Asians but this started happening to certain European ethnic groups as well. But then racism allowed a unification of sorts, in all "white people" and they put aside the fact that they came from different nations and places and sought to help each other against black and brown people. So it doesn't have to be color but it more easily becomes color because color makes it much easier to separate friend from foe. If two white people are filling out a form that asks what their ethnicity is they can just put white if they are afraid their application will be treated with bias. Only they have that option.

And over time, whatever 'issues' people had with those European groups who used to be very poor and therefore had more crime as they tried to survive, are slowly forgotten in favor of bigger threats. Immediately after 9/11 it felt like Black people kinds of caught a break because society was focused on Arabs and Muslims. And even other religions that simply look like Muslims, got caught up in it.

So if you're afraid that someone might be a terrorist you're going to treat that person differently. You might make some jokes that are stereotypical. Those jokes can reinforce biases that others have and make others more comfortable in their biases and even in the expression of those biases and acting upon those biases; thus making the lives of the Arabs and Muslims that much harder.

But joking about the speech patterns of Asians? No. Joking about them being bad drivers or whatever doesn't have the same sociological impact than it would if people were actually afraid of or competing with them. They are also, often seen as simply white. But if they indicate Asian on an application, what stereotypical negative attributes do you mentally connect in order to want to deny them jobs, housing, etc? None. And that's when a joke is just that. A joke.

Are we talking about racism or prejudice?

I reject the notion that power imbalances play a significant role in the moral implications of a given action involving racial bias. Most people who use the systemic bias definition or the power imbalance definition for racism will still usually agree that a term like prejudice still applies to cases where, for example, white or Asian people are the victims of racial bias (whether institutional or interpersonal). To insist that such actions aren't racist in response to their identification is to miss the point entirely. The question of "is this a morally acceptable action?" is still not answered by differentiating bias, prejudice, and racism. There is surely little if any difference in the moral acceptability of an action which is racist, an action which is biased, and an action which is prejudiced. So why prefer one definition or method of categorization over another when it comes to these actions?

I will tell you my preference and why I have that preference. When I use the term "racist" I refer to either instances of individual racial discrimination or individuals who regularly engage in racial discrimination. When I use the term "systemic racism" I mean what is meant by those adopting novel definitions of "racism" which include power imbalances. I don't call an act involving racial bias "prejudiced" simply because of a relative power imbalance between the aggressor and the victim because I think it puts the two actions on different levels of moral arbitration that I don't think are appropriate. I don't think that there is a relevant moral difference between what some would call racism and what some would call prejudice. I think it is always morally unacceptable, in every case, without exception, to engage in racial bias and/or discrimination. There is no instance in which an act of prejudice or racism or racial bias would be a morally acceptable action in my opinion. And because there is no difference in the moral relevance of the actions, and the two terms appear to have different moral value, I think it's inappropriate to use different terms to describe the two actions. Basically, I think it would be inappropriate to refer to one act as "prejudiced" and one as "racist" based on the identity of the victim because "prejudiced" and "racist" have different moral implications, while the action should not have different moral implications based on the identity of the victim.

For this reason I personally oppose definitions of racism which limit their scope to only certain groups of victims. I think that the imposition of such a definition is itself racially biased. Furthermore, I believe that racially biased actions of any sort are not morally acceptable. Ergo, it is my belief that defining "racism" in a way which limits its scope to only certain groups of victims is not morally acceptable. Consequently, the nail salon joke is indeed racist and is also not morally acceptable in my opinion.

I don't think it's a morally good thing to tell jokes about women or men or transgender individuals, or white people or black people or Asian people or any other racial group, to impose racial stereotypes about these groups on them, to make assumptions about their behavior, etc. To propagate these stereotypes and ideas to other people in the form of jokes about whole groups of people is at best offensive and at worst directly harmful to the physical and mental well-being of the individuals in the groups being stereotyped. I do not think it is even morally acceptable to make such jokes or use slurs about your own race; what seems harmless to you may compound years of race-related trauma in another person who shares your race, so why do it?

ZealotX wrote: ...in all "white people"

Hang on a sec, you don't actually think only 'white people' can be, have been, or are racist do you?

Adder wrote:

ZealotX wrote: ...in all "white people"

Hang on a sec, you don't actually think only 'white people' can be, have been, or are racist do you?

sorry but you must have missed the part where I said:

Racism would be the Hutus vs the Tutsi who, just like Cain and Abel, separated over a hunter vs gatherer sort of lifestyle which made one more wealthy and thus led to classism which turned into one treating the other as an inferior "breed".

So keep in mind that everything is relative and white people didn't invent the notion of treating another group of people badly. I used the Hutus vs the Tootsies as an example because they're both "black" however, did not regard each other as such.

I don't know if anyone has seen the movie Hotel Rwanda but this is what it was based on.

"Hutus" were people who farmed crops, while "Tutsis" were people who tended livestock. Most Rwandans were Hutus. Gradually, these class divisions became seen as ethnic designations. Because cattle were more valuable than crops, the minority Tutsis became the local elite.

https://www.vox.com/2014/4/10/5590646/rwandan-genocide-anniversary

My point is that the group doing the racism has to be in a position of power over the other group. Otherwise, what you end up doing is blaming the victimized group for its natural defensive response towards the actual racism of the group in power when the group that is reacting cannot have the same impact on the other group.

Racism is often confused for racial prejudice. It's not the same thing. Prejudice is simply prejudging the other group. The group that is the victim of racism can be racially prejudiced against the racist group. If you want to call that wrong, ...ok... but I think it's a little more complicated than that. Because in their minds it is the ENTIRE group that is "doing it" even though it never is. The reality is that those who have the least power in a group cannot control the group, cannot influence the group, and cannot police or restrain members of the group bent on that action. So even if the immoral members of the group do so many bad things in the name of the "race"; screaming "White Power!" for example... that doesn't mean little Timmy down the street has anything to do with that. But... if you don't know whether little Timmy is racist or not, because it is typically something people hide and not wear as a badge of honor, then this makes a lot of people defensive or apprehensive about everyone who looks like Timmy. And this would not be so if it wasn't for the inescapable fact that racism is so hidden.

Between 2016 and now, we have seen more racists than anyone every really knew was there. Some people felt vindicated by this because they only suspected that the number of racists were much larger than the membership of the KKK. For African Americans, we knew there were many more but the Trump presidency has made them more bold. The "Karen" phenomenon... is just an example, scratching only the surface, the very tip of the iceberg. That mindset exists within far greater numbers of people who DON'T have run ins like that and who are AREN'T bold enough to say anything; especially on camera. This Karen behavior is only something that the minority of people would do who share similar beliefs. And so when you live in an environment in which everyone who "looks" like a Karen could actually be one... it's enough to give anyone pause. That's not racist because it is not believing or assuming that all white people are racist but rather the realization that any white person encountered COULD be a racist.

There's a difference.

And the fact that one form of prejudice is offensive and the other is a defensive reaction, it's like how a fist fight starts with a provocation. If you want to say both people are wrong for fighting that's your opinion and it's fair. But you could also ask who threw the first punch and credit the other person for fighting back, defending themselves, resisting, responding, etc. In Star Wars terms.... yes Luke killed an untold number of people on the Death Star. However, he did it to prevent them from destroying worlds. That's gotta count for something.

So while some of you may believe in "reverse racism" and you may feel somewhat victimized by certain people's reactions to you or people you know, just remember. Their "planet" was destroyed and you're wearing the same uniform. You might be Han or Luke dressed up in that same armor but when the shooting starts there's no way of knowing (unless you take your helmet off and start shooting people with their helmets on - hoping they don't also take theirs off). It's not like you can just ask people if they're racist or not and expect truthful responses. You can still say its wrong and depending on the defensive reaction I would probably agree with you. But its not keeping you from getting good paying jobs. It's not making the police think you're so dangerous that you get shot in the back or strangled to death over a speeding ticket. Racism isn't simply hurtful emotionally. It is destructive and threatens the survival and/or progress of the other group. "reverse racism" doesn't hinder anyone's progress. It's not even intended to do so. And it isn't done because the person you're accusing of "reverse racism" believes their race is superior. Many people reacting to racial issues understand that race was a distinction that was invented and isn't really even real.

The best way to combat this "reverse racism" is to simply get to know each other and show people who you are. The more familiar you are the better. The more you speak your mind the better. The more you treat people fairly the better. These are all ways of removing or marking the helmet. Those you believe to be practicing "reverse racism" are simply scared that you might be racist and hiding it. It's not the same. It doesn't have the same intent behind it.

ZealotX wrote: My point is that the group doing the racism has to be in a position of power over the other group. Otherwise, what you end up doing is blaming the victimized group for its natural defensive response towards the actual racism of the group in power when the group that is reacting cannot have the same impact on the other group.

I fail to see why you believe that power balances are relevant to the definition of the word, especially given the context that we live in a society where power imbalance has not been a relevant factor in the definition of the word since its creation. A member of a powerful group can commit racist actions against a member of a less powerful group, and that member of a less powerful group can commit racist actions against the member of a more powerful group. Two wrongs do not make a right. A member of a weaker group should not be excused from moral judgment when they perform immoral action. Certainly some responses are natural, but that does not make them morally acceptable. A natural response to racist speech may be to punch the speaker in the face, but that isn't morally acceptable. I do blame the victimized group if their natural defensive response creates victims from another group. To minimize these responses as being totally upright responses to "actual racism" is not morally acceptable in my opinion. The difference in impact is not a difference on the level of the victim in either case if both are victims of the literal same actions.

I understand that people often have a gut reaction in favor of "punching up", but do they really value that more than choosing not to punch? Can't we agree that punching is generally not a good thing to do whether you're in the advantaged or disadvantaged position? And if we can agree to that, can we not also agree to hold accountable both parties engaged in a fistfight for the moral value of their actions? Can we not find better solutions than to respond to racist speech with equally racist speech?
We do not say that the larger fighter "punched and kicked" and the smaller fighter "physically aggressed upon" or anything else like that. We use the same terms for both. We do this to describe the action, because it is the action we are describing, not the outcome of the action or the impact of the action or even the implications of the action.

To be clear, it is my position that "reverse racism" is also a racist term. There is just racism.

Thanks for the clarification. When referencing a segment of a group it's safer to prefix the group with 'some' or the characteristic to which your referring, else it comes across as/equivalent to race baiting Which is obviously not your intent.
But yea, reverse racism is just people (who might be or believe they are victims of racism) being racist back at people who have been, or remind them of people who have, been racist to them in the past. A tit for tat. It's just a label for a particular application of racism, not a different type of racism. Like person A slaps person B, person B slaps them back - person A calls it a reverse slap. The question becomes, is a slap back the appropriate way to respond when the point is slapping is not appropriate to begin with.

TheDude wrote:

ZealotX wrote: My point is that the group doing the racism has to be in a position of power over the other group. Otherwise, what you end up doing is blaming the victimized group for its natural defensive response towards the actual racism of the group in power when the group that is reacting cannot have the same impact on the other group.

I fail to see why you believe that power balances are relevant to the definition of the word, especially given the context that we live in a society where power imbalance has not been a relevant factor in the definition of the word since its creation. A member of a powerful group can commit racist actions against a member of a less powerful group, and that member of a less powerful group can commit racist actions against the member of a more powerful group. Two wrongs do not make a right. A member of a weaker group should not be excused from moral judgment when they perform immoral action. Certainly some responses are natural, but that does not make them morally acceptable. A natural response to racist speech may be to punch the speaker in the face, but that isn't morally acceptable. I do blame the victimized group if their natural defensive response creates victims from another group. To minimize these responses as being totally upright responses to "actual racism" is not morally acceptable in my opinion. The difference in impact is not a difference on the level of the victim in either case if both are victims of the literal same actions.

I understand that people often have a gut reaction in favor of "punching up", but do they really value that more than choosing not to punch? Can't we agree that punching is generally not a good thing to do whether you're in the advantaged or disadvantaged position? And if we can agree to that, can we not also agree to hold accountable both parties engaged in a fistfight for the moral value of their actions? Can we not find better solutions than to respond to racist speech with equally racist speech?
We do not say that the larger fighter "punched and kicked" and the smaller fighter "physically aggressed upon" or anything else like that. We use the same terms for both. We do this to describe the action, because it is the action we are describing, not the outcome of the action or the impact of the action or even the implications of the action.

To be clear, it is my position that "reverse racism" is also a racist term. There is just racism.

TheDude:
"we live in a society where power imbalance has not been a relevant factor in the definition of the word since its creation"


And WHO decided upon the definition? Do you see? Your defense is basically saying "we, who represent the dominant force of this society have hereby deemed that the definition of what racism is, is what we say it is."

Do you not see the problem with this?

Look, I am not accusing you of white privilege. But I have to say something about it, running the risk of offending you, which is not my intention and I am truly sorry if it comes out that way.

But this has been a white society and there are white people out there (not you) fighting a "culture war" in order to keep it that way. So white privilege isn't necessarily about a boss saying "I like you because you're white." It's about what he thinks of as "normal" or "mainstream". I think white people who grew up in the 90s actually understand "alternative" more than I do. While black people were spending ungodly amounts of money trying to fit in and be accepted because that was important to our survival, a group of white kids were always about being different and kind of counter-culture. They either wore all black or "goth" or something similar. They weren't trying to be mainstream.

I imagine that they didn't want to be "controlled" or dictated to in that way. And they had the freedom to do that. And more power to them. But the point is that they understood that society... wasn't automatically correct just because that's what the masses agreed upon.

Why should the majority get to decide how to define the word that was the very instrument of the majority against minorities?

It's like saying "I punched you but I really wasn't trying to knock you out so let me be the one to talk to the cops."

So the definition that I use is the one provided by Dr. Frances Cress Welsing, M.D.

RACISM (white supremacy), is the local and global power system and dynamic, structured and maintained by persons who classify themselves as white, whether consciously or subconsciously determined, which consists of patterns of perception, logic, symbol formation, thought, speech, action and emotional response, as conducted simultaneously in all areas of people activity.

If you don't like someone because they are black... that's not racism. That's prejudice. When you USE that prejudice to maintain the power dynamic in some way of oppressing a person of that race in order to benefit your own race... that's racism.

Some people want to call everything racist. That's simply not the case. If a white person gets hired over a black person, is that racism? It COULD be. It depends if there is racial bias involved. But it could also be that the white person was more qualified. And as long as it COULD be that, racists often get away with racist hiring and promotion practices. Because they can always say it was some other reason.

We cannot eradicate racism by barking up the tree of who likes who. Maybe you don't like me and it has ZERO to do with me being black. In the same way, laughing about how Asians sound really has nothing to do with them being Asian and everything to do with having English as a second language and the phonetic differences of Japanese that don't cross over well. And we've all watched Asian movies and heard bad voiceovers but no one is thinking... "oh Asians must be retarded because they sound like that". No, not at all. My girlfriend likes imitating accents a lot because it's funny to her. It sounds exaggerated and I typically don't laugh when she tries to imitate a Jamaican accent. In doing so, she's not making fun of Jamaican but rather the way she thinks patois sounds.

So how could you argue she's racist against Jamaicans? I'm half Jamaican. No, obviously she doesn't have any intention against Jamaicans just like no one has any ill intentions against Asians. And if your hair looks like white Jesus I will probably think that in my mind if not say something about it but guess what? That doesn't mean I don't like the person or that I think the person is somehow inferior.

So we need to really not use the race card when it doesn't apply because that's not fair to the person being accused; nor fair to the actual victims of racism who struggle and suffer real consequences as a result because that is what real racism is intended to do.

The Dude: A natural response to racist speech may be to punch the speaker in the face, but that isn't morally acceptable.

I agree (and I think I already said something to this effect) but that doesn't make the person who reacted, RACIST. If a white person calls me the N-word, and I've overheard it before, I might be provoked to retaliate but my main conclusion is that person is IGNORANT. That is ironically the actual definition of the N-word. Right? So if I'm calling this person ignorant, and they're calling me ignorant, is it the same? Think about it before you answer.

My answer is simple. No it's not the same. I'm responding to a racist insult made because I'm black. If I said something back, I'm responding to his ignorance by calling him out on exactly what he has displayed. And it's a free country so if he has a right to say what he wants, so do I. The difference is I'm not running around calling white people ignorant simply because they're white. If they happen to be white then they happen to be white. If he wanted to call me ignorant without the racist tone he would use the word "ignorant" and would be responding to something I said that he felt qualified as such.

The Dude: I do blame the victimized group if their natural defensive response creates victims from another group.

You're free to have that opinion but if you hit me first then you are NOT a victim if I hit you back. You are ONLY the victim if I'm doing so unprovoked. I have no problem with pacifists, but I believe in balance. If someone's coming at me with a deadly weapon I'm not going to sit there and only play defense.

If someone is molested as a child and they grow up and become child molesters themselves. That's different. And yes they are taking an individual act that they were victimized by and taking it out on another individual, making them a victim and feeding a cycle of victimization. And while we can use what happened to them as a means of understanding it is not an excuse.

Racism is a team sport. You see this crystal clear if you ever have the unfortunate experience of going to prison. Race, to a racist, means that the same race is his team and it's his team against other teams.

So you could then say... well Z... how does it make anything better if black people act like they're on a team too?

Glad you asked. When America is attacked who is attacked? Who got attacked on 9/11? Just New Yorkers and People in the Pentagon? Or was it an attack on America? Because it was an attack on America as a collective that created a collective threat to that collective. The generation of people that did that didn't necessarily "start" it. And there may be any number of future generations who continue the fight because both sides feel attacked by the other. That is how racism operates. It's not an individual sport. If racism was something one person did and that was it, I would feel the same as you. However, when black people, as a race, are peppered with racism from hundreds and thousands of people and it still goes on today after so many years of progress, it doesn't look like something ONE person is doing to you.

Because it's not.

You can say "not me" and guess what? You'd be right. It's not you. But clearly there are enough people on this team that call themselves white, working against and even killing black people, that we cannot behave as if this is a 1on1 crime. Black people, as a group, are victimized by it. Black people, as a group, have to fight for civil rights. Black people, as a group, were enslaved and had to be freed. Black people, as a group, were oppressed under the Jim Crow laws. Black people, as a group, were segregated and housed in adverse conditions. And when some black communities prospered, like Tulsa, the whole community was suffered and many died together. And when a black person is dragged by a truck or hung on a tree, it wasn't because their name was Calvin. It was because they belonged to the group.

So it may appear unfair... because you would like members of this oppressed and attacked group, not to be defensive as a group, but to treat each offense and rogue individual racism. But that's not our experience. It is a team sport and if we act otherwise then it's simply like having not enough players on the field. Because trust me... rarely does 1 white person EVER hang 1 black person. Rarely does 1 white supremacist march. They want us to see that they are together. So we cannot act as individuals or treat each incident as isolated.

The Dude: And if we can agree to that, can we not also agree to hold accountable both parties engaged in a fistfight for the moral value of their actions? Can we not find better solutions than to respond to racist speech with equally racist speech?

But you are deeming something to be racist speech based on what? Tonality? Hurt feelings? Give me a specific example. I already said there were cases I would agree with and people can go too far in their defense. For instance, someone breaks into my home I'm allowed to defend my family. If they escape I'm not allowed to go hunt them down. I don't want to end up in a fight. And if I can avoid doing so I will. But if another man is throwing punches it isn't simply instinct to fight back, fighting back may be the only way to stop the assault.

The last thing you want to do is advocate to a victim that they should just take it. If a woman is getting raped she should do whatever it takes, including kicks to the balls, to get away. And if I was there I would want to knock the guy out. Did you ever get bullied in school? Funny thing is they usually use their size and strength to pick on someone they think is weaker. And they keep doing it until you stand up for yourself which may including physically fighting back. In a perfect world maybe you wouldn't have to but in order to NOT be a victim people have to be willing to fight back in order to stop the aggression.

Now if you want to tell us some alternatives to fighting back I'm all ears. Otherwise, choosing not to punch could simply mean your death. That's why many people try to run from the cops because they think there's too big a risk of being killed if they don't. And you could tell them a hundred things to do instead and a hundred things have all been tried and a hundred things have all failed. So you may blame them for trying to survive. I cannot. People don't always have the luxury of nonviolence and it doesn't always work. Racism and white supremacy have been protested for longer than I've been alive and I cannot tell that there is one iota of difference in the population of racists vs non-racists in the US. Sad but true.

Bullies represent the powerful. It is the nature of power to be used against the weak because using it against the strong incurs the risk of being beaten. It's not just individual people who are bullied, but groups, gender, sexual orientation, religions, tribes, and nations. Because it's about power.

So tell me how the Rebellion could have NOT fought back against the Empire. What would that even look like and what would the Jedi be in that scenario? If you're try to say two wrongs don't make a right, that's true. But is it wrong to defend? Is it wrong to protect? I say no. I say it is righteous to defend the ones you love, your family, your community, your culture, your nation, against those who, with evil or wicked intentions, attempt to do you harm. I'm a samurai. But if I have to be, I'll be a ninja too.

That is quite a lot, so forgive me if this appears long or short or if some points appear blunt. I don’t want to take up your whole day but I want to respond to what you said.

ZealotX: “And WHO decided upon the definition?...”

The people who use a language are the ones who determine what words in the language mean. Meanings of words are determined by their use within given situations of communication whether they be written, spoken, sung, etc. A definition is not decided by a top-down deliberating force (though dictionaries do try to keep up), but is the consequence of the way words are used. Without a doubt, the definition of the word “racism” used since its conception has been a consequence of how the word has been used in human conversations between people of any background. In the US that happens to be primarily people of a certain shared background, but I think that’s a consequence of the natural process of language development rather than a self-serving intentional decision. I don’t think that it’s an action of moral significance. No matter how you structure your society, there is bound to be some demographic (race, sex, religion, gender, political ideology, etc) which holds the majority. Those people will naturally have more of an influence over the development of language because there are more of them participating in the language, conversing, inventing words, changing definitions, etc.

ZealotX: “Why should the majority get to decide how to define the word that was the very instrument of the majority against minorities?”

The natural development of language is not top-down. Definitions are loosely agreed upon within social groups. I previously mentioned this being unavoidable. But as for the definition of a word being more inclusive resulting in discrimination -- I am not sure how this could be the case. Please give me an example. From what I can see, labeling black-on-white racism as racism does nothing to injure black people. Calling white-on-black racism what it is, racism, is common sense. Labeling both as racism just demonstrates that they are of the same class of action: racially-motivated acts, thoughts, words, etc. which unfairly discriminate based solely on factors beyond the control of the individual and which serve to the detriment of that individual. Labeling both as racism does not belittle one or the other; it recognizes that the moral issue at hand is not the result of the action, but is that it is morally unacceptable to engage in actions which are racially-motivated acts, thoughts, words, etc. which unfairly discriminate based solely on factors beyond the control of the individual and which serve to the detriment of that individual.

ZealotX: “RACISM (white supremacy), is the local and global power system and dynamic, structured and maintained by persons who classify themselves as white, whether consciously or subconsciously determined, which consists of patterns of perception, logic, symbol formation, thought, speech, action and emotional response, as conducted simultaneously in all areas of people activity.”

There were a few classes in college where we read the papers that make arguments for this kind of thing and they were always really sloppy opinion pieces, for lack of a better term. I’m just not concerned with the personal opinion of Dr. Welsing about racism, though I’m sure they’re a fine M.D. When I speak about racism, I’m talking about racism outright – not specifically white supremacy. I think a definition of racism which exclusively applies to a single racial group, regardless of context, is itself incredibly racist and should be recognized as an intellectualization of racism against that racial group.
I just wholeheartedly reject this definition and the one which follows it. I don’t think it’s appropriate. I think it’s a racist definition and the act of adopting it does not serve to better society in any way. By adopting it, there are entire races which cannot categorically be the victims of racism. You may say that it is prejudice instead, but I hold that there is no moral difference between one racial slur or another.
I live in an area with many different racial groups, but it’s heavily segregated. Just walking down the street in some parts of town I’ve been harassed, called racial slurs, and threatened because of my race. I simply do not accept the premise that there is any difference between that happening to me and that happening to a black guy my age in another part of town. If he gets punched for being black and I get punched for being white (yes, this has happened to me) by different racists in different areas, I do not see any reason to label our experiences differently. I know white people who have been the victim of racist abuse and I know black people who have never once experienced an instance of racist behavior that they can name. I do not think anything worthwhile is done by labeling racism and prejudice separately in these instances. And I do not think it would be appropriate to say racism did not take place in those instances.

ZealotX: “So if I'm calling this person ignorant, and they're calling me ignorant, is it the same? Think about it before you answer.”

If you call them ignorant, there is a difference. They used a racially motivated term to single you out due to your race, and hence the action they committed was racist. If you call them a racial slur in return, there is no difference. Both actions are racist. It doesn’t matter what race they are. If you punch them in return, of course, that’s not necessarily racist. It’s just a reaction, and likely not the morally correct one. So no, punching them in return wouldn’t make you a racist.
We might go down the rabbit hole of whether it’s better to respond with a racial slur or to punch, since one is racist and the other isn’t. Personally I hold that it’d be better just to call them ignorant.

ZealotX: “You are ONLY the victim if I'm doing so unprovoked.”

Agreed, but I don’t think this applies to racial groups. If some guy does something racist to you and you react by doing something to him, he’s not really a victim in that scenario. But if that guy does something racist to you and you react by doing racist things to other people of his race, that’s not exactly the same thing.
If a white guy provokes a black guy with racism, then the black guy was provoked, but only by that one white guy. The moment he takes that beyond that one individual or the group of people the individual is with, and it becomes about white people in general, it’s no longer a reasonable response to provocation. To be clear, that one guy provoked the black guy; white people did not provoke him. You cannot be provoked by a race; that is racist. To displace righteous anger on others unjustly does not solve any problems in my opinion.

ZealotX: “But you are deeming something to be racist speech based on what? Tonality? Hurt feelings? Give me a specific example.”

It’s a racially-motivated act, thought, word, etc. which unfairly discriminates based solely on race and which serve to the detriment of that individual to whom it is directed.
I wasn’t going to bring up personal examples. I’ve been attacked before but here’s a relatively tame one. Once I was driving when I was blindsided by another driver. The driver went on their way but my front bumper was torn off. I put my emergency lights on, parked, and got out of the car, grabbed the bumper to put it in my backseat, and drove the car to the side of the road once I had cleared the debris so that other drivers would not be inconvenienced by my crash. While I was putting the bumper in the back seat, a woman yelled out her car window (spoiler below for those easily offended)

Then she drove off. This was speech directed at me, based on nothing other than my race, for the purpose of causing me some detriment, possibly emotional if nothing else. I cannot imagine this would not be interpreted as racist if I had a different skin color and different slurs were used. And I see no moral difference between the situation that happened to me and the race-reversal of that situation. Do you?

TheDude wrote: Please give me an example. From what I can see, labeling black-on-white racism as racism does nothing to injure black people. Calling white-on-black racism what it is, racism, is common sense. Labeling both as racism just demonstrates that they are of the same class of action: racially-motivated acts, thoughts, words, etc.

I'm sorry but it does injure black people. I can give you multiple examples.

since I understand your overall point let me point out that in my understanding we are debating racial vs racist. And I'm starting by going into what I call racist. I will follow with what I would only consider "racial" so that hopefully you can see the difference and agree with a need to differentiate. I'm not saying all uses of "racial" anything is okay. There should be limits. But I am asserting that "racial" is different from "racist" and both can be wrong, but one is always wrong.

The most basic example of how this confusion can injure black people is a case in which 2 people get into a fight, but one was simply defending themselves. If you treat them the same then they both go to jail and the person who instigated the fight, the one who deserves punishment, is treated better than the person they attacked because the person they attacked is being punished for defending themselves. And if they have to go to jail, they may lose their job, they may lose their house or apartment, their children could suffer as a result, etc.

Fortunately, the law doesn't usually work that way because it would be unfair. If there are no consequences for being the aggressor then you're suggesting that being the aggressor isn't actually wrong. I don't think you mean to imply this but equivocating suggests it.

Another example: (MLK)


Again... go back to 2 people getting into a fight. If the person who started the fight wasn't paying rent because he lived with him parents, then he is in a better position at the start of the fight and would suffer less consequences than the person defending themselves.

So if one side is already on top and you call the defense to racism, racist, in order to stop the defense and stop all reaction to racism... then the racists win because they were already on top. That's what equivocation does.

Boxing metaphor:



You may not look at it this way because you're not racist. Racists DO look at it this way and strategize accordingly and therefore black people have to think this way to defend against it.

Let's use a numbers metaphor. Football this time.



I think the fact that you confuse racial for racist is actually a sign that you're not racist because it's like I'm trying to educate you about what racism is. But that's good. That's a weird compliment. But it would be good for you to understand so you can better understand some of your unfortunate experiences which I'll get to in a slightly later post.

In democracy it's all about the majority. But if the majority are voting as individuals it would stand to reason that their vote would represent people in other groups/classes as well. Rich people wouldn't have to lobby if they were in the majority. Lobbying is a way of working against the majority. But if too many members of the majority vote as a racial group, then this makes it a team sport and creates a clear advantage as their interests would go against the interests of the minority. And this isn't speculation. It's evidenced by constitution and bill of rights. There was a time when black people were considered 3/5 human. Can you imagine? But that's not just an insult, it's strategy. It meant that the votes of black people shouldn't count as much as a white person's vote. And don't get me started on Redlining.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEKYqsIZMn8&t=592s&ab_channel=TheDailyShowwithTrevorNoah

Racism has real consequences because the intent is to disadvantage another race to benefit your own. They wanted to maintain power. So that's why racism is about maintaining that power dynamic. Racial jokes aren't something black people worry about. Racism threatens survival and progress. Categorizing everything as racism actually helps racists. Because they can just say "you're racist too" every time you respond. And that's like giving them a get out of jail free card and a license to kill. I don't want social justice warriors to turn into a thought police. That not only will not help but it will backfire hard. We need to focus on real racism; the things that makes life unfair for people because these things still exist.

After the playing field has been leveled for awhile, whites will adapt to not having a natural advantage on the basis of race and the racial slurs and racial biases will start to go away because they are merely symptoms of the greater problem like bumps are a symptom of an allergic reaction. You're seeing the bumps and that's fine. But the fundamental issue is racism. The bumps are just the body's reaction. If you have a temperature, the temp may not be the problem but rather the body's reaction to cure itself. So the best way to stop these reactions that people call "reverse racism" is to solve actual racism and fight for human rights and justice.

TheDude wrote: By adopting it, there are entire races which cannot categorically be the victims of racism. You may say that it is prejudice instead, but I hold that there is no moral difference between one racial slur or another.

If you have a need to be included. That doesn't mean you have to be a victim of the same exact thing as someone else. If you were called names, I truly sympathize. And it sounds like you have some personal experiences I would like to know more about before I judge because I've never seen black people verbally assault someone out of the blue without any provocation. There must be a lot of racism against them in that particular area (you did say it was heavily segregated) in which the bitterness and resentment are at an extreme high. And when people don't know who to blame for it... they start pointing with elbows instead of fingers if you catch my drift.

Does it make it okay? No. Like I said, if someone is overreacting that's not cool. But it's a little like democrats vs republicans. If both parties demonize each other then blanket statements are made that make it harder to work together. But these are the conversations we need to have and I thank you for having this conversation and sharing your experience.

My focus on survival threatening actions against an entire group is not meant to minimize things you've gone through. But there is a difference that I hope you will see. For example... its one thing for a frustrated citizen to take their feelings out on you. That's wrong. That's bad. I condemn it. However, it's a different thing when its a police officer, a lawyer, a judge. I would have personally preferred this judge call me the N-word instead of what he actually did. He have me home dentention over an expired tag. Home detention is a punishment for a crime as part of a sentence. I got home detention before even having a court date. And because I had to wait for the 2 home dentention people who worked at the jail just to get to my case, I was already stuck in jail for 3-4 days. You would have thought I killed someone and was a flight risk. But if that was the case then the judge should have denied bail. No. I had bail posted so I should have been out that same day. But because this judge, who I cannot prove is racist, did this, it could have easily cost me my job. THAT's the kind of stuff I'm talking about.

The difference is that many things are RACIAL.... but that should be a different category from things that are RACIST. Although both have something to do with race, someone calling you honkey or cracker (words that whites used on each other) is not going to affect the way you live.

sources:
https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2012/09/honky.html
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/07/01/197644761/word-watch-on-crackers

But regardless, these words, however they were used, the meaning carries a tone that is based on intention. Consider the many variations of the word "bitch" (Which I'm not bleeping because the proper definition is not a curse word but rather a female dog in heat). It can be positive or negative, based on who and how it's used.

more on words:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs_by_ethnicity

I don't consider all these words racist. And I don't think you can be racist against your own people. They may be prejudicial and reflect racial biases. But to call them racist I think is confusing the term racial with racist.

Compare sexual with sexist.

Something sexual (al ending) is related to sex. A Sexist is typically someone who is prejudiced against women. Is it not possible for women to be sexist? Maybe, but you have to admit that it isn't likely because it would require women to see men as inferior where as men often see women as weak and inferior because of the power dnynamic that has existed for a long time. This effects how women are paid and what positions men try to keep them out of. This is why there are laws to try to help women. Because again... its not about slurs. It's about power. Is it sexist if you compliment a woman on her beauty or figure? It could be considered sexual but is it sexist?

Sexist... racist... elitist... realist... socialist... apologist....

Google:
The suffix -ist can make nouns with the meaning “one that works with or is connected with.” The suffix -est adds the meaning “most” to short adjectives and adverbs - as in calmest, which means “most calm.” Since both suffixes sound like [ist] or [əst], they can be easily confused when you are trying to spell them

dictionary.com:
a suffix of nouns, often corresponding to verbs ending in -ize or nouns ending in -ism, that denote a person who practices or is concerned with something, or holds certain principles, doctrines, etc.:
apologist; dramatist; machinist; novelist; realist; socialist; Thomist.


So the bottom line from a language point of view is that the suffix should match the meaning. If you are saying anything related... then the suffix should be "-al" (like social). But someone who is being social isn't a "socialist". Do you see? The "-ist" ending is much more than simply relating. And that's where I think the confusion is.

Next I want to talk about specific experiences in the most respectful way possible. I think it will be beneficial.

Forgot I wrote this first...

The Dude:

Meanings of words are determined by their use within given situations of communication whether they be written, spoken, sung, etc.

That is exactly correct. Your whole paragraph is correct. So... think about it. If I cannot convince you to use the definition I provided which is the more popular definition in the black community and those who study racism, then being the minority of the population matters because you're choosing to go with the mainstream which is simply the consensus of the majority. But there's NO LAW or reason that the definition I'm telling you cannot be the one you choose to go with and the one you use in conversation and the one that spreads into your community until it is the more accepted, mainstream, definition. It's your choice. I cannot force you into using it. But you not using it, as part of that majority, makes the minority view harder to accept.

This is exactly how racism works.

Again... its not you. I'm talking about the systemic nature of it. Because white supremacy already has power all it needs to do is maintain that power. The only threat to that power is outside influence. That's why they want a culture war because if minorities are too accepted (equal with them) then they lose that hidden advantage of being in the majority. And with a negative birth rate people who are invested in racial inequality pay attention to that and anything that is a long term potential threat. That's what "build the wall" is about. It's not simply "America First". These are white washed political slogans designed to hide the real intent of policy makers.

If there are too many "brown people" then they might eventually, when combined with "black people", change the population dynamic to where whites become the minority. And if you are a person (again, not you. I'm saying "you" as a theoretical construct) who enjoys the benefit of being in the majority then you might have a reaction to this very possible eventuality. Remember the chant "Jews will not replace us" ? These groups are telegraphing their fears. Imagine all the people who simply don't march and don't want to be identified as racist, but who think the same way? Those who march will always represent a larger group and they know that and that's why they do it.

The mere fact that the majority view things a certain way means that that has a powerful influence over society; including the definition of words. It wasn't that long ago that enough people considered slavery okay that they were willing to go to war to maintain it. And because the descendants of slaves have been fighting for equality against the majority it has been an uphill battle. So if I can't get you to accept even this simple definition on the basis of logic because you are (well within your rights) more influenced by the mainstream majority use, even though I'm telling you it's wrong, then... what can I, as a member of the minority, with a minority opinion, do?

The fight for equality has always been this way because as much as we just want equality, the majority will keep voting in their own interests unless we can convince them otherwise. But again, you are 100% entitled to your opinion. I can't change you. I can only express my view and the views of many others, past and present, to hopefully push against the imbalanced majority enough that we can help bring balance. Because equality is balance.

TheDude wrote: The Dude:
I live in an area with many different racial groups, but it’s heavily segregated.

I have to admit. I do not know what this means. If it's heavily segregated by definition there aren't many racial groups in within each segregated area. It's either segregated or not. I'm not understanding how it's both. The closet thing I can think of is something like a prison.

TheDude wrote: If a white guy provokes a black guy with racism, then the black guy was provoked, but only by that one white guy. The moment he takes that beyond that one individual or the group of people the individual is with, and it becomes about white people in general, it’s no longer a reasonable response to provocation. To be clear, that one guy provoked the black guy; white people did not provoke him. You cannot be provoked by a race; that is racist. To displace righteous anger on others unjustly does not solve any problems in my opinion.

Man you have no idea how much I want to agree with you. I just cannot get there and here's why. As I said before, racism is a team sport. And it's about power. If a police pulls me over because I'm black, how can I know that? I can't. It would be "racial" of me to think that, but not racist. Because I DONT KNOW THEM and its a real possibility. That suspicion has to be in the back of our minds because it protects us from being too comfortable. If we're wrong and the cop is not a racist, cool. Do I feel bad if I'm wrong? No. You cannot operate this way. So many people are racist (not not simply racial) and they are often benign until they are in positions of authority or... like Karens... they can use the authority of the police to prosecute people for being black.

Defensive Suspicion: (similar to racial profiling)


And this is why black people say "THE (WHITE) MAN" although this term is old and depreciated. The concept is still sound. Who is the man? Is it an individual? No. Is it all white people? No. It is a construct with many faces that are unknown. When you see the KKK they used to wear hoods. The whole point was to hide their identities because they might be breaking the law and they were also cops, lawyers, judges, etc. That anonymity was also meant to terrorize. They burned crosses on people's lawns because they wanted them to live in fear. But it wasn't like they could sue the person who did it. So the same way Dick Gregory explains honkey was what unknown white people were called because they were known in a certain scenario honking their horns, the same way that over time so many white people doing things to your community just starts to merge together into a collective. Again... it's a team sport. When you don't know who's on the team and all you know is that all the members are white, what do you call them? So "the man" was never a symbol for all white people. It was a symbol for all the white people who were racist and acted in ways to oppress minorities.

The reason we capture police officers on video is protect ourselves and to show these cases to people who don't believe us when we say that racism is part of police culture. Sounds absurd because people want to equate police officers with heroes. And of course it is not every officer who is like that. But if we say "oh what happened to Rayshard Brooks wont happen to me because that was a different officer", our name might be Daniel Prude. And if we say what happened to Daniel Prude wont happen to me because that was a different officer then our name might be George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Atatiana Jefferson, Aura Rosser, Stephon Clark, Botham Jean, Philando Castille, Alton Sterling, Michelle Cusseaux, Freddy Gray, Eric Garner, etc.

Motivated by the past:


The list of crimes against black people in the United States is infinite and more than enough to keep black people in a defensive state of mind. My best friend would not even have been born in Ohio if it wasn't for the fact that his father had to run away from the South after he was warned he was about to get lynched because he defended himself when someone attacked him for being in the wrong bathroom. It was an accident and he really had to pee.

THAT's racism.

America's reaction to Muslim extremists and anti-black Terrorism:


Until that happens, the fear and anger that some black people cannot contain, is still a reaction to a faceless horde of white terrorists, and that's how they will see it. Doesn't make it right but if no one wants to fight this battle with us then it is hard to see anyone on our side. Thanks to BLM, black people finally have begun to see real allies fighting with black people, and that alone is a great step in the right direction. Seeing a random white guy at the gym with a Black Lives Matter shirt? That's not nothing. This is what we've have been waiting to see. Acknowledgement and empathy. Goes a long way.

Whoever it was that hurt you, they need help. I can't sympathize with them because I'm sympathizing with you, but I just know that what they're feeling is a twisted form of justice and revenge added to their suspicion that you're probably a racist and questioning why you're in their community when whites generally only go there for certain things; mostly things that aren't good. But that's not right. Just like it's not right when cops and Karens follow black people around in nice neighborhoods asking why those black people are there. That's racist because the person asking you is implying that you aren't good enough to live there; symbolized by the idea that you cannot afford to live there. That's not the same question when a white person is in a black neighborhood. The suspicion isn't that your not good enough to live there but rather you may be up to no good. This suspicion is wrong but a defense mechanism designed to keep potential threats and danger away. It's prison mentality and that's what happens in an area that is segregated off like a prison.

A perfect example of the meat of this discussion can be seen in Small Axe, a short series of movies on Amazon Prime Video. The first, called Mangrove has Letitia Wright playing the role of a Black Panther. The best way to understand is to actually see and feel the frustration depicted in this movie.

Would you recommend "I am not Your Negro." ZealotX? I recently watched it on Netflix and was wondering if it misrepresents anything.