Reverse Racism

GoblinCookie writes:

It is a matter of semantics not a matter of logic.  Also critical thinking is not a better opposing system, it isn't a system at all. 

noblenutria@gmail.com writes:
[To GoblinCookie]

Is secular humanism a better alternative to CRT?  

GoblinCookie writes:
[To noblenutria@gmail.com]

Secular Humanism is irrelevant to CRT.  Most CRTists are probably Secular Humanists for all it's worth.

As I said, what racism is or isn't is a matter of semantics not logic. 

skips777 writes:

"Racism = prejudice plus power"....this isn't really true though.

noblenutria@gmail.com writes:
[To skips777]

You mean it’s not true (in which case I agree) or this is not what CRT believes?

skips777 writes:
[To noblenutria@gmail.com]

You're right on the former.

GoblinCookie writes:

People generally approve of racism's fundamental fallacies when applied in any other context to something else other than race.  The fundamental fallacy of racism is treating Groups as groups, which is to say ascribing unity to things that are in fact potentially divided but share attributes in common.  This common fallacy is strongly guarded by those in power because it is rather useful. 

CRT by it's infamous definition of racism is I think drawing attention in clumsy way to a fundamental problem of having a universal definition of racism, it leads to moral equivalence.  If X is racist against Y but Y is racist against X also, X tends to say 'well they hate us too' to justify continuing the Status Quo.  It does not really matter is Y is racist against X because Y does not have the power to hurt X but it does matter that X hates Y.  Also there is the matter of how often oppressors 'place the burden of cooperation' onto their victims, as in "we would get along fine if THEY would be nicer" while they do not consider themselves in any way bound to do anything at all to mend relations. 

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:
[To GoblinCookie]

People generally approve of racism's fundamental fallacies when applied in any other context to something else other than race.  The fundamental fallacy of racism is treating Groups as groups, which is to say ascribing unity to things that are in fact potentially divided but share attributes in common.  This common fallacy is strongly guarded by those in power because it is rather useful. 

Not sure what you're referring to specifically in the first sentence, however, you want to avoid risking a false logical equivalence as transference is not always invalid; if the units making up the group are extremely similar or identical then it may not be fallacious to apply the properties of the group to the individuals. However, I do not think it is wrong to point out that dehumanising people by treating them solely as members of their group, with no distinguishing features, is a feature of oppressive regimes.

CRT by it's infamous definition of racism is I think drawing attention in clumsy way to a fundamental problem of having a universal definition of racism, it leads to moral equivalence. 

This is  not correct.  Two things being under the same category does not imply that they are equal within that category. It only suggests they meet a common threshold for inclusion in it. For racism, the core component is prejudice or discrimination (or both) based on race or perceived race. So, if A hates B because B is white, this is racist. If B denies A voting rights because A is black, this is also racist - they may not be the same form of racism, or the same severity - no one will argue that saying "whites suck" is equal to preventing someone from voting because they're black - however, they are both prejudice/discrimination based on race, and thus both undesirable. 

If X is racist against Y but Y is racist against X also, X tends to say 'well they hate us too' to justify continuing the Status Quo.  It does not really matter is Y is racist against X because Y does not have the power to hurt X but it does matter that X hates Y.  

This is nonsense. "Well they hate us too" is often used as an excuse by racists, so we need to limit the definition of racism to "take power" away from them...? All this implies is that if someone is racist, they will try to justify it - however, two wrongs do not make a right. "They hate us too" is not a reason to continue treating people differently based on irrelevant characteristics, and the fact that one is a victim of prejudice or discrimination based on race at the hands of a person of another race does not mean that victim should hate  everyone  of the perpetrator's race. We can condemn all forms of racial prejudice - how about that?

"It does not matter if Y is racist against X..." is also reductive nonsense. Define "matter" first of all - the fact that it is not systemic, for instance, does not mean that it is not worth criticising. If someone's race is irrelevant to the equation, why judge them for it? Why bring it up? This is what people would ask if a white person were racially discriminated against. Secondly, as Dr Bo taught us, power is not binary - or static. Power dynamics can be incredibly fluid, especially at the interpersonal level, concerning individuals - so everyone effectively has the power to hurt everyone. A group of black kids picking on the white kid at school in a mostly-black neighbourhood, versus a group of white kids picking on the black kid at school in a mostly-white neighbourhood. The fact that the first group of bullies was black does not mean they "lacked the power" to hurt.

Also there is the matter of how often oppressors 'place the burden of cooperation' onto their victims, as in "we would get along fine if THEY would be nicer" while they do not consider themselves in any way bound to do anything at all to mend relations.

Who is saying this? 

If anyone is saying it, then of course, you should point out that race relations is a two-way street, so placing the burden of cooperation on one group without looking at who is acting upon whom and what they are acting out does not make any sense. How this backs up your previous remarks, I have no idea.

GoblinCookie writes:
[To Rationalissimo]

Not sure what you're referring to specifically in the first sentence, however, you want to avoid risking a false logical equivalence as transference is not always invalid; if the units making up the group are extremely similar or identical then it may not be fallacious to apply the properties of the group to the individuals. However, I do not think it is wrong to point out that dehumanising people by treating them solely as members of their group, with no distinguishing features, is a feature of oppressive regimes

I do not know why you are referring to those fallacies at all.  What I am talking is where we go from attribute groups, that is applying names to things based upon attributes they have in common (the same skin colour for instance?) to actual groups whose members actually have a relationship in common.  

Actual groups have leadership, structure, policy, relationships and so on.  Attribute groups are simply a group of potentially unrelated things that have something in common.  Racists tend to derive the former from the latter which I consider their fundamental fallacy. 

 

This is  not correct.  Two things being under the same category does not imply that they are equal within that category. It only suggests they meet a common threshold for inclusion in it. For racism, the core component is prejudice or discrimination (or both) based on race or perceived race. So, if A hates B because B is white, this is racist. If B denies A voting rights because A is black, this is also racist - they may not be the same form of racism, or the same severity - no one will argue that saying "whites suck" is equal to preventing someone from voting because they're black - however, they are both prejudice/discrimination based on race, and thus both undesirable.  

CRT is not correct, maybe I did not make that clear enough.  It does however exist in opposition to something else which is a real thing which is not correct and is far worse than CRT (which is merely ridiculous).  That is the assumption that because two groups hate each-other, they are both equally at fault.  CRT is a mistaken reaction to something which is far worse, the main problem with it is being ridiculously it is easy refuted by the proponents of the worse something. 

 
This is nonsense. "Well they hate us too" is often used as an excuse by racists, so we need to limit the definition of racism to "take power" away from them...? All this implies is that if someone is racist, they will try to justify it - however, two wrongs do not make a right. "They hate us too" is not a reason to continue treating people differently based on irrelevant characteristics, and the fact that one is a victim of prejudice or discrimination based on race at the hands of a person of another race does not mean that victim should hate  everyone  of the perpetrator's race. We can condemn all forms of racial prejudice - how about that?

"It does not matter if Y is racist against X..." is also reductive nonsense. Define "matter" first of all - the fact that it is not systemic, for instance, does not mean that it is not worth criticising. If someone's race is irrelevant to the equation, why judge them for it? Why bring it up? This is what people would ask if a white person were racially discriminated against. Secondly, as Dr Bo taught us, power is not binary - or static. Power dynamics can be incredibly fluid, especially at the interpersonal level, concerning individuals - so everyone effectively has the power to hurt everyone. A group of black kids picking on the white kid at school in a mostly-black neighbourhood, versus a group of white kids picking on the black kid at school in a mostly-white neighbourhood. The fact that the first group of bullies was black does not mean they "lacked the power" to hurt.

No, power relationships are quite binary, there is always a powerful group and a subordinate group.  Binary as they are however they are still prone to shift given time and place and scale, there is nothing non-binary about the power relationships you have described above, it is just that location has shifted.  That is why CRT racism definition does not work, or rather it works ridiculously.  We apparently go through life becoming and ceasing to be racist as the power relations change either due to the passing of time or our present location.

Scale is important, on the larger scale the white people have the power even if in locations the black people have power.  The fact that the black people oppress the white person in the exceptional environment in which they have power is taken up by the white power structure at the larger level to justify depriving all blacks everywhere of power.  These repressive measures then make it harder for the power structure that maintains white people in power be challenged. 

Trying to protect the local white victim of black power in a society where whites have the power on the higher scale risks reinforcing that power and reducing internal contradictions within the system, therefore stabilizing it.  In objective terms, while logically blacks can be racist against whites, giving equal priority to both is effectively pro-racist.  Because as you reduce the power of white people in the society, more local places emerge where black people's racism against white people actually matters, so in order to protect white people against reverse racism you end up reinstating the racist power structure itself. 

So basically people fighting against reverse racism are useful well-meaning idiots for racism.

 
Who is saying this? 

If anyone is saying it, then of course, you should point out that race relations is a two-way street, so placing the burden of cooperation on one group without looking at who is acting upon whom and what they are acting out does not make any sense. How this backs up your previous remarks, I have no idea.

Why are you even asking that? *I* am saying that obviously.  It is my observation of how racists often behave in reality and no the racists do not honestly state that is how they work because deception is the whole point of it.

Look at France for instance.  The Muslims have to be good model citizens of France but at the same time the French consider it perfectly offend to go around humiliating them at every turn which their 'clothing regulations' and stupid cartoons.  Allegedly it is all so equal, but in reality the 'equality' is very much one-sided, they (the Muslims) have to change their ways to be good model citizens but no we the (French?) are under no obligation not to continue engage in entirely profitless behavior seemingly done for no other purpose than to humiliate the Muslims. 

A commitment however fanatical to formal equality does not protect you against racism.  You can simply derive 'equal' rules biased in your favor and impose them on everyone equally.  I call it 'equally imposing inequality'. 

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:
[To GoblinCookie]

I do not know why you are referring to those fallacies at all.  What I am talking is where we go from attribute groups, that is applying names to things based upon attributes they have in common (the same skin colour for instance?) to actual groups whose members actually have a relationship in common.  

You suggested that people agree with the fundamental fallacy of racism when applied to non-racial contexts, and I warned that this might be a false equivalence. 

CRT is not correct, maybe I did not make that clear enough.  It does however exist in opposition to something else which is a real thing which is not correct and is far worse than CRT (which is merely ridiculous).  That is the assumption that because two groups hate each-other, they are both equally at fault.  CRT is a mistaken reaction to something which is far worse, the main problem with it is being ridiculously it is easy refuted by the proponents of the worse something. 

Once again you are bringing up irrelevant 'equivalences', which turns racism into a dick-measuring contest where everyone is using increasingly small measurements to prove that they aren't 'equally bad', which misses the point - the fundamental fallacy of racial prejudice/discrimination is  still  committed, so it is still wrong, regardless of who is doing it. No one said "they are equal on a systemic level"; you introduced that part yourself. 

No, power relationships are quite binary, there is always a powerful group and a subordinate group.  Binary as they are however they are still prone to shift given time and place and scale, there is nothing non-binary about the power relationships you have described above, it is just that location has shifted.  That is why CRT racism definition does not work, or rather it works ridiculously.  We apparently go through life becoming and ceasing to be racist as the power relations change either due to the passing of time or our present location.

Within the powerful group there may be pockets of weakness, or, if you're cynical, windows of opportunity for the marginalised group. Within the subaltern group there may be areas of strength. So even though two main groups emerge, it is not entirely as simple as you are making it out to be. 

Scale is important, on the larger scale the white people have the power even if in locations the black people have power.  The fact that the black people oppress the white person in the exceptional environment in which they have power is taken up by the white power structure at the larger level to justify depriving all blacks everywhere of power.  These repressive measures then make it harder for the power structure that maintains white people in power be challenged. 

You are on the verge of creating a false binary by stating the CRT position and then the position of the racist, which ignores the fact that we can be neither. "The fact that black people oppress whites in this exceptional environment is used to justify depriving all blacks of power" being exactly my point - in fact, I already made it above and you seem to have missed it.  Two wrongs are both wrong.  It is wrong to oppress whites. It is wrong to justify taking power from all blacks on that basis, or any basis. That is what the definition of racism does, and a thorough commitment to it is the way to end all forms of racism - fundamentally, unfair racial prejudice or discrimination. "Oh, but that definition is problematic as it is used to justify taking power from blacks!" is paranoid, delusional rubbish that has nothing to do with whether the definition is correct or not. The fact that racists will try to rationalise their bigotry by holding up white victims of racism as martyrs does not diminish their victimhood; it is  irrelevant!

Trying to protect the local white victim of black power in a society where whites have the power on the higher scale risks reinforcing that power and reducing internal contradictions within the system, therefore stabilizing it.  In objective terms, while logically blacks can be racist against whites, giving equal priority to both is effectively pro-racist.  Because as you reduce the power of white people in the society, more local places emerge where black people's racism against white people actually matters, so in order to protect white people against reverse racism you end up reinstating the racist power structure itself. 

Oh my God, do you understand anything? Both forms of racism are being tackled at the same time; it does not matter whether they are perfectly equal or not, as they have both been judged wrong. Magnitude only matters when considering the proportions of the response; in this case, of course, anti-black racism is far more common and takes priority on a systemic level. However, the entire premise of anti-racism is that a racist system is unjust and it will thus seek to address any unfair racial bias within such a system. No 'unjust power structure' is maintained at all.

So basically people fighting against reverse racism are useful well-meaning idiots for racism.

No, you are simply trying to cover for racism by putting a progressive spin on it.

Look at France for instance.  The Muslims have to be good model citizens of France but at the same time the French consider it perfectly offend to go around humiliating them at every turn which their 'clothing regulations' and stupid cartoons.  Allegedly it is all so equal, but in reality the 'equality' is very much one-sided, they (the Muslims) have to change their ways to be good model citizens but no we the (French?) are under no obligation not to continue engage in entirely profitless behavior seemingly done for no other purpose than to humiliate the Muslims. 

A nonsensical false equivalence full of misunderstandings. I don't know much about the clothing regulations, but the comics are not 'humiliating' Muslims; they are criticisms of a religion, much the same way other religions are criticised. They are free to use their freedom of speech to reply, and they do, in numbers, primarily via social media. Furthermore, everyone in France is expected to abide by the laws; Muslims no more so than anyone else - so I don't understand the point being made here; frankly it sounds like you're complaining that people have to follow common law, and there is no 'inequality' in that regard.

A commitment however fanatical to formal equality does not protect you against racism.  You can simply derive 'equal' rules biased in your favor and impose them on everyone equally.  I call it 'equally imposing inequality'. 

I am skeptical of what you consider to be biased rules (see above).

GoblinCookie writes:
[To Rationalissimo]

 
You suggested that people agree with the fundamental fallacy of racism when applied to non-racial contexts, and I warned that this might be a false equivalence. 

Okay, understood.

 
Once again you are bringing up irrelevant 'equivalences', which turns racism into a dick-measuring contest where everyone is using increasingly small measurements to prove that they aren't 'equally bad', which misses the point - the fundamental fallacy of racial prejudice/discrimination is  still  committed, so it is still wrong, regardless of who is doing it. No one said "they are equal on a systemic level"; you introduced that part yourself. 

Yes, but we were not talking intellectually and nor we were talking ethically.  They are both intellectually and morally wrong, for the same reasons but one is still a lot worse in it's consequences than the other.

 
Within the powerful group there may be pockets of weakness, or, if you're cynical, windows of opportunity for the marginalised group. Within the subaltern group there may be areas of strength. So even though two main groups emerge, it is not entirely as simple as you are making it out to be. 

Yes, that is basically what I just said.  The problem is that this can in a sense be measured, there is an overall degree of consistency in the situation.  Reverse racism is basically a lot like terrorism, the terrorist seeks to take advantage of opportunities where you he locally invert the overall power structure to harm the dominant group.  The normal consequences of terrorism is not that the overall power situation changes, but that the dominant group establishes 'consistency' in their oppression, ensuring all local instances conform to the bigger picture; turning the subaltern group into some combination of corpses/slaves/prisoners.  Basically look at where the Palestinian terrorists attempts to liberate Palestine got them, it turned their country into two huge prison camps; the exact opposite of what they wanted.

 
You are on the verge of creating a false binary by stating the CRT position and then the position of the racist, which ignores the fact that we can be neither. "The fact that black people oppress whites in this exceptional environment is used to justify depriving all blacks of power" being exactly my point - in fact, I already made it above and you seem to have missed it.  Two wrongs are both wrong.  It is wrong to oppress whites. It is wrong to justify taking power from all blacks on that basis, or any basis. That is what the definition of racism does, and a thorough commitment to it is the way to end all forms of racism - fundamentally, unfair racial prejudice or discrimination. "Oh, but that definition is problematic as it is used to justify taking power from blacks!" is paranoid, delusional rubbish that has nothing to do with whether the definition is correct or not. The fact that racists will try to rationalise their bigotry by holding up white victims of racism as martyrs does not diminish their victimhood; it is  irrelevant! 

We are not talking about abstract morality or intellectual correctness.  In terms of abstract morality and intellectual correctness you are correct.  The world is not however run in those terms, if it was there would be no Racism to begin with and CRT would be a mute point.  Your rational/moral system has a consequence in a world of irrational/immoral people that are quite bad. 

 
Oh my God, do you understand anything? Both forms of racism are being tackled at the same time; it does not matter whether they are perfectly equal or not, as they have both been judged wrong. Magnitude only matters when considering the proportions of the response; in this case, of course, anti-black racism is far more common and takes priority on a systemic level. However, the entire premise of anti-racism is that a racist system is unjust and it will thus seek to address any unfair racial bias within such a system. No 'unjust power structure' is maintained at all.

You are upholding that power structure in the same way that by staying neutral in a conflict between two sides has the effect of supporting the strongest power in the conflict.  You are in effect banking on you being an independent third force, one so powerful that it can sweep both sides aside, but that is not the case since in reality you aren't even independent of the racist power structure and your abstract equalities are only propounded because they are useful to it.

 
No, you are simply trying to cover for racism by putting a progressive spin on it.

No both Racism and Reverse Racism are extremely bad.  The reason Reverse Racism is bad however is mostly because it helps Racism. It is vitally important to remember however that they are not the same thing, the former is the main deal and the latter is an accomplice of the main deal (it is mountains vs molehills).  The typical outcome of Reverse Racism is not that the former oppressors end up oppressed, it is that the oppressed end up as slaves/prisoners/corpses as the dominant group moves to protect itself against the hostility of the subordinate group.

A nonsensical false equivalence full of misunderstandings. I don't know much about the clothing regulations, but the comics are not 'humiliating' Muslims; they are criticisms of a religion, much the same way other religions are criticised. They are free to use their freedom of speech to reply, and they do, in numbers, primarily via social media. Furthermore, everyone in France is expected to abide by the laws; Muslims no more so than anyone else - so I don't understand the point being made here; frankly it sounds like you're complaining that people have to follow common law, and there is no 'inequality' in that regard. 

The Muhammad cartoons are criticism of religion in much the same way that golliwogs are dolls.  It is merely the official cover for what in reality a cultural focus for France's rampant Islamophobia.  They do *not* work as criticisms both because they contain little content and also because effective criticisms aim not to offend those they are criticizing, they are really insults or provocations and they have worked beautifully to this effect.  They are a clear example of how Racism uses Reverse Racism to it's own advantage and may even provoke in deliberately through it's propaganda.

The headscarf ban is a clear example of how unequal equality works in practice (France generally is).  French schools are secular, so apparently that means the headscarfs worn by muslim women are out.  This is all so equal, except it is actually highly discriminatory because the clothing requirements of different religions differ. 

If your dominant religion does not put a high importance on dress but the subordinate religion does; it is a simple matter to oppress the latter religion by establishing universal equal prohibitions on *everyone* wearing religious dress.  Treating everyone the same is not equality if the entities you are dealing with are not actually the same in the relevant criteria. 

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:

[To GoblinCookie]

Yes, but we were not talking intellectually and nor we were talking ethically.  They are both intellectually and morally wrong, for the same reasons but one is still a lot worse in it's consequences than the other.

I understand this, it's the point I've been trying to make all thread. In a sense, CRT does have a point - racism is based on systems of power and prejudice - because using this definition we understand that racism is lopsided and punches down - the minority will always suffer more, much more, from any racial bigotry that takes place in that society. However, using only this definition is reductive, as power dynamics are not static at individual levels, thus you cannot transfer arrangements of power at the systemic level to the individuals in order to claim "there is no racism against whites" or "there is no sexism against men" - the more accurate phrase is "there is no systemic racism against whites" or "there is no systemic sexism against men."

You are upholding that power structure in the same way that by staying neutral in a conflict between two sides has the effect of supporting the strongest power in the conflict.  You are in effect banking on you being an independent third force, one so powerful that it can sweep both sides aside, but that is not the case since in reality you aren't even independent of the racist power structure and your abstract equalities are only propounded because they are useful to it.

This paragraph fails to engage with the argument matter by simply retreating into abstract theory, resulting in a poor counter. Firstly you make a weak analogy by comparing my position to "staying neutral" - but there is no "staying neutral" in the anti-racism of 'formal equality'. It takes the core of anti-racism to its logical conclusion by standing against any racism that it encounters. This deals both with the backstreet bigot who thinks whites are devils, and the discriminatory systems that ensure black people are more likely to be funneled into prisons. It will not apply the same priority or force to both, only enough to ensure that both are taken care of. That is my point. They are both wrong, not equally wrong, but in determining whether they should be opposed morally working out the severity of wrongness does not matter. Secondly, you fail to explain how "not being independent of racist power structures" is even relevant to the conversation - no one is exempt from them, not even CRT proponents or anti-racists themselves. That is the exact reason we are trying to get rid of those racist structures. I do not see how my 'abstract equality' is useful to the system considering that it too suffers when these equalities are actualised.

No both Racism and Reverse Racism are extremely bad.  The reason Reverse Racism is bad however is mostly because it helps Racism. It is vitally important to remember however that they are not the same thing, the former is the main deal and the latter is an accomplice of the main deal (it is mountains vs molehills).  The typical outcome of Reverse Racism is not that the former oppressors end up oppressed, it is that the oppressed end up as slaves/prisoners/corpses as the dominant group moves to protect itself against the hostility of the subordinate group.

No one is claiming they are the same; they are both irrational and anti-human, and, as OP said, should be opposed by all critical thinkers for their fallacious premises and reasoning. The fact that hostility from minorities can be weaponised by racists is not surprising, since, unsurprisingly, bad people look for excuses - as Night points out below (although they struggle to comprehend most of my argument) racists do often interpret anti-racist policies as extreme to discredit them. It does not matter in terms of establishing an anti-racist society.

The Muhammad cartoons are criticism of religion in much the same way that golliwogs are dolls.  It is merely the official cover for what in reality a cultural focus for France's rampant Islamophobia.  They do *not* work as criticisms both because they contain little content and also because effective criticisms aim not to offend those they are criticizing, they are really insults or provocations and they have worked beautifully to this effect.  They are a clear example of how Racism uses Reverse Racism to it's own advantage and may even provoke in deliberately through it's propaganda.

Nonsensical false equivalence once again. No one chooses to be black, you are simply born that colour and it is immutable. People switch religions, ideologies and beliefs all the time. Thus, they are significantly different that the equivalence you attempt to make is false. Secondly, you are lax in your defence of what you consider 'effective criticism' - what do you mean by 'effective'? Do you mean logically consistent and coherent, or persuasive? The two are different. A persuasive criticism may involve avoiding offence, but if this comes at the expense of logical consistency and accuracy, then it is less effective in another sense - as in, less effective at determining truth. In addition, why do you think they contain little content? They are satire, which is an age-old form of criticism. Thirdly, not every Muslim is offended by the cartoons - there is, I believe, great ideological diversity in France's Muslim community, so before we rush to advocate for members of a group by projecting our values onto them, we might want to check our assumptions.

"Provocations" LMAO. "He hurt my feelings so I killed him" - and you're giving cover to that crap? Well, let me tell you what would happen if the majority group did this every time their feelings got hurt.

I don't see how your last sentence connects to the rest of your argument.

The headscarf ban is a clear example of how unequal equality works in practice (France generally is).  French schools are secular, so apparently that means the headscarfs worn by muslim women are out.  This is all so equal, except it is actually highly discriminatory because the clothing requirements of different religions differ. 

I actually disagree with the headscarf ban, so I think you have a point here. In fact, your last two paragraphs are the most reasonable part of your argument. 

If your dominant religion does not put a high importance on dress but the subordinate religion does; it is a simple matter to oppress the latter religion by establishing universal equal prohibitions on *everyone* wearing religious dress.  Treating everyone the same is not equality if the entities you are dealing with are not actually the same in the relevant criteria.  

Here it is a case of making reasonable concessions for groups based on need, while balancing the country's values and human freedoms on the other side. In the case of headscarfs, while France is secular, some of its individuals are not, and so there is an argument for allowing greater individual expression in the form of unbanning the headscarf. This does not diminish the rights of any non-Muslims, but expands the right of expression for Muslims, so it is consistent with liberal values and therefore reasonable. However, banning the cartoons because they are "offensive" does interfere with another person's rights (free expression) for a spurious reason ("my feelings were hurt"), therefore, not so reasonable.

GoblinCookie writes:
[To Rationalissimo]

 
I understand this, it's the point I've been trying to make all thread. In a sense, CRT does have a point - racism is based on systems of power and prejudice - because using this definition we understand that racism is lopsided and punches down - the minority will always suffer more, much more, from any racial bigotry that takes place in that society. However, using only this definition is reductive, as power dynamics are not static at individual levels, thus you cannot transfer arrangements of power at the systemic level to the individuals in order to claim "there is no racism against whites" or "there is no sexism against men" - the more accurate phrase is "there is no systemic racism against whites" or "there is no systemic sexism against men."

Agreed mostly, except for the last part.  Both the racism of the stronger group and the weaker group are systematic.  The main difference however is the the stronger group benefits from it's own racism and it is thus best criticized on moral/intellectual terms (it is morally wrong).  The weaker group's racism is best criticized from a strategic point of view, it does not work to lash out because the stronger group will take whatever harm done to it as a justification for entrenching it's own position and making further gains.

To the stronger group it is better to make it about morality, to the weaker group it is better to make it about strategy. Ideally the weaker group will refrain from racism itself out of strategy, despite how morally justified it may feel in retaliating and then with the stronger group feeling secure it will be willing to consider things morally rather than strategically.

 

 
This paragraph fails to engage with the argument matter by simply retreating into abstract theory, resulting in a poor counter. Firstly you make a weak analogy by comparing my position to "staying neutral" - but there is no "staying neutral" in the anti-racism of 'formal equality'. It takes the core of anti-racism to its logical conclusion by standing against any racism that it encounters. This deals both with the backstreet bigot who thinks whites are devils, and the discriminatory systems that ensure black people are more likely to be funneled into prisons. It will not apply the same priority or force to both, only enough to ensure that both are taken care of. That is my point. They are both wrong, not equally wrong, but in determining whether they should be opposed morally working out the severity of wrongness does not matter. Secondly, you fail to explain how "not being independent of racist power structures" is even relevant to the conversation - no one is exempt from them, not even CRT proponents or anti-racists themselves. That is the exact reason we are trying to get rid of those racist structures. I do not see how my 'abstract equality' is useful to the system considering that it too suffers when these equalities are actualised.

It is a bitter pill to swallow.  The reality is that there are no shortage of individuals making abstract moral criticisms, often highly witty of various oppressive systems and ideas.  The consequence of all their efforts have amounted to essentially nothing.

The reason is that oppression does not naturally breed rationality and morality.  Victims do not become angels just because they are victims.  Quite often they would be just as bad, even worse than they persecutors had fortune smiled on them.  The consequences of neutral condemnations (everyone is bad) is that both sides take heart from your condemnation of the other but one side is stronger so without your actually siding with the weaker side.  They utterly crushed the other side (which they wanted to do anyway) and your general moral condemnation of the characteristics of both sides simply got twisted by them into a justification for what they did.

They are more powerful than you.  This means they can (and will) simply excise all your criticisms of them and use your criticisms of the other weaker side to full effect. 

No one is claiming they are the same; they are both irrational and anti-human, and, as OP said, should be opposed by all critical thinkers for their fallacious premises and reasoning. The fact that hostility from minorities can be weaponised by racists is not surprising, since, unsurprisingly, bad people look for excuses - as Night points out below (although they struggle to comprehend most of my argument) racists do often interpret anti-racist policies as extreme to discredit them. It does not matter in terms of establishing an anti-racist society.

You have to always side with the oppressed side even if the oppressed side is actually worse intellectually and morally than the stronger side.  Otherwise you just end up being a useful idiot for the stronger party.

Nonsensical false equivalence once again. No one chooses to be black, you are simply born that colour and it is immutable. People switch religions, ideologies and beliefs all the time. Thus, they are significantly different that the equivalence you attempt to make is false. Secondly, you are lax in your defence of what you consider 'effective criticism' - what do you mean by 'effective'? Do you mean logically consistent and coherent, or persuasive? The two are different. A persuasive criticism may involve avoiding offence, but if this comes at the expense of logical consistency and accuracy, then it is less effective in another sense - as in, less effective at determining truth. In addition, why do you think they contain little content? They are satire, which is an age-old form of criticism. Thirdly, not every Muslim is offended by the cartoons - there is, I believe, great ideological diversity in France's Muslim community, so before we rush to advocate for members of a group by projecting our values onto them, we might want to check our assumptions.

"Provocations" LMAO. "He hurt my feelings so I killed him" - and you're giving cover to that crap? Well, let me tell you what would happen if the majority group did this every time their feelings got hurt.

I don't see how your last sentence connects to the rest of your argument.

The reason I shifted to talking about religion is that most racism in the modern world has shifted from the older biological form to one that is about culture/religion as the old biological racism ship has taken too much damage to be explicitly expressed in polite company.  Muslims are really hated because they are foreign and foreign really means the racially other. 

By effective criticism I mean criticism directed at the group you are criticizing.  To make a legitimate criticism it has to be something that is readable to the group being criticized.  Otherwise what you are doing is not criticism, it is making propaganda against the group for the group's enemies.  Racists loves 'satirical' cartoon images of those they wish to oppress.

Any satirical work involving Muhammad is a failure as criticism.  Because Muslims are not allowed draw Muhammad, any criticism involving such an image is going to fail miserably because they are not allowed to look at it.  It is not however intended as a genuine criticism of anything, it is intended in part as propaganda for Islamophobe consumption (this part should not be ignored) and partly as yes a provocation.

The purpose of a provocation is to incite a overeaction, so yes the idiots killing the cartoonists/Paty were really carrying out the cartoons purpose.  They do have however another purpose, as Islamophobic propaganda so it would not do for the Muslims simply to ignore them.  It would be better for them to peacefully campaign for the French state to simply ban them and the state should then do this. 

I actually disagree with the headscarf ban, so I think you have a point here. In fact, your last two paragraphs are the most reasonable part of your argument.

You do understand the general point of how a more powerful group can masquerade as being equal and fair by imposing biased standards on all parties.

Here it is a case of making reasonable concessions for groups based on need, while balancing the country's values and human freedoms on the other side. In the case of headscarfs, while France is secular, some of its individuals are not, and so there is an argument for allowing greater individual expression in the form of unbanning the headscarf. This does not diminish the rights of any non-Muslims, but expands the right of expression for Muslims, so it is consistent with liberal values and therefore reasonable. However, banning the cartoons because they are "offensive" does interfere with another person's rights (free expression) for a spurious reason ("my feelings were hurt"), therefore, not so reasonable.

You do understand that constantly humiliating and 'hurting the feelings' of someone is every bit as much oppressing them as censoring what they can say is.  A society where Muhammad has been made into a figure of comic fun is not a society accepting of Muslims given that the Prophet Muhammad is not even allowed to be depicted by Muslims to begin with. 

It is one thing to defend 'offensive' expression if that expression contains an actual criticism of a group that the group itself could reasonably digest and respond to.  It is another to defend humiliating symbolic gestures seemingly chosen to provoke violence.

noblenutria@gmail.com writes:

Do you believe that black people cannot be racist?  Or that all white people are racist?  

 

Night writes:
[To noblenutria@gmail.com]

Sorry for taking so long to get to this. While I don't really see the point in digressing into opinion, I do feel I could've been more thorough in my answer to your question. The definition of racism as prejudice plus power seems to come from a book by Patricia Bidol and was later popularized by Joseph Barndt, so looking up their books should give you the original context on that definition of racism.

 

The claims that white people can't be subjected to racism, black people can't be racist and black people can't be racist to white people are all distinct and shouldn't be conflated with each other. My understanding of how they relate to Bidol's definition of racism is that an ethnic group being oppressed by another ethnic group that holds systemic power over them isn't being racist when they're reacting to that oppression. This doesn't necessarily mean the manner in which they do so is appropriate for the circumstances or morally correct but that's a separate discussion. This definition doesn't claim any particular ethnic group isn't capable of racism but rather that they require power to perpetuate it. It may also be dealing with the idea of 'whiteness' as a social construct variously including and excluding ethnic groups based on collective superiority over ethnic groups that have been othered, given some ethnic groups we currently see as white weren't in the past and gained power in being included as 'white', as well as inconsistency in what's considered white when looking solely at skin tone.

 

The claim that all white people are racist is about how white supremacy and systemic racism conditions white people into internalizing and perpetuating racism in a variety of ways and the importance of becoming aware of and unlearning those things in order to cease being complicit in its perpetuation.

 

Debates on the accuracy and applicability of varying definitions of a single term are better suited to philosophical discussion, where different definitions can be compared and new ones can be suggested in an attempt to find one that addresses all the identified shortcomings. Looking into philosophical sources on racism may be helpful.

 

For the Bidol definition, elaboration on how it deals with collective power of a particular demographic vs individual power of someone whose demographic lacks it by default, internalized racism and intersectionality would be needed and is likely something you'd find in some later discussion on it. It's a stipulative definition meant for discussing the relationship power plays in the occurrence of racism.

 

 

noblenutria@gmail.com writes:
[To Night]

I feel that the redefinition of racism to prejudice is a definition without distinction fallacy.  I have had many conversations which go like this...

Me: Can black people be racist to white people?
Activist: No, but they can be prejudiced?
Me: Is being prejudiced against white people not as bad as being racist?  Is being racist bad and being prejudiced good?  

I just don't see any difference.  These are word games.  If a nonwhite person spat in my food at a restaurant because I was white then being "prejudiced" against me does not justify their bad behavior.  If my waiter tells me that he spat in my food because I was white and then I complained this should not be about me being a bad person for complaining of reverse racism.  I think the world makes more sense when no one can be racist to anyone.  

noblenutria@gmail.com writes:
[To Night]

I feel that the redefinition of racism to prejudice is a definition without distinction fallacy.  I have had many conversations which go like this...

Me: Can black people be racist to white people?
Activist: No, but they can be prejudiced.
Me: Is being prejudiced against white people not as bad as being racist?  Is being racist bad and being prejudiced good?  If a non white person is prejudiced against a white person should that person be told that he is wrong?

I just don't see any difference.  These are word games.  If a nonwhite person spat in my food at a restaurant because I was white then being "prejudiced" against me does not justify their bad behavior.  If my waiter tells me that he spat in my food because I was white and then I complained this should not be about me being a bad person for complaining of reverse racism.  I think the world makes more sense when no one can be racist to anyone.  

This is a good place to talk about these issues because racism is a form of fallacious reasoning.  The fallacy of division occurs when belief in systemic racism leads to belief that all individual white people are racist.  Let's assume white supremacy is a problem on the national level.  So the whole is racist, but if you say all the parts are racist because the whole is racist this is the fallacy of division.  

I feel that the fallacy of equivocation occurs here too because activists conflate individual white supremacy with systemic white supremacy.  In more sensible circles, "white supremacy" refers to white nationalists, KKK members, Neo Nazis, etc.  Activists often say that all white people, even ones that try their hardest not to be white supremacist, are white supremacists.  I feel that it is wrong to put someone like Jimmy Carter in the same group as David Duke.  I feel that the idea behind this redefinition is to paint all white people as though they are neo nazis.  I feel that such duplicitous word games undermine the goals of activists.  They become villains in their attempt to do good.  It is the fallacy of consequences to believe that one may violate rules of logic and honesty to meet their end of social justice.  Social justice can be better attained by following Humanistic principles of logic, reason, and secular ethics.  

Night writes:
[To noblenutria@gmail.com]

Was this supposed to be an edit of the previous post rather than an additional one?

 

Prejudice has a few definitions, including one that allows favouring something in a positive manner. When referring to holding negative thoughts toward a particular group, the problem with defining that as morally wrong in all contexts is that it leads to saying it's always wrong for someone to hold negative views towards a group that has or is harming them.

 

Racism originated from the term racialism to describe the belief that particular ethnic groups are superior or inferior and actions that perpetuate that belief. While prejudice and discrimination are frequently used to explain words like racism and sexism, they have different ranges in meaning and connotation. Their conflation isn't just in skewing discrimination and prejudice towards more negative meanings but also in broadening racism beyond what the term was originally made to describe. That and the history of policing marginalized groups into inconsistent standards of acceptability and vilifying them as soon as they're seen as falling outside of that means defining racism in a way that includes responding to systemic oppression would just enable further racism towards them, as well as rob people of the words to express the difference when they started out as ways to express those things.

 

There're a couple issues with that example. Hypotheticals are of limited use in discussing racism as it happens since the complexities of the topic are better accounted for in specific events that have happened. Can it be determined that the person spat in the food because it was being served to a white person rather than because they were being a dick? If the waiter informed you wouldn't it be because they were already dealing with the situation? Could it reasonably be expected that anyone spitting in someone's food would warrant discipline? Is the way the incident was handled consistent with how it would be expected to be dealt with for anyone in that situation? Would the staff actually try to defend what just happened due to your or the other person's ethnicity? You could flesh out the example to answer all of those questions but at that point you'd be better off just discussing an actual event. Another problem is that 'would X theoretically be racist if it happened to a white person' isn't the same question as 'does X happen to white people?'

 

It's more complicated than that, which is why I brought up the need to learn about the history of what being 'white' means. Another thing of relevance is the range of attitudes and behaviours that contribute to and enable systemic racism. It's not just physical violence and obvious hostility but also things like complacency, tolerating/making excuses for racism, perpetuating racist stereotypes, microaggressions, etc. People also don't need to actively see themselves as superior to have unconscious beliefs in that superiority or to perpetuate discrimination rooted in that. Likewise a lot of people subjected to discrimination internalize and perpetuate the idea of their inferiority towards themselves and their peers, in this case internalized racism. When racism is ingrained in society in ways that aren't always easy to notice, assuming you aren't influenced by any of it instead of really examining why you think certain things and where those ideas came from ends up contributing to the problem.

 

The term white supremacist doesn't necessarily apply solely to people who are part of white supremacist groups so much as people who hold beliefs in the superiority of white people/inferiority of other ethnic groups. While it can be a synonym to racism, racism would be the better term to use in that context to convey what's being said. This could be a case of people unfamiliar with the nuance of potential synonyms either due to speaking in a secondary language or inexperience.

 

Humanism is one of multiple philosophical viewpoints in defining and understanding ethical systems. It also has its own flaws, particularly its vulnerability to being exploited to justify racism and colonialism by defining humanity in such a way as to exclude certain groups or treat them as an obstacle to human progress. A number of philosophers such as Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill and David Hume were racists who thought stuff like black people either weren't capable of the same level of rational thought or that they couldn't achieve such things without being 'educated' by white people and formulated their philosophical writings around those beliefs. There's a history of characterizing marginalized groups as irrational, unintelligent and incapable to justify needing to 'civilize' them and such before they can be elevated to human status. That's not to say their works should be completely ignored but rather the ways racism shaped their writings should be acknowledged and examined in the discussion and development of ideas related to them.

 

The terms and categorizations used when discussing racism are likely to vary depending on the field of study it's being approached from and the specific facets of racism being discussed in the moment. It's a pretty broad topic and there's a lot more to say about it than just identifying fallacies and discussing ethics, especially when the presence of fallacies doesn't necessarily mean a conclusion is incorrect.

 

 

 

noblenutria@gmail.com writes:
[To Night]

Thanks for the long reply.  I can’t respond to all of your excellent points, but I can for a few.   

Sometimes people describe these terms in ways which are textbook arguments from ignorance or Kafka Traps.  

What if I told you this...

You know you have unconscious racial biases if you don’t consciously realize that you have them.  The fact that you are not consciously racist is proof that you are.  

This is a Kafka Trap.  You are racist if you have conscious biases against race X and you are racist if you have unconscious biases against race X even if no test can prove this.  You cant use the absence of proof of racial bias as proof of racial bias.  That’s the argument from ignorance.  It’s no different that claiming that Mary is a witch because there is no evidence that she is not a witch.  The Kafka trap part is to claim that Mary is a which because she claims not to be and witches by definition claim that they are not witches.  

About my hypothetical restaurant scenario.  I know that there is more white on black racism than black on white racism.  The former is the larger problem.  My point is that it would be wrong to try to equalize racism by encouraging racism against white people.  This is the You Too fallacy.  They do it to us so we can do it to them.  This is especially annoying if white person X is racist to black person Y and then black person Y gets even by being racist to white person Z.  It is my understanding that if more people understood critical thinking then racism would go down a great deal.  Critical Race Theory annoys me because it spreads irrational behavior such as “all white people are racist” and “ black people by definition cannot be racist.”

Night writes:
[To noblenutria@gmail.com]

It'd actually be about claiming immunity or exemption from being affected by the racist ideas perpetuated by the society you live in when societal norms play a large role in shaping how we think and act. It's not just white people who have to examine that as internalized racism happens too. It's just that it's going to take a different form for someone who's a victim of racism examining the ways in which they internalize and perpetuate the idea of their inferiority vs someone outside of that demographic examining the ways they internalize and perpetuate the idea of their superiority. It's an observed phenomenon and you can find some studies going into detail about it.

 

Internalized racism also demonstrates that black people can be racist but people who say they can't usually mean they can't be racist to white people. You'd have to check which they mean before going on with the discussion. People will be people, so you sometimes end up with claims that get distorted from paraphrasing or that are just worded in ways that don't quite match what they mean. There are also people who engage in activism in a performative manner, which is where you're most likely to see misrepresentation or inaccurate claims since they tend to care more about looking like they care about those issues than actually dealing with them. There's a lot of critique about cases like that on various public platforms if you know where to look for it.

 

For 'black people can't be racist towards white people', it's the distinction between someone in an advantageous social position doing something that enforces their higher social status vs someone pushing back against it. There may be ethical issues about the way they're doing it depending on context but they wouldn't be enforcing a societal perception of their racial superiority over white people.

 

The goal of advocating for racial equality is precisely equality, not turning things around. You'd need to clarify what you're referring to as racism against white people to provide the necessary context for your argument. The ambiguity prevents people from really responding to your reasoning and can lead to misunderstandings on what you mean by it.

 

You'd have to support your claim that CRT spreads irrational behaviour by demonstrating that the issue is CRT itself. Otherwise you're generalizing that it's bad because some people misuse claims associated with it, which would also require discussing the ways in which they're misusing it.

 

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:

The main issue with the term 'reverse racism' is that it's generally used as a far-right talking point for fear-mongering that equality would mean losing their rights and that being held accountable for their racism and the loss of their systemic advantages means being discriminated against. Stuff like complaining about spaces and accommodations meant for people other than them, pointing out their privilege or making etc.

This is dishonest.

It can be used as a far-right "talking point", however, it is also a legitimate phenomenon (more accurately referred to as just 'racism') that can arise when political correctness is taken to interesting extremes, causing people to overcorrect for existing racial inequalities, by bringing race into an equation where it should not exist. 

Your own passage reveals this bankrupt trail of thought. "Pointing out their privilege" is often irrelevant (identity fallacy) as all privilege does is lead to a bias, or blind spot. It does not mean the person's views are incorrect or fallacious. "Complaining about spaces or accommodations meant for people other than them" - why were these implemented in the first place? What was the rationale behind them? Just because a certain group is marginalised does not mean the solution is to discriminate against another group. For instance, racial equality meetings where whites are told not to ask any questions, but are allowed to attend. Once again, there is no reason why a white person cannot ask questions, yet they are told, based on their race, that they can't. This is pretty discriminatory and thus should be questioned.

Just because something is done in the name of "anti-racism" does not mean it should not be examined or critiqued.

Night writes:
[To Rationalissimo]

The term reverse racism was literally coined by racists in response to accommodations made to allow black people the same opportunities as white people, claiming that equality meant they were being subjected to racism. They're not actually talking about discrimination so much as lashing out against stuff like de segregation and anti-discrimination laws. Misrepresenting attempts to address systemic racism as extreme is one of the most common forms of racism and what fuels a lot of racist violence.

 

You misunderstand the term privilege. Privilege is something that people have due to being a member of a group that's being benefited by a form of systemic discrimination. White privilege is a real thing, such as being less likely to be assaulted by police officers, not having to deal with racial profiling, lighter sentences for the same crimes as black people, etc. Pointing out privilege is just drawing attention to how a group is treated better by a system that discriminates against people outside of their group, in this case white people vs people who aren't white. White people inherently benefit from systemic discrimination so long as they exist within a system that perpetuates it.

 

By spaces or accommodations made for a particular group I meant stuff like community gatherings and preventing people from firing or underpaying someone based on their ethnicity. Anti-discrimination laws are needed because stuff like slavery, segregation and workplace discrimination wouldn't stop without them. Black people have also had several communities destroyed or gentrified over the years in addition to having had to rebuild their culture practically from scratch due to years of slavery and still having to deal with systemic racism, so the ability to have space where they can have at least some reprieve from systemic discrimination is entirely warranted. Some notable examples include Greenwood in Tulsa Oklahoma and Rosewood in Florida. Canada also had Africville, which was paved over by Halifax.

 

Your example at the end seems like an over-generalization. What do you mean by 'racial equality meeting'? Are you talking about a lecture? Seminar? Conference? Someone's blog on social media? Do you have a specific example I can respond to?

 

CRT actually does criticize various methods of dealing with racism, since the whole point is re-examining how racism has been dealt with over the years as well as how to effectively address systemic racism.

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Night]

I agree with how you defined privilege, but I don't agree with your examples, I and don't think you would either if you thought about it.

Privilege is something that people have due to being a member of a group that's being benefited by a form of systemic discrimination.

A prime example in the social sciences is a seminal study done with putting white- and black-sounding names on otherwise identical resumes. The numbers with the white-sound names got vastly more callbacks. From this, we can reasonably conclude that white people are benefiting from discrimination against black people (i.e, they are getting more of the jobs). This is white privilege .

The fact that black people are more likely to be assaulted by police officers is not white privilege. White people are not "benefiting" from not being assaulted—not being assaulted is the default position. To correct this problem, we don't need more white people assaulted by cops; we need fewer black people assaulted . This is a case where black people are under privileged . In other words, white people are not getting something they don't deserve.

Your other two examples are a bit more complicated. Not having to deal with racial profiling, depending on the situation, would likely be the default situation. If a black man walks into a store and is confronted by a security guard just because of the color of his skin, white people don't benefit. Like police assault, this is unquestionably discrimination and a serious problem that needs to be addressed. But not an example of white privilege.

Regarding lighter sentences for the same crimes as black people, either black people are getting harsher sentences then deserve or white people are getting lighter sentences than deserve. I suspect both happen quite often. So when white people are getting off easier because of their skin color, this is white privilege as they are benefiting from being white. When black people get harsher sentences because of their skin color, this is discrimination, and not white privilege. White people don't benefit when black people get tougher sentences then they deserve—we all lose. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK

This is not just a case of semantics. The term "white privilege" has become very divisive because of what it implies: that white people are getting something they don't deserve. As we have seen, sometimes this is the case and white people need to face reality, and I would argue, do something when they can to sacrifice their unjust benefit received. Other times, it is a case of non-whites being discriminated against, and accusing white people of benefiting is not just factually wrong and unnecessarily fuels the fire of racial tensions.

Night writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

I can see where you're coming from but excluding systemic disadvantages faced by marginalized groups from the definition of privilege doesn't really work. The core issue is that there's a double-standard in how people are treated based on race and that that double-standard is rooted in the idea that white people are inherently superior and therefore more deserving of being treated well, whether that means they're afforded things they shouldn't be or that the bare minimum offered to them is being withheld from others.

 

My example was that white people are less likely to be assaulted by police rather than black people being more likely to be assaulted by police, as you worded it. The difference in phrasing matters, as I was highlighting that white people, by virtue of being white, are implicitly afforded higher status in how the police treats them. This has greater ramifications in white people being in less danger when approached by or approaching police and what that means for them if they need to report a crime or someone calls the cops on them.

 

The benefit described by white privilege is any form of advantage afforded by being white, whether it's a direct benefit or simply being excluded from discrimination aimed at others, in this case not getting arbitrarily harassed by police and all the potential issues that could stem from that.

 

For the sentencing, the nature of the double-standard in sentencing means that a white person receiving a shorter sentence than a black person due to racial discrimination is benefiting from being white regardless of whose sentence is closer to what would be deemed appropriate for the crime. Different standards for what constitutes an appropriate time are being applied based on their ethnicity and white people get the better standard.

 

You can't really separate advantages white people have from the disadvantages other ethnic groups are faced with, as they both come from a systemic inequality in how they're treated relative to each other in the same contexts. Address those systemic inequalities and you take care of white privilege too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Night]

I think you want to change your definition of privilege . You appear to be trying to shoehorn "benefit" into situations where no reasonable person would claim a benefit, like a girl "benefiting" because the more attractive girl she was with got raped and not her, a neighbor with a smaller house "benefiting" because their neighbor got robbed and not them, or a white person "benefiting" because a racist cop took out his frustration on a black person rather then them.

Privilege, is also defined as "a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group." It's a stretch, but one could argue that in my above examples, the less attractive girl, the less wealthy neighbor, and the white person did have an advantage over their respective counterparts in those specific situations; therefore, they were "privileged." This is really a stretch, however, because this is not how we typically use the word "privilege." We can also argue that this definition would exclude "white privilege" because most of these advantages are shared by Asian Americans so it does not "only" apply to whites.

A benefit is an advantaged gained, not and advantage one has . Again, this is extremely important because of the resentment and even hatred one feels toward another when that person benefits from their misfortune. Let me say this again, when a racist cop assaults a black person, white people don't benefit—white people don't gain from this, we all lose . As long is situations like this continue to be sold as "white people benefiting," there will be an irrational escalation of racial tensions based on a fundamental misunderstanding.

Night writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

I'd rather you didn't project what you think I want to do or feel when addressing things I'm saying. This is the second time you've phrased your comments that way. As I've already explained, 'benefit' in this context isn't necessarily referring to direct benefits so much as social advantage over other ethnic groups, which often means a lack of disadvantage. A way of describing white privilege without using the word benefit would be that it's when white people are systematically advantaged over others under the same circumstances, in which that advantage may be a lack of disadvantage the others face due to an inequality in how they're treated relative to each-other. It can be used to describe advantages people already have, especially if inherently conferred by a quality they can't change.

 

I already told you that my example wasn't black people being assaulted but rather that white people in the same situation were less likely to be due to being white. White people are benefiting from being white in that the police are less likely to assault them than if they weren't white. It's not about any particular person being assaulted instead of them but rather that they're being treated better than someone else would be specifically because they're white.

 

Asian Americans are still being discriminated against. The perception that they aren't comes from the model minority myth and attempts to use them to pit marginalized groups against each other, as well as racism against black and latino communities occupying most people's attention. They've actually been facing more discrimination recently due to the pandemic's association with China, in addition to people's continued tendency to generalize without really caring about specific nationalities and cultures simply because they all look the same to them.

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:
[To Night]

Asian Americans are still being discriminated against. The perception that they aren't comes from the model minority myth and attempts to use them to pit marginalized groups against each other, as well as racism against black and latino communities occupying most people's attention. They've actually been facing more discrimination recently due to the pandemic's association with China, in addition to people's continued tendency to generalize without really caring about specific nationalities and cultures simply because they all look the same to them.

Read the rest of your exchange, and you make some reasonable challenges to Dr Bo - however, this does not follow from anything he said. He never claimed Asian Americans never faced discrimination, however, he did say that they enjoy some of the benefits that are often ascribed to whites - for instance, in police interactions.

Night writes:
[To Rationalissimo]

Please restrain yourself to the conversation we're already having rather than inserting yourself into a separate one that's happening concurrently with it. This section of my reply to Bo was a response to the following: "We can also argue that this definition would exclude "white privilege" because most of these advantages are shared by Asian Americans so it does not "only" apply to whites. "

 

Now, I would ask that instead of replying to this specific comment, you wait until I've replied to the other one to avoid derailing this discussion.

noblenutria@gmail.com writes:
[To Rationalissimo]

Asian people do face racism but less than most other races.  Asians are less likely to attack police and less likely to be victims of police violence than whites.  

noblenutria@gmail.com writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

Sorry to put you on the spot but what do you think of the claim that hate of white people is not morally equivalent to hate of nonwhite people: that this is a fallacy of false equivalence?

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To noblenutria@gmail.com]

It depends. To see "white people" as a homogeneous group—an archetype, if you will, of the powerful—the suppressor, and at the same time seeing "people of color" as a homogeneous group—an archetype of the weak—the suppressed, then we can see a moral difference. I do see it as holding different moral weight hating the "bad guy" vs. the "good guy."

I think you articulated the problem well. Seeing any group as a homogeneous group is the destructive form of stereotyping. It is insulting to all people: to people of color who don't see themselves as weak, oppressed victims, and insulting white people who don't see themselves as powerful oppressors. It is ignoring the fact that acting on stereotypes leads to massive injustice towards individuals.

We are getting more into values and moral philosophy and moving away from reason and logic. Is it okay for one group of people to hate another because of past actions of the group? I have my opinions, but that is all they are.

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:
[To Night]

The term reverse racism was literally coined by racists in response to accommodations made to allow black people the same opportunities as white people, claiming that equality meant they were being subjected to racism. They're not actually talking about discrimination so much as lashing out against stuff like de segregation and anti-discrimination laws. Misrepresenting attempts to address systemic racism as extreme is one of the most common forms of racism and what fuels a lot of racist violence.

'Attempts to address systemic racism' need to be congruous and logically connect to the outcome of a less systemically racist society. Otherwise, you end up with problems. This is what many people mean by 'reverse racism', because these 'attempts' cause more harm than good, e.g. inserting race into something it does not belong to. You are simply being lazy in reasoning by thinking that asserting an act as 'anti-racist' is enough to magically free it from being criticised as extreme, even if it is, and dismiss opposition as being a 'form of racism'. 

You misunderstand the term privilege. Privilege is something that people have due to being a member of a group that's being benefited by a form of systemic discrimination. White privilege is a real thing, such as being less likely to be assaulted by police officers, not having to deal with racial profiling, lighter sentences for the same crimes as black people, etc. Pointing out privilege is just drawing attention to how a group is treated better by a system that discriminates against people outside of their group, in this case white people vs people who aren't white. White people inherently benefit from systemic discrimination so long as they exist within a system that perpetuates it.

I understand what privilege means...I was asking what the point of pointing it out is, since a lot of the time, it is irrelevant.

I was going to pen a longer response to this, but see Dr Bo's reply looking at your examples.

By spaces or accommodations made for a particular group I meant stuff like community gatherings and preventing people from firing or underpaying someone based on their ethnicity. Anti-discrimination laws are needed because stuff like slavery, segregation and workplace discrimination wouldn't stop without them. Black people have also had several communities destroyed or gentrified over the years in addition to having had to rebuild their culture practically from scratch due to years of slavery and still having to deal with systemic racism, so the ability to have space where they can have at least some reprieve from systemic discrimination is entirely warranted. Some notable examples include Greenwood in Tulsa Oklahoma and Rosewood in Florida. Canada also had Africville, which was paved over by Halifax.

Here it depends on the relevance of race to the policy put forward; that means, when you propose some method of addressing systemic racism, it has to attach logically to the root of anti-racism, which means addressing discrimination or prejudice based on race. Anti-discrimination law's entire point is to prevent discrimination, so...there is no 'reverse racism' there, and people who think it is are incorrect.

Your example at the end seems like an over-generalization. What do you mean by 'racial equality meeting'? Are you talking about a lecture? Seminar? Conference? Someone's blog on social media? Do you have a specific example I can respond to?

It is just a hypothetical of what overcorrection might look like, and why calls of 'reverse racism' may not be incorrect the way you suggest.

Night writes:
[To Rationalissimo]

"'Attempts to address systemic racism' need to be congruous and logically connect to the outcome of a less systemically racist society. Otherwise, you end up with problems. This is what many people mean by 'reverse racism', because these 'attempts' cause more harm than good, e.g. inserting race into something it does not belong to."

 

Reverse racism was never about racism against white people, it was backlash against giving black people the same rights as white people under the idea that doing so would be racist against white people. People may claim it means other things now but it really doesn't and trying to defend the term isn't really going to get anywhere.

 

Your comment on things causing more harm than good and inserting race where it doesn't belong are too vague to discuss without elaboration.

 

"You are simply being lazy in reasoning by thinking that asserting an act as 'anti-racist' is enough to magically free it from being criticised as extreme, even if it is, and dismiss opposition as being a 'form of racism'.  "

Calling me lazy is an ad hominem and I did not claim that. I literally told you that CRT criticizes various ways of dealing with racism and that the term reverse racism came from racists mischaracterizing things like de segregation and addressing workplace discrimination as being racist against white people, which it isn't. I gave specific examples of exactly what was being called extreme and racist against white people.

 

"I understand what privilege means...I was asking what the point of pointing it out is, since a lot of the time, it is irrelevant.

I was going to pen a longer response to this, but see Dr Bo's reply looking at your examples. "

The way you described the term says otherwise. Refer to my response to Bo.

 

"It is just a hypothetical of what overcorrection might look like, and why calls of 'reverse racism' may not be incorrect the way you suggest."

You'd need specific examples to actually get anywhere. Otherwise you end up with examples that don't accurately reflect reality and risk falling into strawmaning and such.

 

 

 

 

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:

[To Night]

Reverse racism was never about racism against white people, it was backlash against giving black people the same rights as white people under the idea that doing so would be racist against white people. People may claim it means other things now but it really doesn't and trying to defend the term isn't really going to get anywhere.

Yet this is clearly  what the OP of the thread you're responding to is talking about.

"Critical Race Theory racism can only go downhill in terms of group power.  Racism = prejudice plus power, white people are a more powerful group than black people, therefore whites can be racist to blacks but not vice versa .  For a white person to claim that a black person is racist to whites is called reverse racism, which is super racist according to CRT."

So ironically, you did not understand the OP and may have even strawmanned it yourself - interesting, given that you will later accuse me of risking falling into 'strawmanning and such' because I did not give a real life example for my hypothetical (even though it wasn't necessary, since I wasn't necessarily referring to anything specific in real life, it was an elaboration of a logical sequence I made.

As for whether claims of "reverse racism" are valid, that depends on whether there is unfair prejudice or discrimination against the majority group (the core of racism). Implementing a law to prevent unfair pay based on race does not discriminate against anyone; in fact, it is intended to stop said discrimination. It brings unfair treatment based on race to a breaking halt. However, if someone said "whites are disgusting and should be exterminated" then this is pretty racist indeed, although you'd be hard pressed to find a reasonable person of any race making that comment, which, even if not considered 'racist', would be seen as heavily bigoted.

Your comment on things causing more harm than good and inserting race where it doesn't belong are too vague to discuss without elaboration.

Your comment here  "Misrepresenting attempts to address systemic racism as extreme is one of the most common forms of racism and what fuels a lot of racist violence" is what I am referring to. "Attempts to address systemic racism" itself is vague as it could refer to many different methods and policies put in place in order to address this 'racism', something even CRT acknowledges because, as you teach us, it actually critiques some of these methods of dealing with racism. Therefore the only way to examine whether they are worthwhile or not is to actually look at what those policies and methods consider 'racist' and what they plan to do in response to that, and see whether these two logically connect. There will be some effective and some ineffective responses to said racism (something CRT also acknowledges), some will be extremely effective and others extremely ineffective. The fact that a method of responding to racism, therefore, is criticised as 'extreme' does not mean that this is a racist remark, nor does it imply the speaker is racist. You need more information than just the statement itself to reach this conclusion rather than lazily relying on the fact that "racists did it, therefore if you do it, it's racist."

Calling me lazy is an ad hominem and I did not claim that. I literally told you that CRT criticizes various ways of dealing with racism and that the term reverse racism came from racists mischaracterizing things like de segregation and addressing workplace discrimination as being racist against white people, which it isn't. I gave specific examples of exactly what was being called extreme and racist against white people.

Because you characterised opposition to anti-racist policies as a form of racism. This is unreasonable because ends are distinct from means; method distinct from goal. For instance, an Anarchist, a Fabian Reformist and a Marxist may both agree that capitalism must be done away with, but all three of them will have different ideas on how to do so. Claiming that "if you disagree with my way of doing it, you're against it" therefore does not make sense. Opposition to anti-racist policy is often undertaken by racists, but sensible people may also take issue with what is being asserted as anti-racist if it overcorrects for present injustices, or even ones that are not there.

The way you described the term says otherwise. Refer to my response to Bo.

I read it. I don't see how it changes anything. White, male, straight, cisgender and other privileges all exist, but simply "pointing out privilege" does not win arguments as I said before. All it does is imply the privileged person has a bias or blind spot. Since everyone is biased, it is largely a mute point.

You'd need specific examples to actually get anywhere. Otherwise you end up with examples that don't accurately reflect reality and risk falling into strawmaning and such.

It is a hypothetical, nothing more. See above.

Night writes:
[To Rationalissimo]

The original question had several structural issues and fundamental misunderstandings to address. One of them was clarifying why the term reverse racism is racist and the context of the claims of racism against white people that are described as such. See the sentence immediately after the one you underlined, in which the claim that black people can't be racist towards white people is presented in relation to reverse racism. Due to the issues with how CRT was presented in the original question and the broadness of the topic, the matter of what CRT says about racism against white people would be better addressed through personal research so I also listed some relevant terms to look into after that.

 

If you're going to make claims of 'overcorrection' as a valid criticism against a method of addressing racism, you need to demonstrate what that looks like in practice, which means actual examples based in reality. Instead of doing so, you made up a hypothetical scenario that's too vague and lacking in context to actually work. You're now claiming that you don't need to provide an example of what it looks like to support your claim.

 

As I said before, 'the term 'reverse racism' doesn't really refer to racism against white people and shouldn't be treated as such. In terms of discussing racism against white people, hypothetical examples of what would theoretically be racist isn't helpful in discussing the actual occurrence of it in real life.

 

"Your comment here  "Misrepresenting attempts to address systemic racism as extreme is one of the most common forms of racism and what fuels a lot of racist violence" is what I am referring to. "Attempts to address systemic racism" itself is vague as it could refer to many different methods and policies put in place in order to address this 'racism', something even CRT acknowledges because, as you teach us, it actually critiques some of these methods of dealing with racism. Therefore the only way to examine whether they are worthwhile or not is to actually look at what those policies and methods consider 'racist' and what they plan to do in response to that, and see whether these two logically connect. There will be some effective and some ineffective responses to said racism (something CRT also acknowledges), some will be extremely effective and others extremely ineffective. The fact that a method of responding to racism, therefore, is criticised as 'extreme' does not mean that this is a racist remark, nor does it imply the speaker is racist. You need more information than just the statement itself to reach this conclusion rather than lazily relying on the fact that "racists did it, therefore if you do it, it's racist." "

I gave specific examples to the methods of addressing systemic racism that were being called extreme and racist towards white people when I explained where the term reverse racism comes from. I'd also like to be clear that criticism is meant to be constructive. When CRT criticizes methods of addressing racism, it's about examining if those methods are effective, why that is and what can be done to effectively address racism if it isn't. It's not about just calling something bad and calling it a day. Criticism needs to be made in good faith and with the goal of some form of improvement rather than simply tearing it down. That means following through claims such as something being extreme or causing more bad than good with elaboration on how that's the case and what can be done to address those issues. Otherwise they're unsupported and unhelpful.

 

"Because you characterised opposition to anti-racist policies as a form of racism. This is unreasonable because ends are distinct from means; method distinct from goal. For instance, an Anarchist, a Fabian Reformist and a Marxist may both agree that capitalism must be done away with, but all three of them will have different ideas on how to do so. Claiming that "if you disagree with my way of doing it, you're against it" therefore does not make sense. Opposition to anti-racist policy is often undertaken by racists, but sensible people may also take issue with what is being asserted as anti-racist if it overcorrects for present injustices, or even ones that are not there. "

 

There's no excuse for ad hominem arguments. They aren't valid responses to arguments. Insulting people you disagree with is also just generally rude. What I said was that the term reverse racism was coined to refer to giving black people equal rights as racist toward white people and that it was often applied to things like ending segregation and addressing workplace discrimination. They didn't take issue with those things because there was a problem with the way racism was being addressed, but because those things were attempting to address racism in the first place. I did not claim that all forms of criticism against methods of addressing racism are racist or that it couldn't be criticized.

 

"I read it. I don't see how it changes anything. White, male, straight, cisgender and other privileges all exist, but simply "pointing out privilege" does not win arguments as I said before. All it does is imply the privileged person has a bias or blind spot. Since everyone is biased, it is largely a mute point. "

I never said it did. The original context of 'pointing out their privilege' in my comment, was that some people took offense to the mere mention that their being white afforded them systemic advantages and claimed that it was just a tactic to be racist against white people.

 

"It is a hypothetical, nothing more. See above. "

As I said, making a hypothetical that's unrepresentative of the position you're responding to in order to discredit it would be a strawman fallacy.

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:
[To Night]

The original question had several structural issues and fundamental misunderstandings to address. One of them was clarifying why the term reverse racism is racist and the context of the claims of racism against white people that are described as such. See the sentence immediately after the one you underlined, in which the claim that black people can't be racist towards white people is presented in relation to reverse racism. Due to the issues with how CRT was presented in the original question and the broadness of the topic, the matter of what CRT says about racism against white people would be better addressed through personal research so I also listed some relevant terms to look into after that.

You failed to prove any racist intent or meaning in the OP, because there wasn't any. All that happened is that OP was asking whether it was fallacious to use the CRT definition of racism, and what the relationship between it and critical thinking is. "Reverse racism", unlike racial slurs and epithets, is a dog-whistle that  can  be racist depending on who is using it and the context in which it is used, but OP is probably unaware of its prior use by racists and was trying to use the term logically - racism that works in the opposite way to what is expected. You ran straight into the "well, ackshually, that term is racist", which is ridiculous and the reason you are mocked later in my reply. It does not make sense to relentlessly seek out potential racist offences. All I will say is that the phrase is inaccurate, as there is no 'normal' pattern of racism outside of our historical and social context. Therefore, all unfair bigotry and prejudice can simply be considered 'racist', and yes, anyone of any race can be racist to one another - not equally (due to varying levels of power), but it is still possible.

If you're going to make claims of 'overcorrection' as a valid criticism against a method of addressing racism, you need to demonstrate what that looks like in practice, which means actual examples based in reality. Instead of doing so, you made up a hypothetical scenario that's too vague and lacking in context to actually work. You're now claiming that you don't need to provide an example of what it looks like to support your claim.

You claimed that accusations of 'reverse racism' were a form of racism because racists were strawmanning, effectively, legitimate attempts to correct systemic racism as 'extreme' because they would eliminate white privilege. That is only  one  possible interpretation, and I provided another reason why someone might use the phrase. Otherwise, you simply implicate everyone who uses it in racism, in order to dismiss their arguments even if they contain true or useful points. No, I did not provide any specific examples, but I fail to see what difference this makes logically.

As I said before, 'the term 'reverse racism' doesn't really refer to racism against white people and shouldn't be treated as such. In terms of discussing racism against white people, hypothetical examples of what would theoretically be racist isn't helpful in discussing the actual occurrence of it in real life.

Once again you are ignoring what the OP meant and how many people use the term in favour of your preconceived notion that it is irredeemably racist and therefore should not be used. You are guilty of failing to parse the original post with your comments, hence you are later referred to as 'lazy' in your reasoning for running to the easy excuse of 'that's racist' - and as you shall later see, it is not 'ad hominem' (you don't even know what that phrase pertains to). And since hypotheticals may or may not play out in real life, depending on how probable they are, to dismiss them entirely does not make sense. 

I gave specific examples to the methods of addressing systemic racism that were being called extreme and racist towards white people when I explained where the term reverse racism comes from. I'd also like to be clear that criticism is meant to be constructive. When CRT criticizes methods of addressing racism, it's about examining if those methods are effective, why that is and what can be done to effectively address racism if it isn't. It's not about just calling something bad and calling it a day. Criticism needs to be made in good faith and with the goal of some form of improvement rather than simply tearing it down. That means following through claims such as something being extreme or causing more bad than good with elaboration on how that's the case and what can be done to address those issues. Otherwise they're unsupported and unhelpful.

You proved that  sometimes  reverse racism may be used as a racist talking point, because genuine equality was being held back by people who wanted to preserve their privilege. The problem with uncritical anti-racism is that you become obsessed with the "good value" of "helping minorities" and begin to make contestable suggestions - for instance, equating white actors voicing black characters with 'black face', suggesting that white authors should not write about non-white characters, and other examples of extreme political correctness. The fact that these people wear the label 'anti-racist' like a fashion accessory does not mean that they cannot be guilty of fallacy (which you and both CRT agree on). And I'm saying that sometimes, this may be referred to as 'reverse racism' (because to solve racism, these people perpetuate their own forms of it). The fact the far-right may use it in bad faith does not mean it is always a bad-faith term. Secondly, when CRT analyses whether methods of tackling racism are effective, they will almost definitely supply their own assumptions in order to build a measure of effectiveness, so their measurements depend on the validity of those assumptions. They may be strong or weak.

There's no excuse for ad hominem arguments. They aren't valid responses to arguments. Insulting people you disagree with is also just generally rude. What I said was that the term reverse racism was coined to refer to giving black people equal rights as racist toward white people and that it was often applied to things like ending segregation and addressing workplace discrimination. They didn't take issue with those things because there was a problem with the way racism was being addressed, but because those things were attempting to address racism in the first place. I did not claim that all forms of criticism against methods of addressing racism are racist or that it couldn't be criticized.

Firstly, even if I was simply a dickhead to you, that's not 'ad hominem'. This family of fallacies refers to discrediting or dismissing an argument based on irrelevant characteristics (e.g. the identity, hypocrisy, or otherwise of the speaker. For instance, "you're wrong because you're lazy" would be fallacious, but "you make X and Y and Z misunderstandings, therefore you are wrong and this arises from laziness in comprehension" is not. The fact your feelings got hurt does not matter). Ironically, people of your caliber tend to 'ad hominem' at lot, by using phrases like "that's your X privilege talking!" or "you only believe this because you're X identity" to discredit speakers instead of logically examining their premises and inferences from those. This is why I criticised the bit about "pointing out their privilege" (because it is often irrelevant) and Dr Bo also pointed out that the term has become inflammatory precisely because it is used  wrongly.  Next,  yes , racists claimed ending segregation was reverse racism - but it wasn't. It didn't enable racism towards whites, it attempted to end racism. However, stating that a person should not wear a certain hairstyle because they're white is discriminatory, and...racist. This is how 'reverse racism' is used nowadays, and how the OP meant it...but you didn't listen, did you?

I never said it did. The original context of 'pointing out their privilege' in my comment, was that some people took offense to the mere mention that their being white afforded them systemic advantages and claimed that it was just a tactic to be racist against white people.

Well, you are correct - there is a degree of white fragility in some of the population, who don't want to accept the reality of racism in Western countries. They don't want to accept the fact that they are 'privileged' in a sense as they do not deal with many of the inequalities that black and other minority people do.  However , as I wrote above, the fragility is often reasonable when the term 'privilege' is thrown like a ninja star at anyone from a majority group, simply as a one-line-argument-winner to imply they are too biased to speak on a topic, which, for logical reasons, makes no sense. And being reductive in the application of the term - as if whites are just white and do not have any other identities that can cause them problems - is a racist tactic (although most people on that side of the culture war do recognise this - even Arianna Grande, for God's sake, posted that WP doesn't mean one's life hasn't been hard, it's just not hard because of their race.)

As I said, making a hypothetical that's unrepresentative of the position you're responding to in order to discredit it would be a strawman fallacy.

But is it unrepresentative?

 

Night writes:
[To Rationalissimo]

"You failed to prove any racist intent or meaning in the OP, because there wasn't any. All that happened is that OP was asking whether it was fallacious to use the CRT definition of racism, and what the relationship between it and critical thinking is. "Reverse racism", unlike racial slurs and epithets, is a dog-whistle that  can  be racist depending on who is using it and the context in which it is used, but OP is probably unaware of its prior use by racists and was trying to use the term logically - racism that works in the opposite way to what is expected. You ran straight into the "well, ackshually, that term is racist", which is ridiculous and the reason you are mocked later in my reply. It does not make sense to relentlessly seek out potential racist offences. All I will say is that the phrase is inaccurate, as there is no 'normal' pattern of racism outside of our historical and social context. Therefore, all unfair bigotry and prejudice can simply be considered 'racist', and yes, anyone of any race can be racist to one another - not equally (due to varying levels of power), but it is still possible. "

 

The point wasn't to call him racist and I never claimed that he was. He brought up the term reverse racism in the context of it apparently being racist and its relation to claims of black people being racist towards white people, so responding to his question required explaining why the term is racist and the context of its use in relation to those claims. He wasn't personally using the term to define anything so much as paraphrasing his understanding of claims he associated with CRT, so your attempts to defend the term based on his use of it aren't even accurate.

 

The reason why the term 'reverse racism' is called that is because it was coined by racists who believed that addressing racism against black people would mean subjecting white people to racism, 'reversing' their circumstances. It's not meant to be logical or even a description of racism against white people. It's whole purpose is to be racist.

 

As I said in my original comment, discussing racism against white people in relation to CRT would require learning more about how certain terms are defined in particular contexts, as well as the variation in viewpoints within CRT.

 

"You claimed that accusations of 'reverse racism' were a form of racism because racists were strawmanning, effectively, legitimate attempts to correct systemic racism as 'extreme' because they would eliminate white privilege. That is only  one  possible interpretation, and I provided another reason why someone might use the phrase. Otherwise, you simply implicate everyone who uses it in racism, in order to dismiss their arguments even if they contain true or useful points. No, I did not provide any specific examples, but I fail to see what difference this makes logically. "

 

I only brought up strawmanning in relation to your example of over-correction. What fallacies are being committed by racists claiming something is too extreme may vary depending on the specific arguments. See above about the term reverse racism and what I did and did not say when explaining it. You even agreed that the term isn't logical. Setting aside the matter of the term reverse racism, you still need to provide examples to support your claim about over correction in relation to addressing racism. Those examples also need to have adequate context and be applicable to reality rather than speculative.

 

"Once again you are ignoring what the OP meant and how many people use the term in favour of your preconceived notion that it is irredeemably racist and therefore should not be used. You are guilty of failing to parse the original post with your comments, hence you are later referred to as 'lazy' in your reasoning for running to the easy excuse of 'that's racist' - and as you shall later see, it is not 'ad hominem' (you don't even know what that phrase pertains to). And since hypotheticals may or may not play out in real life, depending on how probable they are, to dismiss them entirely does not make sense.  "

 

See above. Again, there is no criteria for someone to be 'deserving' of being insulted in a discussion. It's fallacious. The problem with your example was that it was too vague and lacking in context to be representative of an actual real life situation so much as a watered down approximation of what you think over correction looks like. I prompted you to address the issue and you refused to do so.

 

"You proved that  sometimes  reverse racism may be used as a racist talking point, because genuine equality was being held back by people who wanted to preserve their privilege. The problem with uncritical anti-racism is that you become obsessed with the "good value" of "helping minorities" and begin to make contestable suggestions - for instance, equating white actors voicing black characters with 'black face', suggesting that white authors should not write about non-white characters, and other examples of extreme political correctness. The fact that these people wear the label 'anti-racist' like a fashion accessory does not mean that they cannot be guilty of fallacy (which you and both CRT agree on). And I'm saying that sometimes, this may be referred to as 'reverse racism' (because to solve racism, these people perpetuate their own forms of it). The fact the far-right may use it in bad faith does not mean it is always a bad-faith term. Secondly, when CRT analyses whether methods of tackling racism are effective, they will almost definitely supply their own assumptions in order to build a measure of effectiveness, so their measurements depend on the validity of those assumptions. They may be strong or weak. "

 

See above about reverse racism. Again, I'm not claiming that there aren't valid criticisms about certain methods of dealing with racism or that all attempts to do so are racist. The problem isn't that people want to help marginalized groups or address racism, it's that some attempts to do so aren't actually addressing the issue and effective solutions should be discussed when that's the case.

 

Taking your examples, the history of blackface and the way it either kept black people from representing themselves or forced them to play roles that fell into racist stereotypes is relevant to the discussion of representation in acting and voice acting roles, as the persistence of white people representing black people or black people being limited to stereotypical roles is directly related to it. There are valid comparisons to be made there and actors are becoming more aware of the issue and acknowledging the necessity of black people and other ethnic groups representing themselves in acting jobs.

 

The second example depends on if you mean expecting people to only write about their own culture and ethnicity or expecting people to refrain from writing about other cultures and ethnicities unless they take the time to research and understand enough to avoid falling into stereotypes, appropriation and other forms of bad representation. The latter is frequently confused for the former. It's generally recommended to actually consult the people you're representing and involving them in the process even when it's just writing. Again, I never claimed methods of addressing racism couldn't be criticized. Neither of those examples are cases of racism against white people.

 

"Firstly, even if I was simply a dickhead to you, that's not 'ad hominem'. This family of fallacies refers to discrediting or dismissing an argument based on irrelevant characteristics (e.g. the identity, hypocrisy, or otherwise of the speaker. For instance, "you're wrong because you're lazy" would be fallacious, but "you make X and Y and Z misunderstandings, therefore you are wrong and this arises from laziness in comprehension" is not. The fact your feelings got hurt does not matter). Ironically, people of your caliber tend to 'ad hominem' at lot, by using phrases like "that's your X privilege talking!" or "you only believe this because you're X identity" to discredit speakers instead of logically examining their premises and inferences from those. This is why I criticised the bit about "pointing out their privilege" (because it is often irrelevant) and Dr Bo also pointed out that the term has become inflammatory precisely because it is used  wrongly.  Next,  yes , racists claimed ending segregation was reverse racism - but it wasn't. It didn't enable racism towards whites, it attempted to end racism. However, stating that a person should not wear a certain hairstyle because they're white is discriminatory, and...racist. This is how 'reverse racism' is used nowadays, and how the OP meant it...but you didn't listen, did you? "

 

Repeatedly referring to my arguments in a pejorative manner and insulting me is very much irrelevant to my arguments and serves to characterize what I'm saying as less worthy of consideration, with the presumption both that I am wrong and that being wrong would warrant such comments. You've done this not only for comments directly addressing me but in referencing other groups and viewpoints in relation to mine, such as the bankrupt reasoning comment when I mentioned privilege. You've referred to my responses as ridiculous, warranting mockery and lazy all on the assumption that they are wrong, distorted and misrepresented what I've said and equated me to other groups and claims I didn't make to portray me as unreasonable.

 

The reason privilege is inflammatory is because some people feel personally attacked by being made aware of having systemic advantages they don't want to acknowledge. It's not necessarily a misunderstanding of the term but also thinking it isn't relevant to a discussion simply because they don't want it to be directly applied to them. Additionally, other people using a term wrongly doesn't mean that the person you're talking to is using it wrongly. You need to demonstrate that's the case rather than assuming it.

 

Discussing privilege is often necessary when talking about systemic discrimination, especially the ways in which people who have that privilege may not be aware that they have it. If someone claims that a form of systemic discrimination doesn't exist or downplays it because they don't experience it, then addressing their arguments may require talking about privilege.

 

There are situations in which the group someone is a part of or their experience is relevant to the discussion or affects their ability to contribute to it. Discussions based around personal experience with something would require personal experience in it and discussing solutions to a problem would warrant prioritizing the input of the people affected by it.

 

Your hairstyle example is referring to cultural appropriation. Some hairstyles exist within a cultural context in which white people wearing it would be appropriation due to not being from that culture.

 

"Well, you are correct - there is a degree of white fragility in some of the population, who don't want to accept the reality of racism in Western countries. They don't want to accept the fact that they are 'privileged' in a sense as they do not deal with many of the inequalities that black and other minority people do.  However , as I wrote above, the fragility is often reasonable when the term 'privilege' is thrown like a ninja star at anyone from a majority group, simply as a one-line-argument-winner to imply they are too biased to speak on a topic, which, for logical reasons, makes no sense. And being reductive in the application of the term - as if whites are just white and do not have any other identities that can cause them problems - is a racist tactic (although most people on that side of the culture war do recognise this - even Arianna Grande, for God's sake, posted that WP doesn't mean one's life hasn't been hard, it's just not hard because of their race.) "

The whole point of the term white fragility is to describe things like unwarranted backlash towards being made aware of systemic advantages. By definition, backlash against uses of the term white privilege can't be both white fragility and warranted. A lot of the time it comes up in response to arguments from ignorance, incredulity and such in the process of explaining why someone is committing that fallacy. See above.

 

Including every form of discrimination in every discussion about discrimination isn't feasible. When more than one form of discrimination is being discussed it's usually in the context of intersectionality, in which the main topic is either a specific demographic experiencing multiple forms of discrimination or the experiences of a marginalized group within various demographics they overlap with. If discussing the experiences of white people because they're white isn't relevant, then doing so would likely be a red herring argument.

 

If the topic is about a specific form of discrimination, then you need to consider whether or not bringing up another would be a red herring argument. That includes broadening a topic to the point of losing focus on what was meant to be discussed. Additionally, experiencing one form of discrimination doesn't mean you can't perpetuate another. Early feminist movements tended to exclude black women due to racism.

 

"But is it unrepresentative? "

 

See above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

noblenutria@gmail.com writes:

[To Night]

You and Rationalissimo wrote so much that the best I could do was skim through it.  

I want to reiterate that I would rather the term “reverse racism” was stricken from the lexicon.  Night said several times that the term is racist because it was used by white racists to fight against policies which I support, such as affirmative action.  I think that is irrelevant. I think it makes more sense to call any racism against any race “racism”.  

I only called this thread “Reverse Racism” because I have been accused of this by anti racist zealots when I have complained of racism against white people.  This is a real thing.  It does not matter that white on black racism is worse.  That’s the fallacy of relative privation.  X doesn’t matter because Y is worse.  Racism against white peoples still exists and is wrong.  I am against racism of all races.  If someone says racism against blacks is wrong but that racism against whites is acceptable then he/she is a hypocrite.  This is why I favor Humanism over CRT because there is less of this irrational behavior.  Humanism does not say that racism is wrong except when it’s against white people.  

CRT is its most evil when it claims that abuse of white people is a way to fight against racism.  

The belief that one cannot be racist to whites because they are the powerful class is like saying it’s okay to kill Jews because they are cockroaches.  I admit that my analogy is much worse,  but in both the subject is dehumanized.  To say that one cannot be racist to white people is like saying white people are not human.  I am white and a human.  If you hate me because I am white then you are a racist.  I don’t want to hear any false equivalence nonsense.  It is not acceptable to hate me because of my skin color because hate of black people is worse.  That’s completely irrelevant.  Another one I have heard is that hate if whites is acceptable because white peoples perpetrated slavery and colonialism: that white people must take the abuse because they deserve to be punished for their crimes.  That is also BS.  

I find CRT to be racist for this reason.  CRT claims that nonwhites cannot be racist to whites even if they murder white people just for being white.  We have critical thinking to stop people from believing BS like that.  

Humanism teaches mutual respect of races.  That’s my style.  I have learned three ways that white people can stop being racist.

1.  Dont be racist to anybody

2.  Don’t listen to people who say all white people are racist.  

3. don’t listen to people who say non white people cannot be racist by definition.   

Night writes:

[To noblenutria@gmail.com]

I didn't see this comment before posting my other ones, so I'll deal with it separately. However, we really need to focus the conversation into less comments if they keep going.

 

To clarify on the 'reverse racism thing', the term doesn't really refer to racism against white people so much as it's used under that pretext. It's the idea that addressing racism against black people or other marginalized groups would lead to a reversal of the social dynamics and cause racism towards white people, which is where the 'reverse' part comes from.

 

You'd need to establish what you're referring to as racism against white people and explain why that's the case. Calling someone a zealot isn't actually going to address their arguments, so asking for clarification on what makes it racist would be better. If it can be determined that it isn't, keep in mind the nature of the topic and how it would've looked that way without clarification. If it's proven to be the case, then address the issue, learn from it and move on. It's only as big a deal as you make it.

 

Calling CRT evil is unwarranted. As I said in my other comment, you'd need to determine that the issue is CRT itself and even then 'evil' wouldn't be an appropriate description. It's also a broader field of study rather than the specific arguments being discussed.

 

That analogy doesn't really work, since you're comparing claiming that victims of a system of discrimination that qualifies them as inferior can't perpetuate that systemic inferiority towards the group that's oppressing them to murdering someone due to the systemic perception of their inferiority. There's also the issue of qualifying acknowledgement of someone's status and power within a system that sees them as superior as the same thing as insect comparisons meant to qualify someone as inferior. That breaks the train of reasoning leading from it. Additionally, 'white' isn't really about skin colour, otherwise Irish people wouldn't have been considered nonwhite in the past. There's also that other ethnic groups can have similarly light skin without being considered white and that some ethnic groups considered white have darker tones comparable to some of the ones that aren't.

 

Claiming that black people can't be racist towards white people isn't the same as claiming that anything they do to a white person is morally just regardless of context. If a black person says 'I hate white people', they mean 'I resent the systemic harm white people have and continue to perpetuate towards me in ways too broad for me to express succinctly every time I need to vent my frustration about it'. When a white person says 'I hate black people', they're saying 'I hate these people whom my society has and continues to systematically discriminate as inferior to me and intentionally or otherwise am reinforcing that notion at this very moment'. Expressing resentment over ongoing systemic oppression is warranted but it doesn't mean people are going around saying any and all means of doing so are morally just. You need to look at individual situations for that. As I brought up when discussing the definition of racism, generalizing all that as racist would rob people of the means of discussing the difference caused by the systemic oppression and inequalities in social status. Another issue is that you'd have to call every form of negative sentiment towards white people racist even when it's stuff like peaceful protests, self-defense from assault and discussing the ways in which white people continue to perpetuate racist ideas or the continuation of slavery in the prison system, which just enables further racism towards them and punishes them for trying to deal with it no matter what method is used.

 

Humanism isn't the one and only way of looking at things and things approached from other perspectives aren't necessarily incompatible with it. As I touched on with the racism in philosophy, ideologies like that are only as good as how an individual proponent of it defines who qualifies as 'human' and 'reasonable'. It's why a lot of academics justified things like racism and sexism by qualifying certain groups as irrational and less capable of reason. Another issue with humanism is that limiting yourself to approaching a topic solely through whether or not it's logical or on abstract concepts of altruism makes it difficult to discuss other facets of the issue. It's not that logic and altruism doesn't matter to other fields or even other philosophies but that the focus of discussion is different. Psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists and philosophers are going to have different things to say about racism as seen through their field of study and none are inherently better than the other.

noblenutria@gmail.com writes:
[To Night]

You said
If a black person says 'I hate white people', they mean 'I resent the systemic harm white people have and continue to perpetuate towards me in ways too broad for me to express succinctly every time I need to vent my frustration about it'

Jacob
I am not the system.  I am an individual human being.  Maybe I need more clarification...  It looks to me that you are saying that if a nonwhite person commits some act of hate against me as an individual person he is really fighting against systemic racism.  Like, if a nonwhite person punches me in the face, he is really punching systemic racism in the face?  If that's how it is then Humanism is a far better system than CRT.  Humanism recognizes people as individuals and CRT only sees people as groups.  Humanism is more rational.  

I don't like CRT because it frames hate of whites as a type of philanthropy.  Hating white people is like doing good deeds.  Hating white people is fighting against racism.  

noblenutria@gmail.com writes:
[To Night]

Your first paragraph begins with a genetic fallacy.  You said that reverse racism was coined by racists.  I infer that you mean from this that anyone using the term is also a racist.    I would not use the term “reverse racism” myself.  If a non-white person was racist to me I would call them racist.  I only talk about reverse racism when I tell a non-white person they are racist and then they claim that non white people cannot be racist by definition and then claim that I am racist for claiming (what they call) reverse racism.  In my mind, claiming your opponent to be a reverse racist is just attempting to get away with their own racism.  You could call this a red herring.  I believe that this idea, that non white people cannot be racist by definition, only serves to encourage non-white people to be racist to whites, when it would be better if all humans worked together to stamp out racism, including racism perpetuated by CRT.  

Night writes:
[To noblenutria@gmail.com]

To avoid having 2 branching conversations on the same topic I'd prefer you bundled your responses together and marked when one was responding to a different comment. They'd likely get pretty repetitive.

 

You mean my first reply to Rationalissimo, right? The term 'reverse racism' being coined by racists was relevant in explaining the context and purpose of the term's creation. It's what the word was created to mean and their goals in using it that make it unsuitable for use to describe racism against white people. It depends on what you mean by using it. There are ways of talking about racist terms that aren't racist and people don't necessarily know when a word or phrase they use is racist until someone explains it to them, which can be an issue but not in the way of knowingly using those words as they are. That's why there's a difference between pointing out someone said something racist and telling them they're being racist, though some don't make a distinction.

 

Something being a case of racism isn't self-evident. People may not bother elaborating on why something is racist when it's one of many examples of a known and demonstrable pattern of discrimination that's conventionally agreed on as being racist but that only works if they know what you're referring to. They'd still have to explain why the specific thing they're talking about is racist if asked about it. Likewise, you'd have to explain why what you're calling racist is racist so the person you're talking to can respond to your reasoning and how you define racism. When you don't, people are left to figure out your reasoning on their own and you risk a disconnect between what you meant to say and how they interpreted it, which would just spiral out the longer it's left unaddressed.

 

Opinions like the person who said your claim was about reverse racism is just trying to get away with racism and that CRT spreads racism would need to be accompanied by arguments if presented as claims. If you bring those up before they've had a chance to add an argument to their claim then they'd likely end up thinking you aren't open to hearing what they have to say, which would keep the conversation from really going anywhere.

 

Tone can be hard to read in written form, so finding ways to more clearly express you're discussing the topic in good faith and avoiding comments about their character or the character of groups associated with them in favour of directly addressing the given arguments and prompting elaboration when needed will likely improve the outcome of such discussions.

noblenutria@gmail.com writes:
[To Night]

Let me use an example to try to get to the point.  I am white.  Imagine a nonwhite person writes in graffiti, "I hate white people", on my car.  Then I accuse the nonwhite person that he is racist.  Then the nonwhite person claims that I am a racist because I claimed that a nonwhite person could be racist.  Is this how it works?  Is nonwhite guy right?

Night writes:
[To noblenutria@gmail.com]

To refocus discussion, I'll be answering both of your replies here.

 

Both your example here and in your comment to GoblinCookie are still relying on treating hypothetical situations as real ones. Can you provide a known case where a white person was turned away from a job, had their car vandalized or got murdered solely for being white? The only car vandalism cases that come to mind are cop cars but that's due to the systemic racism they perpetuate and 'I hate white people' isn't a graffiti you'd see on those. Plus some of those are actually staged by the cops themselves as a defamation tactic to justify assaulting protestors.

 

 

You said 
If a black person says 'I hate white people', they mean 'I resent the systemic harm white people have and continue to perpetuate towards me in ways too broad for me to express succinctly every time I need to vent my frustration about it' 

Jacob 
I am not the system.  I am an individual human being.  Maybe I need more clarification...  It looks to me that you are saying that if a nonwhite person commits some act of hate against me as an individual person he is really fighting against systemic racism.  Like, if a nonwhite person punches me in the face, he is really punching systemic racism in the face?  If that's how it is then Humanism is a far better system than CRT.  Humanism recognizes people as individuals and CRT only sees people as groups.  Humanism is more rational.   

I don't like CRT because it frames hate of whites as a type of philanthropy.  Hating white people is like doing good deeds.  Hating white people is fighting against racism.  

 

'I hate white people' isn't directed at a specific person, it's something someone says to no one in particular to vent. I'm not saying every time someone expresses resentment towards their systemic oppression it's an act of activism, just a reaction to systemic oppression. I brought up activism in the context of conflating every and all acts perceived as some form of hostility or negative intent towards white people as racist and the way it would lead to enabling further racism and punishing people for so much as trying to do anything from defending themselves to advocating for their rights. An ethical discussion on if X reaction to racism is morally just or when it is and isn't justified to do it is a separate matter from whether or not it's racist.

 

The arguments you're taking issue with aren't CRT itself. Neither CRT nor those things are treating hating anyone as an act of philanthropy.

 

noblenutria@gmail.com writes:
[To Night]

I am asking you about a specific hypothetical situation.  

Imagine a nonwhite person points at me with his finger.  He says Jacob, I hate you because you are white. Then he slashes my tires and says he did so because I am white.  The nonwhite person is committing an act of hate against me specifically. This is the most obvious example of racism against white people that I can imagine.  Are you still determined to say that this is not racism?  Would you at least be willing to condemn such as act as wrong because it is pointless hate against me and u justified destruction of my property.  

I feel that you are still saying that even in the above situation, the nonwhite person is justified in his act because he is protesting against systemic racism.  I have heard also that all acts of hate against white people are justified because of slavery and colonialism.  

Would you say that in the scenario I described the non white person was wrong but not because they were racist?  

Do you yourself encourage the hate of white people?  You know, because they deserve it, because of system oppression, slavery, and colonialism?  Do you feel that the more nonwhite people hate white people the faster we will get to a more equal society?

Night writes:
[To noblenutria@gmail.com]

Hypotheticals don't work in this context if they aren't about something that verifiably happens. It's not about if black people can hypothetically  be racist to white people, it's about if they can be within a society that systemically enforces white people's superiority and black people's inferiority. To counter that argument or claim that it happens you need to demonstrate that it happens. Hypothetically, I could do the same unethical stuff rich people do with their money and companies but in practice I'd need to actually have the means to end up in the circumstances that allowed them to do that, such as owning a company and a lot of money. I could hypothetically end up with a lot of money and owning a company but there are several reasons why that wouldn't realistically happen.

 

And as I've said multiple times, whether or not something is racist and whether or not it's morally right are two different things. Something not being racist doesn't mean it's morally right or wrong. I also made it clear that reactions to racism aren't inherently activism or protests.

 

 

noblenutria@gmail.com writes:
[To Night]

You said there is a difference between being morally wrong and being racists so I can break this down into two questions.  

1.  Is it morally right for non white people to hate white people just because they are white?

2.  Is it racist for a nonwhite person to hate a whites person just for being white.  

Thanks.  Answering in this way would help me understand.  

Night writes:

[To noblenutria@gmail.com]

Discussions on morality can lead to different answers depending on what standard of ethics you're discussing and such. Feeling resentment towards a group is something that would often be described as hate but it really comes down to the underlying reasons of the sentiment. The phrases 'I hate white people' and 'I hate black people' look very similar but convey very different things. To say that hate is morally wrong would be reductive and fail to examine how and why it's being expressed. That's where the morality issue comes in.

 

When a non-white person is expressing dislike, resentment, etc. towards white people, it's because of stuff like how they talk about them and the issues they face or when they appropriate things or refuse to acknowledge or understand the ways they're harming others. It's the passive racism they see white people participating in rather than just existing. When a white person expresses those same feelings towards other ethnic groups, it's often perpetuating some notion of their inferiority, vilifying them for existing/drawing attention to their systemic oppression or feeding into stereotypes. This past year I've seen a lot of people try to justify and rationalize why calling Covid the 'Chinese virus' isn't racist because they don't understand the connotations such a thing has in the context of a man who's repeatedly vilified other ethnic groups in similar ways and a society that has a history of racism towards various asian ethnicities including stereotypes of them being unclean and disease-ridden. They don't seem to understand how to talk about Covid originating in China without being racist about it. Stuff like that and the expectation of educating people about their issues or having to live with the knowledge some people they meet will base their entire perception of their group based on how they act is exhausting to deal with. People just don't have the patience to deal with that their entire lives and not express that they're annoyed with it from time to time.

 

That's the why but not the how, which is a bit more complicated. There isn't really an objective consensus on whether or not there's an acceptable context for certain actions and if they apply to a particular situation being discussed. For example, some would argue that it's morally wrong to kill someone in self-defense even if refraining from doing so would likely get you killed. I think Kant was the philosopher that argued that lying is morally wrong even when doing it to protect yourself or someone else, as he believed doing so would make you accountable for anything that happened after.

 

Another complication is that a common form of racism is removing people's means of pushing back against it under the guise of morality, such as when a protest causes inconvenience by blocking a road or justifying assaulting protestors by claiming they did something to 'deserve' it. The police often fabricate scenarios to present their violence and murder of others as self-defense, yet any attempt to resist them is treated as morally wrong despite a very real threat of violence or death that would qualify doing so as self-defense.

 

Also you used the reply to answer option when replying to GoblinCookie so he didn't get notified about it and it's not technically attached to his comment.

noblenutria@gmail.com writes:
[To Night]

Okay that clears some things up.  Could I ask you this?

Could you give me an example of a non white person committing an act of hate against a white person which is completely unjustifiable?

Night writes:
[To noblenutria@gmail.com]

Well hate crimes based on someone being white don't really happen but other forms of discrimination still do. At that point it's no longer about ethnicity. Then there's your usual people stuff like cheating on a partner or some other scummy relationship ending thing but that's not usually about hate.

 

The ethics of what is and isn't an appropriate response to discrimination in a particular context tends to be discussed within the community in question, so finding either activist groups that talk about it or some individuals who've created platforms to discuss things like that in an educational context would be a good way to learn more on the topic. Violence is generally discouraged outside of defending yourself or others but you can't realistically pin the blame solely on the person instigating violence if they were baited into it. Some people are pro vandalism while others are against it, Nazi punching etc. You'd need to consult sources like that for a more detailed and informative answer on the topic. Academic sources on the history of activism and the ways people have lashed out against it would likely be helpful as well. You can find a number of texts when typing in a subject and PDF. Stuff from google books gets several pages omitted but what's there might be informative and you could try to find the rest of it at a library when that's viable if you're interested in finishing it. Respectability politics is somewhat related to the topic.

GoblinCookie writes:

[To noblenutria@gmail.com]

Racism isn't perpetuated by CRT.  Those who oppose CRT are racists and opposing it gives them a cover which nowadays they need as that is still an acceptable position intellectually. 

"Both sides should simply not be racist to each other" is an exercise in moral equivalence that is objectively pro-racist even if it's proponents are subjectively otherwise.  Racism is simply not reducible to 'simply something mean folks do'. 

Stupid evenhanded moralism of that kind is quite ancient and has never actually been on the side of any kind of social progress. 

noblenutria@gmail.com writes:

[To GoblinCookie]

Scenario 1: A white manager refuses to hire a black employee just because he is black.  On a scale of one to ten, how prejudiced is the white manager?

Scenario 2: A black manager refuses to hire a white employee just because he is white.  On a scale of one to ten, how prejudiced is the black manager?

Scenario 3: A white man kills a black man because he hates black people.  On a scale of one to ten, prejudiced is the white man?

Scenario 4: A black man kills a white man because he hates white people.  On a scale of one to ten, how prejudiced is the black person?

Also most CRT believers believe that all white people are racist if they believe in CRT or not.  How can you say that a white person is racist if they do X if they are already racist just by existing?  This sounds to me like painting a house red which was already red.  Whats the point?

GoblinCookie writes:
[To noblenutria@gmail.com]

 

Scenario 1: A white manager refuses to hire a black employee just because he is black.  On a scale of one to ten, how prejudiced is the white manager?

Scenario 2: A black manager refuses to hire a white employee just because he is white.  On a scale of one to ten, how prejudiced is the black manager?

Scenario 3: A white man kills a black man because he hates black people.  On a scale of one to ten, prejudiced is the white man?

Scenario 4: A black man kills a white man because he hates white people.  On a scale of one to ten, how prejudiced is the black person?

Also most CRT believers believe that all white people are racist if they believe in CRT or not.  How can you say that a white person is racist if they do X if they are already racist just by existing?  This sounds to me like painting a house red which was already red.  Whats the point? 

You really need to learn more about the subject and stop burning strawmen. All of those examples are pretty much stawmen racism/prejudice as well, racism is seldom as honest as that. 

The key difference here is that black people being 'racist' against white people does not benefit black people in general, it hurts black people in general because they are weaker group in general terms and any discrimination against white people will be 'avenged five-fold' as it were.  White people being racist is to the benefit of white people in general.  Even if CRT takes this idea too far, it is an important difference.

A white person does not have to do anything to be a racist.  He can simply passively sit by and tolerate the racism of others and enjoy the fruits of it in the form of the elimination of competitors that happen to be black.  To be a racist is the default position of a white person and for such a person not to be a racist takes an active effort. 

noblenutria@gmail.com writes:
[To GoblinCookie]

Is it a good thing for nonwhite people to commit acts of hate and violence against white people because this a way to fight against systemic oppression?  

GoblinCookie writes:
[To noblenutria@gmail.com]

I thought I had clearly said the reverse.  It is bad thing for them to do this because those groups will then retaliate and will win any conflict being that they are stronger, making the overall situation worse. 

The main difference is that reverse racism is bad for those who commit it while racism is good for those who commit it being it upholds their privileged status.  Racism (of the powerful) works in their power, reverse racism (of the powerless) works against them by giving the dominant group a pretext for a crackdown.

noblenutria@gmail.com writes:

I am glad we can agree on something.  

There are still differences in our approaches.   

You suggest that the nonwhite person is only wrong because he will be retaliated against.  Does this mean that if there was no threat of retaliation, then there is nothing wrong with this nonwhite person slashing my tires and declaring his hate of me because I am white?

You are suggesting that possible retaliation is the only reason for the nonwhite person to refrain and that otherwise it is not wrong to wantonly hate or to destroy property.  Is this the case?