News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
So you're racist against white people.
Nice try. I'm actually a misanthrope. Racism is for stupid people.
To be fair a LITERAL white man is the biggest threat to America
Isn't he orange
Touché
Racism is a systemic issue, you can't be racist against the oppressor.
You’re correct, and if you wanted to be more specific, you can’t participate in systemic racism against the oppressing class. You absolutely can, of course, participate in non-systemic incidents of interpersonal racism, sometimes called “reverse racism.”
But people who have no interest in examining the historical structures of white supremacy will downvote both your comments and mine because nuance isn’t as fun as calling each other racist. 🙃
Racism is a very specific term meant to point out the existence of a system of oppression. Interpersonal racism exists exclusively as a symptom of systemic racism, since there's no societal system that oppresses white people, there's no racism against white people — of any kind. Reverse racism is racist rhetoric on the level of "all lives matter" meant to deny and trivialize racism. Imagine calling battered women shelters sexist because they don't allow men.
fully agreed. nevertheless, i try to allow a little grace in this discourse because race did exist as a concept outside and generally prior to white supremacist contexts. additionally i find it’s not rhetorically useful to brute force the language like that to ears primed to favor colorblindness. rather, i favor simply describing what kind of racism is going on, which in this case is explicitly and simply non-systemic.
I'm a white man and I agree with them. Am I racist against myself?
Yes
Cool. This is like how I'm also antisemitic for being a Jew who doesn't support Israel.
Of course, a lot of people (maybe you) don't consider Jews to be white. Elon sure doesn't. So maybe I'm not racist against myself?
Whether or not Jews are white depends entirely on which is convenient for the people in power at the time.
That's really how whiteness works for everyone since the meaning expanded beyond just Anglo-Saxon Protestants
Very much so.
I mean I'm sure you agree that being against the state of Israel or being antizionist doesn't make you antisemitic.
I don't particularly know or care if the jewish people are "white" or not. Not really my place to say anyways I suppose.
I also agree that white men have been responsible for more problems in the U.S. than any other group of people. Like all but one president.
If you don't know who is or is not white, how can you think it is even possible to be racist against white people?
Very easy. If you make or agree with sweeping generalizations about a race, you are racist.
That's what racism is.
If you agree with something that is true, you're a racist? What?
Is "black people are far more likely than anyone else to get sickle cell anemia" racist? Because it is a sweeping generalization.
Or, if you want to go back to white people and crime, how about- "69.9% of arrested criminals in 2019 were white?" I have to disagree with that fact or I'm a racist? I have to deny reality if I don't want to be a racist? That's really what you think?
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/table-43
"All strawberries are fruits" does not imply "all fruits are strawberries" .
Saying "white people are a threat" is not the same as saying "these people who are a threat are white".
The former is the statement you agreed with, and now you're desperately trying to paint it as the latter.
It's not. You're rationalizing racism.
I'm doing no such thing. This is what you said:
Not all black people get sickle cell anemia and not all people who get sickle cell anemia are black, so (and I'll even revise it to make it more general) "black people are at risk for sickle cell anemia" is a sweeping generalization. Therefore, if you agree with it, you're racist. Based on your own claim.
Traditionally racism that is based on statistics and aggregate numbers still counts. If someone were to say that black people are on average responsible for [insert problem here], even if it were true, that's generally considered racist.
And, that's a bit silly. I can call someone doing racist black caricatures racist against black people without knowing if some particular country's population is generally considered to be black.
Traditionally based on what? What tradition is this? Who made it a tradition?
And if you can't determine the criteria for whiteness, how can you know if anything you say is racist? It could be true once you determine the criteria.
Also:
Jews don't have a country. Jew and Israeli are not synonyms. That is bigotry.
The analogy still works if we're talking about a race rather than a country. You're nitpicking the details, not attacking the actual point being made. The point is that there is no such thing as a strict definition of race, but that such a thing isn't necessary to talk about race as a concept. It would be like saying "you can't say you like sandwiches unless you define what a sandwich is". We all know on the internet that is an impossible definition, but we can still meaningfully talk about sandwiches.
The natural evolution of the English language as determined by multiple societies. I'm using the most common definition of racism that I know. No definition is kore valid than any other in theory, so if you want to explain what you think racism is I'll switch to talking about your definition.
I'm not nitpicking on the details, I'm pointing out you yourself said something which, in context, sure sounded bigoted to me.
Perhaps you're not the best judge of bigotry?
And let's see evidence of this "natural evolution" that involves statistics. That doesn't sound like how language works to me.
I needed a way to refer to a racial group that could potentially be a part of a larger race. The word "subrace" would be accurate but sounds incredibly racey and probably has bad connotations that I'm not aware of so I used the example of a small, semi-distinct racial group potentially within a larger race. Many countries have small distinct racial groups, which seemed like the best example. Sue me.
Literally what does this even mean? What are you talking about??
Anyways, now that I've clarified my point you can stop nitpicking and respond to my actual argument. Or are you only interested in calling me a bigot?
False analogy, no one said anyone was racist against white people for saying they don't support the US.
If you're agreeing with someone who literally maligned a race, you are racist too. Period.
Yes, again, I know you think accepting facts is racist, but I'm not going to lie to myself about factual statements.
Unless you can tell me which group of people is a bigger threat. Feel free to use crime data.
No value judgment about an entire race is a fact.
You're racist.
Got it. Just like all those racist Native Americans who say things like, "white people stole our land."
Right?
No, actually
https://lemmy.cafe/comment/8993596 cc @[email protected]
Hi spujb. I had a very long debate about this already but feel free to discuss this through the lens of CRT without me. I'm not familiar enough with the specifics anyways.
lmao. What's your first?
Yeah no problem. I read through your debate and I feel that CRT is the lens which both of you need to come to an understanding. If not today, just want to give you that nugget if you are interested in future investigation :)
cranking 90s in fortnite
It's something I'm somewhat interested in, and it's fairly important. Maybe I'll do some proper research on it the next time I have some free time. Thanks for the suggestion!
Haha nice. Hope you get some time to do a few rounds this season :)
Hell yeah !
Despite the whole culture war where left leaning folks defended CRT, I get lots of downvotes when I bring up how it can actually benefit discussions by removing the need to endlessly debate whether the other person is racist. So it’s heartening to hear one person had their interest piqued along with the regular onslaught of downvotes :)
That's going to be difficult since he ran away whining about how I was daring to suggest he was a racist under false pretences.
Fuck off Squid, I'm trying to enjoy my holiday. I have done nothing but participate in good faith. Not just as in a veneer of politeness, but truly to attempt to engage your real beliefs and express my own, fairly reasonable ones. But that's proven impossible since you've been intent on doing nothing but make accusations, twist my words to the worst possible interpretations, nitpick irrelevant points, and respond only to attack my position rather than to understand it. You've barely even presented your own. If you want to imagine me as some racist crybaby who can't handle your epic takedowns, go ahead, but don't claim it as reality.
I know you're not a lost cause, so I'll leave you with some advice. Don't assume everyone is your enemy. You'll have a much more enjoyable time trying to engage and have a real conversation than trying to put others down. You might discover that the person you assumed the worst of has essentially the same position as you, just from a different perspective. Feel free to respond and take the last word; I won't reply. I wouldn't have replied to this either but it was especially hostile so I felt the need to chime in.
I'm not the one who started this by calling someone a racist. That would have been you. Take your own advice, bud.
i don’t often find myself defending you, but credit where due: yep. opening these discussions (specifically over “reverse racism”) with accusations of racism leads nowhere, in short due to the vast diversity in how people understand the word.
when people on the internet instead perform discourse over terms which are more concretely and widely accepted, discussion actually begins constructing mutual understanding instead of falling to what is essentially name calling, and can even begin to close the gap between folks’ understanding of “race.”
https://lemmy.cafe/comment/8993596