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
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.
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?
You seem to have a poor memory:
Then I asked you what makes it traditional and you said:
So let's see some evidence of this natural evolution based on statistics and aggregate numbers.
Why yes I do have a memory disorder, thanks for reminding me. I must've forgotten.
But, I think you're confused about what I'm saying there. I'm not saying that the evolution of language is "based on statistics and aggregate numbers", and I don't see how it could be interpreted that way. I'm saying that language naturally evolves, and that the definition of racism that I see most commonly has evolved into including negative statements about a race based on factual statistics. For example, "80% of [insert race here] commits [insert type of crime here]". Even if it were true, that would be considered racist. If you don't agree, ok, I'll use your definition.
Anyways, I'm not sure why I'm arguing about this. You literally agreed with a comment calling an entire race of people troglodytes who the op was ashamed to share their genetics with. I'm pretty sure it was satire. So. Yeah, idk what else to say here
Facts aren't racist, they're facts. "80% of ___ commits ___ crime" is not racist if it's true.
And, again, please do show me evidence of a definition of racism that includes true statements.
Ok, then you're not racist for pointing out that white people are responsible for some horrible things. You would still be racist for calling them troglodytes though.
You're generalizing that trend to the whole race
You're assigning all the blame to white people when other races also increased their support of Trump (eg. it doubled among black men)
Including the people who didn't vote, I'm pretty sure every race has a majority of ignorant people, yet you only call white people troglodytes
In short, you're making it more about race than it is. I propose the much more accurate delineation that uninformed people elected Trump. It's valuable to note that white people did that the most, but with all the caveats above I think the generalization is unwarranted.
I'll say a similar thing to you to what I said to the other person who is very upset that people dare to blame white men for things...
When Native Americans say, "the white man stole our land," are they racists?
Why are we ignoring white women? Your numbers aren't quite as good in that department. Still >50%, but we seem to have gotten a bit narrower for no reason here, no?
Anyways, no, they aren't racist, because white people did steal their land. They were the ones making all the decisions and they were overwhelmingly of the mind that native americans were a worse race. They perpetrated a literal racial genocide. Did they all do this? No, but they nearly all supported it. You can make the claim that the overwhelming majority of the entire race was racist and was totally on board with colonialism. So, you can say that the race, as a whole, is to blame. It would still be racist to blame an individual white person who had no part in the genocide. But the claim validly applies to the race as a whole, so it's not racist to make under your own definition.
That's very different from white people having a ~5% majority with very strong internal disagreements when they elected Trump.
The ones making all the decisions? So just like now with U.S. politicians and Palestinians? Also U.S. politicians and sick people? Also U.S. politicians and the environment?
So just like now?
Not seeing the difference yet.
...yes...? And?
I don't know how to tell you this but if you don't see the difference between 90% support with negligible resistance in the native american case, and 45-62% support (I'm dividing it based on education, not gender, since that makes more sense) with 35-51% opposition in the Trump case, you are so far from the reality that I see that you've reached escape velocity. In no world is a 10% lead "nearly all".
Please show me where you got the 90% support figure from.
It was revealed to me in a dream
To be serious, I very much doubt reliable polling data from the 1700s exists on this subject. If less people supported it than I thought, then it was less racist. It seems like most white people were fine with it though, so native americans pointing out that it happened is not racist, unless they're applying that fault to an individual white person.
You mean you're making a broad assumption about a race of people without knowing the facts?
That sounds racist based on the criteria you've laid down.
It's not an assumption, it's supported by historical accounts and is reflected in our past actions. What are you arguing? That the historical genocide of native americans wasn't partially based on large-scale racism? Stop trying to gotcha me and realize that you're implying some pretty weird stuff.
Anyways, we're just going around in circles. We're not making much rhetorical progress. I'm now in the car on my way to Christmas so I think it's time for me to take my leave instead of arguing about racism on the internet. Thanks for the convo, and happy Hanukkah if you celebrate.
Large-scale racism? You mean not all white people were racist?
Seems again, like based on your own criteria, you are making a racist claim.
Yup, there were people who protested the status quo and did not support the racist endeavors, and may not have been racist themselves. But from what I know of that period of history, it was rare. Note that I didn't use the statements about the overall situation to assign blame to any particular person.
I'm not following your claim that I'm racist and I don't really care to since you seem intent on repeatedly trying to call me racist and none of the previous claims have been accurate. Stop trying to "win" the argument, I'm already out. Take the opportunity to exit gracefully and enjoy the holiday season and move on.
Irony.
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.”
i pick no side here, both of you were acerbic in the discussion which is why it went nowhere. i hope you can use the lens of crt in future debates so they don’t end up so frothing with rage is all.