Do you consider this to be racism/hate speech

[Amused]

Quite so. Racism means prejudice based on skin color. You either allow that standard to cut both ways or you're just fine with double standards and hypocrisy.

No.

Racism is racial prejudice BASED ON THE BELIEF OF INHERENT RACIAL SUPERIORITY.

 

[HeXen]

Racism is about how you're ethnicity is treated in relation to you. Not about inferiority itself. Anyone can be inferior or treated inferior, you see it all the time. The kid that can't bat or throw a ball gets treated inferiority by his/her peers, etc. So if you are treating white people in negative context, then you are targeting their ethnicity, which is racist.

So what the social activists have done in recent years, is that they made a scapegoat, a way out of any verbal contradictions. This is where the Universities have come up with the "blacks can't be racist because they are not in superior numbers" to basically say that if your a minority, then you have no power...people in numbers you understand. That's not what racism is really about since you can have a minority group get treated by the world very differently than another or even the majority group. Some people view Asians as being more educated, they get treated differently than say a white guy with a thick southern accent. It goes all ways in various ways but now everyone is being programmed by the social justice movements. It's basically a shaming program.

So when you read the article headlines above, those are part of the shaming program. The fact you do not see it that way is part of the social ideology programming. When you say "10 ways whites are more racist than they realize" ignores the facts that minorities can treat others negatively too, but goes beyond that to imply that whites don't realize they're something, tells your brain that if you don't realize something then you are ignorant or whatever which is shaming. The entire process is about providing a voice for minorities and in order to have a voice, they have to have a valid argument without contraries for the 1up approach. That's called a burn altercate, when you create a method to burn an argument out of existence. So now it's become a thing for white people to have no way or method to argue anything in regards to racism due to white privilege, they are considered racist no matter what they do, say or become. Privilege is not about being white, it's about being the majority. In China, white people have fewer privileges than Asians in similar regard. When I went to Japan, there were certain places I could not go into and we nearly got beat up over walking into a particular bar. But I'm not all butthurt about it anything.

But you can view it however you please, I don't give a crap what people think, I just deal with the real world as it is presented each day. But there are certain places where even white people or other various ethnicities can't go without being treated like how any minority is treated.

 

[UglyCasanova]

In another thread you kept asking for overt acts of racism as if that proved racism to be rare.

No I didn’t. I said there absolutely is racism out there. He said racial threats and violence and that’s something people live in fear of.

 

[UglyCasanova]

No.

Racism is racial prejudice BASED ON THE BELIEF OF INHERENT RACIAL SUPERIORITY.

The flip side of that coin is inferiority. They are directly related to one another, you can’t argue one without the other. That paper seems to be trying to project negative traits of people based on the color of their skin, thus they are inferior. Thus racism.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Please don't try to divert.

It’s latching hold. "Concern" proved to rather ignorant now the response is "UglyC don’t divert"! Soon this will be the default.

We are talking about racism. Farrakhan is racist (or I guess if you’re Amused he’s not). He calls for a black only state. He feels whites are inferior. Not a diversion.

 

[Jaskalas]

Racism is not merely racial prejudice. It is racial prejudice based on the belief of inherent racial superiority.

O'RLY?

And yet you'd claim in each and every incident of racial prejudice, sans evidence, a "belief of inherent racial superiority". Don't invite someone to tea? Racist. Feel like violence? Racist. Is a person ignorant? Racist. And in those cases you'd be correct. Rather it is this topic, this post I am replying to where you have been dishonest. The only question is... are you lying to yourself, or to others? Maybe both...

Make it simple and agree to the truth of when we all call white people racist. Anytime they distinguish ethnicity and/or race. Any time.

Thus I present my argument that, you too, casually throw around the word racist. Despite your protests otherwise. It'd be much easier if you simply agreed that anything racial is racist. There may be degrees of severity, but none of it fits a just and equal society.

Say it with me, I know you agree because you've done it in practice. Anything racial is racist.
Thus the OP provided a fine example of racism on Salon.com.

 

[dank69]

Racism is a generalization about an entire race. None of those headlines claim that "ALL white men x"

 

[Snarf Snarf]

Of those headlines the only one that is offensive is the "White men must be stopped" one. I've read plenty of articles with similar headlines that talk about toxic Hispanic and Black masculinity just the same as white. The use of an ethnicity that isn't white in a statement is not inherently racist. As a POC I do not take offense to people asking questions of the state of the Hispanic population in areas. The demographic certainly has its own particularities and certain questions need to be asked to move us forward as a people.

What does make something inherently racist is the intent behind asking the question. If you're asking a racially sensitive question the intent behind asking it needs to be for the sake of improving the situation, with honest and good intentions. Asking the question to further cement an existing racial prejudice or stereotype is racist, because the intent of the question is rhetorical in nature, you're asking it in order to confirm the existing bias in another person or yourself.

Reversing the roles a bit should make white people uncomfortable, that level of discomfort you feel is merely a fraction of what POC around the world have had to deal with for centuries. Perhaps instead of being offended by it you should explore where those emotions come from deep inside you and address whether or not those are healthy feelings to have.

Edit: spelling is hard before coffee.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Racism is a generalization about an entire race. None of those headlines claim that "ALL white men x"

No but they do say it’s only white men that do x. People don’t say all Muslims are suicide bombers, but they do say all suicide bombers are Muslim. You can have a generalization without saying every one of them does ____.

 

[Cozarkian]

A few, let me the one in the bottom left corner, are. A few more lead me to believe the underlying articles wiild be. The rest look like they would be honest attempts at objective discussion.

 

[MrSquished]

Of those headlines the only one that is offensive is the "White men must be stopped" one. I've read plenty of articles with similar headlines that talk about toxic Hispanic and Black masculinity just the same as white. The use of an ethnicity that isn't white in a statement is not inherently racist. As a POC I do not take offense to people asking questions of the state of the Hispanic population in areas. The demographic certainly has its on particularities and certain questions need to be asked to move us forward as a people.

What does make something inherently racist is the intent behind asking the question. If you're asking a racially sensitive question the intent behind asking it needs to be for the sake of improving the situation, with honest and good intentions. Asking the question to further cement an existing racial prejudice or stereotype is racist, because the intent of the question is rhetorical in nature, you're asking it in order to confirm the existing bias in another person or yourself.

Reversing the roles a bit should make white people uncomfortable, that level of discomfort you feel is merely a fraction of what POC around the world have had to deal with for centuries. Perhaps instead of being offended by it you should explore where those emotions come from deep inside you and address whether or not those are healthy feelings to have.

This. You can study things by demographics without being racist.

 

[interchange]

Is there room for something of a middle ground here?

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Sure, but using a false equivalency about racism won't get you there.

 

[Commodus]

It’s latching hold. "Concern" proved to rather ignorant now the response is "UglyC don’t divert"! Soon this will be the default.

We are talking about racism. Farrakhan is racist (or I guess if you’re Amused he’s not). He calls for a black only state. He feels whites are inferior. Not a diversion.

It's a diversion in that you're trying to shift attention away from the much larger problem because discussing the subject clearly makes you uncomfortable. You started this thread asking if Salon's headlines were racist, but you're suddenly and conveniently unwilling to discuss the answer.

 

[UglyCasanova]

It's a diversion in that you're trying to shift attention away from the much larger problem because discussing the subject clearly makes you uncomfortable. You started this thread asking if Salon's headlines were racist, but you're suddenly and conveniently unwilling to discuss the answer.

What is the much larger problem? And yes I’ll discuss the answer, where am I not.

 

[Snarf Snarf]

This. You can study things by demographics without being racist.

Is there room for something of a middle ground here?

Most of the conversation happens in the middle ground. The reverse outrage brigade has been empowered recently by the rise in popularity of the alt-right mindset. There are some very vocal people on the fringe of the left, but they carry far less influence than the conservative mouthpiece equivalents.

Overt ugly racism has seen a major decline, and most people on either side condemn it pretty universally. The issues we struggle with in our attempts to be a post racial society are far more subtle and deeply complex. It needs to be remembered that we are only a single generation removed from real ugly racism, a lot of the wounds aren't fully healed, and the transgressions that caused those wounds need to be talked about so they aren't forgotten as a "darker time" in the past like the Civil War and slavery is today.

There is no war on White America, it's entirely a fantasy created by those who wish to halt actual progress in regards to healing the racial divide of this nation. We have 200+ years of history as a deeply racist nation and anyone who expects to fix this issue in 40 years needs to share some of that good stuff they're smoking. Constant reminders are necessary, and no, white people do not get to decide when the racial divide has been healed and claim to be victims of a race war.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

On a lighter note (no reference to complexion), I was watching the summary in CNN's "1968" about the ground-breaking film "In the Heat of the Night" with Sydney Poitier and Rod Steiger. And I was thinking about how it was that a herb like Cannabis had been outlawed since the 1930s.

Some commentary suggests that it was just a vehicle for further oppressing blacks and Mexicans. That may be true, but I've deduced a more refined aspect of causation.

People who are stoned often appear -- and think themselves to be -- suddenly enlightened with a sense of awareness, intelligence -- knowledge. You can see this from the expressions on their faces.

So the characters depicted by Rod Steiger or Carol O'Conner can't have that as a status-quo. You can't have black people walking the streets, acting like they know something other (white) folks don't know. It's totally unacceptable.

And that's why . . . you couldn't easily get high . . . for the longest time . . . . it still is a federal crime.

A carefully designed survey applied to some test subject like Jeff Sessions would prove it.

 

[frozentundra123456]

A more broad definition of racism from the google dictionary: "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races." Some of these headlines definitely meet the first criteria. The definition says "especially" but not necessarily related to inferiority. My personal definition of racism is also in line with the first part of the definition, that is applying certain characteristics of *some* members of a race to all members, which the headlines certainly do, although it may be modified in the article itself.

In any case, it doesnt really matter to me whether the statements are "racism" or not. They certainly are inflammatory over-generalizations.

 

[jackstar7]

Replace white in those headlines with anything else.

URDumb.

 

[sao123]

No. Pointing out your racism is not an act of racism. Pointing out institutionalized racism is not racism. Expressing frustration and resentment at the oppressive race is not racism.

Racism is not merely racial prejudice. It is racial prejudice based on the belief of inherent racial superiority.

The alt-right is desperate to paint any complaint about racism as racism. It's so blatantly obvious to an objective observer. Yet to you and your programming, those headlines appear racist.

How dare those uppity colored folks talk about white people like that! Amirite?

Stop listening to your echo chamber.

Pointing out racism is not racism. Using reverse racism to combat racism is still racism.
It is possible to elevate one group without being at the expense of the other. social class is not a zero sum game. Any other path does not bring about equality nor peace. True equality is racially blind.


the answer is not to destroy white privilege, but to create simultaneous black privilege.

 

[Amused]

Pointing out racism is not racism. Using reverse racism to combat racism is still racism.
It is possible to elevate one group without being at the expense of the other. social class is not a zero sum game. Any other path does not bring about equality nor peace. True equality is racially blind.


the answer is not to destroy white privilege, but to create simultaneous black privilege.

No one is trying to destroy white privilege and in fact, simply want the same for themselves. They want whites to see past their own privilege so they stop ignoring what reality is for a black man in America. Which a large number on this forum cannot seem to do.

Only those trying to undermine the racial equality movement present it as trying to diminish white people somehow. As if everyone being equal will cost them something. As if admitting to centuries of systemic racism will somehow diminish them as people.

 

[Amused]

And to end this fucking nonsense once and for all:

There is no such thing as reverse racism. Frustration and resentment is not racism.

Where this a class war, you would most certainly not call the underclasses "classist" or "elitist" for resenting and being frustrated with the upper classes.

Are the untouchables in India "classist?"

So why do you do so with race? To excuse your own feelings. To accuse those who are angry with whites as a group for years of oppression of the very thing you've done to them all along.

Calling the oppressed group "classist," "sexist," or "racist" is merely projection and a convenient form of denial. An excuse to continue the very behavior that got us here.

 

[realibrad]

No one is trying to destroy white privilege and in fact, simply want the same for themselves. They want whites to see past their own privilege so they stop ignoring what reality is for a black man in America. Which a large number on this forum cannot seem to do.

Only those trying to undermine the racial equality movement present it as trying to diminish white people somehow. As if everyone being equal will cost them something. As if admitting to centuries of systemic racism will somehow diminish them as people.

And you think you know the reality of black men?

 

[Amused]

And you think you know the reality of black men?

Not personally.

But you know what I have done? I've listened to them. I take their word, and the statistical evidence and combine it to form an accurate picture of what life is like for them.

And the one thing I have not done is disagree with them from a position of ignorance based on my privilege. Which is what a lot of you here do.

 

[Paratus]

And you think you know the reality of black men?

I think POC know their reality better than we do. And once more studies back that up.

So I’ll lend more weight to POC about their experiences than non-POC pontificating on POC experiences.