Why there is no such thing as racism against white people

[OldLady]

Nope. Whites and people of color are ARRESTED at the same rates, but INCARCERATED at vastly different rates. Fourteen Examples of Racism in Criminal Justice System | Huffington Post

While I normally respect the accuracy and objectivity of Huffington Post articles I must disagree with the specific item referenced above.

I lived in New York City for most of my life and my occupation frequently took me into neighborhoods where street-corner drug dealing was commonplace. Over an approximate twenty-five year period I can confidently report that never once did I see a White hawking drugs from a street corner, or dealing from a car, or a hallway. Not once. So I really would like to talk this item over with the writer of that article because what he (Bill Quigley) has said conflicts with the facts as I -- and I'm sure many others -- have witnessed them.

Also, anyone who watches the TV "ride-along" series, COPS, has plainly seen that (at least) the 80% majority of those arrested for drug dealing or possession are Black.

Anecdote does not equal statistical truths

Demanding that a word means what you want it to mean instead of the standard definition does not equal the truth either.

Racism has been misdefined by white people for far too long. We are simply restoring the correct definition of the word.
7 reasons why reverse racism doesn't exist

So. . . Restore means to bring something back to what it once was. When you say that you are restoring the correct definition of racism, you're saying that racism originally meant what you're saying it means, essentially prejudice plus power, and that the current dictionary definition is some new invention that is misdefining the word. You are incorrect.

https://www.andover.edu/About/Newsroom/TheMagazine/Documents/8-PedOfRacismSWJournal.pdf

Prejudice plus power - RationalWiki

I can get some more random sources for you, but the general agreement seems to be that the current dictionary definition of the word is the original definition. Either you don't know the meaning of restore, or you don't understand the history of the word racism, and yet here you are authoritatively telling everyone that -you- have the correct English definition and they're all wrong, despite your obvious lack of knowledge of the portion of English being discussed.

If you're going to be ignorant, try not to be authoritative as well. It's quite possibly the worst potential combination of attributes that you can find in a human.

This is probably about the only time I'll ever say this, but Gonzalo is right about "racism." He is not the only one who agrees with this; it is widely accepted, except by those who will not accept that blacks in America have anything to complaiin about. At least so it seems.

 

[OldLady]

Yeah, Asians are the teacher's pet, for sure.

So a teacher's pet is generally understood to be someone who kisses the ass of the teacher to achieve an elevated status. It's the non racial version of calling someone a house n*gger.

What I wonder is if you're actually intending to imply that Asian people are kissing the asses of the white "teacher" identity (read intellectually superior authority), or if this was some sort of Freudian slip, because from where I'm sitting, this looks like a convenient confirmation of the growingly common hunch that many democrats are just white supremacists with guilty consciences.

Also, despite the portion of my heritage that is Chinese, I'm not offended by your overt racism, accidental or not. I do find you fucking hilarious, though

Actually, I was thinking of "teacher's pet" from the opposite perspective--What I was implying was the "intellectually superior authority" points at Asians as the smartest one in the class, the great achiever. They do this to doubly prove that blacks are losers because they don't perform equally well. I hadn't thought of Asians as brown-nosing or "kissing ass" as you put it.

I figured that was most likely the case, I just found it fun to give a democrat shit about using offensive terms regarding a minority group. Just a head's up for future reference, teacher's pet doesn't just mean the teacher's favorite, it means someone who is actively campaigning to be the favorite.

Noted. I guess when "teacher's pet" is racially offensive, I'm really in the wrong discussion.

Are you intentionally blurring what was said? The term itself isn't -racially- offensive, just derogatory. What makes it racially offensive is when you apply that derogatory term to a race. How is that not obvious?

I'm not intentionally blurring anything. Maybe my brain is blurry at the moment. No offense was meant. So shut up.

 

[WinterBorn]

While I normally respect the accuracy and objectivity of Huffington Post articles I must disagree with the specific item referenced above.

I lived in New York City for most of my life and my occupation frequently took me into neighborhoods where street-corner drug dealing was commonplace. Over an approximate twenty-five year period I can confidently report that never once did I see a White hawking drugs from a street corner, or dealing from a car, or a hallway. Not once. So I really would like to talk this item over with the writer of that article because what he (Bill Quigley) has said conflicts with the facts as I -- and I'm sure many others -- have witnessed them.

Also, anyone who watches the TV "ride-along" series, COPS, has plainly seen that (at least) the 80% majority of those arrested for drug dealing or possession are Black.

Anecdote does not equal statistical truths

Demanding that a word means what you want it to mean instead of the standard definition does not equal the truth either.

Racism has been misdefined by white people for far too long. We are simply restoring the correct definition of the word.
7 reasons why reverse racism doesn't exist

So. . . Restore means to bring something back to what it once was. When you say that you are restoring the correct definition of racism, you're saying that racism originally meant what you're saying it means, essentially prejudice plus power, and that the current dictionary definition is some new invention that is misdefining the word. You are incorrect.

https://www.andover.edu/About/Newsroom/TheMagazine/Documents/8-PedOfRacismSWJournal.pdf

Prejudice plus power - RationalWiki

I can get some more random sources for you, but the general agreement seems to be that the current dictionary definition of the word is the original definition. Either you don't know the meaning of restore, or you don't understand the history of the word racism, and yet here you are authoritatively telling everyone that -you- have the correct English definition and they're all wrong, despite your obvious lack of knowledge of the portion of English being discussed.

If you're going to be ignorant, try not to be authoritative as well. It's quite possibly the worst potential combination of attributes that you can find in a human.

This is probably about the only time I'll ever say this, but Gonzalo is right about "racism." He is not the only one who agrees with this; it is widely accepted, except by those who will not accept that blacks in America have anything to complaiin about. At least so it seems.

So you are saying if a person of color hates white people, solely because they are white, it is not racism because it is against white people?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

While I normally respect the accuracy and objectivity of Huffington Post articles I must disagree with the specific item referenced above.

I lived in New York City for most of my life and my occupation frequently took me into neighborhoods where street-corner drug dealing was commonplace. Over an approximate twenty-five year period I can confidently report that never once did I see a White hawking drugs from a street corner, or dealing from a car, or a hallway. Not once. So I really would like to talk this item over with the writer of that article because what he (Bill Quigley) has said conflicts with the facts as I -- and I'm sure many others -- have witnessed them.

Also, anyone who watches the TV "ride-along" series, COPS, has plainly seen that (at least) the 80% majority of those arrested for drug dealing or possession are Black.

Anecdote does not equal statistical truths

Demanding that a word means what you want it to mean instead of the standard definition does not equal the truth either.

Racism has been misdefined by white people for far too long. We are simply restoring the correct definition of the word.
7 reasons why reverse racism doesn't exist

So. . . Restore means to bring something back to what it once was. When you say that you are restoring the correct definition of racism, you're saying that racism originally meant what you're saying it means, essentially prejudice plus power, and that the current dictionary definition is some new invention that is misdefining the word. You are incorrect.

https://www.andover.edu/About/Newsroom/TheMagazine/Documents/8-PedOfRacismSWJournal.pdf

Prejudice plus power - RationalWiki

I can get some more random sources for you, but the general agreement seems to be that the current dictionary definition of the word is the original definition. Either you don't know the meaning of restore, or you don't understand the history of the word racism, and yet here you are authoritatively telling everyone that -you- have the correct English definition and they're all wrong, despite your obvious lack of knowledge of the portion of English being discussed.

If you're going to be ignorant, try not to be authoritative as well. It's quite possibly the worst potential combination of attributes that you can find in a human.

This is probably about the only time I'll ever say this, but Gonzalo is right about "racism." He is not the only one who agrees with this; it is widely accepted, except by those who will not accept that blacks in America have anything to complaiin about. At least so it seems.

It is widely accepted by people who agree with the Social Justice philosophy, but that doesn't mean that it disqualifies all definitions that came before it.

 

[WinterBorn]

Anecdote does not equal statistical truths

Demanding that a word means what you want it to mean instead of the standard definition does not equal the truth either.

Racism has been misdefined by white people for far too long. We are simply restoring the correct definition of the word.
7 reasons why reverse racism doesn't exist

So. . . Restore means to bring something back to what it once was. When you say that you are restoring the correct definition of racism, you're saying that racism originally meant what you're saying it means, essentially prejudice plus power, and that the current dictionary definition is some new invention that is misdefining the word. You are incorrect.

https://www.andover.edu/About/Newsroom/TheMagazine/Documents/8-PedOfRacismSWJournal.pdf

Prejudice plus power - RationalWiki

I can get some more random sources for you, but the general agreement seems to be that the current dictionary definition of the word is the original definition. Either you don't know the meaning of restore, or you don't understand the history of the word racism, and yet here you are authoritatively telling everyone that -you- have the correct English definition and they're all wrong, despite your obvious lack of knowledge of the portion of English being discussed.

If you're going to be ignorant, try not to be authoritative as well. It's quite possibly the worst potential combination of attributes that you can find in a human.

This is probably about the only time I'll ever say this, but Gonzalo is right about "racism." He is not the only one who agrees with this; it is widely accepted, except by those who will not accept that blacks in America have anything to complaiin about. At least so it seems.

It is widely accepted by people who agree with the Social Justice philosophy, but that doesn't mean that it disqualifies all definitions that came before it.

What is widely accepted is that judging someone based solely on race or thinking they are inferior solely because of race is, by definition, racism. Whatever else may be said, this is the basic fact of the matter.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

So a teacher's pet is generally understood to be someone who kisses the ass of the teacher to achieve an elevated status. It's the non racial version of calling someone a house n*gger.

What I wonder is if you're actually intending to imply that Asian people are kissing the asses of the white "teacher" identity (read intellectually superior authority), or if this was some sort of Freudian slip, because from where I'm sitting, this looks like a convenient confirmation of the growingly common hunch that many democrats are just white supremacists with guilty consciences.

Also, despite the portion of my heritage that is Chinese, I'm not offended by your overt racism, accidental or not. I do find you fucking hilarious, though

Actually, I was thinking of "teacher's pet" from the opposite perspective--What I was implying was the "intellectually superior authority" points at Asians as the smartest one in the class, the great achiever. They do this to doubly prove that blacks are losers because they don't perform equally well. I hadn't thought of Asians as brown-nosing or "kissing ass" as you put it.

I figured that was most likely the case, I just found it fun to give a democrat shit about using offensive terms regarding a minority group. Just a head's up for future reference, teacher's pet doesn't just mean the teacher's favorite, it means someone who is actively campaigning to be the favorite.

Noted. I guess when "teacher's pet" is racially offensive, I'm really in the wrong discussion.

Are you intentionally blurring what was said? The term itself isn't -racially- offensive, just derogatory. What makes it racially offensive is when you apply that derogatory term to a race. How is that not obvious?

I'm not intentionally blurring anything. Maybe my brain is blurry at the moment. No offense was meant. So shut up.

LMFAO, okay, I'll stop. I'm sorry, it just makes me giddy to have an opportunity to give a democrat a bunch of shit for saying something "racially offensive". I've got a hard on for irony, I guess.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Demanding that a word means what you want it to mean instead of the standard definition does not equal the truth either.

Racism has been misdefined by white people for far too long. We are simply restoring the correct definition of the word.
7 reasons why reverse racism doesn't exist

So. . . Restore means to bring something back to what it once was. When you say that you are restoring the correct definition of racism, you're saying that racism originally meant what you're saying it means, essentially prejudice plus power, and that the current dictionary definition is some new invention that is misdefining the word. You are incorrect.

https://www.andover.edu/About/Newsroom/TheMagazine/Documents/8-PedOfRacismSWJournal.pdf

Prejudice plus power - RationalWiki

I can get some more random sources for you, but the general agreement seems to be that the current dictionary definition of the word is the original definition. Either you don't know the meaning of restore, or you don't understand the history of the word racism, and yet here you are authoritatively telling everyone that -you- have the correct English definition and they're all wrong, despite your obvious lack of knowledge of the portion of English being discussed.

If you're going to be ignorant, try not to be authoritative as well. It's quite possibly the worst potential combination of attributes that you can find in a human.

This is probably about the only time I'll ever say this, but Gonzalo is right about "racism." He is not the only one who agrees with this; it is widely accepted, except by those who will not accept that blacks in America have anything to complaiin about. At least so it seems.

It is widely accepted by people who agree with the Social Justice philosophy, but that doesn't mean that it disqualifies all definitions that came before it.

What is widely accepted is that judging someone based solely on race or thinking they are inferior solely because of race is, by definition, racism. Whatever else may be said, this is the basic fact of the matter.

I tend to agree. Thankfully, most regular people that I talk to outside of forums full of political philosophy junkies are still on board with the traditional definition of racism. And I would be thankful for this even if I didn't find most of Social Justice's premises to be insane and/or hateful. Whether I'm on board or not, -NO- controversial political movement should be given license to remake the very language of a society to fit their narrative. Especially when the obvious result is to create a hostile group binary between racists (whites) and everyone else.

Maybe I'm just ignorant, but I can't think of one single historical example where dividing a nation into two groups and then training those groups to believe that one group is being victimized by the other in perpetuity, has ever led to anything positive. Or led to anything that wasn't fucking horrific. The only thing I wonder about this social justice racism narrative is, if/when it reaches critical mass, which group will be the Hutu and which will be the Tutsi?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I also can't help but wonder if your average SJW actually -wants- an eventual race war, or if they simply don't realize that it is the obvious logical conclusion to the philosophy they're pushing.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Geo. Carlin was all up in the Seven words you cant say. You can pretty much say any of them NOW. But now we have one more word. NIGG*R. WHY? Offense is a matter of opinion. Especially when I hear blacks use IT all damn time. Double standards and hypocrisy. Sue me.Nobody "owns " a word and nobody can control words. Nobody. Give it up.

I watched a woman who was introducing Clinton and said, "One nation, under Goawwwddd", paused, realized she almost said the G word, then finished with, "indivisible....." She was afraid to say God, and nearly chocked it back down. You're in good company anyway...

 

[Godboy]

And don't try to give me any bullshit from the oxford dictionary or webster dictionary about what their definition of racism is. These dictionaries were written by old white men who never experienced racism in their lives, and therefore should not be trusted to provide an accurate, unbiased definition of the word.

You can make up any definition you want, but it wont change anything. Everyone knows what a racist is, and those who dont are looked at as stupid people. Youre a racist and you know youre a racist, hence the reason why you want to redefine the word so that it excludes you. It wont work dummy.

How about you shut your dumbass up and make sure to smile the next time i order a Quarter Pounder meal from you because, if i see any behavior i dont like, ill report you to your manager.

 

[ChairmanGonzalo]

And don't try to give me any bullshit from the oxford dictionary or webster dictionary about what their definition of racism is. These dictionaries were written by old white men who never experienced racism in their lives, and therefore should not be trusted to provide an accurate, unbiased definition of the word.

You can make up any definition you want, but it wont change anything. Everyone knows what a racist is, and those who dont are looked at as stupid people. Youre a racist and you know youre a racist, hence the reason why you want to redefine the word so that it excludes you. It wont work dummy.

How about you shut your dumbass up and make sure to smile the next time i order a Quarter Pounder meal from you because, if i see any behavior i dont like, ill report you to your manager.

See, the difference between you and me is that I respect low wage workers in this country, and treat them with respect an dignity.

Also, people of color cannot be racist. The REAL definition of racism tells us that racism requires power and privelege, and people of color have neither power nor privelege.

 

[Godboy]

And don't try to give me any bullshit from the oxford dictionary or webster dictionary about what their definition of racism is. These dictionaries were written by old white men who never experienced racism in their lives, and therefore should not be trusted to provide an accurate, unbiased definition of the word.

You can make up any definition you want, but it wont change anything. Everyone knows what a racist is, and those who dont are looked at as stupid people. Youre a racist and you know youre a racist, hence the reason why you want to redefine the word so that it excludes you. It wont work dummy.

How about you shut your dumbass up and make sure to smile the next time i order a Quarter Pounder meal from you because, if i see any behavior i dont like, ill report you to your manager.

See, the difference between you and me is that I respect low wage workers in this country, and treat them with respect an dignity.

Also, people of color cannot be racist. The REAL definition of racism tells us that racism requires power and privelege, and people of color have neither power nor privelege.

Youre a person of color, and youre a racist. Your existence contradicts your claim. Youre also stupid enough to try and redefine common words. Are you on crack bitch? Youre goin nowhere with that bullshit. Maybe you can talk a couple of your broke ass friends into believing your nonsense, but everyone else thinks youre a fucktard.

 

[OldLady]

Actually, I was thinking of "teacher's pet" from the opposite perspective--What I was implying was the "intellectually superior authority" points at Asians as the smartest one in the class, the great achiever. They do this to doubly prove that blacks are losers because they don't perform equally well. I hadn't thought of Asians as brown-nosing or "kissing ass" as you put it.

I figured that was most likely the case, I just found it fun to give a democrat shit about using offensive terms regarding a minority group. Just a head's up for future reference, teacher's pet doesn't just mean the teacher's favorite, it means someone who is actively campaigning to be the favorite.

Noted. I guess when "teacher's pet" is racially offensive, I'm really in the wrong discussion.

Are you intentionally blurring what was said? The term itself isn't -racially- offensive, just derogatory. What makes it racially offensive is when you apply that derogatory term to a race. How is that not obvious?

I'm not intentionally blurring anything. Maybe my brain is blurry at the moment. No offense was meant. So shut up.

LMFAO, okay, I'll stop. I'm sorry, it just makes me giddy to have an opportunity to give a democrat a bunch of shit for saying something "racially offensive". I've got a hard on for irony, I guess.

I'm not a Democrat. But I'm glad you enjoyed yourself.

 

[OldLady]

Racism has been misdefined by white people for far too long. We are simply restoring the correct definition of the word.
7 reasons why reverse racism doesn't exist

So. . . Restore means to bring something back to what it once was. When you say that you are restoring the correct definition of racism, you're saying that racism originally meant what you're saying it means, essentially prejudice plus power, and that the current dictionary definition is some new invention that is misdefining the word. You are incorrect.

https://www.andover.edu/About/Newsroom/TheMagazine/Documents/8-PedOfRacismSWJournal.pdf

Prejudice plus power - RationalWiki

I can get some more random sources for you, but the general agreement seems to be that the current dictionary definition of the word is the original definition. Either you don't know the meaning of restore, or you don't understand the history of the word racism, and yet here you are authoritatively telling everyone that -you- have the correct English definition and they're all wrong, despite your obvious lack of knowledge of the portion of English being discussed.

If you're going to be ignorant, try not to be authoritative as well. It's quite possibly the worst potential combination of attributes that you can find in a human.

This is probably about the only time I'll ever say this, but Gonzalo is right about "racism." He is not the only one who agrees with this; it is widely accepted, except by those who will not accept that blacks in America have anything to complaiin about. At least so it seems.

It is widely accepted by people who agree with the Social Justice philosophy, but that doesn't mean that it disqualifies all definitions that came before it.

What is widely accepted is that judging someone based solely on race or thinking they are inferior solely because of race is, by definition, racism. Whatever else may be said, this is the basic fact of the matter.

I tend to agree. Thankfully, most regular people that I talk to outside of forums full of political philosophy junkies are still on board with the traditional definition of racism. And I would be thankful for this even if I didn't find most of Social Justice's premises to be insane and/or hateful. Whether I'm on board or not, -NO- controversial political movement should be given license to remake the very language of a society to fit their narrative. Especially when the obvious result is to create a hostile group binary between racists (whites) and everyone else.

Maybe I'm just ignorant, but I can't think of one single historical example where dividing a nation into two groups and then training those groups to believe that one group is being victimized by the other in perpetuity, has ever led to anything positive. Or led to anything that wasn't fucking horrific. The only thing I wonder about this social justice racism narrative is, if/when it reaches critical mass, which group will be the Hutu and which will be the Tutsi?

the obvious result is to create a hostile group binary between racists (whites) and everyone else.
See, this is exactly where I get suspicious of your objection to Gonzalo's and what you call the "social justice" definition of racism. There is an agenda here that is ridiculous in the extreme.
Do you really honestly believe that the "hostile group binary" was created by black activists and the white liberals who are willing to listen to them? No. That hostile group binary is very much true, but it was not created by pointing out that racism still exists. Ignoring it will not make it go away either.
By quibbling over the definition of racist/racism you are hoping to do the typical finger pointing at the other side (well, you're a racist, too, so we're even/the argument is null and void). That's not even a valid argument in itself, but that's what this whole exhausting quibble over what racist means is all about.
I'm using the royal "you."

 

[WinterBorn]

The problem with ChairmanG's rewriting word definitions is that it is designed to cause more problems. It does not solve them.

The goal must be equality, not revenge.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

So. . . Restore means to bring something back to what it once was. When you say that you are restoring the correct definition of racism, you're saying that racism originally meant what you're saying it means, essentially prejudice plus power, and that the current dictionary definition is some new invention that is misdefining the word. You are incorrect.

https://www.andover.edu/About/Newsroom/TheMagazine/Documents/8-PedOfRacismSWJournal.pdf

Prejudice plus power - RationalWiki

I can get some more random sources for you, but the general agreement seems to be that the current dictionary definition of the word is the original definition. Either you don't know the meaning of restore, or you don't understand the history of the word racism, and yet here you are authoritatively telling everyone that -you- have the correct English definition and they're all wrong, despite your obvious lack of knowledge of the portion of English being discussed.

If you're going to be ignorant, try not to be authoritative as well. It's quite possibly the worst potential combination of attributes that you can find in a human.

This is probably about the only time I'll ever say this, but Gonzalo is right about "racism." He is not the only one who agrees with this; it is widely accepted, except by those who will not accept that blacks in America have anything to complaiin about. At least so it seems.

It is widely accepted by people who agree with the Social Justice philosophy, but that doesn't mean that it disqualifies all definitions that came before it.

What is widely accepted is that judging someone based solely on race or thinking they are inferior solely because of race is, by definition, racism. Whatever else may be said, this is the basic fact of the matter.

I tend to agree. Thankfully, most regular people that I talk to outside of forums full of political philosophy junkies are still on board with the traditional definition of racism. And I would be thankful for this even if I didn't find most of Social Justice's premises to be insane and/or hateful. Whether I'm on board or not, -NO- controversial political movement should be given license to remake the very language of a society to fit their narrative. Especially when the obvious result is to create a hostile group binary between racists (whites) and everyone else.

Maybe I'm just ignorant, but I can't think of one single historical example where dividing a nation into two groups and then training those groups to believe that one group is being victimized by the other in perpetuity, has ever led to anything positive. Or led to anything that wasn't fucking horrific. The only thing I wonder about this social justice racism narrative is, if/when it reaches critical mass, which group will be the Hutu and which will be the Tutsi?

the obvious result is to create a hostile group binary between racists (whites) and everyone else.
See, this is exactly where I get suspicious of your objection to Gonzalo's and what you call the "social justice" definition of racism. There is an agenda here that is ridiculous in the extreme.
Do you really honestly believe that the "hostile group binary" was created by black activists and the white liberals who are willing to listen to them? No. That hostile group binary is very much true, but it was not created by pointing out that racism still exists. Ignoring it will not make it go away either.
By quibbling over the definition of racist/racism you are hoping to do the typical finger pointing at the other side (well, you're a racist, too, so we're even/the argument is null and void). That's not even a valid argument in itself, but that's what this whole exhausting quibble over what racist means is all about.
I'm using the royal "you."

Yes, I do believe that the current mainstream binary was created by this social justice definition of racism, and yes I do call this definition of racism the social justice (including intersectionalism and critical race theory) definition, since it's only people who are proponents of that relig-OOPS-philosophy and people who have had their definition informed by proponents of that philosophy who adhere to that ridiculous definition.

In terms of the binary, yes, historically it was the pseudoscience of racist whites that created the hostile binary in this country, but, in case you hadn't noticed, the mainstream shed that skin quite some time ago. The current mainstream racial binary is, in fact, between whites and PoC's, and the binary is justified with social justice's overly simplified explanation of power.

Why might I believe this, you ask? Well, is it acceptable on television to point to skull shape and IQ testing and then pontificate about how Caucazoid is superior to Negroid? Nope, that dumb shit got called out and banished, by popular opinion, from any mainstream platform before I was even born. It is, however, acceptable to go on television and literally say that all white people are racists. In a growing number of our schools, the very curriculum includes pointing at any statistical gap between groups and then telling children that the only possible reason dividing people along arbitrary lines doesn't yield groups that all experience uniform results is that white people are oppressing everybody else. We're teaching, in a growing number of public schools, that only whites are racist, all whites are racist, and due to the nature of reality, it's impossible to opt out of being racist if you're white. Essentially, we're teaching children in our society that white children are born inescapably morally inferior to literally EVERYONE ELSE. This particular binary wasn't created by the slave owners, believe it or not. This is a new incarnation of us against them bullshit.

Also, many times when people point the finger back at the other side, it's not to imply that their racism cancels out "our" racism. Many of the people pointing the finger that I'm pointing at social justice still adhere to the colorblind philosophy. Not the social justice cartoon version where people pretend to be unaware of race, but the actual philosophy, where we view each individual on the merits of their actions and their actions alone. Those of us who believe that this is the proper way to approach others aren't trying to cancel out our racism by pointing out your's (royal you and all), we're asserting that we are not acting out of racism, but that you are.

 

[Uncensored2008]

4 'Reverse Racism' Myths That Need To Stop | Huffington Post

7 reasons why reverse racism doesn't exist

Racism requires power and privelege to exist.

People of color do not have any power or privilege in this white dominated society. This is shown by the fact that people of color are FAR more likely to be sentenced to prison while whites get off on plea deals for the same exact crimes.

Sure, there may be a few rich people of color in this country, but even the richest African American in the US still gets racially profiled by police. Even Senator Tim Scott (who is a Republican, by the way) has openly talked about being profiled by police for his skin color. Even President Obama, back when he was a senator, used to see people lock their car doors as he walked by, showing that people of color in all walks of life still face plenty of hate and discrimination.

Because racism requires power and privelege, and since whites are the only racial group with institutional power and privelege in this country, only whites can be racist. Saying that racism against whites exists is like saying 2 plus 2 equals 800. It's just not factually possible.

And don't try to give me any bullshit from the oxford dictionary or webster dictionary about what their definition of racism is. These dictionaries were written by old white men who never experienced racism in their lives, and therefore should not be trusted to provide an accurate, unbiased definition of the word.

What a fucking retard.

 

[ChairmanGonzalo]

4 'Reverse Racism' Myths That Need To Stop | Huffington Post

7 reasons why reverse racism doesn't exist

Racism requires power and privelege to exist.

People of color do not have any power or privilege in this white dominated society. This is shown by the fact that people of color are FAR more likely to be sentenced to prison while whites get off on plea deals for the same exact crimes.

Sure, there may be a few rich people of color in this country, but even the richest African American in the US still gets racially profiled by police. Even Senator Tim Scott (who is a Republican, by the way) has openly talked about being profiled by police for his skin color. Even President Obama, back when he was a senator, used to see people lock their car doors as he walked by, showing that people of color in all walks of life still face plenty of hate and discrimination.

Because racism requires power and privelege, and since whites are the only racial group with institutional power and privelege in this country, only whites can be racist. Saying that racism against whites exists is like saying 2 plus 2 equals 800. It's just not factually possible.

And don't try to give me any bullshit from the oxford dictionary or webster dictionary about what their definition of racism is. These dictionaries were written by old white men who never experienced racism in their lives, and therefore should not be trusted to provide an accurate, unbiased definition of the word.

What a fucking retard.

Regardless of any actions, behavior, or ideas they might do or hold, a person of color simply CANNOT be racist. Period. Fact. End of statement.

7 reasons why reverse racism doesn't exist

 

[ChairmanGonzalo]

And don't try to give me any bullshit from the oxford dictionary or webster dictionary about what their definition of racism is. These dictionaries were written by old white men who never experienced racism in their lives, and therefore should not be trusted to provide an accurate, unbiased definition of the word.

You can make up any definition you want, but it wont change anything. Everyone knows what a racist is, and those who dont are looked at as stupid people. Youre a racist and you know youre a racist, hence the reason why you want to redefine the word so that it excludes you. It wont work dummy.

How about you shut your dumbass up and make sure to smile the next time i order a Quarter Pounder meal from you because, if i see any behavior i dont like, ill report you to your manager.

See, the difference between you and me is that I respect low wage workers in this country, and treat them with respect an dignity.

Also, people of color cannot be racist. The REAL definition of racism tells us that racism requires power and privelege, and people of color have neither power nor privelege.

Youre a person of color, and youre a racist. Your existence contradicts your claim. Youre also stupid enough to try and redefine common words. Are you on crack bitch? Youre goin nowhere with that bullshit. Maybe you can talk a couple of your broke ass friends into believing your nonsense, but everyone else thinks youre a fucktard.

As a person of color, I, by definition, CANNOT be racist, just like dogs can't speak French or the sky can't rain meatballs.

7 reasons why reverse racism doesn't exist

 

[Uncensored2008]

What a fucking retard.

YOU are a racist, you hate others based on the color of their skin.

You can't lie reality out of existence, Comrade, regardless of what the Soros hate sites tell you.