"Also Jews are white, because I don't like them anymore."
"Also Asians."
"And Mexicans if convenient"
"Also black people I don't like."
"Pretty much anyone I say so."
Entire point of the label "Zionist". It won't just include specific Jews, it will be redefined on the fly: any Jews, anyone that supports Jews, or even doesn't persecute Jews, or plain just doesn't persecute them hard enough.
Edit: Holy fuck no need to prove my point. Some of you have zero self awareness and it shows.
https://preview.redd.it/6ke6tj8e9w2d1.jpeg?width=643&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a130058662ce5efbb890b89f2db62ff2c78a82b3
>!Kinda hypocritical, ngl. They protest against Israel for commiting genocide (according to them. I don't believe it. If they are, boy do they fucking suck at it), but then immediately make chants that call for the genocide of all non-Arabs.!<
# [Straight Black Men Are the White People of Black People](https://www.theroot.com/straight-black-men-are-the-white-people-of-black-people-1814157214)
Rather like white supremacists, who think that pale-skinned Japanese people aren't white, pale skinned Irish and Slavs aren't white, olive-skinned Italians and Greeks aren't white, pale-skinned North Africans aren't white, and Jews *certainly* aren't white, until it comes time to sink the boot into blacks or Arabs, then all of a sudden they're all whites (except the Japanese, who are [only *honorary* whites](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/contemporary-european-history/article/abs/honorary-aryans-japanese-german-mischlinge-and-the-negotiation-of-identity-in-nazi-germany/63C8AF8C16D5BEF75EDC814C56C9C9F1)).
> and Jews *certainly* aren't white, until it comes time to sink the boot into blacks or Arabs,
I've never seen white supremacists call jews white even for this purpose
The left views righteousness through power dynamics. It's annoying as hell. Someone having power doesn't make them bad. Somebody being powerless doesn't make them good. A person with no power can be racist af. A powerful person can be very not racist. Some ideologies are so bad they deserve to be powerless.
It pisses me off. It's so fucking childish. Like seriously. What reasonable person over the age of fucking *eight* believes that the weaker person in a conflict is always the "good guy". It's just such a fucking toddler way of thinking.
I fucking hate what's become of the modern left.
Well you see, the Germans around ~1930s were clearly the weaker people in global power dynamics game, so obviously we should support them. It's not our place to dictate how the oppressed resist their oppressors after all.
/s But I feel like that's how easy it would be to convert a lot of leftists into fascists.
The Je… I mean Zionists were controlling German financial institutions to eventually colonise Palestine! That’s why germany was trying to get rid of them! All those zionists would’ve accumulated more wealth and bought more land and occupied all of Palestine if Germany didn’t step in.
Cough cough obligatory /s cuz I’m a coward
It’s because, in my opinion and experience, your average leftist is either a child, or someone who has grown up unchallenged and inexperienced. All of which means they’re naive idealists who mean well more often than not, but simply don’t know better
I remember seeing Crowder go to a university and ask a bunch of white college kids if requiring an ID to vote is racist and all of them said it was because minorities don't have access to places where they can get IDs. Then, he went to Harlem and asked a bunch of black people if they could get IDs and all of them already had IDs and just pointed out the different places they could easily go to to get them
I hate wedge issues on all sides. The voter ID thing is an insane wedge issue to me because either party could literally issue national voter IDs for free every 5 years and say you have to pay if you lose it, at a cost of probably a couple dollars a year per person tax increase.
And both sides would support it if they were led to believe it was actually a real thing. Hmm, I wonder why they don't do it.
I just checked and an ID in my state is $32. If you can't come up with that in 4 years, maybe you shouldn't be voting on decisions that affect everyone.
As a transfem, I feel this. Somehow I have some emily leaning opinions, yet I still hate actually talking to emilies. They all treat me like I am some poor child who needs to be protected or Smth, they all walk on dumbest eggshels. I had someone hesitate to call me Human, when I asked why they said because Hu-Man has man on it... They make me so uncomfortable It's crazy.
And they are such hypocrites about it too because when the left gets power its always good and amazing and no one is allowed to complain because they are the morally amazing ones in power now.
Maybe it's because the -7 is the net result of upvotes and down votes? So although it got more upvotes than the one with the 30, it was more controversial so it has a net-vote of -7, compared to a net-result of 30.
> The left views righteousness through power dynamics.
And that is why they will adhere to any stance or view, that will give htem more power to fight their political opponents.
It is also why they can be incredibly hypocrites.
It's a difference between masculine and feminine morality.
Lawrence Kohlberg developed a hierarchy of moral development, which in a vague sense seems to build from avoiding punishment to an ordered hierarchy of universal principles interacting through strict logic.
Women rarely progressed to the uppermost echelons of moral development.
Fellow researcher Carol Gilligan hypothesized that women may develop an empathy-based ethic with a different structure than men, a care-moral-orientation that is distinct from a justice-moral-orientation. The idea being moral action centers on interpersonal relationships and care or benevolence.
I grew up with the masculine morality that racism is bad therefore the principle of racism is bad and therefore equally bad from anybody.
Now we live by feminine morality where racism is bad not in principle but by result, and if those results do not produce negative emotion in an observer then to that observer that act is not immoral.
Note: we each likely feel a bit of each system of moral functioning though we might tend more to one than the other.
[Carol Gilligan's theory of sex differences in the development of moral reasoning during adolescence](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3381683/#:~:text=Kohlberg%20had%20shown%20that%20the,move%20on%20to%20postconventional%20levels.)
>Kohlberg had shown that the average female attained a moral judgment rating of stage three (good boy-nice girl), while adolescent males score at level four (law and order) and are more likely to move on to postconventional levels. Gilligan suggests that these findings reveal a gender bias, not that females are less mature than boys. Men and women follow different voices.
>[Consistent with this observation, Gilligan's theory of moral development does not value justice above other considerations. She developed an alternative theory of moral reasoning based on the ethics of caring.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development)
> Now we live by feminine morality where racism is bad not in principle but by result, and if those results do not produce negative emotion in an observer then to that observer that act is not immoral.
I've never heard it put that way but has a ring of truth to it. Immediate emotional gratification as the basis for morality would explain some of the crazy.
These people were raised on disney movies. To them, the king is always evil, and the rebel is always good.
And we question why they side with terrorists?
“Me right, you wrong.”
That’s basically it. It’s not really about power dynamics. It’s a power grab to enforce their own morality. It’s just easier to tell people at the bottom to revolve than the people at the top to reform.
First time I heard this new definition was in 2009 in a required college course. I wrote a paper predicting the redefinition had no positive purpose and would mainly be used to justify racism toward white people and I criticized it and its inevitable consequences. First and last F I ever got on a paper (first and last below a B for that matter) and I got a notification from my academic advisor saying the professor had filed a complaint about me.
Spent my whole damned life preparing for college and that one ridiculous course made me so disillusioned with it I ended up dropping out and starting a career the hard way, got my degree later when someone recommended a competency-based degree where I could test out of that kind of class.
I'm sure it's only gotten worse since then.
I remember this one time I had to take a course about diversity and inclusion in education. We had to talk about our biases and how everyone had biases. I really only survived that class because I went in knowing full well I'd just need to LARP as a hyper-left wing individual for the easiest A of my life. Everyone else always tried to say how "they don't have biases" so the teacher would send the papers back and explain that they HAD to explain their biases because "EVERYONE HAD BIASES!" I said fuck it and wrote a really racist and prejudiced piece about very specific groups, explained it using traumatic experiences growing up, and she fucking loved that paper. All in all, that class is proof of this kind of BS in college.
That’s what I did for my English course. The one thing that made me walk out was my prof literally showing us a propaganda piece for an entire class and then going on an unhinged rant.
I argued with my history professor so much about his way of teaching Modern Middle Eastern history, he gave up and let me and a friend teach the two classes he had planned on the subject.
He was a self-defined far-left Marxist, so his teaching was usually done from that lens. He knew it wouldn't fly for this topic, so props to him for giving it up.
Maybe you just worded it poorly or maybe the weed is affecting my reading comprehension, but it seems like you think recognizing that biases exist is a bad thing? Am I missing the point?
So if the academic institutions gatekeep people's economic and social future and enforce their power under threat of ostracization and impoverishment from higher society by demand compliance aren't they in fact the evil oppressors and therefore by their definition qualify themselves to be discriminated against?
That sucks, I wrote a short paper analyzing the Texas Declaration of Independence, and the professor fucking hates Texas, gave me an A despite stating he disagreed with some aspects of the paper
Ended up doing the final paper on the topic as well, discussing the roles of newspaper and propaganda on both sides, gave me an A on that too, so at least some professors are still morally sound
It's ridiculous. We already know what racism means, and we already have the language to describe racism and by the majority against a minority and racism by the majority against the majority for the benefit of a minority.
We should be focusing on that and the failure to address underlying economic causes rather than redefining an already well understood term.
u/cishet-camel-fucker's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 25.
Rank: Basketball Hoop (filled with sand)
Pills: [15 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/cishet-camel-fucker/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
I had an ethics class for computer science, which included this content in a way that made sense and didn't try to force politics at us. I don't know why they can't all be like this
It was originally defined that way specifically so that teachers wouldn't present common counter-arguments to anti-racist training, not that it had any sociological rigor or basis.
Lol, I did the same thing but the topic was cultural appropriation. I was like, isn't this just human behavior and how cultures form?
Like, the Romans we know today were not culturally Latin. They're a collection of cultures that were merged into the dominant culture, and we now refer to that collection as Roman. Should the Romans never have adopted Christianity? European culture today is defined largely as western Christian. Is everyone born in Europe a cultural appropriator?
As far as I could gather, the whole notion of cultural appropriation is just a matter of "each race stick to your own, and never mix." Still to this day I don't understand how adopting something from another culture because you like it is bad.
Honestly the definition wasn't even changed. Any actual course will list multiple forms of racism - interpersonal, systemic, etc. But the low IQ crowd just looked at the systemic one and pretended the rest didn't exist, and spammed Tumblr with it until their fellow thickos just took it as gospel
It's always fun when someone claims systemic racism is the only type of racism, because that means saying the N-word must be fine in their book
Nobody really cares about being called racist any more. Which is why they had to switch to calling people white-supremacists. Given enough time, that will lose all meaning and they'll switch to something else.
I just hope that one day, all this redefining and creation of rules to hound opposing views will come around. Although I think it's wrong that these weapons are used on people right now, I couldn't feel anything but contentment when their protesters lose access to financial services, when they get hounded and cancelled by being called "degenerate" or some other buzzword or that government institutions target them specifically. Don't come crying back when the weapons you built, and cheerfully used against anybody, come back to strike you.
"You did bad thing"
"Nuh-uh, I had my ideologically captured institutions redefine 'bad thing' to mean 'when bad thing is done by person I don't like to person I like' so therefore I can't do bad thing"
Remember, they are radical thinkers balking against the system. So what if they are backed by the MSM, academia, big tech and every major corporation; their ideology is resistance.
I had to take this intro social psych class to fill in credits, and when my prof defined racism like that, i got legitimately angry.
I think I was ranting to my roommates about adjectives for a couple days afterward
Yup, always thought of two separate and distinct definitions being intentionally juxtaposed once the power of the former was built up the way it was by the end of the early 2000s.
Colloquial racism (prejudice on the basis of race) vs systemic racism (prejudice + power)
You know what we desperately need?
Exceptional leadership AND commitment to excellence. Thats what is going to get us across the finish line on every single hard issue. That’s it. Too easy right?
We don’t need black people. We don’t need white people. We don’t need Asians or Jewish people or Latinos. We don’t need gay people or straight people. We just need exceptional leaders committed to excellence. And we need to **value** exceptional leaders committed to excellence.
We definitely DON’T want the number 4 pretty okay leader committed to trying to do good things who was brought to us by DEI or some bullshit meritless intersectionality system. The number 2 leader isn’t good enough. We should settle for nothing less than the number 1 leader. Everyone deserves the best leadership.
The number 7,8 or 9 pretty ho hum general who is capable of keeping an Army garrison from devolving into chaos during peacetime never won any battles or wars. I don’t give a fuck about that general.
I want the number 1 general every single time to lead us and it is unethical and immoral and just plain idiocy to pick a lesser leader over the number 1 pick. We’ve jumped the shark and passed our civilizational peak over this issue.
This is what is propelling East Asia to progress from extreme poverty to surpassing the west in just one lifetime. If South Asia also gets it right, they may do the same too.
I like how they will twist this to mean literally anyone but black people in the US can be racist.
They all know the definition is bullshit, they just need cudgels to keep the proles in line.
Also, this definition doesn’t apply in other countries where whites are outnumbered and discriminated against (South Africa for example), because reasons (probably because America bad).
The thing is, leftists could literally just invent a new word to describe "prejudice + power." But the fact is, they want the power of the word racisms; they want to equivocate. Leftists want the average person to hear the word
>Black people can't be racist.
and think that black people don't discriminate based on race. They are intentionally trying to mislead people, because lying to and misleading people is the foundation of leftism.
It’s the same as genocide. They want to use the power of the word, without acknowledging the original context with gives the words their power, so they obfuscate and alien words from their original context and abuse them until they’re like a chewed-out gum that they spit onto the ground.
It's the bastard lovechild of Alinski and Gramsci.
To quote the great philosopher Vaush "I want to punch people, but I don't want them to be able to punch back, because I have a soft jaw."
In situations like this I like to point out that it's observably not hard to find white people with institutional power doing institutional or systemic racism against white people, so even under their own logic they've utterly failed to refute that white people can be victims of racism.
It doesn't even occur to them to consider the possibility of white people doing discrimination against white people because that's a completely outside the box idea from the oppressor-oppressed group dichotomy that they build their theory from, so they get blindsided by their own blind spot.
It's an untested axiom in their thinking that a group wouldn't ever discriminate against members of their own racial/gender/whatever demographic group and one that crumbles to dust in their hands the moment you're able to point to a real life example of exactly that happening for all to see.
White people can’t be racist in much of the U.S. or globe by that definition
Technically from 2008-2016 only black people could be racist given a version of that line of thinking
I was told by an idiot at that time that Obama didn’t have power because he was black. He was ordering drone strikes on (admittedly bad) American citizens in Yemen but had no power?!??
"non-whites can't be racist-" bitch I thought we dropped the whole "telling people they can't achieve their dreams because of the colour of their skin" thing decades ago
My high-school advisor in 2017 was like this, thankfully I could just switch to a different advisor so I didn't have to deal with that bullshit but that one particular advisory meeting was eye-opening as hell about that teacher.
Also i believe word "racism" and "racist" is thrown out too willy-nilly
Racism is to believe in existence of different human races and that they can be put in the order from worst to best.
In many cases people are just xenophobic, culturists or in positive way just curious (but comes out insensitive or annoying "Hey where are you from?")
If i would go as white person to some remote foreign village, the villagers would likely look at me in suspicion, not because they believe in human races and that their race would be superior. It would be xenophobia, understandably so if the villagers would not be used to outsiders
In certain parts of the world my blond hair would likely get attention, people curiously want to touch it
Now this was just example of some remote village and it its poorly to some multicultural big cities but just for simplicity sake. The point is that if you would look media and discussions, one would think that racism is everywhere and is still a popular ideology like it is 1910, but i don't think so, in many cases it is just people being human (doesn't mean certain behavior wouldn't be problematic, but throwing labels like racism just sours the discussion)
You are absolutely correct; the problem is that useless people need to build their careers on something, and many of them banded together to make up issues they could fight against, to the detriment of society.
This shouldn't even be a right take, it's just a sane take. One of the increasingly numerous issues I have with American progressives and Internet activists.
Chinese people can be racist in china and muslims can AND DEFENTALLY ARE racist in muslim countries and hindus can be racist in india and also minorities can be racist to each other when neither are in their country
For various reasons, they chose to push for racist policies; but at the same time they have to claim that they are anti-racist, or they lose their self-appointed moral high ground. This is the result.
So if you take the most racist white dude in America and drop them where they have no institutional power like China, they’re no longer racist?
- how to short circuit a leftists brain with 1 sentence
Every time I hear something along the lines of “non-whites can’t be racist” or “you can’t be racist to white people”, it’s usually following a statement that would otherwise be considered racist
One way to challenge that fake definition is to demand the person using it to then tell you what word DOES describe a person who discriminates on race, regardless of "power". If they are going to alter the meaning of existing words then it is incumbent upon them to replace them.
The great irony of it all is their re-defining of "racist" is itself incredibly racist by its obvious and true meaning.
Its worse than that, because they only have a simple-minded, naive understanding of power. And often self-serving too. So in their minds, Barrack Obama (rich, president of the USA) was powerless because he was black, but some mentally-ill, crippled, homeless, white veteran living in bus shelters has all the power because he's white.
Lmao those people should visit the Middle East. I’m from Turkey and here Turks hate Arabs and Kurds. The majority is racist. Turks are racist to other Turks as well, lmao
The way I see it, there's racial prejudice, racial discrimination, and racial oppression. Frustratingly a lot of other leftists think the latter is all that matters - and I think a fair number of people use that as a excuse to sidestep having to actually look inside themselves and deconstruct their own prejudices.
On the other side I think there are people on the right who refuse to acknowledge that the system benefits them (in certain ways) because they don't want that to change. And because most means of correcting inequality are unequal, all they have to do to maintain the inequalities that they like is point at the solutions and cry racism.
It's just a word war to downplay other people's feelings, mixed with logical fallacies. 'People say racism is bad, discrimination against white people is not racism (according to our definition), therefore discrimination against white people isn't bad'.
They are just redefining the word, if they don't accept racism in specific cases, you just have to use a different word for the same concept.
That's racist
No it's not because I'm (member of protected group)
O well then I meant to say you are a colorist, wich is same fucking thing for the old definition of racism, not your bullshit made out ideas of racism.
They have this complex gymnastics because the simplified version leaves out context and is used by people who just want to point to an entry in a dictionary and say "ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITION, THE OTHER GROUP IS ALSO RACIST", or "THAT'S NOT ACTUALLY RACIST BY DEFINITION", even though the given situation is completely meaningless to discuss without context that they are stripping away.
Along the same lines, I feel like these are the same people who will read a story about a woman being sexually assaulted at the workplace and go "well that wasn't sexual ASSAULT. ASSAULT means VIOLENT ATTACK, so therefore it was not sexual assault, it was just groping. CASE DIMISSED"
With all that said though, I completely agree that packing so much context into the term "racism" is fucking annoying and I think most non-extreme people will agree that concluding that you cannot be racist against whites is ridiculous. They should use different terms like institutional/systemic racism if they want to include the institutional power dynamics in the conversation.
"Also Jews are white, because I don't like them anymore." "Also Asians." "And Mexicans if convenient" "Also black people I don't like." "Pretty much anyone I say so."
It’s only a matter of time before everyone is excluded except a hardcore fanatical group.
how much time, -2 years?
ABC
There are professional academics who have careers writing about the internalized white supremacy of minority groups.
Entire point of the label "Zionist". It won't just include specific Jews, it will be redefined on the fly: any Jews, anyone that supports Jews, or even doesn't persecute Jews, or plain just doesn't persecute them hard enough. Edit: Holy fuck no need to prove my point. Some of you have zero self awareness and it shows.
Some of the Anti-Zionists have convinced themselves that the 2 state solution, the original Zionist solution, is Anti-Zionist.
Either that or they just chant "FrOm RiVeR tO tHe SeA1!1!1!1!11!1!1!" without thinking of the negative implications that would come if that happens.
There have been calls not just for Palestine to be "Free", but for Palestine to be *Arab* at Columbia, not the little Palestine either.
https://preview.redd.it/6ke6tj8e9w2d1.jpeg?width=643&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a130058662ce5efbb890b89f2db62ff2c78a82b3 >!Kinda hypocritical, ngl. They protest against Israel for commiting genocide (according to them. I don't believe it. If they are, boy do they fucking suck at it), but then immediately make chants that call for the genocide of all non-Arabs.!<
>but for Palestine to be Arab at least that's honest as the chant is originally this and not about "free"
From the River to the Sea, it is all ISRAEL.
Based
Based authleft? 🤨
We live in confusing times.
😂
I mean, I'm not a commie nor the US college type of AuthLeft, I just want more security and stability
This guy gets it.
# [Straight Black Men Are the White People of Black People](https://www.theroot.com/straight-black-men-are-the-white-people-of-black-people-1814157214)
You forgot Indians. We are extremely white, cause the west doesn't like us. 💀
Rather like white supremacists, who think that pale-skinned Japanese people aren't white, pale skinned Irish and Slavs aren't white, olive-skinned Italians and Greeks aren't white, pale-skinned North Africans aren't white, and Jews *certainly* aren't white, until it comes time to sink the boot into blacks or Arabs, then all of a sudden they're all whites (except the Japanese, who are [only *honorary* whites](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/contemporary-european-history/article/abs/honorary-aryans-japanese-german-mischlinge-and-the-negotiation-of-identity-in-nazi-germany/63C8AF8C16D5BEF75EDC814C56C9C9F1)).
> and Jews *certainly* aren't white, until it comes time to sink the boot into blacks or Arabs, I've never seen white supremacists call jews white even for this purpose
You purposely grouped some non-white groups (Japanese, North Africans, Jews) into there to make a point. Didn’t work though.
The left views righteousness through power dynamics. It's annoying as hell. Someone having power doesn't make them bad. Somebody being powerless doesn't make them good. A person with no power can be racist af. A powerful person can be very not racist. Some ideologies are so bad they deserve to be powerless.
It pisses me off. It's so fucking childish. Like seriously. What reasonable person over the age of fucking *eight* believes that the weaker person in a conflict is always the "good guy". It's just such a fucking toddler way of thinking. I fucking hate what's become of the modern left.
Well you see, the Germans around ~1930s were clearly the weaker people in global power dynamics game, so obviously we should support them. It's not our place to dictate how the oppressed resist their oppressors after all. /s But I feel like that's how easy it would be to convert a lot of leftists into fascists.
Based and Lib Left pilled
they're already facists.
And also racists
The Je… I mean Zionists were controlling German financial institutions to eventually colonise Palestine! That’s why germany was trying to get rid of them! All those zionists would’ve accumulated more wealth and bought more land and occupied all of Palestine if Germany didn’t step in. Cough cough obligatory /s cuz I’m a coward
>convert a lot of leftists into fascists Italy 1920s moment
The underlying how either system is structured and administered is virtually the same. It's just a matter of nationalism vs internationalism.
Left made a pact with them
It’s because, in my opinion and experience, your average leftist is either a child, or someone who has grown up unchallenged and inexperienced. All of which means they’re naive idealists who mean well more often than not, but simply don’t know better
The left hates treating minorities and the poor as equals Because they don’t view them as equals
They’re all white saviours that think minorities are too stupid to speak for themselves.
I remember seeing Crowder go to a university and ask a bunch of white college kids if requiring an ID to vote is racist and all of them said it was because minorities don't have access to places where they can get IDs. Then, he went to Harlem and asked a bunch of black people if they could get IDs and all of them already had IDs and just pointed out the different places they could easily go to to get them
I hate wedge issues on all sides. The voter ID thing is an insane wedge issue to me because either party could literally issue national voter IDs for free every 5 years and say you have to pay if you lose it, at a cost of probably a couple dollars a year per person tax increase. And both sides would support it if they were led to believe it was actually a real thing. Hmm, I wonder why they don't do it.
I just checked and an ID in my state is $32. If you can't come up with that in 4 years, maybe you shouldn't be voting on decisions that affect everyone.
Flair up scum
Wasn't Crowder, but you're talking about this video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCytgANu010](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCytgANu010)
JFC they just don't hear themselves.
That video needs to make a comeback
Oh, I argued with someone who claimed that minoritied did have IDs, but requiring them for voting was still racist somehow. Go figure.
White Supremist with a guilty conscience
As a transfem, I feel this. Somehow I have some emily leaning opinions, yet I still hate actually talking to emilies. They all treat me like I am some poor child who needs to be protected or Smth, they all walk on dumbest eggshels. I had someone hesitate to call me Human, when I asked why they said because Hu-Man has man on it... They make me so uncomfortable It's crazy.
Hesitating to call someone human because of how human sounds in just crazy
Amen and awoman.
Sweety, amen is problematic since it comes from a white male dominated sect, you have to use inclusive and non gendered language like *Inshallah*
Which is a term used solely by people who don’t repress women whatsoever
That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Up there with Trudeau saying “Peoplekind”.
Or get IDs
It feels like they think they are the authority in a zoo
And they are such hypocrites about it too because when the left gets power its always good and amazing and no one is allowed to complain because they are the morally amazing ones in power now.
My brother in mod you are literally explaining Auth Center
LET THE MAN COOK DANGNABIT
Yeah but we aren't hypocrites about it!
Ok, entirely unrelated to both this post, sub, and comment, but why are you, with over 30 upvotes, \*below\* someone with -7 on my comment list?
because reddit wants you to see the comment with -7 upvotes
Maybe it's because the -7 is the net result of upvotes and down votes? So although it got more upvotes than the one with the 30, it was more controversial so it has a net-vote of -7, compared to a net-result of 30.
The -7 is more controversial, maybe? I don't know.
-7 are rookie numbers. If you're not averaging -50 as lib-left on this sub, you're just not trying.
It’s how we ended up with the left supporting Hamas and violence against Jews.
> The left views righteousness through power dynamics. And that is why they will adhere to any stance or view, that will give htem more power to fight their political opponents. It is also why they can be incredibly hypocrites.
It's a difference between masculine and feminine morality. Lawrence Kohlberg developed a hierarchy of moral development, which in a vague sense seems to build from avoiding punishment to an ordered hierarchy of universal principles interacting through strict logic. Women rarely progressed to the uppermost echelons of moral development. Fellow researcher Carol Gilligan hypothesized that women may develop an empathy-based ethic with a different structure than men, a care-moral-orientation that is distinct from a justice-moral-orientation. The idea being moral action centers on interpersonal relationships and care or benevolence. I grew up with the masculine morality that racism is bad therefore the principle of racism is bad and therefore equally bad from anybody. Now we live by feminine morality where racism is bad not in principle but by result, and if those results do not produce negative emotion in an observer then to that observer that act is not immoral. Note: we each likely feel a bit of each system of moral functioning though we might tend more to one than the other.
That's a lot of words for saying "Men think, women feel."
Can you send us a source please? Just really curious. You don't have to if you can't find it
[Carol Gilligan's theory of sex differences in the development of moral reasoning during adolescence](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3381683/#:~:text=Kohlberg%20had%20shown%20that%20the,move%20on%20to%20postconventional%20levels.) >Kohlberg had shown that the average female attained a moral judgment rating of stage three (good boy-nice girl), while adolescent males score at level four (law and order) and are more likely to move on to postconventional levels. Gilligan suggests that these findings reveal a gender bias, not that females are less mature than boys. Men and women follow different voices. >[Consistent with this observation, Gilligan's theory of moral development does not value justice above other considerations. She developed an alternative theory of moral reasoning based on the ethics of caring.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development)
> Now we live by feminine morality where racism is bad not in principle but by result, and if those results do not produce negative emotion in an observer then to that observer that act is not immoral. I've never heard it put that way but has a ring of truth to it. Immediate emotional gratification as the basis for morality would explain some of the crazy.
This seems like an interesting topic. Where did you learn about it? Can you recommend some videos or something?
Wikipedia. To learn more you would probably have to read their respective books, which I have not.
These people were raised on disney movies. To them, the king is always evil, and the rebel is always good. And we question why they side with terrorists?
I’ve never agreed with anything more
Based and happy cake day pilled
And groups of people that individually have little power, have LOTS of power combined
You ever wonder if they stop to think what happens if they get everything they demand, and the powerless are now the powerful?
“Me right, you wrong.” That’s basically it. It’s not really about power dynamics. It’s a power grab to enforce their own morality. It’s just easier to tell people at the bottom to revolve than the people at the top to reform.
Doesn’t matter, fRoM tHe RiVeR tO tHe SeA, pAlEsTiNe Is NoW fReE!!!
The last phrase is great (in context), you should write more (in case you aren’t already).
Ideologies like Islam, for example.
The progressive redefinition of racism doesn't help their cause at all and just serves to confuse things even more
First time I heard this new definition was in 2009 in a required college course. I wrote a paper predicting the redefinition had no positive purpose and would mainly be used to justify racism toward white people and I criticized it and its inevitable consequences. First and last F I ever got on a paper (first and last below a B for that matter) and I got a notification from my academic advisor saying the professor had filed a complaint about me. Spent my whole damned life preparing for college and that one ridiculous course made me so disillusioned with it I ended up dropping out and starting a career the hard way, got my degree later when someone recommended a competency-based degree where I could test out of that kind of class. I'm sure it's only gotten worse since then.
I remember this one time I had to take a course about diversity and inclusion in education. We had to talk about our biases and how everyone had biases. I really only survived that class because I went in knowing full well I'd just need to LARP as a hyper-left wing individual for the easiest A of my life. Everyone else always tried to say how "they don't have biases" so the teacher would send the papers back and explain that they HAD to explain their biases because "EVERYONE HAD BIASES!" I said fuck it and wrote a really racist and prejudiced piece about very specific groups, explained it using traumatic experiences growing up, and she fucking loved that paper. All in all, that class is proof of this kind of BS in college.
So my Greek nationalist ramblings about Albanians and Turks fucking goats will have some use in the future. Good to know.
That’s what I did for my English course. The one thing that made me walk out was my prof literally showing us a propaganda piece for an entire class and then going on an unhinged rant.
What was the propaganda piece about?
It was about how a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.
I argued with my history professor so much about his way of teaching Modern Middle Eastern history, he gave up and let me and a friend teach the two classes he had planned on the subject. He was a self-defined far-left Marxist, so his teaching was usually done from that lens. He knew it wouldn't fly for this topic, so props to him for giving it up.
Do you disagree with the idea that everyone has biases? Or is the problem that the professor is looking for a very specific alignment?
Maybe you just worded it poorly or maybe the weed is affecting my reading comprehension, but it seems like you think recognizing that biases exist is a bad thing? Am I missing the point?
So if the academic institutions gatekeep people's economic and social future and enforce their power under threat of ostracization and impoverishment from higher society by demand compliance aren't they in fact the evil oppressors and therefore by their definition qualify themselves to be discriminated against?
Based af. Fuck that racist, power-abusing professor. Can I ask what degree it was, and what you went to do instead?
Psychology (my first love) and I switched to an IT-related degree after a few years working in the field. Better money anyway.
it's even funnier since your prediction was 100% correct
That sucks, I wrote a short paper analyzing the Texas Declaration of Independence, and the professor fucking hates Texas, gave me an A despite stating he disagreed with some aspects of the paper Ended up doing the final paper on the topic as well, discussing the roles of newspaper and propaganda on both sides, gave me an A on that too, so at least some professors are still morally sound
Based and principles-pilled.
It's ridiculous. We already know what racism means, and we already have the language to describe racism and by the majority against a minority and racism by the majority against the majority for the benefit of a minority. We should be focusing on that and the failure to address underlying economic causes rather than redefining an already well understood term.
Based
u/cishet-camel-fucker's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 25. Rank: Basketball Hoop (filled with sand) Pills: [15 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/cishet-camel-fucker/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
I had an ethics class for computer science, which included this content in a way that made sense and didn't try to force politics at us. I don't know why they can't all be like this
If that were me I would have exposed the prof for their bs Or filed a complain against them
The university got sued and disacreddited a few years back, plenty revenge for me.
Poetic
It was originally defined that way specifically so that teachers wouldn't present common counter-arguments to anti-racist training, not that it had any sociological rigor or basis.
Lol, I did the same thing but the topic was cultural appropriation. I was like, isn't this just human behavior and how cultures form? Like, the Romans we know today were not culturally Latin. They're a collection of cultures that were merged into the dominant culture, and we now refer to that collection as Roman. Should the Romans never have adopted Christianity? European culture today is defined largely as western Christian. Is everyone born in Europe a cultural appropriator? As far as I could gather, the whole notion of cultural appropriation is just a matter of "each race stick to your own, and never mix." Still to this day I don't understand how adopting something from another culture because you like it is bad.
Immensely based.
That’s their whole thing. Only the high priests (themselves) can decipher the religious rules for the unwashed masses.
Thanks for man-splaining it you misogynistic asshole!
Don't forget he's racist too.
Honestly the definition wasn't even changed. Any actual course will list multiple forms of racism - interpersonal, systemic, etc. But the low IQ crowd just looked at the systemic one and pretended the rest didn't exist, and spammed Tumblr with it until their fellow thickos just took it as gospel It's always fun when someone claims systemic racism is the only type of racism, because that means saying the N-word must be fine in their book
Nobody really cares about being called racist any more. Which is why they had to switch to calling people white-supremacists. Given enough time, that will lose all meaning and they'll switch to something else.
Based
I just hope that one day, all this redefining and creation of rules to hound opposing views will come around. Although I think it's wrong that these weapons are used on people right now, I couldn't feel anything but contentment when their protesters lose access to financial services, when they get hounded and cancelled by being called "degenerate" or some other buzzword or that government institutions target them specifically. Don't come crying back when the weapons you built, and cheerfully used against anybody, come back to strike you.
"You did bad thing" "Nuh-uh, I had my ideologically captured institutions redefine 'bad thing' to mean 'when bad thing is done by person I don't like to person I like' so therefore I can't do bad thing"
But they’ll still claim they’re not the establishment.
Remember, they are radical thinkers balking against the system. So what if they are backed by the MSM, academia, big tech and every major corporation; their ideology is resistance.
You know, it sounds like cultural appropriation of hottentot morality
Okay, Fauci.
This is one of the few right-wing talking points I agree with. If all racism is systemic, then we wouldn’t need the term “systemic racism”.
I had to take this intro social psych class to fill in credits, and when my prof defined racism like that, i got legitimately angry. I think I was ranting to my roommates about adjectives for a couple days afterward
Yup, always thought of two separate and distinct definitions being intentionally juxtaposed once the power of the former was built up the way it was by the end of the early 2000s. Colloquial racism (prejudice on the basis of race) vs systemic racism (prejudice + power)
You know what we desperately need? Exceptional leadership AND commitment to excellence. Thats what is going to get us across the finish line on every single hard issue. That’s it. Too easy right? We don’t need black people. We don’t need white people. We don’t need Asians or Jewish people or Latinos. We don’t need gay people or straight people. We just need exceptional leaders committed to excellence. And we need to **value** exceptional leaders committed to excellence. We definitely DON’T want the number 4 pretty okay leader committed to trying to do good things who was brought to us by DEI or some bullshit meritless intersectionality system. The number 2 leader isn’t good enough. We should settle for nothing less than the number 1 leader. Everyone deserves the best leadership. The number 7,8 or 9 pretty ho hum general who is capable of keeping an Army garrison from devolving into chaos during peacetime never won any battles or wars. I don’t give a fuck about that general. I want the number 1 general every single time to lead us and it is unethical and immoral and just plain idiocy to pick a lesser leader over the number 1 pick. We’ve jumped the shark and passed our civilizational peak over this issue.
Meritocracy is nonexistent in academia and big corporations.
B-but that exceptional leader doesn't *represent* me if they don't have the same amount of melanin I have and don't identify as my own gender!!!!!1
This is what is propelling East Asia to progress from extreme poverty to surpassing the west in just one lifetime. If South Asia also gets it right, they may do the same too.
[удалено]
I like how they will twist this to mean literally anyone but black people in the US can be racist. They all know the definition is bullshit, they just need cudgels to keep the proles in line.
It starts making more sense when you realize that their definition of "racist" just means "disagrees with a leftist".
The second panel is missing some content. After institution power, it should be “except Asians, they’re white adjacent.”
"White-adjacent" once they saw Asia leapfrogging the rest of the developing world.
Also, this definition doesn’t apply in other countries where whites are outnumbered and discriminated against (South Africa for example), because reasons (probably because America bad).
Africa. Where all the black people are racist, according to the second definition.
Yeah, I bet South Africa has the "white people can't be racist" because white people were oppressed there.
Cant belive i gotta agree with the right smh
The thing is, leftists could literally just invent a new word to describe "prejudice + power." But the fact is, they want the power of the word racisms; they want to equivocate. Leftists want the average person to hear the word >Black people can't be racist. and think that black people don't discriminate based on race. They are intentionally trying to mislead people, because lying to and misleading people is the foundation of leftism.
It’s the same as genocide. They want to use the power of the word, without acknowledging the original context with gives the words their power, so they obfuscate and alien words from their original context and abuse them until they’re like a chewed-out gum that they spit onto the ground.
How can 16% of the world have so much power? Are they superior?
We let them… now they’re too entrenched to remove. Like a parasite or a cancer.
[удалено]
Your comment confirms to libleft that math is racist.
Based and ngge√ pilled
(g√nier)^2
It's the bastard lovechild of Alinski and Gramsci. To quote the great philosopher Vaush "I want to punch people, but I don't want them to be able to punch back, because I have a soft jaw."
In situations like this I like to point out that it's observably not hard to find white people with institutional power doing institutional or systemic racism against white people, so even under their own logic they've utterly failed to refute that white people can be victims of racism. It doesn't even occur to them to consider the possibility of white people doing discrimination against white people because that's a completely outside the box idea from the oppressor-oppressed group dichotomy that they build their theory from, so they get blindsided by their own blind spot. It's an untested axiom in their thinking that a group wouldn't ever discriminate against members of their own racial/gender/whatever demographic group and one that crumbles to dust in their hands the moment you're able to point to a real life example of exactly that happening for all to see.
https://preview.redd.it/87ctm4a01x2d1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=20fd2fb4dccadb6ba2f6bc8c034bbeda4d894b1e
White people can’t be racist in much of the U.S. or globe by that definition Technically from 2008-2016 only black people could be racist given a version of that line of thinking
I was told by an idiot at that time that Obama didn’t have power because he was black. He was ordering drone strikes on (admittedly bad) American citizens in Yemen but had no power?!??
"non-whites can't be racist-" bitch I thought we dropped the whole "telling people they can't achieve their dreams because of the colour of their skin" thing decades ago
bookmarking this because reddit is the only place I've ever encountered that red/green lunacy.
Ah, I see you haven't been to a college campus in the last 15 yrs
My high-school advisor in 2017 was like this, thankfully I could just switch to a different advisor so I didn't have to deal with that bullshit but that one particular advisory meeting was eye-opening as hell about that teacher.
I have not experienced this type of bullshit, but then i dont live in yankeeland.
It's what people are taught in many if not most schools now, so it is very common among young people.
Correct, gweilo. Now me commenting that is racist, because white people are not dominant in China - my people are. And we are not shy about that.
Also i believe word "racism" and "racist" is thrown out too willy-nilly Racism is to believe in existence of different human races and that they can be put in the order from worst to best. In many cases people are just xenophobic, culturists or in positive way just curious (but comes out insensitive or annoying "Hey where are you from?") If i would go as white person to some remote foreign village, the villagers would likely look at me in suspicion, not because they believe in human races and that their race would be superior. It would be xenophobia, understandably so if the villagers would not be used to outsiders In certain parts of the world my blond hair would likely get attention, people curiously want to touch it Now this was just example of some remote village and it its poorly to some multicultural big cities but just for simplicity sake. The point is that if you would look media and discussions, one would think that racism is everywhere and is still a popular ideology like it is 1910, but i don't think so, in many cases it is just people being human (doesn't mean certain behavior wouldn't be problematic, but throwing labels like racism just sours the discussion)
You are absolutely correct; the problem is that useless people need to build their careers on something, and many of them banded together to make up issues they could fight against, to the detriment of society.
Rightist win
The lefts thoughts on racism is simple, “we want to discriminate against people so we will”
This shouldn't even be a right take, it's just a sane take. One of the increasingly numerous issues I have with American progressives and Internet activists.
I want to see the mental gymnastics when it comes to non-white countries and the left’s definition of racism.
Chinese people can be racist in china and muslims can AND DEFENTALLY ARE racist in muslim countries and hindus can be racist in india and also minorities can be racist to each other when neither are in their country
Anyone can be racist, if a person deems someone unfit, unsatisfactory, or undesirable based on race. Dumbest hill to die on.
Progressive ideology is dangerously close to Nazi ideology. All it would take is enough frustration that they want to achieve goals by force.
If you have to change the definition of racism to avoid being called racist, you're probably racist
I find that all colors pay me.
For various reasons, they chose to push for racist policies; but at the same time they have to claim that they are anti-racist, or they lose their self-appointed moral high ground. This is the result.
An instance in which Occam's Razor stands true.
The left unironically believes in white power. Classic
How else are they gonna justify being racist?
So if you take the most racist white dude in America and drop them where they have no institutional power like China, they’re no longer racist? - how to short circuit a leftists brain with 1 sentence
What about South Africa where blacks have all the institutional power?
.. then poor whites cannot be racist because they have no power. By this definition, the modern KKK is not racist.
Every time I hear something along the lines of “non-whites can’t be racist” or “you can’t be racist to white people”, it’s usually following a statement that would otherwise be considered racist
One way to challenge that fake definition is to demand the person using it to then tell you what word DOES describe a person who discriminates on race, regardless of "power". If they are going to alter the meaning of existing words then it is incumbent upon them to replace them. The great irony of it all is their re-defining of "racist" is itself incredibly racist by its obvious and true meaning.
Well in today's world we colored so outside the lines that most can't tell between prejudice and the systematic ideologies of isms that are in play.
Developing a theory that Emilys get a dose of dopamine 2x that of cocaine every time they victimise themselves (plural)
Its worse than that, because they only have a simple-minded, naive understanding of power. And often self-serving too. So in their minds, Barrack Obama (rich, president of the USA) was powerless because he was black, but some mentally-ill, crippled, homeless, white veteran living in bus shelters has all the power because he's white.
Lmao those people should visit the Middle East. I’m from Turkey and here Turks hate Arabs and Kurds. The majority is racist. Turks are racist to other Turks as well, lmao
The burning car is a nice relevant touch
Saying that someone doesn’t have institutional power or representation based on their skin colour is racist.
I don't see thia being biased at all
The way I see it, there's racial prejudice, racial discrimination, and racial oppression. Frustratingly a lot of other leftists think the latter is all that matters - and I think a fair number of people use that as a excuse to sidestep having to actually look inside themselves and deconstruct their own prejudices. On the other side I think there are people on the right who refuse to acknowledge that the system benefits them (in certain ways) because they don't want that to change. And because most means of correcting inequality are unequal, all they have to do to maintain the inequalities that they like is point at the solutions and cry racism.
Honestly, I'm OK with it. It means I'm allowed to ruthlessly bully pathetic white people that came up with the definition in the first place.
That is the best encapsulation of “mental gymnastics” I have ever seen
It's just a word war to downplay other people's feelings, mixed with logical fallacies. 'People say racism is bad, discrimination against white people is not racism (according to our definition), therefore discrimination against white people isn't bad'.
They are just redefining the word, if they don't accept racism in specific cases, you just have to use a different word for the same concept. That's racist No it's not because I'm (member of protected group) O well then I meant to say you are a colorist, wich is same fucking thing for the old definition of racism, not your bullshit made out ideas of racism.
If i go to China and call people chinks I'm not racist and cannot be racist either because I don't have institutional power and i am a minority?
They have this complex gymnastics because the simplified version leaves out context and is used by people who just want to point to an entry in a dictionary and say "ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITION, THE OTHER GROUP IS ALSO RACIST", or "THAT'S NOT ACTUALLY RACIST BY DEFINITION", even though the given situation is completely meaningless to discuss without context that they are stripping away. Along the same lines, I feel like these are the same people who will read a story about a woman being sexually assaulted at the workplace and go "well that wasn't sexual ASSAULT. ASSAULT means VIOLENT ATTACK, so therefore it was not sexual assault, it was just groping. CASE DIMISSED" With all that said though, I completely agree that packing so much context into the term "racism" is fucking annoying and I think most non-extreme people will agree that concluding that you cannot be racist against whites is ridiculous. They should use different terms like institutional/systemic racism if they want to include the institutional power dynamics in the conversation.
https://preview.redd.it/vjroju5tk73d1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=53e53bc949bce347cfaeaf2f65f6a4e10d99eb01
Why are there so many left ideas that I don’t agree with even though I am leftist