Ganeshas Rat wrote:Both are definitions. You just choose one to prove your position. Would you have another position you would choose another one?
Yes, both are definitions. And I have no problem conceding that the author of those tweets showed feelings against white people. And you are not refuting that white people did not suffer any tangible negative impacts from these tweets.
So let us look at your definition again:
1 the unfair treatment of people who belong to a different race; violent behaviour towards them
2 the belief that some races of people are better than others
So this woman who write these tweets seems to hold “the belief that some races of people are better than others”, and so she is racist according to number two.
Her tweets did not create “unfair treatment of people who belong to a different race” or “violent behaviour towards them”. So, it is not racism according to number one.
What happens if to exclude one of two: I am a terrorist who prepares a terroristic act. I plan to wear a suicide vest and go to a place black persons crowd in, then activate it. It's not racism because while planning something like this is definitely hatred, it didn't hurt anybody yet. It also never will be racism because I'll die before it hurts anybody.
It would still be racism according to the definition you provided, and it would be consistent with both number one and number two.
Though I tend to agree that racism against whites is impossible in the US. There is no whites. Whites are fiction. In the US I'd be discriminated as a Slav, someone else as a Pole or an Irish, there's plenty of organizations who target Jews...
That is true. People who have white skin and deal with racism do so because they belong to a “foreign” or minority nationality and not because of the colour of their skin.
Julian658 wrote:Is it OK to use the N word POD? The reaction is just about feelings. What do you think?
Your premise that it is just about feelings is incorrect.
Anyway, I will address this after you concede that neither of your examples show white people dealing with any tangible negative impacts.
I get your viewpoint on the fact that white people are majority and hence there are more white people in position to hire others. In your mind that justifies reverse racism or AA. That is fine, however at a philosophical level two wrongs do not make a right.
I never tried to justify AA, and I will never try to justify reverse racism. So this is a strawman.
But you seem to be saying that white people are protected from racist discrimination because of their majority position. I agree. Can you think of any other ways that white people are protected from racist discrimination?
You also ignore the human condition in favor of cheap sophistry and sociology points of view that are not based on science. You totally ignore the fact that we evolved in tribes.
Who wants to bet that julian is about to mention the amygdala?
Since you seem to think that racism is justified by neurochemistry, do you also think that men are justified in raping women because of the neurochemical changes that occur in a man’s brain when a pretty woman walks by?