Reverse Racism (primarily on social media)

[Captain Murphy ☆]

Before i begin I'd like to state that I am a black male.

 

Has anyone else been noticing this? I feel like everyone is just ignoring it and letting it happen. Black people on seemingly all platforms of social media seem to think that black is "the superior color" or whatever. Just the other day I saw some black woman call a guy "the lesser race" and she got thousands of retweets and likes? Every day all i see is, "White people are so ugly", "only white people can be racist", etc. There was also a report of how thousands of black women are missing in the US and the people of twitter collectively believe that white people are kidnapping and harvesting them for their melanin. It's kinda getting ridiculous, everyone's slapping "social activist" in their bio and verbally attacking innocent people. Obviously there's no problem with black pride and self love but this is stupid.

 

Idk, its just been something I've been thinking about lately. Black people have this "I'm going to insult you all day but when you do it to me I'm going to cause a national uproar" mentality right now. Kinda getting annoying. How do you guys feel about it? Have you experienced what I'm talking about? Do you believe that Reverse Racism is a thing? 

 

P.S. Murphy loves everyone equally :)

 

 

[Enguin Enguin Enguin Enguin]

I nominate "reverse racism" for worst term ever. Reverse anything-ism as a term is stupid and redundant and go away. There is no designated direction for prejudice, it's not suddenly a different thing if the perpetrator is black or Asian or whatever. This doesn't really relate to the content of this thread which is top tier but the title triggered me tbh imo.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Before i begin I'd like to state that I am a black male.

 

P.S. Murphy loves everyone equally :)

I think there are some aspects to this which need to be noted.

 

1) You having to give that disclaimer is sad, it shouldn't matter what color you are to be able to give an assessment 

2) It is true in some cases, like a black man will likely be better at basketball or sports that require height than say an asian

3) Even me Murphilzzle?

[Captain Murphy ☆]

@enguin: You're 100% correct. The term shall be dropped from my vocabulary.

 

@winter: Yeah, that is sad. I forgot that i'm on a somewhat civil internet forum.

and of course i love you <3

[ÆƵ–]

My thoughts on """reverse racism""" are as follows:

 

1) it does not exist. Just because the 2 parties switch places does not mean it is reverse. It is simply racism. 

 

2) racism defined in the dictionary is prejudice simply because of race. However, with societal context, it requires that one race has systematic power over another for it to be true racism.  

 

3) because black people are still considered to have less systematic power than white people at this point, they do not fit the definition of racism I have set forth in the above point. 

 

4) That does not, however, mean that black people cannot be prejudice against people because of their race, thus fitting the dictionary definition. 

 

5) Black people, at this point in time, can be bigoted, but from the societal pressure put on the dictionary definition, cannot be considered racist in this society. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

My thoughts on """reverse racism""" are as follows:

 

1) it does not exist. Just because the 2 parties switch places does not mean it is reverse. It is simply racism. 

 

2) racism defined in the dictionary is prejudice simply because of race. However, with societal context, it requires that one race has systematic power over another for it to be true racism.  

 

3) because black people are still considered to have less systematic power than white people at this point, they do not fit the definition of racism I have set forth in the above point. 

 

4) That does not, however, mean that black people cannot be prejudice against people because of their race, thus fitting the dictionary definition. 

 

5) Black people, at this point in time, can be bigoted, but from the societal pressure put on the dictionary definition, cannot be considered racist in this society.

 

The two parties didn't "switch sides" only this year did the GOP finally take back the Kentucky state Gov. KKK senators like Byrd stayed democrats. You're so full of sheet

@enguin: You're 100% correct. The term shall be dropped from my vocabulary.

@winter: Yeah, that is sad. I forgot that i'm on a somewhat civil internet forum.

and of course i love you

What do you see yourself politicall, Murphizzle?

 

Dem? GOP? Left/right?

[ÆƵ–]

The two parties didn't "switch sides" only this year did the GOP finally take back the Kentucky state Gov. KKK senators like Byrd stayed democrats. You're so full of s***

 

What do you see yourself politicall, Murphizzle?

 

Dem? GOP? Left/right?

 

By parties I was talking about black folk and white folk. I try and stay away from political discussion for this very reason, being that people can and will misinterpret what I say. 

[Dad]

Better stop hanging with them bougie niggas who swear they can't do no wrong. Hate them niggas as much as--if not more--than i hate nazis.

 

Yeah i mean that sheet. Moved to debates.

[VCR_CAT]

Whenever someone says "No offense, but..." or some equivalent of it, it's always followed by offense.

[Draconus297]

Okay, yeah. I've said it before, and I'll say it again- a significant portion of any sufficiently large group is going to be irreedeemable asshats. Kinda how humanity works. Every race, every religion, every political party, every fandom, every sexual preference, on to infinity will have a large number of people in it that you just can't reason with. All that changes is the nature of the nonsense they spout at you.

 

That said, I'm not surprised that this is a thing, especially given that the two major camps regarding "whiteness" are the ideas that they're inherently superior and inherently inferior as a "race" (don't even get me started on the variance thereof), with so much vitriol flung between the two that it's really no surprise that someone with a smidgen of sense would stand to the side and think that it's all quite stupid.

 

Regarding "reverse racism" itself . . .

A) That's not how these things work, what kind of idiot called it that

B) Yes, there's a defined anti-white stigma going on right now among social reform groups of varying quality and validity, but more often than not it's an attempt to play a victim card to attain more sympathy and possibly gain preferential treatment

C) I'm not invalidating past or present struggles against adversity, it's just that the differences in treatment between two people of the same economic class are typically so subtle that militant groups aren't exactly necessary to close said gaps at this point

D) Racism will always exist. We're a species of selfish, xenophobic egomaniacs by and large, so really anyone who looks, acts, walks, or smells different than we do is going to be looked at a little funny, and will possibly endure harm for it. Yes, it needs to stop, but it won't unless everyone is literally exactly the same, which won't happen. So, instead of trying to find the little things that offend us in every damned thing, we should all have a sense of maturity, and only retaliate against blatant, aggressive attacks . . . which are quite rare outside of supremacist groups.

 

 

Sorry about the rant, but I have had issues with people mistaking dislike of character with dislike of group. To quote a conversation I had in high school:

 

"Shut up, dumbass!"

"You just hate me because I'm black."

"No, I-"

"It's because I'm gay."

"How the hell would I have known- no, you idiot, you're stupid and loud. That's all the reason to insult you I need."

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

It's just racism 

Better stop hanging with them bougie niggas who swear they can't do no wrong. Hate them niggas as much as--if not more--than i hate nazis.

Yeah i mean that sheet. Moved to debates.

What slightly confuses me is, not too long ago, they were on the other side of this equation. Surely they should remember?

 

Then again, there were BLACK slave owners in the south...so I guess I over estimated human empathy 

[cr47t]

"Reverse racism" in my opinion is still racism, as is any kind of race-based discrimination or targeting, regardless of the race of the perpetrator. Same for sexism. It's still the same thing at it's core, and it (racism of any kind) should be stopped ASAP, in my opinion.

 

EDIT:

 

Then again, there were BLACK slave owners in the south...so I guess I over estimated human empathy

Source, please?

[Halubaris Maphotika]

I'm reminded of this debate at harvard.

 

 

I've been seeing a lot of anti-white hysteria around my hometown recently. Not as bad as places like Berkeley or Mizzou, but still there. The fact is that a lot of people in this country are pissed off for the sake of being pissed off. And with that comes a lot of racist diatribe. I disagree with the "Privilege+Power" argument of racism. That argument is always used to justify a Black person's racism towards a White person.

[Enguin Enguin Enguin Enguin]

My thoughts on """reverse racism""" are as follows:

 

1) it does not exist. Just because the 2 parties switch places does not mean it is reverse. It is simply racism. 

 

2) racism defined in the dictionary is prejudice simply because of race. However, with societal context, it requires that one race has systematic power over another for it to be true racism.  

 

3) because black people are still considered to have less systematic power than white people at this point, they do not fit the definition of racism I have set forth in the above point. 

 

4) That does not, however, mean that black people cannot be prejudice against people because of their race, thus fitting the dictionary definition. 

 

5) Black people, at this point in time, can be bigoted, but from the societal pressure put on the dictionary definition, cannot be considered racist in this society. 

 

So by this logic, if the KKK were to have an African branch in a country where the majority of the population and people in power are black, they would no longer be racist? Or if I went to China and formed a group with the sole stated intention of "eradicating the chink cancer", I would not be racist because Asians hold the majority of systemic power there? Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

https://heatst.com/culture-wars/algerian-actress-accused-of-looking-too-white-for-role-in-tom-cruise-mummy-movie/?mod=sm_tw_post

 

Ya'll know I'm not white, but this is the problem entirely. The left is so eager to hate on white people that they look like jackasses

[BANZAI!!!!]

https://heatst.com/culture-wars/algerian-actress-accused-of-looking-too-white-for-role-in-tom-cruise-mummy-movie/?mod=sm_tw_post

 

Ya'll know I'm not white, but this is the problem entirely. The left is so eager to hate on white people that they look like jackasses

Its not a political thing. Its a social thing. I see just as much of this coming from my right leaning coworkers as I do my left leaning ones (everyone in the plant I work with save me and two other guys is black).

 

People fail to understand what equality is actually about, and instead use activism as a platform to vent their frustrations and predudices

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Its not a political thing. Its a social thing. I see just as much of this coming from my right leaning coworkers as I do my left leaning ones (everyone in the plant I work with save me and two other guys is black).

 

People fail to understand what equality is actually about, and instead use activism as a platform to vent their frustrations and predudices

I don't quite understand, the right leaners are white shaming too (the whole pt of the piece was that people were so quick to call her white and bash her, that they didn't realize she's black and north African, ie jackasses) 

[Resident Fascist]

I believe the term is White Guilt. It's quite possibly the dumbest trend in modern human history. The problem is, when the West is moral, functional and just, what do you need the political left for? That's why the political left has to engineer situations to make the West look bad, or to generally downplay Judeo-Christian history and culture. White Guilt is actually extremely destructive, in all honesty, having a bunch of people believe that they are bad people just for their location, what their country may or may not have done, etc. As far as examining the history of European and later, American culture, White people actually have very little to apologise for. Examples of things I've seen White Guilt tripping attempted on:

 

The Crusades: The Crusades were a series of defensive wars against ruthless Islamic armies attacking Europe over and over and over. While Crusaders did some morally ambiguous sheet, they mostly targeted formerly Christian cities like Antioch, Constantinople and other parts of the Christian world to liberate Christians who had been living under oppressive Islamist proto-fascism. More to the point, the Crusades ended 800 years ago. The Islamic world is still engaging in the same aggressive acts of war against those it deems inferior to itself. When people say it's a radical Islam problem, anyone with any degree of historical context will understand it's simply an Islam problem. 

 

Colonisation of the New World and the Africa: White Guilt trippers often point to this one as the sure sign that White People are purportedly evil despite Colonisation itself not particularly leading to the deaths of anyone. While policies under colonial rule were at times, less than ideal for the colonised, Europeans were still the best empires to live under, as Islamic empires had the lovely motto of Convert or Die, or be a slave to Islam if you were a Christian or a Jew, and other empires had very similar policies. What many people actually seem to not really get is the fact that these tribes and warlords were all killing each other long before Europeans ever set foot into the New World, and while Europeans, Spanish Conquistadors especially, did kill a large amount of natives, the majority of natives were killed by diseases brought from Europe. By that logic, the Mongolians are responsible for the Black Death. Actually, speaking of the Mongols, why do we never hear of the atrocities of the Mongolian Empire, it's brutal campaigns of uncontrolled slaughter, rape, brutality and pillaging, yet an empire that wasn't constantly at war, fought, while with superior arms granted, nobly and generally improved the world like the British Empire did? Because the Mongolians wern't White.

 

Slavery: Europeans and Americans fought to end slavery. In fact, the British Empire was the first to outlaw the practice in 1833, the United States quickly followed in 1865. In some parts of the world, people are still enslaved. Why do we hear nothing of those? Because the slave owners aren't Whites. Let's also completely ignore the fact that roughly 330,000 slaves were brought into America. That's a lot of people, but that's a far cry from the estimated 150 Million Blacks enslaved by the Islamic world, and that was just Blacks alone, they also took Europeans, and essentially any conquered peoples. They were also, hard as it is to believe, far more brutal than Europeans. Slavery was horrible, yes, but the West should feel good that the literal country that best embodies the West's progress, the United States, fought one of the most bloody wars in her history to end slavery.

[vla1ne]

i see it a lot too where i lived. i hear a lot about how "so and so acts white" or "you ain't hood enough" and i never get a coherent answer when i ask what those terms mean, or why they're even considered bad things. it's just how some people are though. best advice i can give you is if you don't know them, just keep moving past them. those kinds of people are hard to bring into any other line of thinking on the best of days, and often the only people who can even remotely get them out of such lines of thinking are family and close friends.

[cr47t]

The Crusades: The Crusades were a series of defensive wars against ruthless Islamic armies attacking Europe over and over and over. While Crusaders did some morally ambiguous s***, they mostly targeted formerly Christian cities like Antioch, Constantinople and other parts of the Christian world to liberate Christians who had been living under oppressive Islamist proto-fascism. More to the point, the Crusades ended 800 years ago. The Islamic world is still engaging in the same aggressive acts of war against those it deems inferior to itself. When people say it's a radical Islam problem, anyone with any degree of historical context will understand it's simply an Islam problem. 

 The Crusades was prompted by the invasion of Jerusalem by the Turks (Muslims), not of Europe.  Also, while you say that it's "simply an Islam problem", you also say that the Crusades ended 800 years ago, and loads can change about any given thing in 800 years, so I don't get your point with that. To your bigger point, it was initiated first as a defensive act to defend the Christians in Jerusalem but was also an offense act to take back Jerusalem.

 

I could reflect over each other point but, in general, I just feel that some people have learned from/about their history and want to avoid repeating such rough actions. Surely there is a degree of white guilt but it does not encompass all of any particular race. I think Guns, Germs & Steel may be a good book to read on this topic of the actions of civilizations, and of how Western civilization evolved and gained its status in the world. (Of course, it is written by someone from the West, but I still think it is worth a read)

[Tentacruel]

There's a lot of really unhealthy afro-centric worldview going around now that is eerily similar of colonial-era whites, or in the worst cases, the funking Nazis.

 

That being said, white liberals (I use the term liberal loosely, it's not all left-leaning people) are just as much to blame for encouraging this sheet. 

[Resident Fascist]

There's a lot of really unhealthy afro-centric worldview going around now that is eerily similar of colonial-era whites, or in the worst cases, the funking Nazis.

 

That being said, white liberals (I use the term liberal loosely, it's not all left-leaning people) are just as much to blame for encouraging this sheet. 

 

The afro-centric worldview is possibly one of the biggest examples of cultural chauvinism. Not from the Whites, from the Africans and Middle East. It assumes that African and Middle Eastern cultures are as morally valid and thriving as the West, which just isn't true. It's a fact that Western society and the Judeo-Christian culture is the most advanced on the planet, regardless of what brought us here, not accepting that fact and comparing our culture to theirs is selling us very short. When we question if things are ethical or morally right, we are using standards that the Judeo-Christian culture has given to us. No other culture on the planet has ever so surrendered it's reins of power just because they thought it was morally just. It's not opinion that our culture is the best. It's a fact. Ghandi once said that he thought that Western culture was backwards. He was wrong, the West is the best. 

 

 Some cultures are superior to others. Japan was a backwards feudal society before Westerners forced open it's ports and gave Japan western influence. Within 50 years, Japan became the most dominant country in Asia, with a prosperous economy. They became the first non-White power to enter the League of Great Powers. China, their neighbour, rejected western influence and stayed in their century of embarrassment. Korea, another country that existed under a feudal society prior to the Japanese Occupation and the division of Korea, became two countries. One accepted Western ideals, and the other accepted Communism. One of the two has a strong economy, education, a good public sector, while not totally perfect, it's a damn sight better than it's Northern neighbour, who is starving to death while it's elite take all the wealth, is rife with human rights abuses, and has no economy to speak of. 

 

 China too, has now started to Westernise somewhat and is seeing massive benefits from it. Even in Westernised countries like Japan and South Korea, there's still issues such as Police Brutality, especially in Japan, where suspects are often forced via psychological torture to confess to crimes they did not commit, with charges as serious as up to murder. In Iran, they hang gay people from construction cranes. That's not moral nor productive. In India, half of the population do not know how to use toilets, this leads to massive health problems. That is not productive. In Saudi Arabia, all manner of human rights abuses happen in the name of religion. That is the direct opposite of morality. 

 

 The regressive left beats the West over the head with statements of history that are either incomplete or inconclusive to actually provide any real value, and once again, we are holding the standards of our ancestors to the standards that they gave us. When we are debating whether it was morally right to colonise the New World and the Africa, we are using the standards set by our ancestors. No other culture has such a standard. Whether it was right or not, the regressive left will beat us over the head with it's fake ideal of near cult-like repentance until we surrender everything that makes our culture unique. The left believes in Cultural Relativism, which states that no one culture is superior to another and no culture has a right to impart it's values upon another. Cultural Relativism is complete nonsense, and is generally expressed by regressive liberals who have no actual real world view, and instead live in a bizarre cuckoo land where every culture is better than ours. 

 

 Here's an example. You often see American Politicians and other political figures criticising the war in Iraq, stating that America overstepped her bounds, declared aggressive war in violation to the UN conduct of war, and other examples. Do you see any of the Middle Eastern nations criticising their multiple wars of aggression against Israel? No, because they have no such moral standard in their culture. Do you see Japan fully acknowledging it's brutality during WW2 and attempting to reach a conclusion to the multitude of issues left open with it's neighbours? No, because they have no such moral standard in their culture. On the other hand, Germany, a Western and majority Christian nation, immediately apologised for it's atrocities, and has taken steps to prevent it ever happening again, often to the extreme of forgoing even being proud to be German. Even still, every nation has skeletons in their closet. The West is the only culture who is actually willing to talk about theirs, and actually take the blame for their fuckups. That's not to say the West has never done the wrong thing, or is morally perfect, humans will be cruel to each other regardless of culture, but the West is the only culture that is so willing to accept the validity of other cultures that it will attack itself and even in the case of Europe, weaken itself to accommodate others. 

[8corners]

I don't understand why so many people seem to feel it's OK to behave badly because someone else behaved worse.  There's pretty much always something worse.  Open up your comparisons to all of human history and of course there's going to be something/someone doing a more awful version of whatever's being examined currently.  I suspect part of it is the competitive nature of Western culture:  there always has to be, at some level, a winner and a loser, and people just love to be on the winning side, so talking up one's own group inevitably leads to talking down the others.

 

It is heartening, though, to read so many on this thread with such a healthy attitude against the dismissal of any one person just because they belong to some group.  :-)

[Dad]

I don't understand why so many people seem to feel it's OK to behave badly because someone else behaved worse.  There's pretty much always something worse.  Open up your comparisons to all of human history and of course there's going to be something/someone doing a more awful version of whatever's being examined currently.  I suspect part of it is the competitive nature of Western culture:  there always has to be, at some level, a winner and a loser, and people just love to be on the winning side, so talking up one's own group inevitably leads to talking down the others.

 

It is heartening, though, to read so many on this thread with such a healthy attitude against the dismissal of any one person just because they belong to some group.  :-)

 

Give it some time.  You'll be doubling back on your last statement the more hang you around YCM.

[Resident Fascist]

I don't understand why so many people seem to feel it's OK to behave badly because someone else behaved worse.  There's pretty much always something worse.  Open up your comparisons to all of human history and of course there's going to be something/someone doing a more awful version of whatever's being examined currently.  I suspect part of it is the competitive nature of Western culture:  there always has to be, at some level, a winner and a loser, and people just love to be on the winning side, so talking up one's own group inevitably leads to talking down the others.

 

It is heartening, though, to read so many on this thread with such a healthy attitude against the dismissal of any one person just because they belong to some group.  :-)

 

You may want to read my post again. I'm using pure facts to state the West is the best culture on the planet.