Yes. The rule basically says that you can't be racist towards white people.

It's just racism dude. Not even white, just tired of the mental gymnastics people go through to justify their actions against white people based sole on their skin color and what they've committed against their people. You're doing the same thing. In the end it's just the tribal, racialist bullshit I'm freaking tired of. It never ends, because we keep justifying evildoing whenever it benefits our side at the given time. If we keep doing this, we have no right to complain when some other group does it to us at some other point in the future.

No. If someone says or does something to me based only on my race, they are a piece of shit racist. I don't care how many years his people has been oppressed by some other group of people.

Someone else mentioned what I'm defining more succinctly as "prejudice+power".

What you are saying is, you and you critical theory pals have redefined the word to suit your purposes.

In promoting racial discrimination against white people, you’re also displaying a bigoted and reductive view of Africa. The African peoples are more than the slave trade, more than colonialism. Africa is a remarkably diverse and populous continent with a history that exist beyond the impact of whiteness. It saddens me that your reducing to victimhood the whole of African identity is what passes for anti racism.

>In promoting racial discrimination against white people

Not promoting anything of the sort. These are factual observations of history, any student of history feel free to chime in so we can focus on facts over feelings.

>The African peoples are more than the slave trade, more than colonialism.

I agree African history is much more than slavery, but the European invention/export of racist theories/science and the dehumanization of Africans started during the same period (The Renaissance, ~15th-17th century continuing into the 21st century) Africans were enslaved and robbed. This period cannot be ignored in any discussions of the history of racism.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

"Scientific racism was common during the period from 1600s to the end of World War II. Since the second half of the 20th century, scientific racism has been criticized as obsolete and discredited, yet historically has persistently been used to support or validate racist world-views, based upon belief in the existence and significance of racial categories and a hierarchy of superior and inferior races."

"For Africans to be considered reverse racists, they would have to rob Europeans to the point of poverty/death, enslave them for 400+ years, attempt multiple genocides and mass executions of the European people, deprive Europeans of education and economic equity for centuries based on skin color, engage in state assisted terrorism, THEN continue to promote hatred and acts of violence against them on Reddit."

Nothing promoting discrimination against white people in that quote, just replaced the word black/African with European in a summary of history. Not sure how you missed this simple role reversal exercise.

This thread started in response to a hate speech rule that allowed hate speech towards the [white] “majority” population. This is explicitly racial discrimination. I read everything you wrote as a response to that initial topic. If you merely meant to discuss your preferred definition of racism, I think a different thread would have better conveyed that.

Asians are the majority, not white people.

If you look at academic definitions, yes, often they will state racism is from the majority to the minority. It is rather odd.

I don't understand this. For all of my life I thought racism = discrimination against someone due to their race. In the same way that sexist = discrimination against someone due to their sex. Ageist = discrimination against someone due to their age. Is this not the clear cut definition anymore? At what point did it diverge?

>Is this not the clear cut definition anymore?

People who want to discriminate on the basis of race and sex have contrived a definition of racism/sexism that exempts themselves.

>At what point did it diverge?

The 1980s apparently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory

An '-ism' is an ideology which is used for organizing the world. The big difference is whether it's an individual ideology or a systemic ideology.

1 person renting out property = a rentier. Private ownership of land = capitalism.

1 person not hiring women = a misogynist. Companies not offering parental leave and assuming the primary caregiver is the mother = sexism.

Zuckerberg saying "young people are just smarter" = a bigot. Focusing on algorithms in software interviews which new-grads will have an easier time solving = ageism.

It's very common to call a prejudiced or discriminatory individual a "-ist" because the individual is subscribing to an ideology. But, that's emphasizing the individual rather than the society. If you only look at individual people as racist, they feel like isolated cases which don't have good solutions. Furthermore, you're absolving people who aren't explicitly discriminatory but who are still supporting systemic discrimination.

- This company will hire anyone who's qualified, but they're full of ivy-league graduates because they rely heavily on campus recruiters. Even though they aren't prejudiced when hiring, they are classist because they cater to high-class people.

- This bank will offer a mortgage to anyone with a steady paycheck and a safe-investment property. However, due to red-lining and racial covenants, Black people weren't able to purchase safe-investment homes so they didn't get good mortgages.

Granted, it's an uphill etymological battle because the individual usage is so common. When people argue for the systemic definition, they're arguing that we should focus on processes rather than individuals.

If you haven't noticed, we've spiraled down to the point where group think determines what is real, not facts or logic. If you can convince thousands people to scream that something is racist, then it "becomes" racist, no matter whether it meets any factual concrete definition of what racism is. Once this behavior started, it was then used as justification to change the definition of racism to something it never used to be.

Reddit adopts the "Prejudice + Power" definition of racism, not the actual definition of racism

Reddit's definition seems more contextual, it weighs the dynamics of current economic, cultural, institutional, etc... racism

Here is the Oxford dictionary definition:

"The inability or refusal to recognize the rights, needs, dignity, or value of people of particular races or geographical origins. More widely, the devaluation of various traits of character or intelligence as ‘typical’ of particular peoples. The category of race may itself be challenged, as implying an inference from trivial superficial differences of appearance to allegedly significant underlying differences of nature; increasingly evolutionary evidence suggests that the dispersal of one original people into different geographical locations is a relatively recent and genetically insignificant matter."