So one can discriminate against a group, defined by race ("white people in the us"), but you say that's not racist? That's amazing anti-logic (a.k.a. nonsense).

You don't see a taxonomical difference between what Apple is doing and policies like redlining and Jim Crow laws?

I'm happy to drive to why it is not, as you describe, nonsense if you are willing to have a critical and rational discussion.

> (e.g. white people in the US for instance), but not racist towards them.

Huh. So, what if we revisit this concept with the actual balance of ethnic power in the United States, as revealed by actual income and status statistics, rather than the WASP bogeyman that may have been true in 1963?

Is it no longer possible to be racist toward Brahmin Indian immigrants, second generation children of Chinese and Korean immigrants, Jewish people, and the broadly English/Nord stock that comprise the vast bulk of the Mormons?

This is great news, because I'm sitting on a pile of real zingers about Guamanians I couldn't use because it used to be racist. Now that it's not, the offensive jokes will flow!

Your words, not mine.

> Racism is discrimination plus systemic power imbalances that enforce this discrimination.

> One can be discriminatory towards the powerful group (e.g. white people in the US for instance), but not racist towards them.

Just for anyone reading this who isn't familiar: this is a radical theory and isn't at all a generally accepted idea.

It is an academic and critical view, and not what a layperson understands racism to be. I'll acknowledge that.

And it's also a viewpoint that is more commonly held by the political left. I'll grant that too.

Describing it as 'radical' is something I'd disagree with.