As far as I understand, the difference is “punching up” and “punching down”. But it is racist, for any useful definition of racist.

The punching up/down aspect is an important part of understanding what people mean when they say "racist". By some people's definitions, "racial discrimination" means differentiating by race, while "racism" means racial discrimination as a form of oppression. This is the definition a lot of people mean when they say the word. Some people don't make that distinction, but language is fuzzy and is just a tool. A word doesn't necessarily mean anything in it's own, the meaning comes from the speaker's intention and the listener's interpretation.

So if someone asked if that line from Soul is "racist", it depends on what definition you are referring to. Yes the line discriminates based on race. But, keeping cultural contexts in mind, does the line exploit power imbalances in our society against white people to denigrate them? I think a lot of people would say no.

I can see that nuance, but the way I grew up (90s,00s,USA,minority), I do not equate the use of the word “racist” as needing to describe an act of prejudice, because I do not think it’s useful. The aforementioned joke relies on certain stereotypes of a race, making it a racist joke.

I know times change, but when I was a kid, it was okay to make racist jokes as long as it was not mean spirited. We joked about all races, but the point was alway that it was a joke, similar to jokes of stereotypes about other characteristics of people.

Edit: Then again, I acknowledge that language/culture are in constant flux, and maybe I should use “racial joke” instead of “racist joke” if I want to convey my thoughts to the largest number of people and have them interpret it properly? Or it can be accompanied by paragraphs of explanations.

> But, keeping cultural contexts in mind, does the line exploit power imbalances in our society against white people to denigrate them? I think a lot of people would say no.

By this reasoning, minstrel shows are not racist, because the culture at the time did not see it that way.

I don't mean does the culture consider it racist, but is there a power imbalance in that culture against the race in question.

Positive discrimination is already enshrined in the laws of many countries.

Eg. When hiring, it is legal to discriminate on protected characteristics if the target characteristic can be defined a minority.

When considering school admission scores are dependent on your ethnicity to fill in quotas.

People who "stand up for minorities" are essentially bringing back segregation.

What you're highlighting is the joke equivalent of positive discrimination.

That said, there's definitely a tendency to call everything racist. Racism, by definition, implies the belief that one race is superior to others.

This joke can definitely be offensive but it's not racist (same as all the old jokes making fun of one or another country which nobody tells anymore because of wokeness).

> That said, there's definitely a tendency to call everything racist. Racism, by definition, implies the belief that one race is superior to others.

So if someone supports discriminatory policies not because they think people of other "races" are inferior, but purely because they would benefit from them (by finding jobs more easily, for example), you wouldn't consider them or their actions racist?

In such a hypothetical scenario, that someone would be just as likely to support policies that discriminate against people based on age, social class, language, the number of vowels in their last name etc. It being a race-based policy would be entirely coincidental. I wouldn't consider it racist, just being a dick.

It's totally racist and should probably not be in there. We should not proliferate racist ideas.

That said; we should also not to take ourselves to serious and give our interlocutors the benefit of the doubt whenever they say stupid shit.