Now, we're working through the experiment. We'll see how it goes. It's not a sure thing.
There are white, heterosexual, etc (the list of ways people say they privileged is ever expanding lol) men who have been on the receiving end of hateful speech because they are white, heterosexual, etc. and there are black or gay men who have never been personally attacked based on that identity.
But yeah, shielding yourself from speech or anything else you may find uncomfortable may make you feel better in the moment, but hurts you in the long term
I honestly don’t believe it’s possible to be racist against the majority in the same way as against the minority.
But not every white person who encounters racism is able to escape unharmed. Some have been physically hurt or even killed in racist attacks. Some are harassed at school or work or in their neighborhoods and can't afford to escape.
Their situation isn't different from other victims of racism simply because you haven't experienced it and don't believe it's possible.
If you're a Uyghur Muslim in China, racism against you is going to be far more harmful than the reverse -- in the typical case. That's just fact and stems from the demographic numbers differences.
Ditto with White people in the West but perhaps less stark since Whites tend to be a smaller majority.
I agree, but that isn't what mathieuh wrote. I'd say racism against white people is less common and generally less impactful, but it isn't impossible or inevitably different.
> since Whites tend to be a smaller majority
You're underestimating the diversity of the United States. There are many places in the US where white non-Hispanic Christians are a minority. In fact, white non-Hispanic (but including Jewish and Muslim) people are only 60% of the population of the US.
This is what people are trying to point out when they talk about Whiteness. They're talking about the construct that it's good and default to be White (or Han if you live in China or Japanese if you live in Japan) and this construct can even hold true in places with a White minority (e.g., how White people get treated in Singapore, or colorism culture in non-White countries).
That having being said, White people as individuals are empirically the least racist people. That's just empirically true according to survey data. But this is largely besides the point that was being made above.
It's also a very recent phenomenon, and the most recent wave seems to be pushed by elites in society that don't seem to realize the average working class citizen has more contact with minorities than they ever will.
It seems everyone nowadays wants to be coddled and there’s just this overwhelming sense of entitlement in the air.
The real world isn’t perfect; in fact, it’s quite chaotic, just how it’s supposed to be. A lot of folks seem to only want to look at the world from a utopian lens. The elephant in the room is, your utopia isn’t my utopia. Put differently, our differences create the very imperfections that actually make our world interesting and keep society functioning as it should.
By your own admission, you've lived in a sanitized cocoon where you've never been the victim of hateful speech. Do you think you're weaker than others who have experience in that area? Would a generation full of people like you be a disservice?
I don't really think state censorship is the answer, but I find your point of view contradictory.
In the middle of the last century, people were murdered for interracial relationships, beaten and imprisoned for being gay, institutionalized for being different. Undoubtedly, people wanted to avoid these things.
It's not about hurt feelings ("emotional impact"). It's about preventing the well-trodden causal pathway to ethnic cleansings and genocides.
On the other hand, I cannot help but think that too many people have become soft these days. I am not old enough to remember a time before the late 90s, nor do I glorify a forgotten "Golden Age". But, when I occasionally watch old movies, documentaries, and TV shows, it is clear that people used to have a much thicker skin. This is not to say that I believe that free speech shouldn't have reasonable constraints. I am not denying the emotional impact that words can have on people, or the potential unhealthiness of excess emotional fortitude. But it is to say that it would be misguided and, in my humble opinion, a disservice to future generations to envelop them in a sanitized cocoon of sterile experiences, where they cannot be uncomfortable. Because the real world is full of colorful characters, and surprises, generally speaking. Like an immune system that grows weaker when it goes too long without exposure to viruses and bacteria, I believe that a person's character can and in a certain measure must be allowed to be steeled and sharpened by the unexpected, the random, and, perhaps, the uncomfortable.