this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2026
76 points (65.1% liked)
Political Memes
12252 readers
1676 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
racism noun
lanzybear is an idiot
Exactly, lazybear's take is very close to the moronic thinking making people believe that men can't be raped.
Stop making simple concepts complicated.
It's not an original thought, but a very publicly taught one. Which was a redefinition made by some well meaning academics and activists who wanted to narrow the focus of civil rights work to the most egregious violations.
(Which would have been a laudable goal except that it makes everyone fight about what "racism" means instead of solving anything and implicitly tells poor whites that their economic oppression doesn't matter.)
I'd say it's less that they are an idiot and more that they don't understand there is systemic racism and interpersonal racism (there is probably a more official term here but interpersonal covers it well enough for a Lemmy comment).
Systemic racism can only be done by the ~~majority~~ group with the power in a given system (usually government but it could be perpetrated in a religion, an institution, club, etc.). Red lining is a great example of that. Segregation as well. Things done by the group in power to the ones not in power of the given system. Throughout the history of the USA, this means white people oppressing other ethnicities but especially black people.
Interpersonally, anyone can be racist. They can hold racist views and hate others without knowing them beyond their appearance.
Edit: strike through on majority. While most commonly it is a majority group in power, it doesn't have to be a majority group, just the group in power.
Counter argument: South Africa
Fair enough, I guess I can drop the majority phrasing and just leave it as group in power.
Because what they really want to say is "it's okay and even just to be maligned to white people" without having the stones to actually say that.
No, just that there's a subtle difference between anti-white bigotry (which is real) and reverse-racism (which isn't). You can pull out dictionaries all you like but to put it in terms of a cute nursery rhyme, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but socioeconomic bias by the ruling class can kill me and everyone I love."
Sorry, that doesn't rhyme very well.
Just end it with: "...with loans." Then it rhymes. <3
No, this is over-complicating a very simple concept all over again.
Reverse-racism doesn't exist because it's just regular old racism. White people can be the target of racism just like anyone else, but this is distinct from the fact that as a privileged social identity they may not be nearly as harmed or affected by that racism as a minority would. The fact that social power modulates our experiences of racism does not mean that some people cannot experience racial targeting.
What is the purpose of making the distinction if it's not "I want to be maligned to white people and not be called racist?"
Harm, friend. I take all kinds of shit for being white, and you know how much it affects my real lived experience? Not at all, because you can talk shit to me all you want, if you can't back it up, it doesn't matter. My Jamaican cousin, my indigenous friend growing up, or the Indian girl I dated in High School on the other hand by definition has to deal with the fact that those words can and often are backed up by petty people who absolutely can get away with that.
You're now talking in circles. I did just explain why the amount of perceived or real harm caused by racist treatment does nothing to qualify or disqualify it as racism.
Because you said so?
Piping in here:
The redefinition of "racism" to mean only "racially-motivated oppression" appears to have had two major negative effects.
Arguing that racial animus towards whites doesn't count as racism helped Trump get elected!
I'd be very interested in any information about the positive effects it's had to offset either of the above. From my perspective I don't see them.
That's pretty damning in itself isn't it. A few minor semantic differences and half of America is ready to vote for the living embodiment of the 7 deadly sins? A convicted felon, a rapist, a monster. A hateful, incompetent, malignant joke of a human being. Perhaps this is what we needed. Someone to cut open the thin veneer of civilization and show all of us just how unfit America is. To break the illusion that our neighbours are good people.
You can always disagree, but I'm quite certain you'd be going against the consensus of most people familiar with this topic.
You see, I don't think that's true. I'm pretty sure there's always been disagreement on the precise subtext of that word, and it just hasn't mattered much until people started trying to use it to mean things that are semantically nonsensical to half the country.
This argument has been going on for 60 years, by historians and educators, black and white, who are much smarter than us... Here's a reddit comment I found that detailed the argument well (paraphrasing)
the purpose of "power + prejudice" was to move discourse away from the idea of being racist as a personal failing, and instead focus on structural oppression and the material reality of minority groups.
Basically liberal society largely seems to have conceived racism as 'being irrationally mean', but for people with a materialist anti-racist perspective, that definition isn't productive or insightful and the lack of material, tangible progress for black people post-civil rights made it clear that there needed to be more focus on power dynamics and historical context to combat racism.
Beverly Tatum's work offers an informed and compelling perspective on the matter
I reject the idea that a sixty year old redefinition that was followed by a rise in white resentment was done by people "smarter" than any of us.