Anonymous #1 8w

Yeah, no racism is social. Systemic racism is systemic, you can go to any country and call someone a slur whether or not there’s a system in place that will protect you over them

14

Anonymous #3 8w

As someone who is half white, with white skin, but doesn’t look “white enough” or “Asian enough” in both places of my origin, shit sucks

10

Anonymous #3 8w

the word "racism" in and of itself is, by definition, referring to systems. the suffix "-ism" literally refers to schools of thought or theories belonging to a class or group; ie. a manifest system of belief

18

Anonymous #3 8w

i think colloquially saying you can be racist against white people is fine because people just mean any discrimination based on race, but fundamentally racism is systematic. the word "systematic" in "systematic racism" is redundant and only serves to clarify that which is commonly misunderstood

12

Anonymous #3 8w

racism cannot exist on an individual level. racism is not actually just racial discrimination. racism is a system originally created for the sake of distinguishing blacks from whites. it does not exist on an individual level and never has

16

Anonymous #4 8w

Just because something is systemic doesn’t mean it’s reduced to the system of a country. Black people can be systemically racist towards white people regardless of whether the system of the country they live in is. You’re selectively restricting the definition of the word system

-3

Anonymous #8 8w

restricting? no. you are wrongly *expanding* the qualifications for the label of racism for your own intellectual and moral comfort

12

Anonymous #4 8w

I actually laughed raucously when I read “black people can be systemically racist to white” 😭😭😭😭😭😭

13

Anonymous #6 8w

“I hate white people because they’re white”

2

Anonymous #2 7w

Yes that has happened and does continue to happen, the level of historical ignorance is astounding, not to mention you just being racist

-1

Anonymous #1 7w

This is absurd and racist

-2

This is insane, you are a racist bigot

-2

Anonymous #5 7w

Within the confines of a black-run system absolutely. Just because it’s not THE system doesn’t make it not a system

-3

Anonymous #8 7w

“Within the confines of an irrelevant hypothetical, absolutely” lol. Bro is reaching for a crumb of oppression

10

Anonymous #9 7w

Love how your first example is a provocative sentence out of someone’s mouth and not something like genocide, police brutality, medical gaslighting, employment discrimination… Really shows the difference in what’s salient for “anti-white racism” frameworks lmao

5

Anonymous #5 7w

What’s irrelevant or a hypothetical about black-run institutions? That sounds pretty racist for you to deny the existence of

-3

Anonymous #8 7w

What’s relevant about them? Is that a description of the United states legislature? No. The majority of hiring or admission boards? No. The majority of medical institutions? No. The justice system? Certainly no. The police? No. There’s not a “black-run institution” that materially lowers your quality of life due to their “anti-white bigotry,” and so the hypothetical of one is irrelevant. Next?

11

Anonymous #5 7w

If you want to say racism only exists within systems, then why must it only be one specific system for you? You keep bringing up one example of a system and then using it as a proof that other systems don’t exist. If I’m talking about black-run institutions as an example why would you bring up non black run institutions?

-2

Anonymous #8 7w

Lmao I listed half a dozen of many real institutions and you respond with “why does only your one count?!!! doesn’t my hypothetical that doesn’t exist count!!?”

12

Anonymous #5 7w

Bro knows there’s not a black-run institution with power over his quality of life, but wants to imagine one is out there to justify his fake-grievance and “elevate” his bitching from “bitching about nothing” to “just as, if not more valid than black people’s racial grievance.” It’s horribly transparent

11

Anonymous #5 7w

Where in your dictionary definition that your entire basis stands on does it say that the system needs to have “power over your quality of life?” A system is a system. If the system exists, and racism exists, then racism can be within that system.

-2

Anonymous #8 7w

Right here, honey:

11

Anonymous #5 7w

That doesn’t say what you think it does lol. Like at all

-2

Anonymous #8 7w

Oh. Well go ahead and explain how these hypothetical black-run “systems” (that you still haven’t identified) are fundamental (key word) to a predominant (key word) social, economic, or political practice. It’d be pretty hard for them to, given black people are minorities, but I digress

11

Anonymous #5 7w

Unless of course, you were referring to one of the other three definitions-

9

Anonymous #5 7w

A black owned business with a discriminatory hiring practice is the simplest definition of a racist system. I don't understand why you're so adamantly wrong about it only existing in a gov system. If a white owned business with discriminatory hiring practices meets your criteria or racism, then the flip side literally meets the same definition. The employer runs its own system under racist pretenses that affect socially AND financially.

-2

Anonymous #10 7w

Where's that happening in America?

6

Anonymous #8 7w

Hey so you’re 0 for 2 on both key words. Your hypothetical did not describe a situation that was “fundamental” (small business) nor “predominant” (minorities are, by definition, not predominant). Try again, sweetie

12

Anonymous #5 7w

Here let me give you a non-hypothetical example - an all-white (predominant demographic) hiring board for a major corporation (fundamental to the economy) discriminating against black applicants such that they’re 24% less likely to receive a call-back simply because their name “sounds black” is indeed a continuation of a *predominant* and *fundamental* *social* pattern of discrimination against black people that was intrinsic to the genesis of this country❤️

11

Anonymous #5 7w

You’re taking narrow definitions and widening them. The only demographic that matters in your example is the predominant demographic of the corporation with the racist practice. Race swap the rest of your example and it’s still racism. And you seem to not understand how dictionaries work: A word does not mean all of its definitions simultaneously. a dictionary entry is an inventory of possible senses, and context determines which single sense applies in a given instance.

-2

Anonymous #8 7w

“If you change the details of your real example that actually happens to a fake hypothetical that never happens, it’d be a thing that never happens!”

11

Anonymous troybolton12 7w

Wait aren’t you the guy who defended beastiality😭💀

11

Anonymous #5 7w

Strange how all of your examples of systemic anti-white racism are hypotheticals that never actually happen… It’s almost like-

14

Anonymous #5 7w

“Is this a picture of a unicorn? No? Well how can you tell? Unicorns aren’t real so therefore you can’t know that for sure. Checkmate 🤓☝️”

-3

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous #8 7w

No, it's more like if I had a picture of a giraffe, and you said, "this would be a unicorn if its neck was short and it had a horn and a rainbow colored mane, and this is proof that unicorns could possibly exist!!!1!1!1!1!1!1!"

10

Is a giraffe looked, walked, talked, and acted like a unicorn then it would be a unicorn. That’s part of the point. Hypotheticals are literally a part of semantics and philosophy of language

-2

Anonymous #8 7w

…but it doesn’t, so… what’s the point 😭💀

10

Anonymous #5 7w

You’re almost there, keep reading

-1

Anonymous #5 7w

Bro is only interested in theory and not in practice because theoretically, he has a grievance, and in practice, he does not. Still, he’s desperate to denigrate black people and act like the situations are comparable. Lmfao.

15

Anonymous #2 7w

No one uses the word racist that way, though. If I call someone a racial slur, I’m not limiting their freedom, but it’s still racism. Racism in the sense that virtually everyone understands it absolutely can be done to white people, it just doesn’t happen at anywhere near a problematic scale in the U.S.

0

Anonymous #5 7w

You’re arguing the definitions of words. Theory is a part of that. Definitions of words are important, so I’m sorry that you don’t accept that, but that’s not how it works. Two things don’t have to be equal in impact to still mean the same thing

-2

Anonymous #8 7w

Yes, including this definition here, which by definition, cannot be achieved by black people within the context of American society

15

Anonymous #5 7w

Going backwards

-2

Anonymous #8 7w

Yo are you debating yourself or are the deleting there messages I genuinely can't tell

1

Anonymous #8 7w

It doesn’t need to be both lol. Your hypothetical was 0 for 2; my real-word example was 2 for 2.

9

Anonymous #8 7w

you entered this thread replying to me and then when i lay out a solid explanation you just... ignore it and start bickering with others? i swear so many of the users in this app don't want meaningful discussion *at all*, just pointless argumentation to no end

12

Anonymous #4 7w

He’s really sick. #8 then tried to argue that anti-white racism is fundamental to a predominant social, economic, or political practice-

11

Anonymous #8 7w

racism does not exist within systems. racial discrimination exists within systems. racism *is a system*. race does not exist. the concept is explicitly and exclusively manufactured by humans. that was done by "white" people to create a multi-tiered social system with "black" slaves

10

Anonymous #4 7w

I argue that words change and form new meanings as language grows. Society as a whole accepts racism to not be purely talking about the systems in place, but the actions fostered by those systems. That’s the social aspect, in which I could understand if you wanna call it systemic due to its roots, but I still believe you can be racist towards white people which was my main point

1

Anonymous #3 7w

Sorry to be replying to this, there were a lot of comments

2

Anonymous #4 7w

What was solid about your explanation? It rests on the same problem I brought up against 5. That your definition of “system” you’re only extended to the overarching governmental system and willfully excluding individual systems within it. If you want to argue “national system racism in America” sure, but strictly “racism?” It literally makes zero sense when having the same example race swapped fits the same criteria of the definition.

-1

Anonymous #5 7w

And if you bring up “predominant” again, I’ll just redirect you to how dictionaries work again

-1

Anonymous #4 7w

Then what about the whites who were enslaved in the Middle East?

-1

Anonymous #4 7w

the reason racism does not exist against white people is not because it is fundamentally impossible in theory; rather it is virtually impossible in practice simply because that's how it played out. again, racism does not exist *within* systems; it is **THE** system, and no such system has ever existed against whites. race was designed explicitly to oppress blacks. race is a white supremacist concept designed by white supremacists to oppress black people

11

Anonymous #5 7w

lmao that's... odd

12

Anonymous #8 7w

You have to take that up with Merriam-Webster and the Oxford University Press because they’re the ones who said “fundamental to a predominant social, economic, or political practice” and not simply “fundamental to a practice.” Now, I know you’re butthurt because the word “predominant” undermines your entire argument, but consider that’s because your argument is wrong. Kisses💋

9

Anonymous #3 7w

the point of language is to effectively communicate ideas and the misuse of the word racism does not effectively communicate the idea people are discussing when talking about racial discrimination against white people; quite the opposite. this would be like arguing it's semantically correct for people to call any form of inattentiveness ADHD because it's like... close enough to the concept of ADHD

8

Anonymous #4 7w

A system of belief is not a social system. One person can have a system of beliefs, that doesn’t make their beliefs a systemic issue. I don’t understand the point of bending over backwards to pretend white people can’t experience any racism. It doesn’t happen at a scale that matters, but it can happen

0

Anonymous #13 7w

Then why are litigating something you acknowledge is a non-issue? It seems like it only serves to distract from the actual systemic issue and imply that the victims of marginalization are “no angels!!!” and so therefore we don’t actually need to assess the lack of egalitarianism?

9

Anonymous #3 7w

strong no. racism is a system designed by white supremacists explicitly to oppress black people. you are describing racial discrimination; which is still impactful and hurtful; but it is not racism in the actual meaningful sense of the word racism

5

Anonymous #5 7w

Why is he defining words as they are because you decided it’s a situation doesn’t actually matter? Or at least doesn’t matter nearly as much as another example of the same thing? That’s a serious question?

-1

Anonymous #8 7w

See my comment at the end of your other thread, kisses💋

8

Anonymous #13 7w

your mistake was assuming systems of belief and social systems are mutually exclusive

11

Anonymous #4 7w

Yes but the thing is racism is a social system, so it cannot be directly categorized and can change, similarly to capitalism. ADHD is a defined, pre-existing condition of the human experience that was not “created”, and can be directly physically measured and counteracted with physical treatment

2

Anonymous #8 7w

White ppl literally created the entire concept of race and racism to justify the trans Atlantic slave trade and as a means of keeping lower class ppl from coming together. The “racism” white ppl experience is usually just prejudice. White ppl have no slurs and put themselves on top of the racial hierarchy leaving black and indigenous ppl on the bottom. Even in areas where white ppl are the minority they don’t because they still hold all the power through government control, money, and status

12

Anonymous #3 7w

the point stands. i never said it was a perfect 1:1. there is no perfect 1:1 with racism, because racism is unique in that the fundamental concept required to implement racism (race) was entirely manufactured by white supremacists for the explicit goal of oppressing black people. "white" and "black" do not exist, and have expanded and constricted to fit whatever the white supremacist ideals need

3

Anonymous #3 7w

that system was then spread to nearly every corner of the earth and made so common and fundamental that people forgot that it doesn't ducking exist outside of our heads. like the reason you think racism can exist against whites is because white supremacists were so successful in perpetuating anti-"black" sentiment that people started to believe race was real and meaningful so now whites think it applies equally to all races. no. it applies to one race, which is nebulous yet rigid

3

Anonymous #3 7w

like i'm sorry but the concept of "anti-white" racism is a white supremacist idea. to be clear i am ***not saying that you are a white supremacist*** so please don't get defensive

11

Anonymous #4 7w

Dude I know race isn’t real, I’m a biology major. That’s why it’s a social system and not a “real” system. That’s why I believe racism is in fact a term that can and should encompass all the social aspects that are a direct result of it, including racial discrimination in

1

Anonymous #3 7w

Bro is laying the groundwork to argue, “well, actually, when you think about it, aren’t whites the real victims of racism?” and #4 shut it down lollll

10

Anonymous #5 7w

That’s an insane take that I would hope 4 isn’t dumb enough to get out of what I’m saying

0

Anonymous #3 7w

or you could just be semantically and rhetorically correct and call them what they are: racial discrimination against whites is racial discrimination the systems of oppression explicitly and exclusively designed to oppress blacks are racism

15

Anonymous #3 7w

Shhh, it’s okay - we’ve all seen many, many white supremacists run this same song-and-dance, and this is always how it starts lmao

11

Anonymous #5 7w

It’s a soft-launch, if you will

13

Anonymous #4 7w

Wasn’t assuming you would think I was one, dw But I still think that the semantics of this is pointless personally Would that mean that systems that were put into place against Asian individuals aren’t classified as racism?

-1

Anonymous #5 7w

Gen don’t know what to say to this other than no, I don’t think white people are the main victims of racism I think racism includes the social aspects of racial discrimination and like other bigoted viewpoints harms more than just the targeted minority group. I get called Hispanic slurs because my ethnicity is tropical. I’ve been actively made to do more for my job because of my skin tone. To me, this all has a root in racism, both because I am half American (white) and half Asian.

-1

Anonymous #3 7w

If you took the idea of “this guy thinks white people are the true victims!” You’re scarily shortsighted and actively ignoring my points. Which, if you wanna continue doing I’m not going to engage further

2

Anonymous #5 7w

i appreciate the compliment about my explanations but tbh i don't think #3 is saying that 🤭 lets be fair <3

3

Anonymous #3 7w

semantics (a branch of linguistics concerned with meaning) cannot be pointless in a discussion about the meaning of the word racism..?

10

Anonymous #4 7w

Gonna have to stop the discussion here cause my 9 year old phone ain’t surviving a yikyak thread this long, either way I’ll at least try and think on what you said about this even if I disagree

0

Anonymous #3 7w

i appreciate that. take care ❤️

6

Anonymous #16 7w

Which?😭 I can only think of court cases, including one that went to the supreme court, that found the opposite. Which is insane when you consider the current Supreme Court is primed to agree with asinine conservative grievances

15

Anonymous #5 7w

This is one I was tracking for an academic thing. It’s weird cuz in the initial headlines when this was ongoing, they were very specific in pointing out both asian and white students were discriminated against, but when you search it with AI now, it focuses on the Asian part… which could be itself, another system perpetuating racism depending on how loosely you define racism (it was soooooo loose. I remember reading an article about how clean air was racist. SMH)

-2

Anonymous #16 7w

No, it focuses on the Asian part because the lawsuit focused on the Asian part… as it had to, because it had previously been established that affirmative action was not discriminatory against whites. Try again💔

8

Anonymous #5 7w

And that was established when exactly? Or are you just pulling that out of your ass?

-2

Anonymous #13 7w

Ahahah bro is mad, but I’m glad you add It was established during the bakke decision, grutter v bollinger, fisher v university of Texas, and some others, but those are the ones I thought off the top of my head and I’m simply too lazy to do a google search 💔

12

Anonymous #5 7w

Asked*

12

Anonymous #13 7w

Studies done by coqual and mckinsey (and another research firm that I can’t recall immediately) also found the inverse; that whites actually benefit MORE from affirmative action that black people do, specifically white women and whites with disabilities (ik, ik, we like to pretend that black people are the only form of “diversity” but that’s simply not the case💔) - which makes sense, because the United States would never pass legislation that benefit black people more than whites lmao

12

Anonymous #5 7w

Yesss you really ate him up

1

Anonymous #2 7w

Turkish slave traders. All the Slavic whites. Slavic quite literally means slave. There’s a few other big ones but they elude me at the moment.

1

Anonymous #13 7w

the problem is that the majority of people have literal elementary definitions of racism. the problem is *not* that people want to correctly label what is and isn't racism, nor that they are rightfully correcting people who conflate

2

Anonymous #13 7w

this picture is what most people think of when they think of an atom. it's correct enough in the right context. it's completely wrong in reality though. atoms don't have rings. they aren't 2D. you can't know where an electron is before observing it's location - it exists in a state of probability

1

Anonymous #13 7w

a student could argue that this is right because it's commonly used and was taught to them. they would still be wrong. they could say "but that's how like everybody talks about it" and they would be correct about many people talking about atoms that way, but it wouldn't make this model any more accurate

1

Anonymous #4 3w

Girl I had to come back and re-read how we curb stomped #8😍

8