So if a female biologist who wrote a PHD thesis on the origins of RNA overheard some men talking about the origins of life and when the women wants to chime in because she is a subject matter expert, the men tell her they âdonât need a black womanâs explanationâ. And after being told this she is in the wrong for venting online? Please. Your just as sexist as the people you claim to be opposed to.
You cannot in good faith compare people who have suffered because if their skin color to those who have not, when talking about situations where skin color comes up.
Are both situations racist by pure definition? Sure. Just like punching a man and punching a child are both punching. One is much more wrong.
One racially motivated act (say hitting someone because of their skin color) is not any more or less racist depending on the race of the victim. If you believe that, it is by definition a racist value youâre holding.
Thereâs a difference when it comes to contextual, social and historical factors. Like the word cracker is insensitive but doesnât carry the hateful connotations and discrimination that the N-word possesses.
But anyone trying to say itâs more or less appropriate to hate on any single group is just demonstrating their own implicit and explicit racial biases.
One racially motivated act (say hitting someone because of their skin color) is not any more or less racist depending on the race of the victim.
This is only true if you donât think the severity of the damage correlates to the severity of the racism. If we go with your definition, then all racism is equivalent, and we canât tell any apart. That seems like an arbitrarily limiting and useless way to think about it. Why would we not want to be able to compare how severe each racist act is?
But anyone trying to say itâs more or less appropriate to hate on any single group is just demonstrating their own implicit and explicit racial biases.
This is only true if you think all groups are equally strong and equally oppressed by each other and the system. But if thatâs not the case, then I would say itâs OK to be mean to the ones who are stronger or less oppressed. Itâs a means of coping with the inequality. Just like we normal folks like to mock billionaires, while theyâre actively causing suffering.
If one person engages in a racially motivated attack on another individual, it is not any more or less racist if the victim was black or white.
If a man was walking down the street and was beaten to death by an angry mob based entirely on the individualâs race, is it less racially motivated if the victim was one race over another?
Are we punishing people for the sins of our ancestors? Does historic racism against one race justify mistreatment of another thru a retributivist mindset?
This backwards hypervigilant, hypersensitivity and hypocritically encouraging implicit and explicit racism as morally permissible retributivist actions needs to stop. Racism is racism. We need to respect each other as equals if we want racism to stop. Youâre calling for unequal treatment/enforcement of social policies based on oneâs race. Fuck that noise.
If one person engages in a racially motivated attack on another individual, it is not any more or less racist if the victim was black or white.
Ok, so youâre conflating the terms âracistâ and âracially motivatedâ. Yeah, if you do that, then your point makes sense.
Two different actions with different impacts can be different amounts of racist, but both could be equally racially motivated. For example, itâs way more racist for someone to want to murder a black person than it is for someone to be afraid of a black person and cross the street when theyâre coming. Both are equally racially motivated, but different amounts of racist. See the point? More impact = more racism.
And if we can agree that itâs the âimpactâ that makes something more/less racist, then we can see how a white person saying X and a black person saying X could be different amounts of racist, depending on the impact. If a Latino would call a white person the N word, thatâs less racist than calling a black person that. Right?
Does historic racism against one race justify mistreatment of another thru a retributivist mindset?
I couldnât tell you. All of the racism thatâs present today, and still ongoing, means we donât know the answer to that. Find me a place where this happens and Iâm happy to learn.
Itâs reductive to take that as saying âitâs more appropriate to hate on white peopleâ. They worded it a bit poorly imo but the analogy theyâre responding to is still crappy. There isnât an issue of black women assuming white men donât know the origins of RNA, but there is an issue of men assuming women donât know anything about ânerdyâ things like film. Obviously they assumed wrong with Ed Solomon, but the analogy is still in bad faith because itâs wouldnât be for the same reason.
This specific situation described in this post is an issue of âwomen assuming that the man offering his take on a subject was ignorant about it and driven by machismâ (as thatâs exactly what they accused him off when they called his offer one of âmansplainingâ).
(In fact what makes this a bit of a story is that rather than just saying âNo thanksâ, they instead explicitly accused him of offering an ignorant opinion driven by sexist)
Surelly both the âmen assuming women donât know anything about ânerdyâ things like filmâ and âwomen assuming that men offering their own take on a subject are ignorant and driven by sexismâ are equally wrong?!
How is instantly presuming such bad things about other people purelly on the basis of the number of Y chromossomes they were born with, less sexist if its acting/voicing prejudice (quite literally: they prejudged the other person) from XX persons towards XY persons than if it is from XY persons towards XX persons?
Itâs kinda the whole point of this whole comment thread: prejudice is prejudice and its discriminatory to excuse it for some people but not for others purelly on the bases of some having being born with certain characteristics and the others not.
Youâre making a lot of assumptions about what I said. It doesnât excuse it, I directly said they were wrong in this instance. My comment was directed towards the absurd comparison of women incorrectly assuming a white guy was mansplaining and a black woman who knows about the origins of RNA being dismissed. Itâs really ignorant to equate the widespread, discriminatory assumption of women and black people being stupid and uneducated to two women not giving credit to the MIB writer lol. The former affects your education, livelihood, and career and the latter is funny at best and manufactured rage at worst. They are not at all equivalent.
I just want to clarify this again because this is just a Reddit-tier mentality thatâs super brain dead: just because Iâm saying this guy isnât a tragic victim doesnât mean Iâm a crazy radical feminist that hates men.
As a brown person. It doesnât matter what color you are. Someoneâs race shouldnât matter at all when comparing how fucked up something is unless itâs directly culturally relevant.
A white guy vs black woman RNA paper writing PhD being told gtfo is equally offensive. Race only matter like if you told the white guy vs black woman something like a joke about picking cotton or the white guy a joke about him fucking his sister.
Telling someone âyou donât matter / you are the enemyâ for over a decade and to millions of people is how an actual white nationalist movement became a thing. You can only tell people how horrible and evil they are until they start to believe in it.
Mocking a culture that has been abused because of their culture (Jews) is worse than mocking a culture that has not been abused for their culture (Karens). But mocking white looking people for being white isnât the same as their culture. It matters what you mock.
Donât punch down. Itâs not more complicated than that. And if youâre not sure if youâre punching down, donât punch.
So if a female biologist who wrote a PHD thesis on the origins of RNA overheard some men talking about the origins of life and when the women wants to chime in because she is a subject matter expert, the men tell her they âdonât need a black womanâs explanationâ. And after being told this she is in the wrong for venting online? Please. Your just as sexist as the people you claim to be opposed to.
You cannot in good faith compare people who have suffered because if their skin color to those who have not, when talking about situations where skin color comes up.
Are both situations racist by pure definition? Sure. Just like punching a man and punching a child are both punching. One is much more wrong.
Fuck all that noiseâŠ
One racially motivated act (say hitting someone because of their skin color) is not any more or less racist depending on the race of the victim. If you believe that, it is by definition a racist value youâre holding.
Thereâs a difference when it comes to contextual, social and historical factors. Like the word cracker is insensitive but doesnât carry the hateful connotations and discrimination that the N-word possesses.
But anyone trying to say itâs more or less appropriate to hate on any single group is just demonstrating their own implicit and explicit racial biases.
This is only true if you donât think the severity of the damage correlates to the severity of the racism. If we go with your definition, then all racism is equivalent, and we canât tell any apart. That seems like an arbitrarily limiting and useless way to think about it. Why would we not want to be able to compare how severe each racist act is?
This is only true if you think all groups are equally strong and equally oppressed by each other and the system. But if thatâs not the case, then I would say itâs OK to be mean to the ones who are stronger or less oppressed. Itâs a means of coping with the inequality. Just like we normal folks like to mock billionaires, while theyâre actively causing suffering.
If one person engages in a racially motivated attack on another individual, it is not any more or less racist if the victim was black or white.
If a man was walking down the street and was beaten to death by an angry mob based entirely on the individualâs race, is it less racially motivated if the victim was one race over another?
Are we punishing people for the sins of our ancestors? Does historic racism against one race justify mistreatment of another thru a retributivist mindset?
This backwards hypervigilant, hypersensitivity and hypocritically encouraging implicit and explicit racism as morally permissible retributivist actions needs to stop. Racism is racism. We need to respect each other as equals if we want racism to stop. Youâre calling for unequal treatment/enforcement of social policies based on oneâs race. Fuck that noise.
Ok, so youâre conflating the terms âracistâ and âracially motivatedâ. Yeah, if you do that, then your point makes sense.
Two different actions with different impacts can be different amounts of racist, but both could be equally racially motivated. For example, itâs way more racist for someone to want to murder a black person than it is for someone to be afraid of a black person and cross the street when theyâre coming. Both are equally racially motivated, but different amounts of racist. See the point? More impact = more racism.
And if we can agree that itâs the âimpactâ that makes something more/less racist, then we can see how a white person saying X and a black person saying X could be different amounts of racist, depending on the impact. If a Latino would call a white person the N word, thatâs less racist than calling a black person that. Right?
I couldnât tell you. All of the racism thatâs present today, and still ongoing, means we donât know the answer to that. Find me a place where this happens and Iâm happy to learn.
Itâs reductive to take that as saying âitâs more appropriate to hate on white peopleâ. They worded it a bit poorly imo but the analogy theyâre responding to is still crappy. There isnât an issue of black women assuming white men donât know the origins of RNA, but there is an issue of men assuming women donât know anything about ânerdyâ things like film. Obviously they assumed wrong with Ed Solomon, but the analogy is still in bad faith because itâs wouldnât be for the same reason.
This specific situation described in this post is an issue of âwomen assuming that the man offering his take on a subject was ignorant about it and driven by machismâ (as thatâs exactly what they accused him off when they called his offer one of âmansplainingâ).
(In fact what makes this a bit of a story is that rather than just saying âNo thanksâ, they instead explicitly accused him of offering an ignorant opinion driven by sexist)
Surelly both the âmen assuming women donât know anything about ânerdyâ things like filmâ and âwomen assuming that men offering their own take on a subject are ignorant and driven by sexismâ are equally wrong?!
How is instantly presuming such bad things about other people purelly on the basis of the number of Y chromossomes they were born with, less sexist if its acting/voicing prejudice (quite literally: they prejudged the other person) from XX persons towards XY persons than if it is from XY persons towards XX persons?
Itâs kinda the whole point of this whole comment thread: prejudice is prejudice and its discriminatory to excuse it for some people but not for others purelly on the bases of some having being born with certain characteristics and the others not.
Youâre making a lot of assumptions about what I said. It doesnât excuse it, I directly said they were wrong in this instance. My comment was directed towards the absurd comparison of women incorrectly assuming a white guy was mansplaining and a black woman who knows about the origins of RNA being dismissed. Itâs really ignorant to equate the widespread, discriminatory assumption of women and black people being stupid and uneducated to two women not giving credit to the MIB writer lol. The former affects your education, livelihood, and career and the latter is funny at best and manufactured rage at worst. They are not at all equivalent.
I just want to clarify this again because this is just a Reddit-tier mentality thatâs super brain dead: just because Iâm saying this guy isnât a tragic victim doesnât mean Iâm a crazy radical feminist that hates men.
As a brown person. It doesnât matter what color you are. Someoneâs race shouldnât matter at all when comparing how fucked up something is unless itâs directly culturally relevant.
A white guy vs black woman RNA paper writing PhD being told gtfo is equally offensive. Race only matter like if you told the white guy vs black woman something like a joke about picking cotton or the white guy a joke about him fucking his sister.
Telling someone âyou donât matter / you are the enemyâ for over a decade and to millions of people is how an actual white nationalist movement became a thing. You can only tell people how horrible and evil they are until they start to believe in it.
What if that person is white of Jewish origin? Or Irish? Heck, I know a Lebanese guy whoâs whiter than me and has red hairâŠ
Mocking a culture that has been abused because of their culture (Jews) is worse than mocking a culture that has not been abused for their culture (Karens). But mocking white looking people for being white isnât the same as their culture. It matters what you mock.
Donât punch down. Itâs not more complicated than that. And if youâre not sure if youâre punching down, donât punch.