microbet- You're a ****ing moron. When you say "generational", you mean that you're a child and we're adults and our usage of the term confuses and frightens you, right? As you get older things will make more sense for you. Probably. Maybe not, though, because as stated, you seem like a ****ing moron.

Only whites can be racist, but upon becoming the minority, they insta-lose their racist powers?

How does that work? Are there like balloons and confetti when the final, critical Mexican breaks thru as CEO and tweets #MexicansinChargeNOw ...? Or how do Whites even know they've been dethroned, and are no longer society's racists?

Yes, I did, and yes I do. I see little possibility of making realistic progress towards eliminating institutionalized racism as long as everybody is pointing the finger somewhere else and all the blame rests with some imaginary "real racist" that nobody can actually identify. We are all part of the problem. We should accept that and put as much effort into curbing our own racist tendencies as we do in pointing out others'.

Going back (yet again) to BruceZ, his very first reaction was to blow up in Politards and swear up and down that no way no how had he ever said or done anything that had a negative impact on anybody. That is so patently absurd, not just because it is obviously untrue and nobody believed it, but because he apparently wants to believe it about himself in the exact same context where he was spewing bigotry.

Consider the alternative where BruceZ says, "Yeah wow, that was out of line. I'm sorry. I need to work on my own prejudice." Bruce becomes a better person, 2+2 becomes a better place, and the whole ensuing ****show never happens. All of that just from one person taking responsibility for their actions and trying to improve.

Mother****er, stop trying to not be argumentative!

Who said anything about being a majority or minority?

All white folk aren't racists.

Right in your definition ... you restrict it to the "non-dominant" race only.

Thus only whites (today's dominant race) can be racist, in any real way.

You don't seem to understand what your definition implies.

Yes lv, that is what it means.

Cue idiotic derail about "black racism".

His definition was turrble.
He doubled down.
You make absolutely no sense.

What will happen next?

Breakfast, I think. I'm peckish.

And once again, what does that have to do with majority/minority?

Let's take apartheid South Africa. The majority wasn't close to being white, the dominant race was white.

No, a person is a racist if they speak or act in support of racism. Anybody of any race can do that... in a very real way. If a hotel owner refuses to rent rooms to blacks... they're a racist, regardless of what race that hotel owner happens to personally be.

If all that is true, explain why your definition is restricted thusly:

Non-dominant races are discriminated against. The dominant race does the discriminating. The dominant race today is whites. Therefore whites are the discriminators--the racists--under your definition ...

You are being slippery.

Oh yea, cuz black-on-black racism is what everybody's got their hair on fire about these days. That is truly an awesome escape hatch Trolley.

What if the hotel owner refuses to rent rooms to the dominant race because of their race? What is that?

Something that is too rare to be worth talking about imo.

This is where you are failing.

Races can't discriminate. Races are just simply culturally defined sets of people.

In a region where blacks can't work as railroad engineers, it isn't all-white-people-as-a-group refusing to hire them for that job. It's the owners of the railroads. And those owners could be of any race.

It's racial animus.

This is a good question. The point here is that racial animus is a separate concept than the concept of racism.

You can have racial animus against blacks and not be racist. Hating black folk doesn't make you a racist. What makes you a racist is speaking or acting in support of systemic institutionalized discrimination of blacks.

Conversely, you can be a racist, and not have any racial animus towards non-dominate races. An owner who maximizes profits by paying blacks less money for equal work can most certainly have no racial animus at all... they could just be greedy. In fact, they could easily have plenty of black friends.

I'm not MrWookie, I'm more of the good looking sidekick who is quick with the quips and doesn't really do any of the difficult work. So as Han Solo here's my view. Western society (mostly america but elsewhere too) is still pretty messed up with regards to race relations. I listen to a bunch of podcasts and read other forums and often the implicit assumption that for example being scared of a big black guy walking down a night time street towards you isn't a sad commentary on prejudice which one should seek to overcome, rather it's just plain common sense, and people who feel that way aren't racist merely sensible. I think that is the major disconnect.

The 2+2 politics community is out in front of the average american. Now we're right and they're wrong but it can be jarring to people used to making black/mexican/whatever jokes at a poker table and not getting called out on it because they genuinely do not believe that behaviour to be racist. Somehow the widespread definition of racist has come to mean a person that basically doesn't exist, the cross burner or the slaveowner and people imagine that if you call them or their actions/posts racist you are saying they are a KKK member level racist.

The problem with the widespread definition is that it lets off the hook people like Jman who are probably nice guys with a few black friends who consider themselves moral people but who contribute (in a small but meaningful way) to the continued oppression of minorities purely through their "sensible" assumptions. It is the cumulative effect of all the prejudiced "nice guys" that creates the ****ed up society we inhabit.

So what does that mean for this forum? Often the anti-racists get accused of shutting down "open and honest debate" with cries of racism. This is an inevitable consequence of when poeple with the "common sense" definition of racism post things that meet people with the "are you contributing in a small but meaningful way to the oppression of minorities" definition. Generally as far as I see the only ones shutting down debate are the first kind. Bruce could have come and engaged us, sharing his intellectual wisdom but we hurt his feelings with our honest (and open) opinions of his posts so he did a number of odd and questionable things instead. To me that is more on him to change rather than us. To me an open and honest debate includes me and others pointing and laughing at the dumb **** you say to prop up the image you have of yourself as a "good guy" who therefore cannot be a racist, combined with the prejudicial stuff you post. It often seems that those calling for an "open and honest debate" want people like fly who are prepared to call them on their bull**** silenced. That to me seems like a major contradiction. What they seem to want is a place to re-affirm their poker table assumptions (black people are scary yo) without being challenged.

So I say have an open unmoderated forum as sunlight is the best medicine but have some very clear banner which says to new posters your definition of racism is unlikely to be the one held by the most vocal members of this community. Try not to whine too hard and you might end up learning something.

Meh I don't know if the above post is worth the pixels it's displayed on, if there's even a legible point there. But I spent 15 minutes writing it so I'm hitting post rather than delete. Sorry.

I agree with that, but I think you're missing that a subset of the "anti-racist" group really does want to shut down the debate. Calls for BruceZ to be banned, demodded*, etc. is a form of shutting down the debate.

* There are possible other reasons that he should have been demodded during this fiasco. But there was definitely a lot of "If you don't demod him 2+2 is condoning racism", which seems a little much.

I agree with this. I think there's a type of "debate" that we all want shut down, the slur slinging obvious ******* racist who wear it with pride. But that calling for the banning of "nice guy" racists is not in line with an open debate style forum and should be saved for our beloved politards alpha where we value decorum over full openness.

Point, laugh, mock, insult and debase but no need to call for a ban.

Race is physical tho. Races look different; so, race isn't only about how a culture stereotypes them. This definition is problematic too.

I can't proceed.

This.

Excellent idea.

That's because you put your blinders on when they're pointed out to you. I'm the perfect example of a false accusation.

Dude, substitute gender. Cis-normal gender is physical, no argument there.

Genders can't discriminate. Genders are just simply sets of people.

In a region where women can't work as railroad engineers, it isn't all-males-as-a-group refusing to hire them for that job. It's the owners of the railroads. And those owners could be of any gender.

Well GTFO and in the future STFU. Good riddance.

This is very interesting. Good post.

Zikzak, yeah that's a fine post. (The long one)

Serious proposal: Any chance we can make jjshabby the mod here instead of spanky?