No because "racism" typically refers to things pointed at oppressed minorities, not whiny majorities mad about losing a tiny bit their privilege.

But I get that white racists have latched onto "You're the real racist!" as a rallying cry for pretty much any time they're accused of racism.

Your undergrad publishes bottom of the class somewhere?

Racism = prejudice+power, bigots, GET IT RIGHT

(also liebruls are the real racists)

This has nothing to do with oppressed minorities or white racists. Your statement that AA is not racist was, based on the actual definition of racism, false.

Yeah and based on the standard working definition of racism that most non-racists use - AA is not racist. semantikes itt

Jews were literally almost wiped off the face of the planet but you are considering them privileged instead of discriminated against?

A black person can't be convicted for a hate crime against another black person, yet a white person can. Is this a racist policy?

Edit Sorry misread your post thought you said black vs white

I don't think w vs w or b vs b should be considered hate crimes

lol, no one has to do math. people could literally type their income into a box and it would spit out how much they owe or get paid. It automatically takes care of things like making sure taxes are progressive and also provides for direct transfer payments assuring that all Americans get hard cash equating to at least 60% of the poverty level.

No one said privileged, just not under-represented in the student body. The goal of AA is for student bodies to be representative of the general populace. This is deemed as a worthy goal for a lot of reasons - mainly to avoid creating a perpetual underclass based on race, or to attempt cut into the current underclass which exists.

Just because the majority being racist towards the minority is the most common usage does not mean that it is impossible to work in reverse, cmon man. FWIW I am not anti-AA, just confused by your insistence here

I mean you can argue that AA is a net benefit to society, fine, but I don't see how you can argue that it isn't racist.

But by you and bware's definition this policy is racist because it takes race into account when deciding some benefit or punishment.

Well yea, our definition is the actual definition of racism

Of course it's possible to work in reverse. But the word "racism" just isn't used that way that often - is my point. By the strict definition sure. But in general working language there's a whole bunch of other baggage that comes along with racism than just the strict literal meaning - including historical context.

Great so any policy which considers race is racist. Most would not agree with this (again in the working use of the word).

Lol suzzer

Lol affirmative action

What an inane and ridiculous argument

lol suzzer. Affirmative action is definitely racist. I believe it also can be used for good in some instances, but it should be applied circumstantially and not as a broad policy.

So how about hate crime laws - racist? They should be by the semantic definition you want to use.

Hair care products marketed to black people - racist? Just trying to figure out where the line is here. Seems like you and the others want to define anything that considers race as "racist".

Ikes,

Random dude with absurd scorching take that "a presidential candidate worrying about poor in the US makes no sense unless they also care equally about poors everywhere". I point out that it's a dumb take by simply making one of many obvious reasons why, namely, those countries aren't under US control.

You then come in and say it's hypocritical of me because "my guy" (he isn't and I've made quite clear my voting preferences and why ITT) but hey why let that get in your way) is anti-free trade without restrictions with any country for all things. Which, again, is equally as dumb as the original hot take for the same reason, on top of which, dude is running for a job where the express goal is to optimize for the USA, not humanity, then you tacking on the ludicrous idea that even IF Bernie was "my guy" that somehow I necessarily agree with the totality of his positions or my own beliefs are somehow internally inconsistent. Which for a guy (you) who really doesn't support any one candidate should be really damn obvious that no one agrees with all of what any of these candidates think.

Car ride over. Should help explain a little. Kisses.

I typed up a reply but deleted it for the sake of ending this argument. Lol bringing up hair care products though

Can we please leave the semantikes debates to the Politics forum?

Hate crime laws are not racist. Advertising can racist but your example is not.

Cliffs: you completely ignored my whole point that we shouldn't worry about other countries citizens at the expense of our own, thus ascribing to me a belief I don't actually hold, then ascribed someone else as "my candidate" and further ascribed the totality of his beliefs to me then somehow decried that whole combination of made up nonsense of a position, candidate and viewpoint I don't share as me being inconsistent.