News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Traditionally racism that is based on statistics and aggregate numbers still counts. If someone were to say that black people are on average responsible for [insert problem here], even if it were true, that's generally considered racist.
And, that's a bit silly. I can call someone doing racist black caricatures racist against black people without knowing if some particular country's population is generally considered to be black.
Traditionally based on what? What tradition is this? Who made it a tradition?
And if you can't determine the criteria for whiteness, how can you know if anything you say is racist? It could be true once you determine the criteria.
Also:
Jews don't have a country. Jew and Israeli are not synonyms. That is bigotry.
The analogy still works if we're talking about a race rather than a country. You're nitpicking the details, not attacking the actual point being made. The point is that there is no such thing as a strict definition of race, but that such a thing isn't necessary to talk about race as a concept. It would be like saying "you can't say you like sandwiches unless you define what a sandwich is". We all know on the internet that is an impossible definition, but we can still meaningfully talk about sandwiches.
The natural evolution of the English language as determined by multiple societies. I'm using the most common definition of racism that I know. No definition is kore valid than any other in theory, so if you want to explain what you think racism is I'll switch to talking about your definition.
I'm not nitpicking on the details, I'm pointing out you yourself said something which, in context, sure sounded bigoted to me.
Perhaps you're not the best judge of bigotry?
And let's see evidence of this "natural evolution" that involves statistics. That doesn't sound like how language works to me.
I needed a way to refer to a racial group that could potentially be a part of a larger race. The word "subrace" would be accurate but sounds incredibly racey and probably has bad connotations that I'm not aware of so I used the example of a small, semi-distinct racial group potentially within a larger race. Many countries have small distinct racial groups, which seemed like the best example. Sue me.
Literally what does this even mean? What are you talking about??
Anyways, now that I've clarified my point you can stop nitpicking and respond to my actual argument. Or are you only interested in calling me a bigot?
You seem to have a poor memory:
Then I asked you what makes it traditional and you said:
So let's see some evidence of this natural evolution based on statistics and aggregate numbers.
Why yes I do have a memory disorder, thanks for reminding me. I must've forgotten.
But, I think you're confused about what I'm saying there. I'm not saying that the evolution of language is "based on statistics and aggregate numbers", and I don't see how it could be interpreted that way. I'm saying that language naturally evolves, and that the definition of racism that I see most commonly has evolved into including negative statements about a race based on factual statistics. For example, "80% of [insert race here] commits [insert type of crime here]". Even if it were true, that would be considered racist. If you don't agree, ok, I'll use your definition.
Anyways, I'm not sure why I'm arguing about this. You literally agreed with a comment calling an entire race of people troglodytes who the op was ashamed to share their genetics with. I'm pretty sure it was satire. So. Yeah, idk what else to say here
Facts aren't racist, they're facts. "80% of ___ commits ___ crime" is not racist if it's true.
And, again, please do show me evidence of a definition of racism that includes true statements.
Ok, then you're not racist for pointing out that white people are responsible for some horrible things. You would still be racist for calling them troglodytes though.
The majority of white men voted for Trump.
60% of white men who voted voted for Trump. And if you count all the white men who didn't vote at all, thus letting Trump get into power, it's far, far higher number.
That last definition sounds right to me.
You're generalizing that trend to the whole race
You're assigning all the blame to white people when other races also increased their support of Trump (eg. it doubled among black men)
Including the people who didn't vote, I'm pretty sure every race has a majority of ignorant people, yet you only call white people troglodytes
In short, you're making it more about race than it is. I propose the much more accurate delineation that uninformed people elected Trump. It's valuable to note that white people did that the most, but with all the caveats above I think the generalization is unwarranted.
I'll say a similar thing to you to what I said to the other person who is very upset that people dare to blame white men for things...
When Native Americans say, "the white man stole our land," are they racists?
Why are we ignoring white women? Your numbers aren't quite as good in that department. Still >50%, but we seem to have gotten a bit narrower for no reason here, no?
Anyways, no, they aren't racist, because white people did steal their land. They were the ones making all the decisions and they were overwhelmingly of the mind that native americans were a worse race. They perpetrated a literal racial genocide. Did they all do this? No, but they nearly all supported it. You can make the claim that the overwhelming majority of the entire race was racist and was totally on board with colonialism. So, you can say that the race, as a whole, is to blame. It would still be racist to blame an individual white person who had no part in the genocide. But the claim validly applies to the race as a whole, so it's not racist to make under your own definition.
That's very different from white people having a ~5% majority with very strong internal disagreements when they elected Trump.
The ones making all the decisions? So just like now with U.S. politicians and Palestinians? Also U.S. politicians and sick people? Also U.S. politicians and the environment?
So just like now?
Not seeing the difference yet.
...yes...? And?
I don't know how to tell you this but if you don't see the difference between 90% support with negligible resistance in the native american case, and 45-62% support (I'm dividing it based on education, not gender, since that makes more sense) with 35-51% opposition in the Trump case, you are so far from the reality that I see that you've reached escape velocity. In no world is a 10% lead "nearly all".
Please show me where you got the 90% support figure from.
It was revealed to me in a dream
To be serious, I very much doubt reliable polling data from the 1700s exists on this subject. If less people supported it than I thought, then it was less racist. It seems like most white people were fine with it though, so native americans pointing out that it happened is not racist, unless they're applying that fault to an individual white person.
You mean you're making a broad assumption about a race of people without knowing the facts?
That sounds racist based on the criteria you've laid down.
It's not an assumption, it's supported by historical accounts and is reflected in our past actions. What are you arguing? That the historical genocide of native americans wasn't partially based on large-scale racism? Stop trying to gotcha me and realize that you're implying some pretty weird stuff.
Anyways, we're just going around in circles. We're not making much rhetorical progress. I'm now in the car on my way to Christmas so I think it's time for me to take my leave instead of arguing about racism on the internet. Thanks for the convo, and happy Hanukkah if you celebrate.
Large-scale racism? You mean not all white people were racist?
Seems again, like based on your own criteria, you are making a racist claim.
Yup, there were people who protested the status quo and did not support the racist endeavors, and may not have been racist themselves. But from what I know of that period of history, it was rare. Note that I didn't use the statements about the overall situation to assign blame to any particular person.
I'm not following your claim that I'm racist and I don't really care to since you seem intent on repeatedly trying to call me racist and none of the previous claims have been accurate. Stop trying to "win" the argument, I'm already out. Take the opportunity to exit gracefully and enjoy the holiday season and move on.
Irony.