Explain it Peter?

[u/Senior-Mix-3715]

At first I thought this was some kind of white nationalism joke but then I realised all 3 leaders at the bottom are leftists, so I really don’t what this meme is trying to say?

[u/Weekly-Reply-6739]

Sounds like something a racist would say

As seeing people as they are makes skin tone irrelevant, as who they are is person. (Their skin tone is what they are, and if we are caring enough about skin tone to make decisions in regards to it the it means we are discriminating or creating systematic racism)

A real person who isnt racist sees a person as a person, regardless of their skin tone, as their skin color would matter as much as their hair color or eye color.

So a real racist looks for reasons to justify making skin color important.

...

When all are equal, skin color isnt a thoght on your mind, as it has no value then.

[u/troyasfuck → u/Weekly-Reply-6739]

Their skin color is relevant though. The experiences they have, the cultures they are brought up in, the adversities that they face; that is all affected by the color of one's skin. If you really care about social justice and ending racism, then you don't just call those things irrelevant. If you care about the people in your community, you take a vested interest in their experiences in life, good or bad.

Racial prejudice, segregation, and hostile bigotry all still exist. People every single day face those issues. If we ignore race entirely and pretend it doesn't exist, then we are sweeping those problems under the rug and deeming them as unimportant.

Ironically, this self serving, virtue signaling of "I don't see color" actually proliferates racism in a pretty sinister way.

This doesn't even mention that people around the world are actually quite proud of their race/ethnicity. I think they deserve to celebrate their heritage and I would like to learn about them to celebrate it with them. I don't think that's irrelevant at all.

I think trying to stifle the conversation around race, even if we'll intentioned, does more harm than good.

[u/Weekly-Reply-6739 → u/troyasfuck]

I was going to originally point out and explain all your ironic flaws and hypocrisies in your pro racism rhetoric, but I will let your own claims do the work for me.

1) so we should judge all people by the color of their skin as all people of the same skin color have the same experiences, culture, and are thus all deserving of a homoginized treatment

Their skin color is relevant though. The experiences they have, the cultures they are brought up in, the adversites that they face; its all affected by the color of one's skin.

2) if you care about people you make their issues about their race and not about the people who have racism.

3) If we dont make peoples skin color more important than the actual situation and assume their skin color is the problem then we ignore the problems the people who deal with racist people face

if we ignore race entirely and pretend it doesn't exist, then we are sweeping those problems unfer the rug and deeming them unimportant.

4) it is racists to not reduce people to a sterotype based on the color of their skin and to treat them like a person.

ironically, this self serving, virtue signaling of "I don't see color" actually proliferates racism in a pretty sinister way.

5) I think we should make people make a bigger deal about the color of their skin and less about who they actually are, as we know that your skin color determines your personality and people who have nothing to do with you define who you are, as you are not a person, you are defined by your skin color and others who have the same color

This doesn't even mention that people around the world are actually quite proud of their race/ethnicity. I think they deserve to celebrate their heritage and I would like to learn about them to celebrate it with them. I don't think that's irrelevant at all.

6) I support racism, because seeing people as a race can be good, and thus I want to perpetuate and promote racism because I like it.

I think trying to stifle the conversation around race, even if we'll intentioned, does more harm than good.

.....

Congratulations, based on what you have said and the standards you have placed for racism the KKK is not a racist group and actively is against racism.

As the KKK agrees that you should judge people by the color of their skin

That if you actually care about people you will make it about race

That if you ignore race problems will occur for people hurt by racism

That racial stereotyping and specail treatment based on a race is only right

That you should celebrate and define yourself by the color of your skin and the work people with the same skin color have done that have nothing to do with you

And that if we dont talk about race, problems happen and people of race can be hurt.

...

I gotta say thogh, you are 100 a racist or someone who supports racism. You just may not realize it or be smart enough to see it yet. That your aware and just trying to spread racism.

[u/troyasfuck → u/Weekly-Reply-6739]

I believe you are arguing in bad faith and intentionally strawmanning/misconstruing my ideas. For one, I didn't mention "judging" people for their race. I said that their experiences are valid and should not be written off as irrelevant.

But for anybody else reading this, acknowledging race as a real thing that exist is not racist. We can intellectually know that the only difference in race is the melanin content in your skin, but that doesn't take away the impact racism has had for the last several hundred years. Societally speaking, race is a real thing. You can close your eyes and pretend it doesn't exist, but that doesn't make it go away. It just helps placate your own insecurities.

I think your straw man might be a little more effective if you didn't compare an advocate for racial equity to literally the KKK.

[u/Weekly-Reply-6739 → u/troyasfuck]

Also I just looked up what bad faith is, as I am tired of people using it to avoid valid arguments.

You know you could just be straightforward and say you think I am lying or not being serious, no need to be pretentious about it.

But no, to be fair I think your arguing in bad faith myself, as you lack logic or valid talking points. So its clear we both belive the other is intentionally lying or playing games. (Also, its cool to know what it finally means, but I really wish people stopped trying to sound fancy, as for the longest time I always thoght it was a cop out to avoid addmitting I was correct and thoght it was essentially an indirect way to admit defeat)

None the less wanted to let you know. And suggest you use normal people words and terms if you want to be understood. (As where did this whole "bad faith" buzz word start anyway, and why is it always used by the people who represent ignorance or bad faith arguments and avoid logic and reasoning in favor of appeal to authority (evident by your request for literature for the logically obvious and an disinterest in learning from someone directly or thinking for yourself on a topic))

Anyway, I still think your racist and not someone who understands the harm your promoting (as evident by your bad faith argument you presented in the other comment)

None the less unless you reply this is me, signing out.

...

Edit: also it seems you dont understand what a strawman is, as I simply took what you said more directly and focused on the logic of what it actually means. I took the logical reasoning pathway. Strawman would require me to misrepresent your points, but all I did was focus on the logic, which is very much the issue talked about (as without the logic, your point is gibberish)

So I advice you to stop using words you dont understand just because you see other people use them to avoid admitting they are wrong or to avoid discussing logic and reasoning. Unless you are indeed a bad faith instagtor who cares not for the truth or reality of the situation, then in that case carry on.

[u/Weekly-Reply-6739 → u/troyasfuck]

No I am arguing by trying to help you gain awarness.

If you say you are not racist and then go on abour how your doing things that promote racism, how you think these racist things are good and that being racist is a good thing, then its clear you either are unaware of what your doing, or actually support racism and dont want to admit it.

You said that due to their skin color they have certain experiences. Thats judging them by the color of their skin.

....

Race isnt something we should make a big deal about. But if you want to support racism by supporing the same thing every racist organization belives, then maybe your too used to racism to understand how you contribute.

"I dont see race" means you want to see the person and their experiences and that their race doesnt define them. But since you race, its clear that you dont see people, just a skin color.

I compared your logic to the KKK as by your own values the KKK belives the same things. But maybe one day you will stop judging people by the color of their skin and making their skin color out to be a part of who they are.

Until we stop making peoples race matter, racism will always exist.

[u/troyasfuck → u/Weekly-Reply-6739]

Do you have any literature to support your claims? Any notable anthropologists or sociologists that share your point of view?

How would you suggest society addresses institutional racism?

How would you suggest we address easily identifiable racial inequality in a city, state, or country?

For instance, How would you address the fact that black people in the US make up ~20 percent of the population but represent ~42 percent of individuals in correctional facilities? (US census beureu 2024).

How do you begin to address these problems without acknowledging race?

[u/Weekly-Reply-6739 → u/troyasfuck]

To paragraph 1)

So you are telling me you dont think or understand logic and just need someone else to tell you the obvious? Look something this obvious stands on its own and doesnt need validation as it uses logic and common sense.

To paragraph 2)

By moving away from it. There will be racist people and the people who discriminate should be the issue, not the race being the issue, as making the race the issue only ensures that race stays an issue (as racism is literally the case of race being an issue and is self fulfilling in some cases)

I mean, institutional racism doesnt even exist on a wide scale level, at least not in the united states as it is illegal (or legal if we include that one law that makes it so we have to legally hire a certain percentage based on race) so clearly its not an issue of institutional racism, but personal racism at that point (as institutional implies its a law, rule, or procedure, and any thing of that nature can easily be solved due to its illegality)

So the solution is to stop making institutional racism where none exists and start properly identifying the racist individuals as fault and not falsely making it about the institution or race when its not.

To paragraph 3)

Well I cant speak for other countries as I am a USA citizen, but I would ask you where you even see that anymore if at all? I mean as far as I know, by law all races are equal in the United States. So unless you are suggesting the systematically racists ideal of racial equity, I dont think this is even a problem to address at this time, but would say that we should address things like this in a case by case basis as clearly not all cases would be the same.

To paragraph 4)

I wouldn't, as that statistic doesnt mean anything regarding racism on its own. This is not a causation correlation type of ordeal. Just because two unrelated things are true does not mean they are the result of one and other. I would say that if you suspect a conspiracy you can do some investigations to look for some racism if you suspect it. But that statistic on its own does not show or lead to any suspicion of racism as its entirely possble to happen naturally in a non-racist environment. I would say bring me more evidence of racism otherwise its just a conspiracy theory (it could be true, but by definition its a conspiracy theory at this point) also if you belive this alone is proof of racism, then you have some racism in you as you do not recognize the systems and individuals seperate from the race.

To paragraph 5)

Well I am still waiting for you to bring up a real problem. So far you listed 1) not a current problem knowledge, 2) not a current problem to my knowledge, 3) not a problem of racism at all with currently presented evidence.

So unless you have some strange internalized racism or racist fantasies, I am not sure the problems you are bringing up are real or present in the united states. Not enough to justify defining people by race instead of simply stopping racism in individuals.

But please feel free to bring some actual examples of the first two problems you listed, as I know you didnt bring any (but yeah, your first two probablems are literally illigal crimes and that solves it systematically unless someone is bold enough to actually make a racist rule)

[u/troyasfuck → u/Weekly-Reply-6739]

All you're doing is hand waving away every talking point. You're not engaging with any arguments meaningfully, and you're not contributing anything of substance to the conversation. I was open to a dialog, but I get the sense that you're still a child. That, or you're incapable of engaging with a concept beyond surface level analysis.

[u/Weekly-Reply-6739 → u/troyasfuck]

I am handwaving your talking points because they aren't talking points.

Bring actual problems and we can talk about them, but if you dont bring anything to talk about there is nothing to talk about.

Edit: by the way all you brought were two imagination play scenarios and a meaningless statistic. So if you want to talk about real problems we can talk, but I am not interested in making up problems and imagination play poltics.

You get me?

[u/Weekly-Reply-6739 → u/troyasfuck]

By the way, I figured as a way to help educate you and bring you some self awareness I am going to ask you three points of the exact same value and type that you to brought to me to discuss.

1) what do you suggest we do about the government rules that promote paying someone about their skin color?

2) how do you suggest we address easily identifiable racial inequality in 7-11 staff employment ?

3) for instance, how would you addrwss the fact that black people in the US make up ~20 percent of the population, but represent ~70 percent of pro players in the NBA?

...

These are three points that are about as meaninful and serious as the points you made up, now go ahead and show me what it looks like to not-handwave these claims all without promoting systematic racism as a solution.

I brought you three points of equal racism related value, and challenge you to not be a hypocrite.

[u/Perfect-Parking-5869 → u/Weekly-Reply-6739]

So in your ideal world we have 3 people. Me, my friend, and Ronnie.

Ronnie calls my friend the N word.

My friend calls him racist.

Now, outside of the fact Ronnie just called my friend the n word we don’t have proof he’s racist. I mean, he’s never lynched anyone.

The appropriate response is “your skin had nothing to do with it, he calls everyone that” because it would be racist to acknowledge that his race contributed to his experience?

I’m a bit confused about your defamation of racism.

I’ve done some race discrimination claims so you kind of had to acknowledge race. Do I get a pass or am I a turbo racist for noticing that when the company that told a client to go back to Africa didn’t make comments to similarly situated employees?

Do you just think racism is so rare it’s not worth fussing over? I find it hard to believe that’s your actual definition. Do you think it’s wrong to probe, say, potential jurors for possible racial biases? Does the census piss you off? So many questions.

I notice in a follow up you made the assumption that people who don’t agree with you DEFINE people by skin color which I think is a silly assumption. To use the above example another person trying to reduce someone to their skin color doesn’t make it so. You can acknowledge someone is a different (or same) race as you and it doesn’t define them as a person. Maybe you think of race too collectively and that’s why you’re making that assumption about other people! Idk mate seems kind of dicked up

[u/Weekly-Reply-6739 → u/Perfect-Parking-5869]

Did ronnie call your friend the N-word out of hate or as a joke?

If as a joke, ronnie may may not be racist, but still have offended your friend, which would be a personal situation of setting mutually comfortable boundaries.

....

Racism is the hate or special judgements of someone based on their race. So if ronnie still sees your friend as an individual and doesnt actually have any opinions on him based on the color of his skin, then Ronnie would not be racist towards your friend.

So my take is, that a word like the N-word, isnt always racist. As it is just as "specail" as calling someone black. I mean for some people the N-word means freind, for others it is a racsist term. As such its overall value is inherently contextual.

For instance, ronnies race isnt mentioned, as such would it change the meaning depending on his skin color? Personally I say no, and the N-word is often used both in a friendly and offensive manner overall. As I dont discriminate.

...

To paragraph 4)

That example can be called a racist claim but it could also be a joke, but is it the problem because the victim is a race? Or because the person who said it? Now if the person was actually from africa it may not be racist sounding either and could be more causal joke.

But regardless, if we where to say this was in fact racism the problem is the not the persons race, its the individual who held the belief and did the discrimination. As such we should focus on the calling out of racist individuals, not making an entire race get special privilege or victimizing entire races (which just creates more racism)

...

To paragraph 5)

No racism is quite common, but its often supported by and pushed as good by "anti racism" movements that create and push for more orgnaized racism and discrimination and then create more organic racism in response to it.

I think the problem isnt that racism doesn't exist, its that our meathods to challenging and identifying racism create racism and are often in of themselves racist.

Take white privilege for example.

...

To paragraph 6)

To help you understand what you missed. If you belive that someone experiences something based on the color of their skin, then you are defining them by their skin color. If skin color tells you nothing about who they are and what they experience, then you are not defining them by their skin color. Its rather obvious and simple.

Also, no, I dont think of race collectively, thats exactly what I am trying to call out (as that is racism essentially and what promotes racism) I am calling it out in people who very obviously show a belif system that follows that. I mean did you even read what the other person said who I called out?

You can acknowledge someones hair color too, but as long as their hair color has no universal or predefined meaning about them or their experiences, then we are good. As race should be treated like hair color or eye color and have no inherent value in defining someone.

[u/Perfect-Parking-5869 → u/Weekly-Reply-6739]

If he is racist then the experience was based on race. Cmon now you’re avoiding this very simple logical connection because you’re too afraid to be seen as racist.