charliesharding

> Dictionaries are descriptive of majority usage, Charles. So to put it bluntly, that's the average white person's definition of racism.

I didn't realize you were qualified to assess every non-white person's definition of racism. Do you not see how you're over-reaching in terms of speaking for other people?

> If you disagree with it, you should explain what books on racism you've read and which one you're getting your definition from

I understand that the consequences of racism have been messy, but the definition is not. The definition is simple and plain and I gave you my source but I'll repeat it: "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race".

I'm curious why you believe that white people can't experience racism, William. From the definition it would imply that you think no other race could claim "inherent superior[ity]". I see why you would reject this definition that the majority of society has agreed on because it would make you a dictionary racist.

Go ahead and quote me in context. I'm not going to go back and read through all my comments like you have but I'm sure it's defensible

What makes you think it's ok to make wide, sweeping generalizations about how people of a certain race and gender think and how do you think that doesn't constitute racism?

Right, as in I'm arguing that it's a bad way to view the world... Total non sequitur. No, not everyone engages in identity politics. Only people who are looking for an easy out and not individually assessing ideas and their ramifications

Good intentions do not absolve people of objectively bad ideas. I drew that comparison because they are playing opposite sides of the same game of identity politics, which I'm saying is inherently flawed

> The conclusion is that there are many axes of oppression and one does not invalidate the other

Yet this is the inevitable consequence of intersectional analysis.. It describes a way to calculate value discrepancy of opinions based off group membership of the opinion holder. This is just an attempt to overcorrect the "axes of oppression" from sins of the past. The solution moving forward should not be to sin in the opposite direction - this will just create backlash (re: Charlottesville). It should be centered around empowering individuals and telling people that they can achieve anything because they can. Telling people that they are victims is a great way to ruin them. Everyone is a victim to one thing or another. The answer isn't to dwell and blame your victimhood or oppressors, the answer is to go out there and achieve.

> Disabled white men certainly have their own struggles; disabled black men would have even more struggles.

This is a bizarre take. It sounds like you're saying that no matter what the individual circumstances are, race is the ultimate decider of one's struggle. It could be argued that this is the exact line of thinking that leads to "systemic racism". It's surprising how prevalent this view is, on HN especially. Not two months ago there was a top voted article about how dangerous and stifling the "victimhood mentality" can be. If that is true, why would you so willingly put an entire race of people in the victim bucket? It smacks of the soft bigotry of low expectations.

I am and always will be on your side if you're advocating for personal empowerment of people and groups but I disagree with the tactic of using group membership as the most important deciding factor of someone's experience and a means to discredit one person over another due solely to the nature of their group intersections.

The ironic song about how she doesn't understand the meaning of irony?

Group membership is not the cause.. that's exactly the kind of reasoning that leads to racism. The cause is you believing your identity comes first from being a member of a group rather than being an individual first.

No group dictates the characteristics of the individuals in that group. Instead, the emergent quality of individuals that belong to a group can give that group a stereotype. However, being the unique individual that you know you are, you're capable of shattering any and all of those stereotypes! You're right that you can solve it for yourself; focus on that opportunity/growth mindset! Don't let anyone tell you how you should think/act because of your group "membership"

> Just having a 'racist' feeling doesn't make someone racist.

I would argue that that is exactly what racism is. It's having an irrational feeling towards someone and assuming they have characteristics based solely on their race. Why is it so hard to judge people on a case-by-case basis? By your own admission you say that these personal anxieties are irrational and then you go on to attribute it to being a minority. If instead you attribute it to yourself personally, it becomes a problem that you can solve for yourself rather than an affliction of which you are victim to. There are plenty of minorities (myself included) who don't feel this way.

That isn't at all the logical conclusion. You're projecting your dislike of religion and ironically being just as dogmatic in your dismissal. They were responding to the TLC poster saying they threw away a piece of machinery just because it was loud and they didn't see anyone using it. Given that characterization, would you say they were acting out of curiosity? Curiosity would be asking people what it was for before throwing it away - which is what the parable implores.

Without moral judgement? Jump to conclusions? The favicon and main graphic shows a bomb with a cross through it. The actual domain is a pointed question designed to assign blame. The graphic is intentionally misleading (as others pointed out), hiding the raw numbers and showing them as the radius size instead of area, drastically inflating the apparent size. The quote at the bottom is from 1984 - a book about a dystopian government.

> When you trespass, you are striking a blow against hierarchy and capitalism and uptight motherfuckers everywhere.

I think the controversy comes from the authors overall tone. Quotes like this make them sound like an edgy teenager