Why are antiracists so... racist?

[Akka]

In the very remote possible case you might actually be of good faith (which I honestly doubt considering how often the subject rise up these days), the "anti-racists are racists" comes from the fact that many very outspoken "anti-racist" are constantly putting race at the forefront, promoting race-based policies, and for a number of them are speaking about "whites" in a way that is textbook racism (while claiming they aren't by trying to redefine racism being only applicable to people suffering for systemic racial oppression).

So unless you jump in the boat of altering definitions just so they fit current agenda, then yeah they are also racists.

 

[Cutlass]

In the very remote possible case you might actually be of good faith (which I honestly doubt considering how often the subject rise up these days), the "anti-racists are racists" comes from the fact that many very outspoken "anti-racist" are constantly putting race at the forefront, promoting race-based policies, and for a number of them are speaking about "whites" in a way that is textbook racism (while claiming they aren't by trying to redefine racism being only applicable to people suffering for systemic racial oppression).

So unless you jump in the boat of altering definitions just so they fit current agenda, then yeah they are also racists.

That sounds like the deflection of the facts that racists use to me.

The simple fact is that you cannot address racism without mentioning race. Racists like to pretend that the problem will just go away if people stop talking about it. But at the same time the racists themselves never stop being racist. So those opposed to racists have no choice in the matter. If they don't bring up race, then the racists win, and just keep going on being racist forever. But if they do bring up race, then the racists claim that those are the real racists, and that justifies their own racism. Racists have thus created a no win scenario for anyone who opposes racism.

What racism really is is the hatred of, contempt of, or discrimination of, some group of people for no other reason than the race those people happen to be. Anti-racists simply do not do that. But liars like to claim that they do, because they are racists liars.

The simple fact is that there is no solution to racism in which race is not mentioned, because racists won't stop being racists until it is forced down their throats. They just don't have the morals, the ethics, the human decency, or the religious convictions necessary to be decent human beings. Because if they did, they would understand that they are the scum of the earth, and reform themselves. But since they don't reform themselves, then it has to be imposed on them.

The only group at fault here is the racists themselves. And if you aren't seeing that, then I have to assume that you are one of them.

 

[Akka]

And if you aren't seeing that, then I have to assume that you are one of them.

Literally the caricature : "you either agree with me or you're a racist !"
No dissension allowed, no possibility that the reasoning might be questioned, follow the dogma or be branded a traitor or a foe !
Says it all, and shows there is no point trying to explain you where your arguments are wrong. It's obvious, both from your post and the past experience with other zealots here, that there is simply no way to discuss the point.

No wonder the USA are sinking into the most ridiculous fanatical partisanship war.

 

[Cutlass]

Literally the caricature : "you either agree with me or you're a racist !"
No dissension allowed, no possibility that the reasoning might be questioned, follow the dogma or be branded a traitor or a foe !
Says it all, and shows there is no point trying to explain you where your arguments are wrong. It's obvious, both from your post and the past experience with other zealots here, that there is simply no way to discuss the point.

No wonder the USA are sinking into the most ridiculous fanatical partisanship war.

So stop being so partisan. Stop defending vermin.

 

[Akka]

Ah yeah "everyone who disagrees with what I say is a RACIST and defend VERMIN ! And stop being PARTISAN by not blindly accepting whatever idiotic argument I claim to be the Truth !".
That, again, speaks for itself.

 

[Hygro]

The simple fact is that you cannot address racism without mentioning race. Racists like to pretend that the problem will just go away if people stop talking about it. But at the same time the racists themselves never stop being racist. So those opposed to racists have no choice in the matter. If they don't bring up race, then the racists win, and just keep going on being racist forever. But if they do bring up race, then the racists claim that those are the real racists, and that justifies their own racism. Racists have thus created a no win scenario for anyone who opposes racism.

This is the content to focus on.

 

[inthesomeday]

Akka, if what I say is "racism is bad" then everyone who disagrees with what I say is indeed a racist. That includes collaborators "moderates" who say "WELL HEY NOW PINKO THATS PRETTY SUPPRESSIVE OF YOU WHAT ABOUT ALL THE PEOPLE WHO THINK RACISM IS GOOD??? GUESS WE KNOW WHO THE REAL RACIST IS"

I mean the argument you guys are trying to make is "anti racists are racists". Like, I thought words have meanings? "Antarctica is literally the Arctic." "Antiviral treatments might as well be infecting you with actual viruses."

 

[Akka]

This is the content to focus on.

Yes, and it's already been answered in several threads. With the same dogmatic "I'm right, you're wrong and you're a RACIST AND ANYONE DISAGREEING WITH ME IS A NAZI AND HITLER !" reaction.

Akka, if what I say is "racism is bad" then everyone who disagrees with what I say is indeed a racist.

So if I say "murder is evil and should be punished, and killing in self-defense is murder", then anyone who disagrees with me is pro-murder ?

I mean the argument you guys are trying to make is "anti racists are racists". Like, I thought words have meanings? "Antarctica is literally the Arctic." "Antiviral treatments might as well be infecting you with actual viruses."

Not all anti-racists are racists, obviously. From context, it's obvious it's directed at a specific subgroup of especially self-righteous and self-appointed "anti-racists" (with quote marks). I even specifically answered this point in the first message of this page.

Also, it's particularly funny that you use the "words have meaning !" argument, considering it's precisely the main point - they claim to be "not racist" only because they twist and redefine what "racism" means on the fly so it fits their argument.
Again, that's also something I specifically answered in the first message of this page. Several times in fact.
So yeah, I also have some trouble believing in your good faith here.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I like how "promoting race-based policies" and "using racist rhetoric against whites" was instantly replaced with "mentioning race". It's not much of a magic trick if you just make the switch in plain sight like that.

 

[Ryika]

So stop being so partisan. Stop defending vermin.

The person who talks about the merits and failures of both sides is partisan, claims the person who literally said...

The only group at fault here is the racists themselves. And if you aren't seeing that, then I have to assume that you are one of them.

...in the post directly before that.

This is just amazing, even Orwell couldn't have made that up.

 

[caketastydelish]

Indeed, attitudes like that and how people got pissed off at them is how Trump won.

 

[inthesomeday]

So if I say "murder is evil and should be punished, and killing in self-defense is murder", then anyone who disagrees with me is pro-murder ?

No because of that last bit qualifying murder.

Not all anti-racists are racists, obviously.

Actually none are, by definition of anti-racist.

From context, it's obvious it's directed at a specific subgroup of especially self-righteous and self-appointed "anti-racists" (with quote marks). I even specifically answered this point in the first message of this page.

Tell me more about these people and how they're more of a problem than racism.

Also, it's particularly funny that you use the "words have meaning !" argument, considering it's precisely the main point - they claim to be "not racist" only because they twist and redefine what "racism" means on the fly so it fits their argument.

The ones redefining racism to fit their agenda are those who support white supremacy, because by pretending like racism is just anybody being mean to someone else they can shut down anti-racist action.

Again, that's also something I specifically answered in the first message of this page. Several times in fact.
So yeah, I also have some trouble believing in your good faith here.

What do you mean by good faith?

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

The poll seems a tad slanted. Either you admit anti-racists are racists or you claim the West is the awesomest or whatever. Hardly worth answering, nah not even hardly worth answering it's pure BS.

I'd have to say there are two groups that fit into that "anti-racist" label. One is the people who frequently use identity politics to shame people into going their way. ie the nutters that claim progressive reporters are racist for questioning Kamala Harris' integrity or the people who claimed Bernie supporters were misogynist for not supporting HRC. They're racist because they want to play different groups off of each other.

The other group are people who point out systemic or even blatant racism. I'm assuming the OP thinks they're racist because they notice trends that happen along racial lines and others just plain don't notice this type of thing. They're not racist they're just looking at actual statistics. It's hard to argue with hard numbers.

 

[Akka]

No because of that last bit qualifying murder.

Bingo !
And as said :
=>

Also, it's particularly funny that you use the "words have meaning !" argument, considering it's precisely the main point - they claim to be "not racist" only because they twist and redefine what "racism" means on the fly so it fits their argument.

he "anti-racists are racists" comes from the fact that many very outspoken "anti-racist" are constantly putting race at the forefront, promoting race-based policies, and for a number of them are speaking about "whites" in a way that is textbook racism (while claiming they aren't by trying to redefine racism being only applicable to people suffering for systemic racial oppression).

So unless you jump in the boat of altering definitions just so they fit current agenda, then yeah they are also racists.

It's very impressive how the selective filtering is working. You manage to immediately notice the redefinition of murder if I attempt to lump you into "pro-morder" group, but the redefinition of "racism", even when constantly, repeatedly pointed, is completely ignored.

 

[inthesomeday]

Because yo it's not a redefinition if the word is used as it's meant

 

[Akka]

It isn't, that's the point.
But well, fanatics have their selective blindness, or they wouldn't be fanatics to begin with, right ?

 

[inthesomeday]

If you are applying me the somehow pejorative title of fanatic anti-racist I will proudly accept it.

 

[Akka]

No, just fanatic. There is nothing positive with being a fanatic (well, maybe except a Civfanatic ).
All fanatics are, deep down, the same. Their personal bias might change, and pit them against one another, but the underlying mechanisms are identical. They show no interest in actually checking their belief and questioning themselves - they are Right, the other are Wrong, and as such they are justified to do whatever they need to do. It's the mindset of inquisitors, fascists, murderous revolutionaries, Khmer Rouges, Al-Qaeda and so on. If you're proud to be in such good company, then by all means, be proud. Just don't expect me to share your admiration for people with blinders and lack of critical thinking.

 

[Traitorfish]

"Germany has openly engaged in the pillaging of Southern Europe..." Many EU countries, such as Greece, would be bankrupt were it not for Germany.

They would be bankrupt because Northern countries like Germany enouraged them to develop artificially-inflated economies to provide a market for cheap manufactured goods, which simultaneously undermined their own manufacturing base, meaning that when this inflated economy collapsed, these countries were plunged into material poverty. They created a situation of economic dependency, which they manipulated for their own benefit; that's the very definition of economic imperialism.

All fanatics are, deep down, the same. Their personal bias might change, and pit them against one another, but the underlying mechanisms are identical. They show no interest in actually checking their belief and questioning themselves - they are Right, the other are Wrong, and as such they are justified to do whatever they need to do. It's the mindset of inquisitors, fascists, murderous revolutionaries, Khmer Rouges, Al-Qaeda and so on. If you're proud to be in such good company, then by all means, be proud. Just don't expect me to share your admiration for people with blinders and lack of critical thinking.

"You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. [...] But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal . . ." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime--the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists."

Dr Martin Luther King, Jr., "Letter from Birmingham Jail".

 

[Akka]

You completely fail to treat the point and just shrug it by quoting someone that was called an extremist. Great job at weaseling out I guess.

(BTW : I have a hard time picturing the fanatics in this thread as "extremists of love", considering they are mostly trying to warp concepts so they can cast people disagreeing with them in the "hateful" part of the spectrum, and then trying to argue about the justification of violence against these "hateful" ; so even if I bought this whole concept of "extremist of love", it would still be pretty much the polar opposite of the guys we have here)