MAGA

[Dill]

(07-16-2019, 08:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm sorry, but I'm going to call out racist behavior when I see it. If this makes you uncomfortable I honestly couldn't care less.

I suppose we can only infer from the poster's history in making such conclusions.  Also, I am a bit mystified why a discussion about your posting a picture of racist stereotypes of white people would suddenly take a left turn and have, "supplementary comments about vile immigrants of color".  Or is this more of your made up "reverse racism" a term that rather illuminates the inherent racism of the user.  Seeing as how racism is denigration of a person, or people, based on their race why would their be a special category that only applies when such behavior is directed at white people?  I was taught that treating someone differently based on their race was... wait for it... racist.

LOL I get it. No one's going to stop you from "calling out racism."  My concern is to get you to demonstrate what you are calling out. It does make me "uncomfortable" when you go around calling other MB members racist but can't be troubled to account for your special sight.

My point about comments added to a picture, or not, was to indicate how context is an important feature of interpretation. Posting a picture of white people is not . . . wait for it . . . inherently racist.  I didn't make up the term "reverse racism," which I agree doesn't exist. It does refer to a kind of behavior which does exist, though, and has been studied, measured and mapped for for several decades now.  And I see no problem with using a poster's past history to decode a present post. Otherwise how would people recognize my parodies for parodies. But you and I see a very different "history" in Dino's past posts for example, one which leads you to egregiously misread them (example below).

There would be a "special category" that only applies when such behavior is directed at white people in a country where white people have traditionally dominated non-white people, in law and through institutions.  Could be a special category for (non-white) Japanese in Japan, where a transplanted racial criteria have been operative in policy since the Meiji restoration. You've not looked into this, read any definitions, research and yet your heels are all dug in?

(07-16-2019, 08:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll make it very simple for you, as this point seems to confuse you.  Making derogatory comments about, posting negative (or even positive for that matter) racial stereotypes in picture form or just generally mocking or treating others as lesser than by dint of their race (think of Dino's mocking "Won't someone please think of the white people" gif) is racism.  Stick to that, exceedingly simple, set of rules and you won't go wrong. 

Making derogatory comments or "mocking and treating others as lesser" is bad when targeted at race. But you don't mind denigrating or mocking or otherwise treating as "lesser" the people on this MB when they disagree with you?

This leads us to a problem with your "exceedingly simple set of rules":

The example of Dino's gif isn't exceedingly simple. You call him a "racist" for no good reason that I can see. He posts a gif mocking white people who complain they are persecuted as a race by those cruel others--i.e., who complain about reverse racism. That is not mocking "the white race" or treating any race as lesser or whatever. Nor is there a "racial stereotype" involved. It is just a cartoon picture mocking a subset of whiners who define themselves as racial victims in a country where they never have been, and at at time when many white Americans believe they are anyway.  

So NOT racism. In fact the opposite. 

And so you went wrong applying your exceeding simple set of rules to Dino's gif to produce an example of racism.  "White" plus "race" plus Dino does not automatically equate to racism.