-38
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2024
-38 points (22.9% liked)
Asklemmy
44173 readers
1711 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm not confused about what racism is. You're the one saying people who disagree with you are supporting racism.
I'm saying people not acknowledging unequally treating people based on their looks is bad and even trying to justify it are the cause of racism since their argumentation is based on the fundamentals of its literal definition and thereby supporting it in an ongoing cycle.
what you just wrote seems quite at odds with the definition you just posted two comments up. the google definition talks about belief in differing traits and capacity and a belief in racial superiority. your definition seems to only care about unequal treatment. it seems an equivocation meant to disparage those who might seek to counteract historical (google definition) racism with a bit of modern (your definition) racism. it strikes me as disingenuous in the extreme.
See its very paradox to say, we need to act racist because racism exists instead of trying to end it by the root. You can't fight fire with fire, it's as simple as that. And that's not just my opinion. Wake up people
Is affirmative action racist in your eyes?
Is that what you are trying to say? Your points seem vague.
If so, then yeah, you're most likely wrong.
We, humans fight fire with anything that can fight fire effectively. There is a technique where wild fires are stopped by setting a controlled fire to use up he fuel for the wild fire and provide a gap in the wild fire's path.
Affirmative action is good, as long as racism exists, to level out the differences in the material conditions and to provide empowerment to stand against racism.
Yeah, this is pretty much their bit. "Policies aimed at correcting historical trends of racial disparities are racist, actually." It's such a stupid argument that I can't believe anyone makes it in good faith.