Talk:Reverse racism

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Quotation

Does 'I am not a racist/biased - I hate everybody equally' have a known author? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Usage

I'd like to point out that not a single link in this article actually corroborates the claim that the term is used primarily-- or, indeed, at all-- by the right wing. ^{— Unsigned, by: 204.195.49.204 / talk}

Fails To Distinguish Between Bigotry and Power Privilege

So the central claim of the article is that reverse-racism doesn't exist because racism means having power and privilege over other groups and using said power for malignant purposes. Yet the author fails to mention that bigotry, which used to be synonymous with racism, is still prevalent among blacks and is used by the left on a frequent basis to demean whites. This is especially irritating because the author is clearly emotionally invested in this topic and does not have any data to back up their claims, it is pure conjecture. He also calls anyone who disagrees with him or uses the term reverse-racism a racist in an attempt to silence discussion. This also irritates me because it seems to indicate that he does not really have a substantial case for his claims and is lashing out defensively. I am glad that now people are waking up an realizing that calling someone a racist is not an argument and cannot be used to shut-down debate. ^{— Unsigned, by: 67.80.150.43 / talk}

Questioning Things With Logic Is Racist (Am I Right?)

Hey guys we are all racist in the eyes of the author for pointing out the flaws with their article (sarcasm) ^{— Unsigned, by: 67.80.150.43 / talk}

Usually sarcasm is used to highlight a shortcoming in logic, by making an obviously false point with false sincerity. Here you seem to be using the word to mean "no, don't hold me accountable to what I say, even though I mean it." It's okay, we've all seen hundreds upon hundreds of people say "so everyone you disagree with is racist?" before. It's not exactly a deep thought. You've got nothing to fear by mindlessly parroting that without equivocation.

Also, questioning things "with logic" is perhaps very different than you think it is. To question an idea based on logic requires you to present that idea as some kind of formal syllogism and discuss the deduction or assumptions. It ain't just mean "and I thought about it before I opened by big mouth for once."

I would be fucking flattened if I ever saw this kind of formalization from one of you great folks. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I really thought "Things With Logic Is Racist" was some name for a bizarro Youtube channel. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 18:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Should we have an alternative definition of "reverse"?

This is based on a personal story. About eight months ago, I heard a relative (I choose not to name them or reveal the nature of the relationship) say "reverse racism" repeatedly in a casual conversation and tried to ask them to stop. I meant to use RW's definition but had forgotten it and came out saying words to the effect of "When you say 'reverse racism', you're inadvertently saying racism is not inherently bad, so call it 'racism' irrespective of who is being racist against whom." They listened, then said they still thought it was an appropriate appellation for a reason that I don't remember but did not convince me.
I do think what I had to say is logical and accurate. If somebody said "reverse gravity", you would know it was a negative phenomenon because "normal" gravity is why we don't have to restrain ourselves to avoid flying into space and incurring the negative consequences therefrom. "Reverse racism" operates on the same principle: "[phenomenon]" with no qualifiers or modifications is fine, making "reverse [phenomenon]" sound bad.
And yes, this relative insists they're not racist and claims to recognize that racism is bad. --ManyMoreYears (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)