isthereany

I already provided a source when asked and mysteriously no one wants to talk about it anymore.

This story is a direct equivalent to Michigan and anyone saying "Republicans are committing voter fraud" based on this story are in fact doing the exact same thing Republicans did.

The difference is not "relatively minor" when one context implies black people can't be racist and the other implies they don't have the collective power, in America, to be systemically racist on a national level.

It is factually true that black people have attacked and insulted white people, and other races, and when confronted responded with "black people can't be racist." That is happening and it is mentioned often by people.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Teachers/comments/usngi9/how_to_deal_with_racist_minority_students/

There is just one example but they're not hard to find. It is a wide spread thing now that black people are openly racist towards white people and use "black people can't be racist" as a shield for their behavior.

There was another example on Reddit recently from a teacher who said a black student insulted a white student on the basis of race, the teacher told them that was racist, and the student said "black people can't be racist." The student continued to argue with them so they sent the student to the principals office and the black principal agreed with the student and reprimanded the teacher for being racist.

This is another thing the whole "black people can't be racist" argument misses. Black people DO have systemic power in certain areas. There are states, counties, and cities with majority black government, police, schools, and so on. Telling a white student in that kind of environment that they can't experience racism due to structural power at a national level is also wrong and those black students in an environment where black people do have control over "systemic" or "structural" elements that they can't be racist is also wrong.

That's a kind of insane way to continue avoiding admitting black people can be racist.

You could apply the same logic to white people and say white people can't be racist, there is no systemic racism, and so on. Black person got hung? That's just murder. Black person didn't get a job because of their race? That's just hiring preference. Black person got framed for a crime? That's just being framed for a crime. Black person didn't get into a college because of their race? That's just academic preference.

Weird stuff and extreme lengths to avoid admitting black people can be racist.

If a black person kills you because they wanted to kill a white person, because they're racist, is that not harmful?

You can insist I'm wrong all you want but the fact is that black people can be racist. Full stop. This isn't a discussion occurring in a scholastic environment. We're on social media talking about chuds. Let's stick with the century old definition of racism that everyone understands not the few years old scholarly definition.

That's the whole crux of the problem. You can't add a new definition to a word, constrain it to a specific context, and then make a broad statement in public like "black people can't be racist" then when people get upset about it say "Hah! Look, I made a new definition and in this other context what I said is right!" The result of making that statement is harmful. It's harmful to black people who begin to think they can physically attack, insult, and otherwise be racist towards white people but it's not true because an academic told them they can't be racist. It's also harmful to white people if a black person stabs them and says "I want to kill all white people" and they decry increasing or ongoing racist attacks against white people by black people only to be met with "but black people can't be racist."

This shouldn't be difficult to understand especially if someone claims to be such an academic that they can use a secondary, few years old, alternative definition to a word that has existed for over a century and is already widely used in that context within society. When "academics" do this and try to dismiss the obvious truth of "black people CAN be racist" it merely supports the idea that they're intentionally trying to bury black racism. Thus like I said, it further entrenches white supremacy. No one who has been attacked by a black person because of their race is going to want to engage in a discussion with someone who keeps telling them black people can't be racist because there is this new definition.

You've still essentially refused to admit that the primary definition of racism is not the one you are using.

The logic is that, so far, nothing happened. That's all I said. "So far he was wrong and the facility is safe." The larger point is that this story his treatment and I drew a parallel to Ukraine's treatment of a US journalist.

Only the dominant group can be racist.

That's factually untrue. You're merely attempting to ignore the primary definition of racism and racist. Just because they added a new secondary definition to the word doesn't negate the long standing and most widely used definition.

It's ok. Black people can be racist with no concern for anything beyond individual actions or any larger context. That's how the word is defined and has been defined for over a century. You should accept that. Your statement might be true, in America for example, and if used in a specific context, and if you want to use the much lesser known and very new secondary definition of the word.

You are validating Republican claims by acting the same way about this story just so you know. It is essentially the same as the Michigan voting issues and if you read the article you might know that. There was no intentional fraud in either of these instances.

https://factcheck.afp.com/michigan-county-vote-count-glitch-was-not-fraud

Someone saying something on Lemmy also doesn't make it true.

This story has a direct equivalent story in Michigan.

https://factcheck.afp.com/michigan-county-vote-count-glitch-was-not-fraud

This story, and in Michigan, they attribute the problems to unintentional error. Someone who says "So there was election fraud - committed by republicans." in response to this story is engaging in exactly the same claims Republicans engaged in over stories like what happened in Michigan.

I've heard it plenty of times from black people themselves. That's what happens when you say things like "sociological definition" and "if you define the word correctly." Racism already exists as a word and has a definition. You can add another definition in a certain context and so on but it doesn't change the most widely accepted and long standing definition of a word.

White people are widely subjected to racism from black people. That's a fact and is easily supported by any number of violent attacks against them where the perpetrator outright states it was because the victim was white that they attacked them.

Seems like you're working really hard to try to basically claim "black people can't be racist" while also stating that's a silly concept, no one takes it seriously, even if they do it's rare, and besides.. it's also true. Huh?

This seems to be a sore point but it's still reality that black people can be racist, have been racist, and will be racist.