[zajd]

When a white person laments about how much "we've given up" since 1910 it is a racist action. Sorry the truth hurts. It's similar to those that look back on the 50s as a golden age in America. Sure, it's golden if you're a white male.

We haven't given up shit since 1910, progress has been unimaginable and it's actually EASIER to travel internationally now than it was then. So yeah, if you're going to pretend like 1910 was better for this shit in some way, it's only going to be for a very select group of people.

[ori_b]

Yep. Racism has become a meaningless accusation, tossed around so lightly that I can conclude nothing when I hear it.

Unfortunately, that doesn't leave me a good term for the people like the ones that murdered most of my grandmother's family because of their race.

[erikpukinskis]

> I see that the word "racism" has ceased to have meaning.

This is called "gaslighting". You have encountered a use of the term "racist" that you think is poor usage. Instead of confining your criticism to the specific usage of the term, you declare any and all uses of the term "meaningless".

It's intellectually lazy. Perhaps your definition of racist is "openly and aggressively advocating against one of three or four theorized racial groups". Perhaps you don't like my definition, "any and all behaviors which reinforce the systematic oppression of people based on race or other markers connected to race".

But rather than stand up for what you believe is a sensible use of the word, you wipe your hands the entire discussion. It's a childish tactic.

Personally, I think "racism" is a vital word, and it's vital that it retain a broad definition applicable to behaviors currently committed by well intentioned people (as it was 100 years ago). I believe the notion that "racism" traditionally refers to socially deplorable behavior is a false understanding of history and etymology. You seem to disagree, I would encourage you to argue your perspective.

[ori_b]

> This is called "gaslighting"

Incorrect.

    "Gaslighting or gas-lighting is a form of psychological abuse in which a victim is manipulated into doubting his or her own memory, perception, and sanity."

I don't believe that I have attempted to manipulate anyone into doubting their memory, perception, or sanity.

> But rather than stand up for what you believe is a sensible use of the word, you wipe your hands the entire discussion. It's a childish tactic.

I stand by what I said -- If the usage above is valid, then I can infer nothing useful based on the term 'racism'.

To spell it out in full, recall the start of this thread, where someone was accused for racism because they named a policy that was in effect in 1914. _Note that the policy was not called racist. The only objection was the date.

So, based on that usage above, one meaning of racist seems to be the following conjunction:

   'Expressed approval for a policy' AND 'That policy was in place at a time when racism was a problem'

And given that racism has been a problem at any point in time, then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that someone had approved for some policy at some point in time.

If this is a valid meaning for racism, then someone being called racist gives me no information about the person. I don't believe this is a useful meaning.

[erikpukinskis]

Sorry, I thought you were saying that racism doesn't mean anything when anyone uses the term. I misunderstood.

[zajd]

If you don't think a good portion of the right wing in first world countries wouldn't gladly return to that state of affairs maybe you should take a look at the Trump campaign. Facism is alive and well my friend.

[ori_b]

What, where most people have no air conditioning, no cars, no plumbing, no internet, no refrigeration? Where most jobs are back breaking subsistence farming, and almost all the rest are marginally better factory jobs?

If you think most humans would return to that, regardless of political affiliation, you're crazy.

[zajd]

No to a time where people are murdered simply because of their race. Politicians running for office with 30-40% of the popular vote are calling for nuking countries with no concern for collateral damage... what would you call that?

[ori_b]

Your idea of 1914 involves a lot more nukes than mine does.

[zajd]

> Unfortunately, that doesn't leave me a good term for the people like the ones that murdered most of my grandmother's family because of their race.

This is what you said.

Nukes are just a convenient way to eliminate an entire race these days. If you don't think right wingers calling for the middle east to be nuked is in any way related we're probably done here.

[turar]

It's not easier if you're from the wrong country, or surprise, of wrong color or religion. Refugee crisis is still here. So saying what you said can just as easily be labeled racist.