[bayesian_horse]

Another issue is that there is a much more serious and extensive history of value judgements about "black" people, rather than about "white" people.

At least in the US there never was widespread slavery of white people because they are white, or widespread ideas of white skin color being associated with lesser intelligence, culture or whatever.

It is, however, very important not to get hung up in racist terminology. For example it only serves the racists' cause to argue who is actually black or who is actually white, or how much of each.

It's not like the average heckler on the street asks somebody where he is from, his religion, what he is doing for a living or what his ancestral gene mixture is!

[spraak]

> For example it only serves the racists' cause to argue who is actually black or who is actually white, or how much of each.

When you're treated better the lighter/whiter you are, then it makes sense why people would argue about it

[bayesian_horse]

It makes sense for people who think they can benefit from that racism, therefor serving the racist cause.

[mieseratte]

How about this: value judgements based on race are bad. Full Stop.

I will never understand this mindset that racism is only a problem if there is some nasty history involved.

[bayesian_horse]

Nasty history is quite often the difference between a racist value judgement and a relatively innocent statement about people.

Racists can often behind ignoring that distinction. It's called a dog-whistle.

[mieseratte]

> Nasty history is quite often the difference between a racist value judgement and a relatively innocent statement about people.

One shouldn't use history to justify their own racism.

> Racists can often behind ignoring that distinction. It's called a dog-whistle.

That's simply not what a dog-whistle is.

[bayesian_horse]

Please don't explain what you mean by "their own racism". I don't accept reverse racism BS...

And yes, ignoring nasty history is dog-whistling. You can say certain things, which are clearly perceived as racist by racists and the offended, and then avoid responsibility by claiming "it's only because the history".

Example: It's not antisemitic to blame George Soros (a jew) for political influence through his money, except that there is a broad and infamous history of such conspiracy theories. Same for "dual loyalty".

It's not racist or insensitive to use black-face as a disguise, except for the long history of mistrel-acts of making fun of Afro-American (slaves) for being lazy, uncultured and stupid.

It's not necessarily racist to suspect a Muslim of being a terrorist. Hey, there may actually be valid and objective reasons for such a suspicion. But especially because of the context and the history of Muslims being accosted as such and being targeted all the time, such claims better have substantial proof.

[bayesian_horse]

There is, however, a phenomenon called "reverse racism" where privileged members of a majority try to complain about things like affirmative action or diversity outreach.

The idea that there is a discrimination against white people in "traditionally white" countries is absolutely ridiculous. Ethnically motivated violence, for example in the US, is also quite one-sided.

[flippinburgers]

Reverse racism doesn't exist. Racism is racism.