[nordsieck]

> So according to this rule, a racial minority can call members of a "majority race" sub-human, but not vice-versa.

According to academia, this is correct: racism only exists in the context of class based oppression.

Of course, many people disagree with this definition.

[naasking]

> According to academia, this is correct: racism only exists in the context of class based oppression.

Which is silly on its face. If two opposing races that hated each other held equal power, they might not be able to get the upper hand on the other, but they still hate each other solely on the basis of race. Is this the "non-racist" utopia they're after?

[logarhythmic]

I don't know how widespread this belief is but I personally know people who believe this and it seems to be only spreading in the current heavily polarized environment. It is truly astonishing to witness

[zozbot234]

But that policy is not even talking about racism, however defined; it's talking about hate. Hate is hate, no matter who it's directed to. Prejudice is prejudice.

[naasking]

Except it's apparently fine to hate the haters. Dehumanization is alive and well, even among progressives.

[stOneskull]

i hate the hater-haters

[jacquesm]

Yep, hating the new Nazis is just fine. They're still people, no need to dehumanize them.

[naasking]

Hate is innately dehumanising.

Also, don't be so casual throwing around "Nazi". I've also seen liberals calling for conservatives to be put into camps.

[chipotle_coyote]

So we can never denounce hatred and bigotry without being hypocritical? We don't want to be hypocritical, right? So we should never denounce hatred and bigotry! Brilliant!

I am super, super tired of "if you denounce bigots that makes you just as bad as them."

[naasking]

> So we can never denounce hatred and bigotry without being hypocritical?

How do you get from "don't hate the haters" to "don't denounce hatred and bigotry"? Seems like you're missing a step like, "denouncing entails hatred". Do you actually believe that's true?

There used to be this notion of condemning the act and not the person. It actually used to be a progressive principle arguing for criminal justice reform geared more towards rehabilitation than punishment. It's sad that this nuance has been lost.

[Karunamon]

If you can't denounce without getting into dehumanization, you're guilty of exactly the same kind of hate that the most virulent racists in history are guilty of.

It's never okay. Not for any reason.

[chipotle_coyote]

I didn't use the word "dehumanize," did I?

[Karunamon]

No, but you replied to GP in defense of "denouncing hatred and bigotry" (something they didn't even argue against) without directly addressing a pretty important point, i.e. dehumanization (which they did).

Was there another way I should have read your comment with that in mind?

[rayiner]

What does “academia” have to do with anything?

[naasking]

These redefinitions probably grew out of "critical theory" which is taught in social studies. The initial protests citing this line of argument seem to have started on college campuses, so there might be some merit to saying it grew out of academia.

[nordsieck]

> What does “academia” have to do with anything?

Well, when people are arguing over the meaning of words - in this case "racism" - it is sometimes useful to reference what the "experts" think. There are entire fields of study within academia dedicated to this topic (often but not always including the word "critical").

Of course, whether or not said people have anything meaningful to say on the topic is not broadly agreed upon.