Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

hardsoft t1_iqywqoa wrote

It's nothing like when I was a kid in the 90s. Bullying in general seems way less pervasive today.

But overall I'd agree racism is increasing. You just had the VP suggesting flood monies should be targeted to communities of color and such. It's blatant racism. Then it gives an excuse to non colored folks to claim they're victims and promote more racism. Racism begets racism. And there is no "good" racism.

−5

PoeticPen t1_iqyz44e wrote

It is not racist to suggest that help be dispersed to the people who need it most first. Communities of color were impacted more heavily by the floods, so yes those communities should be helped first.

1

hardsoft t1_iqz03l9 wrote

You mean low income communities?

What if a red neck mobile home area was wiped out and government leaders spoke about prioritizing white people?

It's racism. Plain and simple.

If you want to talk about geographic areas and such without being a racist, cool. But apologetic excuses for racist behavior just leads to more racism.

13

PoeticPen t1_ir0y71a wrote

I mean communities of color. The areas hit hardest by the flooding were part of the original "Red lining" districts, the highly racist practice of denying people of color housing outside of "Designated Areas." Now if you said that it was political pandering I'd be on board. It's gross the way dems pander for the black vote by making specific mention of every time help is headed their way, but I'm not a snowflake getting my panties in a twist because no one on the news is talking about the help "white people" will be getting. Every time any politician speaks about any group of people without mentioning their ethnicity, they are talking about "white people." Getting all pissy because someone didn't specifically mention "you" and "your" ethnicity, is racist, childish and petty. You sound like a toddler screaming "what about me?"

1

hardsoft t1_ir11rui wrote

WTF? I'm not calling for politicians to be racist in calling out white people.

I'm against racism across the board.

1

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_irhg1id wrote

White people have been prioritized.

You’re really saying racism is worse now because people are suggesting making some amendments for the impacts of racism?

1

hardsoft t1_iri61bx wrote

I'm not saying it's worse. You just made that up. I'm saying it's racism. And racism is bad.

You're making an absurd whataboutism to defend racism and then claim it's not racism.

Like maybe we should lynch some white people to make up for our flawed history....

1

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_irif8gk wrote

You said it’s increasing. Would that not be worse?

There is no definition of ‘racism’ this fits.

1

hardsoft t1_irigc8n wrote

Racism is increasing. People are actively promoting it more in recent history.

But it's certainly not worse. It's a bunch of smooth brained anti intellectuals trying to prove how woke they are.

Nothing compared to say, slavery, a lot of the Jim Crow era stuff, etc, of our past.

Still certainly not good though

1

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_irigmdq wrote

You’re just a fragile (and racist) white person who thinks that actual systematic racism against Black people is not racism but amendment for it is.

1

hardsoft t1_irigu31 wrote

Of course systemic racism against black people is racism.

We're different in that I don't think that justifies racism against white people.

I'm opposed to all racism. You selectively support it

1

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_irih055 wrote

It’s not racism against white people to make some amendment for racism against Black people.

You support the perpetuation of racism against Black people.

1

hardsoft t1_irihsvf wrote

Yes it is.

Especially in such a non nonsensical manner.

Why does a low income trailer park white person in Florida have responsibility for historic systemic racism against colored people?

From a CRT perspective of power and related systemic dynamics, lower class whites living in trailer parks have more in relation with colored folks than other middle class white folks.

You just want to punish them to assuage your guilt or something.

Sorry man, but racism is bad.

1

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_irihxl7 wrote

No. I think there should be amendment for harm done. It’s not possibly racist to do that.

1

hardsoft t1_irii7iz wrote

It's not just possible. It is.

But again, explain how punishing poor white people makes up for historic racism?

1

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_iriidgl wrote

It’s not punishment to poor white people for there to be amendment for racism. This is the problem you have: you think that amendment for the harm done is mean to white people.

1

hardsoft t1_iriitb9 wrote

Amendment for harm done by a hurricane?

We're back to the racist hurricane...

And upon continued searching I've yet to find a single definition of racism that says "except against white people"

So you're anti science and anti language.

The things a racist will do to justify their racism...

1

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_irij0i8 wrote

No. The harm done by your racism.

1

hardsoft t1_irij7g1 wrote

I'm opposed to racism across the board.

You're promoting it. You're so edgy.

1

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_irijfbn wrote

No. You are racist.

1

hardsoft t1_irik07e wrote

Your actual argument is that some poor people in Florida need to be held responsible for harm done by me because the pigment of their skin is similar. That's clearly racist.

Meanwhile, you can't provide a single example of my supposed racism.

1

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_irik26d wrote

No. My actual argument is that amendment for racism is not racism.

You want to perpetuate racism.

0

hardsoft t1_irik9rn wrote

We're talking about hurricane relief. The hurricane wasn't racist. The lower income white folks in Florida trailer parks aren't responsible.

So that doesn't make any logical sense. You're just being racist.

1

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_irikc5f wrote

We’re talking about amendment for racism. You think it’s racist to make amendment for racism.

1

hardsoft t1_irikw6q wrote

If that involves more racism or rights violations against innocent individuals, yes.

You don't get to lynch a newborn white baby and simply dismiss it as "amendment for racism".

That's not a magical phrase that justifies racism or distortion of basic logic and language. Holding someone guilty of something simply because of the color of their skin is racist.

1

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_iriky2a wrote

It isn’t racism to make amendment for racism.

No one is being held guilty of anything.

1

hardsoft t1_irilhh5 wrote

So killing a white baby is ok if it's "atonement for racism"?

The guilt of the party for whatever you're atoning for is irrelevant?

1

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_irilmm0 wrote

Why would killing a white baby be an amendment for racism? You’re pretty sick.

Edit: oh, I see. You’re talking about atonement. I don’t care so much about that. But you’re still kind of sick.

1

hardsoft t1_irilsr2 wrote

Right

And you agree that prioritizing hurricane relief response for white people would be racist?

1

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_irilvbd wrote

Of course. That would be doubling down on racism, not amending it.

1

hardsoft t1_irim8q1 wrote

And you agree low income white people in Florida trailer parks aren't responsible for a racist hurricane?

1

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_irimnsh wrote

Of course. But that’s irrelevant.

1

hardsoft t1_irinas9 wrote

So you agree prioritizing hurricane relief response based on skin color is racist, unless it's to atone for prior racism.

And that atonement against innocent individuals is wrong.

And that white trailer park individuals in Florida are not responsible for the hurricane.

See the trap you painted yourself into?

1

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_irinon8 wrote

No. It’s amendment for racism.

That you don’t understand the difference between ‘atonement’ and ‘amendment’ is a problem and probably one of the sources of your active racism.

1

hardsoft t1_irinx58 wrote

Haha. Back to your selectively magical justification phrase.

Ok.

Your choice to practice cognitive dissonance.

1

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_irhe3mv wrote

Mentioning race is not racism.

0

hardsoft t1_irhffey wrote

I'm pretty sure saying you going to prioritize support based on race is racism.

"Where going to prioritize support of white communities"

Yep. Racism.

1

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_irhfht5 wrote

It’s not racism to prioritize people who have been actively deprioritized because of their race. How would that be racism?

I mean, prioritizing white communities is the country’s status quo.

1

hardsoft t1_irhfya6 wrote

Actively deprioritized?

You're just making up BS. A hurricane is a weather event that has no concern for human skin color. Response should therefore be to prioritize those effected by the hurricane, independent of their skin color.

Unless you're racist. But that's the world we live in now. You have a group of people who think it's cool to be racist to make up for past racism or something.

Racism begets racism. It's always bad.

1

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_irhg50k wrote

Hi? This is the US.

WTF have you been?

Edit: It’s not racist to prioritize those who have been deprioritized. So your “racism begets racism” is irrelevant and nonsense.

1

hardsoft t1_iri69q7 wrote

Yeah sorry. Reverse is racism.

Not being racist is prioritizing relief based on impact from the hurricane. Which scientifically speaking is totally unrelated to skin color.

1

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_irif5d9 wrote

It’s not racism at all. That’s absurd. There is no possible definition of racism that this fits.

1

hardsoft t1_irig3uk wrote

Uh...

> discrimination on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group

Yep. It fits the very basic definition of racism.

Unless you're taking an anti science position that the hurricane is racist or something...

1

fearlessjf t1_iqzxtp7 wrote

https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-30999175

−2

hardsoft t1_ir0pjyz wrote

I agree, but was quoting the VP. So she was being offensive.

2