I don't really understand the idea "racism is prejudice and power"...

>i should be allowed to hit women
>never been on a date

Gas the kikes
Race war now

Obviously just randomly hitting women makes you an asshole, just like randomly going around and beating the shit out of random men would. If a woman is spitting in your face, smacking you, and trying to hurt you, THAT is where you should be able to give her a bigger beatdown than her black boyfriend ever will.

thanks for clarifying you fucking nerd

It is unironic cultural marxism. It takes marxist theories of class and bastardizes them, removing all the essential content and replacing class with race.

Imagine two white people. One of them, let's call him Bob, is classically racist: hates all black people because they're black, assumes they are necessarily inferior on a group and an individual level, calls them niggers, refuses to be friends with them or interact with them, actively supports bringing back segregation, etc.

The other person, let's call him Bill, fits a more contemporary social justice version of "racism": he's friendly with black people on a general level, treats them as individuals, and doesn't feel any particular hatred towards them--but also thinks racism is no longer a problem, that "people shouldn't see race", that higher rates of poverty and incarceration and such are the consequence of individual choices, that affirmative action is prejudice against whites, etc.

Maybe what Bill believes is bad; you can make a reasonable case that his perspective has some problems and isn't perfectly enlightened or whatever. Maybe he does have some problems in his views on race that need to be corrected. But he's clearly not as bad as Bob, who actively hates every black person he meets and openly wants to subjugate them. Bob is clearly a racist, but it's murkier with Bill.

What the social justice warriors are doing with their use of the word "racism" then, is trying to have their cake and eat it too--they want a word to describe the things that Bill feels about race, but they want that epithet of racism to carry the same moral weight as it would carry with Bob. They want to associate Bill's watered-down attitudes with Bob's so as to make them seem worse than they are, thereby granting an artificially high degree of moral approbation to Bill's attitudes.

It's manipulation of the definition of racism by nonwhites to shield themselves from being accused of racism

I will take that as a no.

Prejudice - preconceived opinion not based on either fact or reason

Example: I think posting on anonymous image boards causes autism.

Social power - the ability to influence or control other people

Example: I am elected governor, and my party and I pass a law outlawing anonymous image boards.

Thus I am now racist, despite not having jack shit to say or do with race. Sounds like shit logic that sounds good until you grab a dictionary. And even if I stop being a pedant, assuming Juan isn't racist anymore because he's not in the dominant social group seems counterproductive.

You can avoid Bob, you can't avoid Bill because Bob wears his heart on his sleeve but Bill is invisible and bill will have a much easier time getting into power and projecting his beliefs to policy. You can also say that in a society filled with Bills, Bobs will also start forming and several Bill's will turn into Bob's because it's now "safe".

Retard leftist redefinition that coincidentally excludes themselves.
Just mock it at every turn.

It really isn't hard to understand.

It means that prejudicial beliefs about a group doesn't matter if you don't have any power.

Which is true to some extent. If you're a poor white farmer in Iowa, the world doesn't change if you "hate niggers". But if the President hates black people, it might be a serious problem with serious consequences.

lots of buttmad white boys playing dumb itt

While I agree a racist president is more of a problem for minority groups, he isn't getting elected or passing legislation without support from a lot of farmer Johns. I'd go so far as to say the former is a natural result of the latter, and you need to focus your efforts accordingly.

The statement stand alone isn't enough because it doesn't encompass the multiple forms of discrimination and racism in history. Thus as a "one type of discrimination" it work but as single statement it has wholes.

Like it doesn't cover the "middleman minority using the political and economic structure of the colony that brought them in and empowered them to shit on the natives below them in the colony hierarchy.". That group isn't top dog but they still benefit form the social order and do use it to their own gain.

Because there are two definitions, the sociological one where it is like your picture since in sociology it can take a broader view so in the purposes of academia it is more useful than the second definitions which is the layman's and the one most people use. Basically you know how scientific theory is different than a random person saying they have a "theory". It's that but for the word racism.

You don't understand assholes exempting themselves from charges of being racists?

Really?

Shit, they know.

?

Brazilian here

This is just an stupid extension made by lefties to continue the forever ongoing war to achieve "social equality"

You clearly can see this extension was made because of racists attacks on white people, and to maintain a certain narrative...

Even if we do accept this new term, it does not mean nothing
Mostly because
1)
Sociology itself says we all live in micro societies, if we do you can´t say there aren´t societies were black people don´t dominate and white people have no say it on it... as a Brazilian I can say that, if you too white and in the wrong place, you might get stabbed, places where society itself does not hold a lot of power.

2)
What it is going to be the next change? xenophoby it is going to be about who has more power as well? do you see how this makes no sense?

3)
If we lived in a society which discriminate by laws then you are correct, social power it does not mean nothing in judicial field, and social power by race it is stupid as fuck, one person who is black was the most powerful person in the world not long ago, and I who happen to have white grandparents I lived in poor conditions during almost all my life, and this does not meant that white or black had the power, the today world does not classify people by color but by level of instruction...

It simply does not make any sense, lefties are trying to divide people by race which it does not make a lot of sense in almost all the world except N-America...

Do you think most white people or black people in Brazil care about stupid shit like cultural appropriation?

You guys are beyond retarded and are just trying to make the ongoing classes war continue.

If fascism is a system which there is perpetual war, so does socialism.

The guy who first used that definition meant it in a very local immediate sort of way. A lone white boy in a black neighborhood has no power, in the same way a black guy from that neighborhood would be powerless in a police station.
People with narratives are the ones pushing this 'power in society at large' meaning.

>only yall can be raciss

If you take this in account then alright, you can change the definition

Yet, the narrative it is stupid as fuck, there are laws preventing racism in high levels of society, neither a black nor white could use of the system to advantage of a certain race.

Judicial system was not something made in one day, and there are several laws preventing.

>"Racism" has been made a powerful and scary word
>But we need to make sure it's only used to serve our own purposes
>GUYS we've got some mental gymnastics to do

>by nonwhites to shield themselves from being accused of racism
No, by Jewish communists to make sure whites don't resist their dispossession and elimination by "anti-racist" regimes by saying "but wait all this anti-white stuff, isn't that racist?"

Don´t put all of us there fella

I know when I see a racist, white, black or yellow

You can tell because there's no vibrating buttplug spinning around in their ass

>it's another MERRIAM WEBSTER DEFINES... episode

The concept of privilege is nonsense and unproven.

Redefining racism as power + prejudice is stupid. Racism is the basic idea that some races are better than others and to that end racism is reality.

Black people benefit from racism. They are given lower standards and have excuses made for them.

It's a Marxist retardation created by some Jew American bitch in the 70s. Nobody except for shitskins believes that's the correct definition.

Bill clearly is the only correct person and understand the issues perfectly.

You should bring up Sam, who think that black people are in their current state because state sponsored oppression and that because of that they are incapable of every achieving anything on their own.

I want bill in power as bill is correct in his thinking.

Both have the same power. The country doesn't allow any kind of racist power.

White are actually the greatest victims of racism in 2017 in the united states.

So only the jews are racist?

>there are laws preventing racism in high levels of society
Alright what do men get charged more jail time than women for the same crim

>White are actually the greatest victims of racism in 2017 in the united states.

White people as well as Asians are the only group of people that can legally be discriminated against. Affirmative action is the last bit of institutional racism left in this country.

>White people as well as Asians are the only group of people that can legally be discriminated against. Affirmative action is the last bit of institutional racism left in this country.

First thing, they are not, both sex have the time prescribed to their type of crime, so even if it is higher it is in the law which both can be charged...

You can´t give prison for life to a man and one month to a woman, just because of sex.
Men get more time usually because:
Because men usually reincide the crime

Men motives are more related to power and money.

women usually to emotive reasons which by itself gives a lower time.

Because men make up what? 95% of violent crimes?

Men are usually more prone to commit crimes, call it testosterone, culture, whatever you want.

I am not trying to be an feminist here, but lets be reasonable...

Of course there are cases which the justice may not act accordingly, but yet, it is entirely justifiable to give more time to people who are more likely to commit a crime.

Looks like someone's still angry their mother made them go grab the book when they misused a word.

Posting pictures is not an argument for a failing and racist acceptance policy.

>that higher rates of poverty and incarceration and such are the consequence of individual choices, that affirmative action is prejudice against whites, etc.

He would be right. Why is this even still a debate?

I'm guessing you haven't either given your clear interest in the matter.

Men commit more crimes and many who commit those same crimes are given harsher sentences because they are other priors.

The same is true for blacks. Blacks commit more crimes and are given longer sentences usually because they have more priors. People with priors are given harsher sentences.

>not an argument
oh my fucking god, you might as well just say "yeah i am a fat faggot neckbeard"

What argument did you make another than posting neck beard pictures? >>>Reddit is that way.

Fuck out kike

I'm a leftist and I spent a long time grappling with this because I don't agree with it.

There's been an attempt on the left to take the larger phrase "institutional racism" or "systemic racism," meaning, the racism of cops, teachers, government officials, and other public servants, and to redefine the more general term "racism" as specifically referring only to institutional and systemic racism.

It is a frankly underhanded rhetorical flourish. It means a black man can kill a chinese man because he 'hates asians' but it doesn't count as racism because the black man was systemically disempowered by the prevailing social structure.

it is a silly rhetorical game. To me, racism is racism. If you hate someone for their race, regardless of their race, regardless of your race, you are racist.

Let me clarify, institutional and systemic racism are "prejudice + power" while regular old gamer chat racism is just plain racism.

The left is still trying to push the "Systemic Racism" narrative despite the counter evidence that there is none.

he said, clutching his Uzi as he opened the door to the black church.

>OP posts evidence of actual institutional racism
>Only counter are pics and gifs.

Well duh, I really want to know what it's like.

"institutional and systemic racism"
Which doesn't exist.

>OP posts evidence of actual institutional racism
OP is literally just a picture with no facts you fucking dipshit

Don't go saying there's no systemic racism... then you won't be able to bitch about affirmative action!

I was citing an fairly recent instance in the united states where a young man murdered a church full of black people because he thought they were all worthless niggers

Shitlibs can't actually communicate in anything but making gay little faces
John (((Liebowitz))) made them all retarded, it's actually very sad.

Did you know they think mentioning the current year is supposed to make you agree with them?

>There's been an attempt on the left to take the larger phrase "institutional racism" or "systemic racism," meaning, the racism of cops, teachers, government officials, and other public servants,

Again, this can not exist (in an elected government anyway) for long without broad popular support before it descends into mass social upheaval. So why the need to redefine racism by the oppressed?

Anyone looking to go this route was better served by 'the violence of the oppressed is not identical to the violence of the oppressor."

I think someone has spent so much time on a certain board that I will not name because he will reel back and act all pissy like he has been caught.

commondreams.org/views/2010/07/26/fourteen-examples-systemic-racism-us-criminal-justice-system

Make sure you disagree with my source

Yeah, what about it?

I agree.

Again, I think it is an ill-informed rhetorical flourish, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was disseminated by right-wingers looking to further pollute leftist rhetoric and confuse their base. Right wingers are better at sabotaging leftists than leftists are at gaining any social momentum. After all, right wingers have the money, the weapons, and the religious zeal.

Left wingers have weed, social studies degrees, and intuitive convictions.

Now that you've won this rhetorical battle, the next step is to insist that racism doesn't exist at all, as you rule the world atop a pile of African skulls

*posts gay little tumblreddit gifs*
*implies you dress like an autist*
*mentions /pol/*
Where is your God now, Veeky Forums?

jfc gb2 SA, nerd

Holy shit, one that actually admits to being from there too. Just saying user, you might want to take the time to realize that spending all of your time on the internet is not going to give you a good idea of what reality is like.

I mean how do you reconcile wanting to fight 'degenerate' shit when this is a site that has entire boards dedicated to all kinds of weird porn?

>The concept of privilege is nonsense and unproven

Do you really mean to tell me that you wouldn't have been better off if you inherited more money, land, and stuff?

Material wealth constitutes privilege. The word "privilege" didn't appear in a vacuum, and it certainly existed before the phrase "white privilege" took the rhetorical spotlight.

I'm talking about the guy he was responding to with his silly picture.

Affirmative action is racism. Just not the right kind.

and what did that have to do with what your responded to?

Who is actually oppressed in the United States in 2017?

Hold off on whether institutional racism actually exists for now, and let's assume it does.

Do you believe that our biased criminal justice system is mostly a result of intentional design by all levels (federal, state, and local) of government, some with strong minority representation, to control minority groups? Or do you believe rather that it is mostly an emergent behavior due to a combination of racism among the general population providing government workers coupled with socioeconomic factors that work against those less well off functioning in our current legal framework?

Honestly the biggest problem with this (as well as the use of many other terms) is the idea that you can cross a certain threshold and become definitively "racist" or "a racist." Racism exists, but isn't it clearly a spectrum? Why is it so hard for this society to recognize that some actions are more racist than others, that clutching your purse when walking past some black people does not mean you hate all minorities, would be the next Hitler if elected to a position of power, etc.

This user () makes a good point -- the two should not be equated but more importantly, people like Bob barely fucking exist. This great panic about extreme racists hiding amongst us is just weird fear mongering. Certainly many people (maybe all people) have racial biases but we'll literally never improve anything if it's a thought crime to say the wrong thing or ask the wrong question, etc.

Also I think it's obvious that the racism = prejudice + power thing is silly. I'll never understand why academics try to jump through all of these logical hoops when it would be very easy to say, "Yes anyone can experience racism, but cases in which the victim is systematically disadvantaged are more serious and deserving of attention."

The same way lefties reconcile owning all the latest niggertech and drinkin starbucks coffee while wanting to fight capitalism. We live in the system we live in, m8.

I will it's a biased piece of garbage that cherry picks statistics and ignores the entire base behind them.

It's simple why blacks get more jail time, they almost always have a higher number of prior convictions.

Either way nothing in that article supports any kind of narrative of "systemic racism".

Given the amount of violent crime black men their rate of killings by police is lower than it statistically should be.

If you think there's a right kind and a wrong kind of racism you're scum, it's that simple blood.

It was a good response to the response of the idiot who posted a picture when someone called affirmative action racist, which it is.

*teleports behind u*
right here, bitch

I'll take the cowards way out and pick two easy ones. Kids born to parents with shitty credit scores for one. Kids attending shitty public schools for another.

My Calvinist upbringing says anyone should be able to make it out from under either, and yet I'm working my hardest to make sure my own kids have head starts I never did.

The only racism that generally still exists on the government level is that of affirmative action and quotas.

But it's nonsense to say that blacks are still "oppressed".

If you're "anti-racist" you implicitly endorse universal racial and cultural genocide.

Making jokes on Veeky Forums is bad now I guess.

Saw someone unironically post this on Facebook

That's not privilege, that's the result of hard work of the people before. The use of the term privilege as it is used today is being made to believe you are given special rights in a new of caste system. Nobody in the united states other than so-called "protected classes" are given different rights or entitlements. So no privilege doesn't exist and those who claim it exists use it as an excuse for their success and in most cases race envy.

Since the fundamental distinction between left and right is the level of tolerance (or lack thereof) for inequality, it's to be expected that the natural progression of the left is to become increasingly intolerant over time to more and more minute forms of inequality. A century or two ago it would have been enough to get rid of institutionalized segregation, legally protected aristocracies, etc. Now that those things are gone, they necessarily have to turn to ephemeral things like institutionalized racism to destroy.

Stuff like that just doesn't seem like it should be lumped under the term "oppression".
"Disadvantaged", sure

Well I guess I agree with you with public schools. School choice should be fundamental in the US, and i hope devos makes that reality

Bad credit however is not oppression, that's the results of decisions made by those with bad credit.