We've heard that term. For instance, in south korea, if you look asian, they discriminate against you if you apply for english teaching positions. Human stupidity knows no bounds. There are so many instances of bad/unqualified co-workers and bad or unqualified employers that self-employment is a better alternative for many. There is a lot of corruption, prejudice and unfairness in hiring/firing practices too. I've experienced that many times as well. This is because of the competition and that competition is not fair so you get a society where you have people in positions that don't necessarily deserve it because you are unaware of the unfairness. There are so many instances where you can note in your mind and question how so and so got their position when they are not more competent, more intelligent, more knowledgeable etc. It's a warm sewer of bullshit when it comes to hiring and employment. Unless the position is highly technical where politics is too much funny bs business to get in the way of the job done correctly, most other fields and/or positions are wide open for corruption. There is no real equal opportunity, as it all depends upon human subjectivity and if they like you and what issues they may have in relation to you, if you fit into the group etc. This means productivity and the 'job' is many times less important than what society pretends it is. First and second issue will always be race, gender, then looks, religion, politics etc. Basically, ALL of those things that are not supposed to be an issue or consideration are the real consideration. Humans are just not very logical and untrustworthy. These are unspoken truths about how society runs, not the clean face it presents to the public.
There is no such thing as "reverse racism". Racism is racism. I made that mistake once. Got schooled on it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think the most ... (is "neutral" the right word) ... or maybe ... er ... ah ... right. The thing with "reverse racism" is that the "reverse" term recognized political empowerment, and then required that empowerment be irrelevant until it becomes relevant to satisfaction. For instance, and the record: Policy A — Result 1 — Result 2 → Outcome: Disparate results (R1 > R2) appear related to skin color for reasons not identifiable. → Recommendation: Undertake measures to equalize results. ↳ Counterargument — Group in R2 is receiving Benefit. Group in R1 must receive same Benefit or else outcome is racist. ∴ Required disposition — Groups in R1 and R2 can only be equal if disparity between R1 and R2 remains in place. G[R1] must remain superior to G[R2] or else inequality has occurred, and G[R1] are victims of injustice. Thus: If G[R1] = G[R2] then G[R1] < G[R2] That's as straightforward a definition of "'reverse' racism" as I can manage in the moment. But here's the weird thing: It technically isn't even real in that form, when it's used that way. It comes up a lot in disputes over school funding and results, and really does start to sound like an our kids/their kids fight between the affluent folks on the hill and the poor working folks in the valley, and as long as American, at least, perceptions of primary benefit reaching minorities persists, many white voters have resisted such policies. And while all schools then suffer for such outcomes, the problem only becomes important when enough empowerment-majority voters perceive the problem affecting their own interests. That is, "We'll be interested when it's for our kids, and not theirs." So now we have to scramble to fix the problem. And, you know, great, right? The problem will finally be fixed? Wrong. If, then. In solving the problem, the disparity must remain. Actually attending and correcting the disparity is what conservatives in general, and appeasers among Democratic supporters, denounce identity politics. Still, though, despite it all, there are poor white kids in the proverbial dark valley, too. The "reverse" condition about "reverse racism" requires inequality to be postured as equality.
Reverse racism is when a white mob breaks into the home of a black man and drags him out to a tree and the mob lynches themselves.
Snicker to all the answers, but seriously: Racism is the act of discriminating based on race. It is not about what form the racism takes. Whether one is oppressed or benefited from the act is not the issue; the issue is simply about being treated differently due to one's race.
most people who are immigrants anywhere are going to experience some level of discrimination. some worse than others depending on area and circumstances but still it's something people understand in general. i always found it to be not only very unfair but really bizarre how my asian mother never had to deal with any type of discrimination at all to the point she had zero sympathy or understanding of it at all. she always hid behind the church and to add even more to the bizarrenesss, it wasn't an asian church either, it was always american (mostly white) and only associated with them. she did not work, go to school etc so she did not have to deal with any. but even people in these situations still on occasion face something discriminatory from just living. it's as if she had these instincts to avoid any and all situations that would bruise. so was her husband very instinctual like that. every asian i've known has experienced prejudice in the west and understand that is part of it but she and they never did. and to even top it off even more, she was married to basically a very racist conservative who felt comfortable in the south particularly. when i considered how they always seemed to be lucky and shielded, i realized it might be because others are instinctual too. society may have just sensed she was one of them since most of them are not very good people anyways, even if they don't do levels of crime to land them in prison. people usually attack those who are nicer or more vulnerable, not people like them. what was even weirder is even conservative whites tended to like her because her nature was similar. it just makes me angry how she didn't suffer when that evil bitch deserved to endure and suffer more than others. even more disgusting, she would even use me like she was some diva or primadonna queen above all else. conservatives not only walk around like they literally have a stick up their ass propping them up, with their chest puffed out with an aggressive stance, they have god complexes. i just thought it was telling that someone who was the ugliest, cruelest, meanest, and extremely unethical, everything that is most what is stereotypically considered negative aspects of asian was what other asians who were not even like that had to suffer racist attacks but not her, as if that was intentional. what i mean is, i could even predict people as i could eventually read who they were. what is suspect is even the white people who pride themselves on being the leaders of ethics and all things superior in society would favor the likes of that bitch just because she was a self-aggrandizing megalomaniac whereas truly more genuine or humble asians would not even be in their radar. conservative whites just naturally gravitated toward her and stroked that monster's ego even more ballooning it up just like she identified with them, instinctually or naturally. but it's not just white people, that's just the predominance of the ugliness and inferiority of scum being prevalent as a whole in society. in other words, not what they tout themselves as. as a preacher's wife, she would say the most heinous statements behind closed doors such as how she heard blacks taste the best referring to cannibalism etc, how i should to to iraq during the war etc. but i think it's because she had the soul of a white conservative as in she identified with the most powerful of all and that is why she was never attacked or criticized at all. but then again, i started to see what was going on in the larger scheme/grid of things. why should i defend others or care about being so good to others when i was trying to be a good person and i was getting shitted on for it anyways as well as other good people by society? but people like them and their cohorts are favored? bad people attack people they are jealous of or have something good, vulnerable or nice about them.
That's decent of you. But surely you don't have to give up your house for them to - Oh wait. You mean you want to move away because blacks are coming. Yes, that definitely is racist.
Well, for one, we were simply defining racism. That viewpoint you expressed is racist. It's another question of whether you want be judged on your choice. OK. So, you believe there is a cause-effect relationship between colour of skin and lower-valued assets. Can you explain that?
I don't need to be judged, I know what I am. I see the or labeling racist is plain stupid, because we all act upon our interest according to our position at the given moment.
But you asked for the judgment. You opened that door. We were simply defining racism and examples. Yours fits. But your next comment "Should I attempt..." was an attempt to defend it, which is a judgment issue. You are confusing identification with judgement. Yes, making a decisoin about your circumstance- based on new neighbours being black - is racist. There's no refuting that. But no one passed judgement on it. Even I didn't judge. All I asked was for your explanation of the connection. Honestly, you're getting defensive over something that didn't happen. Why?
Many people will injure themselves and all their prospects in life in order to act on their racial bigotries. That's how Trump won the Presidency, for example. It's also why Americans pay twice as much as anyone else on the planet for average medical care outcomes below even many Second World countries.
The problem is if your understanding of the issue is ignorant - such as the colour of skin resulting in a drop in property values.
