Hey guys

Hey guys.
Every couple of days or so, I'm gonna ask you guys to give me a counter argument to a leftist talking point. I will then save your counter arguments and create a masterlist (with valid, reliable sources to back points up) of counter arguments that we can all use to defeat the leftists.


Link to last thread:

Today's common leftist talking point:
"People of color and specifically black people cannot be racist to white people. They can only be prejudiced"

Please give me your best counter arguments. Thank you

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=nsJ2bIhVXKA
people.virginia.edu/~jra3ee/AEN2016.pdf
journal.sjdm.org/9616/jdm9616.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=6nbnGUUdQTU
humanbiologicaldiversity.com
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

awesome idea, have a bump

Also, If you could, please share any useful sources you may find. Thank you!

if racism=power+prejudice, the idea that black people can't be racist only works if black people can't have power.

my black teacher has the power to fail me, my black police officer has the power to arrest me and my black fire fighter has the power to save my life. this isn't even getting into political power.

I like this. good argument

Denying the opponent the very language and vocabulary necessary to argue effectively is easily the most Jewish form of leftist bullshit, and that's in a strong field of Jewish leftist bullshit

It also means blacks are racist against whites in South Africa, I wonder what these taqiyya leftists would say to that, probably just some bullshit boilerplate about colonialism

And to add to my own thread I'd like to give my argument: Here is the copy pasted version of the dictionary definition of racism.


rac·ism
ˈrāˌsizəm/Submit
noun
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
"a program to combat racism"
synonyms: racial discrimination, racialism, racial prejudice, xenophobia, chauvinism, bigotry, casteism
"Aborigines are the main victims of racism in Australia"
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
noun: racism
"theories of racism"

This states that being prejudiced against a given race is the same as being racist. therefore, the above narrative is inccorect

kek wills it

your first point is a strawman. nobody worth debating will ever say something stupid like that. how about having actual intelligent talking points instead of coming up with easily rebutted shit like "there are more than 2 genders" "women make 70 cents on the dollar compared to men" etc. ?

Arguing by the dictionary is feminist-tier casuistry user, go deeper. Attack their identity

This is Orwellian newspeak. It is strictly defining words to a marxist context.

Racism has a very strong negative connotation in the english language, and this is nothing but an attemp to erase that meaning

Also "colored people" is the equivalent of "goyim"

>your arguments are 2ez strawmen
liberals make these arguments all the time, they're probably the most common liberal positions
>pick some good liberal arguments
You first

Racism is specifically defined as prejudice or discrimination of a person or people of another race or ethnicity based on a belief of superiority. This applies to Whites just as much as it does to Blacks, Asians, and Native Americans, since a minority status does not mean at all that one believes themselves to be inferior.

Denial of the fact is a misuse of the word racism, and to base one's argument on a term that they cannot use correctly defeats any credibility of said argument.

I like this.

my college teacher unironically preached this in class a week ago. straw man or not, this is a common leftist argument.

this is a GREAT idea. please continue this.

kek. Good idea I'm gonna call em "le ebil gommunists" instead!!

You're using a definition of racism that was invented by white people. White people don't get to decide what racism is. People of Color do.

When their ideology forces them into a contradiction
>blacks can't be bad
>blacks do something bad
Shitlibs are forced to change meanings of words to avoid cognitive dissonance
>bad only applies to whites
>blacks can't be bad anymore
It's basically Talmudic as fuck, this is the history of Jewish scriptural analysis in a nutshell. This is why they make good lawyers, patent trolls, and why they have an entire subculture organized around exploiting biblical loopholes to get around shabbos prohibitions

>my black teacher
>my black police officer
>my black fire fighter
All gov't jobs

So people can only use things invented by their own kind? Be careful

So what about people of color being "racist" to one another? What about Asians hating blacks or everyone on the planet hating Indians? Is it not racism if POCs fight amongst themselves?

The whole argument about "blacks can't be racist" is because the regressive left sees blacks as "oppressed".

They think right wingers believe that blacks are equal to dirt, so much in fact that now, they genuinely do believe that blacks are completely unequal and oppressed by whites. Without knowing it they're the ones causing racism and a divide between the races.

Because 300 years ago blacks were enslaved by whites and systematically oppressed, for some reason now it means that they can't also be racist to us.

They basically see that blacks can't be successful, and will never not feel the oppression of whites.

youtube.com/watch?v=nsJ2bIhVXKA

Dictionary definitions are an agent of white supremacy used to marginalize the opinions of PoCs who may not necessarily interpret words in the same way as whites due to differences in developmental circumstances.

By using dictionaries to back up your points, you're dehumanizing PoCs and essentially telling them that their experiences don't matter.

Will likely be the counter-argument.

Be careful using dictionaries to back up your claims, there's loads of ways for them to ignore you.

Liberals don't know about any military conquests by non-whites. They don't know about genghis khan or the Barbary slave trade or anything like that. They're taught in school and in mothers milk that white people genocided the world for fun, that's as far as their historical interest ever goes

Why don't you create a wiki devoted to this? Left-leaning fedoras have rationalwiki and they use it as an online archive of arguments to use in internet debates. We need our own version.

There are multiple types of racism. What you're speaking of is systemic racism which isn't present in the US because the government isn't prejudice towards a racial group and oppressing them. Normal racism like saying that you (as a white guy) hate black people is racist and it is still racist if you (as a black guy) say you hate white people or any other race of people.

keep going after low hanging fruit then. shit like this has been beat to death and I don't even disagree with the premise of your threads. your first one was an actually good talking point, this one is just shit-tier.

>come up with one

Lefists: White people today are benefiting from institutionalized racist policies such as voter ID laws and marijuana enforcement

The entire basis of that argument is semantics/sophistry.

>Don't think for yourself and come up with your own arguments just shill from this list I made

noted but please see for counterpoint to that

>The entire basis of that argument is semantics/sophistry.

That sums up the entirety of the postmodern left.

How about you make up your own original thoughts you newfag autistic nigger shit

I like this actually. I'll ask this next time. thanks dude

So i can think of another approach here. Internalized racism or preferences for those outside of your group or ethnomasochism.

A few studies come to mine

people.virginia.edu/~jra3ee/AEN2016.pdf

An Unintentional, Robust, and Replicable
Pro-Black Bias in Social Judgment.

Here whites demonstrate bias towards blacks at the expense of whites. In this case blacks might not necessarily be at fault whites can still be the victims of anti-white bias due to power structures that, while not run by blacks, favor blacks.

Also
journal.sjdm.org/9616/jdm9616.pdf
The motivated use of moral principles

Whereby liberal identifying students demonstrated a greater degree of ethical valuation for black sounding individuals within the scope of the Trolley-problem..

>Lefists: White people today are benefiting from institutionalized racist policies such as voter ID laws and marijuana enforcement
Implying a liberal would admit that white people benefit from republican leadership. Their favorite meme is "republican dumbfucks are so stupid they vote against their own interest" which is apparently having their little wealt redistributed to blacks and Hispanic single mothers

And guilt. Lots and lots of guilt.

pretty good plan desu.

Not that I think rote talking points are the entire solution but its a good idea to come up with standardized attacks against liberal talking points.

Some people liek Jontron for example don't debate regularly. Leftists that do can easily catch them in some sort of identity politics thing and incessantly use their defeat as a source for their ideology's "victory". I just wanna do good by us user. help me.

everyone can be racist you stupid nigger

bump

That counterpoint doesn't apply.

Lurk more. And not just on Sup Forums

just went on this. Very disheartening. I'll work as much as I can, but I can't promise anything major like a wiki page. i got pharmacy college to worry about

can I make a request for the next question?

"affirmative action is necessary to even the playing field between demographics that are over/under privileged"

...

Poverty and environmental influences like single motherhood and childhood/adolescent violence tends to exaggerate the presence Monoamine oxidase - A's influence over a person's behavior which creates greater prevelance of aggression, impulsiveness, and other anti-social personality traits that produces criminality. So while black people will always be on a base line more aggressive and prone to criminality than say whites or Asians, environmental influence still plays a part.

youtube.com/watch?v=6nbnGUUdQTU

Do I save this in pepe folder or my Deus Vult folder? hmmmm

Making and maintaining the wiki will need to be a community thing. The argument masterlist you're creating would be a great starting point, though.

so does that mean a latino cant be racist to an asian person because their cultures have never mixed?

This argument is essentially just cognitive dissonance. You have the burden of proof in this situation, not me; bring the evidence to the table as to why this statement is true. "They can only be prejudiced"? Do you find prejudice to be better than racism, or is racism a form of prejudice?

Racism is not power + prejudice; this is not and has never been the definition of racism. And, if stating that they can only be prejudiced, what defines power? Can blacks in Zimbabwe or even South Africa be racist to whites, or is it only in America where they cannot be racist towards whites? In America, we have equal opportunity, as do many other nations. Isn't it racist to state that blacks cannot achieve power, or is it not racist if I am speaking without prejudice or without power? Is your only argument for blacks not having power slavery, or is there some other underlying reason as to why they do not (or cannot) have power? Would it be racist to state these reasons, and at what point does the definition of racism and hate speech start to destroy free speech?

Let's take the argument that specifically states and only states that black people cannot be racist to white people. If I was black and I made a joke about Asians, is the joke I made racist? What about if I was black and I stated something like "Indians cannot be trusted"? Would it be racist for me to say this, or is it only not racist for me to say this when referring to whites?

Doesn't matter, English is a white culture product that's appropriated by PoC. They need to "educate themselves" on how to use it and what the meanins of words are or use their own language.

Language can only be defined by one group, otherwise they aren't the same language. Use English, use the dictionary definitions regardless of what race made it.

I'm pretty sure that's not what OP meant, but rather just to make some images to use when dealing with leftists. I agree that this whole "spoonfeed me" shit lately is getting annoying, though.

Just remind them that the mongols are responsible for intentionally causing the greatest genocide ever record in the form of the Black Plague, a genocide of Europeans

I don't like her wide eye'd, big nosed, fat lip with gap teeth ass face. There is my counter argument.

The argument comes from a difference in power structure. They think that the dominant race is the only one that can be racist. The best way to argue against this is a hypothetical, but you can't start with blacks vs whites because they'll catch on quick.

>would a Mexican living in Japan be allowed to call the majority race Gooks without being considered racist?
>would a Israeli living in Puerto Rico get to call the majority race wetbacks without repurcussions?
Then you can get more specific and split hairs, like
>is it racist for leafs from Montreal to call Quebecians frogs?
>what about a black guy from Nigeria calling a Jew from Israel a kike?

you're going on the list

Good idea Ameribro, keep going.

Bump

then in a society where black people do have a racial majority and institutional power, are white people unable to be racist to black people?

chinese majority?
indian majority?

if your point is that racism = prejudice + power, then you aren't seeing the bigger picture of majority rule. It's bigger than disliking a race, it's literally just a numbers game

English was forced onto PoC. Cultural appropriation can only be done by the dominant culture.

I think a better counterargument lies in the fact that the meaning of a word is derived from the way the word is commonly used. Since the general population uses the word "racism" to refer to prejudice on the basis of race, it would be wrong to say their definition is invalid.

1. We have a derogatory term for whites
2 . white tourist are sold stuff at 5x their regular price
3. Separate menu for white people
4.Drug prices are also higher for them
Now tell me

sources and we got a ringer!

humanbiologicaldiversity.com

Sup Forumsacks give this a check

>"People of color and specifically black people cannot be racist to white people. They can only be prejudiced"

That's simply a semantic game and a bad one at that.

It is always possible for anyone in a conversation to redefine some word, for instance by stating that racism = prejudice + power, and to then say that the word only apply in such a way that it gives one of the party what it wants in the dispute. One could hope that this type of debate, that is a debate over definition, could be solved, but not so.

Since definition are a matter of convention, and since any word can be used in any way by any party in a debate, we should not expect that it is possible to come to an agreement over words and concepts with people who wish to attain certain political objective. Rather, the best we can hope for is to analyze the semantic strategy so as to make it plain what it is that they are trying to do.

In the case of the redefinition of the word "racism", the intent seem to be to achieve the following objectives (there may be others):

(1) To use the credibility that the word racism, in its previous, individualistic interpretation, so as to yield it as a semantic weapon against white people generally. Indeed, suppose that a white person agrees that individual racism is bad. Suppose he believes that people should be based on their individual merit, and that race is merely a superficial characteristic and that only an ignorant or a bigot would act a certain way toward a person based on the color of his skin. Suppose furthermore that, based on this understanding, a white person has been trained to more or less panic in the face of an accusation of racism. Then the goal of the redefinition of the term is simply this: to expand the range of reason over which to call a white person, and only a white person, racist while still provoking in him a feeling of panic which you are then free to exploit for your own gain.

host it on some website with common leftist shit and the best replies, this is gonna be great

i wont have to think for myself anymore feelsgoodman

The derogatory term is 'firangi' in Hindi and every language has them rest everything is a know fact their is no official policy for their to be source you might find white tourist testimony at the most

checked and keked

(2) To shift the political discourse from an individualist to a collectivist frame of reference. While racism is allegedly "prejudice" (an individual characteristic) + "power" (both an individual and, under their definition, a collective characteristic), the members of the left seem to insist only on the collectivist aspect of the "power" term. Indeed, if one were to say that can only be racist a PERSON who has both (personal) prejudice and (personal) power, then the definition would still be wholly individualist, and would not give the professional activist what he wants. Since the professional leftist race warrior is interested in enacting some form of government action, and since he is also interested in blaming all white people regardless of what it is that they did individually, then they would do well to make sure that the power accrued to white people on a collective basis instead of merely an individual one. This allow the leftist activist to simply presume, without having to care about the individual case, that the person in front of them actually has power in virtue of his belonging to a certain collective. (The notion of "white privilege" does this.) Furthermore, one can also collectivize the notion of prejudice, by claiming that, in a society of white privilege, all of its member are socialized in such a way that they implicitly internalized white supremacist cultural norm, and that, therefore, simply in virtue of the fact that one is a member of this society, one must also be prejudiced. It follows from this that all white are guilty AS A GROUP and because of what the group did or does. It furthermore has the following consequence:

(3) Only white can be racist and all non whites can never be racist. (See (1) as to why this is advantageous in a society that has elevated "racism" to the status of the worst crime.)

I'm more left but I disagree with OP's statement.

This isn't something we can argue, because we have different definitions of the word "racist". Where I use the definition that is colloquial, you will use the technical definition, that only sociologists and BLM find any use for

(cont of (3)) Indeed, it may be remarked that, according to what has been said in (2), a black westerner, in virtue of being a westerner, may have internalized white supremacist prejudices. But, since this person is not part of the favored group, he does not have power. Thus black people may be prejudiced (against themselves or others), but they may never be racist, as they do not, by definition, have power. On the other hands, all whites must be racist. Having internalized, without their knowing it, prejudice due to their upbringing in an allegedly white supremacist upbringing, they fulfill the first condition of the racist accusation. They furthermore, by virtue of being members of the dominant white group, have power. Therefore, they have prejudice + power. Therefore, they are racist.


Now, since racism is a bad and is a crime of sort, since crime requires a punishment and a payment for those parties which have been injured, and since all whites are guilty of the worst crime of racism, it must follow that non whites are justified in asking some form of apologies, payment and subservience from the automatically guilty whites.

This is why the definition "racism = prejudice + power" has been created. It is a propaganda move in the context of an inter ethnic conflict. It holds no truth value. It is no more true than a move in chess is true. It is an hostile maneuver against a hated group of people.

(The problems one encounter if one use an individualist view of "power" have already been hinted upon by ).

The talking point is literally semantics. Leftists redefine the meaning of "racism" so that the power of the word can be used to further only their agenda, then separate racism of the type that does not further their agenda from race overall- the word "Prejudice" has no racial connotation. As a result, in the presence of leftists, the only way to talk about racism is to further their agenda by discussing ONLY minority groups. It's quite a smart strategy, I admit.

Why should intelligent blacks born into wealth benefit because of their skin color

This is called: opposition research. Shill confirmed. Kek approved.

fuck niggers, also jews

>Today's common leftist talking point:
>"People of color and specifically black people cannot be racist to white people. They can only be prejudiced"
>common

jesus christ does anyone here actually TALK to liberals/democrats in real life? almost NO ONE thinks that other than hard left SJWs. I know most republicans don't believe the fringe neo-nazi white supremacist garbage on this board because I actually KNOW and TALK to republicans in real life. Get out of the fucking house you NEETS.

>Going outside
NORMIES GET OUT REEEEEEEEEEEE

show that racism exists without the human construct of systematic racism, therefore the existence of systematic racism, or one's place within one, is not a requirement for racism.