To any SJWs lurking: I don't understand "Blacks can't be racist...

To any SJWs lurking: I don't understand "Blacks can't be racist." I understand the argument of racism = prejudice + power and blacks = not power, but i disagree with its assumptions. If a black CEO of a company says " I hate white people, so I'm only going to hire black people." Is he not being racist since him being a ceo of a company is definitely a position of power. Makes no sens.e

Other urls found in this thread:

anonymousconservative.com/blog/the-theory/rk-selection-theory/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

The CEO is still being systematically oppressed. He does not benefit from white privilege and suffers from the effects of colonialism. He cannot feel safe, as he is constantly surrounded by his oppressors, and as such, he is worse of than his white employees, who benefit from systematic oppression, white supremacy, and the continuing colonization and commodification of black bodies.

Let me break it down for you.

If you insult a white person, that person will either insult you back or do nothing.

If you insult a black person, that person will either insult you back or physically attack you.

That's all leftism is, lashing out at easy targets while turning a blind eye to people who respond to criticism with violence.

The question is what you need to do to stop being criticized.

>i disagree with its assumptions
You can't do that! Critical theory is being TAUGHT in CLASSES. This is just like if you went to calculus class and said you disagreed with the differentiation rules and stuff. You don't have the authority to disagree. This is literally undebatable.

That is not what racism is. The ultra-left has tried to redefine the term to suite their agenda in an attempt to remove accountability from minorities who are racists. Reverse-racism is made up as well.

Racism is the belief that each individual race holds certain qualities as a result of their ethnic background. Asians are good at math and honorable, blacks are warlike and athletic, whites are the best politicians and inventors, etc. These qualities are, in the mind of the racist, derived from the genetic ancestry of each individual.

That's racism. If you're a black midget and you think whites are all predisposed to imperialism and oppression, then guess what, you're a racist. Sick of the left redefining terms to suit their needs when they really have no concept of what they mean in the first place.

>he is worse of than his white employees

that part is actually true though, considering he's still a nigger

They built up the word "racist" to be a weapon that could be used against whites. They couldn't let whites appropriate it and use it against blacks.

It's a cult.

SJWs treat privilege as the original sin: everyone must accept their thinking or they're heretics/bigots. You can't do anything to absolve yourself of this sin, and no matter how poor you are these pampered shrieking brainwashed children will dismiss anything you respond with as 'white tears.'

Do not bother talking to SJWs, just catch them alone and assault them. Smash their skull open and make the others afraid. Nothing else will change anything.

>ceo 5.000,000 dollar salary
>systematically oppressed

>30k white employees
>fear by said ceo

Assuming this isn't a troll post, I'm not seeing this. Oprah Winfrey has a lot more power than I do.

But she still suffers from the negative effects of white supremacy. Money is not the only form of power. As a woman of color, Oprah continues to be the victim of racialized social expectations and interactions occurring within a framework of white supremacy.

This is bait, but:

What systemic oppression? Every news outlet, university, and HR policy is made in favor of minorities. Where is the system that's conspiring to keep them down? Liberal faggots never answer this.

It can still affect her, like her getting boycotted when she went down to Cobb County in Georgia, but in terms of "If there is a power structure in society, is Oprah above me?" The answer to that is undeniably yes.

Power is completely contextual and situational. This means one race can't be said to inherently have or lack power in every situation and interaction they engage in. If a group of black kids is bullying a white kid for his race, they're the ones with the power in that situation. If a black person shoots a white person for their race, of course they're the one with the power in that situation, because violence is the simplest, most basic way to wield power against someone. To suggest that people of one characteristic inherently and universally have power over people of another characteristic regardless of the infinite conceivable set of interactions in which the distribution and wielding of the power could be reversed shows a complete lack of comprehension for even the most basic assumptions of human interactions and the study and qualification of them. Progressives know exactly as much sociology and anthropology as is necessary to advance their causes, and then completely ignore the entire rest of those fields that doesn't directly tell them that they're right.

1000 years of white supremacist imperialism don't just vanish into thin air overnight. People of color have been exploited and had their resources stolen, and now must live in a cultural space dominated by whites. People of color are viewed as less than human, and even whites who claim to not be racists have been raised in a white supremacist society, and thus will have negative stereotypes ingrained in their subconscious.

> "If there is a power structure in society, is Oprah above me?" The answer to that is undeniably yes.

Not really. She is forced to occupy a white cultural space, and is expected to be absolutely perfect, or else she'll be "just another black" to white people. She is constrained by white systems of oppression whilst you are not.

Explain me why so many of these sjw girls lack in awareness they make up for with DSL?

Hence you're racist

Most transparent bait evar.

So the winners won and now the losers have to live in their society. Why should the winners feel bad about this? Even if this is true, all it means is that white people have won in the struggle of the races and should reap their benefits over the losers they have conquered. Privilege is only a problem when it's unearned, and if whites really succeeded at "1000 years of white supremacist imperialism," I'd say they earned it.

No. You're misunderstanding the comment.

To be fair: so do most black people and liberals.

>Black people can't be racist
Isn't referring to the definition of "racist" you are familiar with. It is referring to a sociological model used as a tool to interpret the manner in which people interact with each other in a specific time, place and culture.

It is a tool that can be used to examine certain facets of a social situation. It is a comment referring to that specific context, and not to what you are referring to as racism. It's is sociology jargon.

What you are calling racist has nothing, at all, to do with the statement that "black people can't be racist."

>some shit can still affect her
>> "If there is a power structure in society, is Oprah above me?" The answer to that is undeniably yes.

This is why I think the Regressive Left has brain damage. If you really think you would win in a 1v1 against Oprah, you're delusional.

Why does anybody deserve to benefit from the oppression of others? We live in an enlightened, Liberal society which has come to understand that all humans have the same set of rights.

Throughout all the shitposting, trolling, and moronic bullshit i read on here all the time.. every so often I come across a post like this. Where i think that someone out there seriously gets it. These are what I come here for.

>buzzwords

Construct a fucking argument. Please.

the definition was pulled out of the air, it has no basis in reality, it's sole purpose is to create perpetual victims and disenfranchise whites

You fascists really are morons. Racism is power + privilege. Is that really so difficult to understand? Any individual can be prejudiced, but only an oppressor can be racist. It's not rocket science.

>disenfranchise whites
Like that's something people need to do. As if any people that have daily interaction with black people in public won't just eventually start to hate them. Including other black people.

So she has a few factors against her favor. Being one of the richest women in the world easily outweighs that. Your autistic model detached form useful reality fails to consider the basic fact that privilege in one context of interaction does not equate to overall social power wielded as a sum taking into account all forms and contexts of power, of which money is one of the strongest that is often able to outweigh even disadvantages in almost every other context of relations. Think about it this way, I think one of the easiest tests of who wield power is to take an average hypothetical person off the street, give them a gun, and tell them that they must shoot one of two people, no more, no less. The people to be potentially shot each are allowed to use any means of power or social influence in their arsenal to convince the person with the gun to shoot the other potential victim. Imagine it's you against Oprah. Sure, you can take advantage of all of society's stereotypes against blacks and try to use them to get the person with the gun to spare you and shoot Oprah. But in the end, if Oprah offers all her billions in return for you being the one to be shot, even against whatever racial prejudices you can summon in the shooter's social unconscious, who do you honestly think is going to walk away without a bullet in them?

If you hate someone based solely on their race, you are a "racist".

That user misunderstands what the statement means, but here is the explanation of why that CEO "can't be racist:"

The CEO is a black man in a society and culture dominated by white people, their culture, and their history. As a result, you cannot separate his actions as a black man from a black man in a predominantly white man's world.

And that's what racism is, under the thing being referred to when sociologists say "black people can't be racist." Because it is impossible to separate the black person's actions from their being "a black person's actions in a predominantly white person's culture." Whereas you can just interpret a white guy's actions as "actions." You can't get the focus group to analyze the black man's behavior outside the context of his being black in a white world whereas, for the white guy, you don't need to.

Sorry, your opinion isn't worth as much as a human's. You were born a cuck and you belong yapping in the college dorms for pity sex from chubby feminists. Run along now, men are talking.

I know you're trolling, but all benefit comes at the detriment of something else, whether it be the animals you slaughter for food or an abstract concept such as the amount of minerals left in a mine, so to suggest that benefit should not be enjoyed when it comes with detriment to something or someone else as it always must is inherently ridiculous. Add to that the fact that human rights and equality are a social construct that should only be wielded as far as they are useful to a society, and you will see that using them as a reason for a society to not benefit off of others goes against the very use-derived purpose "human rights" are (or at least should be) subservient to in the first place.

see

This is a perfect imitation of the type of nonsense argument SJWs make. Complete with totally out-of-context use of the word "colonialism" and the weird preference for "black bodies" over "black people."

Well said.

Stormfags and SJWs are the twin scourges of America, what do they have in common?

Unapologetic, unashamed, ass-ignorant racism. Simple as that.

To Coventry with them all, and let the rest of us live in peace.

>Racism is power + privilege
I cannot believe I share planet with people who think like that

You falsely presume that just because your mode of theorization proposes an inextricable connection between one's person and one's race if their race is not hat of the majority that that inextricable connection exists in the minds of every average person and guides their actions in a manifest and universal enough way to merit it a meaningful label of material reality, which is a comically overconfident assumption to make. Theory that does not conform to behavioral reality as yours doesn't is pretense existing in a realm of ultimately autistic and inconsequential theorization. Please check your assumptions of the relation between theory and expressed reality before drawing the foolish conclusions that you do.

The argument racism = power + prejudice is a way of protecting yourself against being called a racist while you do and say racist things.

The idea that President Obama can not be racist because he is black and has no power is ridiculous. He is literally one of the most powerful people in the world. What SJWs don't want to acknowledge is that groups of people are not a monolith and that we live in a world with systems of power.

If a black person on the street calls you a racist name, it doesn't matter, he has no power over you. If he then pulls out a gun and says he is going to kill you because of your race, suddenly he has power. Similarly if a black school principle treats the white students poorly, as seen in many inner city schools, that is racism as he has power over the children. If a white child calls him a nigger, does that child really have any power?

What it comes down to is that women are a sickness that need to eradicated from the earth. We need to use them for breeding only and build male sexual family units to raise boys. Because a world without women doesn't care about race.

>I understand the argument of racism = prejudice + power
That is some tasty bait, I think I'll have some.

...

>You falsely presume that just because your mode of theorization proposes an inextricable connection between one's person and one's race if their race is not hat of the majority that that inextricable connection exists in the minds of every average person and guides their actions in a manifest and universal enough way to merit it a meaningful label of material reality, which is a comically overconfident assumption to make.
I'm just going to leave the sentence structure issues aside and point out that what you're trying to say is wrong, too.

It's not that there is an inextricable connection.

It's that there is no way to discover what connection there is, nor understand its importance in shaping the person.

This makes the most sense to me. On a lot of non-obvious political topics, such as minimum wage, gun control, religious freedom, I eventually get to a point of "Oh I understand your point, and even though I fundamentally disagree with that concept, I at least know where the are coming from." But with this, their argument is absolutely nonsensical

>Let me tell you what racism means.
You don't fucking get to redefine a word and then act childishly indignant when people remind you of its actual definition.

The SJW re-definition of the word "racist" is explicitly designed to legitimize a double standard that makes whites the bad guy in any context. It is nothing more than scapegoating and should be seen as immaturity.

It's not meant to make sense. It's meant to get whoever says it what they want. It's not true and if you question it, see how people react - see if they can answer your questions (if they even bother to), without trying to intimidate or mock you.

No, it isn't. It is designed to provide a tool to sociologists. Technical language tends to include jargon. That neither you nor your SJW bogeyman are familiar with it is simply because neither of you read, very much.

Since when has "cuck" become an insult? It is a sexual preference no different from your own.

Watson chose his words carefully, you should read them carefully as well.

There is indeed 'no firm reason' 'to anticipate' - quite the opposite was the anticipation of most of us until enough DNA could be gathered to test the hypothesis.

Nonetheless, that hypothesis fails. Real scientists adjust their theories to the facts. Racists keep trying to do the opposite instead.

>It's that there is no way to discover what connection there is, nor understand its importance in shaping the person.
Then any line of reasoning claiming to describe social truths that derives from that is ultimately specious conjecture and should be ignored.

People who didn't grow up around a lot of minorities believe this shit. Anyone who grew up in the south or a big city knows that all people can be racist.

I completely agree with you. Animals' bodies should not be exploited for human gain either. That's why I'm a vegan.

>ceo of a company is definitely a position of power

the 'reasoning' behind it is that because we live in a culture dominated by whites, blacks cannot ever be as powerful. therefore a black ceo has less power than a white one, so he can't be racist.


its demented I know, but that's the go

Wait, so you're saying that sociology defines terms to mean the opposite of what they actually mean, but that it's okay because those educated in the discipline understand that's what they're doing?

No wonder sociology is completely worthless.

>should be seen as immaturity

That would be the generous end of the scale to me - if someone was an autist beyond a meme autist and believed the shit SJW definition, I might think they were immature, but the rest, I'm going to assume they are out to fight me and feel free to fight back, and fight to win.

You're not using specious correctly, or you're just being incredibly hyperbolic. A hammer that's a little too heavy is still a hammer. It's a useful tool--not the most-perfect tool conceivable.

Description doesn't have purpose.

"Complete opposite?" Oh please. It is defined in specific, technical way when used by people doing something technical.

Not an SJW, but I'll chime in anyway. The reason why you don't think it makes any sense is because it doesn't. The SJW definition of racism is quite different than the actual definition. The SJWs have attempted to covertly change the traditional definition being something like, "race based discrimination" to "race based discrimination targeted at a non-dominant social group." To put this in a metaphor imagine that you buy a banana cream pie from a bakery. You've heard nothing but great things about this bakery and everyone agrees they make a killer banana cream. You continue to buy this pie from this bakery for a really long time, and serve it to your children, your grand children, your parents, ect and everyone thinks it's great. Then one day you bring home another fabulous b-cream from that bakery and cut everyone a piece then you take a bite and it tastes off. It tastes distinctly like a lemon meringue pie, which you're not so fond of. You go back to the bakery and say that you asked for a banana cream but got a lemon meringue and you want them to give you what you ordered. The clerk takes a look and assures you this is the very same b-cream you've ordered for years. You protest, so the manager gets called he takes a look and says it's a genuine bananarama creamadino. A bit confused you know it's not right, but they insist its the same, even though it tastes nothing like that sweet B.C.P. you know and love. You give it to your kids and grand kids and they don't mind, cause this pie is labeled banana cream and they've grown up knowing that this is the best B-A-N-A-N-A C-R-E-A-M they know. Simply put, people have been brought up for generations being taught that racism is bad. Then the SJWs have made a ham-fisted attempt to alter the definition to exploit the cultural conditioning to hate racism. That way people will be too afraid to disagree with what they say lest they look like a bigot int he eyes of their peers.

Stop attempting to legitimize this shit by conflating it with sociology. Sociology as a field is largely a bunch of pseudointellectuals blowing hot air, but what little legitimacy it may have had is lost by its association with the logical contradiction that I just explicitly pointed out.
>Hurr durr if you don't agree with it then you're just uneducated and need to read more.
I have heard this exact argument from SJWs before. So you both failed to understand the fallacy I pointed out and you fail to understand that using an ad hominem fallacy against me is not legitimate. Good for you.

It's not a hammer, it's a tool randomly hacked together out of arbitrary assumption when the very type and shape of tool relevant and needed is not even known.

Oh, you need purpose?

anonymousconservative.com/blog/the-theory/rk-selection-theory/

Be careful what you wish for.

Sure, I understand. And if I define the color blue to mean the wavelengths of light you laypeople typically associate with purple, I can confidently describe the sky as purple in a technical way to do something technical. Then when you act confused, I can simply act superior and say you're just not educated enough to understand how purple the sky is, since you're using the wrong intellectual framework.

I read that entire wall of text about fucking banana cream pie and still don't understand how it relates to racism.

>Sure, I understand. And if I define the color blue to mean the wavelengths of light you laypeople typically associate with purple, I can confidently describe the sky as purple in a technical way to do something technical. Then when you act confused, I can simply act superior and say you're just not educated enough to understand how purple the sky is, since you're using the wrong intellectual framework.
This
This is exactly what the nigger you're talking to is defending

>As a woman of color, Oprah continues to be the victim of racialized social expectations and interactions within a framework of white supremacy.

Why is it then that critical race theory preaches that blacks be "authentic". Doesn't that perpetuate these "racialized social expectations"?

>people have been conditioned by our education system and culture to hate racism
>Then SJWs change what racism means
>Rely on peoples hatred of the word racism to make sure no one questions the changing of the definition because if you're not against racism you're a bigot regardless of the definition they are using
>basically they've taken the the definition of racism (which is the banana cream) you know and switched it with something else, all the while pretending it's the same, even though you know it's not.

oh, ok I guess that makes sense.
As long as we agree on the core issue here which is that this redefinition is not legitimate.

LOL select all images with bananas

...