"Reverse Racism"???

"Reverse Racism"?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can be racist about your own ethnic group, a national group or another racial identity type. Well, if you wish, it seems silly to me, as does the term "reverse racism". However, the concept of racism by a person towards their own general group or type isn't reverse racism as much as racism... Unless we talk of this argument being used as a cheap fallacy to undermine an argument that is a matter of a recognised social inequality. That's if it is an inequality.

However, even inequalities can be selected or suggested, and even if institutional in one place/region the local concern may be far from so elsewhere. In such cases, it can easily far from proven.

In the end, doesn't everything that matters come back to what is evident??

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we consider the evidence as opposed to reactionary opinions and selected factoids then what might be the best way to judge a case of this type of racism??

We shouldn't jump to conclusions, we cannot assume various facts nor selected quote for pro or con values to prop up a premise. And, we shouldn't confuse ignorance or indoctrination for malicious intentions. We could find our opinion are correct, yet until we're sure of this the barking of buzzwords is counter-productive and part of a mechanism to confront an argument while not truly engaging it. Just as any number of other methods used can respond to an argument while not truly arguing against it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

What are we left with after the dust has settled?

Our sound reasoning and our demand that we ever try to improve upon it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Reverse Racism" is a term that expresses very little other than the wholesale labelling of people and arguments that fall just over an imagined fence. And this line in the sand shift accord to the thinker's political views, making it far from a practical term. It is a meme in internet culture and lacks a clear definition, not that this stops the usage of the term. Indeed, the very real problem with internet culture is how definitions of serious terms are made cartoonish or are warped by feelings, or, for that matter, the effect in an argument. And that is the root of internet terms, or those made popular via internet culture, they're a rhetoric device and not a sound scientific or philosophical tool.