"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.

A Very Leftist Labelling Problem.

Interestingly, in the usage of terms in times past there liberal, progressive, socialist, and communist were very much apart. Today the lines are confused, and yet the same left divides exist.  A progressive could be ignorant and confused and think him or herself a communist, while not having taken the time to study Marx and work out if they are or are not of the ilk. 

A liberal might well think themselves a progressive while in reality not wishing for serious reform and so being more centrist than they like to admit. And so it is with a wide range of ideas. 
The idea or the fraction of it that you like creates a sense of identity, a great label that you think describes you well enough.  And, this is often regardless of the implications of a name and regardless of how others may perceive you as belonging to this mix and match belief. People are often pseudo as far as ideology. 

[will continue this line of thought soon.]

Gender Identity Contionued...

]More notes from recent thoughts on this subject, see my early article for more thoughts, and more may follow in the future.]  

You may identify as whatever you wish, this doesn't mean you scientifically are the case, with gender fluid and other variables this identity choice is even more illogical from a factual point of view, however, tolerating such identities isn't a problem. What is a problem is confusion over what gender it at the culture level, and how this social understanding is not compatible with the scientific definition of gender. Knowing that radically different points relate to differing areas of thought and study create different results, the pseudoscience of many social justice activists are massively biased to the fundamental views of culture imposing gender identity, which they take as gender in totality, whereas, the less left voices focus on the scientific view only, such as chromosomes. The fact is there are chromosomal and chemical imbalance reasons for gender characteristics meaning the general conservative view is in error, not that social identity is enough to argue that gender doesn't exist and/or is an imposed cultural view.

The nuanced answer has more to say than SJW claims and the (often) right-wing rhetoric.

Milo And His Roman Catholic Faith

who wants to bet that Milo-bots will comment before they watch it all, just as progressives will do much the same.