With my recent post I was trying to ask if there are other people like me who also feel that people seem to focus more and more on skin color and ethnicity in an unhealthy and obsessive way and I thought I’d find some people agreeing with me who also feel uncomfortable and stressed out by this.

But instead the overwhelming response was people trying to justify racism instead of agreeing that it’s a bad thing and needs to end. As if they were trying to use every possible argument to bash on me and justify racism.

Why could it be the case that so many people here on Lemmy support racism? In my opinion there is no reason to discriminate someone based on their looks PERIOD!

  • Social_Discussion@lemm.eeOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    22 hours ago

    You can literally look up the definition on Google: [“1 : a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race”

    “also : behavior or attitudes that reflect and foster this belief : racial discrimination or prejudice”](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism)

    • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      22 hours ago

      I’m not confused about what racism is. You’re the one saying people who disagree with you are supporting racism.

      • Social_Discussion@lemm.eeOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        22 hours ago

        I’m saying people not acknowledging unequally treating people based on their looks is bad and even trying to justify it are the cause of racism since their argumentation is based on the fundamentals of its literal definition and thereby supporting it in an ongoing cycle.

        • juliebean@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          15 hours ago

          what you just wrote seems quite at odds with the definition you just posted two comments up. the google definition talks about belief in differing traits and capacity and a belief in racial superiority. your definition seems to only care about unequal treatment. it seems an equivocation meant to disparage those who might seek to counteract historical (google definition) racism with a bit of modern (your definition) racism. it strikes me as disingenuous in the extreme.

        • Social_Discussion@lemm.eeOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          22 hours ago

          See its very paradox to say, we need to act racist because racism exists instead of trying to end it by the root. You can’t fight fire with fire, it’s as simple as that. And that’s not just my opinion. Wake up people

          • Achyu@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            20 hours ago

            Is affirmative action racist in your eyes?

            Is that what you are trying to say? Your points seem vague.
            If so, then yeah, you’re most likely wrong.

            We, humans fight fire with anything that can fight fire effectively. There is a technique where wild fires are stopped by setting a controlled fire to use up he fuel for the wild fire and provide a gap in the wild fire’s path.

            Affirmative action is good, as long as racism exists, to level out the differences in the material conditions and to provide empowerment to stand against racism.

            • electric_nan@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              17 hours ago

              Yeah, this is pretty much their bit. “Policies aimed at correcting historical trends of racial disparities are racist, actually.” It’s such a stupid argument that I can’t believe anyone makes it in good faith.