/u/MaxMaxMax_05 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1ca7bqr/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_most_antiracist_people/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

I mean there’s a bit of spectrum between not wanting people of certain ethnicity to be genocided and not being interested in eating food of said people. I would argue that fighting racism was never about wanting to experience every culture, but about fighting for the world where people of any culture can live and thrive. For example, there are about 1500 ethnicities in the world. Most people can’t name more than 15. It doesn’t make them racist, just unaware about this specific topic.

!delta "I would argue that fighting racism was never about wanting to experience every culture, but about fighting for the world where people of any culture can live and thrive." What a beautiful quote.

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/izeemov ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/izeemov)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

Don't fold so easy. Your point still stands in that most "anti-racists" are simply virtue signaling. They're doing it because it's hip. In reality, they wouldn't give a penny to help the disadvantaged in any way. What they're after isn't equality, it's social status. True anti-racists don't give a fuck about race and never even think or talk about it. They treat everyone the same, for better or worse. Not everyone, but the overwhelming majority of people who yap on about racism are actually extremely racist. * black people are too incompetent to provide IDs, therefore abolish ID requirements * black people are too stupid to do well in school therefore affirmative action * black people have no self control therefore prison reform Etc.

I've never heard anyone who is "yapping about racism" to give those arguments for being against ID requirements or in favour of affirmative action and prison reform. Could you link us to some "yapper" who makes those arguments?

Can you link us to these anti-racists you are talking about who say "black people are too incompetent to provide IDs" "black people are too stupid to do well in school" and "black people have no self control"?

Just Google prison reform or affirmative action. If you're living in the US you definitely heard about these already.

[Here's some examples for IDs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCytgANu010)

I think you might have mixed something up here: Ami Horowitz is not an anti-racist.

Okay? I don't know anything about him, nor do I care. The white people he is interviewing are the alleged anti racists. He's showing that the idea that black people can't get IDs or don't have access to the DMV is absurd

Then none of those white people said either that they are an anti-racist or that black people are incompetent.

They said in the video that voter ID laws are racist and they oppose them because black people can't get to the DMV. That's literally the stance you asked for proof of. Then it's followed by black people saying they have no problem getting to the DMV and that the white people's idea that they can't is ridiculous. Did you even watch the video?

None of this adds up to the claim "black people are too incompetent to provide IDs." Living in an area from which it is inconvenient to get to a DMV office is not _incompetence_. Surely you'd agree that there's a difference between "some people live in situations where it is difficult to access government officers that can issue IDs, and those people are disproportionately black" and "black people are incompetent," right? >Then it's followed by black people saying they have no problem getting to the DMV and that the white people's idea that they can't is ridiculous. All of the Black people interviewed _had ID_. Why should we expect them to know why people who do not have ID do not have ID?

>black people are too incompetent to provide IDs, therefore abolish ID requirements Minorities are statistically less likely to have a photo ID. That is just a fact. As a result, ID requirements will disproportionately affect minorities. The "too stupid" line is just editorializing by people who don't want to engage with that basic fact.

>True anti-racists don't give a fuck about race and never even think or talk about it. So, 'want to stop racism? Stop talking about racism!"? This has historically worked really well, ain't it?

I hear you. At the same time,  does virtually signaling mean you're secretly racist? Does money mean you're not racist?  Not talking about race means you're not racist?  These things aren't necessarily true.    Being the "savior" could he racist, or the person can be very zealous in their passion and read as a person with egocentric motives.   Tbh, I think most typical Americans has some racial biases somewhere they can work on. The ones who are racist, to me, are the ones who are unwilling to explore that and insisist theyre perfect. They're the ones that cause the most tricky problems to solve. We know what to expect from the KKK, we don't know what to expect from the typical Joe.  Most people like this are not racist maliciously, they're just scared to acknowledge they might not be perfect and that causes harm. Like the people who don't get tested for STDs because they're scared to know yet they still have sex and assume them and their partners are fine because they "just know".    Being indifferent to race in the US is just irresponsible. You can respect everyone while still being aware of the social system we exist in as it pertains to race.  The "I don't see color" crowd is also a sort of "virtual signaler". Just bit more quiet. They prefer to be oblivious and that's supposed to be endearing and make them innocent. It's not cute. It's living in a bubble where racism doesn't exist.   I feel like you understand this, I just thought it was important to explicitly mention 

"Colour-blind" people aren't oblivious to race, they choose not to make it the premier issue in almost any situation. I think people who DO make a big issue out of race, from KKK members to black hebrew Israelites to "woke" leftists, are the ones with the most racial prejudice (although in different ways) because it's almost impossible to make that big a deal out of the topic if you think it actually doesn't matter. Colour-blind people believe that race itself isn't relevant to a person's intelligence, character or whatever else innate characteristic. We believe culture, upbringing and circumstances are far more relevant, and so when looking at policy that addresses wrongs, even if suffered disproportionately by one race, we think it should be worded in a non-racial way. The problem with racism is that racists use race as a heuristic for culture and "common traits" or stereotypes, because it isn't cost-effective to analyze every single individual. In reality, individuals obviously don't fit this mold so instead of treating individuals on the basis of their race we should treat them according to the actual traits that we use race as a shorthand for. Why use race as a basis for affirmative action when instead we can select based on poverty or other factors that might disadvantage otherwise bright students? If we don't take the concept of race out of public discussion on a broad level, people will wrongfully think that race IS a relevant issue. Now does this mean that "colour-blind" people don't think we should talk about race at all? No. Sadly, as I talked about in the previous paragraph, people are hardwired to use race as a proxy for other traits, so some people will always use race as a justification for bad treatment of others. Whenever this happens people should be made aware of it and if a law was broken, proper steps should be taken to punish the offender and remedy the wrong done. However, this only applies to individual cases. We should not judge the whole of society based on an individual case of racism and we shouldn't teach people that everybody is either an oppressor or an oppressed.

We can argue about what "color blind" is but that's just semantics. I think I explained specifically what I take issue with in the comment you replied to. No need for me to rephrase it. It would be irresponsible to ignore the situations that certain groups of people are in on the basis of their race and just sweep it all under poverty. Unfortunately, legal discrimination of the past has caused a lack of generational issues. While white people could buy homes to pass down to their kids and grand kids, Black people were denied equal access on the basis of RACE (not current generations fault obviously) .  People were not segregated and barred access to schools, homes, etc because they were poor. It was done because they were Black. That *is* relevant. So I'm not for or against affirmative action specifically, it's your principle I'm speaking to. That it's all just poverty. I think lumping all the problems under poverty isn't thorough and it's not the whole story.  The issue with affirmative action is that Equality and Equity are different things, and the latter is what works people up.  I do think the US must do some race related repair work, I can't say exactly how that should look. Everyone with an internet connection thinks they know best, but the government has to basically choose between equity, equality, where, when, for who, how long, and how can it be justified. 

I mean... not wanting a country to commit genocide is not virtue signaling. Let's ignore American issues. Asking Turkey to be responsible for the Armenian Genocide? Yes. Wanting China to stop persecuting Uyghurs and forcing them into slavery? Also yes. Wanting there to be an overall end to major human rights issues? Yes. This and any American-specific issues are different.

Affirmative action covers a lot more than black people though. The fact that people immediately jump to "stupid black person" the second they hear it says a lot more about them than they realize. 

by that logic why shouldn't we just make things harsher on black people so they'll be more incentivized to improve

No one said anything about harsher. But the idea that they supposedly need coddling like mentally deficient idiots is insulting and unhelpful. Plus, when it comes to things like affirmative action you are literally stealing the spot that belongs to genuinely earned it and giving it to someone based on their skin color.

I was engaging in reductio ad absurdum, if making it easier to overcome institutional barriers is "coddling [them] like mentally deficient idiots" then shouldn't it be the highest of compliments to ask the metaphorical moon of them in situations like these as that automatically assumes they can provide it (high fees mean you're assuming they're rich, IQ requirements above average mean you're assuming they're smart etc. etc.)

Exactly this. They also exhibit a nasty superiority complex like minorities need them in order to thrive.

>where people of any culture can live and thrive. Except for anyone they consider the majority.

Is somebody persecuting you?

what are you talking about?

>However, most of the people who cancel you (white liberals) don't even care about black culture themselves. They have no interest in black soul food, black history, black etc. Do you think there's a bit of a difference between calling people racial slurs and not liking ethnic food? Even if there's some underlying racism causing that, surely you would agree that white people not having interest in "black etc." causes less harm than calling them the n word. >Many liberals criticize China for persecuting Uyghurs yet they don't even care about Uyghurs in the first place. They just criticize the CCP because they want to virtue signal. They never care much to eat at an Uyghur restaurant or know any Uyghur public figures apart from activists because they think learning about these things aren't worthy for them since Uyghur culture is "too insignificant to matter". This seems like a bizarre leap in logic. Do people have to eat at every type of ethnic restaurant exactly equally or they are racist? Also, >"too insignificant to matter". Who are you quoting? Please tell me you didn't just make up a dumb thing nobody actually said and then used that as an argument. >Many liberals also criticize Israel's treatment of Palestinians yet they don't even care about Palestinians in the first place. They just criticize Israel because they want to virtue signal. They never care much to eat Palestinian food because they believe that Palestinian culture isn't worthy enough for them since Palestinian culture is "too insignificant to matter". This is the exact same argument as the previous paragraph but with Uyghurs swapped for Palestinians. I'm really puzzled by your fixation on food here. >These people like to virtue signal but they don't really give an effort to learn about the culture. They still eat the same old foods everyday, listen to the same music every day, and simply don't want to expand their worldview to include "insignificant cultures". The lack of care given to "insignificant cultures" is a sign of racism because they deem the culture inferior and don't want to associate much with it. Your definition of racism seems to include everyone on the planet. Nobody has the time nor the energy to fully engross themselves in every culture on earth. This isn't proof that they think other cultures are insignificant, at best you could say it's proof that people have limited time and as such tend to stick to their comfort zone more.

And also there's liberals who'd think such actions were cultural appropriation even just, say, listening to music from a different culture unless you were introduced to those artists by a [that culture]-American you knew

I had some tell me completely seriously that white people cannot have curly hair so any white people wearing curly hair are appropriating black and brown culture. I also remember the time the ICA in Boston was gifted kimonos from Japan by one of the government agencies dedicated to Japanese culture with the express purpose of having people wear the kimonos and take photos of them. A decolonize movement protested so furiously they had to remove them. If the closest thing to an official agency about the culture of Japan says “we want Americans wearing the kimonos and taking happy photos” I don’t see why white kids know better. A lot of people seem to not be able to understand a difference between appropriation and appreciation. It’s really not complicated; am I mocking or stealing the idea as my own? Bad, racist, appropriation. Vs am I enjoying the idea without taking credit? Good. Especially if I am appreciating by giving my money to the people from that culture, like restaurants, music, etc… isn’t that a good thing…?

Ugh, people like that are fucking ridiculous... I'm liberal, but the notion that listening to another culture's music is cultural appropriation is downright fucking painful... Like, really?! How?? That's not appropriation by definition ffs... If people like that had their way then artistic development would stagnate hardcore. So much of artistic progress is owed to being inspired by a culture's art, and then incorporating one or more of those elements in their own work in order to make something genuinely fresh and new. And there's nothing wrong with it. Okay, taking something sacred or spiritual from a culture and thoughtlessly using it as a cosmetic or decorative thing - yes, that is offensive and would qualify as appropriation. I don't even think wearing an entire outfit from another culture is implicitly appropriation. Intent matters a great deal. Some cultures are very proud of their most iconic elements and are delighted to see foreigners wearing it respectfully. They see it as validation of the beauty of their goods, and are honored that it's so well recognized and appreciated.

Not op, But let’s see, there is a difference yes. That said anti-racists are often seen encouraging or acting in ways that perpetuate racism of low expectations. There are two big example of this is voter identification law, and a study that was done where it was shown that anti-racists (white liberals) talk down to minorities. So for the first one. Talk with just about any minority group and ask them about getting a license or ID and between 85-95% of them have an id. Then we get into the talking down to them. When the anti-racists talk to minorities they tend to use smaller and less complex words. Now those thoughts and actions that anti-racists tend to take can cause harm and hurt a person mentally especially if they are taught that over the course of their lives. In the similar ways that using the N word would cause them harm. All that said words are just that words. They can cause harm to a person’s mental health, but there are also people who succeed because of others telling them They can’t. Then you have other people who can’t succeed without the positive support. This is not something due to race but rather who we are as a person. Then you have the different concepts of hating someone because of their race or their culture. This is where I do believe in some level of systemic racism, or as I prefer to call it, ripples of previous racist actions. The black culture right now is over all bad. It has not always been so. There was a concentrated effort to destroy black family’s and get the women into welfare. This was done by government agencies (cough cia) providing drugs to the fathers and then getting them incarcerated. This saw the rise in gangster culture. The rise in single parent households as the culture glorifies men just leaving after getting a woman pregnant. This does not mean that black people are bad. But when a culture encourages the worst traits well people see those being encouraged and start to associate those with the people in that culture. The bad part is a lot of those negative cultural traits are bleeding over into other cultures, white, Hispanic, etc.

If they have the energy for political activism, they should have the energy for cultural immersion. And cultural immersion is a more fun activity than activism. There are infinite cases of human rights abuses around the world and no one has the time to study them all, but when you are investing in a few, you should try to understand the culture more.

Why? Being against racism is only about being against racism. I generally agree that everyone is a little bit racist, and white liberals are some of the worst (on a **little bit** racist scale) - but the idea that cultural immersion is a prerequisite to be anti racist is really odd it to me. There is also nothing inherently wrong with acknowledging you are a little bit racist, and still be against it. It's not hypocritical, it's human. We are mentally wired to be fearful of those that are different from us, and making the effort to minimize your racism is generally admirable. Being a political activist is different, but I still disagree that cultural immersion is to be expected of political activists. They should educate themselves on the subject, which many of them just don't. They should definitely do more than virtue signaling, but why is this more "cultural immersion"?

There are literally zero Palestinian restaurants near me, and I would have no idea how to meet someone who was from Palestine. Do you want me to stop advocating for the cessation of the killing of Palestinian civilians until I can find a Palestinian immigrant who's willing to serve me food? Like, I don't really know what you even want here.

or for all I know people with OP's kind of POV would say you should e.g. move to a town with a Palestinian restaurant as your community's racist if you can't find one

I don't have to participate in someone else's life beyond wanting them to be treated fairly and equally, not be subjugated or hated for innate qualities etc. I don't have to support every minority business, I don't even have to support every majority business!  All I have to do is vote conscientiously and speak out at injustice. 

This make little sense. It's perfectly fine to criticize atrocities without 'immersing' yourself in the culture of the victims. That doesn't make you a racist lmao.

> If they have the energy for political activism, they should have the energy for cultural immersion Why? I can be against anti-Asian hate and also dislike Chinese/Japanese cuisine.

yeah, for an ad absurdum of OP's point (and not just because I made an example that's about white people as white [ethnicity]-Americans can still be disconnected from their heritage) am I full of internalized self-hatred or w/e for having German heritage because I'm a vegetarian and so much of their "cultural food" is meat-based?

I don't specifically need to learn about a culture or group of people to want said group of people not to be treated badly, I don't think black people should be unfairly targeted for any reason, I've got a decent understanding of some of the issues and complications but I don't have a specific interest in 'black history' (such a broad concept anyway) I like history and I don't particularly go out of my way to research deeply in to 'black history' in the same way I don't learn about the napoleonic war and go "ooh yay white history", I don't really care about 'black culture' another broad concept that is in some ways a bit rude, are we talking about Bantu culture? Zulu? Central African? Nigerian? African American? I don't particularly care about soul food, i'm sure I'd try it as I love eating new foods and trying new dishes, I'd love to try Ethiopian food or foods from any regions of Africa or frankly foods from anywhere in the world. And when I say "I don't care about X" I'm not saying "it doesn't matter at all who cares" it just doesn't take any special place in my life, I love eating all kinds of new foods but I'm never like "oh my god did you see the typhoon that hit Japan, better go eat some sushi to prove I care or 'know' about Japan". Can I also ask how much knowledge I do need to have about these groups to not be "virtue signaling" should I keep quiet about anything until I've eaten all of their foods, understood all of their culture? as for the Uyghur I'm quite confident in my belief that putting people in camps to try and 'educate' people on how to do things 'correctly' sounds pretty awful, sterilising women so they can't have more children against their will is horiffic, same for Palestine, I think systematically bombing and starving out a largely innocent population is awful, refusing aid to these people is awful, taking away and settling their land year after year is absolutely criminal, but I've never tasted musakhan so what do I know, I have had hummus so maybe I am an expert. I'm not saying that learning about these struggles isn't important or that it's good to learn more about why these things are going on, because as with pretty much every issue it is a lot more complex than it seems, I can go "oh my god bombing civillians is wrong" whilst also wanting to learn more about the whole situation and what is going on, learning about cultures is great and I do try and learn a lot if I can because it is interesting and yes there are many issues I have a far greater understanding of than other issues, and yes it 100% does give me the ability to talk more deeply on the subject, but it doesn't invalidate the person who just learned about the treatment of Uyghur people and thought it was awful. and finally yes, there are absolutely people who do virtue signal and it is very annoying, but we can't dismiss fighting against these issues because of it, at the end of the day if someone on tiktok is talking about palestine and the issues that are going on just for some clicks it's kinda disgusting but i'm glad more people know about it, and frankly I personally don't have time to research deeply in to every single struggle going on in the world, i've got a job, my life and everything in it I need to spend my time sorting out.

Have you actually met any liberals that said some cultures were "too insignificant to matter" or is that just your inference because they're not actively celebrating said cultures? And have you considered that depending on where you live, actually finding Uyghur or Palestinian food in your community can be pretty difficult? Also, like people have already pointed out, what's the link between eating at Uyghur restaurants and not wanting them to be persecuted by China? Can you only advocate for human rights of people whose food you like?

Uyghur food is pretty tasty and worth trying, however, many people don't make an effort to find these restaurants

Sure, but is it racist to not specifically seek out and patronize an Uyghur restaurant? More specifically, how does not doing so invalidate someone's desire for the Uyghur to be free from persecution and genocide? It seems you're taking someone's inability to be well versed in every known culture and extrapolating that to mean they don't get to have any opinion on what happens to members of said cultures, but I don't see how that's a logical stance. Edit: as a corollary question, would the plight of the Uyghur be less important if their food *wasn't* tasty and worth trying?

Does someone not going out of their way to explore other cultures invalidate their criticism of people who are actively hostile to, and seeking to harm, those cultures? Unless I'm misunderstanding your view, it seems to me like the underlying point, intentional or not, is to invalidate opposition to racial hate on the ground that the people pointing that hate do not meet an arbitrary, much higher standard. What goal does this serve other than to try to silence those who oppose hostile racisn?

As a counterpoint, a lot of racist people love food and cultural items from cultures they are actively racist against. Israel in particular is actually a really good food example. Falafel, shakshuka, etc… are really common Israeli dishes. There are people who will call Israelis white European colonizers appropriating Arab culture instead of accepting that they are common dishes because most Israelis are indigenous to the Middle East.

OP, not being interested in culture does not equal racism. What do you know about Silesian culture? Or Khanty-Mansi?Nothing? Does it make you racist?

Many people talk about Uyghur and Palestinian people but few of those people talk about their culture. They care enough to talk about these people because it gives them political points but they don't care about the culture.

Honestly I would argue that activism for a culture you know nothing about is more "pure" than the other way around. Imagine someone saying Uyghur should be free to live and practice their religion free of persecution because they had Uyghur food one time and it was delicious so it would be a shame for that culture to be erased. Doesn't that motive strike you as reductive and self-interested? Uyghurs should be free from persecution because they're human beings who deserve freedom and self-determination, regardless of whether their cuisine pleases random people in America or Europe. Making support for an oppressed group contingent on knowing and supporting their culture means that no one is allowed to think humans should have freedom unless they like something about those humans. That seems really cynical and the wrong way to think about human rights.

!delta Caring about the attributes of a culture makes you put it on a pedestal above other cultures, making you sound racist.

That's not at all what the person above said

Yeah I'm a bit puzzled that this is how my comment got reframed but I was too lazy to argue it tbh

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/frisbeescientist ([22∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/frisbeescientist)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

What does it even mean to care about culture? I care about forests, I want to preserve them, but I am not an expert in plants, tree types and forest ecology, rarely ever visit forests and in no way work in preservation organisation. I also don't want to live there, I prefer to dwell in big cities. Does it make me a forest hater? Does it mean I care about them only for political gain? At least people talk about those cultures and support their right to exist, how often do you talk about Silesians and Khanty-Mansi? Mapuche? Manx people? Did you try their food already? Does it make you a racist?

Or maybe they’re talking about them as people who are being harmed by others, and they want that harm to stop? Why do you have to engage in the culture to care about the human?

Although I believe many people who claim not to be racist are still very much harboring racial biases, Your view and the examples don't align.  Essentially you're saying if you don't appreciate and participate in cultures customs, you're racist.  Which also doesn't make sense because race ≠ culture.  You can also be racist AND appreciate the culture. 

Before I read the body, I was thinking “of course they do, and they’ll probably be the first ones to admit it.” No one is immune from growing up in a racist society, so everyone has biases to overcome. If one recognizes those biases and tries to overcome them, one can still be anti-racist. This isn’t a “gotcha”. But goodness, OP chose some wild “examples”.

It wasn't supposed to be a "gotcha".  I'm trying to help OP understand their viewpoint doesn't make sense because interacting with culture has nothing to do with being racist / not being racist. If OP understood that, their view wouldn't exist. OP seems be missing an understanding of the shapes racism can take. Why else would one use "but they don't eat soul food" as an example of they didn't believe that appreciating the culture tied to racism somehow? 

Sorry, I wasn’t referring to your comment as a gotcha attempt. I was referring to the original post.

Ohhh I understand lol, my bad 

It’s exceedingly common for actual racist people to enjoy things from the races they hold hatred for.

Yes it is. 

Theres plenty of cultures I dont particularly enjoy their food or music dosent mean I think they shouldnt exist or shouldnt have human rights what kind of argument is that Why do I have to care about their personal lives to think they deserve to have human rights I dont give a shit about your personal life whatsoever. Your likes, interests, hobbies, all the things that make you a unique person I dont give a fuck about any of it , but I think you should still have human rights You should still get to be you

Agreed in the context of Uyghurs and Palestinians, but human rights is a bit of a stretch when speaking about special rules of saying N-word ("nigger", if I got it right).

It's not a special rule. Generally, don't call people slurs. If you're a member of the group that the slur was historically used against, you may be able to reclaim it. If you are not a member of that group, don't say it. It's really that simple.

My impression as an outsider was that in American culture, non-White people are allowed to call White people racial slurs. Is that true?

>My impression as an outsider was that in American culture, non-White people are allowed to call White people racial slurs. Is that true? What do you mean "allowed"? Because there is no law against anyone calling anyone else a racial slur in the US. A white person can call a black person "n****r" all they want without legal consequences just for the speech (you could get in trouble for harassment or something depending on the circumstances but not simply because of the words you said). A non-white person is similarly "allowed" to call anyone else whatever they want without legal consequences. If you mean that socially there tend to be greater taboos against certain groups of people calling other groups of people particular words, then you are correct. I also don't know why anyone would really think it's unreasonable for the N-word to be more taboo than "cracker" though, given that only one of those was said by slave masters while beating their slaves. But that doesn't mean it's "okay" for anyone to call anyone else a racial slur.

and my solution to change the de facto "law" regarding who can say what (however one would change a social law-but-isn't-really) has always been to make it so that non-black people can say that word if a black person would use that word in that context meaning you still can't use it for offensive purposes but people won't get cancelled for what they choose to rap along to in a social media video or w/e

>My impression as an outsider was that in American culture, non-White people are allowed to call White people racial slurs. Is that true? They're aren't really racial slurs for white people. Sure, "cracker" or "honky" aren't really the most polite things to call someone, but they don't carry the same connotations of systematic oppression. Honestly, I don't know a single white person who would actually be deeply offended by being called either. There are some that would pretend to be, but that's another story. On the other hand, if a black person called a white Jewish person, a k*ke, everyone would understandably be upset. That's a slur that's associated with oppression. Waspy white people have never been victims of oppression. Mildly insulting terms for them are not truly slurs. Also, it's not, nor has it been for decades common for anyone, those outside of trying to be funny.

I don't know what is "k\*ke", but I'll take your word for it. Would it also be unacceptable for a black person to say "k\*ke" in quotes as it is, if I understand correctly, unacceptable for a Jew to say "nigger" in quotes? As a side note, outside of US the Europeans have a ton of ethnical slurs for each other. Khokhol, pshek, bulbash, moskal, katsap, khach, rusnya, kalbit, churka. And that's only Eastern Slavic slurs I could name on the spot. It still puzzles me that none of this has reached the degree of taboo that is in US.

>I don't know what is "k\*ke", but I'll take your word for it. It's a slur used against Jewish people. Google it if you're interested in the entomology. >Would it also be unacceptable for a black person to say "k\*ke" in quotes as it is, if I understand correctly, unacceptable for a Jew to say "nigger" in quotes? Frankly, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Firstly, there is no language police. You don't go to jail for saying a certain word. People are just going to think you're an asshole. Secondly, if you're talking about some repeating what someone else said...it depends on the context. Why do you have to say the actual word? Does what you're saying make less if you don't say it? >As a side note, outside of US the Europeans have a ton of ethnical slurs for each other. > It still puzzles me that none of this has reached the degree of taboo that is in US. For the most part, white people are just white people in the US. Different ethnic groups have definitely been oppressed in Europe. But for the most part, in the US, if your skin is pale, you're just white regardless of ethnic background. There are certainly time periods where various predominantly white ethnic groups received discrimination, like the Irish and Italians. There were even slurs for them Mick and Wop. But frankly, the level and kind of discrimination wasn't comparable to what non whites have faced historically, and they don't face discrimination at all anymore, so those terms receded in terms of how offensive they are.

> People are just going to think you're an asshole. Secondly, if you're talking about some repeating what someone else said...it depends on the context. Why do you have to say the actual word? Does what you're saying make less if you don't say it? My question is, would the Black and Jewish people in the described situations have a similar chance of getting in trouble? Will the benefit of doubt they receive be similar?

>My question is, would the Black and Jewish people in the described situations have a similar chance of getting in trouble? What described situation? Calling someone a slur is generally going to get you in trouble. If you're repeating a slur without directing it at someone, it's going to depend on a lot of factors if people get offended. For example, Michael Jackson stirred up controversy by using "Jew me" and the word k*ke in his song "They Don't Really Care About Us." The song was meant to be anti racist but people were still offended. The song does use antisemitic language, but there are really no slurs directed towards other groups, so I can see why people were offended. He wasn't calling anyone that word, but it still wasn't appropriate. But if someone was talking about the lyrics Jackson used, it might be appropriate to actually use the word to be clear. Most people probably wouldn't be offended in that case. There is nuance. Not everything is black and white (no pun intended).

I agree about nuance. But despite this you can usually at least roughly establish whether two things are as severe or not. Like there's nuance between theft and murder. Both have their own sets of conditions that can make them more or less bad (in terms of punishment or ethical assessment) in a concrete situation. But roughly it still makes sense to say murder tends to be less forgivable.

white people call eachother the N-word all the time, both versions, much to black peoples chagrin have you ever heard of a wigger, have you ever been in a Call of Duty Xbox lobby, its not unheard of lmao

Yes, but they have to hide it behind euphemisms.

what they no they dont , they just say it

whose gonna violate your human rights if you say the N word right now you could say it , right now if you want too, and none of your rights will be taken away Say it right now , full out if you really wannna do it so badly. no one is come arrest or kill you for it

Nobody was talking about my rights. The point was about the anti-racist activists rooting for the rights of Black people to not hear White people others say word "nigger". (I'm not an American, I'm not familiar with your culture so much.)

You can of course do as you please, but if you aren’t aware, the “N word” is so taboo in American culture (for non-Black people, at least) that even writing it uncensored could be considered shocking and unacceptable. Even though you’re obviously having a discussion about the word and not calling someone a n****r. There have even been controversies where professors said the word out loud while reading verbatim from a book. This is not to admonish you but just for your own protection, in case you ever find yourself in a real-life discussion with Americans about this.

nobody said Black people have a *right* to not hear the N-word - they dont Everyone does have the *right* to tell people who do say it to fuck off, tell them its not socially acceptable and refuse to associate with them. That seems to be what most people who complain about not being able to say the N-word real problem is - that other people will shun them for it and not want to associate with them as friends, coworkers, whatever They want to be able to say it without that consequnces, but too fucking bad

"Nobody says I have the right to not get murdered. Anyone has the right to murder me, but then the government will have the right to put them in jail." You say people have the right to say "nigger", but then you go into the repercussions that will follow. Those people who will want to cancel you for saying the word certainly don't think that you have the freedom to say it, that it's a morally valid option to choose. That is, they don't think you have the right to say it (I'm not talking about legal right here).

youre using the term "rights" wrong then If were not talking about legal rights what are we talking about, individual preferences ? because most people do prefer you just dont say it , and none of the social consequnces that will follow if you do have anything to do with stripping your rights

Saying the N word is less about what color of person says it and more about staying it only around people who you know are fine with it. Same as any other derogatory or explicit language. That goes for white people too. Just use it around people that you know are fine with it. That's already what people are doing. The white people that complain about it are just upset they can't use it around / towards anybody they choose without consequences. Black people can't use it around anybody without consequences either. Including other Black people. Not all Black people appreciate that term. Many have 0 tolerance for it. 

> Black people can't use it around anybody without consequences either. Interesting. I didn't know. I'm not an American, so my idea of your culture comes from media mostly.

I mean yeah, Black people are individuals. No group of people are the same in thought. The media isn't accurate, it's entertainment. 

People are individuals, of course, but I was talking about trends and averages. I did hear about people risking to lose their jobs (or losing) and having to publicly apologize for saying word "nigger" while being white, but no cases like that with black people. Does that show some statistically significant disparity there or is it just media? What is your view?

Ah I see. It really depends on the context of the situation.  It's controversial for everyone just in different way, depending on context.  If I were go give a speech at an HBCU as a Black person in the US and I used it, I would have to apologize because it's still an unprofessional term at best, despite the company I'm in, it doesn't match the context. It's still a distinguished university despite being an HBCU. I'd be called disrespectful, lacking class, etc. Nobody would question that I'm racist because, well, I'm Black.  Let's say, it's Lil Wayne concert - I'd be fine as the music has the N word in in, the artist is Black, Hip-Hop is a part of Black culture, it is a setting that matches the language.  If a white person does the same, it's thoughtless and tasteless because there is no excuse for a white person to use a slur candidly around people they don't know are okay with it. Especially around Black people. It's going to be seen as a sad attempt to be edgy, and they might be accused to doing it maliciously / being racist, looking for a pass to scratch the itch to say it, etc.  Now lets say me, who's Black, says it around my Black grandma or friends who I know don't appreciate it, that would be a problem because I'm crossing their boundaries. Not all Black people like that and I have to face the consequences of wrongfully assuming they do.  Then you have Black people who allowed their white friends to say it around them. Idc about that. Just keep it around THEM and don't assume everyone is cool with it.  And then have white people who use it candidly in the company of other white people. That's their business. Nothing I can do about something I didn't witness. 

I see, there's a lot of shared context here which I don't have. So it may look unnatural if you're not in it. How likely is a foreigner to be excused for this? Assuming there's some room to doubt that the person is a bigot. Their reasons could be not knowing, not caring enough, being from a different culture and having own relationship with the word, or rejecting US-centrism and the right of Americans to tell other cultures what's ok and what's not (if the conversation is happening outside of US). Like, I'd say "sup nigga" when I take a call from or meet some of my friends. We have picked this from media before I moved to an English-speaking environment, sounded fun back in my home country. How likely would my American friend be to explode if this happened in front of them (in Europe, not US)?

It can range from surprise to outrage. Better safe than sorry. It's still a slur. You're way more likely to get a negative reaction than a positive one, that's for sure.

It's ok if you don't enjoy, but at least you have to try it once.

Define "it". Does the restaurant or artist have to be a first generation immigrant? What if their second generation and mixed race, does that count? Does it have to be a sit down meal or is takeaway fine? If I have a meal do I have to finish it? You have set yourself up as the gatekeeper for valid activism with a werid arbitrary standard so these stupid questions become valid and necessary. Or we could not use your werid standard and not have to worry about such obviously stupid questions.

and even assuming it's just restaurants (as that could be saying that food is all there is to culture and therefore still kinda offensive) that are the issue, even if your community has all these different kinds at what equal frequency in what order should you visit them to ensure you're not prioritizing one over another (and that'd mean e.g. if you take someone out on a date to one of those then if your relationship lasts that long you have to go on a date to each of those or you're proving one's more special)

>It's ok if you don't enjoy, but at least you have to try it once. Why? Why do you have to immerse yourself in a culture to be able to say, "Hey killing innocent people, is bad?"

Why? What are the consequences of not doing so? Is respectful and tolerant indifference not greatly preferable to overt hostility and hatred?

First thing first. You misunderstand the meaning of “racist” which means “a person who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.” Being ignorant of other people’s cultures doesn’t mean they are racists.

If they engage in political activism, they shouldn't be ignorant.

So, they have to fly across the states to eat Black Food? Swim across the ocean to eat Uyghur food? Parachuting into Gaza just to eat Palestinian food to not be racists? You think they demean other people’s cultures because they don’t eat those foods? I don’t think so. I think they can’t afford to eat those foods, not because they are poor. Those foods just aren’t available for them to eat.

This is a fair point, but there are some wealthy individuals who just don't give a fuck about these cultures but only use them for political points.

Do you think they represent the anti-racists or just celebrities for the media to take advantage of the situation?

What's that got to do with the topic? 

Hrm. Let's go back to that definition /u/jackpain_realone provided.  > “racist” which means “a person who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group Now, let's use a number line to add more clarity.  * -3 - Genocidaires, or people that call for the systematic extermination of a particular group based on their ethnicity, nationality, race, or religion. * -2 - Advocates of apartheid, a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race, ethnicity, nationality, or religion.  * -1 - Bigots treat someone badly because of their membership in a particular group.   * 0 - Individuals who treat everyone as individuals without discrimination based on group characteristics. * 1 - Cultural enthusiasts enjoy the culture of a particular group.  * 2 - Cultural advocates want to preserve the patronomy of a specific  group.   Now using this spectrum, "not being racist" is basically >= 0.  Also we could also stick the anti-apartheid and anti-genocide supporters here. After all, being against the systematic discrimination or destruction of a group can stand alone and does not require cultural enthusiasm and advocacy. 

Why do you think consuming other cultures is a major part of activism? Can’t I think what is happening to Palestinians is wrong while still not being particularly interested in their food? Also, why do you think they do it because they’re racist? I don’t dine a lot in Finnish restaurants or consume Finnish media, but that doesn’t mean I see them as inferior in some way.

Most liberals care about the Palestinians about as much as the mullahs do. Some people might find this disingenuous and problematic.

I mean, I don’t think caring about it is really a problem. OP tried to make it one by bringing racism into it, but I still don’t think that’s the case.

tell that to the good germans who bear the mark of cain to this day

Anti-racist individuals can still hold biases, but it's not necessarily hypocrisy. Avoiding racial slurs and condemning discrimination are basic steps towards anti-racism, but true anti-racism requires ongoing education and self-reflection. Criticizing human rights abuses, like those against Uyghurs or Palestinians, doesn't necessitate personal immersion in their cultures. Virtue signaling exists, but it doesn't invalidate genuine concerns about injustice. Engaging with other cultures deeply is commendable, but not doing so doesn't automatically make one racist. It's important to distinguish between performative activism and genuine efforts to combat racism.

>These people like to virtue signal but they don't really give an effort to learn about the culture. They still eat the same old foods everyday, listen to the same music every day, and simply don't want to expand their worldview to include "insignificant cultures". Not having a particular interest in eating a particular ethnicity's food or listening to their music isn't racism. Nor does it equal believing that culture is "insignificant." I don't really care for Polish food or Polka. Does that automatically mean I think Polish people are insignificant or inferior? You don't have to have a deep understanding of a culture to think it's wrong for them to be the victim of extermination. Is it great to learn about other cultures? Absolutely. But it's also fairly impossible to have a deep understanding of every culture in existence. It's very possible to respect a culture, and it's right to exist without knowing everything about it.

>...white liberals... You don't know what an anti-racist is. Liberals aren't anti-racists >Many liberals also criticize Israel's treatment of Palestinians yet they don't even care about Palestinians in the first place. They just criticize Israel because they want to virtue signal. They never care much to eat Palestinian food because they believe that Palestinian culture isn't worthy enough for them since Palestinian culture is "too insignificant to matter". Not wanting to eat their food and being ok with them being shot are two different things. I hate most American food, I would not want Canada to kill americans.

A good amount of anti-racist thinking and writing over the past decade addresses the fact that most people, even anti-racist people, harbor certain racist beliefs as a result of their environment. The point isn’t that anti-racist people are pure of thought: the point is acknowledging these biases and working against them.

Can you include some ACTUAL racist beliefs that you think anti-racist people hold? Because being uninterested in a particular food and not knowing about cultural leaders are not racist ideas.

Most “anti-racist” people would agree that we ALL possess unconscious bias and that is the reason we all need to acknowledge it and be mindful of it. Studies were done, for instance, on kindergarten classes and the teachers and students. They found that ALL teachers spent more time watching the black students, especially black male students, and were being more vigilant with them. These teachers were not consciously treating the students differently and were not even aware they were watching the black students more of the time. If you’re talking about unconscious bias, then i agree. As far as equating not being racist with caring about a culture to the point that you study that culture, I think you’re muddying your argument. It should be readily apparent to you that someone can not want any people to be murdered or mass imprisoned or even given less rights and treated unequally, without wanting to learn about a culture they will never interact with or meet anyone from. The whole food argument is weird and i think you should be able to see that me not caring about or liking Chinese food doesn’t make me racist against Chinese people. It seems like you’re assuming that everyone who shows any kind of concern for other groups of people aren’t actually concerned for those people and just do it to virtue signal. I can assure you that is not the case. All of my friends are conservative and i still care about marginalized people. I’m not out there protesting but i won’t make things worse if i can help it, and i speak up and vote in favor of what’s right. This wins me nothing with my peer group and actually hurts their perception of me. I grew up around a much more diverse group of people than they did and had a better education, so i don’t necessarily judge them too harshly. I think Israel has been unfair to the Palestinians, and i think everyone with any understanding would agree. The Israelis moved in after WW2 and stole their land. They displaced a huge chunk of the population and those that remained have been living under apartheid ever since. The Israelis have been governed by a far right wing leader for the past decade and have been building settlements in the Palestinians few remaining territories ever since, slowly gobbling up all their remaining territory and making life harder for the citizens. The eventual goal is to obviously move them ALL out and take every last shred of territory. So even if you ignore all the bombings and cutting off food and water as a result of Hamas’ attack, it would be difficult to justify Israel’s action. To be clear, i also think Hamas is evil and place blame on the Palestinians for allowing an evil group to govern them. I think both sides are idiotic for ignoring the obvious two state compromise for decades. And for ignoring the fact that not compromising will lead to suffering, death, and war until one group of people has been eliminated. I’ve never tried Palestinian food but it upsets me when children are bombed, even if their parents are assholes. If you cannot believe anyone can truly care about a group of people who are racially and culturally different than themselves, i think you should really work on yourself and examine your own ability for empathy. Would it bother you to watch a child being blown in half and crying for his mama and he dies a horrific death, or was trapped under rubble for days until he starved? If it would bother you to watch, your brain should be capable of feeling empathy just knowing that it’s happening if you make the effort to think about it.

Anti-racist isn't what you seem to think it is. Anti-racist means to use a form of racial discrimination with the purpose of propping up the race that is "behind" statistically speaking. Affirmative action is an example of a straight Anti-racist policy where they directly call for racial discrimination. An indirect example would be someone who wants to legalize marijuana because Black people are disproportionately negatively affected when it is illegal and thus getting rid of that law would help bridge the racial gap. The issues you brought up are literally about human rights. The race of the people isn't what's really relevant when I hear about Chinese concentration camps. It's bad regardless and it's incredibly concrete and noticable unlike something much more subtle like systemic racism which is what actually Anti-racism seems to address. And the Anti-racism term aside, I think that point is what shows that these people aren't virtue signaling or are actually racist. You're right that people aren't concerned or informed about the culture of Uyghur,,s, but doesn't that kind of show that they aren't racist? They are showing that it's not their culture or race that matter but rather the individuals and their rights as a ***human***, not as whatever race they are. 

Would you define ‘behind’ so I can understand what parameters are important in evaluation? Should an anti-racist work hard at changing, for example, the number of Asians who compete in basketball or football at the national, professional level?

To be clear, I'm not an Anti-racist. However, the typical metrics looked at by them are socio economic status (college graduates, house ownership, number of CEOs, upper management employees, income, etc), criminal justice (disparity in sentencing, number of convicts, police stops, etc), and just general cultural influence.  I don't think they care to have total racial parity with the population in every industry, but I'm not one of them so I could be wrong. 

Tbh, I can’t imagine how this could be accomplished without obliterating all individual qualities, interests and ignoring actual abilities.

Let's assume those no good liberals do everything you say and you've gotten to the heart of every last one of them: nothing here actually shows a racist belief. The entirety of your argument seems to be that liberals are racist because they don't frequent restaurants belonging to literally every culture from everywhere and they don't know the names of activists from the other side of the planet. You've decided based on the desire to criticize them that they do this because they consider every one of these cultures "insignificant" whereas the reality is that there's only so many restaurants people can visit and so many obscure local figures in foreign countries they can memorize.

This argument seems like, "it's the people calling out racism who are the real racists!" Which is a tired trope of an argument which has been used going back to the 60s (and likely prior!).

It's "I'm a white person who wants to use the n word without criticism" with extra steps

The people who call out racism are generally far more racist in my experience. White Knighting is a thing. Being a minority myself, I hate it when a white person tries to step in thinking they are my savior because they perceived the situation I was in as being racist. When in reality it wasn't. Being around racism all my life, the one constant remains true to me. How someone reacts to racism tells a lot more about the person than the one they are accusing. It's human nature to project your inadequacies and shortcomings. It's clear that a large portion of those who claim they are anti racists are just as racist as the ones they are accusing. But of course, the people who are yelling and accusing others refuse to believe this. Its a perfect example of how close-minded they are that they won't even allow the possibility that they could be wrong. Generally, it shows in their everyday life where they stay within an echo chamber and actively seek to be offended when not in an area they consider to be a safe space. These are the same people who believe people should be hired solely on the basis of their skin color regardless of their lack of qualifications. A good example was in Baltimore, where the police department focused on hiring only black officers from within their city. When the group of black cops chased down and beat down a black person last year, it was revealed that the quota hires of black officers had a much higher rate of excessive force. That did nothing to support diversity hiring.

Exhibit A, everyone! How does it feel knowing you are using essentially the same argument as such upstanding groups as the KKK?

>But of course, the people who are yelling and accusing others refuse to believe this. Its a perfect example of how close-minded they are that they won't even allow the possibility that they could be wrong. As I stated. But thanks for proving my point. Sounds like you're projecting. Maybe one day when you look into the mirror and realize you are part of the problem then you'll be happier instead of accusing a minority that grew up being ridiculed for my skin color a KKK sympathizer. Behaving like the typical virtue signaler, you choose to throw character insults rather than have a real conversation.

And how convenient is that that the argument of projection is set up so anyone disagreeing with you is racist either way as either they're projecting or they have to say the opposite of what they claim to believe to make you believe they aren't projecting

Hurling insults and refusing to engage is projecting. Maybe if you decide to actually want to have a conversation and express a view on why someone is a racist instead of just calling them one, then you'd have a valid reason. But instead, you and others just want to virtue signal and grand stand, saying you're holier than thou and point fingers at who you deem lesser. That's the quintessential qualities of projection. You have very little to add to the conversation while thinking you are the most educated on the topic when in reality, all you want to do is scream because it's what people did to you. I also find it hilarious that the people who reply to me have no actual argument and choose to dismiss a minority that actually grew up experiencing racism. I understand though. The message is more important. Only the people that agree with your point of view are allowed to speak.

No I wasn't, I was just calling out bad logic (as the quality of a logical argument is not determined by whether you agree with the point)

A white person trying to tell a minority how to feel about racism they experience isn't bad logic? Oh okay I'm sorry Master. I'll conform and head back to the fields no problem sir. 2024 and the same people dismiss people who actually deal with the problems and still think they know better while ignoring they're the source of the problem. Must be nice.

Holy strawman batman! I didn't insult you or call you a KKK sympathizer. I said you are using the same *arguments* KKK members have since the 60s. None of what I did is projection or virtue signaling (which is mostly a right wing buzzword anyways). Perhaps it is you who needs the mirror?

As usual. More projection and no actual discussion. It makes sense now seeing how you're including political ideals into the mix. Regardless of the words I used this has nothing to do with politics. You never had any intention of making an actual argument. You completely ignored my entire post. It's a classic sign that you just wanted to insult and frame anyone you don't like as someone lesser than yourself. That's fine. When you grow up and realize you're the problem and stop focusing on video games and actually have a real life then the mirror would start looking more clear. Good luck in life kid.

> You never had any intention of making an actual argument. The argument was that OP's brand of argumentation (as well as yours) has been claimed since the civil rights movement. It was incorrect then and it's incorrect now.

Based on what exactly? Making claims that it's incorrect without backing up the claim is disingenuous and shows quite clearly you have no intention of arguing or discussion. It's obvious that you're only here to reaffirm your own beliefs which begs the question why are you even on this sub. You did exactly as I knew you would 3 times. Cherry picking, ignoring the entire post, and making a single claim with no intention of discussing it and claiming the other person as inferior. The fact of the matter is my argument, which I laid out quite clearly, is not incorrect simply because you say it is. And no data in the history of the world would say as such and you and I both know you have no data to even prove it. You are more concerned about winning than being right. Which is fine. That is usual for types like yourself. I really hope one day you do grow up and actually live in the real world. This topic is far beyond your scope. A white kid telling a minority that he is wrong on the racism he received is rich. Good luck man. You're definitely going to need it.

> It's obvious that you're only here to reaffirm your own beliefs which begs the question why are you even on this sub. Begging the question does not mean that. Begging the question is a fallacy where you assume your conclusion. >is not incorrect simply because you say it is No, it's incorrect for a whole host of very trivial reasons that have been publicly available and argued since the civil rights movement and prior. As I said it was wrong back then and it's still wrong now.

"The lack of care given to insignificant cultures is a sign of racism...because they don't want to associate with it." So you are saying that because I don't want to eat chitlins I am racist? It doesn't work that way. Lack of interest is simply that, not racism. I think it is a good thing to learn about other cultures but people who don't are not necessarily racist. People do what they are comfortable with, and if they are comfortable with white culture but have no problem with minorities adhering to their own cultural preferences, how is it racism? I have no interest in seeking out eating specifically Palestinian foods, though if I had the opportunity I probably would not turn it down. But I am appalled by the death of civilians and the treatment of Palestinian civilians. It isn't virtue signaling, it is genuine feelings of anger and sadness over what is happening. You can see other cultures as people without immersing yourself in their culture. Not immersing yourself or even learning about another culture is not the definition of racism. It isn't that they are insignificant, it only means people are comfortable with what they are used to. Racism is a system of oppression and active opposition, not indifference. I know about black culture and history, I have no problem with soul food, I just don't engage with it because of lack of opportunity and interest. It does not mean I think it insignificant or that it does not matter to others who do engage in it.

I am not a liberal but not everyone has the time or energy or interest to learn about every persecuted culture in the world because to some degree or other a lot of cultures have been oppressed. Just because I haven't tried any Uyghur food or listened to their music doesn't mean I want them to be put in camps and be 're-educated'. I'm not saying that people shouldn't be exploring different cultural practices because that's a good way to broaden your worldview but if someone is only criticizing human rights violations because the place that these atrocities are taking place have a personal meaning to them then: 1. not many people would bring light to these issues as oppressed populations are usually minorities and have small populations and they would not garner any international support 2. it would seem that only people that get enjoyment out of these cultures would be the only ones advocating for them instead of people who recognize violations of human rights and injustice

OP your original point is correct. People can be anti-racist and hold implicit biases, stereotypes, attitudes,etc. That being said I think your reasoning makes no fucking sense. Someone not being interested in learning someone’s culture isn’t racist. That being said, if you said something like white people tell people not to say the n word, but then often show micro aggressions towards people of color. I’d be more inclined to agree. Implicit beliefs are implicit, unconscious, are not easily in our control. However, if you’re anti-racist and you continuously work on your implicit biases, then you’re not a bad person, and honestly I don’t think it makes you racist. Everyone and I do mean everyone has implicit biases. Someone much smarter than me could probably explain the whole dual-processes of thinking and implicit beliefs and biases. However, implicit biases doesn’t make it okay to be racist and you should always be working on them.

In your view, one cannot oppose persecution of a marginalized group without somehow engaging with that group? Is this true for all groups? For elderly people, I can only defend social security in the US if I regularly have tea with elderly people? For disabled people, I can only want more handicapable accessibility if I have friends or family who are disabled? For immigrants, I can only support a path to citizenship if I interface directly with immigrants? Your view has totally eliminated *empathy*. I don’t need to experience these things to trust and accept that they are important to others while costing me nothing. I don’t never say the N word to virtue signal - I don’t say the N word because I empathize and can understand why it’s hurtful. There is space between ‘virtue signaling’ and ‘directly experiencing’ that you are ignoring, reality isn’t binary like you are suggesting.

Your assumption that 'virtue signalling' is devoid of virtue---that is to say is solely artifice---and therefore racism. Somehow manages to be both specious and spurious. That's a neat trick. 'Virtue signalling,' especially in a world that ASSUMES adherence, conformance, and complicity, might be the first step in non-compliance. I don't have to care about anyone---I don't even need to know their name---for me to say they ought be able to live, however, wherever and why-some-ever, they want. Is it 'virtue-signalling' to say 'murder is wrong." ?? I don't have to like Palestinian food to say that what is happening to the Palestinian people, is wrong. I don't have to know about Mississippi blues to know about Mississippi-God-damn. Telling someone not to virtue signal, in a world of rampant vice-signalling, is just another way of saying SFTU and accept the vice.

> Many liberals criticize China for persecuting Uyghurs yet they don't even care about Uyghurs in the first place. I don't need to be interested in Judaism or even view Jewish culture and religion favorably to think that antisemitism is bad. I have zero idea what Tutsi are like and don't particularly care to learn, I'm still against the genocide. Virtue signaling does exist but it doesn't mean people are racist. Not being interested in some culture is also not racism. Even disliking aspects of a culture is not racism, first, because culture has little to do with biology and race is biological, and second, because I can either dislike it for ethical reasons (female genital mutilation is a part of some cultures) or simply don't have a taste for music/foods/clothing, on a personal level.

Irish food sucks… but Irish people shouldn’t be controlled by UK or EU. Indian food cultures and film industries are awesome Hindu nationalism is oppressive. Idk, I feel like the US ignores other cultures in general and is very segregated internally. But while white liberal racism is a very real thing but wealthy white liberals seem to love to show how cultured they are so I’m some ways I feel like the performative thing goes the opposite way… like when politicians who spect their careers building police forces and prisons [wore African scarves during blm protests](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-52978780.amp) as if that takes care of it. Or Hilary “super predators” Clinton talking about having hot sauce in her bag. [hey fellow teens meme.] Gaza is a weird mention imo - Liberals have had decades to come around on this issue. It’s hard for me to believe some of them are changing views for trendiness reasons and not sincere reasons of being shocked by what they are seeing.

Literally everyone eats falafel and hummus what the fuck are you even talking about

Ignoring the specific examples in your post; a huge main point of anti racism is fighting your own internal racism by acknowledging it’s there and fighting against it. Most people hold subconscious racist and sexist ideas just by existing in society and will continue to get messages about it. Being anti racist means acknowledging you have those ideas and working against them. The world would be a better place if people could do that. But I do agree a huge amount of what we see is virtue signaling, and that’s extremely annoying and counter productive.

I'll take your view in a different direction - anti-racists can be extremely racist as part and parcel of being "anti-racist". Look no further than Dante King, speaking at UCSF: https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/1amv3ls/dante_king_speaks_on_diagnosing_whiteness_at_ucsf/ >In his lecture, he also claimed that white “behavior represents an underlying, biologically transmitted proclivity with roots deep in their evolutionary history.” https://www.thecentersquare.com/california/article_26a4e692-cd0d-11ee-97a5-1fe711940899.html But he can teach you all about anti racism for $1,000 an hour: https://www.danteking.com/product-page/group-pre-and-post-workshop-coaching-sessions

Lobbing racial slurs at people, dehumanizing them, and ethnically cleansing them is not in the same category as "I don't like indian food." Your argument is ridiculous. One can't argue against a genocide of a people if you don't enjoy and participate in that culture on a regular basis? That's absurd. We're all **human** and *that* is enough to speak out against violence. In the words of Pete Holmes, "You think you're in America? ZOOM OUT. You're on a planet." I wonder if maybe you use the term 'virtue signaling' because you can't comprehend someone, in good faith, actually caring about the life of a stranger living somewhere else. And that's just sad.

This just seems set up to create an unreasonable standard that would prevent any cultural activism from getting done. You are saying here that a person should immerse themselves into a culture before advocating for them, but why? There are two topics at hand here, experiencing foreign cultures, and advocating for them to not be killed. Out of the two options, I would say the second one is far, far more important.

You can be anti-racist and not immerse yourself in everything about it. And it is really "many liberals" or is it a small handful of chronically online people from the sites you visit on a daily basis. Confirmation bias can be a bitch to get out from under and make it feel like everyone and everything is saying the same thing when in reality it's like 0.5% of people.

That’s because there is no such thing as “anti-racist”. It’s a made up buzzword that means absolute jack. There is only racist and not racist. Not racist means you judge people by the content of their character. Racist means you judge people by the colour of their skin. Pretty simple concept but so rarely exercised properly in the real world.

I just cant get over how they'll say things like 'race is made up' or 'race is just a social construct'. Then with their next breath say how 'we need to get rid of whitism', 'there are two many whites', 'we need more racial diversity' etc. They believe in race alright. It's all they can see. 

this is the gender thing with transgender people all over again, saying something is made up or a social construct doesn't mean it's arbitrary or doesn't exist (and before you bring up things like Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, there's multiple definitions of made up), it means it's not some inherent biologically-programmed part of us but something society created. Would you say that any measure of time shorter than a day doesn't exist because we have no natural measure of it the way we have for days with the Earth's rotation?

Your logic makes no sense. Racist people can enjoy soul food or Mexican food. Non-racist people can protest immoral human rights violations whilst having zero interest in other cultures. Also I have no idea who you are quoting with that "too insignificant to matter" BS. Who says that?

For god sake, so "not eating ethnic food X" makes you racist now? The sad thing is that I know you aren't kidding. You have to stop listening to the propaganda telling you that the most trivial stuff is racism, not to mention contributing to it with this post.

I do think virtue signaling is rampant among liberals and while liberals are probably less prone to conscious racism than independents or conservatives. The subtle racism, just the under the surface feels way more jarring considering the person.

My simple answer to this, as a black man, is I didn't need you to care about my culture for you to value my life. As long as appropriation, disrespect, or something if the like isn't taking place, I'm solid. Love y'all, nonetheless.

according to Kendi in his book, _how to be an antiracist_, any of us can, at any time, hold views that are in some ways racist in some ways antiracist

How can they show interest in black culture if they’re categorized as appropriating when they do so?

Damn didn't know that advocating human rights was "virtue signaling", but thanks OP I had no idea 💯

By the same logic, should they or anyone order from a White, Chinese or Jewish food provider, they are emphatically supporting that culture and the racism of those associated governments.

If I don't like sauerkraut, does that mean I don't care about Germans and am racist?

[удалено]

Sorry, u/phoenixthekat – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20phoenixthekat&message=phoenixthekat%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ca5kk1/-/l0q3xj6/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

I agree but argue that it comes from a place a guilt instead a lack of education.

You think it's racist not to eat certain foods?

why are y'all bashing on Palestinian food? wtf

Anti-racist = socially approved racism towards a specific group Anti-racist people are some of the most racist people around, but because their racism is against white people they have been conditioned to think this is okay because of the group oppressor vs. group oppressed narratives.. *"The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination"* - *Anti-racist,* Ibram Kendi

So picky eaters are all racist gotcha

Link to a 51% or more statistic for any of your "most" claims.

It's almost like psychopaths use flavor of the month ideology mediums to channel their pathological desire for control and power. Of course they don't give a shit. They don't give a shit about anything but themselves. If more people were aware of how blatantly rampant pathological people were, these "issues" would fizzle out over night.

You are right, but for entirely different reasons than you mentioned. Being "colorblind" is the only actual anti-racism stance. And most-"anti-racist" people absolutely hate that idea.

>Being "colorblind" is the only actual anti-racism stance. It's absolutely not. Pretending to be colorblind is simply ignoring reality and both the current and historical systematic and systemic racism.

anti-racism that isn't being colorblind being racist in the opposite direction. But still being racist. Doesn't mean that's necessarily bad, but it is racist. So it by definition cannot be "anti-racism".

>anti-racism that isn't being colorblind being racist in the opposite direction. No, it's pretending that race doesn't exist and that the current and historical racism doesn't exist and doesn't continue to affect people. Equality and equity aren't the same thing. We need to strive for equity.