In a manner that doesn't lazily resort to calling other people weak/humorless/easily offended/overly PC/SJWs.
Not until people stop lazily using terms like
microaggressions,
white privilege and
racism to invalidate other's perspectives and silence anyone who disagrees with their opinions.
So those of you who are kneejerk calling this list stupid ... sorry, y'all. Try thinking it out this time and maybe you'll do better.
One doesn't have to think very hard to realize the absurdity of this list. It is blatantly contradictory, promotes double-standards and encourages people to treat individuals in a specific way based on their
race, which ironically seems to be what the article is criticizing.
Just our of curiosity [MENTION=23222]senza tema[/MENTION], are you a racist? Remember, don't deny it lest your microaggression (and underlying racism) be exposed.
But how does telling a black person who is being loud to be quiet make a person racist? What if they really are being loud and disruptive? Ignoring it would be giving them preferential treatment, which would be racist.
Exactly! This article is insinuating that black people are inherently loud and their loudness should be tolerated as a characteristic of their race; despite the fact that plenty of black people aren't loud at all. By specifying black people instead of
loud people, they are implying that it's a racially-specific trait.
How is this racist? Isn't this just being impartial?
Indeed, but impartiality isn't the goal of social justice warriors. Impartiality and discrimination are both used at the discretion of the SJW to further their agenda, therefore consistency is not a factor.
When the dominant group gets to define what "loud and disruptive" is, they can flex that definition any way they like to get people they don't want to hear to shut up.
In your opinion, who gets to define "loud and disruptive"? The definitions are pretty straightforward.
Sure, in a world where everyone starts off with the same circumstances.
Which will never happen because of individuality. Even members of the same race, neighborhood and family are not born in the same circumstances. Inborn temperaments, "personality types" and numerous other factors will make one person's experience in life vastly different from everyone else. The idealism you're striving for is not even remotely realistic.
You might want to mix up your repertoire a bit.
lol What a microagressive way of belittling his question, which happens to be a valid point.
I guess what frustrates me about all this is the claim that "saying you're not racist makes you racist." Uhh... how? The definition of racism, according to dictionary.com, is:
I don't believe that, and I never have. I respect and am interested in other cultures, but I don't think any race is superior or inferior to any other. And yet just expressing that makes me racist? Where is the logic in that? It seems you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
Oh...that's your problem. You're using the dictionary instead of the Social Justice Lexicon. There is a difference. And the definitions vary depending on the race, sex and gender of the reader.
I've asked pretty people about their race before out of curiosity, but I meant no malice.
That's okay...as long as you're not white.
My newer friends will inevitably ask what type of East Asian background I have which I'm fine with since they're curious - it's just different when people try to figure out "where I'm from" because I don't look "normal".
