I think I’ll just call it decrimination, because it can happen to anyone regardless of who they are… these extra words just makes matters unnecessarily confusing
OP, the wording of the post is very confusing. Would you mind perhaps editing the post to clarify your opinion?
Thanks!
Are you trying to say “reverse discrimination”?
Yes
Then yeah, discrimination is discrimination.
It’s about how one person treats another.
But when people talk about racism, they’re talking about how society treats a person based on their race.
Still no reverse, but different races are treated differently by the same society. So racism against an Asian, someone Black, and someone European would all be different in the same society. It’s all bad, but rarely all equally as bad.
There is “institutional racism” and that is how the group in power treats people outside of their race. That’s the only time “reverse” needs added. But that’s when other races believe it’s racial when most of the time it’s about wealth.
“I’ll tell you what’s at the bottom of it,” he said. “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lbj-convince-the-lowest-white-man/
LBJ wasn’t saying that as a plan, he was commenting on why Republicans were latching on to racism.
Lol, quoting LBJ about racism…what a racist bastard.
At a time when 80% of Republicans in congress voted for the civil rights acts, and only 40% of Democrats did.
And LBJ only signed them because he was backed into a corner.
“Reverse racism” is never correct. Racism isn’t one-way.
Pretty problematic comment there bud let’s work through it.
Lol, quoting LBJ about racism…what a racist bastard.
Ok, so he was not great before his presidency, true, but what part of that antiracist quote do you disagree with? It’s scary that you would disagree.
At a time when 80% of Republicans in congress voted for the civil rights acts, and only 40% of Democrats did.
True.
And LBJ only signed them because he was backed into a corner.
False. This one is just downright misinformation. 😳😬😳 Per Wikipedia, “In his first address to a joint session of Congress on November 27, 1963, Johnson told the legislators, “No memorial oration or eulogy could more eloquently honor President Kennedy’s memory than the earliest possible passage of the civil rights bill for which he fought so long.”[26]” Bro wanted this act passed, call it bad faith, whatever, but “backed into a corner” is not it.
“Reverse racism” is never correct.
Agree I guess, but this term is really poorly defined across contexts so don’t quote me on this
Racism isn’t one-way.
Only true if you utterly and intentionally ignore institutional racism. Institutional racism is one-way. Other comments here have expressed this key distinction better than I could. So I’ll leave it there.
Oh, shit! Receipts!
(This comment is intended to be humorous, but I do appreciate the correction of bad information.)
The internet needs more people like you to explain what institutional racism is. Plenty of well meaning privelaged folk who just don’t get it and stick their feet in their mouths because of it. Thank ya 👍
I don’t think this is unpopular, it’s just another racist dog whistle.
doing racism online is quite popular , in fact
The thing that’s dumbest about it is that reverse racism would be hating your own race rather than another. Like, racism is hate/prejudice/discrimination against a different race than your own. It’s right there in the concept itself.
The fact that it was white racists that came up with the term says a whole lot about how dumb most racists are.
I don’t think it’s against “your own” it’s the belief that one is better than the other. That can mean you believe yours is worse than others too.
what you are describing is more frequently termed “internalized racism” and is pretty distinct from the reverse racism concept.
i don’t think anything you write here is wrong per se, you are just a little off with the terminology :)
What I’m saying is that if “reverse racism” was a thing in the first place*, rather than the idiotic dog whistle that it is, that that’s what it would be.
Like most words, “racism” has multiple definitions. If you only know one usage, then the concept of “reverse racism” doesn’t make sense. Let’s look at dictionary.com:
racism
noun
- a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
- Also called in·sti·tu·tion·al rac·ism [in-sti-, too, -sh, uh, -nl , rey, -siz-, uh, m, -, tyoo, -],. a policy, system of government, etc., that is associated with or originated in such a doctrine, and that favors members of the dominant racial or ethnic group, or has a neutral effect on their life experiences, while discriminating against or harming members of other groups, ultimately serving to preserve the social status, economic advantage, or political power of the dominant group.
- an individual action or behavior based upon or fostering such a doctrine; racial discrimination.
- racial or ethnic prejudice or intolerance.
These are all clearly related, but they are not the same. “Reverse racism” does indeed fall under #4 (“racial or ethnic prejudice”). #4 is probably the most common definition when used colloquially to refer to an individual’s actions or statements.
Definition #2 is more broadly used when discussing matters of public policy and legal issues, which is where you are likely to hear “reverse racism”. The key point of institutional racism (#2) is that it is part of a power structure — there is a group in power that the policies serve to support and strengthen, and there is a group lacking power that the policies serve to oppress and weaken. “Reverse racism” in this context makes perfect sense: it’s reversed to support the oppressed group instead of the powerful group.
What the hell is reversism?
Google gives me urban dictionary with equally bad phrasing:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Reversism“Just because it’s harder to recognise when it’s the other way round”.
Recognise what? Other way round from what?So, people apply “reversism” to a discriminatory phrase/act/joke to make it easier to recognise that it is discrimination? Because, with “reversism” applied, it now applies to themselves, and they can then empathize with the original target of the discrimination?
And you are painting empathy as a bad thing?
Or, something else?
These are all questions, because it’s my thought process and I still don’t understand your phrasing or premise. So, maybe someone can answer?because it’s my thought process and I still don’t understand your phrasing or premis
don’t overthink it…
Recognise what?
discrimination whether that’s about race, gender…etc
Other way round from what?
for example, if a man is being sexist towards a woman, people say it’s sexism, if a women is being sexist towards a man people say it’s reverse sexism…
which is dumb, can’t they just call it what it is ? sexism… why do we have to make it something unique… But like others answered, words can have many meanings… It’s the addition of unecessary words that makes it weird to me
Oh, gotcha.
Yeh, call it out when appropriate.
I guess it’s good that those people are recognising some discrimination. Just need to guide them towards calling it discrimination instead of a qualified discrimination (or positive discrimination).I don’t know anyone who says “reverse racism” or “reverse sexism” that isn’t a douchebag and/or a bigot.
