What makes a viewpoint racist?

[vanguard96]

If you think some races are superior than others and you show that in your viewpoint.

^^^Don't see why it should be narrower or broader than that.

I don't think being racist requires one to think that one race is "superior" in any objective sense.  You might have a guy whose motivation for treating whites better than other races is just that he himself is white, and so he has a preference for the "in group" that he's a part of.  He could think that even if he thinks that there's no inherently "superior" race.  But isn't the guy still racist?  He'd be a "racial nationalist" so to speak, loving his own race because it happens to be the one he's a part of, rather than because it's "better".  That's still racist, IMHO.

There are plenty of non-whites who do this same thing you describe. Are they racist in your eyes or not?

I think race baiters have had quite a field day with signaling over the latest events in Charlottesville - this includes racial purist whites and the quick to attack white liberals.

It's served to help further solidify the collective tribalism based on race and ethnicity which is really unfortunate in today's global society. Identity politics has been a tried and true method of both the extreme left and extreme right - with both sides increasing in intensity well before this was Trump's America contrary to popular opinion.

[Cashew]

If you think some races are superior than others and you show that in your viewpoint.

^^^Don't see why it should be narrower or broader than that.

I would include policies that are intended to disproportionately harm or favor one race over another.

[Goldwater]

If you think some races are superior than others and you show that in your viewpoint.

^^^Don't see why it should be narrower or broader than that.

I would include policies that are intended to disproportionately harm or favor one race over another.

Of course, that intention could be incredibly hard to prove.

[TheLeftwardTide]

If it expresses the superiority or inferiority of one race over another. Plain and simple.

The hard part is justifying whether or not a viewpoint meets this criteria.

[vanguard96]

If it expresses the superiority or inferiority of one race over another. Plain and simple.

The hard part is justifying whether or not a viewpoint meets this criteria.

What do you think of comments like Obama asking 'blacks to activate' for Hillary? Is that racist? I think in a sense it is a stereotyped view of African Americans as bloc voters for Democrats. Almost like the modern, watered-down version of what LBJ discussed in the mid-60's with his Great Society.

Obviously any one that were to ask for whites or even say Bosnians and Ukrainians to vote for X candidate based on their ethnic or racial origins in a block is a person to be concerned with.

What do you feel about African-Americans who purposefully call out white liberals as dangerous - like Malcolm X or Farrakhan (on their own and apart from other attacks on other ethnic groups)?

I really disdain collectivist, assumptive views like blacks calling other blacks who decide to be Greens, Sanders supporters, Libertarians, or Republicans as 'race traitors', 'oreos' or 'Uncle Tom's'.

For instance also if someone does not like Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio then why do some people including Latinos feel the need to drop a phrase like 'coconut' why not just pile on that person. They should be bad enough on their own record without the ethnic mention if you are so against them. It's like saying - "No, you're so bad you are no longer able to call yourself Cuban-American".

Overall, it is a very base, tribal view of people and does not speak highly of who says it.

[TheLeftwardTide]

If it expresses the superiority or inferiority of one race over another. Plain and simple.

The hard part is justifying whether or not a viewpoint meets this criteria.

What do you think of comments like Obama asking 'blacks to activate' for Hillary? Is that racist? I think in a sense it is a stereotyped view of African Americans as bloc voters for Democrats. Almost like the modern, watered-down version of what LBJ discussed in the mid-60's with his Great Society.

Obviously any one that were to ask for whites or even say Bosnians and Ukrainians to vote for X candidate based on their ethnic or racial origins in a block is a person to be concerned with.

What do you feel about African-Americans who purposefully call out white liberals as dangerous - like Malcolm X or Farrakhan (on their own and apart from other attacks on other ethnic groups)?

I really disdain collectivist, assumptive views like blacks calling other blacks who decide to be Greens, Sanders supporters, Libertarians, or Republicans as 'race traitors', 'oreos' or 'Uncle Tom's'.

For instance also if someone does not like Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio then why do some people including Latinos feel the need to drop a phrase like 'coconut' why not just pile on that person. They should be bad enough on their own record without the ethnic mention if you are so against them. It's like saying - "No, you're so bad you are no longer able to call yourself Cuban-American".

Overall, it is a very base, tribal view of people and does not speak highly of who says it.

The most concentrated example of whataboutery. Of course, I am the fool here, as I shouldn't have expected any more from a staunch fiscal conservative/right-libertarian.

What do you think of comments like Obama asking 'blacks to activate' for Hillary? Is that racist? I think in a sense it is a stereotyped view of African Americans as bloc voters for Democrats. Almost like the modern, watered-down version of what LBJ discussed in the mid-60's with his Great Society.

No. It isn't racist, because the implication isn't racist. It's also a fact that over 90% of African-Americans voted for Obama, so it is a fact that they are a voting bloc that is very pro-Democrat. Obama is a black guy who told other black people to turn out for his successor, as they turned out for him; which in retrospect was very smart, because if Hillary had Obama-level turnout among African-Americans, then she wouldn't have lost states like Michigan.
Implying that the Great Society is racist so incredibly stupid in it's own right that I'm not even going there.

What do you feel about African-Americans who purposefully call out white liberals as dangerous - like Malcolm X or Farrakhan (on their own and apart from other attacks on other ethnic groups)?

Explicitly calling white liberals "dangerous" is not racist in its own right, even if I disagree. There are definitely black nationalists who are incredibly racist, however, like the extremist wing of BLM. That said, racist minorities are less of a threat because they are a minority. They hold much less power over the people of America than white people because there are less of them.

I really disdain collectivist, assumptive views like blacks calling other blacks who decide to be Greens, Sanders supporters, Libertarians, or Republicans as 'race traitors', 'oreos' or 'Uncle Tom's'.

The African-American people who say such a thing are, quite clearly, a vocal minority (pun unintended). I disagree with calling a Sanders voter or a Republican an "Uncle Tom" or whatever (ignoring the fact that Sanders won younger African-Americans), but this is just common sense.

>collectivist
Because collective ownership of goods and services is totally the same as collective ownership of ideological thought! Guys, I promise my ideology is legitimate, I swear!

[vanguard96]

If it expresses the superiority or inferiority of one race over another. Plain and simple.

The hard part is justifying whether or not a viewpoint meets this criteria.

What do you think of comments like Obama asking 'blacks to activate' for Hillary? Is that racist? I think in a sense it is a stereotyped view of African Americans as bloc voters for Democrats. Almost like the modern, watered-down version of what LBJ discussed in the mid-60's with his Great Society.

Obviously any one that were to ask for whites or even say Bosnians and Ukrainians to vote for X candidate based on their ethnic or racial origins in a block is a person to be concerned with.

What do you feel about African-Americans who purposefully call out white liberals as dangerous - like Malcolm X or Farrakhan (on their own and apart from other attacks on other ethnic groups)?

I really disdain collectivist, assumptive views like blacks calling other blacks who decide to be Greens, Sanders supporters, Libertarians, or Republicans as 'race traitors', 'oreos' or 'Uncle Tom's'.

For instance also if someone does not like Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio then why do some people including Latinos feel the need to drop a phrase like 'coconut' why not just pile on that person. They should be bad enough on their own record without the ethnic mention if you are so against them. It's like saying - "No, you're so bad you are no longer able to call yourself Cuban-American".

Overall, it is a very base, tribal view of people and does not speak highly of who says it.

The most concentrated example of whataboutery. Of course, I am the fool here, as I shouldn't have expected any more from a staunch fiscal conservative/right-libertarian.

What do you think of comments like Obama asking 'blacks to activate' for Hillary? Is that racist? I think in a sense it is a stereotyped view of African Americans as bloc voters for Democrats. Almost like the modern, watered-down version of what LBJ discussed in the mid-60's with his Great Society.

No. It isn't racist, because the implication isn't racist. It's also a fact that over 90% of African-Americans voted for Obama, so it is a fact that they are a voting bloc that is very pro-Democrat. Obama is a black guy who told other black people to turn out for his successor, as they turned out for him; which in retrospect was very smart, because if Hillary had Obama-level turnout among African-Americans, then she wouldn't have lost states like Michigan.
Implying that the Great Society is racist so incredibly stupid in it's own right that I'm not even going there.

What do you feel about African-Americans who purposefully call out white liberals as dangerous - like Malcolm X or Farrakhan (on their own and apart from other attacks on other ethnic groups)?

Explicitly calling white liberals "dangerous" is not racist in its own right, even if I disagree. There are definitely black nationalists who are incredibly racist, however, like the extremist wing of BLM. That said, racist minorities are less of a threat because they are a minority. They hold much less power over the people of America than white people because there are less of them.

I really disdain collectivist, assumptive views like blacks calling other blacks who decide to be Greens, Sanders supporters, Libertarians, or Republicans as 'race traitors', 'oreos' or 'Uncle Tom's'.

The African-American people who say such a thing are, quite clearly, a vocal minority (pun unintended). I disagree with calling a Sanders voter or a Republican an "Uncle Tom" or whatever (ignoring the fact that Sanders won younger African-Americans), but this is just common sense.

>collectivist
Because collective ownership of goods and services is totally the same as collective ownership of ideological thought! Guys, I promise my ideology is legitimate, I swear!

Regarding my use of collectivist I mean viewing people in a group above viewing each person as an individual. That IS a common definition of collectivist thought:

As in here in Wikipedia:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Identity politics.

And it goes back to the "we'll have the ----- voting Democrat for 50 years" line from LBJ and the development of the welfare state at least in part to sooth black self determination and the upheavals that would cause.

[Dr. MB]

If it favors one race at the expense of other races.