Racism, Prejudice and Such in America

I'll reiterate my formula for what I believe would constitute a legit racist here as well just in case this thread gets some steam. The following must be happening SOLELY on race and nothing more. There are so many factors in human interaction that immediately making it about race before factoring anything else in is very short sighted. Racism = Prejudice + Discrimination For simplicity (I might copy/paste my definitions from another thread as well) the words above shall have the following meaning: Prejudice- having a preconceived notion (regardless of the accuracy of the notion) about a person or group of people based solely on their race in a negative way but do not actively or intentionally act on these beliefs to harm them in any way; also lumped in here could be a lack of sensitivity toward a particular race as well Discrimination - having a prejudice and actively and intentionally acting on it in a way that harms a person or group of people solely on race whether that harm be financial, physical, or emotional/mental or any combination of harm that can be done to a person (and no simple hurt feelings does not automatically qualify here - it very much depends on a case by case basis) Racism - actively having strong prejudice *and* discriminating based off of the prejudices based solely on race (whether it be on a more personal or systemic level - I can argue that there needs to be a systemic element but I can also accept that racism doesn't require a systemic element to it to be constituted) Both elements MUST be present to legitimately constitute racism. Furthermore the burden is on the person laying the claim NOT the one the claim is against. It seems to be opposite nowadays but I believe that is how it should be to follow one of the biggest principles of our legal system (innocent until proven guilty). One could argue Racism is even a bit more than a prejudice and discriminatory acts since those alone may not be systemic (where one actively encourages others into their beliefs) but if someone is on the level of actively harming another based on race then they probably are trying to encourage others to do the same. If you are going to accuse someone of being a racist YOU better show clearly and definitively that they are being prejudiced AND discriminatory based ONLY on your race and NO OTHER FACTORS and be ready for a rebuttal. Seriously, if you are going to accuse someone of being something as seriously awful as a (legitimate) racist you better be ready to substantiate that claim. If you are not prepared or able to substantiate your claims of racism do society a favor and shut the fuck up. It is one thing to claim the KKK is racist (no argument here at all) since their racism is plainly obvious but another thing entirely to equate things far lesser than rape, assault, and murder to racism. People making weak or non-arguments crying racism when they can't even somewhat substantiate a legitimate claim are a huge part of the problem (the whole boy who cried wolf scenario). Sure (in America) you have your First Amendment right to accuse someone of racism but that also means someone else has the right to tell you that you're inaccurate in your claims. I realize the court of public opinion does not have any real standards and certainly not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" which sadly this topics seems to fall under in many cases. I mean even if one was able to substantiate a claim on a "preponderance of the evidence" standard of proof that would work too but then if that is the case one would have to note that somehow (for example noting that one is "somewhat or slightly racist" or isn't terribly extreme in their racism which by nature is extreme)

I'm pretty sure I'll get some shade my way for that but I think (overall not just with this topic) we're way too quick to say something is something without any real substance to it. It'll get around that I'm both white and voted for Trump ... so you know there's that too. Honestly there are things that are racist (well one thing in particular anyway ) but gets 0 play by BLM and etc. ... gun control laws typically aimed at urban areas in particular. Although population dense areas in every facet of law are inherently more restrictive anyway I must point out. I just made the world explode I put two hot button issues in one point holy shit. Honestly also .... Obama is going to have a huge legacy of racial division and doing more harm to the divide than anything. A lot of these things with BLM and the devolving of discourse on this matter happened on his watch so there are legitimate reasons to put some of this on Obama (this does not mean he is in any way 100% responsible). I personally have mixed feelings about the BLM movement. I usually agree with their premise but 8/10 times they pick the worst examples to get the most angry about. The situation in Ferguson that IMO was the starting point of the modern BLM movement (but I can see it being the Trayvon Martin situation) was a lie ... there was no "hands up don't shoot" in Ferguson. There are many instances of wrong the police does to a black person but that wasn't one of them at all. More on Ferguson here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/03/16/lesson-learned-from-the-shooting-of-michael-brown/?utm_term=.7e236613d7ce That situation should be exhibit A of why one should wait for the facts to come out beyond "white police officer shoots black man" because you can look really stupid when the facts completely contradict your narrative. Things like these are legitimate reasons and marks against the BLM movement and are NOT racist in doing so since things other than race are a factor (content of character, common sense, intellect).

Here is food for thought for those who have an opinion one way or another about the BLM movement. The following article lays down a solid framework for how they are an insurgency movement although it is possible that BLM isn't entirely an insurgency movement but only the radicals are and that the radicals are giving BLM overall a bad name. Fairly lengthy read and there is a lot of prefacing and definitions - BLM doesn't directly come up until about half way in. My caveat with it and I'm sure many who would dissent is that it argues that BLM is more linked to other movements than it might actually be. The last sentence (the conclusion) is noteworthy in itself (quoted - copy/pasted below): "So, could #BlackLivesMatter be legitimately viewed as an insurgency organization? I would say the answer to that question is indisputably YES." It is arguable whether BLM *is* an insurgency movement but it is clearly reasonable that they can be viewed as one https://dissidentright.com/2016/07/18/anatomy-of-an-insurgency-the-question-of-black-lives-matter/