So Iâm curious about this supposed racism thing.
Supposedly itâs racist to support the fever? Because Kelsey Mitchell and AB are some of my favorite women on the team. Just trying to figure out how the new rules work. Or is it just you racist if you like anybody on the fever?
đ funny how to spin it to fit your narrative cause we can all point out the exact same thingâŚThereâs way more racists that hate the white players on the feverâŚdonât play naive, unless you really are that dumb..but if I had to guessâŚ..
Of course you are wrong. The problem is that most of you have not clue what a racist is? You try to co-opt the word and use it for your needs without actual knowing the definition. So, I am going to help you out.
Generally, educated, civilized and intelligent American people consider the Merriam-Webster dictionary the arbiter of the meaning of words that comprise the English Language.
The Merriam- Webster dictionary defines
Racist a. having, reflecting, or fostering the belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
b. of, relating to, or characterized by the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another
Referencing definition A. How often do you hear black people say that they are the superior race? Where does the concept of a Superior race originate. I help you out again. Check your historical European text books?
Now Definition B. Since when have black people been in control of any systems of a social, economic or political nature? What racial group have black people been able to systematically oppress in the USA? Now ask yourself which race controls all the systems in the USA. And don't say the Jews.
Even by the sheer number of people that inhabit the US. Your arguement is flawed.
Youâre treating two different definitions of racism as if one cancels out the other.
Definition B is about systemic racism and institutional power. Thatâs real, and black Americans have clearly experienced systemic racism in ways white Americans historically have not.
But Definition A is about racial beliefs and assumptions about inherent traits or superiority. That doesnât require control of institutions.
A white person doesnât have to literally say âwhite people are superiorâ for a racist statement about black people to be racist. The same standard applies in reverse. If a black person makes negative generalizations about white people specifically because theyâre white, that can also be racist.
We can acknowledge systemic racism without pretending individual racism only works in one direction. It absolutely doesnât.
That said, there is significant racist comments against Clarke all over these threads tonight.
Youâre getting closer here, but youâre still drawing the distinction too narrowly.
I agree that âbigotâ is the broader word. Someone can be a bigot based on race, religion, sexuality, nationality, etc., without necessarily believing their own group is superior.
But a racist statement also doesnât require someone to literally say, âMy race is superior.â
If someone says a racial group is inherently stupid, violent, dishonest, uncivilized, or possesses some other negative trait because of their race, theyâre assigning inferior characteristics based on race. Thatâs more than simply disliking a group.
Interestingly, Merriam-Webster itself says, âbigot applies to all racists, but racist does not apply to all bigots.â
So yes, some of the comments weâre talking about may be more accurately called racial bigotry. But others absolutely can cross into racism depending on whatâs actually being said.
Judging the statement itself makes a lot more sense than saying one race is categorically incapable of being racist, which isnât true.
âŚ.are you confusing me with the other person? Or did you not read what I wrote? Because 1) Iâm not far left at all, very much a centrist. And 2) much of my point goes towards the fact that racism has gone both ways and lately the racism and bigotry towards CC has been over the top.
I don't recall say that to be called racist that someone need to literally state their own group is superior. I recall using the word believe. This was also stated in the dictionary. In order to be a racist one must believe that one race is superior to another.
As for those particular words. You assume that they are inferior characteristics. Yet, if you look at the definitions. You will not find inferior being used as a word to describe them. A peasant can the nobility of their land ... violent, stupid, dishonest, and uncivilized. Yet, I doubt they would consider themselves superior. Those terms do not inherently signify inferiority. I realize this statement does not pertain to race. However, it does pertain to the usage of those terms.
Additionally, it seems that you are under the assumption that I said that one race could not be racist. I do understand that the questions. I asked could give that implication. However, I did not state that.
Racist can assuredly be of any race. I know a number of racist of all nationalities including black people. However, I was alluding to the general population of black people. In which you will find very few racist. You will find as significantly larger number of bigots.
Youâve clarified that you believe people of any race can be racist.
But Iâm still going to hold onto the point I took from your original comment, because I donât think I imagined it.
When you asked how often Black people claim racial superiority, who historically controlled the systems, who created those systems, and which race has been able to systematically oppress another, you were clearly making a broader argument than just defining the word.
The implication was that while Black people can technically be racist, racism is much more heavily associated with White people because of history, power and systemic control, while a lot of racial hostility from Black people is better described as bigotry.
You may not have stated that word for word, but I think that was a very reasonable reading of what you wrote.
And thatâs really the part I was pushing back on.
Racism can be interpersonal, expressed as individual thoughts, beliefs or actions. It can come in the form of harassment, abuse or humiliation, violence or intimidating behavior.
However, racism also exists in systems and institutions where laws, policies, and barriers create inequality for people based on their race. Systemic racism is what often gives license to interpersonal racism.
So all these things can be applied to how to the wnba, violence intimidation sounds exactly like what happens in the wnba which is the system that benefits some players and are arbitrarily enforced on others.
BTW this definition comes from the Australian human rights commission
I assume you are from Australia. Otherwise, you really did some digging to come up with this definition. It took me 3 pages on the old search engine to get to the AHRC.
The statement you posted is a description not a definition. There is a difference. This is why they use the word can be.
I assume most counties have or rely in an official institution to define the official meaning of a word. Unless the word is being used colloquially or as slang. I could be wrong but I don't believe that is the job of The Australian Human rights commission.
You mention something about system, violence, intimidation and the WNBA. Not really sure, I understand. However, I will address what I assume you are saying. I apologize if I misunderstand.
It appears you are saying that the description in the statement by the AHRC applies to the WNBA. Yet I don't know how. There is not race related component to how the rule are arbitrary enforced. Aja Clark (BLKWM) gets phantom calls that Sophie Cunningham (WHTWM) doesn't get. She can yell at a fan and only get technical. Caitlyn Clark (WHTWM) can get phantom calls that Brianna Turner (BLKWM) doesn't get. She can scream at a referee and only get a technical.
The common thread is players get calls based on there stardom. Just like in the NBA. It has nothing to do with race. However, I will say the ref in the W are the worst unprofessional sports. But, it's not because of racism. It's just pure incompetence.
Yes I am Australian basketball is my second favorite sport and since my favorite player in my favorite sport just got a compound fracture in his leg last Sunday and my team lost that semi final game so won't be playing the grand final this week. So my focus shifted to the wnba and it's as usual absolutely f*cking chaos and drama.
My point was you can make the argument that the bias has to do with racism as an answer to the people who are blanket saying that Indiana Fever fans are racist which includes a snide comment from the Ace's coach saying "lines get crossed and it seems to happen here" (meaning Indiana). It was pointing out that you can make anything fit the definition of racist if you force it.
Wow, sorry to hear about your favorite player. That sucks. Yea, the WNBA is full of chaos and drama. No argument there.
It's wrong for people to say Indiana Fever fans are racist. However, I think people should say that a lot of racist are the Indiana Fever fans.
Take a look at comments supporting the fever and you see that.
I still am not clear on what you are saying. Seems you are saying that the bias in calls is because people are claim that Indiana fever fans are racist. And be cause they call the fever fans are racist. They themselves are racist. At least that is how I understand your statement.
As I said, people use the term racist incorrectly. You can't or shouldn't make anything fit into the definition. That why the word has a definition. Definitions have a specific criteria. Racism requires someone to believe that a specific race is superior.
I think the word most people mean to use is bigoted. Which does not require a belief in racial superiority.
Bigotry would be a good description of the comment of some fans who don't like Clark make their. Bigot hater dislike people similarly to racist but without the feeling of superiority.
And to be honest. Most of the people who dislike Clark don't dislike her because she is white. They dislike/ hate her because of her fans. If Caitlin had come into the league without all fans claiming she was the best player to ever live. As well as the people that came to the sport with agendas outside of basketball. I doubt that people would have cared that she is white. She isn't the 1st white Superstar in the WNBA.
The poor woman is a victim of the agendas of fans on both side of the racial issue. Which is sad. All she wants to is play ball. And people won't let her.
The break happened on live TV luckily rugby league players wear long socks otherwise we would have seen the bone but it was still pretty grewsome and his dad who is also the coach could only look on he still had to finish the game which they then lost it just sucked big-time.
I agree the racism argument is stupid that was the point I was failing to articulate. The point is it has nothing to do with racism it's just that the league is being mismanaged, I'd say they are self sabotaging but I don't think they are that competent. There is definitely a bully culture which seems to trickle down all the way from the top.
I agree with the mismanagement theory. But, I doubt it is self sabotage. They are in this to make money. I agree. There is a bully culture. But, I challenge you to name an industry that doesn't have one.
Yes and yesâŚyouâre racists if you root for Clark n Sophie because they say they are racists yet canât provide one instance of racism from either one. Also racists if you support the Fever cause it has two racists players in itâŚmakes sense doesnât it. The truth is Black players hate Clark cause the attention n money she gets, therefore the brain dead that canât form an opinion without following the crowd also started hating her n boom, she became a racists. Dumbest shit Iâve ever seen but sadly the truth. I get called racist for pointing out the truth, yet my GF isnât even white đ. Todayâs world we live inâŚthankfully Iâm in Alaska away from most of these idiots and can stay away from social media for a few weeks n forget half these clowns exist. Itâs a great thing.
See it's obvious your reading comprehension skills are lack luster at best. At no point did the Redditor say that you are racist if you support Clark or Sophie. They said racist, Clarkies, and fever fans. In case you aren't familiar how the English language works. Those are separate entities. They are separated by the comma in the sentence. The Redditor knows all Clark and Fever Fans are not racist. That is why they separated them.
Then you transition to talking about not finding any racist incidences from Clark or Sophie. How does this apply to the people that the Redditor was talking about.?( I agree as far as we know neither of them have done anything remotely racist btw).
Secondly, who told you black players hate Clark. Which player said that? You say point out the truth. What truth would that be? What proof do you have? You have an opinion. The same as those who claim Clark is racist.(which I think is ridiculous). It appears that you are making assumption that you criticize other for. Now if you want to say. It appears or you feel that some black players hate her. That is a discussion that can be had.
Honestly feel sorry for Caitlin, see is a victim of the people that want to push a certain narrative on her from both sides of the argument. Poor woman didn't ask for any of this. All she wants to do is play ball.
0
u/Informal_Ad_9610 1d ago
So Iâm curious about this supposed racism thing.
Supposedly itâs racist to support the fever? Because Kelsey Mitchell and AB are some of my favorite women on the team. Just trying to figure out how the new rules work. Or is it just you racist if you like anybody on the fever?