Quote:
|
You agree that there is societal discrimination and systematic disadvantage based on race and ethnicity.
|
Correct.
Quote:
|
You also agree that just about everyone is involved in perpetuating it, intentionally and consciously or unintentionally and inadvertently.
|
Incorrect. I can't possibly agree with that. It's like saying we all make the at or near the average income. This is the problem with these generalizations. It's also mindless, effectively restating the facile argument that "if you're in a generally racist society or system, you're automatically racist."
Also, as noted above, if you define racism to include any bias toward a race, as Adder has, then all people everywhere are racists (save the blind) to all races. If you see a person, you assess a person based in part on biases you have, and that person's physical appearance is necessarily part of that assessment.
Under Adder's construct, racism is omnipresent and not limited to discrimination against African Americans. You would be racist toward me to the extent you look at me and conclude anything about me based on my race. Quite strangely, his definition would enable "reverse racism" claims.
But why get into all of this? Just say, "US society is comprised of racist systems." That's unquestionably accurate.
If I might guess why people want to instead say "everyone is racist," it's because that's much easier and has more bite. Also, people want to be able to personalize it -- to make everyone part of the problem. This makes for a much more compelling argument. The problem is, any person with a tiny bit of logic in his head sees this as disingenuous. And doubling down on the illogic by saying that if one takes issue with it one is exhibiting fragility makes it even worse. (Some white people do exhibit fragility. It's a real thing. But to argue that any defense to an allegation or racism is automatically fragility, or proves fragility, is such a vacant trope I have trouble dignifying it with response.)
You've tried cases. Never promise in the opening what you can't almost certainly deliver with evidence. These expansive or "woke" definitions work here, but don't fly with the general public. Not because the general public is racist. Because even our often dim general public has some rudimentary logic skills. And it doesn't take much facility with logic to spot what these well meaning "narrative creators" are attempting.
