zlacker

Okay. Let me draw an analogy. Say you're in occupied Hungary circa 1956. Whenever you hear anybody walk by speaking Russian, you clam up for fear that they might be Soviet secret police.

Would you describe this person as "racist" against Russians? I don't think a reasonable person would apply that label. I think they'd say they're responding rationally to the specific circumstances of their immediate situation. That sort of behavior shows no inherent animosity to Russian people in general.

(And before anyone cries foul, I'm not in anyway saying sexism accusations in 2021 corporate America is anywhere near the same as the KGB. I think that should be patently obvious. The reason I picked this specific example was to stretch the underlying logic to a situation that's clear enough to be cut and dry situation.)

>>dcolki+(OP)
There are only two things I fear in life: Soviet troops and women.

>>dcolki+(OP)
> Would you describe this person as "racist" against Russians?

Yeah, they're making decisions and treating someone differently based on the person's (anticipated) race. Something being rational doesn't make it not racism.

> That sort of behavior shows no inherent animosity to Russian people in general.

Racism has nothing to do with animosity. Consider that men have the opposite of animosity towards women and yet sexism is something between humans.

>>roenxi+wm
Right. Label common sense as racism, and then be surprised that men clam up.

>>roenxi+wm
> Something being rational doesn't make it not racism.

That's the really tricky part with racism, not the mindless extremism. What is the acceptable limit between rationalism and racism? Is there one? If we take the example of the GP with Russian secret services, if 99% of the Russian speaking people you encounter are from the secret services, does it make it acceptable to discriminate against the 1% to save your life? If yes, then what is the limit? 50%, 10%, just one person, ...?

>>roenxi+wm
> Yeah, they're making decisions and treating someone differently based on the person's (anticipated) race

What the actual fuck? Did you read the context? Hungary in 1956: they would fear those Russians!

>>Lehere+br
Further to the point, this isn't about discriminating against those Russians. This is about fearing them, because all Russians have a "super power", and can destroy you with a single word.

No court. No sensible attempts to truly examine the truth. Just a firing squad.

In this context, even "Good" Russians, fear the "Bad" Russians, for they may be labelled 'collaborators', and face the firing squad too.

>>knocte+Ps
If you weren't an enemy of communism you had nothing to fear against Russians and could speak to them openly.

If you aren't an enemy of feminism you have nothing to fear against female founders and can speak to them openly.

>>lyu072+Ax
That's not how that worked. "If the communism didn't consider you an enemy" is more apt and an average Hungarian had no way of telling how anything they say could be interpreted.

>>krige+dC
I believe that's exactly what lyu07282 actually implied (that it doesn't even matter if you're a "feminist" but what matters is if the "feminists" consider you an enemy; and that the average "Hungarian" has no way of telling how anything they say could be interpreted by "feminists"). Replace terms in quotes with whatever else feels appropriate - the bottom line is that mob justice lacks due process and is dangerous/very likely does more harm than good.

>>lyu072+Ax
Nikolay Yezhov wouldn't agree with you. If he wasn't executed, of course.

>>virgil+aE
I feel the distinction is critical in this case - GP implies it's a matter of a quality that you have ("you are the enemy of communism"), while in reality any qualities you had were irrelevant - it only mattered what someone else decided about you, arbitrarily, and with a good incentive for being biased about it.

>>krige+SE
> in reality any qualities you had were irrelevant - it only mattered what someone else decided about you, arbitrarily, and with a good incentive for being biased about it.

I really don't know how to make this any more clear to you, you almost there. And now think an inch further...

>>knocte+Ps
Yeah, I read the context. If you're scared of someone because they speak Russian, then you're being racist. Probably. Potentially some sort of nationalism.

Our hypothetical clam doesn't know that the speaker is in the KGB or equivalent. They're stereotyping based on rumours, ethnicity and background. It doesn't matter that they are behaving prudently, it is pretty clear-cut that they are making decisions based on the racial and ethnic stereotypes they know.

I'm the bearer of bad news here. Sometimes racism is a rational response. Strive to make it not so.

>>lyu072+Ax
Let's say you're a communist in Hungary in that year: would you still walk in the street very calm? Even if you are a communist, demonstrating that to a Russian communist wouldn't be very easy, don't you think? Saying "hey I love communism!" wouldn't cut it.