Should the word "racism" be discarded entirely?

Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

812

•

On Reddit, I received 27 downvotes for arguing that "reverse racism" is a legitimate idea. https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/fp8p66/reverseracism_doesnt_exist/fljotja/

This led me to question my position on the word "racist".

In the West, that is, in Aryan countries, "racist" is used as a Cultural Marxist weapon for the Great Replacement. It means little more than "white bad, brown good". This usage is obviously disingenuous and could be replaced with "white devils" just as meaningfully. The Alt-Right argues that the word "racist" is an enemy term which should be dropped entirely.

On the other hand, there are certainly people who meet the fair definition of the word "racist". I do not mean those who consider their own race to be superior; to prefer one's own is natural, and multiple perspectives can be correct, just as different people can be superior in different respects.

However, the Japanese invaders of China were clearly racist. As are Bantu towards Pygmies. And Arabs towards sub-Saharans. There's a lot of real racism in the world.

The word "racist" is clearly a pejorative, and it usefully describes some very evil people. I think that is the key - racism extends natural racial self-preference to an evil extreme. Opinions vary on what constitutes evil. But I think we can all agree that the Japanese genocidal cruelty towards the Chinese was evil. The Japanese were not vastly superior to the Chinese, as they imagined, but had simply modernized earlier. So perhaps a good definition of "racist" is racial chauvinism taken to an un-Christian and anti-human extreme.

Despite being post-Christian, the West largely derives its ethics from Christianity. For the materialists, "anti-human" can be objectively measured, in terms of the genetic interest of humanity, its long term prospects for spreading through the solar system and beyond. Under this two-fold standard, taking regions of Africa from sub-Saharans is not racist, but dehumanizing them is.

Similarly, to be "chromasomist" is not merely to believe that people with Down Syndrome have inferior intelligence - that is objective fact. A chromasomist is someone who is needlessly cruel, demeaning and oppressive towards them. Some bullies do that.

On Reddit, I received 27 downvotes for arguing that "reverse racism" is a legitimate idea. https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/fp8p66/reverseracism_doesnt_exist/fljotja/ This led me to question my position on the word "racist". In the West, that is, in Aryan countries, "racist" is used as a Cultural Marxist weapon for the Great Replacement. It means little more than "white bad, brown good". This usage is obviously disingenuous and could be replaced with "white devils" just as meaningfully. The Alt-Right argues that the word "racist" is an enemy term which should be dropped entirely. On the other hand, there are certainly people who meet the fair definition of the word "racist". I do not mean those who consider their own race to be superior; to prefer one's own is natural, and multiple perspectives can be correct, just as different people can be superior in different respects. However, the Japanese invaders of China were clearly racist. As are Bantu towards Pygmies. And Arabs towards sub-Saharans. There's a lot of real racism in the world. The word "racist" is clearly a pejorative, and it usefully describes some very evil people. I think that is the key - racism extends natural racial self-preference to an evil extreme. Opinions vary on what constitutes evil. But I think we can all agree that the Japanese genocidal cruelty towards the Chinese was evil. The Japanese were not vastly superior to the Chinese, as they imagined, but had simply modernized earlier. So perhaps a good definition of "racist" is racial chauvinism taken to an un-Christian and anti-human extreme. Despite being post-Christian, the West largely derives its ethics from Christianity. For the materialists, "anti-human" can be objectively measured, in terms of the genetic interest of humanity, its long term prospects for spreading through the solar system and beyond. Under this two-fold standard, taking regions of Africa from sub-Saharans is not racist, but dehumanizing them is. Similarly, to be "chromasomist" is not merely to believe that people with Down Syndrome have inferior intelligence - that is objective fact. A chromasomist is someone who is needlessly cruel, demeaning and oppressive towards them. Some bullies do that.