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

©2025 Poal.co

182

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.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (11).
[–] • 0 pt

Yup, it should be struck from the lexicon. Use the word prejudice instead. Because it requires the user to qualify it and therefore gives it actual meaning and weight. Rather than just being another pejorative.

If you call me a racist it shuts down all further discussion because now we're just going to deal with that label. But if you accuse me of being prejudiced against your race well then we have something to talk about.

Of course derailing the discussion is exactly the intent when some nigger hauls out racist and racism, and sadly we still too often get sucked into that trap. But it's a fruitless, circular process and even though the nigger might think they've won it's only because the white guy they accused of being a racist didn't win. In fact nobody wins. In fact we all lose.

In fact there is nothing wrong with the word. For example is it racist of me to say that sub-Saharan Africa has an average IQ well below 100? Yes it is racist, but it's also a fact so how is it bad?

Unfounded or unwarranted racism is unfounded or unwarranted prejudice, and that's not okay. If I refuse to hire you because you're Chinese and I hate the Chinese for some unclear reason that's unwarranted. If I refuse to hire a nigger because the last 3 niggers I hired stole like it was their job then my actions are warranted. Now I might someday decide to hire a nigger, but today based on my experience it is actually prudent for me not to. And that is not a bad thing.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

No because they'll just twist that word to their needs. Banning words only leads to more ambiguity and less thought on the matter.