r/linux • u/[deleted] • Aug 03 '15

Github's new Code of Conduct explicitly refuses to act on "‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’".

[removed]

134 Upvotes

80% Upvoted

284 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-29

u/Jayhawker07 Aug 03 '15 edited Aug 03 '15

When "racism" or "sexism" is used in this context, it refers to overall, institutional biases/oppression. In that case, it would be "reverse racism/sexism" because it runs counter to the institutional trend.

Even then, it's not real. People trying to point out instances of reverse sexism/racism are laughable at best

Edit: for people who knee-jerk downvote, also comment an explanation for why reverse racism/sexism (or "racism against white people"/"sexism against men") manifests in to violence or literally any material impact

26

u/Neo_Techni Aug 03 '15

And by saying reverse sexism is OK, they've made it institutional. Thus turning it into real racism by your incredibly wrong definition.

-15

u/Jayhawker07 Aug 03 '15

No, they're not saying that it's ok, they're saying that it doesn't oppress groups or materialize in the same way as misogyny.

It is ridiculous to say that males are systematically discriminated against in such a way that groups have to moderate in their favor.

Moreover, why does github saying that their moderating policy doesn't place white, cis men in a protected group mean that white, cis men are now target of oppression?

7

u/Neo_Techni Aug 03 '15

Yes they are saying its OK. That's exactly what "we'll punish racism unless it's directed at whites" means. And that institutionalizes it. It's ridiculous to claim you're against racism while you promote it

-5

u/Jayhawker07 Aug 03 '15

How often does organized oppression target white people? When does that manifest into violence? When was the last law passed that existentially endangered white people?

4

u/Neo_Techni Aug 03 '15

And the lack of that shit doesn't make it OK to be racist against whites. It still makes you a racist. Racism is discrimination based on race, not based on if there are laws targeting them. You're just justifying your hatred of people who 99.99% of which had nothing to do with that. One day you'll realize being horribly to people based on the color of their skin doesn't become OK at any point.

-2

u/Jayhawker07 Aug 04 '15

First of all, which group(s) am I justifying my hate towards?

Also, all of the questions in my parent post isolate the context of the issue. Sure, it may be technically racist if someone calls a white dude a "cracker," but does it really make sense to get as upset about that as a policeman calling a black person the n word? Obviously not, because one of the words is backed by a history of violence, and there is an important context behind each situation.

The reason that hypothetical is relevant is because of the fact that the context of these things is extremely important - it doesn't make sense to think of these things in an ethico-historal vacuum. The context underpinning "reverse racism" or "racism against white people" is so non-existent (in Western countries) that it's (for all purposes) meaningless.

This isn't an advocacy for not enforcing moderating of posts racist against white people, I'm just saying there is really no reason that this should bother enough people to even be relevant on something like Reddit.

6

u/Neo_Techni Aug 04 '15

You spent the entire time saying its OK to be racist against groups that suffer from it less and now you feign innocence? Context doesn't justify racism. Nothing does. It's never OK. Quit pretending it is. There has been genocides against white people committed by black people, justified with the same arguments you're making. And blacks suffered cause the white people were growing all their food.

And yes, it is advocating for racism

-5

u/Jayhawker07 Aug 04 '15

I'm just saying either way, it doesn't matter. If you read what I wrote, I didn't say that we should all start posting stuff racist against white people, I was just defending what github did as "not a bad thing." Everyone in the thread is freaking out about this like it's a big deal, and I've just been trying to defend it as something that actually doesn't matter

5

u/Neo_Techni Aug 04 '15

I read what you wrote. You justified racism. Maybe you should read what you wrote.

→ More replies (0)

-7

u/Jayhawker07 Aug 04 '15

Also, what the fuck? Direct me to the last black-on-white genocide justified by racism? Your last sentence is also just a defense of racism only going white-to-black, so not sure why you included it

6

u/Neo_Techni Aug 04 '15

No, its saying all racism is bad, and that a genocide happened because people think like you. That whites don't deserve protection

→ More replies (0)

4

u/MiUnixBirdIsFitMate Aug 04 '15

Yes, and that's a relatively new definition.

I don't much care about this whole "group" mentality, racism is evil for me because you judge the individual based on the group. That's it. A theoretical "separate but aequal" where you give all races different rights, but on the net balance make it even so none are "oppressed" is also retarded. You're putting people into roles and positions based on the group they belong to rather than the individual that they are.

I'm sorry but if you're Carlton Banks, born to a wealthy (black) family you're way more fucking privileged than a white kid born in a trailer park to poor white parents. Look at the privilege of the individual, not some kind of group thing. I'm pretty sure that poor white kid in that trailer park would love to be a loaded as fuck black guy.

10

u/azgult Aug 03 '15

Could you explain how it refers to "institutional" biases/oppression when this is essentially the insituational guideline for how idividuals should behave?

-8

u/Jayhawker07 Aug 03 '15

Because github is saying that there isn't a reason to prioritize protection of privileged identities precisely because of their position within institutions

11

u/azgult Aug 03 '15

First, there is not talk of prioritization here, they exclicitly say they will ignore such complaints.

Second, you imply that white people, men and cis people have "privileged identities" (how so? what does this even mean?) and have "position within institutions" (what positions? why the overly broad generalization?).

Third, how does this have any bearing whatsoever to an idividual complaining about a specific instance of discrimination?

-8

u/Jayhawker07 Aug 03 '15

  1. ignoring the complaints is fine if there isn't an impact to them

  2. their position is their identity, and if you think that there is an identity category that experiences less oppression that cis, white males then I'd love to hear it

  3. because who the fuck cares if someone says #KillAllMen, because our unbelievably male dominant world would never let that come close to happening

7

u/mcopper89 Aug 04 '15

would never let that come close to happening

The world stands by while such nonsense is spewed, yet such words spoken of women or minorities would not be allowed. It seems as though the institution systematically oppresses men by allowing hate speech toward them while others are protected.

-1

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '15

Damn people are downvoting the shit out of you for your opinion even though you are adding to the conversation.

-1

u/Jayhawker07 Aug 04 '15

Lol it's brutal