I agree about trying not to say things that are hurtful, but surely you understand the difference in making a defamatory remark about a minority or oppressed group vs a similar remark about a majority group that holds most of the wealth and power?
Groups of people are comprised individuals, with large degrees of variation in any group. Using averages can be important for some things, but context and nuance matters a lot. Not every white person "holds most of the wealth and power". Most don't have any. Perhaps it increases you chances of acquiring wealth or power, but that's a completely different thing than supposedly holding it just because of some "membership" based on ethnicity, religion, sex, or anything else.
This is such a narrow view of the world; undoubtedly it makes sense if you're raised in some urban middle-class family, but a lot of white people's experiences are vastly different from that, and not only are these experiences ignored, they're met with strong hostility. Why do you think rural US, often impoverished white communities who certainly didn't get the best deal, are so hostile to all this kind of stuff? Hell, even "racism" (for lack of a better term) is a thing, "three nippled inbred cousin fucker from Alabama" and all that.
So no, it's not the same thing. Because context matters and who is saying it to whom matters.
If you get jumped by several guys from an oppressed group at that moment in time and in that place they have a lot more power than you do. Just like in code that context exist within the broader global context where you correctly point out that there are power differentials.
I also grew up in the south like you did but I grew up in a trailer park. Kids like you with houses on the bus made fun of kids getting on from the trailer park.
My point is that socioeconomic status is dramatically more predictive of failure or success in the United States than race is. Geographic location is also a huge predictor. If we're going to reduce things down to one dimension we should focus on class.
But it's still "punching", whether it's punching "up", "down", or "side-ways" doesn't strike me as especially important. Maybe "punching down" is "more bad", but IMHO both are bad and we shouldn't do either. Yet it's still not only commonly done, but also socially accepted. "stop whining, it's not as bad as [..]" doesn't make it okay (not what you said, but some people have, indeed, this is essentially what the entire "#NotAllMen" meme is).
I mention this because it's another dimension of context which gets badly overlooked when people discuss divisive issues that are dependent on specific places and histories.
Yet if you drove through my hometown, the chances of whether you'd have an encounter with a police officer would depend on the color of your skin and the type of car you drive. And store surveillance watches people closer depending on the shade of their skin. And local jobs are gotten depending on who you know, which is a fun way of saying "operators hire the children of friends, and white folks hang out with white folks."
So you say you aren't privileged, but there sure does seem to be a hell of a lot white privilege floating around despite your protest to the contrary.
Oh, but you say "what about the inbred cousin fuckers?"
Racial minorities get discriminated against before you know where they're from. It's why prejudice is a problem, but racism is systemic by default.
Who wins with this? No one wins, no one has anything to gain. It's just venting and only breeds resentment. People turn this in to a "I'm oppressed more! No I'm oppressed more!" contest. That leads to nothing good. Accepting that racism exists, is bad, and should be addressed _and_ opposing this kind of stuff are not mutually exclusive. I think it's entirely consistent with the values of treating people as individuals.
When all messaging is race-focused and people are constantly antagonizing against a certain group, then don't be surprised if people, especially lesser advantaged ones, will feel left out, and that's not even all that unreasonable.
You don't empower a group of people by kicking at another of people group.
People talk about "white privilege" as if that's somehow a problem. It's not; it's how everyone should be treated. That this doesn't happen is horrible, but I resent this usage of "white privilege" that almost tries to to guilt me for being treated with decency, or is being used to dismiss the very real problems and challenges people of all backgrounds are facing (including white people).
Congratulations, you hit the white supremacy apologia trifecta.
You could have scored bonus points if you had also included "not all white people" in your reply.
Did it ever occur to you that the reason that we have civil rights movements in the first place is because the state and corporations DO NOT "treat people as individuals?" Maybe you haven't noticed, but this is why people are pissed off in this day and age. It's why they have these discussions, and it's why they aren't willing to just ignore casual racism in the workplace.
Discussing factual information is not "kicking at another group of people." You can have ALL of your feelings hurt for all I care if it means that people aren't getting targeted by cops and harassed by store employees for the crime of being black and existing in society. White folks have been resenting discussing the problem of systemic racism and the role they play in it since Reconstruction. People are done tiptoeing around the issue so you can feel good about yourself and pretend everything is fine.
But yeah, I'm a racist "white supremacy apologist". Sigh. Do you not realize how massively toxic you're being here? For all your talk about "diversity" and "inclusivity" ya'll seem very quick to exclude people.
> You could have scored bonus points if you had also included "not all white people" in your reply.
Yes, "not all white people" is perfectly valid. Just as "not all men" is, or "not all Muslims are terrorists", or "not all blacks are criminals".
We're on the same damn team for crying out loud, I already said these problems need addressing, repeatedly, we just don't agree on some aspects regarding the best messaging and strategy to solve this problem.
This is like a football match where people keep tackling members of their own team. Maybe it would be better if I just succumb to the "violence" of staying silent if this is what you get if you do try and speak up but don't agree on some comparatively minor aspects. Your comment is certainly a lot more "violent" than any form of silence is.
You crossed several circles deeper into hell with this comment. We're trying to go the other way, for what should be obvious reasons, and you don't need any of this to make your substantive points. Nor is it in your interests, because it only discredits your argument, which is particularly bad to the extent that your argument is true.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
It’s kinda like the ppl who say insults have power and then in the same breath say ACAB or “Kill the Pigs” if you believe words are powerful and can turn into actions why are you saying such inflammatory hateful things?
Just that there is a difference between punching up vs punching down. There is a difference because insults hurt when there is a history behind them. Just like a white guy calling a white guy the 'n' word doesn't hurt nearly as much as calling a Black guy that same name.