Racism. It's only tolerable and funny if its against whites?

As whites are, and always have been, dominant over everyone else they've interacted with, it's not "racism". There needs to be a downward direction if a statement is to be considered racist. I'm white, and I feel "racism against whites" is not only currently impossible, but the idea is inherently racist.

And whiny...

Racism-prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
-the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

....I absolutely hate the bastardized definition you gave, because it's flatly wrong and just an excuse for horrid behavior.
Edit: the statement "I feel "racism against whites" is not only currently impossible, but the idea is inherently racist. " is inherently racist.
One, whites are hardly always dominant in every situation (I sure as hell wasn't when I lived in East Palo Alto for years) and two, actual dominance has little to do with racism, it's about what you think. For example, if blacks think they're automatically superior to others based on race, but not in status because they are oppressed, they are perfectly capable of vile, even murderous racism towards non blacks.

Clearly, racism paired with power is far more harmful, but the powerless can be just as racist.

Let's agree to disagree.

In this segment, the hateful twitter users are the butt of the joke. It's not an endorsement of the terrible things they're saying, it's rather the opposite.

Piss off idiot

Jawohl herr kommandant.

I think I've come to view racism as a kind of "othering", we're all wired to view people who don't look like us or come from the same culture/tribe as an other.
Whites are carry the burden of responsibility because of their dominance, yes. But to imply that I am inherently evil because of the color of my skin is as wrong and as racist as a Klan member declaring that his white skin makes him superior to all others.
It's like saying only people in power have the capacity to be wrong.

Either you're a complete moron or a troll. If you honestly believe what you wrote then you live in one weird bubble and are honestly racist. You're definition of racism is so far removed from the actual definition it is straight up racist itself.

I'm gonna go ahead and guess you are a American or Canadian who lives in that typical America bubble where the world is just your immediate doorstep and things like ethnic cleansing and racial prejudice between Africans, Chinese, etc simply dont exist to you.

I would invite you to sincerely re-examine your beliefs and world-view my brother because you're views are frightening.

PS: I love how it took you only two posts to devolve straight into Godwin's law. That must be a record.

Nah, I just think you're a closed-minded douche.

The comment I was replying to was about "racism" towards whites. Not sure where non-white on non-white racism comes into this. I just don't believe making fun of, or critisizing, or generalization of whites can be considered racism. We're on top. If someone marginalized by whites marginalizes someone else further down the oppression scale, that would certainly be racism.

As for the Nazi reference, I'm sure you're one of the good ones Trump told us were at Charlottesville.

I am curious where this idea that a group's social/economic status dictates their ability to be racist comes from. That's simply not part of any actual definition of the term.
I have found an online movement to change the meaning to your interpretation, but I don't see any logic to it.

Put simply, every actual definition I can find (i checked >5) says it's thinking a person can/cannot do (X) because they are (race).

Assuming a kid can swim because they're white is racism "against whites" exactly like assuming a black child can't swim is racism "against blacks".
I'm open to argument about that, but 'that's not what I think it means' lacks evidence and therefore lacks persuasion.

I think you may be confusing/conflating racism with institutional racism....the latter fits your definition much more closely.

Fair point.

Not that I'm confused, it's just I guess my definition of racism is mired in reality, rather than philosophy.

I apologize to the rest of the Sift for continuing on this thread. It's really off the rails from the video content.

Confusing may have been a poor choice of words.....conflating?

It seems to me that your definition is actually mired in your philosophy, not reality, since every dictionary available disagrees with your definition.

Of course you're welcome to speak as you please, but if we can't even agree on the definitions of words, we'll have little chance of making progress, imo. I'll stick with Mirriam-Webster's and Oxford over personal preference.

Discussions often move away from the video topic. Is that something that calls for apologies? If so, I owe the sift dozens of them.

LOL. I dont know why I even bother.

First of all, I'm not even in the northern hemisphere (again, you're bubble) and have no love for Trump or white-supremacists. In fact I'm half Maori so I guess that makes you're whole argument moot.

I really fear for our future with all the closed minded, bubble living idiots like you coming out of the wood-work now.

That makes two of us.

If you really think ad hominem attacks do anything but reflect on your inability to communicate, you really shouldn't.