Gnu Atheist latest BS: minorities' prejudice not racism because #privilege

Yes, minorities can be prejudiced, but never racist, because, to be that, you have to be in a position of having ... wait for it ... the favorite word of the Atheism Plus kiddie pool of Gnu Atheism ...

Privilege!

Of course, a blog that has, among its icon pictures, one that claims no person is born with intolerance or hate is going to be a bit resistant to "harder" sciences as well as social science. Tribalism of some sort is a clear part of human evolution, as it is for a lot of animals.

Now, is is not ought, of course, and we can overcome that. But, as tribalism is a form of intolerance, no, we're born with it.

That initial thought must then be put through this filter:

BTW, it is OK if you disagree with me, I can’t force you to be right.

Actually, no, it's NOT OK. I'm venturing that if I tried to post this link on your blog, speaking of icon pictures, per the one at left, I'd get blocked. (If there's not a cross-the-board blocking of my blog's URL at Freethought Blogs already anyway.)

Yes, white folks experience a lot less racism because of being the majority, and having better economic positions by and large.

But, ask Korean grocers burned and firebombed out of their Los Angeles stores as part of the Rodney King riots if they accept this distinction between racism and prejudice?

Many would probably say no.

Many others might say yes, and say that, in this situation, L.A. blacks had a position of privilege over them.

I'm no libertarian. I'm no social Darwinist. But, this is why I say that buried inside accusing others of playing the privilege card lurks at least the danger, if not the actuality, of playing the victimization card.

Also, I'm going to do some intellectual judo here.

Claiming that your "in-group A" can never engage in "Behavior X" because you're not in a position of power?

By that very act of self-insulation, you've put your "in-group A" into a position of power. In other words, you're playing the #reverseprivilege card, which is still the privilege card.

That's kind of exemplified here:

When People of Colour talk about Racism, it would do well for the privileged Skin colour to listen and learn. You can’t be an ally when all you are eager to do is redefine the word to put you in the picture as a victim.

First, there are many of us who reject the idea of privileging certain words by capitalizing them.

So, you lost me right there.

Second, per the whole discussion above, redefining words cuts both ways, too.

Third, getting back to the selective capitalization, and heading into full-blown snark territory?

It's kind of fun, kind of interesting to see a mash-up of Gnu Atheism and New Ageism.

And, headed more into full-blown snark territory.

How does someone who op poses all forms of "general hatefulness" have a blog post with a title like this?

SLAP SOME SENSE INTO BISHOP DAVID OYEDEPO!

Oops! 

A couple of final thoughts below the fold


This all said, are majoritarian groups, whether majoritarian by race, religion, or other aspects (men are minoritarian, but are majoritarian in terms of power and money) more likely to commit anti-minority acts, often out of deliberation? Yes, and even if we allow for population ratios.

But, just as racial minorities can be racist, atheists can have the equivalent against religious groups, women can be sexist, etc., etc.

None of this justifies men's rights activists, white racists, or anything else.

But it does justify calling out minority groups for using privilege, in the guise of reverse privilege plus victimization, when they put themselves on pedestals, or inside Federation shields or cloaking devices, or whatever.