Except South Africa has a specific history where being a white South African, raised in the era in which he was raised, can be expected to have a very relevant influence on how he sees the world.
It matters in the same way that fire can kill you. If you’re in a house fire, you died of smoke, not fire. But…fire can still kill you, and is dangerous.
Where the attitude comes from matters a lot actually. It informs the conversation and gives relevant context that can be used to determine the veracity of the claim that, no he’s not just some awkward guy making a weird gesture, he’s a fucking rich white South African who grew up believing that some people are more important than others.
No one here is doing that. What was said is that if a south African does a racist thing, you shouldn’t go out of your way to give them benefit of doubt.
I am!
Because the fact that his family, the figures he looked up to, and he himself, all directly benefitted from the system of apartheid that was a specific integral part of the system in South Africa from which they derived their gains?
That is relevant in the same way that saying “he was born in Alabama in the 1850s, is the son of a slaveholding knight of the golden circle, and owns a lot of bedsheets with eyeholes cut in them” would be a valid set of concerns, all of which can be used as valid identifiers that, why, yes, these add together to paint a picture of the culture that this hypothetical man is most likely to espouse. So when he “accidentally” lights a cross on fire while holding a rope with a slipknot in his offhand, do we really think that the tied slipknot at the end of his rope is to lead cattle, or is it more likely that he intends to lynch someone?
That’s all too many words. You don’t need all the exposition. You know how you know the guy you described is a racist? By the the fact that he’s a racist. Doing racist things.
It literally DOES start with that! That’s the top level comment, word-for-word, which at least two people were too thick to understand. So yes, I gave a longer explanation, like I apparently must also provide to you.
Says someone who’s brain is rotten from the internet. “Nah miss me with those books fam, if you can’t say it in one sentence like a viral tweet then I simply can’t use my brain.”
Sorry but, no. Stereotypes are bad.
He’s a white supremacist. That’s all that matters here.
Except South Africa has a specific history where being a white South African, raised in the era in which he was raised, can be expected to have a very relevant influence on how he sees the world.
Imo the rich part matters too
It matters in the same way that fire can kill you. If you’re in a house fire, you died of smoke, not fire. But…fire can still kill you, and is dangerous.
Username checks out
Wut?
Where the attitude comes from matters a lot actually. It informs the conversation and gives relevant context that can be used to determine the veracity of the claim that, no he’s not just some awkward guy making a weird gesture, he’s a fucking rich white South African who grew up believing that some people are more important than others.
deleted by creator
stereotypes exist for a reason. they are observations made by society against society.
the only problem with them is when you apply stereotypes to individuals directly, then it’s prejudice.
calling rich white south Africans racist or Nazis holds true.
calling Jimbob a Nazi because he’s a rich white south African is prejudice.
now…calling him a Nazi after he heils in front of a camera makes him a proof of the stereotype.
The (white) African I know said that virtually all south Africans they spoke with would be casually racist without a thought about it
Doesn’t make it true for all white South Africans.
If we’re ever going to move forward, I think we need to stop seeing others as only members of various groups, each of which we have prejuidces about.
No one here is doing that. What was said is that if a south African does a racist thing, you shouldn’t go out of your way to give them benefit of doubt.
WHO is downvoting this??? You’re absolutely right!
I am! Because the fact that his family, the figures he looked up to, and he himself, all directly benefitted from the system of apartheid that was a specific integral part of the system in South Africa from which they derived their gains?
That is relevant in the same way that saying “he was born in Alabama in the 1850s, is the son of a slaveholding knight of the golden circle, and owns a lot of bedsheets with eyeholes cut in them” would be a valid set of concerns, all of which can be used as valid identifiers that, why, yes, these add together to paint a picture of the culture that this hypothetical man is most likely to espouse. So when he “accidentally” lights a cross on fire while holding a rope with a slipknot in his offhand, do we really think that the tied slipknot at the end of his rope is to lead cattle, or is it more likely that he intends to lynch someone?
That’s all too many words. You don’t need all the exposition. You know how you know the guy you described is a racist? By the the fact that he’s a racist. Doing racist things.
All that other stuff is extra padding.
Sorry use many words. I see question, think want answer. Am wrong?
Depends on your goal. Short communications make bigger impacts.
You’re right! You know what I could have said instead?
See the flaw in using too few words?
I don’t see any flaw. The meaning of that sentence is very clear.
If the post lead with that then maybe there wouldn’t be any complaints.
It literally DOES start with that! That’s the top level comment, word-for-word, which at least two people were too thick to understand. So yes, I gave a longer explanation, like I apparently must also provide to you.
Says someone who’s brain is rotten from the internet. “Nah miss me with those books fam, if you can’t say it in one sentence like a viral tweet then I simply can’t use my brain.”
You wrote a lot of words, but your argument is unclear.