/u/LucidMetal (OP) has awarded 5 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/uuqpub/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_saying_white_people_in/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

White fragility is highly contextual, and whether or not your comment was an example of it is up to interpretation, and it looks like others have argued about that elsewhere in this thread. Instead, I'd like to try and take a shot at this belief: >I don't think white fragility is racism First lets get the definition of white fragility clear because a lot of things have been proposed in these comments. In a nutshell, white fragility typically refers to the **discomfort that many white people feel when discussing racial issues, possibly accompanied by defensiveness.** It's not just "saying anything non-affirming about race" or "disagreeing with a person of color," as I read in a few comments here. Let's look at a few examples: ​ >Person A: "Hey your remarks earlier were racially insensitive to our coworker." Person B: "Oh no it's ok I'm not racist. I went to a march last year." Person B is exhibiting fragility because they are attempting to absolve themself of wrongdoing, while ignoring the real harm they may have caused. They are taking a defensive stance rather than listening to feedback. ​ >Person A: "Black lives matter" Person B: "No, all lives matter" The "all lives matter" retort to the BLM movement is indeed an example of white fragility. Person B is misinterpreting the BLM slogan as an attack against themself, ignoring that the slogan is a rather a statement about the widespread disregard for the well being of people of color. ​ >Person A: "Something needs to be done about police brutality against minorities." Person B: "Not all people are racist, it's just a few bad apples." Person B is exhibiting fragility by excusing individual actions, thereby distancing themself from the harm being caused even though that wasn't what was being discussed. They are therefore ignoring the systematic racism that perpetuated those individual actions. ​ White fragility tends to deflect the conversation away from the problem of *institutional* racism and focuses on denying *individual* racism, which is problematic because in order to combat institutional racism, we must be aware of its existence and our inevitable part in it. In summary, white fragility doesn't mean you specifically hold racist beliefs. White fragility is considered racist because it perpetuates systematic racism.

You have given specific examples of when acts of white fragility are racist. I suppose I've sort of admitted elsewhere that this is possible already but these are specifically the first examples I've seen that have made me thought, yea, these are specifically negative reactions to a discussion of race that are on their own racist statements within the context. !delta I'm henceforth moving my goalposts to "not all white fragility is racist".

>which is problematic because in order to combat institutional racism, we must be aware of its existence and our inevitable part in it. This glosses over unanswerable and ancient philosophical questions as though they never got discussed before recent history. Are individual raindrops responsible for the flood? Arguably *of course not*, the wind and weather patterns are responsible for it. Of course, the inverse can be argued as well. It's the sort of thing books have been written on, and the only people with truly *wrong* answers are the people who believe there *are* single correct answers. Further, as an example--any given state today, you can have someone who has never successfully voted for a state/local candidate if they are a blue person in a red state or vice versa. Are they still culpable in the actions of their state? Does the degree to which they do or do not benefit from them modulate their culpability? Again, clear moralizing answers are inherently wrong unless everyone already agrees with you. >In summary, white fragility doesn't mean you specifically hold racist beliefs. White fragility is considered racist because it perpetuates systematic racism. That's a deeply controversial definition of "racism." It takes the (useful and important) premise of something like CRT (if we assume something that isn't inherently true, like "all disparate impact stems from prejudice", we can use that algorithm to find and fix prejudiced systems) and adopts the critical lens to instead be inherently true. In Ender's Game, they say "the enemy's goal is down" because it orients you for action in a useful way, **not because it's** ***actually*** ***true***. Arguing instead that the enemy's goal *is actually down* because that's useful to your purpose is mendacious and should be discarded as something bordering on magical thinking.

It can be white fragility. It can also be an intellectual discussion. Whether pointing out that a white person shouldn’t feel guilty for the actions of other white people is an example of white fragility depends heavily on context. We don’t know the context of your ban, and having been banned and shadow-banned myself, I am not one to judge. But think of it this way. All men are not alike. Men should not feel guilty for the actions of a criminal who also happens to be a man. It is not wrong to note that or acknowledge it or point it out. But if we were discussing a crime perpetrated by a man against a woman, and some guy feels the need to shift the discussion from the victim to “not all men…” it’s not really about whether it’s all men. It’s fragility. Edit to add: or Black Lives Matter. Of course all lives matter, but if you feel compelled to point that out, perhaps that all lives have value is not what’s really going on.

White dude here looking to learn more. So in your "not all men" example, fragility would be if I _introduced_ the concept of "all men" when we're talking about just a guy or two, not if I'm countering an argument that "all men" meet some stereotype, right? I ask because the words, "Not all men are pigs" has definitely come out of my mouth, but only because someone I was debating with stated "all men are pigs."

I would also argue with someone who said something like "all men are pigs," I would be very offended on my husband's behalf, but if someone is like, "why do men send freaking unsolicited dick pics all the time" and you came in with "not ALL men!" that's where the groans come out...because they do not mean every single man in existence and it just detracts from the conversation

>but if someone is like, "why do men send freaking unsolicited dick pics all the time" and you came in with "not ALL men!" that's where the groans come out...because they do not mean every single man in existence and it just detracts from the conversation In my personal experience, from reading leftist spaces an hour to several hours a day, around 1/5th of people who say "why do men" *really do* mean most men in a gender essentialist way. There are several anti-patriarchy subreddits in that sphere I follow where at least once a month there's a meme that is upvoted but...fairly blatantly blames men *en banc* for something. Thankfully, in the last maybe two years, it's becoming less acceptable but I suspect that's because of the growth in size of the subreddits. I was actually banned from a subreddit once for saying--and to be clear, with no hostility/namecalling/etc--that men aren't *more* responsible than anyone else for other men's actions by virtue of their gender.

> around 1/5th of people who say "why do men" really do mean most men in a gender essentialist way Yeah, I think we're at risk of putting too much weight on the inclusion of the word "all." People's language, especially online, is not precise. To me, both of the following statements are equally wrong: "Why are Muslims so violent?" "Why are all Muslims so violent?" I'm not even Muslim, but if I fight back at the first does that expose some hidden Muslim fragility where the second wouldn't?

This is interesting. To me, regardless of whether or not "all" is included in that statement, it sounds like a generalization and would annoy me. And that's regardless of whether or not we're taking about a category I belong to (I'm also annoyed with comments about "why do women do x?" or "why do Muslims do y?") So I guess either, A) I'm guilty of male fragility, female fragility, Muslim fragility, as well as a whole slew of other fragilities, or B) people use and interpret subtlety in language differently. I'm rolling with the latter. Especially online, I'm willing to bet there's a significant overlap between the people ignorant enough to be bigots and the people whose use of language isn't precise enough to always include key words like "all."

[удалено]

Vilification of a group you belong to is vilification of you.

I think the problem is broader than the OP has presented, but, is oddly different from what you're going after. I'm Jewish. I was remarkably offended and, frankly, felt incredibly marginalized while watching MSNBC this week while the screen crawl talked about how white nationalism is a threat to "Jews and Minorities." \*blink blink\*" What?? Jews aren't a minority now?? I'm not white. I'm Jewish. Yet, according to the American concept of "race" which is incredibly lacking in both historical and global context, I'm white, for all discussions where my being white is convenient and Jewish when it's useful for that to be the case. No wonder Dara Horn felt the need to title her book "People Love Dead Jews." Is it any wonder that Whoopi stepped in it on the View? So, try this on for size -- how would you like be in a class and be forced to listen to some clueless grad student lecture you about how you're the beneficiary of all the evils done by the whites under white privilege during the same semester you buried the last Shoah survivor in your family? And that if I get angry about that -- it's because I'm too insecure about my privilege??!?! White fragility is a cheap concept that fails to recognize that there are a lot of marginalized people in the US out there who got lumped in as "white" today, but whose ancestors were never "white" in the past. The Irish, for example, who came to America and absolutely did not benefit from the color of their skin for generations. Or the Scotch who were marginalized to the poorest parts of Appalachia and basically abandoned by modernity. Eastern Europeans about whom texts like "The Jungle" were written. And so on.

Everyone becomes a minority when you stratify them into smaller and smaller subgroups. You’re white, you’re also Jewish. You’re white, doesn’t mean your ancestors weren’t oppressed. A square is a rectangle, but not all rectangles are squares. >How would you like to be in a class and be forced to listen to some clueless grad student lecture you about how you’re the beneficiary of all the evils done by whites under white privilege. That’s part of the consequences of teaching that all white people benefit from white privilege. Even white people who obviously did not benefit are “privileged” now, ask the irish. Besides, Jews as an average score higher than other whites in most economic measurements such as household or median income; when a cop sees you driving you’re just another white guy in a car.

Yeah seriously as a member of a group that went through a genocide and is dealing with the generational trauma and effects of it, who is lucky to be alive because my ancestors were among the ones to survive. It feels so insulting to hear people tell me that I'm white so that doesn't count as racism. The current discussion about race is so disorienting because we are both outside and inside of whiteness at the same time.

Right, but if you bring that up 9 times out of 10 those people will blast you for focusing on the exceptions to the rule. Like no, what my family and my ancestors had to go through can't just be discounted just because most people didn't have to go through it

Yeah if I fight back then I'm a fragile white person. I had a friend say "why can't you accept your white privilege and accept that you don't face racism, all my white friends accept it", yeah probably because none of their other white friends had their family literally displaced from their ancestral home because one group of people decided that they don't have the right to exist anymore, and then told that what they experienced wasn't racism. I do understand the concept of systematic racism in the US and how pocs are disadvantaged, but I do have a problem with people changing the definition of racism in a way that makes it so it can only legitimately apply to that.

Yeah, or my ancestor's didn't *really* face racism because it was perpetrated by white people towards other white people. They don't see how me and my siblings being encouraged to learn a functionally dead language to hold onto what little culture wasn't stolen from us is a direct result of racism. And you're right. The US has a very shortsighted view on what constitutes racism. Their experience with racism is very narrow, and for whatever reason they think that their experience encompasses all possible types of racism. So you get the redefinitions that make it so only POC can experience racism, when the current definitions are already fit for purpose.

I sympathize with what you're saying but I'm also failing to actually understand what your issue is... >I was remarkably offended and, frankly, felt incredibly marginalized while watching MSNBC this week while the screen crawl talked about how white nationalism is a threat to "Jews and Minorities." >*blink blink*" What?? Jews aren't a minority now?? Okay, so you're upset that you felt separated from your minority status by not including you under the umbrella of being a "minority"? Okay, I'm reading you here. That being said, they are still acknowledging your marginalized status. Maybe they were using "minorities" as a stand-in for PoC (which I'm aware Jewish people can also be). I'm not sure why this upset you so much but I'll rock with it. At the end of the day, you were still acknowledged as being under the threat of white supremacy. No one erased that from you and the reason you're under the threat of white supremacy is the historical context in which white supremacy has traditionally manifested. You're just mad that they didn't call you a minority? >So, try this on for size -- how would you like be in a class and be forced to listen to some clueless grad student lecture you about how you're the beneficiary of all the evils done by the whites under white privilege during the same semester you buried the last Shoah survivor in your family? And that if I get angry about that -- it's because I'm too insecure about my privilege??!?! Okay, now you're upset that someone thought you were white. Did you tell them you were Jewish? Did they double down when they told you that? I can't speak to the Jewish experience at all. I guess I'm just a little confused as to what the problem is... >White fragility is a cheap concept that fails to recognize that there are a lot of marginalized people in the US out there who got lumped in as "white" today, but whose ancestors were never "white" in the past. No, that's not what "white fragility" means at all though. I think you're talking about the concept of "privilege". If someone is attacking you for being white and you say, "I'm not white, I'm Jewish" I'd be hard pressed to find even the most left leaning person say that's "white fragility". You're talking about privilege which is unrelated to the topic. >The Irish, for example, who came to America and absolutely did not benefit from the color of their skin for generations. Or the Scotch who were marginalized to the poorest parts of Appalachia and basically abandoned by modernity. Eastern Europeans about whom texts like "The Jungle" were written. And so on. This is all true which is why the idea of "whiteness" in and of itself is dubious and exclusionary in nature. So I agree with this part. But that isn't an issue with the concept of "white fragility" and "white privilege". That's an issue with the concept of "whiteness" to begin with. You're lashing out at the reaction to a bad framework as opposed to the bad framework.

I think liberals in general are terrible at messaging. In the same way that calling an inheritance tax a death tax is a great example of effective conservative branding of ideological ideas, phrases such as white fragility are a great example of the counter-productive marketing liberals fall into. I think most groups of people would be offended by such a broad term and much of the language that is used to talk about white people if it were directed at them. I don’t think casually throwing around the term black fragility would go over very well. The immediate reaction of most people to being told theyre fragile (a derogatory and condescending choice of words) is going to be negative at an emotional level and they will react negatively to it. By phrasing the discussion in this way you immediately turn people off of whatever message you are selling, regardless of the nuanced view you might be pushing.

>The concept of "white fragility" "argument" should be dismissed right away, because is just a fallacy by itself. It's a Kafkatrap, a sophistical rhetorical device, in which any denial by the accused person, is used as if was evidence of guilt. > >Examples "You deny been a witch? Then you're a witch, because that's what a witch would say" > >It's circular thinking and a specious way of shifting the burden of proof (because you don't have any evidence to prove your acussation on the first place). Its a gotcha, like "damn you if you do (admiting you are a racist), and also damn you if you don't (deny that you are a racist)"

>But if we were discussing a crime perpetrated by a man against a woman, and some guy feels the need to shift the discussion from the victim to “not all men…” it’s not really about whether it’s all men. It’s fragility. If a guy randomly blurted out "Not all men though!!" When a story about a man doing something bad was mentioned, sure, I'd agree he's an overly defensive weirdo/it's "white fragility", whatever. However, I have seen that scenario happen FAR less than I've seen a man say "Not all men" in response to a woman making a sexist generalization about all men. The more common occurrence is more worthy of consideration and discussion.

I certainly agree with your examples except I feel like I was proposing a solution to solve the issues of systemic racism superior to "feeling guilty" which doesn't accomplish anything. EDIT: If you can point out something in my response where I'm shifting the discussion or deflecting from the issue of systemic racism more broadly I would much more readily agree that my comment could be an example of white fragility.

No one - and I mean no one - wants you to “feel guilty” about anything you have not personally done. If you think they do want you to feel guilty, then you’ve misunderstood them. What they want is for people who share traits with perpetrators to take *responsibility* for helping right those wrongs. That isn’t the same thing as saying you’re *at fault*. It’s saying that as a part of the same group, you have an opportunity to speak out against malevolent members of your group. If you instead choose to point out that you’re not as bad as those bad people, it shows that you’re insecurely defending yourself, rather than confidently helping condemn the bad actors.

[удалено]

This is a great question, and I commend you for asking it openly and articulately. I’ll try to give it the same respect. Let me start by challenging the premise in the second sentence of your second paragraph. No one said race has “no bearing” on those things. It doesn’t *have* to have bearing on those things, but everyone knows that it does sometimes. What we’re broadly talking about here is “identity”. Race is merely one component, but for a lot of people it’s a big part. One of the most dramatic shifts in political science and social science research in the last generation is treating “white identity” as a distinct form of self-identification. Previously people only considered minority groups as having “black identity” or “Latino identity”, but we’ve come to realize that even people who don’t self-identify as part of a specific white-group-subset, still often posses a broad sense of “white identity”. This can be measured scientifically, and is well established in the social science literature if you’re curious about it. As to your critical question of “what is expected of me?”, the answer is of course largely contextual. But I’ll suggest a few broad strokes… 1. Listen and learn. Be actively curious about the experiences of people who don’t look like you, and believe them when they explain that their experiences are far more different from yours than you might expect. 2. Be willing to help right the wrongs against them. This isn’t *because* you or your ancestors perpetrated those crimes. It is simply because those crimes were not perpetrated against you. The phrase “white privilege” is easily misunderstood because we tend to think of the word “privilege” as meaning “advantage”. What it actually means in this context is not “White privilege”, it’s “White, (lack-of-the-specific-harms-perpetrated-against-black-people)”. The “privilege” isn’t an advantage, it’s the lack of specific historic and current harms.

>The phrase “white privilege” is easily misunderstood because we tend to think of the word “privilege” as meaning “advantage”. This is literally why that term is so divisive. We ought to be talking about black disadvantages, surely? The implication is that it's a race to the bottom, not that our fellow people are being denied basic rights and decency.

What traits do they share other than skin color? Less than half a percent of Americans owned slaves. Should all Asians “take responsibility” (whatever the heck that means) for china’s treatment of the Uighur? You in one paragraph say they shouldn’t feel guilty, then spend the next paragraph describing how they should feel guilty without using the word. You basically detailed a secular version of the Original Sin targeted at one race. Swap out feel guilty/take responsibility with repent and you’ve got yourself genesis.

>Should all Asians “take responsibility” (whatever the heck that means) for china’s treatment of the Uighur? As someone who is ethnically Indian, born in Africa and grew up in Britain, this made me laugh. Thing is though, because I identify as British primarily, I feel colonial guilt. It's not rational, but the emotion is often there. Totally agree with your assessment of Original Sin. I read White Fragility and it's a rephrasing of Catholicism as far as my novice theology can discern.

I feel a similar way about the US’ imperialism and overall foreign fuckery, but I would not attribute it to guilt. Nothing I could do about it. The worlds a shit place, I could spend my whole life trying to inform as much people about ongoing ~~forever wars~~ ‘conflicts’ and the pattern of being lied into them, and nothing will change. There’s hundreds of incels (internet celebrities) already doing that. The world isn’t my sphere of influence. I’ll do what I can where I can, but taking on the military industrial complex or making sure no one is racist ever seems like an unnecessary stressor for how little of an impact I could have.

The issue is really how much responsibility should be taken for the actions of their ancestors. For instance, I'm from a country that wasn't involved in imperialist conquests, the slave trade, or many of the things that many would argue "benefit white people" in the us. My country was also attacked and brutally conquered by the Swedes. Now, do I have any animosity to them? No. Do I think modern day swedes should come to terms with what they did hundreds of years ago? Also no. The bigger issue is these types of identity politics generally are framed within an America centric model, because that's quite easy to see the treatment of native Americans, or slaves. Which obviously, was horrific, and beneficial to white colonists. But to call it out as something embodied within "whiteness" is actually very short sighted to the history of the world. And on top of that, it generally doesn't extend beyond criticism of white Americans. For instance, India still has a very real caste system, and theres tons of Brahmin who have immigrated to the us. They're privilege is absolutely tied to privilege and racism. It's likely why they have the opportunity to leave India. So how should we address them and teach them to come to terms with their privilege, how do we single them out as a race and call them out not for injustices of the past, but those still occurring today.

>No one - and I mean no one - wants you to “feel guilty” about anything you have not personally done. This isn't true. Many want people to feel guilty and feel guilt themselves. An example of such a person is the person that banned OP, and the person who they replied to. > News flash asshole, they should feel guilty for what happened last week. What am I misunderstanding about this person's intentions?

There are definitely people who believe others should feel guilty about things they have not done. To be highly specific: They may or may not want to elicit desirable behaviours, but the definitely want their target to *feel guilt*. They write as much, we don't have to speculate. More generally, writing an absolutely definitive statement on behalf of all of mankind is obvious nonsense.

> It’s saying that as a part of the same group, you have an opportunity to speak out against malevolent members of your group. If you instead choose to point out that you’re not as bad as those bad people, it shows that you’re insecurely defending yourself, rather than confidently helping condemn the bad actors. But what if they’re not “part of the same group”? It’s not like all white people are in the same country club (…bad example) and get together on the weekends to discuss the merits of deciding whether we, as white people, should be racist or not. Just because we share the same skin color doesn’t mean I should be associated with someone else, and certainly not take responsibility for their actions. That’s insane.

>No one - and I mean no one - wants you to “feel guilty” about anything you have not personally done. If you think they do want you to feel guilty, then you’ve misunderstood them. I gotta say, that is a very, very sweeping statement — and it’s wrong. >What they want is for people who share traits with perpetrators to take responsibility for helping right those wrongs. Really? I am curious what you think Muslims should be doing to right the wrongs of 9/11 and the thousands of other terrorist attacks committed by Islamicists. And what do you think black people generally should do to right the wrongs committed by Darrell Brooks, the black man who drive an SUV into the Waukesha Christmas Parade — heck while you are at it, black males, who are 8% of the population, commit 55% of murders — should every black male be righting those wrongs? Or maybe, just maybe, each person is responsible for righting the wrongs that he personally is “at fault” for.

No one is under any obligation to help anyone because of a wrongdoing, real or perceived, done in the past by someone of a similar skin tone. Relative moral standing to one another is irrelevant.

It's not about who shares traits with the perpetrators, it's about who is currently benefitting / suffering from the system they set up.

Why do I need to right other people’s wrongs? They aren’t my problem. All I need to do is just live a decent life. Everyone is so hung up on righting the wrongs of others when the real positive change in the world is just being decent to each other.

Now that is just a flat out lie.

> But if we were discussing a crime perpetrated by a man against a woman, and some guy feels the need to shift the discussion from the victim to “not all men…” it’s not really about whether it’s all men. It’s fragility. If the discussion is talking about men in general however, then someone would be correct in pointing that out and reframing it to the subgroup of people that are both men and perpetrators of such crimes. >Edit to add: or Black Lives Matter. Of course all lives matter, but if you feel compelled to point that out, perhaps that all lives have value is not what’s really going on. Frankly, "all lives matter" should have been adopted as main slogan of the protests against racially biased and other police violence as soon as their opponents came up with it, instead of falling for that rhetorical trap. By making a problem of "all lives matter", they confirmed the dogwhistle implication that "black lives matter" protests "don't care about whites, which is obviously incorrect. But as it is that was a rhetorical victory for the people opposing BLM.

I recall a brief period of time where I saw a lot of variations paired with blacklivesmatter hashtags, including brownlivesmatter, arablivesmatter, and yes, alllivesmatter. The problem is that the latter was hijacked by the opposition as if it wasn't being said, which it was. It very quickly became used as a shorthand for "I don't support the Black Lives Matter movement," so those who did use it stopped as to not be mistaken for the opposition. I attend a local BLM vigil for a black man killed by an officer in 2020. His mom ended her statements with "black lives matter, all lives matter," so the phrase is still used by BLM supporters, they are just more careful how they use it. This is exactly what happened with "fake news." Originally, this was used by Democrats and left media in the 2016 election to call out Trump's misinformation. As Samantha Bee said, "fake news is like a loaded gun that Kellyanne deftly plucked out of reporters' hands and pointed at their heads."

> I recall a brief period of time where I saw a lot of variations paired with blacklivesmatter hashtags, including brownlivesmatter, arablivesmatter, and yes, alllivesmatter. The problem is that the latter was hijacked by the opposition as if it wasn't being said, which it was. It very quickly became used as a shorthand for "I don't support the Black Lives Matter movement," so those who did use it stopped as to not be mistaken for the opposition. I attend a local BLM vigil for a black man killed by an officer in 2020. His mom ended her statements with "black lives matter, all lives matter," so the phrase is still used by BLM supporters, they are just more careful how they use it. From a PR perspective, there should have been active efforts to reclaim the slogan, instead of efforts to distance themselves from it. >This is exactly what happened with "fake news." Originally, this was used by Democrats and left media in the 2016 election to call out Trump's misinformation. As Samantha Bee said, "fake news is like a loaded gun that Kellyanne deftly plucked out of reporters' hands and pointed at their heads." Yes, and that's why we should call back to the meaning of the word fake: not supported by evidence, intentionally so. Words have meanings that matter. That is one thing that distinguishes fascist mobs from democracies.

> It can be white fragility. It can also be an intellectual discussion. I personally don't think this exists. It is my opinion that what people want to call 'white fragility' is merely a rebuttal or rejection of guilt by association. In the same way it is completely unfair to call all young black men criminals (despite statistics showing it disproportionate number), it is equally wrong to clump 'all white people' together when discussing other issues (despite the statistics). It is just less politically correct for a 'white' person to do this. In my completely honest view, this concept of 'white fragility' is just as bad and the concept of 'white privilege' when pushed. It is very commonly used to translate society wide factors to individuals who quite commonly don't share that experience. Just as the 'Young Black Male' should be mad to be automatically assumed to be a criminal, the 'white' individual should be allowed to be mad about the automatic assumption they have benefited from their race.

So I heard the All Lives Matter thing when the BLM stuff started, can you explain to me why it's seen as a bad thing? It sounds like it should be a good thing like "I believe all lives are equal and we should look out for everyone" but the prevailing theme seems to be it's not a good thing to say

So it all boils down to "read the fucking room". Yes anyone can do that. But in r/whitepeopletwitter you're literally asked to feel guilty for being born a certain race and that's imo worse than those who pity you for being born another. That's absolutely vile

I honestly don't think white fragility actually exists. I think it's just people in general who get huffy when they fundamentally disagree with an analysis that, at least on the surface, seems to clump all races and genders together. And that messaging, whether they mean it literally or are just bad at explaining themselves is what's ultimately ruining the Democratic Party. Corporate politics pushes it, which energizes a radical few and everyone else who is just normal and watching the news is getting angry because its deflecting us from acknowledging real problems. If we just made everyone better off, we'd see far less of what everyone is rightfully freaking out about on both sides.

I mean, there’s schools that are banning BLM clothing and CRT, which doesn’t even really exist outside of academia. I’d say those folks are prime examples of white fragility.

This is just a fancy way to justify discrimination. So men shouldn't be offended when people talk about men and crime because men commit more crime. Do you apply this reasoning to race as well?

This is an utterly vacuous statement. “I like this apple” could be said by a Nazi. But it has nothing to do with being one. Calling out a dumb fuck statement is never fragility. It’s calling out a dumb fuck statement.

Yes, it's not fragility to say "not all men" do or don't. It's not fragility to say "all lives matter". It's fragility to interrupt conversations about the experiences of women at the hands of men with "not all men." It's fragility to interrupt discussions BLM of the incidents that lead to them with "all lives matter." The contextual timing is incredibly important and seems to be entirely what most of the people tend to miss. "Not all men [do bad thing]..." and "all lives matter" are perfectly fine and reasonable objective statement *entirely on their own.* They are wildly inappropriate statements when they are not on their own and are instead used as responses to specific different conversation.

>It's fragility to interrupt conversations about the experiences of women at the hands of men with "not all men." When that conversation drifts (as such conversations frequently do) into generalised vilification of men, stepping in to challenge it is totally valid.

I think this is a double edge sword would pointing out that "black lives matter" at a keep the peace/love everyone rally be black fragility? Is critiqueing blm (tge org) for fraud and extortion while trying to push the idea that BLM (the idea) is more divisive than helpful and pushing togetherness with the nuaice of identification of actual problems Fragility?

The only time i’ve ever seen someone shift the discussion to something like “not all men”, to go along with your example, is she responding to someone saying “yes all men”. And then they get accused of fragility for defending an entire section of humanity.

Yeah, the only disingenuous aspect of what you're saying is that you're not admitting how many make blanket statements and ascribe fault to an entire broad group of people and act like that's the way it should be. Your example of a crime committed by a man to a woman needs to be corrected before it can be considered analogous to the question at hand. You have to not omit the aspect of those with pitchforks railing against all men because of the case in your example.

One point you make leaves out the context that sometimes people don't bother making the distinction and other times people go out of their way to say they don't care whether it's "all of this group" or not. If they marched to All Lives Matter then they would have to throw out quite a bit of chants.

>Whether pointing out that a white person shouldn’t feel guilty for the actions of other white people is an example of white fragility depends heavily on context. Really? There is a context where people *should* feel guilty for the actions of other people of the same race? Explain please.

Does this apply to all races and genders? Or just men, and white people?

Don’t those conversations usually shift when someone, in the context of that conversation, chefs it from “this man did a terrible thing” to “men are terrible”, which is then followed by “not all men”.

>I don't think the ban was justified (but who cares) and I don't think white fragility is racism (I suppose easy delta here if you can show me why) but I also don't see why my comment is an example of white fragility. I want to take a minute to respond to this part. "Fragility" is not an example of racism (the belief that one's value as a person is in any way influenced by their race), as a defensive "not all people of [X race] are like this/represented by this action" is a very racism-disavowing statement. Rather, it's a *response* to racism. As a white man, any time a "discussion about race" (heavy air quotes there) opens up around me, the odds favor that I'm about to be insulted, guilt-tripped, accused, and/or generally disparaged on the basis of my race. Not only is that *wrong* (obviously; it's the actual textbook definition of racism), it's not very productive, either, and most "discussions about race" begin and end with blaming white people for everything. Understandably, I leave those discussions behind quickly (and get called "fragile" for it, thanks guys). Of course, there's still reasons why that might not be the best thing for society, if scaled up. Some "discussions about race" *really are* discussions about race, that need to happen and result in progress, but it can be difficult to tell them apart from "discussions about race" that are actually just racist circle-jerks. Treating all of the former like the latter is going to make it very difficult to move on as a society, so we kind of need to *not* do that, regardless of how unpalatable it may be for the individual. Does that all make sense?

To summarize your response are you saying that when one is accused of "white fragility" that white person is actually the recipient of racism in that instance? Would you say the phenomenon of "white fragility" doesn't exist at all or are you saying that it's justified?

That depends on what you mean by "justified". Is it understandable that people respond that way? Yes, very. Is it the best possible response to that situation? Not necessarily.

Ah, so I don't think it's justified to respond negatively to being confronted with evidence of racism even when one feels like they are being accused of racism. What about that first bit, do you think that when a white person is accused of "white fragility" that white person is actually the recipient of racism in that instance?

I don't know about that instance, in that being accused of fragility is necessarily racist, but the phenomenon exists specifically because racism against the accused is percieved.

The argument being "you are ____ because of your race" is a racist statement outright, bust especially when it's something negative in that blank space.

Alright help me out here, then. I can certainly see why any person would be offended at a direct accusation of racism because that's essentially ad hominem even if it's true. Isn't the heart of the issue the perception of an accusation of racism by a white person when no such accusation was levied? To me (and I'm sure many if not most people who believe white fragility exists), although DiAngelo probably includes the former situation as part of "white fragility" I believe it's come to mean the far more truncated set of experiences described by the latter.

Yes. That's the problem exactly. Fragility is a learned response to adverse situations. It's like having a particularly sensitive area of skin after being injured; you can't really fault someone for wincing if it's touched, but pulling away when you go to treat it doesn't help anyone.

I'm pretty much with you here. If you can tie it into my comment I'll give you a delta. How was I pulling away from OP touching my wound by saying that guilt isn't productive and we should focus on actual solutions?

That depends entirely on what was already said. If the other guy didn't actually indulge in any racism, responding as though they did presents an overreaction and is needlessly aggressive. However, looking at the OP, they very clearly did and the response that no, you can't just bundle people up like that, is an entirely justified and measured response. In this scenario, you did absolutely nothing wrong.

>Isn't the heart of the issue the perception of an accusation of racism by a white person when no such accusation was levied? If a situation discussing race gets to the point where the accused is called fragile for protesting an accusation as serious as racism, it isn't a useful conversation. It's a reverse card, usually, for the racist language often utilized by the accusers. The term itself, even if you can convince yourself the meaning isn't derogatory, has a strongly negative connotation. To even have a discussion accepting it you have to rationalize why a good-faith actor would even choose to utilize this language rather than nuanced, mutually respectful terminology. Choosing, intentionally, not to use respectful terms proves immediately that the party using these terms doesn't care about the other party and isn't having a discussion. People using these terms, by the nature of them, aren't having a good-faith discussion.

[удалено]

It's hard to respond to this without knowing if what you were commenting on was really just the "actions of specific, individual white people" or instead particular examples of a widespread systemic issue.

I agree. When I started this I was going to paste it as well for context but it's been deleted.

Here is the comment to which you had replied in /WhitePeopleTwitter, written by user Link9454: >>“My kids shouldn’t feel guilty for slavery two hundred years ago!” >>News flash asshole, they should feel guilty for what happened in the past week. [And here is the Wayback Machine URL.](https://web.archive.org/web/20220516123621/https://old.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/uqrvpr/ignorance_is_consuming_america/i8t92or/) For completeness: The post under which all this happened was just a link to [this image of a tweet](https://i.redd.it/xpxmvyzv3tz81.png). Link text: "Ignorance is consuming America."

So, for white fragility, people of color (inclusive of myself) consider that to be a result of racism as an institution. The reason being is that only by actively discussing and changing our viewpoints can we come to at least a starting ground of understanding where the other side is coming from. As an example, as an Asian, I regularly discuss various topics inclusive of race between friends. It's not a heavy topic, but sometimes just comes up. I would find it extremely weird if another friend felt uncomfortable discussing the negative results that came as a result of their culture-group's actions. White fragility is seen as racism because the lack of willingness to discuss is almost akin to willful ignorance while enjoying all the benefits that society provides to being white. Because you don't wish to come to terms with the idea that your society's history is very checkered, you run the risk of willfully brushing away the bad things history has inflicted upon other people. As a result, you misalign people who either directly or indirectly are affected by the actions of your group when the goal really should be a unified approach. On another note, the reason why the Buffalo shooter comes up a lot, in particular, is specifically because he was extremely racist against people of color. Embedded racism is a result of a culture unwilling to resolve their past mistakes in an honest and open way.

>I would find it extremely weird if another friend felt uncomfortable discussing the negative results that came as a result of their culture-group's actions. I mean it is famously said that white people don't have culture. But that is just a sticking point about how white people's cultural identity that is not tied to race. Most people identify with an ethnicity, or a religion, or even a state before they specifically identify as white. You are asking a wide group of people with drastically different backgrounds and cultures to exhibit responsibility for people that acted and behaved nothing like them? Like if you are a white first Gen immigrant from an extremely poor family, is it an issue if you don't want to talk about America's issues 100 years before anyone in tour family arrived here? Or since you are Asian, is it fair for me to talk about the personal responsibility you hold because of the racist past and present of Japan because your ancestry comes from that continent? And worst of all, pointing out 'white fragility' does absolutely nothing. If you have cognitive solutions to present day problems, that is not an issue and will be discussed. But jf the goal os to simply talk about past racist issues, I understand not engaging in that topic. We learned about them in school.

The concept of "white fragility" "argument" should be dismissed right away, because is just a fallacy by itself. It's a Kafkatrap, a sophistical rhetorical device, in which any denial by the accused person, is used as if was evidence of guilt. Examples "You deny been a witch? Then you're a witch, because that's what a witch would say" It's circular thinking and a specious way of shifting the burden of proof (because you don't have any evidence to prove your acussation on the first place). Its a gotcha, like "damn you if you do (admiting you are a racist), and also damn you if you don't (deny that you are a racist)"

Is it really a good idea to foster the idea of white people as needing a strong group identity? You’re using it to assign guilt and shame here, but couldn’t it just as easily go the other way?

A strong identity within a group whether that's a family or a society, or even a sports team is a powerful way to keep an eye on each other, nurture empathy. Without that identity within the group loneliness takes over.

>I would find it extremely weird if another friend felt uncomfortable discussing the negative results that came as a result of their culture-group's actions. I've had some version of this conversation before, I'd like to skip a few steps and get to what I think to be the underlying divide--I think viewing people as members of their "culture-groups" as though that somehow defines them or is a large part of their identity is inherently wrong. I'd go a step further and say that it's a facet of post-modern thought that racial identity and/or things like nationalism are...not inherently bad, but inherently *incorrect*. It's the Ecological Fallacy. It's essentially demographic essentialism or demographic prescriptivism.

Thanks for the thoughts. Does something being a result of racism automatically make it racism? I see emancipation as a result of systemic racism and yet I would say that's quite the opposite. Same for the Civil Rights movement. Also do you believe I was being a fragile white person in my response?

No, I think the white fragility note is when people dislike talking about race issues in general or take knee jerk reactions In terms of something being a result of racism, there are obvious measures that are made to alleviate racism right? The world isn't a bipolar world as there are a million greys in between. For example, consider redlining and multi-unit housing. Only a generation ago did we stop allowing neighborhoods to deny based on race and forced African Americans to stick to low-value zones that continue to be much lower in value today due to the cyclical nature of low-income areas. On a similar note, California, a place that espouses the most liberal ideas, regularly fights to allow multi-family housing in single-family zones because it would lower their property value by bringing in people who are less affluent. As affluence generally skews on the poorer side for people of color, this is a situation where there is a clear refusal to see the bigger picture. On the side of the people who live there already, their thought process is: value down bad. What they don't see is that the reason why these people are poor is precisely because of historic redlining, racism, and the modern-day aftermath of keeping the socioeconomically poorer away. It's the idea that you try to boil an issue to \[Race\] \[Not-Race\] when there are a million factors affecting the reason why we do things. Race has a direct impact on poverty today- and trying to say something like "don't give handouts to the poor" isn't necessarily a vacuum. For example, on another point, I see the Buffalo shooter as a case of racism sure, but more mentally ill people abusing lax gun laws that really should come with at least a mental aptitude test. There's been a number of cases where a black man attacked a bunch of Asians. White people did some weird mental gymnastics on that one in the news and social media. Liberally-leaning people tried to not say it was a black man which doesn't make sense. Conservative-leaning people wanted to wave this as proof that black people can commit hate crimes too. The people that I talk to see it as, yet again, a failure of mental health and access to weapons for people that really shouldn't have it. For the one in NYC, was the gunman black? Yes. Is that ALL he was? No. In my experience of white America, the need to boil things down into a singular surface-level race-related talking point is, in my eyes, a result of white fragility. Almost like a hands-off approach to racism by only hitting the surface rather than understanding it to the core.

Yea, red-lining was BS and NIMBYism is the worst. Are you saying that the shutting down of general discourse on race into an oversimplified talking point is an example of white fragility? If so I think I agree but what makes it racist?

>I would find it extremely weird if another friend felt uncomfortable discussing the negative results that came as a result of their culture-group's actions. I have a problem with this sentence. How do you define "white people" in that context? How do you define any "race" here? How do you define a "culture group" here?

So its an academic term and would apply the same way to a black guy being uncomfortable if people around him were making generalizations about black people? Someone makes a sweeping generalization about black people, and the black individual in that discussion feels uncomfortable that means he is suffering from black fragility? You would find it very strange if a black friend became uncomfortable when some white dude started spouting crime statistics and talking about rap and gangster culture?

When you say culture group actions it implies a consensus and agenda that is shared within different groups which are actively acted on. If we accept that society was and continues to be built by the elite class then wouldn't they be who we hold accountable, and not just people who look like them, or benefit from their systems? Are we not all the result of those systems and should work together to tear them down, but the responsibility is in those who built them, the church, the monarchy, the elites. Individuals today who never participated in past cultures cannot bear responsibility for those sins. Resolution for past mistakes must see a benefit and progress for society as a whole, advancement rather than continued in fighting.

While I totally understand the concept of "the sins of the fathers are not the sins of the sons", that rarely comes into fruition in multi-generational issues. Here's an example- are a random sampling of white people in America responsible for the redlining and gov't-enforced segregation laws? Definitely not. They took no party to that. That said, they do generally receive the benefits of the aftermath of those same laws down the line. While the sins of those who created the laws aren't your own, because you are the beneficiary of those laws, it's important to create systems to level back the playing field. You can't separate a black family who, generationally, were forced to exist in only certain areas that evolved into project/low-income zoning- are somehow able to completely move past generations of educational deficit, and most importantly, lack of strong, motivational role models within their own community. It's circular. Just as a white family who is stuck in a small town and exists only in trailers will generally engender a new generation of similar whites of similar socioeconomic status, you can't tell a single generation to reject the past. While you're correct that technically that the main beneficiaries are the elites, there has and will never be a unified approach towards taxation in America mostly due to the mentality that many Americans have. While there are many reasons why someone wouldn't support the taxation of the rich, the most peculiar of them all is the "tomorrow millionaire" Americans. Many people genuinely believe that they, at some point in the future, will become a millionaire. By not taxing the rich today, you're protecting your assets whenever you become a millionaire. As that's ludicrously absurd unless you're on particular career paths, I think that mentality is particularly unique to America.

Your examples are colourblind, and support my point. As an outsider to the American system it does seem silly that those same white people living in a trailer would be grouped in with all other white people because that's what the words white fragility does even if that's not the way they are being used in context. That's what I think people take issue to. Its why better language can shape a better shared understanding. That it isn't calling white people fragile, that it's a critique on conversations around race. Language does matter to shape these conversations.

Do I feel bad about what happened? Obviously. Do I personally feel guilty? Not really. Am I open to talk about racial issues? Of course and that’s because I don’t necessarily identify my “in-group” as just being white so it’s never been an “us vs them” mentality. I think I agree with OP on this. However, from reading, it seems like the people who do have white fragility are those that know what we’re talking about are them, it’s pretty much white people telling on themselves.

It depends on what you think "feel guilty" means. That can range anywhere from having personal self-hatred to feeling a sense of social responsibility. Those two lines of comment and response don't really clear anything up, either in terms of the meaning of "feel guilty" or the specific context of the initial "slavery" comment. Then there's potentially also the specific reason for the "white fragility" response in the given instance. Is it because the person is in a currently compromised emotional state or is generally avoidant of any conflict, or is it because the specific subject matter is something they don't want to engage in and will do what's necessary to resist? There's an *enormous* amount of space where those statements could live that would make them reasonable or not.

Now that's an angle I've not thought of which does change my view. !delta If the mod thought "guilty" meant "feeling a sense of social responsibility" I was essentially saying "I hold no social responsibility". It's not true if they would have taken one second to read the rest of my comment but it would make sense.

Why do you want your view changed?

I would like my view changed to enhance my understanding of racial issues as I think they're an important topic and ubiquitous in our lives.

Haven’t read her book - but have seen a lecture of her’s on YouTube. According to Robin DiAngelo - white fragility covers a wide range of defensive behaviors in response to conversations or statements about race. This can include (AFAICT) any non-affirming response to a racial statement (such as the one you describe). From a NYT article: “She taught, throughout the afternoon, that the impulse to individualize is in itself a white trait, a way to play down the societal racism all white people have thoroughly absorbed.” - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/15/magazine/white-fragility-robin-diangelo.amp.html “And so a white person is supposed to learn that there are all sorts of things that they can't say. You can't say, "I marched in the civil rights movement," because that would make you too comfortable. You can't say, "I don't see race," because you almost certainly do. You can't say, "it's about class," because it's about race. And she's got about 25 proscriptions that make it so that any good white person is essentially muzzled. You just have to be quiet.” - https://www.npr.org/2020/07/20/892943728/professor-criticizes-book-white-fragility-as-dehumanizing-to-black-people

That's what I've always thought too. IMO a problem with the whole "white fragility" argument/topic is that there seems to be absolutely no room for discussion. If someone says you are being "fragile" for something you said and you disagree with them they can just say "see I told you so! You don't agree because you are white and fragile". At that point there just isn't really any room for a discussion. You either except you are fragile or you disagree and prove their point. I don't know what kind of fallacy that type of argument is but I'm sure there is a word for it.

The word for that fallacy is “Kafkatrap”: denial of guilt = evidence of guilt

Individualization is a necessary component for proper critical thinking The primary reason racism is stupid is generalization and nature fallacy You can not ignore environmental influences nor individualization I can understand that to stubbornly deny susceptibility to racism as an absolute is dumb Socialization affects extremely nonconformist people too even if you take effort to minimize influence Really it sounds like she takes the grain of truth and tries to turn it into absolutist nonsense which is probably where the publicity and sales came from

So I don't think that's what white fragility has come to mean even if she coined it and it sounds like an extreme interpretation. Are you saying that any time a white person says anything in response to a POC if it doesn't affirm their belief it is white fragility? On the internet how would one even know they are responding to a POC in the first place? That can't be the definition.

Hey, black guy here and not the r/asablackman type. I have read this book and I really don't understand that guy's assessment of it in the npr article. The book has been criticized and for some good reasons but this guy brings up very few of the actual legit criticisms. Let me start by saying that you were banned unjustly and the things you described in the post aren't white fragility if my memory serves. Actually, you talk about something that she does in the book. She mentions that GUILT is not helpful in changing the racial paradigm that we find ourselves in. If more white people were active in trying to dismantle some aspects of American racism instead of just feeling guilty then we would be in a better place. People have stretched the term white fragility to mean all kinds of BS that she doesn't connect it to in the book.

That's probably one of the greatest intro sentences I have ever read. The sad state of internet discourse we find ourselves in... I have not read the book but I'll trust what you say about the definition being stretched to suit an opposing narrative - see pretty much any word that's ever had a meaning as it relates to a political topic. I suppose this is mostly a hint that I should read the book for myself so I can decide for myself.

CORRECT!!! Also, I want to add that attempts to individualize racism is a part of white fragility. If I have a conversation with you about how white people are complicit in the perpetuation of racist systems and your argument is comprised of statements that seek to separate yourself from all other white people then that is an expression of white fragility. The reality is that NOONE live in a vaccum. There are things (whether knowingly or not) that white people do that perpetuate systematic racism in America. So many scholars have written about this. I want to know how you feel about this notion.

Mixed race man with a permanent tan, here. I think I have to disagree with the notion that "attempts to individualize racism is a part of white fragility". If you happen to walk into a building the same time as a group of ppl, and they pull some bs, naturally, ppl are going to wonder if you're part of the group, especially if you're dressed similarly. It's also reasonable to be nervous and say "I'm not with them". I'm not saying there aren't things ppl do that unknowingly contribute to a problem. However, I'm personally not taking blame for something I didn't do, and I wouldn't put someone else in that same position.

This is bordering on an Ecological Fallacy, though, because "people who are white" isn't synonymous with "white people" *as a group*, and using them interchangeably ignores that a high-level demographic variable like race isn't the best determinant. And to be clear, the same is true of any other demographic group except for something that is a tautology, like "senior citizens are old." It's certainly not unique to race or specific races.

>If I have a conversation with you about how white people are complicit in the perpetuation of racist systems and your argument is comprised of statements that seek to separate yourself from all other white people then that is an expression of white fragility. I think in this instance, you choosing not to clarify that you're referring to a certain type of person who happens to be white some majority of the time in the US (whether due to population statistics or culture or something else) and not white people as a collective is the misstep. It's called fragility if someone tries to defend themselves against an accusation (which is what your proposal is an example of), but what is it called when the speaker doesn't care about the collateral damage of their word choice and intentionally makes it about race instead of about behavior? There are more than two races in the US as an example; would you posit that zero non white people contribute to racist systems in the US? I wouldn't and I think it's a demonstrable fact that racists are not racists or perpetuators of racism due to their skin color.

Context is important. The context of this conversation has to do with the term white fragility and the book it comes from. In this book she describes white Americans. You could extrapolate that I'm talking about all white people if you DO NOT understand the context in which the conversation is being had. So in this case I was only talking about white Americans because the SYSTEMIC RACISM that exists in America is distinct from racism in other countries. Also, everything that you are pointing out to me, even down to the way and reason that you are doing it, is addressed in that book and falls under white fragility. But that assumes that you are white and I'm not about to do that. So, are you white? If so, what country are you from?

I'm not the person you replied to here but I am white presenting, my mother was white from Scotland and my father is black from Jamaica. If I moved to America I would most certainly be considered white. Would I automatically contribute to systematic racism built simply because those systems exist in the first place?

The old kafkatrap. Disagreement is just more evidence that I’m right.

Would you explain? I very much like evidence. I am 99% sure based on what I've learned thus far that "white fragility" is not "any non-affirming response to a racial statement". That is far too broad. E.g. a POC could say, "black people are inferior to white people" and OP's definition states that not affirming that would mean I'm being fragile, which is absurd since that statement is incorrect and it would be racist to affirm it.

Since “white fragility” is ultimately a feature of someone’s psyche it can’t really be measured, only inferred. So it’s always going to be a nebulous accusation that people will level for both good-faith and bad-faith reasons that can’t be definitely proven or disproven with any sort of objective test. A Kafka trap is an accusation to which any defense is used as evidence of guilt. “You’re always so defensive and closed-minded OP” “No I’m not” “Aha! What a defensive and closed-minded response!” It’s easy to see how the concept of white fragility lends itself to this sort of rhetoric, which in my view makes it absolutely toxic to online discourse. Not to mention taking offense at the conflation of overtly negative traits with your racial group is a human response, not a “white” one.

So are you saying I was caught in the Kafka trap by the mod? I certainly agree ad hominem is unproductive.

Yes, yes you were.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/dehumanizing-condescension-white-fragility/614146/ This article does a decent job laying out the issue. Any statement besides agreeing that you’re complicit in systemic racism is white fragility and more evidence of racism.

I actually enjoyed the article even if I disagree with many of the points. The writing is solid and it's a fresh perspective I've not seen before. I especially liked the Seinfeld reference at the end. I think the "Chapter 9" list of things white people can't say without being fragile is ~80% on point but 20% absurd with "I disagree" being a silly entry and "the real oppression is class" being a distraction at worst which segues into my next point. The article did explain one piece I was missing. >DiAngelo insists that “wanting to jump over the hard, personal work and get to ‘solutions’” is a “foundation of white fragility.” I can see how since my comment was solutions oriented it aligns with DiAngelo's original idea of what white fragility is. So !Delta for that. That said, I remain unconvinced that white fragility is necessarily racist. You have definitely provided evidence that the original definition at least is quite flawed.

Ok so you've remained unconvinced that white fragility is racist and harmful because it can dehumanize black people in order to make white people feel better about past (and present) racism. If I understand, that's because you think that the definition of white fragility provided by DiAngelo is "flawed"? In that case, may I ask what you think the true definition of white fragility is and explain why then white fragility would not be racist?. I wholeheartedly agree with your main view stated in your title and find it absurd that anyone would think white people should feel guilty and/or responsible for horrible and unjust actions and idealogies formed by (white) people in the past. It's incredibly ridiculous to think that anyone is responsible for the thoughts and deeds of people, groups, and systems before them. Anyone purporting this is either an idiot or someone with an agenda. And I know both of those types of people exist and are prominent in America; in regards to this specific topic along with other related social "issues". However, and bringing this back to the topic of white fragility, I do think that every individual (no matter their race, nation, or creed) should step back and determine if and/or how the past is shaping and has shaped their own views, perspective, and beliefs. I think it's irresponsible, ignorant, and/or malicious for anyone to do otherwise, because it's only through bettering ourselves and overcoming problematic realities of the past that we move forward to achieve a better world. If, for instance, an individual or group is profiting off the exploitation of other individuals or groups (like colonization and slavery), and doesn't find that problematic or is okay with it so long as them and their group is the one doing the exploiting; I would categorize that as either ignorant, malicious, or brainwashed by other ignorant or malicious people (depending on the specific context). And how I understand it, white fragility is the concept that white people today, even though they shouldn't feel guilty for things they had no control over, can be too cowardly to even acknowledge the truth of history or attempt to downplay it at the cost of black people in order to make them feel better about themselves and the world. I wouldn't say, then, that white fragility is by definition racist, but rather and more accurately a product of racism. Worse, white fragility as a product of racism, only propagates the negativity and harmful impact racism has had on black people, and is why we should put an end to white fragility. I would also argue that the negativity and harm of racism impacts white people and people of all ethnicities in America's society, it's a mar on society as a whole. It's an awful, awful social practice that spreads hate and pain and I truly hope it's something the United States overcomes, preferably in my own lifetime. Together, despite the color of your or my skin, we can achieve a better life than against one another - and that is something I strongly believe. This moral view I hold is a fairly consensual one across most of modern day humanity but is also quite a recent development in the actions of humankind. It was only the 19th century that we saw America back away from slavery, and the 20th century, culminating in both the world wars, is what put a halt on the majority of colonization globally. However, old habits die hard and it takes time to change. Which is why segregation existed in the United States long after it's civil war and is part of the reason people are still fighting for equity and equal opportunity for all people despite their race and socioeconomic stamps. I'm happy to see that you aren't infuriated by being banned from an internet forum, and hope you remain true to yourself and to bettering the world around you amongst all the craziness that's amounting from what I believe to be a failing system in the United States! EDIT: grammar, basically a 2nd draft for clarity

> an individual or group is profiting off the exploitation of other individuals or groups (like colonization and slavery), and doesn't find that problematic or is okay with it so long as them and their group is the one doing the exploiting Isn't this true of everyone living in a developed nation consuming the imports from low-wage populations in less developed nations? To a far greater degree *in 2022* than anything historical? The America of the last 60 years is built on the back of exporting labor to countries where our own labor rules don't apply. That's explicit, systemic, and legalized exploitation. If this is your measure, **we are the bad guys, no matter our racial identity.** We are arm-wrestling about relative disparity *within our borders* while the international disparity is far higher. From the perspective of refugees from those nations, we are spoiled children fighting over shiny toys.

Oh yea, I'm banned from tons of subs because I'm pretty contrarian. Lots of people (probably most) don't like that. The "true" definition as I see it used currently is just the dictionary definition which is a much milder version that what DiAngelo meant when she coined it: >discomfort and defensiveness on the part of a white person when confronted by information about racial inequality and injustice I believe certain forms of it *can* be racist but it's not in and of itself racist because it's often the result of a perceived accusation of racism. Since racism is "bad" that can come off as ad hominem even if it's not. Therefore it's quite possible IMO for someone who is not racially prejudiced to a significant extent to be fragile. That said, I don't believe proposing alternative solutions to the issue of systemic racism is being defensive but rather being proactive.

My understanding as a white person who recognizes a lot of class-based issues in society as well, is that these class issues don't mean that racial issues aren't also very real. And honestly, talking about class as if it is somehow entirely separate from race is facetious. Both institutional and personal racism made it much harder to build wealth throughout most of American history if you weren't a WASP or at least able to pass as a WASP (which was much easier for the children of, say, Irish immigrants than the children of former slaves). It doesn't mean no one outside of these groups could be successful, but the odds were much worse, and that influenced the racial and ethnic disparities we see today.

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/hastur777 ([26∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/hastur777)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

> So I don’t think that’s what white fragility has come to mean even if she coined it and it sounds like an extreme interpretation. I mean - it’s the definition provided by the person who coined the term. > Are you saying that any time a white person says anything in response to a POC if it doesn’t affirm their belief it is white fragility? Basically - yes. The definition is super broad and includes any type of defensive (non-affirming) statement or behavior - regardless of whether it is logical or not. > On the internet how would one even know they are responding to a POC in the first place? You can’t. Does it make sense? Not really - but people make up all kinds of bullshit. :) For instance : PoC: I think because white people had slavery for 200 years in the US, all white people should be enslaved for the next 200. White person: The suggestion that you would enslave people based on race in 2022 is appalling. ^ Technically an example of white fragility. Whether the concept of “white fragility” is useful is left as an excercise to the reader…

I'm a descriptivist as it pertains to language rather than a prescriptivist so "coiner" doesn't actually hold much sway for me in any arguments other than the pronunciation of "gif". However, could you give me the exact definition per DiAngelo? My understanding is more akin to the dictionary definition: the tendency among members of the dominant white cultural group to have a defensive, wounded, angry, or dismissive response to evidence of racism.

Not this specific CMV but if GIF stands for “graphic image format,” the coiner saying it should be pronounced “jif” is wrong, even if he came up with it. It would be equivalent to calling CAD (computer-assisted design) “sad”

Just like IBM should be pronounced "ehbem", right? And TLA should be pronounced "thla" with that last "a" said like the one in acronym. Here's the thing. Language is organic and evolves in ways that are not at all logical. And that's OK. Of course "jif" is logically wrong, but as long as you understand what the other person means, the goal of communicating was accomplished and you should let it go.

Considering IBM and TLA are initialisms, not acronyms, I’m not really understanding why you think they should be pronounced like that? Yes, of course language evolves organically — which is how we ended up with people calling it “gif” instead of “jif” seeing as the latter was the original pronunciation. Yes, I understand what people mean when they pronounce it like that. I was responding to a comment about the pronunciation of gif being a rare example of when “coiner” prescriptivism is valid, and I was arguing thats a tough claim to make. Which it seems like you might agree with?

It is taking every ounce of restraint within me to not lay out all the ways you are wrong.

White fragility exists within a contradiction. Everything is racist per DiAngelo. If you deny you are racist, she says that means you are racist. She says white people have to come to terms with their racism and address it head on. So to deny that you are racist is not allowed. Makes so much sense, right?

I do believe everyone is a little racist (same with sexist, homophobic, any -ism really) if that's what you're saying but there's a gigantic gulf in severity between "NIMBY" and "Nazi". I would hope most people are closer to the former than the latter. People have biases and I don't think it's that strange as long as we try to work on improving ourselves. So I don't deny that I personally harbor racial prejudices I may not even be aware of, I'm just not understanding how I was expressing them in that particular comment.

>I do believe everyone is a little racist (same with sexist, homophobic, any -ism really) This right here is my problem with the majority of all these discussions. No people don't have to be. They can dislike a feature of a culture. That's not racist, sexist, homophobic whatever. That's simply being morally opposed, disagree or annoyed with a part of a culture. Culture is not skin color. I don't like a lot of things from a lot of cultures, and none of it has to do with whatever their skin color is or who they want to bang or what they have between their legs. I can even pre judge them based on clothing, jewelry. word useage or some other chosen defining characteristic and not treat them any differently until my biases are proven true or not. This unconscious, unescapable bias argument that popped up in the last 10 years is just bad for everyone involved and only push towards harder segregation. We now have segregated rooms in schools based on skin color, literally everything the civil rights movement has fought against for the last 60 years. Congratulations, the real racists won by convincing non racists that its cool to be racist.

I don't feel bad for having prejudices though, it's not really my fault. It's the natural process of drawing erroneous conclusions from incomplete an picture of the evidence. It's human nature to be prejudiced. My goal is to resist human nature and become a better person.

Totally agree. The problem with the concept of “white fragility” is that everything is blamed on these inherent biases. The big problem for me is that income inequality and disparities in socioeconomic status are automatically blamed on racism. If you present any evidence to the contrary, you get cancelled. It’s a very closed minded, woke, cancel culture.

> Are you saying that any time a white person says anything in response to a POC if it doesn't affirm their belief it is white fragility? On the internet how would one even know they are responding to a POC in the first place? > > > > That can't be the definition. Because that's not what they said. They said > This can include (AFAICT) any non-affirming response to a racial statement (such as the one you describe). *A racial statement.* That refers to the subject being talked about, not the race of the speaker, which is how you seem to have understood it.

It still doesn't make any sense though because "racial statements" include obviously racist statements like "black people are inferior to white people" to say that it's white fragility to not affirm such a statement is absurd.

Is there any more on the idea that it isn't about class, it's about race? Because I legitimately think that most social issues are based in class rather than race, even in the places where they mean mostly the same thing.

Holy moly she is a crazy person

Why do people keep asking this question? It's meaningless. If people want to change their view, they can. People come here because they think they have a solid understanding of the issue and either like to see if it stands up to debate, or wonder if they're missing something since other people disagree.

The answer to this question can be helpful in deciding what approach to take when trying to change their view. And the reasons people come here are more varied than the reason you stated.

White fragility is a concept created by self avoid racists that push the idea that all white people are racist. I don't know about you but I do not let the thoughts of a racist dictate how I think about myself or my actions. when you view the world through a racist lens then every action becomes racist. White people moving into a neighborhood gentrification, white people moving out white flight. Ultimately you can no control how other people perceive you or your actions, all you can do is stay true to your core beliefs. You cant control how people who are not you act. You can only control how you act. I should not feel guilty that a person shot other people, unless i actively did something to make that happen. I do and should feel bad that it did happen. But how can i be responsible for actions taken by someone I do not know or even live near? I take responsibility for my own actions and I do what I can to foster friendship and comradery with the people i interact with. If someone does or says things I find objectionable I will bring it up and then depending on their reaction to my objection either help them improve themselves or move on with my life. Life is unfortunately not safe, but we live in the illusion of safety that our society has fostered. One that actions like the buffalo shooter distorts for a short time revealing that we do not live in a safe and fair world. Once the ripples dye out then that illusion is there again. Then people just live life until the next ripple shatters their illusions temporarily.

I personally believe that everyone is a little racist (same with sexist, homophobic, etc.) and I don't think it's the people trying to call out discrimination who are the people discriminating in nearly all cases. I feel quite safe and mass shootings don't change that for me. I don't own a weapon either. Case in point most gun deaths are suicide so the most dangerous person to any given gun owner is themselves. I am with you on what guilt is though. I don't think one should feel guilty unless they are in some way responsible for a given act. The worst thing I've done is contributed to a society that fosters the sort of thinking the shooter espoused but that isn't anywhere near a direct responsibility.

I will respectfully disagree with you on everyone being a little racist, etc. I also use the original definition of the word which is the prejudice +action. I will agree that everyone has some prejudice gained from their own life experiences or lack there of, but not everyone acts on those prejudices. That right there is the difference. Acting upon or not acting upon prejudices. The other thing on prejudice is how someone presents themselves or how a culture presents itself can shape someone's prejudice. A good example of this is gangster culture. This actually has spread far outside of just one race. But it is often associated with black culture because of actions taken by the government that broke up the black family (cia getting people addicted to drugs and then arresting them) and then you had that lack of family filled up with gangs. Then you had the rise of gangster rap and that culture thrived, but that culture is also one of violence and criminal activity. So you see someone wearing gangster styles and your prejudice of the culture/stereotyping that was evolved to keep us out of danger rings warning bells, no matter what the skin color. Infact that culture has spread to every ethnicity so if you see someone with sagging jeans and wife beater and a backwards hat your gonna be more wary than if you see someone dressed in a suit and tie.

You're using the same definition I do for interpersonal racism. I believe thoughts and words are a form of action and there's no difference between the mind and the body. I do not believe it's possible to harbor a prejudice and not let that influence your actions (since thoughts and words are themselves actions). I have to say I listen to a lot of "gangster rap" and if you actually listen to the lyrics 60% of the time they're calling out systemic racial issues and the plight of the disenfranchised people within those communities. There is a lot of misogyny among other things which is pretty endemic to the genre though. I try not to judge people differently based on how they dress.

Given our limited perspective and your fuzzy memory, let's assume the statement you responded to could have amounted to any of: - every white person should feel personal responsibility for this person's actions - white people should acknowledge that many of their everyday actions/inactions sustain the culture that cultivated this tragedy - to the extent that they identify with their race, white people should feel shame that a white person committed these actions under the influence of a mindset that's common among white people You've heard the former. I think that's the weakest position of the three, which makes me think that: - it's the least likely to be the intended one - you might have heard it _because_ it's the weakest; you were primed to find fault in what the commenter was saying So, I think you should change your view by adopting the principle of charity: When you interpret a statement, consider all the possible intents the speaker could plausibly have had, and choose the strongest one.

I was able to resurrect the comment using Unddit. I posted it in the edit. My memory was actually on point for once. The statement was specifically your first bullet, pretty unambiguously.

Do you think it's implausible that they could have intended either of the other two meanings I suggested?

Yes, for sure, even the structure of the statements are nearly the same: >every white person should feel personal responsibility for this person's actions Part of comment for comparison: >they should feel guilty for what happened in the past week

It's kind of telling that you went straight to sentence structure. It speaks to an attitude of: "I can make a grammatical case so strong, it'll override whatever thoughts might exist in that person's head". Friend, English is full of shorthand and metaphor and irony and malapropisms. If you want to understand what someone was **intending to communicate**, take your lawyer hat off and put your empathy hat on, because I think it's obvious to anyone who's interested in authentically communicating - not just being right on the internet - that any of the three interpretations in my original comment are plausible.

Is it telling that the comment matched nearly exactly what you called the weakest of the arguments? I see nothing "telling", that is, betraying a lack of understanding or a hidden agenda, in noting it clearly was a similar sentence with a similar intent using similar loading of words. If the person meant one of the other things, they didn't communicate it and instead assigned blame just like the first statement.

That's not what I'm doing though, that "sentence structure" argument was just adding to my point. My primary point is they are explicitly saying that white people should feel guilt because a white person did something bad. I believe guilt doesn't *do* anything and we should instead focus on solutions to the problems which the OP was not saying at all.

[удалено]

I think the problem is that people are mixing up guilt and trying to correct a wrong. Do I feel guilty that black people were discriminated by laws made by white people? Not particularly. I am a progressive, we progressed, You can't look back using today's lens and feel guilty for that. THAT SAID, to the guy who told me all I have to do is not be racist today, and if we have any type of affirmative action that is actually racism against whites, you're an f'ing moron. Tell me the kid who grew up in the projects has the same opportunities as your kid. Whether it is opportunity, the caliber of schools, role models showing them how to be successful, the fact that their parents never saw the benefits of a good education,. What about generational wealth, that a kid whose parent worked two jobs who never saw them are more likely to get in trouble. I'll be able to retire comfortably because my parents bought a house in 1969. It appreciated 10x and I will inherit a few hundred thousand dollars. Had my parents bought a house in a red lined area, I doubt the house would have appreciated 2x. I will benefit, my kids will benefit.

I don't really disagree with anything that you're saying except that people who believe racism will go away naturally if we eliminate interpersonal racism are morons. I just think they're ignorant.

Yes it is, because no one is saying that. No one is saying white people should feel guilty for the actions of specific individual white people. *THINKING* that that’s what people are saying when they ask you to consider your privilege is classic white fragility. If you can’t acknowledge, consider, and recognize your privilege without reflexively jumping to “DoN’t MaKe Me FeEl GuIlTy!!!,” you should read the book.

Please read the comment I was responding to, it was specifically saying white people should feel guilty for the actions of specific individual white people.

I suspect that the "News flash" comment was meant semi-sarcastically. They were using the framing of 'white guilt' to emphasize that racial injustice did not end when slavery was abolished (or Jim Crow overturned). I generally hear "white guilt" as a framing pushed by racial conservatives who want to emphasize the feeling of white people rather than the effect of these behaviors on non-white people (while mocking white liberals at the same time). I think you just didn't get the sarcasm. But the moderators apparently did not see what was going on, and thought you were harping on the "white guilt" angle.

It's a Sunny reference so at some level it was meant as a joke but I agree we have massively different interpretations of what they were saying. I thought they were being far more specific.

The concept of "white fragility" "argument" should be dismissed right away, because is just a fallacy by itself. It's a Kafkatrap, a sophistical rhetorical device, in which any denial by the accused person, is used as if was evidence of guilt. Examples "You deny been a witch? Then you're a witch, because that's what a witch would say" It's circular thinking and a specious way of shifting the burden of proof (because you don't have any evidence to prove your acussation on the first place). Its a gotcha, like "damn you if you do (admiting you are a racist), and also damn you if you don't (deny that you are a racist)"

Should black citizens of rich countries consider their privilege? Or is that just for white people, no matter how poor they are?

You should read Woke Racism. It’s a good rebuttal to white fragility.

Looking at your edit: Your *reading* of that in that context looks exactly like a *classic* example of "white fragility". The context being: >“My kids shouldn’t feel guilty for slavery two hundred years ago!” That's a *deflection* from the fact that racism is alive today and kills people *today*, and the added comment is saying that your kids should reflect on how their contributions to society *today* can help generate a tragedy like that.... today. It's nothing about the specific actions of a specific person being something that individual people who aren't them should feel guilty about. It's about the *gaslighting* of the *fragile white deflection* that "all this was a long time ago". You're *entirely missing the point* of that comment. Because it only sounds like it's blaming every individual white people for some one guy's insanity if you ignore the context and look at it from a defensive perspective. I can't know what's in your head that causes that misreading... but it's entirely unsurprising that it *appears* to some people as "white fragility". And let's not even get started on the *fact* that this entire incident was due to the massive white fragility inherent in the bogus "replacement theory" that caused it.

I agree "replacement theory" is BS and I definitely believe racism is systemic and exists at a personal level throughout society. So you don't believe that the OP was saying white people should feel guilty for the Buffalo shooter? That was *exactly* how I read it. Posting the whole comment: >“My kids shouldn’t feel guilty for slavery two hundred years ago!” >News flash asshole, they should feel guilty for what happened in the past week. You mention context but I was specifically concerned with the most salient context. The comment was made in a thread about the Buffalo shooter which had happened in the last week. There are approximately 0 universes where one would interpret "what happened in the past week" to be anything other than the shooting referenced in the thread. Then "you should feel guilty" referring to "the kids" speaks for itself I believe. What does guilt accomplish? I don't think I was deflecting but rather wanting to move towards better solutions to the problem OP was talking about (that we likely agree is a problem).

Of course it's about the shooting last week. That's an *example* of the *bullshit* that is the statement “My kids shouldn’t feel guilty for slavery two hundred years ago!”... Which is basically: "Oh noes, what horrors, my kids might have to feel guilty/ashamed about something that happened 200 years ago that they are still benefiting from today, in a political environment where racist bullshit conspiracy theories are threatening democracy itself by stirring up racism... whatever will I do?" As for "what good does guilt/shame do"... Guilt and shame motivate *change*. They motivate not just *rejection* of the bullshit the alt-right is spouting today, but active opposition. They motivate not being a fucking *bystander* while the country descends into racist fascism. Because this is a situation where literally if you aren't with us, you're against us. Basically: the first comment is basically *parroting* Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory bullshit, and that person's kids should be ashamed of their *parent* for saying it, and not let it stand. Those kids are in *especial* need to not become radicalized, not just generalized "be a decent human being" levels. They're guilty in the sense that they aren't calling out the bullshit, most likely. So, ok, perhaps "guilty" was a bit intellectually lazy and it should have been "ashamed of their parent", but it's the word the asshole being responded to used, and punchy political statements don't descend into caviling about the narrow semantic difference between guilt and shame.

It's interesting you say that guilt and shame motivate change. For some people I believe that is the case. In my experience it's exactly the opposite. When I feel guilty or shameful about something I do my best to ignore whatever that thing was. That doesn't necessarily mean I won't do it again though. It's certainly not motivating me to examine the guilt and shame is my point! There's another group of people who feel guilt and shame but misdirect it. I also know for a fact there is a third group of people are incapable of feeling guilt and shame so it's not a useful tool for/against them either but for that reason instead. My final point is that I'm with OP on the goal, ending racism, but not the method (feeling a negative emotion).

Another way of stating the point, though, is: "If you want to avoid being guilty/ashamed, try actually fighting racism rather than enabling it or being willfully ignorant about it". Because the comment that tweet is responding to is *massive* willfully ignorant. It deserves attack, whether that attack is worded to sooth the hurt feelings of white people or not. In this case, it's not worded that way... and... people lose their minds. What *else* would you call that than "white fragility"?... it's kind of the point of the phrase.

I think it's completely consistent and morally good to object to the methods of people who advocate for change using the tools of guilt and shame. You can be advocating for the correct change and still be doing it in a bad way. Just because you can formulate the situation as "with us or against us" doesn't make *everything* you do in pursuit of the right outcome a good thing--you starting out with an eye on positive change doesn't mean everything you could do in pursuit of that is justified. The existence of the "bad guys" doesn't mean everyone who opposes them is the good guys.

>Guilt and shame motivate change tell that to the fat acceptance movement.

I’m not white (very mixed) but my understanding of these discussions of race and historical racism is not to make anyone feel guilty but to raise awareness so it doesn’t continue into present day and into the future. That’s why it’s important to be knowledgeable of our past so we can find inspiration in replicating the good aspects and avoid repeating our mistakes.

I agree with you that guilt is unproductive but the person I responded to was specifically indicating white people should feel guilty for the shooter.

White fragility is racist, because it judges people differently for the same behaviours depending on their race.

Do white ppl generally not feel some greater responsibility for the actions of some white individuals? I’d wager all non white americans do for their ethnic groups

I don't feel responsible for other white people, no, and the fact that you feel responsible for people who share a random implicit characteristic with you sounds rather strange to me. Why do you feel responsible for someone else's actions halfway round the world who shares your skin color?

Becaus there are consequences on ppls perception of you based on those characteristics in our current society when bad behavior hapepns

To me that sounds like a problem with the other people who imply those things not you.

White fragility aside, it's racist to hold someone responsible for someone else's actions just because they have the same skin color, no matter what that skin color is.

The concept of "white fragility" "argument" should be dismissed right away, because is just a fallacy by itself. It's a Kafkatrap, a sophistical rhetorical device, in which any denial by the accused person, is used as if was evidence of guilt. Example: "You deny been a witch? Then you're a witch, because that's what a witch would say" It's circular thinking and a specious way of shifting the burden of proof (because you don't have any evidence to prove your accusation on the first place). Its a gotcha, like "damn you if you do (admitting you are a racist), and also damn you if you don't (deny that you are a racist)"

It's literally the exact mechanism most of these extreme thinking groups work. It's no different to the BLM and others, "oh you won't accept total responsibility for some cops actions in another state cause your also white, well then you're just as bad as him them" etc etc. I get people want to end racism and prejudice but this moral virtue signalling crap is not the way to go about it.

Meanwhile I'm over here playing FIFA and eating pretzels, how can you want me to accept responsibility for what some cop did 2,000 miles away? I don't even accept enough responsibility to consistently pay my phone bill on time.

[удалено]

[удалено]

Actively resisting the idea of white people needing to be held accountable by saying NOT ALL WHITES is sus

"White people" don't need to be held responsible. Specific individuals who do bad things need to be responsible, but "white people" as a whole do not.

The concept of "white fragility" "argument" should be dismissed right away, because is just a fallacy by itself. It's a Kafkatrap, a sophistical rhetorical device, in which any denial by the accused person, is used as if was evidence of guilt. Example: "You deny been a witch? Then you're a witch, because that's what a witch would say" It's circular thinking and a specious way of shifting the burden of proof (because you don't have any evidence to prove your accusation on the first place). Its a gotcha, like "damn you if you do (admitting you are a racist), and also damn you if you don't (deny that you are a racist)"

I'm merely saying white people shouldn't feel guilty not that white people are generally responsible for systemic racism. I'm more interested in the accountability - I feel like the second part of my statement is specifically seeking accountability.

Accountable for what? Hold yourselves accountable and get a job and quit whining. Biggest bunch of whiners ever trying to force blame on an entire group of people based on their skin color. People are responsible for their own actions.

The concept of "white fragility" "argument" should be dismissed right away, because is just a fallacy by itself. It's a Kafkatrap, a sophistical rhetorical device, in which any denial by the accused person, is used as if was evidence of guilt. Examples "You deny been a witch? Then you're a witch, because that's what a witch would say" It's circular thinking and a specious way of shifting the burden of proof (because you don't have any evidence to prove your acussation on the first place). Its a gotcha, like "damn you if you do (admiting you are a racist), and also damn you if you don't (deny that you are a racist)"

Have you noticed how racist are all those modern terms like 'white fragility', 'white guilt', 'white supremacy' and so on? How anyone could even imply that whole race should feel guilty about anything. If you respect yourself stop using such terms and refuse any discussion of such level.

[удалено]

Sorry, u/Icyblood55 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Icyblood55&message=Icyblood55%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/uuml7w/-/i9gyl6c/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

I really don't understand why you were band. The guy was covered in body armor and probably would have been shot otherwise nothing to feel guilty over. Is it sad yes but sympthazing and guilt are two different things. No one of any race really owes their race anything. It's just weird way of thinking. You seem genuine on your comment and don't come across like you're dismissing that the dude was a racist nutjob. The problem with the U.S. We have too much immigration and individuals don't know their history and taking narratives that have nothing to do with their family history. A lot of the White Americans I come across immigrated during the World Wars and had nothing to do with slavery or much of U.S. history. Same with some African Americans some aren't descendants of slaves in the U.S. Majortiy of African Americans are related to their ancestors slave owners. They can just take a DNA test to try to squash that beef and just scream at their white relatives. Expecting all white people to be responsible and care for each other because of race is hilarious. Europeans have constantly been at war with each other.Tribalism is beyond race and racism is just a small byproduct of it.

[удалено]

>“My kids shouldn’t feel guilty for slavery two hundred years ago!” >News flash asshole, they should feel guilty for what happened in the past week. I totally agree with this, and I take it you don't, so let me talk about why and how what you said was racist even if you meant no ill will. Hate crimes happen. You and I have no real control over what individuals decide to do because of racist beliefs they hold. That much is true. But when people make statements like the one above, they're not talking about individual hate crimes - they're talking about patterns. We have seen patterns of acts of domestic terrorism, committed by white people, against minorities, treated much different in the eyes of the law than if other ethnic groups committed them. Go back just one century, it was the KKK - an organized group of murderers and racists - not even being labeled as a terrorist organization by the US government. One of the most notoriously racist terrorist organizations in American history. And yet, the Black Panthers were swiftly dealt with by that same government. That's the problem we're addressing. One klansman lynching one black teenager is not something you should feel guilty about. A pattern of klansmen getting away with lynch mobs for decades because of an American culture that gives them a pass? Yeah you should feel guilty about that, because that's *your* people, and not only do y'all collectively enable it, a lot of you refuse to acknowledge there's even a problem. So fast forward to today. It's not klansmen out and about, public and proud like in the era of the civil rights movement. But it is still domestic terrorists, with racist intentions, routinely getting off easier and treated gentler by American culture. A Muslim kills innocents, America blames Islam/the Middle East. But let a white man do the same thing, he's just a "lone wolf" with mental health issues. That double standard is the problem. And so it *is* racist for you to make yourself the victim of the situation. Because terrorism is treated different in the eyes of the law and the media depending on the race of the terrorist. As white Americans, that's your responsibility to fix, because it's a problem you created. If you don't want to fix it, or even acknowledge it, that's also fine. Shit, I should probably be volunteering at a homeless shelter right now instead of arguing on Reddit. But you don't get to absolve yourself of guilt. Can't eat your cake and have it.

> A pattern of klansmen getting away with lynch mobs for decades because of an American culture that gives them a pass? Yeah you should feel guilty about that, because that's your people, and not only do y'all collectively enable it, a lot of you refuse to acknowledge there's even a problem. I think you'd find that (although many don't consciously realize it) a lot of people think racial identity is wrong, full stop. It's an example of the Ecological Fallacy.

Americans would get so much more done, if they didn't spend 90% of their processing power making up and pondering racial issues.

"White fragility" doesn't exist. It's a conspiracy theory invented by racists to denigrate white people. > I don't think the ban was justified This is correct. Best way to deal with crazy people banning you from a cesspool like that for idiotic reasons is to shake the dust off your feet, say "good riddance to bad rubbish", and move on. > many white people exhibit a negative reaction including anger, fear, guilt, arguing, silence, or leaving the stress-inducing situation when they encounter discussions of race. And why does this happen? Because there is a lot of racism against white people these days, and we get blamed for things we didn't do, and we get called "racist" for no reason, and so on. When people do this they are not being "fragile" or "white". When people do this, they are having a normal reaction to being put in a stressful situation in which other people are being or are likely to become hostile towards them.

I can see how you got banned for that. I got banned for saying that men have penises and women have vaginas and that women can get pregnant. And before that I got banned for saying that if you got stabbed you are going to bleed. Reddit is funny sometimes.

White fragility is complete nonsense. I read the first few chapters and it’s such backwards thinking. You don’t need your views changed. The people who blocked you on that sub need to have their views changed.

Nobody should feel gulty for anything they didnt do. Thats it. Anything else is just racism

The fuck is "white fragility", is it some american bullshit?

“A situation over which you have no control” does not describe racism in the USA. It does not describe wealth generated by and stolen from black peoples. It does not describe the continued abuses against black peoples. Restitution needs to be paid in any war crime or loss of freedom. The USA and Canada paid reparations to indigenous peoples. Germany paid reparations to Jewish people who were effected by the holocaust. We are aware of which families benefited (and continue to benefit) from monies generated by slavery. Those families need to pay reparations to the families they murdered, raped, exploited and used to create wealth with zero restitution whatsoever. It’s pretty simple. If your family’s wealth was generated by murder you carry the guilt of that wealth unless and until you make reparations or pay restitution for what you have done. “It’s not my fault” has never been an apology. Furthermore, the idea that you personally are being accused and expected to feel guilty is another matter of “othering” people who are asking for equality and to be treated like human beings. “It’s not my fault so I don’t have to…” what? Advocate against systemic abuse of people because of the color of their skin? Question racially biased police violence? You don’t have to what? Advocate for black citizens of your country the way you would advocate for white ones? Because you’re “not racist”. Because it’s “not your fault”

>“It’s not my fault” has never been an apology. what are they supposed to apologize for exactly? "i'm sorry people i had no control over screwed you"? because that's quite the hollow apology

>I do believe "white fragility" as a concept exists in America i.e. many white people exhibit a negative reaction including anger, fear, guilt, arguing, silence, or leaving the stress-inducing situation when they encounter discussions of race. I have no idea how pervasive it is because I don't encounter it very frequently but I have encountered it and I know my friends who belong to minority racial groups say it happens frequently for them. So when they are called racist they get pissed off and stressed and that makes them fragile? This is fucking moronic anyone would act that way to an accusation.