It's the restrictive definition of 'power', solely along racial lines, that many posters have trouble with.
For example, a black magistrate could be systematically harsher to white defendants versus black defendants. Many people would say that her action is racially bigoted but not racism, because the judicial system and Washington is not run by black people.
Similarly, a city can have black people in all the major positions of power but nothing they can do is 'racist' because they don't have real power.
Similarly, a black HR manager could systematically be prejudiced against Asian applicants but because black people don't run all companies in America, what she's doing isn't 'racist'.
The social justice warriors don't want to let go of the rhetorical power of the word 'racism' as a weapon that can only be wielded against white people. But if the sentiment on this board is any indicator, they've lost that battle in the court of public opinion.
(Not the court of undergraduate campus opinion, obviously, where saying black people should not be excluded from having their actions described as racist, is a racist thing to say. And a microaggression).
Oh get off it.
The only thing you "get" is completely blinded by your dogmatic faith.
Of course a non-white racist in power could abuse their power to discriminate whites. But... if that is bad thing why is not a bad thing the other way around?
???? It is a bad thing the other way around, and none of the critics of the OP have implied otherwise. You are the only one advocating a hypocritical position of trumpeting or dismissing the harm of the same actions, depending on the skin color of the individual performing them.
And although I can perceive such a thing possible I doubt there are serious real life examples.
Thanks for so glaring proving my above point. Metaphor gave you several real life examples, and to deny that such situations exist requires a young-earth-creation level denial of fact and reason.
If there is one thing the implicit racist bias tests have learned is is that even black cops are more likely to shoot a black person than a white person.
The only thing that those "implicit racist bias tests" tell us is that they do not measure anything even correlated with actual racism. Also, you completely misrepresent the research of shooting studies your are referencing. The research shows no difference in cops tendency to shoot based on the race of the target, and this holds for both armed and unarmed targets.
From the research article:
[P]Police, however, showed no bias in their criteria. Moreover, they showed greater discriminability and a less trigger-happy orientation in general (i.e., for both
Black and White targets). These results seem to suggest that expertise improves the outcome of the decision process (increasing sensitivity and reducing the unwarranted tendency to shoot, particularly for Black targets)[/P]
In the field, black cops are more likely to shoot blacks because most those shootings have nothing to do with the race of the suspect, but rather whether the suspect is aggressive or armed, whether they resist detention, and whether the surrounding context is empirically associated with high levels of gun violence. This is why when these confounding factors are actually controlled for, such as in the linked research, the rates of being shot by cops is no different between blacks and whites.
But I'm sure that won't stop you from continuing to misrepresent this reality many times in the future.
