If one "race" (which isn't a scientific term and its use in the US is dated and itself racist) is treated differently from another, regardless of which group is perceived to be treated favourably or unfavourably, such a situation can legitimately be described as racist.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not according to the definition, to wit: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.

Racism is by definition negative treatment, not different treatment. Putting darker make up on a black actor is not racist. Giving women breast cancer screening is not sexist.

[–] JustSomePerson@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It is fucking disgusting to see your defense of racism.

ALL HUMANS HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE TREATED EQUALLY IN THE EYES OF THE LAW!

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Currently, the Australian constitution allows for different races or people to be treated differently. In practice, this has meant laws targeting ATSI people. The voice was a proposal, from consultation over many years within their community to have a say in any proposed law. It gives minimal power, just a voice to be heard. It’s part of the Uluṟu process, which is guided by the Uluṟu statement.

Racism is treating one group negatively, based on race, as per the definition above. This was an attempt to start a process to right historical racist wrongs and lead a path to true equality together. Quite the opposite of racism.

Screeching about misplaced racism doesn’t make you factually correct or morally correct.