Thus, when someone operating with R(1) hears, “Reverse racism isn’t a thing” or “Black people can’t be racist”, they may misinterpret that to mean, “Blacks are incapable of racial bias,” which is absurd, rather than what was meant in the R(2) sense, “People of color have hardships imposed on them due to skin color in a pervasive, systemic way that white people are exempt from by default.”
Exactly.
There’s a reverse thing going on as well, though, where the confusion is exploited by folks on the other side. If folks within the Social Justice sphere say “black people can’t be racist,” they may then use that statement, which was intended purely to refer to R(2), and use it to excuse any personal R(1) racial prejudices they have.
So the R(1) adherents have grief with the R(2)s definitions, but many times the R(2) adherents flip between definitions out of convenience when they can use the flip to justify their own prejudicial behavior. This was literally the synthesis of the “Jeong Defense.”
We’re starting to see that happen quite a bit with “Social Justice’s” treatment of Jewish folks, honestly, and I find that trend alarming.
