I'm not saying it's wrong to look at these groups, I'm saying you're looking at them wrong because you lack a deeper understanding of how this system came to be and why it functions the specific way it does. Whether you intend to do what you do is not what defines the consequences of what you do. When you tried to construct a sympathizing narrative, you didn't talk about any vulnerable groups, you didn't talk about indigenous peoples, you only talked about the most privileged groups of people in this system. Yes, that says something more than what you want the words to say, and you are also responsible for that.

"Racism isn't because of settler-colonialism because I am a settler and other settlers like me engage in racism." I can't think of a clearer example than this to demonstrate this misunderstanding. Whiteness is a fluid category, it does not literally refer to the melanin content and physical attributes of a person's body, it is about privilege. White Europeans (Irish, Italian, French, Greek, Slavic, etc.) were historically racialized and marginalized incidentally in this country, experienced systemic disadvantage, but certainly do not experience racism today; black and African Canadians still do. There are also differences in privilege delineated by gender, sexuality, ability, and class within those groups, that does not mean racism isn't specific to some and only benefits some. Your being an immigrant means you are potentially open to discrimination along those same lines, but also means you participate in racism and settler-colonialism by merit of your privilege over First Nations and indigenous peoples; whom are also racialized. Racism exists to naturalize the subordination of others, it literally came into being through settler-colonialism, and being a racialized settler does not exempt you from benefiting from that racism.

You are taking effects as causes, and yes, by dojng that you are naturalizing these things as inevitable human reactions that cannot be curbed. Whether you want to or not, that projects a moral meaning onto those things.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I don't know who "you guys" are and now I think this is definitely bad faith. I don't even disagree with a lot of what you said in general. But deliberately ignoring parts of what I said in order to focus on others whose meaning changes when ignoring those parts, putting yet more words I did mot say or imply in my mouth tells me we're done here.

[–] orioler25@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 hours ago

I'm serious when I say I was being nice and read your comments graciously and intentionally. No, this does not misrepresent what you said, what you said simply does not have the meaning and effect that you wanted it to. I didn't ignore a single thing, and you're awfully full of yourself if you expect people to literally quote every word of your comments when they criticize you; we don't even do that for professionals.

"You guys," are obnoxious Reddit/Lemmy guys who insist they know about something they clearly do not know well enough about, and would rather pretend that their critics are just making up things (the exact kind of person who would refuse to engage in self-criticism in any worthwhile way). I don't think "bad faith" has any meaning anymore because we have so many men who behave like this and take any unwanted criticism as purposefully misleading attacks. Nice attempt to force some self-victimization in here though, very in line with how you've behaved so far.

Don't try to act serious if you aren't ready to be serious then.