Anyway, my opinion would be that it’s a little Not Nice, but not to the extent that it needs edits, downvotes, deletion, whatever. Not explicitly targeting users of this site is definitely a point in favor.

Being thankful one doesn't live in the U.S. doesn't mean that their necessarily thankful because they think the US is not a friendly place based on race. You can infer that, but since it is not stated, it is, at the very worst, borderline. If you choose to interpret it as a "dig at an entire country", then you probably need more to back it up than inference.

Note you also seem to be confusing "talking about ... with white people can be particularly emotionally draining" with "is always particularly emotionally draining".

@Beofett Any race of people "can be" anything. Bigotry is often implied, not outright stated.

@Beofett I think you made a great point in your second comment ("can be" vs "is always"). As for your first comment about thankfulness about not living in the US, doesn't it seem rather likely that the person asking the question being discussed did in fact consider the country to be a worse place to live if you're black? (Especially given their edits/comments?) Anyway, wouldn't it have been more constructive and convincing to just point out that a statement about a country does not imply a judgment about all people in the US individually?

@mtraceur It implies that he thinks people of that country are more like to be [X] (racist, in this context). I don't see how it doesn't imply that. Unless OP meant the actual US soil is less favorable to black people.

@mtraceur I already agreed that it could be borderline. Generally speaking, yes, I agree with you, as well as the answers suggesting that the "fortunately" part be removed from the question.

Would you be less upset if the whole post was edited to change "white" to "people who don't experience institutional racism from the white establishment"? Because you even admit that the OPs comments on white experiences are accurate, so I'm confused what you are upset or alienated by.

@AzorAhai I'm personally not alienated at all. I'm asking how the question isn't in direct violation to the rule. Why would I want OP to change the title to something else just as inflammatory? The OP said it's not about the race of the person, but rather the fact that they are less informed and not willing to listen. So he should edit the question to make those people the subject, not just "white people". I don't understand why we should be okay with someone asking how to politely filter people based on race. There's no polite way to say "I don't talk to white people about this subject"

@Clay07g something else just as inflammatory I am not sure what you mean by that. || I don't understand why we should be okay with someone asking how to politely filter people based on race This is a very imprecise reduction of what the question is asking, and you know it.

I suspect - and I've seen the same thing on other questions here about more mundane subjects - that "deal with" is just in place of "handle a situation involving". It doesn't have to be have a negative connotation, and I didn't see that here.

Would it be accurate to summarize the sentiment you're trying to convey as 'while I recognize that your experiences with certain people probably sucks, it doesn't mean you get a pass to exhibit similar behavior'? As with the question under discussion I think it becomes much easier to find the solution to the problem if we make it abstract and remove the parts that are causing emotions to flare up.

@Cronax That actually is a pretty accurate statement of what I'm trying to convey. Except remember that I'm talking only within the scope of Interpersonal Skills Stack Exchange. I just don't think it belongs here. It's more of a standards thing. In other places, on other platforms, I would not at all be concerned with the user's text, as it is honestly relatively mild.

@Clay07g Sure. My interpretation is: "As a black man, I experience life much differently than white people. It is tiring to frequently explain how our lives differ to white people, even if they are trying to be understanding. How can I politely tell them that it is not my job to educate them on racial issues?" || I don't think it's possible to remove "white" from the context, because this question is about a black person in a white-dominated country. And I agree with HDE. As a white person, I don't take any issue with the phrasing "deal with." Is that the problem here?

@Clay07g If the phrasing "deal with" is not the issue, then what part of the title makes it sound "rant-like"? Secondly, all the interpretations on this page largely match mine.

@Clay07g Unfortunately, that's not very clear, nor an actionable suggestion. || It's not actually, I haven't read through the comments on the answers. I found the post pretty clear in intent from the get go.

@AzorAhai Actually, that's not true. That question can be summarized as "I frequently get people that try to engage me in a discussion about a sensitive subject which I generally try to avoid, unless the other party is very knowledgeable about the subject. How do I convince them to stop trying to discuss the subject with me?" There need not be any mention of the issue itself nor of race. The question would be the same if the races were the other way around or two completely different races.

@Clay07g I have seen this comment about SE not being for helping people a lot lately, and I find it a bit discouraging, because the goal of any Q&A is to help people maybe not a specific person, but a whole. In any case here an answer about this on META meta.stackexchange.com/a/217136/205709 that summarizes SE goal properly, i think. I also think the OP was bit mad when he wrote his question, but he raises a valid point, if you are not black you can't truly know how is like to be black, same applies to anything else really. And has a the right of not wanting to explain it.

Well indeed that was not the question, but if you are not black, you can't understand how it feels to be discriminated as a black person. Discrimination varies a lot in its subtleties, and although we can sympathize sadly we can never fully understand. Also I think the question can benefit of rephrasing, but I think OP intentions is that until you don't start speaking with the "white", you don't know if they will get defensive, etc, and he doesn't want to deal with that.

I think a better edit to the question could be to fully generalize it. Saying something like, if you belong to a group how can you tell people not belonging to that group you don't want to discuss about discrimination issues suffered about the group without seeming rude or get too much into details or emotional? I think that would be the most helpful approach to that question. Because matter of fact white people can be discriminated by being white too, and it is a different kind of discrimination and it feels different.

@Clay07g Yes I think asking a generic question and then giving the particular example would be great. I posted a comment in Tinkerbell question regarding this, I am not sure if you guys do "Canonical Questions" like in SO?

@Cronax Actually, that's not true. You are correct that's a generalized form of the question. But that's not what the OP asked. They ask specifically about discussing racial issues. It would be a terrible abuse of the SO system to edit out that very important topic.

@Clay07g Er, can you point me to the point where I said that?

@Clay07g Circling back around this this: "It implies that he thinks people of that country are more like to be [X] (racist, in this context). I don't see how it doesn't imply that." I don't think this is inconsistent with what I said, but I think I've understood the problem. It's an ambiguity in English when talking about sets of people: English does not cleanly distinguish between statements about a group that apply to 1) the group as a whole, 2) statistically on average if you randomly sample the group, and 3) to all people in the group individually.

@Clay07g So if I understand you correctly, your issue is that the implication of "people in the US are more likely to be racist (than some comparison population)" parses to you (and probably to a non-negligible chunk of the human population) as implicating everyone in the US of a greater inclination towards (or acceptance of) racism, while to me (and probably to another non-negligible chunk of the population) it parses as saying "the ratio of racist people to non-racist people in the US is higher (than in comparison population)".

@Clay07g Those two concepts sadly gloss to the same words in English, and often get tangled/swapped in people's thinking near as I can tell. The key distinction is that the former would accuse me, a US resident, of racism, on the mere grounds that I am a US resident, while the latter only says that we have enough racists among us to be statistically significant. I agree that there's a non-negligible harm to people thinking the former, and I relate to your desire to counter that. I would give OP the benefit of the doubt, though, and assume they meant the latter more reasonable position.

@AzorAhai We fundamentally disagree that it's an important point. Whether it's a race issue or any other issue makes no difference in my opinion, since the answer is the same, a set of tools to let you convey that you don't want to discuss a certain topic.

@AzorAhai I don't understand why you are so concerned with focusing this down to it needing to be a black person asking about white people. This question could as easily come from a white person asking about asian people, an asian person asking about white (or black) people. SE is global, and you thinking this is somehow specific is a very western-centric view. The question would be just as valid if it was "how to deal with majority ethnic groups asking me questions about racism/racial issues".

In fact I have a group of University friends (mostly white, but one of whom is of Middle Eastern descent) who were doing Japanese and now live in Japan who could probably be just as helped by an answer to the latter, but would never find the question as is.

@Clay07g - Given that you asked, I edited your post (with a fairly heavy hand). I tried to keep mainly your own original words, but eliminated a lot of material that I think was distracting away from your main point. While I still disagree with you, I think as given this presents a strong argument. Feel free to revert any changes you disagree with. HOWEVER --from my point of view --there were many parallels between how the OP's post could be misinterpreted, and how yours could be as well. Things that seem neutral to us can often seem biased to others --try to put yourself in [his] shoes!

@Philbo because that's what the OP asked about. We didn't go and change all the questions about gay or Trans people to be overly generic. You're right that it would be "just as valid," but I'm not really sure that another relevant question being "valid" has anything to do with this one. I would be happy to see a question from your friends asking about how to deal with racism in Japan. That sounds like a very interesting question, in fact.

@AzorAhai But the point is, how would you answer it? Would you have to wait for White people who'd had the same issue? Only Japanese people can chime in with anecdotes? Would the answer be the same? And if the answer was the same why have two questions? Would Math stack exchange really allow two questions on how to minus a bigger number from a smaller one if they used two different values? Point is, we've had meta discussions before where the Powers-That-Be have worried about the flowery and too-specific nature from an "interpersonal skills" SE.

@Tinkeringbell has brought up meta's asking how we generalize to an actual skill (that can be found by people using the search tool), this is the same problem but due to it's slant (race) I think people are pussyfooting around the issue.

@ChrisSunami Those are fine edits.

That entire question is racist from the outset, period. How ironic. Furthermore the OP, in their edit text, repeatedly blames everybody else and claims that this is the sort of "discrimination" they endure on a daily basis. Simply put, the OP is a raging hypocrite. Best just not to engage at all.

"This quote, while probably true" You've fallen into the same trap, assigning some negative traits to the entire "white" races. That, is racist.

@Philbo I don't know, I guess we'd have to ask the question and see who answers. Having the same answer is not grounds for a duplicate. I'm not here to argue about hypothetical, unasked questions. I don't think the experiences of white people in Japan and black people in a majority white county are as simple as two different values in a math problem. Lol, no one is pussyfooting around anything. Everyone is pretty clear about the fact that they're not happy with a question that portrays white people in a somewhat negative light.

@AzorAhai I think you've given yourself away in that last point. I really don't care about which set of races it is. I spend most of my time enjoying Travel SE and one of the things there is they accept that a UK Visa Rejection for someone from any country is the same. Same reasons, usually same screw up on the part of the applicant. Same answer. That's my point, and all I'm focused on. This is a Q&A site. If you're Answer is the same for 10 different tickets for the same reason too, then perhaps you only need the one Question. Please don't try to infer my motives.

@Philbo Given myself away as to what, exactly? While your example from Travel SE is certainly a cool fact about Travel SE I struggle to see its relevance. Again, you're proposing that the answers to every single question involving any two pairs or races would be the same. Infer your motives? I'm not sure what you're talking about.

@AzorAhai At no point have I brought up an annoyance about it being white people in the firing line. This is currently a western-centric site where White people are the majority ethnic group so I think it was likely that this would be the first time we would have a discussion about whether the specific ethinicites involved needed to be included. If all your point is, is that the answers might be different, then I say don't avoid the hypothetical questions. One of the highest rated answers "I'm not a spokesperson for my race" works for pretty much any combination.

@Philbo you said "I think people are pussyfooting around the issue," which is what I was addressing. I didn't think you were including yourself there. ¦¦ look, there's really nothing more I can say in this little box that the top voted answers on this page haven't already addressed. I think if you still have issues with some of the arguments presented, you should post them on the answers below instead of us cluttering up the comments on the Q here.

@AzorAhai I think I'll raise it as a question instead. In this whole thing I've been thinking towards Tinkeringbell's meta post in regards to people should be coming here to pick up interpersonal skills, and how questions are at times too specific (or soapbox-y), made obvious when their best answers have generic applications. I may have just missed the point of her question, but when I raise my own I'm sure I'll be set straight.

@LightnessRacesinOrbit I'm not attributing anything to anyone. OP said his experiences with white people have been bad. I believe him. Why is that a problem?

I must say, I've never been quite called racist to white people and racist to black people in the same discussion. That's fascinating.

@Clay07g: Then I believe you must have misread the OP's words, which state: "Talking about racism and race issues with white people can be particularly emotionally draining and frustrating" This is a categorical generalisation, to my eyes... Either way, it's grouping populations by race for no good reason

@LightnessRacesinOrbit You think grouping people by race when discussing how they experience racism is "no good reason"?

@AzorAhai: Yes, absolutely. Just because some white people have caused you grief, doesn't give you the right to start making gross generalisations about all white people, and it certainly doesn't change the fact that that is racism. Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself...

@LightnessRacesinOrbit Well, that belies a serious lack of critical thinking here.

@AzorAhai: That does not follow. We'll agree to disagree.

Why was the OP of the related question removed? I had a really nice Idea for an answer that seemed to fit with his attitude.

@LightnessRacesinOrbit for someone decrying a -Be Nice- violation, you have broken it's core tenant by failing to assume good intent, several times of late as well.

@DoritoStyle: The "assume good faith" rule is not intended to protect racist users from blatant racism. So, I disagree, and I resent the character assassination. There is no place for that here. Please follow your own advice / leave it to the moderators. Thanks and have a good night.

The way this is phrased, the implication is that the US is a white majority country. I think there's also the implication that "when I say 'a white majority country', I think a lot of people might assume I mean the US." And this is certainly a dig against the US. However, all of that can be true even without considering him being a black male. So his phrasing doesn't clearly indicate that the US is anti-black/male discriminating (or that the US isn't). The only logically really clear implication I'm identifying is that US is white majority and (for some reason(s)) bad.

@n00dles OP was not removed; he chose to delete his original account here.

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it's a disguised rant.

@apaul Feel free to edit it to make it not a rant, if you believe it is. If you're mad about all the rants in the comments and answers, try flagging those instead of the question, which is in no way was intended to be a rant.

@apaul There is a chat room for this if anyone is wondering: chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/75869/…

If you swap out the word "white" in a given statement with any other demographic group (black, asian, etc.) and suddenly find the statement to be racist, then the original statement was racist

+1 VTC. At this point the question has inspired very few questionably-clear answers and tons of bickering and hostility.

That's not how power dynamics work, like, at all. Racism isn't a few people in one group getting antsy over a few people in another group. It's systemic and generalised and often ingrained amongst entire nations and polities. You cannot swap black for white for Asian for Latin for aborigine for pasifika and have the statement be equally valid in a majority, let alone all cases. Dear god, learn some sociology. @JacobIRR

@Nij That's not how Racism works. Dear god, learn reading some dictionaries. Racism is clear cut. Your statement by itself has racist implications. It's ok, cause they white.

Well done, completely ignored the entire point and managed to translate it into something it never says. "It's okay because they're white" is certainly a discriminatory idea, but 1. it has nothing to do with what I said, and 2. is still not racism, black people do not have sociopolitical power in any of the countries germane to this discussion.

@Nij (and Sidar) This is a problem I've seen countless times in the last few years: There's a fundamental disconnect between the traditional definition of racism and the more modern definition that has recently emerged from sociology circles. The former refers to personal bias, the latter to systemic/cultural dynamics. Both are real problems, and they both need fixing because they are in a feedback loop with each other. Right now you're arguing about the mapping between meanings to words, not the actual problems themselves.

@Sidar (and Nij) If we want to make meaningful headway in fixing any of the problems being discussed, we need to skip the part where we yell at each other over what the word "racism" "means" (words have as many meanings as there are minds who know them - if we're lucky those meanings overlap enough, but here they don't), and even what it ought to mean belongs in a separate discussion. You're talking about two different phenomena, so give them two different labels for the duration of the conversation.

@Nij 1. it has nothing to do with what I said, and 2. is still not racism but you see it had everything to do with your "point". You're trying to shift the definition of racism and im pointing out that black people CAN equally be racist as much as white people. You don't get to change words because you followed a tumblr entry level sociology class.

@mtraceur It doesn't matter. Nij is claiming that's impossible for black people to be racist. Which only does more harm. It gives them a shitty excuse at being racist themselves. I'm not buying it. There is no "traditional definition of racism". It either is or isn't. Not some special case because it fits your narrative.

@Sidar Nij is claiming that it's impossible for black people to be x, and you're claiming that it's possible for everyone to be y. You're additionally making the claim that most people think that the word "racist" means y and relatively fewer people think it means x (near as I can tell this is true), and that conflating x with y under the same word creates more y in the world (with this I agree fully). That said, do you think that the current strategy in this conversation is the best way to solve the problems here? That's all I ask that you (and Nij) consider.

@mtraceur and you're claiming that it's possible for everyone to be y no, we are talking about the same thing. Racism.

God forbid that we change our understanding as new information is available instead of clinging to tradition. It's not like that got us into the problems being discussed - oh wait, it did. You can pretend black discrimination against white people is on an equivalent level to white discrimination against black people and call them both racism, or you can acknowledge fundamental difference between positions in a power structure and not confuse individual personal opinions with overarching sociopolitical effects. I'm going with the experts on this. Feel free to stick with that C20 view, though.

@Sidar If I asked you to define racism, and then I asked Nij to define racism, would you two give me the same definition?

@mtraceur It's irrelevant. There is a clear cut definition of the word itself. And you don't get to twist it just to have your say.

@Nij God forbid that we change our understanding as new information no. That's not how words work.

There certainly is a clearcut definition of racism. "Systemic privilege granted to one or a few ethnic or racial groups generally and individual members of them, and sociopolitical marginalisation of all other groups generally and members of them". What about this definition do you not understand? It's obvious why you don't like it - zero potential for you to equivocate between one black person being mean to one white person and the totality of white culture oppressing black culture and black people.

@Nij Here's an exercise: Your definition of racism is wrong and harmful. The actual exercise: Pause for a second and notice what that last statement made you feel and think and how you want to respond to it. Are you more or less willing to reconsider your definition? If my goal was to convince you to change your definition, would that have been constructive?

My response is that you provide no evidence or reasoning to support your statement, and had there been an earlier criticism of it, there is no defence provided either, so my (un)willingness to accept a change is identical to before, not more and not less. If your goal was to honestly change my mind, you give evidence and reasoning. If as with the others, you merely wish to deny key facts (case in point: the meanings of words evolve over time, the comment of an hour ago flatly denies that reality) then you're not engaged in honest dialogue, and can be rightly dismissed. @mtraceur

@Sidar I don't understand why it's irrelevant. You're both using the same word, yes? And you believe that word refers to bias based on race, yes? (I mean even if it really refers to that thing, it would be correct to also say that you believe it does, right?) Meanwhile, Nij believes that word refers to the race-related sociological effects of a society being a certain way, right? Both of you remain unconvinced that the definition of "racism" should budge. Seems like you're trying to discuss different ideas, and the disagreement of definition is preventing any discussion of either one.

@Nij My response is that you provide no evidence or reasoning to support your statement You need evidence over a word that is well established? But hey you keep doing what you doing. Im out.

@Nij It seems to me that Sidar would not consider it a "key fact" that the meanings of words evolve over time, and has not seen evidence or reasoning for the implicit idea that words ought to evolve this way or that this particular change in meaning is good. If either of those was false in Sidar's mind it would warrant resisting someone claiming a different definition, would it not? Do you see how your comments might be therefore be perceived by someone like Sidar as being not engaged in honest dialog and dismissable?

You see my point about denial of key facts and engagement in honest dialogue? Now you're reducing the discussion to whether the word is "established" and that's never been in doubt, so I can only conclude an intent to reject the reasonable idea that black people cannot be racist in the way that white people are, in the contexts implied from earlier, by obfuscation of what racism is.

@mtraceur Meanwhile, Nij believes that word refers to the race-related sociological effects Words have meaning, they give context and it matters. Racism is well established and clearly defined. By his/her own version of it black people are incapable of being racist in America ( and apparently Europe too?). This by itself is discriminatory and to a certain extend racist.

I'm going to recommend that @Sidar, mtraceur and Nij more this conversation to chat; it's evolved into a full-fledged discussion that's distracting from other comments on this question. Chat is a good resource here.

@mtraceur It seems to me that Sidar would not consider it a "key fact" that the meanings of words evolve over time, I nowhere implied that. But by who's standard do you get to change the very definition of racism? What Nij is doing here, like so many other people, is try to take the word and redefine what it means to tip the balance. That's what this is about. But if you start granting people privileges to be racist you're just making matters worse. Nij definition of it is ill defined. It gives black people immunity to racist behavior. Why anyone wants this is beyond me. I said my piece. 🖖

If they reject either of those things, I simply ask, what does the word "gay" mean? Any informed answer necessarily leads to acceptance of the first fact. As for what ought, it's irrelevant to what is. As for whether good, it's missing the point. The thing is neither good nor bad, only more or less useful. Since we already have words for describing racial discrimination (to wit: the words "racial discrimination") and already intuit that racism is more than individuals, it is much more useful to incorporate that idea into the definition than have ambiguity and require clarification anyway.

Feel free to nuke the lot. We're going in circles of white denial anyway. @HDE226868

@HDE226868 Agreed. I don't know how to start a chat unless stackexchange gives me the little prompt that it sometimes does, and I don't have the power to migrate the whole discussion, but if you could roll the whole thing into a chat room at this point I would fully agree and appreciate it. I was hoping my first comment or two would've been constructive enough, but it seems I'm still a novice at this whole get-multiple-parties-maligning-each-other-and-assuming-bad-f‌​aith-to-transition‌​-i‌​nto-a-constructive-d‌​ialog thing.

So nij, fyi. I'm not white. But thanks for showing your true colors and your pathetic attempt at an agenda.

It's definitely more telling when you try to apply American politcs to European politics.

@mtraceur I'd originally meant just using our site's general chat room, The Awkward Silence. But a separate room just for this question might also be productive, so I've gone ahead and made this one.