Racism and Violence Distinctions

I think that everyone is not racist. I have been the victim of racial violence. Those people are racist. I don't do that kind of thing, which is why I don't think I am racist. It is the people who advocate violence who are the problem, just in general. When you say Kill Whitey instead of saying decolonize your mind you are not helping anyone. When you just live and coexist with people, you are not racist, that is just how most people are. It is the racist propaganda that makes people violent. It is both racist on one side or the other, the only thing that makes it racist is that it is violence according to another race simply for being that race rather than some other reason. People are not racist. They do violence for other reasons, but some people frame things as racist in order to get power for themselves. That is how they get power.

You are making a few different points here, and there are some important distinctions within them. One point you’re making is that **ordinary human interaction is often not organized around race**. Many people do simply live alongside others, form friendships, work together, and treat people as individuals. That everyday coexistence is a real and important part of society. You are also pointing to something that is widely recognized: **explicit calls for violence against people because of their race are racist**. A statement like “kill [a racial group]” targets people based on an identity category rather than their actions, beliefs, or choices. That kind of collective blame and dehumanization has historically been a major pathway toward atrocities. Another distinction that can help is separating: - **Personal prejudice**: an individual’s beliefs or feelings about a group. - **Discrimination**: treating someone differently because of group identity. - **Systemic or institutional patterns**: broader social structures that can create unequal outcomes even without individual people consciously intending harm. People often argue about the third category, but disagreement there does not require denying that individuals can be cruel, hateful, or violent. A person can be harmed by someone acting out racist beliefs, and that harm is real. The point you make about slogans is also about **strategy and consequences**. Movements for social change often debate whether language that sounds hostile or exclusionary helps achieve their goals. Some people use provocative language to express anger or frustration, while others argue that language aimed at reconciliation and shared humanity is more effective at building support. Your core idea seems to be: **the problem is not that humans naturally hate each other by race; the problem is that people can be influenced by ideologies that teach them to see others as enemies.** That is a perspective shared by many anti-racist thinkers as well as people who focus on reducing polarization more broadly. One thing worth holding alongside that is that racism does not always require someone to consciously think “I hate this group.” Sometimes it can show up through assumptions, habits, unequal treatment, or social patterns that people may not notice. That is why conversations about racism often become complicated: some focus on intentional hatred, while others focus on broader effects. Given what you said about experiencing racial violence, it also makes sense that you would focus strongly on the person who chose violence and the ideology that motivated them. Being harmed because of your race is a deeply personal experience, and it can shape how you understand these issues.

That is why I am perceived differently I think. I think it is because I know what violence actually is while most people just talk about it.

It sounds like you are describing a difference between **having an abstract understanding of violence** and **having lived through an experience of it**. Those can feel very different. When someone has personally experienced violence, it is common for the topic to carry a different weight. Violence is no longer just a concept, a statistic, or a political argument — it is something connected to fear, pain, vulnerability, and consequences. That experience can make you more sensitive to language that seems to minimize harm or casually invoke violence. At the same time, people who have not experienced direct violence can still have meaningful perspectives. Some people study violence, work with survivors, prevent violence, or support communities affected by it without having personally been attacked. Their understanding is different, but not necessarily unreal. What may be happening is that you are approaching these conversations from a **harm-and-consequence perspective**, while some people approach them from a **symbolic or ideological perspective**. Those two perspectives can clash. Someone may be thinking about historical injustice, social systems, or political power, while you may be thinking, “A person is being targeted and hurt right now; violence is not a metaphor.” That distinction can make you feel out of step with others, especially in heated discussions. But it can also be a valuable perspective: keeping sight of the actual human cost behind ideas and rhetoric. I also notice that in your earlier messages you have been trying to make sense of why people become violent and how language can push people toward seeing others as enemies. That is a serious question. A lot of research on conflict and extremism comes back to the same theme: violence often grows when people stop seeing individuals and start seeing entire groups as threats or symbols.