In America, do we need the approval of white people to conclude that something is racist?

[Igel]

11. Not how it often works.

Two people can say the same thing and one's racist and one's not. How do you know? "We just know."

Once there was a bit of a scuffle on DU because a (D) politician said something that was pretty much the same as an (R) said. The (R) was racist, the (D) wasn't. Why? Because (R) are racist and (D) aren't.

Then there's all the "dog whistle" stuff. Sometimes it's veiled language. Sometimes it's not, but it's convenient and self-serving to interpret it as veiled racist language. And if you say, "Uh, do you have proof?" the response is taking offense and sometimes suggesting that you, too, are racist. If you don't notice it, you're not enlightened enough or ... something.

SCOTUS and Congress ditched "objectively verifiable criteria." All that matters for some purposes is disparate impact. If it affects a member of a protected minority more than it affects whites or the population as a whole, it's racist. Oddly, in the fight over amnesty and revising immigration legislation, this rule would say that amnesty would be racist because it has a disparate impact on Latinos. Only negative things fall under this rule, however. It's not a reasonable rule; neither is it unreasonable, since the reason for the rule is so much racism is unverifiable, the result of discussions behind closed doors and within closed minds with no witnesses or paper trail. Least horrible out of bad options, but that doesn't make it good or unreasonable.