Discrimination is the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, religion, age, or sex. Because of this definition, anyone can theoretically be discriminated against, including white supremacists and Muslim refugees. According to this definition, racism is a form of discrimination. However, SJWs have recently added a new tenant to what it means to discriminate or express racism in any form.

The Daily Dot recently made the claim that racism is “privilege + power,” meaning that only white men in the United States can be racist or discriminatory and that any minority by definition cannot be such on the basis of their social situation. However, this is an extremely innovative definition of what it means to be racist and is simply a leftist attempt to redefine terms to suite their narrative. Where does this definition come from, and what authority does it wield?

This extremely fluid and relative definition regarding the circumstances required for any form of racism to exist begs many questions. If a white man chooses to murder a black man solely on the basis of his race, then the white man would unquestionably be labeled as a racist. However, if a black man chooses to murder a white man solely on the basis of his race, then the same type of logic assumed in the former instance would require one to conclude that the black man should unquestionably be regarded as a racist. Anger, prejudice, feelings of injustice, etc. to not validate or nullify racially motivated actions of violence, regardless of the context. Action should be made on the basis of individual circumstances, not through the sweeping overgeneralizations of an entire people group on the basis of their biological taxon.

If acts performed by an oppressed people group out of anger or subjection injustice cannot be regarded as racist in any circumstance, as the Daily Dot would claim, then any racially motivated acts of violence by white Europeans against Arabs cannot be considered racist. After all, the Arab slave trade that enjoyed prominence in the medieval era through the 20th century included 1 million to 1.25 million white Christian Europeans, not including slaves taken from the Mediterranean coast. Yet, SJWs will not be consistent in their faulty definition of racism and claim that European disdain for Arabs is justified on the basis of historical institutional oppression; in fact, one would quickly be labeled as “racist,” “xenophobic,” or “literally Hitler” if they dared question the prevalent doctrine of radical foreign inclusion through mass immigration.

Racism is can be defined by any act of discrimination on the basis of one’s skin color, regardless of any contextual circumstances. This means that racism can be either justified or condemned depending on circumstantial factors, but it is an invalid claim to assert that “justified racism” is, in fact, not reversely racist.