Even saying "Australians are racist" doesn't mean you are claiming every single Australian is racist. A bit like "toxic masculinity" isn't implying that every single man is toxic, or that every single masculine trait is toxic.

I think if someone wants to find the worst interpretation of a word or phrase, they are going to find it ultimately. Usually because they want to attack an idea without arguing against the substance of the idea (because they have no legitimate argument).

[–] Ilandar@aussie.zone 4 points 5 months ago

True, but I was also referring to the difference in the type of racism. "Australia is a racist country" could, as I think Tingle was implying, refer to structural/systemic/societal racism, whereas "Australians are racist" implies overt or covert racism at the individual level. To change the quote from one to the other is a misrepresentation of what was said and the meaning intended - particularly when you take into account that Tingle was referencing both Australia's history and the Coalition's migration policies at the time.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 5 months ago

Even saying "Australians are racist" doesn't mean you are claiming every single Australian is racist. A bit like "toxic masculinity" isn't implying that every single man is toxic

I agree with your conclusion, but don't like this analogy. The phrase "toxic masculinity" in itself identifies the fact that not all masculinity is toxic. "Toxic" identifies which strict subset of masculine behaviours are being referred to, because if all masculinity were toxic, there'd be no need to say "toxic" masculinity.

Whereas from a purely syntactical perspective, the phrase "Australians are racist" does seem to imply all Australians are racist, even if what's actually meant is that "the collective behaviour of the society made up of Australians is a racist one".

A better analogy might be ACAB, which certainly seems as though it's saying each and every individual cop is a bastard, even though that's not what it means.