You understand that racism is only institutional racism. I'm saying that institutional racism is just one form, which why it needs a qualifier first. Racism is racial discrimination.
The Internet's 'Misogyny Problem' - real or imagined?
- Thread starter cardgame
- Start date
You understand that racism is only institutional racism. I'm saying that institutional racism is just one form, which why it needs a qualifier first. Racism is racial discrimination.
Some of them are poor problems, but not all. The ones related to treatment by police in particular- there's a mountain of evidence saying that blacks (and hispanics, for that matter) are disproportionately pulled over, arrested for drug offenses, end up in prison for drug offenses, and just generally are screwed by the police, even when you account for them tending to be poorer than whites.
Yes, and people tend to use those dictionary definitions when talking about them. If you tell them that what you define a word is different from what the dictionary and the majority of people define it as, they'll tend to be irritated and ignore you.
I'll concede the point about the police since I actually did research on that particular issue for one of my classes. I looked at the data from the NYPD "Stop-and-Frisk" program and it was pretty clear the police were profiling based on race. The most compelling piece of data from that study showed that despite police frisking more blacks and Hispanics than whites, whites turned out to have a slightly higher rate of possessing contraband than blacks and Hispanics.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
¶1) Confirmation bias + reiteration of guarded premise + hyperbole + reversal of cause and effect.
¶2) Strawman + Strawman + Hyperbole + Appeal to emotion + Appeal to emotion.
Come on man, let's stick to the actual discussion. A more technical and useful definition of racism, one that still validates the truth of your post with Nazi Germany and white people able to be victims of racism, is one that shows why at a casual level you can make the also-hyperbolic claim that white people can't be victims of racism. I guess if warpus was actually coming from an argument why institutional racism that puts white people at the top of a social hierarchy still results in the racial oppression of white people, then yeah he's totally right that such a claim was dumb.
If you'll permit me, it's like someone calling supply and demand logic dumb because they've seen sales go up of a product when prices go up. Using such a perspective to dismiss microeconomics means they don't get it. However, they're correct in their observation and correct that anyone who is dogmatic about the gist of supply and demand is dumb if they can't move beyond that starting point. So it's like a sandwich of "that's dumb" bread with "that's actually not dumb, it's basically correct" nut butter. Only it's not like a sandwich because one slice of bread dismisses the entire rest of the sandwich and the other slice of bread is saying that there's more to the sandwich than the butter, you need that bread.
So to bring it back, I just don't know if warpus is the first slice of bread or the second, but if he's the first, I am being the second slice and bringing the peanut butter. And if he's the second, then he already's already a step ahead of me and I'm the dude calling through the door while he's standing behind me.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
Alright, so you have a term you find useful in ''institutional racism.'' You then decree that the colloquial usage of ''racism'' is dumb, so you're going to use it the way you think is smarter, and nope, you're definitely not redefining anything because those plebs with common usage and dictionaries aren't buying in to your wordsmithing. This may or may not cast doubt on their ability to understand the term that you should have been using in the first place.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
The colloquial usage of racism often reinforces institutional racism. Warpus wrote something that looked like he was dismissing the institutional definition of racism in favor of colloquial usage. Reiterating myself, the colloquial usage would be fine if it wasn't used to dismiss the academic meaning. The academic meaning is important because it identifies how we can make life healthier and fairer.
Old Hippy
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2011
- Messages
- 3,606
no it's not that "the colloquial usage of ''racism'' is dumb," it is that when used that way it just ignores any cause of racism/sexism by disregarding the 19/20th Centuries. we are all mostly living in the west, so a benchmark for aspirations whether in race/sex/religion has to be white male christains...
they are just the benchmark by which any other group defines what they are after, like women want the vote, equal pay, minorities want the vote, equal opportunities etc. What do white male Christians actually want that they do not already have or is their a group that they can point to and say hey I want that too...
the history of racism and sexism in the west is of people wanting what white male Christians have and white male Christians saying not just yet...
say a group of children from a minority gang up on a white child with racial and sexist slurs, it is racist as you say but why do children have these views are they true and the children naturally recognize this truth or are they just saying what they have heard unthinkingly, expressing pent up long standing grudges, again what are white male long standing grudges except the institutionalized view that they are happy with things the way they are... higher pay, more CEO's on the big companies, more people like us in the government or courts or police
for something to be racist or sexist it has to be an action (said or done etc) that action has to stem from a thought and it is that thought that is instituionalised or structual because none of us here would logically come up with these views for ourselfs but we all seem to think others do...
Loppan Torkel
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2004
- Messages
- 4,756
This has devolved to a discussion about how to define racism and one leftist-liberal-feminist claim to be of such high authority, he's beyond the dictionary?! Did I get it right?
Senethro
Overlord
Can you describe a situation in America where black on white racism occurs that primarily influenced by "micro" causes instead of historical/cultural ones? Feel free to get hypothetical.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
It's all connected man. It's not a post-racial society. I'm really not all that interested in trying to "lop off" historical and cultural influences. In any given instance I'm likely to say that ya, it's there. At what point, though, are people just being mostly racist/classist dicks? Dunno exactly. Maybe somewhere around the point when they target for harassment the people wearing work boots that don't look wealthy enough to fight back effectively while ignoring the more posh presentations. Bonus points when the slurs mix in a preemptive accusations of racism?
But I don't agree that it's the institutional racism that puts white people at the top of social hierarchy that is necessarily the cause of all racism white people may experience. Sure, it could be a big cause, by leading to resentment.
But at it's simpler, broader definition, racism is simply racial discrimination. It's entirely possible for there to be such a thing as a black bigot who dislikes whites for reasons totally unrelated to institutional racism. Just like people disliked Jews and Gypsies in Europe for all sorts of reasons. People are weird, and there is definitely a tribal mentality that leads to fear and dislike of the different.
So my point was precisely that the way to argue against Cheezy's position that "white people can't be victims of racism" is not to provide counter-examples in which whites were victims of racism, because that's still accepting his framework. My point is that his position that racism is an institution is wrong. Racism cab be an attitude, or a mentality, or an ideology, which may or may not be institutionalized. So we ought to reject his definition. And above all, we ought to reject his right to hijack the meaning of words!
aelf
Ashen One
I dunno, that's kind of like how a conversation about multiculturalism tends to go with right-wingers.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Hey everyone. I haven't had time at all to keep up with this thread, but I realize that I've made several strongly worded posts. I want to apologize for not being able to keep up with discussion.
I can't imagine how heated it could have gotten since I left for a weekend getaway.. but either way, I doubt I'll have time to dive back in, respond to everything, and really get involved. I just don't have time.
No doubt Cheezy and/or bhsup would like responses from me. Hey, maybe not, I'm not sure. I just don't want you guys to think I'm ignoring you. My side of the position has been stated, yours has, and I just don't think it's worth investing the little time that I have, arguing back and forth with you guys on something we likely will never agree on. We know eachothers positions, and we can just leave it at that.
The reality of the situation is that there exist white people on this planet who are discriminated against based on their skin colour. Perhaps in America most white people have it good and get their genitals washed by people of colour during their morning massage or whatever, but not every single white person on the planet is in a position of superiority over the other races. In essence what's being said is that it's okay to be racist against these people, because they were born a certain way. I find that a very racist position to take because it disenfranchises an entire group of people simply due to the colour of their skin. I find that incredibly offensive, and hopefully it explains why I feel about this so strongly. I do not disagree at all that as a whole white people have it a LOT better than latinos, for example, in America. That is not under dispute.
However, even if there was 1 white guy down in the dumps, being discriminated against based on his skin colour.. That person deserves our support, no matter what the colour of his skin is. Say there's a guy in South Africa who lost everything in the last 2 decades and now faces everyday racism from his neighbours.
Who are we to tell this person that racism against white people does not exist? How does that help? Are we to ignore the racism against him just because in America white people are generally well off? How does this make any sort of sense?
The thing with bigotry is that it often touches people who are the most vulnerable. That's where my outrage comes from. "White people have it good" is not an excuse to make the lives of white people who don't have it good even more miserable. Those people need our help, not our hate. I can understand the desire to hate old white rich guys who seem to run the planet.. so that part of it I understand. But to take that and to turn it into a thing against ALL white people. I'm sorry, but that's racist, it's hateful, it's bigotry, and it's not going to help.
I have to get back to work and unfortunately will probably not be able to check this thread for a while. There's no way I could keep up with the discussion, so I'm probably going to have to bow out.
My position is clear I hope: I don't tolerate racism, no matter what. "Racism against white people is impossible" to me is a childish and infantile position to take, not to mention racist.
It's a social warrior position that has no relation at all to reality and the actual suffering of people. It's designed to make people feel better about themselves. It is also very offensive and does not help the situation at all. It only makes it worse.
I can't imagine how heated it could have gotten since I left for a weekend getaway.. but either way, I doubt I'll have time to dive back in, respond to everything, and really get involved. I just don't have time.
No doubt Cheezy and/or bhsup would like responses from me. Hey, maybe not, I'm not sure. I just don't want you guys to think I'm ignoring you. My side of the position has been stated, yours has, and I just don't think it's worth investing the little time that I have, arguing back and forth with you guys on something we likely will never agree on. We know eachothers positions, and we can just leave it at that.
The reality of the situation is that there exist white people on this planet who are discriminated against based on their skin colour. Perhaps in America most white people have it good and get their genitals washed by people of colour during their morning massage or whatever, but not every single white person on the planet is in a position of superiority over the other races. In essence what's being said is that it's okay to be racist against these people, because they were born a certain way. I find that a very racist position to take because it disenfranchises an entire group of people simply due to the colour of their skin. I find that incredibly offensive, and hopefully it explains why I feel about this so strongly. I do not disagree at all that as a whole white people have it a LOT better than latinos, for example, in America. That is not under dispute.
However, even if there was 1 white guy down in the dumps, being discriminated against based on his skin colour.. That person deserves our support, no matter what the colour of his skin is. Say there's a guy in South Africa who lost everything in the last 2 decades and now faces everyday racism from his neighbours.
Who are we to tell this person that racism against white people does not exist? How does that help? Are we to ignore the racism against him just because in America white people are generally well off? How does this make any sort of sense?
The thing with bigotry is that it often touches people who are the most vulnerable. That's where my outrage comes from. "White people have it good" is not an excuse to make the lives of white people who don't have it good even more miserable. Those people need our help, not our hate. I can understand the desire to hate old white rich guys who seem to run the planet.. so that part of it I understand. But to take that and to turn it into a thing against ALL white people. I'm sorry, but that's racist, it's hateful, it's bigotry, and it's not going to help.
I have to get back to work and unfortunately will probably not be able to check this thread for a while. There's no way I could keep up with the discussion, so I'm probably going to have to bow out.
My position is clear I hope: I don't tolerate racism, no matter what. "Racism against white people is impossible" to me is a childish and infantile position to take, not to mention racist.
It's a social warrior position that has no relation at all to reality and the actual suffering of people. It's designed to make people feel better about themselves. It is also very offensive and does not help the situation at all. It only makes it worse.
Well it's not like I failed to acknowledge that multiculturalism can have different meanings. I made a thread to address one of those. I didn't try to claim that my definition was the only existing one. In several posts of that thread I said that according to many definitions of multiculturalism, I have no problems whatsoever with it.
And at least my definition was valid, while rejecting the dictionary and encyclopedia definition of racism in favor or narrowing it exclusively to institutional racism has a very thin claim to legitimacy.
Senethro
Overlord
The problem is you're showing more consideration for the one white guy than all the black people in South Africa. Thats the actual racism.
Loppan Torkel
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2004
- Messages
- 4,756
Is there anything in particular you wanted to point out in that thread. I have no idea what you're getting at since I've not posted in it or followed it. I assume you agree with me that this thread has veered off and that Hygro's definition of the term "racism" is politically inspired.
Where is he doing this? If one white guy in South Africa is subjected to racism - it's not racism because he's white. This is what you're telling us. True or not?
aelf
Ashen One
So is multiculturalism good or bad? If multiculturalism includes definitions that you consider good, how do you make a thread proclaiming that multiculturalism is bad?
There's no difference between the argument about racism in this thread and the other one. There's a colloquial meaning for racism which is acknowledged but is rejected for discussion, just as the good meaning of multiculturalism is rejected in the other thread for the sake of discussing why multiculturalism, as the OP defines it, is bad.
Eh, there's a world of difference.
I didn't say "multiculturalism is bad" point blank. I explained my definition of it, acknowledged different ones, and made it clear which one I wished to discuss. I didn't want to redefine what multiculturalism means, I wanted to discuss an ideology that I call multiculturalism. That ideology, IMO, is bad. Other definitions of multiculturalism, which are also broadly accepted, describe a harmless phenomena (diversity pure and simple).
Cheezy OTOH simply stated "white people can't be victims of racism because racism is this - always and everywhere". He didn't acknowledge the other, far more common use of the term. He claimed he was right and those saying that whites can indeed be victims of racism are wrong. He said that black people in the US can be jerks, but never racists. So he essentially hijacked a word and is now saying everybody else is wrong.
The two are entirely different and totally unrelated, and it's bizarre you can't see it. I wasn't making a semantic argument at all.
