Why are antiracists so... racist?

[ToothedBomb]

"A very unique definition".

I suppose each dollar in your pocket is very unique from one another too?

We don't have dollars in my country.

 

[Hygro]

That explains why you're not making cents.

 

[inthesomeday]

Daaaaaang Hygro

 

[ToothedBomb]

That explains why you're not making cents.

There's euro cent coins though. Good try on that pun though.

Anyway, inthesomeday said he doesn't much care for the dictionary definition of the word "racism", because... reasons. I would argue that a dictionary would be a pretty good source to find out what the generally accepted definition of a word is, but no, apparently not. I think it's important that we're on the same wave-length, so where do we find a good source for the definition then? Because, honestly, I've never heard someone define "racism" the way they did, so I would ecrtainly classify that as unique.

 

[sophie]

A dictionary can be good for general colloquial language use, but very often is quite deficient when dealing with academic topics and jargon. Simply put your run-of-the-mill OED has neither the time, space, nor expertise to capture succinctly and comprehensively the full spectrum of literally decades upon decades of academic discussion over the meaning of a word like racism.

 

[inthesomeday]

Eh, any links I post about it will be coming from sources you guys refuse to recognize (Feminist websites, magazines, online newsletters, etc) but I likewise don't recognize a dictionary as any more than a measurement of common colloquial usage among the class that produces the dictionary. The specific words used only matter insofar as we charge them; the root of the real disagreement is that Akka is arguing that everyday racial prejudice from POC against white people is tantamount to the vast racism of global, institutional white supremacy. This is problematic because it results in one of two ways of thinking about the issues: either it trivializes institutional racism until, because it is described by the same word as the one that describes a POC being a meanie to a white person about race, or it elevates this trivial interaction to the degree of institutional racism. Because the word racism is naturally charged, applying it to a POC being mean to a white person then turns that person into some sort of villain of such menace that their personal interactions are tantamount to vast institutions in terms of power, which really isn't the case and is counterintuitive to the fight against real racism. When a white person is mean to a POC over race it is not anywhere near as powerful as the institutions, but it is significantly more powerful than a POC being mean to a white person over race, simply because the white person has the social power granted to their skin color by white supremacy.
That's not excusing POC from racially bullying white people (which is pretty rare to begin with anyway), it's just describing the difference in the two interactions, which boils down to the power dynamic resulting from what I would term racism.

That's not to say racism against white people couldn't exist, in a world in which white people were socioeconomically oppressed by some other form of racial supremacy. For example, under the brutal rule of the Ottoman Empire many ethnic groups that were racially white were persecuted and objectified in a manner similar to that of other victims of racism, and I would probably term this one historical example of racism. However, it wasn't just because the Turkish were mean to their white subjects, but rather because of the very relationship of subjection. This is racism; at its core, power dynamics based on socioeconomic institutions.

I expect Akka will say "what about blue people killing green people", to which I reply that actual violence against white people on the basis of race from organized groups of minority supremacists is not only rare but not institutional, setting it below actual racism (which is institutional). However, it is still a disgusting and unacceptable form of racial prejudice towards which I am always fully opposed. Someone like Malcolm X, who may have espoused to some degree black nationalism, was ultimately using it to serve the purpose of anti-racism, and never to my knowledge overtly advocated random violence against white people. Even if he had it wouldn't be racism because he himself lacked institutional power.

 

[caketastydelish]

The question is not the EU, but how its mechanisms have been exploited.

Northern Europe did not bale out Southern Europe for the good of Southern Europeans. It did so for its own good, to prevent its own unsteady manufacturing sector stable. The Greeks would, for the most part, prefer healthcare and education to German export-goods, but the EU has instructed otherwise.

I think Britain would count as "Northern Europe" and a rich country exploiting the poorer countries, from your definition. How would you explain Brexit? If it is how you describe, why would the conservatives be against it? What's stopping Greece from just leaving if it's so bad?

A dictionary can be good for general colloquial language use, but very often is quite deficient when dealing with academic topics and jargon. Simply put your run-of-the-mill OED has neither the time, space, nor expertise to capture succinctly and comprehensively the full spectrum of literally decades upon decades of academic discussion over the meaning of a word like racism.

The majority of people (even people with college degrees unless we're specifically talking about the humanities) are not interested in those "academic topics and jargon". Those types of people have a bad reputation for a reason.

 

[Hygro]

The majority of people (even people with college degrees unless we're specifically talking about the humanities) are not interested in those "academic topics and jargon". Those types of people have a bad reputation for a reason.

The majority of people, uninterested in academics topics and jargon, have a bad reputation for a reason... got it.

We should still seek to include those people if they wish to debate complicated topics that affect them and their neighbors and countrymen.

 

[ToothedBomb]

Simply put your run-of-the-mill OED has neither the time, space, nor expertise to capture succinctly and comprehensively the full spectrum of literally decades upon decades of academic discussion over the meaning of a word like racism.

I wasn't under the impression we were going to talk academics here on a video games forum, but perhaps that was my misjudgement. Just ignore me if you find my posts too offensively stupid.

Eh, any links I post about it will be coming from sources you guys refuse to recognize

How about Rational Wiki? Will you accept that site's definition? It's pretty progressive from what I can gather.

Meaning of the term
There is some disagreement as to what the term "racism" means, although the most common definition is generally something along the lines of "showing prejudice towards a person on the basis of their race". Disputed positions of this include:
- Racism requires prejudice plus power, and thus racial minorities cannot be racist, but can be prejudiced.
- Racism includes any recognition of race, even without any belief in superiority.
- Racism includes desire for racial separation.

Arguments for the One True Definition (Argumentum ad dictionarium) sometimes occur, given the strong emotional connotations that come with the term.

It seems that even among progressives it's not quite clear what the definition of the term is. So you guys acting like it's set in stone doesn't seem entirely justified. Then again, maybe you don't like this source either, so who knows.

Skipping over to the prejudice plus power page, Rational Wiki says:

It is important to note that, whether you agree or disagree with the definition, words can have many meanings at the same time. The use of racism to mean "prejudice plus power" by however many academics does not disqualify other definitions of the term any more than psychiatrists defining the term "depression" as a specific disorder disqualifies using it to mean being extremely sad. "Prejudice plus power" as used by some academics is what is called a stipulative definition, used primarily for academic research to literally simplify discussions and text, not to "replace" other definitions of the word in common usage. Thus, to evoke it as the "only correct definition" or as the somehow "most socially just" stance on bigotry imaginable is ridiculous. This is an important point to make considering the many people using the definition to derail arguments and for the emotional stigma it has to silence dissent and to excuse whatever bigotry they themselves have.[11] Switching definitions in the middle of an argument is a form of Red Herring fallacy, since if an opponent says "this is discrimination on the basis of race," that is not rebutted by "this is not systemic discrimination," since the first person never said it was.

Oh hey, that seems to describe the current discussion quite well, doesn't it?
Honestly, if you want to talk about institutional racism, why don't you just use that specific term? It exists for a reason, right? Why does "racism" have to exclusively mean "institutional racism"? To me that's like saying "crash" can only refer to plane crashes, because more people are killed in a single plane crash than any other crash. Using the word "crash" for a car crash implies that they're on the same scale, which they're obviously not.

 

[inthesomeday]

If you want to talk about racial prejudice, why not use that specific term?

It's because ultimately those in power want control over the word racism and all of its emotional charge so that they can maintain the only form of racism that has any impact on economics, politics, or society in the United States. Racial prejudice against white people sucks badly, and isn't nice or fair, but to in any way compare it to institutional racism is problematic for the way that it can easily make villains out of people who want to fight the more pressing, infinitely more powerful issue. "I think white supremacy is bad." "#AllLivesMatter you racist white people have it hard too." Like, yes, I bet white people feel discriminated against all the time, but those feelings are ultimately completely irrelevant to the discussion of "racism" or as you would term in institutional racism, which is the real thing an "anti-racist" is probably fighting for.

This thread's title and its contents are a perfect example. By using the word "racism", which we all at least agree is charged, to describe people who take action against white supremacy because they might have hurt somebody's feelings, is very disruptive and counterintuitive to the real fight of importance, which is about institutional racism and the power dynamics of race. It boils down to facts over feelings, ironically, considering how often an "SJW" has this buzz phrase used against them. Yeah, it's really mean and unnecessary for POC to put down white people based on their race. However to even bring this sad feeling into a discussion of the VAST INSTITUTIONAL FACT that is racism is problematic and reactionary.

 

[ToothedBomb]

If you want to talk about racial prejudice, why not use that specific term?

Because "racism" is a synonym for "racial prejudice" and has less letters to type.

It's because ultimately those in power want control over the word racism

Oh, okay. Well I definitely wouldn't want to be accused of preventing you from taking control of your own speech, so I guess I'll leave it at that.

This thread's title and its contents are a perfect example. By using the word "racism", which we all at least agree is charged, to describe people who take action against white supremacy because they might have hurt somebody's feelings, is very disruptive and counterintuitive to the real fight of importance, which is about institutional racism and the power dynamics of race. It boils down to facts over feelings, ironically, considering how often an "SJW" has this buzz phrase used against them. Yeah, it's really mean and unnecessary for POC to put down white people based on their race. However to even bring this sad feeling into a discussion of the VAST INSTITUTIONAL FACT that is racism is problematic and reactionary.

I don't know, but I just kind of agree with Akka here. If your entire purpose as a movement is to create a world without oppression, using oppression yourself to achieve this seems a bit... weird. I'm not aware of all the things that happen in the USA, but I've heard it happen that white people are not allowed to speak at certain meetings at a college, or even heavily discouraged from sitting on a chair because a POC might want to use that seat. I'm not claiming this stuff happens all over the US as we speak or anything, but they're things that have happened, and there's people advocating that sort of behavior, otherwise it wouldn't have happened. And that's just racist. Or racial prejudice if you prefer. You can't bully people into shutting up if you want a world without bullies, which was your own stated goal if I recall. Soon as one decides any means are allowed to beat the monster, you become the monster. Be the change you want to see, and all that.

Sure, the topic for this thread isn't nearly as big a problem as institutional racism. But then, you could argue that saving the planet is more important than institutional racism, because no-one will have any kind of future if the earth cannot support us anymore. Fortunately we're capable of tackling multiple problems at once.

 

[caketastydelish]

The majority of people, uninterested in academics topics and jargon, have a bad reputation for a reason... got it.

We should still seek to include those people if they wish to debate complicated topics that affect them and their neighbors and countrymen.

The percentage of people I'm talking about is much higher than the academic jargon people. "Bad reputation" comes from the majority to the minority. You can get away with it if you're a badass like Joan Jett, but most of you are not.

 

[inthesomeday]

I don't support affirmative action or POC-exclusive spaces. I don't support bullying white people over their race.

However I am a proud anti-racist, and will associate myself with most other people with this cause. Tremendous counter measures need to be taken against the world's climate, and I believe in simultaneously taking those measures while also fighting racism. However I think no further countermeasures than saying "hey stop it" are necessary to combat racial prejudice against white folks.

 

[sophie]

I wasn't under the impression we were going to talk academics here on a video games forum, but perhaps that was my misjudgement. Just ignore me if you find my posts too offensively stupid.

It's an academic term, so one would typically refer to academic literature when discussing the nuances of its semantics and application, n'est-ce pas?

 

[luiz]

It's an academic term, so one would typically refer to academic literature when discussing the nuances of its semantics and application, n'est-ce pas?

No, racism is not an academic term. It's a rather common word, universally used and understood, and it means discrimination based on race (that is, treating people differently based on their race). In many countries it's a crime, codified in law. To redefine it as some American-centric academic mumbo-jumbo is orwellian.

As has been explained at lengths, there's plenty of racism, even institutional racism, that do not at all involve white people.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think Britain would count as "Northern Europe" and a rich country exploiting the poorer countries, from your definition. How would you explain Brexit?

Britain hasn't really benefited from this sort of economic imperialism. We've more or less deliberately gutted our own manufacturing center. The only thing we export these days are financial services and whisky, and the former has become a hard sell to countries without two pennies to rub together.

If it is how you describe, why would the conservatives be against it.

Differing priorities. It offends their sense of national sovereignty, which is to say it comes bundle with all sorts of minimum standards vis-a-vis civil rights, labour rights and consumer rights, which make it harder to brutalise their own people.

What's stopping Greece from just leaving if it's so bad?

As I said, other countries have create a state of economic dependency. Greece could leave, but it would court disaster by doing so- perhaps a disaster that may benefit in the long run, but may not, and try selling a gamble of that magnitude to the electorate.

 

[Akka]

Voiding it from all meaning.... holy reactive hyperbole, Batman. I'll do you a solid and try again later.

Not at all hyperbole. If you dismember the core meaning of a concept, then it's not this concept anymore, and the discussion about it loses all meaning.
If we're discussing unicorns, and you start to define the horn away, then we're not speaking about unicorns anymore but horses.
I'd say if we're talking about unicorns, switching the discourse to horse is losing the point of the discussion, and solutions devised for horses will probably not work on unicorns.

the root of the real disagreement is that Akka is arguing that everyday racial prejudice from POC against white people is tantamount to the vast racism of global, institutional white supremacy.

No, I speak about concepts, where we can understand the core of an idea and think about it in its globality, while you use politically and emotionally charged jargon to manipulate your audience. This is basically newspeak in 1984, languages altered by blurring the ideas in a "useful" way for a manipulative government, and you should probably stop and wonder what it says about you if you embrace the same methods so emphatically.

It's because ultimately those in power want control over the word racism and all of its emotional charge

You realize that's exactly what YOU do, right ?

 

[Senethro]

Still haven't heard a satisfactory explanation of how we get rid of centuries old racism if we're not allowed to engage on the subject of race. Starting to think its not communication difficulties.

 

[inthesomeday]

No, I speak about concepts, where we can understand the core of an idea and think about it in its globality, while you use politically and emotionally charged jargon to manipulate your audience.

Who do you think my audience is? That I'm manipulating? Is it you? Because if so, I'm doing a terrible job of manipulating you. If you think it's impressionable liberals, I would argue that I've specifically demonstrated my refusal to pander to them ideologically and my preference of maintaining moral consistency. I do truly understand racism in the way I have defined and discussed it here, there's no manipulation. I haven't been inconsistent or dishonest.

And back you are again talking about vague concepts without ever having any intent to practically apply them, which is completely pointless. There is literally no point in wasting thought on something that you never intend to affect in the real world.

This is basically newspeak in 1984, languages altered by blurring the ideas in a "useful" way for a manipulative government,

That's true, us anarchists love totalitarianism and government control over things.

and you should probably stop and wonder what it says about you if you embrace the same methods so emphatically.

I could say the exact same thing to you, but with significantly more similarity in the comparison, in that the actual government in the conversation has more stake in defining racism your way.

You realize that's exactly what YOU do, right ?

This is my point. Either one of us can just say "well you're a newspeak totalitarian and you're changing the word for your own agenda", because we seem to simply have fundamentally different understandings of the definition of the word. The difference is in what its practical application implies. If we throw it around to mean anything, then it dulls the important usage, which is condemnation of institutional racism. We use the word racism in academic conversations about this institution, and in those conversations using the word to refer to interpersonal racial prejudice against white people has truly no place or significance. The two things are an apple and James' giant peach and using one word to describe both is practically confusing and distracting in modern discourse.

 

[Ryika]

This is my point. Either one of us can just say "well you're a newspeak totalitarian and you're changing the word for your own agenda", because we seem to simply have fundamentally different understandings of the definition of the word.

Of course you can say that, but it would be utterly nonsensical. He's using the word how it is and was commonly used in general, with varying but similar definitions everywhere where we can go to look what words generally mean. You're taking a definition that is specific to a very narrow branch of academia, a definition that was created exactly for the unique framework of that branch and not meant to be a replacement for the more general definitions, and trying to push it into the dialog. You are the person who is introducing new words because you don't like the meaning that the words have, Akka is not doing any such thing.