• We're currently experiencing a minor issue with our email system preventing emails for new registrations and verifications going out. We're currently working to fix this
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Prejudice Plus Power and Racism and Sexism

bobjr

EVERYONE WANTS THE BIG CHAIR MEG
Staff member
Moderator
They're not wrong...
Only because the GOP is going heavily in the anti-education route right now. College is where you find out who you are and have to challenge your views, and the GOP just want people to fall in line.

Also for the last few posts a few of those "X percent of people will be not white in Y European country" studies have started to put thinks like Irish and Polish as a not-white ethnicity, but that's because the stats don't sound as scary to xenophobic people otherwise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUbxVfSqtt8

Here's a good, if long video on it.
 

Sadib

Time Lord Victorious
I would include people of color because a large percentage, even those same Bangledeshis most likely, would at least say white people know nothing about racism still.

What you're referring to specifically though is what we call antiblackness, which is definitely not uncommon among nonblack poc. Can they be racist against black people? Mostly a debated topic within the community but the consensus on my end would answer no since they lack the power to actually systematically oppress us; but we still acknowledge nonblack poc can exhibit antiblack prejudice.

You're not getting what I'm saying.

The problem with your statement is that you assumed the dictionary was the only way to gain knowledge about something. It isn't. Dictionaries don't really prove you or I wrong because it's just language. Language changes, and for the most part, language is really just a way of saying you and I agree that this certain thing means this. It doesn't mean "1+1 =2". You follow me here? Think of it like this: 1 + 1 would equal 2 regardless of whether we defined 1 as 3 or 4 in some alternate universe of communication. Math equations exist entirely outside of human interference. the 1's are merely for the purpose of communication. That's why you don't go in a dictionary to prove 1 + 1 = 2.

Like for your specious and engender statements for example.. I can prove you wrong.. in the sense that I can tell you what those words mean in society, but if you were saying something much more complex and open-ended like, "WHAT is gender?" You're not going to prove anybody that there are only two genders because the dictionary only mentions two. You're going to probably go in a combination of resources and studies because "gender" is defined and expressed in different ways through different countries and carries different meanings.

tl;dr the dictionary does not objectively prove existential facts on words, topics, and issues. they are merely for the purpose of how a word has been used and communicated as.
Maybe I shouldn't have made black people the victim in my example. Let's say a black person hates Chinese immigrants. You wouldn't say that's racism, but you're defining racism around white people. That's quite problematic. I would just say it's regular racism, and when white people do it, it's powered racism or institutional racism. That way there can actually be a word for discrimination based on race.

You can't prove my specious and engender statements wrong. It's impossible.
 

Scammel

Well-Known Member
honestly it's hard to find systematic inequality as painful and as extensive as black people in United States.
You're wrong. It's incredibly easy to find. Anti-Semitism is not only overtly sanctioned but actively pushed in many countries across the world. Black people in America undeniably suffer extensively at the hands of lingering attitudes ensconced by slavery and segregation laws abolished in the 20th century.

Meanwhile, Arab children are told Jews are apes in their school textbooks. Meanwhile, Holocaust denial cartoon competitions are hosted by the Iranian government. Meanwhile, state newspapers publish the medieval blood libel. Meanwhile, unfavourable public opinions of Jews sit as high as 97% in some states. Meanwhile, Wonder Woman gets banned because the lead is is Jewish. This stuff is not only institutional but active state policy.

Only because the GOP is going heavily in the anti-education route right now. College is where you find out who you are and have to challenge your views, and the GOP just want people to fall in line.
Academia is objectively very left-wing - the stats bear it out. However, I'm fairly confident that the majority of academics are intelligent and conscientious enough to counteract their own biases and provide an intellectually varied, non-judgemental learning environment. Some colleges have clearly become breeding grounds for regressive leftism, but it's certainly not a brush to tar all or even most establishments with.
 
Last edited:
Edit: Actually, you know what, I'm done here. It's tiring having people stand metaphorically agape when I so much as mention the situation outside the States. So much suffering over so many centuries just gets boxed up and forgotten or nipped and tucked to fit a contemporary, localised debate where the proponents can't even be bothered to do a simple Google search for something as endemic as visual anti-Semitic tropes.
You're still going on about this trump card of yours? People are ignoring you because it's a strawman, Scammel. The prejudice + power definition does not forbid white ethnic groups from experiencing racism, it forbids minorities from being racist. If it was black people that ran Germany and started the holocaust, then maybe you'd have something here. To have the argument that you think you have, you'll need to show us instances of minority ethnic groups that have the power to oppress majority ethnic groups.

GhostAnime's point regarding Jews, Irishmen, etc. better being able to hide their origin therefore still containing white privilege is still poignant.
 
Last edited:

Sadib

Time Lord Victorious
You're going on about this trump card of yours? People are ignoring you because it's a strawman, Scammel. The prejudice + power definition does not forbid white ethnic groups from experiencing racism, it forbids minorities from being racist. If it was black people that ran Germany and started the holocaust, then maybe you'd have something here.

GhostAnime's point regarding Jews, Irishmen, etc. better being able to hide their origin therefore still containing white privilege is still poignant.
Which is ridiculous. If white people can be racist against white people, black people should be able to be racist against black people.
 

Scammel

Well-Known Member
You're going on about this trump card of yours? People are ignoring you because it's a strawman, Scammel.
It's a direct contradiction to daft statements like 'My only point to you was that white people (or people with white skin) do not suffer prejudice in the same way people of colour do'. It's demonstrably untrue.

Now, if the argument were to be that this is solely the American experience of racism, sure - it makes sense to discuss American institutional racism with the unspoken understanding that we're mostly talking about prejudice against black people. But it's a mistake to frame the overall human experience of racism in that one specific context.

The prejudice + power definition does not forbid white ethnic groups from experiencing racism, it forbids minorities from being racist.
Again, the anti-Semitism example is a great counterpoint, because Muslim minorities commit the greatest proportion of hate crimes against Jews in some European countries.
 
It's a direct contradiction to daft statements like 'My only point to you was that white people (or people with white skin) do not suffer prejudice in the same way people of colour do'. It's demonstrably untrue.
They don't. It is demonstrably true.

Someone who is white can often hide their origins and who they are - whether they're Jewish, Irish, homosexual, whatever. We're not saying other groups don't suffer, they do. Black people tend to suffer more, though, because they can't help but present as black short of bleaching their skin. That is privilege that should be acknowledged.

Again, the anti-Semitism example is a great counterpoint, because Muslim minorities commit the greatest proportion of hate crimes against Jews in some European countries.
This would also go back to my earlier point as well that acts such as these still have the same emotional gravitas under prejudice, using racism which has connotations of power isn't necessary to describe minority on minority hate crime. But you know, 'round and 'round the circle I guess.
 
Last edited:

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
Yaga covered everything perfectly the past few days


Which is ridiculous. If white people can be racist against white people, black people should be able to be racist against black people.
The problem is that when the Irish, etc experienced discrimination (which was like, centuries ago), they weren't considered "white". the problem is with the context of the word "white" which has changed throughout history. Today, most of these cultures have pretty much assimilated with whiteness enough for them to pass as most things.

I can't speak for Jewish people but for the most part in the western world, they still mostly benefit from white-passing privilege at least. I don't know if you can call oppression against current day Jews racism in our world. Perhaps in the worlds Scammel was describing if they are easily visible, traceable, and it is directly systematic to their experiences.

.... But when we consider the greater total of the world has mostly been under euro colonization and we know universally (even in countries that have darker skin on average), light skin is seen as more beneficial, it's hard to insert Jews as a significant part of how we define racism in most countries. I think what's important is the historical significance of European exploration that was done across the world.

Maybe I shouldn't have made black people the victim in my example. Let's say a black person hates Chinese immigrants. You wouldn't say that's racism, but you're defining racism around white people. That's quite problematic. I would just say it's regular racism, and when white people do it, it's powered racism or institutional racism. That way there can actually be a word for discrimination based on race.
Ehh, I guess that is logically consistent enough but what do you mean by "Quite problematic"?

You can't prove my specious and engender statements wrong. It's impossible.
.. The dictionary is still not the sole source of objective information on communication.

As easily as words change in history and as much of a mixed bag the English language is, it really wouldn't surprise me if it were impossible anyway.
 

chess-z

campy vampire
So, since dictionaries are typically written by Highly Educated White Men with Degrees in English, no matter their intentions, good, bad, or simply neutral, they are written with those inherent subconcious biases possessed by Highly Educated White Men with Degrees in English.

It's kinda dumb to hold them up as pinnacles of objectivity. To everyone who would thump a goddamn dictionary in this debate and to everyone who has: Please stop.
Bringing this back cause we're still hung up on dictionaries for some reason.
 

Sadib

Time Lord Victorious
It's a direct contradiction to daft statements like 'My only point to you was that white people (or people with white skin) do not suffer prejudice in the same way people of colour do'. It's demonstrably untrue.

Now, if the argument were to be that this is solely the American experience of racism, sure - it makes sense to discuss American institutional racism with the unspoken understanding that we're mostly talking about prejudice against black people. But it's a mistake to frame the overall human experience of racism in that one specific context.
I agree with Baba Yaga that it is true. We are talking solely about America. We're not talking about how albinos in Africa are discriminated against, which was actually brought up by some idiot who wasn't happy about my university getting a Black Student Center.

Yaga covered everything perfectly the past few days

The problem is that when the Irish, etc experienced discrimination (which was like, centuries ago), they weren't considered "white". the problem is with the context of the word "white" which has changed throughout history. Today, most of these cultures have pretty much assimilated with whiteness enough for them to pass as most things.

I can't speak for Jewish people but for the most part in the western world, they still mostly benefit from white-passing privilege at least. I don't know if you can call oppression against current day Jews racism in our world. Perhaps in the worlds Scammel was describing if they are easily visible, traceable, and it is directly systematic to their experiences.

.... But when we consider the greater total of the world has mostly been under euro colonization and we know universally (even in countries that have darker skin on average), light skin is seen as more beneficial, it's hard to insert Jews as a significant part of how we define racism in most countries. I think what's important is the historical significance of European exploration that was done across the world.


Ehh, I guess that is logically consistent enough but what do you mean by "Quite problematic"?


.. The dictionary is still not the sole source of objective information on communication.

As easily as words change in history and as much of a mixed bag the English language is, it really wouldn't surprise me if it were impossible anyway.
Are you denying (or at least minimizing) antisemitism in America?

I meant quite problematic because it's giving a word the definition of its subset. It's like if I said that a rectangles need to have four equal sides to be rectangles.

So, since dictionaries are typically written by Highly Educated White Men with Degrees in English, no matter their intentions, good, bad, or simply neutral, they are written with those inherent subconcious biases possessed by Highly Educated White Men with Degrees in English.

It's kinda dumb to hold them up as pinnacles of objectivity. To everyone who would thump a goddamn dictionary in this debate and to everyone who has: Please stop.
This reminds me of when I was telling someone that there was a guest on the Colbert Report who said there's a study that birth order can affect homosexuality in male children. She responded with, "Well, Colbert is a straight white man, whose experiences with the world are different. We can't take his word too seriously."
 
Last edited:

Scammel

Well-Known Member
The problem is that when the Irish, etc experienced discrimination (which was like, centuries ago), they weren't considered "white"
Your very own source, again: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...alians-jews-and-so-on/?utm_term=.0140e279ff46

I don't know if you can call oppression against current day Jews racism in our world. Perhaps in the worlds Scammel was describing if they are easily visible, traceable, and it is directly systematic to their experiences.
It's not racism if you have to live in fear of ever having your identity discovered, if it's possible to hide at all. It's not racism if society at large thinks you are literally an animal, as long as you keep lying. It's not racism if you're forced to disavow your own culture for fear of vandalism or worse. Just don't wear Jewish clothes, guys.

Honestly asking now - what do you actually know about the history of Jew hatred? Like, do you know what the word pogrom means? Do you know what the Quran has to say about Jews? Do you know what the blood libel is? You said you've never seen visual anti-Semitic tropes, so I assume the name Kristalnacht or perhaps Bergen-Belsen mean little to you?

I mean, you're attempting to redefine racism so that it entirely revolves around skin colour, but you've evidenced a shocking, borderline offensive ignorance of one of the worst forms of racism in the history of mankind.
 

Sadib

Time Lord Victorious
I don't know if you can call oppression against current day Jews racism in our world. Perhaps in the worlds Scammel was describing if they are easily visible, traceable, and it is directly systematic to their experiences.
I guess homophobia also doesn't exist, because gay people can just hide that they're gay.
 

bobjr

EVERYONE WANTS THE BIG CHAIR MEG
Staff member
Moderator
I guess homophobia also doesn't exist, because gay people can just hide that they're gay.
I mean up until the 90's it was very common for gay people to hide it from everyone, including close family and friends. You did have black people in the 1800's pass themselves off as white if they were able to convincingly do it, but that required a ton of "lucky" factors lining up.
 

Sadib

Time Lord Victorious
I mean up until the 90's it was very common for gay people to hide it from everyone, including close family and friends. You did have black people in the 1800's pass themselves off as white if they were able to convincingly do it, but that required a ton of "lucky" factors lining up.
"How can sexism exist when woman just pretend to be men?"
 

bobjr

EVERYONE WANTS THE BIG CHAIR MEG
Staff member
Moderator
Are there a significant amount of women who pretend to be men to avoid discrimination and sexism?
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
Are you denying (or at least minimizing) antisemitism in America?
I am saying in present day in North America that it is not equivalent to the racism people of color face.

The sources only direct research stems from the 20th century.

When you're talking about 1800s and early 20th century, they were not considered white. In other words, you're not really telling me anything I hadn't already said: the definition of whiteness changed at some point. The earlier you go, the more it was defined by status and how close to England you were. Many books quote this from people during those times https://theundefeated.com/features/white-immigrants-werent-always-considered-white-and-acceptable/

It's not racism if you have to live in fear of ever having your identity discovered, if it's possible to hide at all. It's not racism if society at large thinks you are literally an animal, as long as you keep lying. It's not racism if you're forced to disavow your own culture for fear of vandalism or worse. Just don't wear Jewish clothes, guys.

I mean, you're attempting to redefine racism so that it entirely revolves around skin colour, but you've evidenced a shocking, borderline offensive ignorance of one of the worst forms of racism in the history of mankind.
I guess homophobia also doesn't exist, because gay people can just hide that they're gay.
The hell are you guys talking about? Sadib, we're talking about racism. Jews being considered a race is actually a debated topic. It doesn't take anything away from their oppression; merely what we classify them as.

How we define race is mostly visual. If you can hide your race, why classify it as racism? Racism as a system works only through visual contact.

I don't even know what you two are debating anymore at this point. Fear of being discovered? Society thinks you're an animal? I would kill to be an identity I could ****ing hide. Are you kidding me?

If this is a debate about whether Jews should be considered a race, I'm not having it; but I will say this much: it is not comparable to racism for people of color. That is the only thing I will continue saying.
 
Last edited:

Sadib

Time Lord Victorious
I am saying in present day in North America that it is not equivalent to the racism people of color face.

The hell are you guys talking about? Sadib, we're talking about racism. Jews being considered a race is actually a debated topic. It doesn't take anything away from their oppression; merely what we classify them as.

How we define race is mostly visual. If you can hide your race, why classify it as racism? Racism as a system works only through visual contact.

I don't even know what you two are debating anymore at this point. Fear of being discovered? Society thinks you're an animal? I would kill to be an identity I could ****ing hide. Are you kidding me?

If this is a debate about whether Jews should be considered a race, I'm not having it; but I will say this much: it is not comparable to racism for people of color. That is the only thing I will continue saying.
White privilege is the assumption that white people can't empathize the hardships of people of color. There should be a phrase for the type of privilege non-Jewish people have.
Here's are some articles that might be useful:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_antisemitism#United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_United_States#Hate_crimes_against_Jews_in_the_U.S.

This topic is also about sexism. Women can disguise themselves as men. I've met quite a few androgynous women.
 
Last edited:

chess-z

campy vampire
Worth considering: exceptions don't disprove the rule.
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
There should be a phrase for the type of privilege non-Jewish people have.
but the privilege is based on having white skin. "jew" isn't necessarily synonymous with white (although arguably most Jews are white-passing, it's still not technically synonymous)

the problem with creating such a phrase is that Jew is a category outside of skin color.

anyway we already kinda have a phrase/category specifically for the oppression of Jews. You linked us to it, but are you still trying to saying their oppression is comparable to poc at least in North America? I'm still not sure what you're arguing.
 
Top