Prejudice Plus Power and Racism and Sexism

[snorlax512]

Baba Yaga you're missing the point.

Just because your connotations of racism are institutional policies does not mean that everyone else's is. For most people, the act of saying something like "Go back to your country, you chink" is 'strong' enough to fit the term racism.

No one will look at those four black men who tortured a white guy on live stream and say "Nah, he's just predujiced, not rlly strong enough to call him a racist."

Which one is stronger is really irrelevant (I can even argue the contrary), because the idea of attacking someone for their skin color, regardless of whether it was carried out via institutions, is deemed so despicable by society that using the word 'prejudiced' would be almost insulting.

This redefinition is incredibly dangerous. The message being sent is to individuals is that if you discriminate against a fellow human being on the sole basis of their skin colour, it is somehow 'more okay' than the government doing it, and saying that is absolutely not beneficial to society.

 

[Baba Yaga]

Hey, Scammel. I'm afraid I have to resort to the bold "why don't you get things." font.

No, it's simply an argument you don't want to engage with. The onus is on you to disprove or challenge statements made by other parties.

Sweet, baby Jesus. I have to believe you're being purposefully obtuse because I cannot grasp how someone as seemingly articulate as yourself does not understand what makes a God damned argument. Allow me to explain.

This is an assertion: Peggy, you don't care about your job!

This is an argument: Peggy, you don't care about your job because you drink Schnapp's on your 15, you leave dishes for the next shift, and you wipe your runny nose without gloves on after you put toppings on customer's sandwhiches.

Do you see how that works? Statements are not arguments, they require POINTS to BUTTRESS them to be arguments. If this is not something you can come to terms with, I hereby revoke your right to use fancy words like "onus" I welcome you to try again.

You're dismissive, which helps betray your initial generalisation. Many countries do not boast a recent history of state-sanctioned or legislative racism, which scuppers your suggestion that these are the primary forms of racism that occupy the minds of most people. The world doesn't revolve around Jim Crow.

Another breath taking display of ignorance. There is not a single corner of the globe that has not been affected by racial hiearchies in some way, shape, or form. The examples you gave to chess-z were also wrong.

Institutional racism in Germany:

http://www.dw.com/en/un-experts-accuse-germany-of-structural-racism/a-37745700

Institutional racism in Spain:

http://www.liberties.eu/en/news/racism-not-overcome-spain

The police in the UK have admitted they're institutionally racist:

http://www.greenworld.org.uk/article/police-racism-uk

Even if these countries had no institutional racism, they still have a strong history of it, making the connotations of racism still much too strong to use for, say, a native German to a Jew who was being discriminatory towards him.

Assuming there's a hypothetical country that has NO HISTORY OF RACISM AT ALL and they all live in peace and happiness, they would still associate the more serious connotations with the word because it's not as if they would be completely ignorant of history! I would be shocked if I met anyone, anywhere in the world, except maybe if they lived on isolated tribal island, who did not think of dogs mauling protestors, concentration camps, forced labor, slave wages, deportations, etc. when they heard the word "racism"

Some of the comments also do a fantastic job of supporting the argument some of us are making. Thanks!

Quote something that was a thorough refutation of the points I borrowed from the discussion. I'll be waiting.

Edit: At least Snorlax came back with some actual points instead of basically saying "Nuh uh" I'll respond to him in a different post.

 

[chess-z]

This redefinition is incredibly dangerous. The message being sent is to individuals is that if you discriminate against a fellow human being on the sole basis of their skin colour, it is somehow 'more okay' than the government doing it, and saying that is absolutely not beneficial to society.

Hey Snorlax, answer this honestly: who is in a more effective position to oppress millions, governments or individuals?

 

[Scammel]

I'll only respond to the points worth responding to.

Britain, Spain, Germany

All perfectly good examples of institutional racism. All in a very distinct category from Jim Crow and similar segregation laws, which you highlighted to suggest were the norm for popular perceptions of racism. The former is sinister, often low key, and might not be apparent to the wider public without the release of such damning statistics. The latter were overt, high-profile, and - importantly - explicitly backed by government.

This is why it's useful to be able to clearly delineate and define different forms of racism, no? To identify how they manifest, and how they can be tackled? Laws can be repealed, other forms of systemic racism are tougher to root out. These terms are useful.

Quote something that was a thorough refutation of the points I borrowed from the discussion. I'll be waiting.

The argument we're making isn't necessarily a long one, just a product of some critical thinking. Here's a good take:

You see, I believe that distinction can be made by putting 'institutional' in front of the word 'racism'.

If you want to focus attention on the truly larger problems of institutional racism, then focus on that- there still isn't a reason to redefine the word 'racism' so as not to include everyday bigotry.
Redefining is just a copout- the real issue is that many people don't see or understand the way that institutional racism affects and damages society, and redefining the word by force is not going to change that. We do need to increase society's awareness of this huge issue, but redefining 'racism' won't achieve that.

Hey Snorlax, answer this honestly: who is in a more effective position to oppress millions, governments or individuals?

The dominant race in government, and it's abhorrent, sinister, and has long-term effects. Personally, I describe it as one of many forms of racism.

 

[snorlax512]

Hey Snorlax, answer this honestly: who is in a more effective position to oppress millions, governments or individuals?

Government. However, imo the difference in weight between 'prejudice' and 'racism' is more about intent than effectiveness.

The government (right now) may have more influence, but it is not more racist than the KKK (back when they lynched people). Likewise, you and me may not have any political influence, but if you believe that all black people like chicken, I will call you prejudiced. If you believe that black people are inferior to white people and should be wiped out, I will call you a racist.

 

[Sadib]

Do you spend that much time reading dictionaries?

When someone says that the definition of a word is something that sounds completely nonsensical and agenda driven, I look it up.

 

[chess-z]

State sanctioned racism is more dangerous than the racism of the KKK though. It hurts far more people. And that's why I am so goddamn sick of this debate. You want all of these semantics included, fine. But for the love of God please recognize that debating these semantics isn't helpful.

 

[Scammel]

State sanctioned racism is more dangerous than the racism of the KKK though. It hurts far more people. And that's why I am so goddamn sick of this debate. You want all of these semantics included, fine. But for the love of God please recognize that debating these semantics isn't helpful.

Then why get involved in a debate about how to define particular forms of racism? Of course semantics - the meanings of words - are going to be important!

 

[chess-z]

cause yall are dumb as **** and im sick of your victimhood fetishes tbh

 

[Baba Yaga]

All perfectly good examples of institutional racism. All in a very distinct category from Jim Crow and similar segregation laws, which you highlighted to suggest were the norm for popular perceptions of racism.

I refer you to:

stop moving the goalpost.

*smashes face into keyboard.*

Then why get involved in a debate about how to define particular forms of racism? Of course semantics - the meanings of words - are going to be important!

Gotta agree here, though.

 

[Scammel]

cause yall are dumb as **** and im sick of your victim fetishes tbh

And the truth comes out. Cheers for the concession.

*smashes face into keyboard.*

But you raised them! You were suggesting that they informed common perceptions of racism, and I disagreed by pointing out the fact that such laws aren't or weren't the norm for many nations! What am I not getting?

 

[Baba Yaga]

You moved the goal posts by suggesting the institutional racism provided to you from the countries you suggested didn't struggle with it weren't spicy enough for you. Lmao.

Racial profiling? WEAK.

Cracks me up.

 

[snorlax512]

State sanctioned racism is more dangerous than the racism of the KKK though. It hurts far more people. And that's why I am so goddamn sick of this debate. You want all of these semantics included, fine. But for the love of God please recognize that debating these semantics isn't helpful.

I am not the one trying to change the definition of racism.

 

[Scammel]

You moved the goal posts by suggesting the institutional racism provided to you from the countries you suggested didn't struggle with it weren't spicy enough for you. Lmao.

Racial profiling? WEAK.

Cracks me up.

Nah. I explicitly addressed them, called them out, said they were sinister and tough to deal with. I even said they were good examples. You're not very good at this, your own inability to delineate between different forms of racism and the distinct challenges they pose suggests this debate isn't for you, either.

 

[Baba Yaga]

The former is sinister, often low key, and might not be apparent to the wider public without the release of such damning statistics. The latter were overt, high-profile, and - importantly - explicitly backed by government.

Do you forget what you type?

If they're all perfectly fine examples of institutional racism, than be quiet and concede that you were wrong when you started spouting off countries that you suggested didn't deal with it. Don't try and jerk me around by splitting hairs between institutional racism and institutional racism - light.

The specific examples I gave were severe, but I never suggested that was the extent of institutional racism evoked with the word racism. You're trying to weasel your way out of the connotation argument by saying "Well, government condoned racial profiling leading to job and income disparities isn't as bad as burning down churches." even if I were to humor you, THE CONNOTATIONS ARE STILL TOO STRONG.

 

[bobjr]

I'd also argue that dealing with systemic racism would have an effect on other kinds of racism. Racists tend to be a lot more quiet when they have consequences. Just look at how hate crimes increase when far-right governments win.

 

[Scammel]

Do you forget what you type?

If they're all perfectly fine examples of institutional racism, than be quiet and concede that you were wrong when you started spouting off countries that you suggested didn't deal with it. Don't try and jerk me around by splitting hairs between institutional racism and institutional racism - light.

I know exactly what I typed:

This is why it's useful to be able to clearly delineate and define different forms of racism, no? To identify how they manifest, and how they can be tackled? Laws can be repealed, other forms of systemic racism are tougher to root out. These terms are useful.

Even within institutional racism there are significantly different forms. Not all forms are so apparent in varying countries, and they all require different approaches to tackle. You're not helping when you conflate them.

 

[bobjr]

So what's the practical solution for dealing with each one in a different way at the same time? It's nice to talk about how all racism is bad but different, but something should be done about it if that's the case.

 

[Scammel]

Well, yes, of course! Potential solutions could include better training for police officers, penalties for firms that evidence clear bias, particular AA programmes in certain industries, enhanced visibility for public officials from particular minorities, better education of children...

With state-sanctioned racism? Well, you simply have to repeal those particular laws, then you look to some of the programme outlined above to resolve the problems left behind.

Why do I get the impression that people are trying to land me with some sort of 'gotcha'?....

 

[bobjr]

So changing the system so minorities are better protected and represented?