Prejudice Plus Power and Racism and Sexism

[chess-z]

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...

Looks like we agree here. Cool.

 

[snorlax512]

Interesting poll. Given that this is the US, I highly doubt that institutional racism is the first thing that comes to mind in most western countries.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016...rt/st_2016-06-27_race-inequality-overview-07/

 

[Scammel]

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

Yes.

Looks like we agree here. Cool.

I never argued for anything contrary!

EDIT: Hey guys, sorry if I've wound anyone up. On my part, to be explicit - please don't ignore my posts where I specifically decry multiple forms of racism. Every one of my stances has been entirely consistent with a hatred of racism in every form.

 

[Baba Yaga]

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 Laws can be repealed, other forms of systemic racism are tougher to root out.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.

Except that the distinction of institutional isn't necessary to dilleneate different forms.

Also see: economic racism, environmental racism, etc.

What you're talking about is creating multiple definitions within institutional racism based on scale, which isn't necessary.

Institutonal racism - light

Institutional racism.

MEGA INSTITUTIONAL RACISM.

Yes.



I never argued for anything contrary!

EDIT: Hey guys, sorry if I've wound anyone up. On my part, to be explicit - stop either ignoring my posts where I specifically decry multiple forms of racism, or acting shocked/asking rhetorical questions when I make it clear I do care about how to tackle them. Every one of my stances has been entirely consistent with a hatred of racism in every form.

This I'll give you. I never assumed you were racist even if I think you're embarrassingly wrong about the prejudice + power definition.

 

[Scammel]

What you're talking about is creating multiple definitions within institutional racism based on scale, which is dumb.

Why is it dumb? It's a useful distinction because they need to be tackled in different ways, as I highlighted above. The more subtle kinds need long-term, investment-heavy solutions (in many cases, greater education). Legislative institutional racism specifically requires certain forms of political action.

One good reason to draw a distinction is to shoot down those who think that institutional racism ended with the passing of Civil Rights legislation. Some might argue that because no specific segregation law exists, minorities can't be suffering from institutional racism. Delineating helps us to demonstrate the ways in which forms of institutional racism still persist.

 

[The Admiral]

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

Can you at least accept the fact that the overall logic involved in wanting a dictionary definition of racism but not giving a toss about the dictionary definition of "every" is a little bit off, though?

 

[Sadib]

Can you at least accept the fact that the overall logic involved in wanting a dictionary definition of racism but not giving a toss about the dictionary definition of "every" is a little bit off, though?

You're getting confused. I didn't say I want every dictionary definition, I said I wanted any dictionary definition that has has a mandatory power component.

 

[The Admiral]

You're getting confused. I didn't say I want every dictionary definition, I said I wanted any dictionary definition that has has a mandatory power component.

I think you might want to go back and re-read what you posted in the first post I responded to. You said that no dictionary uses the definition in question to back up your argument about the definition being bad. Which may be true, but proving it is going to be borderline impossible. What you, I assume, meant is that no dictionary you've ever looked at uses that definition -- and that's fine, but that's not actually what you said. If you're going to be so adamant about how words have meanings and that they are relatively inviolate, you have to maintain that, unless you have some sort of odd standards about words and whether or not they qualify for your dictionary-related brown-nosing.

I mean, I could also get into an argument about how I don't necessarily know that dictionaries perfectly capture "popular usage" that well, and how information on regional usage of words (which possibly also comes into play here a little, consider how many of us are Americans...) is not always well-covered, so dictionaries are not necessarily the most trustworthy source in that regard, but I think that's a whole digression that's going to end in hilariously messy places, and it kind of distracts from what I'm getting at: that you're sabotaging your own argument.

 

[Sadib]

I think you might want to go back and re-read what you posted in the first post I responded to. You said that no dictionary uses the definition in question to back up your argument about the definition being bad. Which may be true, but proving it is going to be borderline impossible. What you, I assume, meant is that no dictionary you've ever looked at uses that definition -- and that's fine, but that's not actually what you said. If you're going to be so adamant about how words have meanings and that they are relatively inviolate, you have to maintain that, unless you have some sort of odd standards about words and whether or not they qualify for your dictionary-related brown-nosing.

I mean, I could also get into an argument about how I don't necessarily know that dictionaries perfectly capture "popular usage" that well, and how information on regional usage of words (which possibly also comes into play here a little, consider how many of us are Americans...) is not always well-covered, so dictionaries are not necessarily the most trustworthy source in that regard, but I think that's a whole digression that's going to end in hilariously messy places, and it kind of distracts from what I'm getting at: that you're sabotaging your own argument.

Are you some sort of pedantic troll?

 

[GhostAnime]

There was a post on freethoughtblogs that I'm really annoyed I can't find. It made a lot of sense in regards to defending the prejudice + power definition. If I remember correctly, it opined that racism is too strong of a word to refer to simple prejudice. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you think about it, either. We don't have specific words to describe prejudice based on anything else, like taste in videogames, clothing, etc. Skin, poverty, or sex shouldn't be any different. Adding an "ism" to refer to harmful policies based on individual prejudices makes much more sense because it offers greater clarity, since racism, sexism, etc have strong connotations. It's not because it's a secret agenda on behalf of academics to make minorities not racist.

When you hear the word "racist" there's a **** ton of imagery that comes with that word, lynchings, separate water fountains, voter intimidation, churches being set on fire, etc. It's too loaded a term to also simply refer to someone having a shitty attitude about you because of your skin. Hence, the need to do away with "institutional racism" and simply have racism alone refer to institutional prejudice based on skin color. Everyone thinks of institutional racism when they hear the word racism anyways, so why not just say racism? Where is the big loss? Under this definition, minorities cannot be, or only very rarely racist. They can still be prejudiced jerks, though. It seems like why this redefinition is being resisted is because white people are fully aware of the immense connotations racism has, and if it's merged institutional racism, they won't have a word to put clearly oppressed minorities on equal footing with them anymore.

And thumping the dictionary in this debate makes you a tool because 1) Language evolves overtime and 2) It's okay to redefine things! Sometimes, we redefine words because the new definitions are useful or have greater explanatory power. There's nothing wrong with it. If redefinitions don't catch on, they don't catch on. The prejudice + power definition may fail, but it's not vaccuous just because it's a redefinition.

This is what I want everyone in this topic to do:

Post this on your wall, read it everyday to yourself. Memorize it word for word.

Then tell your future children, nieces/nephews, little cousins this ****.

Thank you. Topic over.

Btw, Sadib, you have a strange attachment to the Dictionary. The same thing mostly controlled by cishet white male elites today and throughout history.

Racism appears to be a word of recent origin, with no citations currently known that would suggest the word was in use prior to the early 20th century. But the fact that the word is fairly new does not prove that the concept of racism did not exist in the distant past. Things may have words to describe them before they exist (spaceship, for instance, has been in use since the 19th century, well before the rocket-fired vessels were invented), and things may exist for a considerable time before they are given names (t-shirt does not appear in print until the 20th century, although the article of clothing existed prior to 1900).

Dictionaries are often treated as the final arbiter in arguments over a word’s meaning, but they are not always well suited for settling disputes. The lexicographer’s role is to explain how words are (or have been) actually used, not how some may feel that they should be used, and they say nothing about the intrinsic nature of the thing named by a word, much less the significance it may have for individuals. When discussing concepts like racism, therefore, it is prudent to recognize that quoting from a dictionary is unlikely to either mollify or persuade the person with whom one is arguing.

Please stop using the dictionary as an end all, be all source for complicated terms. It is not absolute. It is not authority. Dictionary is as subjectively and culturally biased as you are. It's impossible for it not to be.

 

[snorlax512]

This is what I want everyone in this topic to do:

Post this on your wall, read it everyday to yourself. Memorize it word for word.

Then tell your future children, nieces/nephews, little cousins this ****.

Thank you. Topic over.

Feel free to do that if you wish.

However I, and the rest of the world (excluding social justice warriors) will continue to use the word racism as defined in the dictionary and in everyday language.

 

[GhostAnime]

lol 'rest of the world' when racism even means something different in every single country/region, as well as demographic and race.

To even assume racism means the exact same thing in everyday language is proof of not only your own white privilege but your own overrated views of your own intelligence and interactions. Why did they unban you?

And of course you ignore a dictionary telling you not to do it. So much for being intelligent though.

 

[snorlax512]

lol 'rest of the world' when racism even means something different in every single country/region, as well as demographic and race.

To even assume racism means the exact same thing in everyday language is proof of not only your own white privilege but your own overrated views of your own intelligence and interactions. Why did they unban you?

And of course you ignore a dictionary telling you not to do it. So much for being intelligent though.

Not really though is it.

Please tell me the country, region, demographic or race where a phrase such as "Go back to your country, you chink" is not considered racist.

BTW I'm talking about the general consensus in society (i.e. not social justice warriors).

 

[Scammel]

when racism even means something different in every single country/region, as well as demographic and race.

Didn't you just tell us to memorise a single definition word for word? Why are people arguing that having fewer words is somehow conducive to making language more useful and explanatory?

The same (dictionary) mostly controlled by cishet white male elites today and throughout history.

Well, it is the English dictionary. I wouldn't expect the same people to write the Arabic equivalent.

 

[GhostAnime]

Please tell me the country, region, demographic or race where a phrase such as "Go back to your country, you chink" is not considered racist.

That isn't what I'm arguing.

I'm arguing that the extent of what racism means is not something you can just say "everyone agrees with this". that is false. I just posted the merriam dictionary's disclaimer. are you blind?

and social justice warriors? you mean people of color? i love when people substitute "SJWs" for things that actually come from marginalized demographics. these aren't "social justice warriors" talking to you. these are people who experience racism in their lives talking to you. you use "SJW" in an effort to trivialize and remove guilt of talking down to minority groups.

Didn't you just tell us to memorise a single definition word for word?

what I quoted from Yaga was not a word for word definition but rather a sentiment. hope you re-read it again.

Well, it is the English dictionary. I wouldn't expect the same people to write the Arabic equivalent.

you're missing the point: the dictionary's "consensus" is decided by a worldview only shared by the the default human being in society. it is culturally biased that way. that is why it can't be considered an authority. i didn't just add white to be technical. i added it for context.

 

[Scammel]

you're missing the point: the dictionary's "consensus" is decided by a worldview only shared by the the default human being in society. it is culturally biased that way. that is why it can't be considered an authority. i didn't just add white to be technical. i added it for context.

Which dictionary, though? You're making a assumption about a 'default' language. The authors of many dictionaries the world over are not white.

what I quoted from Yaga was not a word for word definition but rather a sentiment. hope you re-read it again

I've read it plenty, it was clearly putting forward a case for a particular definition, and it also makes an absurd argument that using fewer words somehow aids definition.

and social justice warriors? you mean people of color?

No, they clearly don't mean that. Stop trying to deploy a racist 'gotcha'.

 

[Auraninja]

To add on to what GhostAnime is saying, I have experienced many wrongful actions to people of minority.

I have seen a guy from Pakistan who came to our school being called a terrorist.

I have seen a lot of homophobia in West Texas. Many people there would talk bad about them, and wouldn't hestitate to call them f**s.
It's not like East Texas isn't homophobic, but holy crap!

I've seen, or rather, heard a guy on the other side of our apartment call his wife a c***. He was a violent misogynist.

I've heard stories about racism. Like my teacher who got in trouble for calling his black coach, sir, and a guy who expressed disdain to Mexicans.

Admittedly, since I'm white, I don't experience every action committed to minorities.

Edit: For a bonus, a city in Texas I lived in had a sign that said, "N-word, don't let this sun set on you". The N-word was actually being spelled out.

 

[Scammel]

To add on to what GhostAnime is saying, I have experienced many wrongful actions to people of minority.

I have seen a guy from Pakistan who came to our school being called a terrorist.

I have seen a lot of homophobia in West Texas. Many people there would talk bad about them, and wouldn't hestitate to call them f**s.
It's not like East Texas isn't homophobic, but holy crap!

I've seen, or rather, heard a guy on the other side of our apartment call his wife a c***. He was a violent misogynist.

I've heard stories about racism. Like my teacher who got in trouble for calling his black coach, sir, and a guy who expressed disdain to Mexicans.

Admittedly, since I'm white, I don't experience every action committed to minorities.

Edit: For a bonus, a city in Texas I lived in had a sign that said, "N-word, don't let this sun set on you". The N-word was actually being spelled out.

No-one will argue that these are anything other than acts of racism, sexism and homophobia. In some cases, they are also good examples of institutional prejudice, which is almost always directed towards minorities and is especially virulent.

What some of us are trying to argue is that any discrimination on the basis of negative perceptions of race is also racist. It's usually not as bad, but you can certainly be treated unfairly because you were born white, and it's still racism.

 

[GhostAnime]

Which dictionary, though? You're making a assumption about a 'default' language. The authors of many dictionaries the world over are not white.

In relation to this topic, what dictionary do you think most people here are using? English dictionaries written by western civilization which was entirely built on colonization. you see anyone here linking dictionaries from ****ing Singapore?

I've read it plenty, it was clearly putting forward a case for a particular definition.

I quoted it for going in the right direction overall.

No, they clearly don't mean that. Stop trying to deploy a racist 'gotcha'.

That's if we ignore the fact that on average, most poc would agree with a definition that is more based on institutions and systems than just feelings.

It's usually not as bad, but you can certainly be treated unfairly because you were born white.

Then just call it prejudice/bigotry. Don't pretend it's under any system or that it's equally as impactful as being treated unfairly for being brown, because it's not. Not psychologically, not sociologically, and not statistically.

 

[Scammel]

In relation to this topic, what dictionary do you think most people here are using?

Then why is it notable that the authors were white?!

That's if we ignore the fact that on average, most poc would agree with a definition that is more based on institutions and systems than just feelings.

Source needed.

Don't pretend it's under any system or that it's equally as impactful as being treated unfairly for being brown, because it's not.

I'm not. I literally say the opposite in the quote!

Again, why are fewer words better? Bigotry encompasses a truly vast range of prejudices. Racism narrows it down to prejudice on the basis of race. Systemic/institutional racism narrows it further to exactly what you're referring to.