Lol mate, you’re being willfully obtuse. As you already know, there is knowledge beyond the confines of the dictionary, and the dictionary is merely attempting to summarize a very complex subject. If you’d like to broaden your perspective, you can turn to the research which is where I’m pulling my definition. If you’d like to understand why it’s so important to include those other things I mentioned in the definition, there’s plenty of reading opportunities to explain that.
He may be wrong, just not tunnel visioned like a lot of other theorys. Its not purely intent to harm nor purely power/ability that defines racism. 2 or more sides of the same coin. Both aspects share the same word.
The dictionary is not a replacement for the social sciences, friend. It seems like you have a narrative in your head about why I am arguing this point, but I’d like to point out that your argument is currently standing on “but the dictionary though” in the face of decades of research.
Social sciences, and dictionaries are two seperate things. No one is arguing that dictionaries replace social sciences, what people are saying is the common definition still stands.
If you’ll afford me a long comment, I have an example that I think will explain my confusion. If you check the Oxford dictionary, you’ll see it define “gravity” as a force. Let’s say someone says “gravity is a force” in a thread much like this. I and others clarify “well, it presents as a force in some respects, but very much not like one in others.”
People respond “No, it’s a force.”
I clarify further how that’s not entirely the case.
“Check the dictionary.”
Yes, but the dictionary is just trying to summarize a very complex subject in physics and is not a replacement for the sciences.
“No one is equating the dictionary and the sciences, but people still use the dictionary definition.”
I understand that; indeed that’s how this thread formed. What I don’t understand is why, when I say that gravity is not entirely a force, it is met with a rejection of that clarification and nuance. Gravity is not entirely a force; it’s way more complicated than that. Racism is not just prejudice; it’s way more complicated than that. I’m confused why this is such an issue.
Except now you’re telling me gravity only applies to people of colour.
And in your own analogy, you don’t deny that gravity is a force. You don’t deny that gravity makes things go down.
Racism as in racial prejudice is still a thing. No one has discovered some fundamental force that stops racial prejudice from being a thing. What you’ve done is started to view everything through class structures while denying racism can operate on an individual to individual level. That’s not reality, that’s just Marxism.
You’re mixing the metaphor, mate. Gravity certainly behaves like a force in some ways and looks like a force in some ways, but also does not look or behave like a force. You have to peel away the surface level. Prejudice may look like prejudice going both between the in-group and the out-group. But an insult from one person to another is a very different thing when the person doing the insulting is armed with a gun. Now it’s not just an insult, is it? Saying “that’s an insult either way” doesn’t really summarize the experience, does it? The person being insulted at the end of a gun is having a very different experience. It’s not an insult anymore; it’s a threat of violence, it’s a threat of death, it’s a threat of “I can and will take everything from you” with centuries of violence and systemic oppression to back it.
You’re right that gravity is kind of a force. But it’s also not, and that’s very important to understand. Ya feel me? I’m not saying racism doesn’t happen on an individual level; quite the opposite. I’m saying the systemic and social oppression cannot be extricated from the individual level. And that’s why it’s not the same thing for a white person as it is for a black or brown person, when those are the in-group vs out-group respectively.
I gotta say, mate, I happened to scroll up and see another comment you made, stating that “they need to prove it” but won’t be able to “because they’re wrong.” I assume that’s in reference to me. I engage in conversations like these with the intent of just that, having conversation, seeing if we can find some understanding, and being willing to be wrong about things. That comment makes me feel like I was the only one bringing that to this conversation, and you are simply engaging with it from a “I’m right” perspective without even a consideration that your perspective may not be entirely right. Am I reading that right?
I’m not saying racism doesn’t happen on an individual level; quite the opposite. I’m saying the systemic and social oppression cannot be extricated from the individual level. And that’s why it’s not the same thing for a white person as it is for a black or brown person, when those are the in-group vs out-group respectively.
This is a crazy idea, but how about we just call out racism as a whole instead of having arguments about how racism towards whites isn’t racism.
Like holy fuck, you are wrong. You DID say racism doesn’t happen on an individual level.
Sure is. But “White” is prejudice at worst, not racism. Racism includes the inherent power dynamics and systemic racism against minorities.
☝️☝️☝️ That’s you! That’s your initial comment in this discussion.
In all honesty you’re better composed, and clearly smarter then me, but you’re either disingenuous, or caught up in your own BS, because your position is wildly inconsistent. When you start saying things like “it’s white prejuice at worst” that should be a sign to take a step back.
Anyways… Soo um… I guess if you don’t believe in the influence of actions on the individual level, you also don’t believe in grass roots, or the civil rights movements over the past 100 years?
That comment makes me feel like I was the only one bringing that to this conversation, and you are simply engaging with it from a “I’m right” perspective without even a consideration that your perspective may not be entirely right. Am I reading that right?
YOURE FUCKING RACIST. Cockroaches deserve to be exposed. You are lucky for how polite I’ve been, and that I’ve taken the time to help you stop being fucking racist. People like yourself are undoing the progress we’ve made as a society, because like every fucking other arrogant prick, you think you can balance the scales without any consideration for the greater implications.
Fuck totalitarians.You undermine the foundations of what it means to be human like every other dictator because you can’t see past your own fucking goals.
I think you’re scum. Straight up.
Also heads up… trying to gatekeep the term systemic racism is systemically racist. Sooo… Seems like you have no problem with the structures of racism when it’s beneficial towards your goals.
And of course I have fucking doubts. Maybe Marxism is the way… But I have zero faith.
For some reason, the mobile app I primarily use doesn’t allow me to see this comment or our entire thread, so I had figured it was deleted or something. But I happen to be on desktop atm and here it is! Must’ve just been something with the app. I’ll reply, but based on the vitriol in your comment, I think it makes sense that this be the end of our conversation anyway though.
In regards to your claim that I have said racism doesn’t happen on an individual level, that is simply not true. It’s possible I have not been explained my position clearly enough, but I am also running out of ways to explain it. Since our conversation is coming to a close, I think the best way to explain is for me to try and explain both our positions at once. Do let me know if I have misunderstood your position!
My position is that racism is the combination of prejudice, systemic oppression, and other social tools of oppression that work in tandem, which limits racism to being used as an in-group against and out-group and not the other way around. An in-group individual can be prejudiced against an out-group individual, and it is racist because of the social/systemic dynamics in play. An out-group individual can be prejudiced against an in-group individual, but it is not racist because it does not include social and systemic oppression. It’s my example of “an insult is not just an insult when that person is holding a gun.” My understanding is that you believe this erases the in-group people’s experience of prejudice, and that that is racist, in and of itself. My position is that your definition equates the two experiences when they are actually very, very different and is deeply invalidating of the experience of an out-group person for you to equate them.
Hopefully at the very least in this conversation, we have reached some understanding of our two positions! We don’t have to agree, of course, but I believe it’s important that we have these conversations and seek understanding above all. That’s why I was disappointed to see your comment that felt like you actually were not engaging with me with the goal of mutual understanding. If we all stand too firmly in our perspectives, we will never see others’ and can’t ever learn.
That gets to my last point actually. I don’t consider myself lucky that you have been polite up until this point; I consider respect the expectation. That’s why I think our discussion should end at this point. When conflict turns to insults and hateful speech, we are no longer in healthy conflict; we are now just in a fight and not working towards understanding or resolution. It’s funny because we both basically have the same position, if my summary of our positions above is correct; we’re just on opposite sides. You think I’m invalidating certain experiences by excluding them; I think you’re invalidating certain experiences by including them. So since you think that I am scum, a cockroach, etc., I expect that you believe I should think the same of you. But I don’t. It’s clear that care a lot about this issue, enough to spend time with a stranger discussing it to share your perspective. I appreciate you sharing your perspective on this, and I don’t think you should sell yourself short on your intelligence, mate.
Thanks again for the conversation up until the insults, and take care of you!
I don’t know who that is; first time talking with them as far as I know. I don’t mind engaging with someone until they seem disingenuous; but yeah, that’s where I’ve reached with that person. A short reply of “check the dictionary” is not the sign of someone wanting actual conversation. Guessing you’ve had a similar run-in with them.
Lol mate, you’re being willfully obtuse. As you already know, there is knowledge beyond the confines of the dictionary, and the dictionary is merely attempting to summarize a very complex subject. If you’d like to broaden your perspective, you can turn to the research which is where I’m pulling my definition. If you’d like to understand why it’s so important to include those other things I mentioned in the definition, there’s plenty of reading opportunities to explain that.
Yet dictionaries still exist, and their definitions don’t become invalid just because you want to avoid criticism.
Ive heard gross iterations by others (even in this thread) of what @flamingarms said, he has a fairly reasonable take in comparison
Unfortunately they have to prove it, but won’t be able to… Because you know… They’re wrong.
He may be wrong, just not tunnel visioned like a lot of other theorys. Its not purely intent to harm nor purely power/ability that defines racism. 2 or more sides of the same coin. Both aspects share the same word.
The dictionary is not a replacement for the social sciences, friend. It seems like you have a narrative in your head about why I am arguing this point, but I’d like to point out that your argument is currently standing on “but the dictionary though” in the face of decades of research.
Social sciences, and dictionaries are two seperate things. No one is arguing that dictionaries replace social sciences, what people are saying is the common definition still stands.
If you’ll afford me a long comment, I have an example that I think will explain my confusion. If you check the Oxford dictionary, you’ll see it define “gravity” as a force. Let’s say someone says “gravity is a force” in a thread much like this. I and others clarify “well, it presents as a force in some respects, but very much not like one in others.” People respond “No, it’s a force.” I clarify further how that’s not entirely the case. “Check the dictionary.” Yes, but the dictionary is just trying to summarize a very complex subject in physics and is not a replacement for the sciences. “No one is equating the dictionary and the sciences, but people still use the dictionary definition.”
I understand that; indeed that’s how this thread formed. What I don’t understand is why, when I say that gravity is not entirely a force, it is met with a rejection of that clarification and nuance. Gravity is not entirely a force; it’s way more complicated than that. Racism is not just prejudice; it’s way more complicated than that. I’m confused why this is such an issue.
Except now you’re telling me gravity only applies to people of colour.
And in your own analogy, you don’t deny that gravity is a force. You don’t deny that gravity makes things go down.
Racism as in racial prejudice is still a thing. No one has discovered some fundamental force that stops racial prejudice from being a thing. What you’ve done is started to view everything through class structures while denying racism can operate on an individual to individual level. That’s not reality, that’s just Marxism.
You’re mixing the metaphor, mate. Gravity certainly behaves like a force in some ways and looks like a force in some ways, but also does not look or behave like a force. You have to peel away the surface level. Prejudice may look like prejudice going both between the in-group and the out-group. But an insult from one person to another is a very different thing when the person doing the insulting is armed with a gun. Now it’s not just an insult, is it? Saying “that’s an insult either way” doesn’t really summarize the experience, does it? The person being insulted at the end of a gun is having a very different experience. It’s not an insult anymore; it’s a threat of violence, it’s a threat of death, it’s a threat of “I can and will take everything from you” with centuries of violence and systemic oppression to back it.
You’re right that gravity is kind of a force. But it’s also not, and that’s very important to understand. Ya feel me? I’m not saying racism doesn’t happen on an individual level; quite the opposite. I’m saying the systemic and social oppression cannot be extricated from the individual level. And that’s why it’s not the same thing for a white person as it is for a black or brown person, when those are the in-group vs out-group respectively.
I gotta say, mate, I happened to scroll up and see another comment you made, stating that “they need to prove it” but won’t be able to “because they’re wrong.” I assume that’s in reference to me. I engage in conversations like these with the intent of just that, having conversation, seeing if we can find some understanding, and being willing to be wrong about things. That comment makes me feel like I was the only one bringing that to this conversation, and you are simply engaging with it from a “I’m right” perspective without even a consideration that your perspective may not be entirely right. Am I reading that right?
This is a crazy idea, but how about we just call out racism as a whole instead of having arguments about how racism towards whites isn’t racism.
Like holy fuck, you are wrong. You DID say racism doesn’t happen on an individual level.
☝️☝️☝️ That’s you! That’s your initial comment in this discussion.
In all honesty you’re better composed, and clearly smarter then me, but you’re either disingenuous, or caught up in your own BS, because your position is wildly inconsistent. When you start saying things like “it’s white prejuice at worst” that should be a sign to take a step back.
Anyways… Soo um… I guess if you don’t believe in the influence of actions on the individual level, you also don’t believe in grass roots, or the civil rights movements over the past 100 years?
YOURE FUCKING RACIST. Cockroaches deserve to be exposed. You are lucky for how polite I’ve been, and that I’ve taken the time to help you stop being fucking racist. People like yourself are undoing the progress we’ve made as a society, because like every fucking other arrogant prick, you think you can balance the scales without any consideration for the greater implications.
Fuck totalitarians.You undermine the foundations of what it means to be human like every other dictator because you can’t see past your own fucking goals.
I think you’re scum. Straight up.
Also heads up… trying to gatekeep the term systemic racism is systemically racist. Sooo… Seems like you have no problem with the structures of racism when it’s beneficial towards your goals.
And of course I have fucking doubts. Maybe Marxism is the way… But I have zero faith.
For some reason, the mobile app I primarily use doesn’t allow me to see this comment or our entire thread, so I had figured it was deleted or something. But I happen to be on desktop atm and here it is! Must’ve just been something with the app. I’ll reply, but based on the vitriol in your comment, I think it makes sense that this be the end of our conversation anyway though.
In regards to your claim that I have said racism doesn’t happen on an individual level, that is simply not true. It’s possible I have not been explained my position clearly enough, but I am also running out of ways to explain it. Since our conversation is coming to a close, I think the best way to explain is for me to try and explain both our positions at once. Do let me know if I have misunderstood your position!
My position is that racism is the combination of prejudice, systemic oppression, and other social tools of oppression that work in tandem, which limits racism to being used as an in-group against and out-group and not the other way around. An in-group individual can be prejudiced against an out-group individual, and it is racist because of the social/systemic dynamics in play. An out-group individual can be prejudiced against an in-group individual, but it is not racist because it does not include social and systemic oppression. It’s my example of “an insult is not just an insult when that person is holding a gun.” My understanding is that you believe this erases the in-group people’s experience of prejudice, and that that is racist, in and of itself. My position is that your definition equates the two experiences when they are actually very, very different and is deeply invalidating of the experience of an out-group person for you to equate them.
Hopefully at the very least in this conversation, we have reached some understanding of our two positions! We don’t have to agree, of course, but I believe it’s important that we have these conversations and seek understanding above all. That’s why I was disappointed to see your comment that felt like you actually were not engaging with me with the goal of mutual understanding. If we all stand too firmly in our perspectives, we will never see others’ and can’t ever learn.
That gets to my last point actually. I don’t consider myself lucky that you have been polite up until this point; I consider respect the expectation. That’s why I think our discussion should end at this point. When conflict turns to insults and hateful speech, we are no longer in healthy conflict; we are now just in a fight and not working towards understanding or resolution. It’s funny because we both basically have the same position, if my summary of our positions above is correct; we’re just on opposite sides. You think I’m invalidating certain experiences by excluding them; I think you’re invalidating certain experiences by including them. So since you think that I am scum, a cockroach, etc., I expect that you believe I should think the same of you. But I don’t. It’s clear that care a lot about this issue, enough to spend time with a stranger discussing it to share your perspective. I appreciate you sharing your perspective on this, and I don’t think you should sell yourself short on your intelligence, mate.
Thanks again for the conversation up until the insults, and take care of you!
They’re Frodo Douche Baggins. Not much point in feeding them.
I don’t know who that is; first time talking with them as far as I know. I don’t mind engaging with someone until they seem disingenuous; but yeah, that’s where I’ve reached with that person. A short reply of “check the dictionary” is not the sign of someone wanting actual conversation. Guessing you’ve had a similar run-in with them.