The motive and effect of "Black people can't be racist"

[EricK]

And people don't use racism to mean individual racism.

Um, if you read enough of these threads, that some people deny that there is any of form of actual racism in existence.

Which is surely irrelevant. If we were arguing whether Tyrannosaurs and Apatosaurs should both be called dinosaurs, the fact that I believe that neither of them exists any more isn't important.

They use racism to mean either/both types of racism - and they specify which where it makes a difference.

Actually, they don't.

Well certainly I would. I reckon Jolly_Penguin would too. In fact most people do - which is why people are complaining that Athena (and others) are trying to change the commonly understood definition of the word.

Consider the example of rape. This comes in a few varieties - stranger rape, date rape, statutory rape etc. The word rape, by itself, can be used to refer to any of them, or to all of them. And if it is important to specify exactly which kind, then you can use the more specific term.

Quiz question: Why do many of the people who are keen to stress that all these different types of rapes should be included in the general term rape, also seem insistent that the term racism should be restricted to one specific type of racism?

I don't know that your predicate is true. But, clearly they see that all of those instances are rape while they do not see all types of what you refer to as "racism" as racism. For example, I do not think that calling someone a racial slur is necessarily an example of racism. But many people here do.

The question I was asking is really why they want 'rape' to be a more inclusive term but 'racism' to be a less inclusive one. And I don't think it is enough to say that they don't see these things as examples of racism, as that is just restating the claim in other words.

These things which most people regard as racism, but you and Athena etc do not, are bad actions which exist because of the races of the participants. This is also true of the things you do regard as racism. Is it not sensible to have a single word which encompasses this idea? People obviously think so, because such a word exists in most people's vocabulary - 'racism'. Then one can dig deeper and further categorise different types of race-dependent actions. It is just strikes me as bizarre that some people are so adamantly against this simple, and already commonly used, approach. It would be like someone saying that they want the term 'dinosaur' to only refer to carnivorous dinosaurs, but that herbivorous dinosaurs should be called 'herbivorous dinosaurs'.

 

[laughing dog]

Which is surely irrelevant. If we were arguing whether Tyrannosaurs and Apatosaurs should both be called dinosaurs, the fact that I believe that neither of them exists any more isn't important.

It is relevant if the motivation behind it is to discredit racism.

Well certainly I would. I reckon Jolly_Penguin would too. In fact most people do - which is why people are complaining that Athena (and others) are trying to change the commonly understood definition of the word.

Unfortunately this thread shows otherwise. Why else the whining and insistence on a particular definition?

The question I was asking is really why they want 'rape' to be a more inclusive term but 'racism' to be a less inclusive one. And I don't think it is enough to say that they don't see these things as examples of racism, as that is just restating the claim in other words.

If they see all those forms as rape but not all the forms of racism, then why should they agree to a definition they think is inaccurate? Again, why do all these people insist that their definition must be the accepted one?

These things which most people regard as racism, but you and Athena etc do not, are bad actions which exist because of the races of the participants. This is also true of the things you do regard as racism. Is it not sensible to have a single word which encompasses this idea? People obviously think so, because such a word exists in most people's vocabulary - 'racism'. Then one can dig deeper and further categorise different types of race-dependent actions. It is just strikes me as bizarre that some people are so adamantly against this simple, and already commonly used, approach. It would be like someone saying that they want the term 'dinosaur' to only refer to carnivorous dinosaurs, but that herbivorous dinosaurs should be called 'herbivorous dinosaurs'.

I find it bizarre that people insist on expanding the definition of any word so as to distort its meaning. Bad actions which occur because of the race(s) of the participants is not necessarily racism. Conflating bigotry or nastiness with racism does a disservice to everyone.

 

[EricK]

It is relevant if the motivation behind it is to discredit racism.

Well certainly I would. I reckon Jolly_Penguin would too. In fact most people do - which is why people are complaining that Athena (and others) are trying to change the commonly understood definition of the word.

Unfortunately this thread shows otherwise. Why else the whining and insistence on a particular definition?

The question I was asking is really why they want 'rape' to be a more inclusive term but 'racism' to be a less inclusive one. And I don't think it is enough to say that they don't see these things as examples of racism, as that is just restating the claim in other words.

If they see all those forms as rape but not all the forms of racism, then why should they agree to a definition they think is inaccurate? Again, why do all these people insist that their definition must be the accepted one?

These things which most people regard as racism, but you and Athena etc do not, are bad actions which exist because of the races of the participants. This is also true of the things you do regard as racism. Is it not sensible to have a single word which encompasses this idea? People obviously think so, because such a word exists in most people's vocabulary - 'racism'. Then one can dig deeper and further categorise different types of race-dependent actions. It is just strikes me as bizarre that some people are so adamantly against this simple, and already commonly used, approach. It would be like someone saying that they want the term 'dinosaur' to only refer to carnivorous dinosaurs, but that herbivorous dinosaurs should be called 'herbivorous dinosaurs'.

I find it bizarre that people insist on expanding the definition of any word so as to distort its meaning. Bad actions which occur because of the race(s) of the participants is not necessarily racism. Conflating bigotry or nastiness with racism does a disservice to everyone.

Bigotry is an even more general term than racism. Racism is a form of bigotry - it's bigotry based on race; systemic racism is a form of racism - it's racism inherent in a system; and so on. This is how the vast majority of people understand these terms. You repeatedly seem to think people are equating one category with another when really they are recognising one category as a subset of another.

 

[laughing dog]

Bigotry is an even more general term than racism. Racism is a form of bigotry - it's bigotry based on race; systemic racism is a form of racism - it's racism inherent in a system; and so on. This is how the vast majority of people understand these terms.

I don't know that "a vast majority of people" understand the difference between bigotry and racism.

You repeatedly seem to think people are equating one category with another when really they are recognising one category as a subset of another.

And you repeatedly think that people recognize these as subcategories when it pretty clear that is not necessarily true.

If it is well-accepted that words can have multiple meanings, why do all these people insist that their definition must be the accepted one?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If it is well-accepted that words can have multiple meanings, why do all these people insist that their definition must be the accepted one?

You keep saying that. It is a distraction.

Does it change anything, anything at all, if we all accept your definition as the proper one? Then what? You still have people saying "black people can't be racist" and you still have a lot of people out there who will hear this as a statement that black people are somehow immune from being bigots. This is so even if everyone here agrees that these people, and there are a lot of them, as can be seen in this very thread with people never having heard of the "prejudice plus power" definition, hold the "wrong" definition of racism.

 

[EricK]

I don't know that "a vast majority of people" understand the difference between bigotry and racism.

You repeatedly seem to think people are equating one category with another when really they are recognising one category as a subset of another.

And you repeatedly think that people recognize these as subcategories when it pretty clear that is not necessarily true.

If it is well-accepted that words can have multiple meanings, why do all these people insist that their definition must be the accepted one?

But it is "your side" which is doing that! Racism has multiple meanings, one of which includes acts of individual rather than institutional racism. And yet the claim is being made that racism doesn't really mean that, but the only true definition of racism is "institutional racism".

 

[laughing dog]

I don't know that "a vast majority of people" understand the difference between bigotry and racism.
And you repeatedly think that people recognize these as subcategories when it pretty clear that is not necessarily true.

If it is well-accepted that words can have multiple meanings, why do all these people insist that their definition must be the accepted one?

But it is "your side" which is doing that!

I am not doing any such thing. I just refuse to accept that AA's definition is wrong or hurtful or unreasonable or whatever.

Racism has multiple meanings, one of which includes acts of individual rather than institutional racism. And yet the claim is being made that racism doesn't really mean that, but the only true definition of racism is "institutional racism".

With all due respect, there is no official dictionary and no one here can force any particular definition down anyone's throat.

 

[Togo]

Does it change anything, anything at all, if we all accept your definition as the proper one? Then what? You still have people saying "black people can't be racist" and you still have a lot of people out there who will hear this as a statement that black people are somehow immune from being bigots. This is so even if everyone here agrees that these people, and there are a lot of them, as can be seen in this very thread with people never having heard of the "prejudice plus power" definition, hold the "wrong" definition of racism.

We still have people, and the threads on the religion boards show that there are a lot of them, who think that the Theory of Evolution, because it has the word 'Theory' in it, is somehow provisional. Should scientists change their terminology? Would you care to go to the religion boards, just a click away, and try to argue that they should?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Does it change anything, anything at all, if we all accept your definition as the proper one? Then what? You still have people saying "black people can't be racist" and you still have a lot of people out there who will hear this as a statement that black people are somehow immune from being bigots. This is so even if everyone here agrees that these people, and there are a lot of them, as can be seen in this very thread with people never having heard of the "prejudice plus power" definition, hold the "wrong" definition of racism.

We still have people, and the threads on the religion boards show that there are a lot of them, who think that the Theory of Evolution, because it has the word 'Theory' in it, is somehow provisional. Should scientists change their terminology? Would you care to go to the religion boards, just a click away, and try to argue that they should?

How is this not taking the exact same position that JP is arguing for ... which you then seem to be making a post challenging?

The word "theory" has multiple meanings and "scientific theory" and "provisional theory" are both equally applicable usages of the term. The theists are the ones making a claim which is identical to the "black people can't be racist" claim in that the term should only be applied to one of the sub-categories of the term and that if you use the word "theory", you're referring only to the provisional usage of it as opposed to it being a broader term that can apply to all the categories equally, which is the equivalent of the position that JP is taking.

 

[laughing dog]

We still have people, and the threads on the religion boards show that there are a lot of them, who think that the Theory of Evolution, because it has the word 'Theory' in it, is somehow provisional. Should scientists change their terminology? Would you care to go to the religion boards, just a click away, and try to argue that they should?

How is this not taking the exact same position that JP is arguing for ... which you then seem to be making a post challenging?

The word "theory" has multiple meanings and "scientific theory" and "provisional theory" are both equally applicable usages of the term. The theists are the ones making a claim which is identical to the "black people can't be racist" claim in that the term should only be applied to one of the sub-categories of the term and that if you use the word "theory", you're referring only to the provisional usage of it as opposed to it being a broader term that can apply to all the categories equally, which is the equivalent of the position that JP is taking.

And it is going the very problem, you and others seem to think it solves. Hmmmm.

 

[Togo]

We still have people, and the threads on the religion boards show that there are a lot of them, who think that the Theory of Evolution, because it has the word 'Theory' in it, is somehow provisional. Should scientists change their terminology? Would you care to go to the religion boards, just a click away, and try to argue that they should?

How is this not taking the exact same position that JP is arguing for ... which you then seem to be making a post challenging?

JP is arguing that all discussion of which is the correct or default definition is a distraction. Instead he's saying we shouldn't inflame racial tensions by using a word that is commonly understood to mean something different.

'Theory' is a term that is commonly understood to mean something different, and this leads to genuine confusion. I was interested in how these situations were different.

[...claim in that the term should only be applied to one of the sub-categories of the term and that if you use the word "theory", you're referring only to the provisional usage of it as opposed to it being a broader term that can apply to all the categories equally, which is the equivalent of the position that JP is taking.

So he's not arguing that we can't say 'Black people can't be racist' because it will be mistaken for a different meaning of racism than the one intended?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

How is this not taking the exact same position that JP is arguing for ... which you then seem to be making a post challenging?

JP is arguing that all discussion of which is the correct or default definition is a distraction. Instead he's saying we shouldn't inflame racial tensions by using a word that is commonly understood to mean something different.

'Theory' is a term that is commonly understood to mean something different, and this leads to genuine confusion. I was interested in how these situations were different.

[...claim in that the term should only be applied to one of the sub-categories of the term and that if you use the word "theory", you're referring only to the provisional usage of it as opposed to it being a broader term that can apply to all the categories equally, which is the equivalent of the position that JP is taking.

So he's not arguing that we can't say 'Black people can't be racist' because it will be mistaken for a different meaning of racism than the one intended?

I think we have different views of what it is that he's arguing, so I'll wait until he weighs in on the topic.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Does it change anything, anything at all, if we all accept your definition as the proper one? Then what? You still have people saying "black people can't be racist" and you still have a lot of people out there who will hear this as a statement that black people are somehow immune from being bigots. This is so even if everyone here agrees that these people, and there are a lot of them, as can be seen in this very thread with people never having heard of the "prejudice plus power" definition, hold the "wrong" definition of racism.

We still have people, and the threads on the religion boards show that there are a lot of them, who think that the Theory of Evolution, because it has the word 'Theory' in it, is somehow provisional. Should scientists change their terminology? Would you care to go to the religion boards, just a click away, and try to argue that they should?

Calling Evolution a Theory, under a definition of "theory" as meaning provisional, does not create a statement of bigotry.

My concern is not over etymology or what definition is "proper" or permitted. My concern is over the entirely predictable confusion and inflammation of racial tension and apparent hypocrisy of those who claim to oppose and combat racism but are heard to support it.

 

[laughing dog]

We still have people, and the threads on the religion boards show that there are a lot of them, who think that the Theory of Evolution, because it has the word 'Theory' in it, is somehow provisional. Should scientists change their terminology? Would you care to go to the religion boards, just a click away, and try to argue that they should?

Calling Evolution a Theory, under a definition of "theory" as meaning provisional, does not create a statement of bigotry.

Neither does AA's definition under the normal sense of the term "bigotry".

My concern is not over etymology or what definition is "proper" or permitted. My concern is over the entirely predictable confusion and inflammation of racial tension and apparent hypocrisy of those who claim to oppose and combat racism but are heard to support it.

Irony noted.

 

[Emily Lake]

I know that Athena is defining the word differently. But many listeners will not know that. How can you expect them to?.....

Whether I expect them to or not is not relevant. I would say that if the topic came up and someone observed what you observed, it would be cause for a discussion. Again, why do you feel the need to assert your view is the better default view?

I observe that you appear to be a very contrarian person. Have you been engaged in many formal debates in your life? I find it entertaining that so many of your responses are counter-arguments and challenges, almost regardless of topic!

 

[Emily Lake]

Which is why "racism" by itself includes both the subgroups.

Asserting your preferred view should be the default view is not much of an argument.

I don't understand how the larger grouping, which contains the more specific definitions as subgroups, is a "preferred" view, where the very narrow and specific definition which excludes everything else seems to be acceptable from your perspective to be enforced as the sole acceptable interpretation.

I'm quite confused by your approach. You seem to be arguing AthenaAwakened's definition, but the line of argumentation that you're using is more appropriately applied against the way she has approached this topic.

Can you please state your position, and your arguments for it, clearly?

 

[Emily Lake]

Um, if you read enough of these threads, that some people deny that there is any of form of actual racism in existence.

Which people specifically?

 

[laughing dog]

Asserting your preferred view should be the default view is not much of an argument.

I don't understand how the larger grouping, which contains the more specific definitions as subgroups, is a "preferred" view, where the very narrow and specific definition which excludes everything else seems to be acceptable from your perspective to be enforced as the sole acceptable interpretation.

The larger grouping is the one being argued for by a number of people. It is their preferred view.

I'm quite confused by your approach. You seem to be arguing AthenaAwakened's definition, but the line of argumentation that you're using is more appropriately applied against the way she has approached this topic.

Can you please state your position, and your arguments for it, clearly?

I see no reason for any debate over this whatsoever. Terms may have multiple definitions.

 

[Emily Lake]

I don't understand how the larger grouping, which contains the more specific definitions as subgroups, is a "preferred" view, where the very narrow and specific definition which excludes everything else seems to be acceptable from your perspective to be enforced as the sole acceptable interpretation.

The larger grouping is the one being argued for by a number of people. It is their preferred view.

The larger, and more expansive, more general term is being presented by a large number of people as being exactly that - the more general, expansive, and common term.

What is being asked is that the narrow, confining, and limited term not be presented and argued as the only allowable term.

It seems more appropriate to say that AthenaAwakened is the one arguing for her "preferred" view of a limiting definition, to the exclusion of all other definitions.

I'm quite confused by your approach. You seem to be arguing AthenaAwakened's definition, but the line of argumentation that you're using is more appropriately applied against the way she has approached this topic.

Can you please state your position, and your arguments for it, clearly?

I see no reason for any debate over this whatsoever. Terms may have multiple definitions.

Then you are in agreement with essentially everyone in this thread except AthenaAwakened, and I have no argument with you.

 

[laughing dog]

The larger, and more expansive, more general term is being presented by a large number of people as being exactly that - the more general, expansive, and common term.

What is being asked is that the narrow, confining, and limited term not be presented and argued as the only allowable term.

But cleary bigotry is a more expansive term than racism. Why not argue for that? Or assholishness which is ever more expansive than bigotry? So why the issue over "racism" if "inclusiveness" is the problem?

It seems more appropriate to say that AthenaAwakened is the one arguing for her "preferred" view of a limiting definition, to the exclusion of all other definitions.

If one believes that racism is more than simply acting like an asshole about race, then using the term "racism" for what you and others term "racism" is simply inappropriate.

Then you are in agreement with essentially everyone in this thread except AthenaAwakened, and I have no argument with you.

No, I am not in agreement with essentially everyone in this thread. I do not agree with their spurious speculations on motive. Nor do I agree with their conclusions about the effects of "black people cannot be racist". Nor do I agree that their more expansive definition is a good or appropriate one.