7 Habits of Highly Affected Racialists

[tupac chopra]

Is this racist?
http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...t-challenge-me&p=105559&viewfull=1#post105559

Nope. It's mocking ignorance, as well as childishly mocking a Russian accent. It's not prejudice against a race, and it certainly isn't combined with any power.

Why don't you try the same tactic with a black persons accent then.

 

[bigfield]

1. Rejecting and Mocking Accepted Sociological Terminology. Although the study of racism and racial bigotry has been part of the social sciences for decades, Highly Affected Racialists either studiously ignore the accepted terminology, or pretend not to understand it. An example of this is the word “racism” itself, which is defined as power plus racial bigotry. Highly Affected racialists either ignore this definition or call it “ludicrous,” in spite of the fact that, once understood, the concept is self-evident.¹ This allows for the strengthening of another habit:

2. Accuse Minorities of Racism. This is a classic “tu quoque” argument, known on playgrounds across the nation as “well, you do it too!,” sometimes known as the :he hit me back first!” defense. This ignores the fact that racism cannot be practiced by powerless minorities against powerful minorities.¹

Only recently you stated that the sociological definition of racism is problematic, and acknowledged that it is at odds with the meaning used by most people:

ETA: fixed quotations

Depends on who you ask I guess.

We recently had a thread where Athena insisted that "racism" is something only white people can be, because it requires power. Something like that. Only the dominant group can be racist, because you need power over others to be racist, she claims. It looks a lot more to me like she just wants to exclude the group she identifies with any possible connection to the negative connotations of the word "racism". That is ironically racist in itself.

This is a definition that's commonly used in Sociology: racial bigotry + power = racism. I agree that it is a problematic definition. I've had conversations with black people who object to this definition as well. i understand where Athena is coming from with this definition, but most people simply equate racism with racial bigotry. However, if you want to split definitional hairs, you can say that white Americans can be racist, while those Americans who belong to a minority can be racially bigoted.

I think it's an unnecessary linguistic complication, but that's just my opinion.

You now appear to be embracing that 'linguistic complication' in this thread.

Do you still think it is definitional hair-splitting?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Only recently you stated that the sociological definition of racism is problematic, and acknowledged that it is at odds with the meaning used by most people:

Depends on who you ask I guess.

We recently had a thread where Athena insisted that "racism" is something only white people can be, because it requires power. Something like that. Only the dominant group can be racist, because you need power over others to be racist, she claims. It looks a lot more to me like she just wants to exclude the group she identifies with any possible connection to the negative connotations of the word "racism". That is ironically racist in itself. This is a definition that's commonly used in Sociology: racial bigotry + power = racism. I agree that it is a problematic definition. I've had conversations with black people who object to this definition as well. i understand where Athena is coming from with this definition, but most people simply equate racism with racial bigotry. However, if you want to split definitional hairs, you can say that white Americans can be racist, while those Americans who belong to a minority can be racially bigoted.

I think it's an unnecessary linguistic complication, but that's just my opinion.

You now appear to be embracing that 'linguistic complication' in this thread.

Do you still think it is definitional hair-splitting?

Good observation. But to be fair, you mixed the quotes a little. Everything before "This is a definition that's commonly used in Sociology...." was my text. Everything after was Davka's.

 

[bigfield]

Sorry, I had to manually add in quote tags during composition and mangled it. Should be correct now. Sorry for the misrepresentation.

 

[Derec]

1. Rejecting and Mocking Accepted Sociological Terminology. Although the study of racism and racial bigotry has been part of the social sciences for decades, Highly Affected Racialists either studiously ignore the accepted terminology, or pretend not to understand it. An example of this is the word “racism” itself, which is defined as power plus racial bigotry.

Show me evidence that this definition is universally accepted (viewing both individual and institutional racism while still distinguishing between the two is a much more logical and useful definition), rather than fringe among "racialist" sociologists who want to pretend that only whites can be racist. You can see that in how they carefully calibrate "power" so that again, only whites have "power" in their view.

2. Accuse Minorities of Racism. This is a classic “tu quoque” argument, known on playgrounds across the nation as “well, you do it too!,” sometimes known as the :he hit me back first!” defense. This ignores the fact that racism cannot be practiced by powerless minorities against powerful minorities.¹

Only if you subscribe to the ridiculous redefinition of racism and completely ignore that minorities can have institutional power. For example in Metro Atlanta area the City of Atlanta itself, several of the counties and suburban cities are politically dominated by blacks. Why do you think officials of these entities cannot be racist even under the "bigotry plus power" definition?
I am afraid your side is acting like a they were on the playground, by insisting that different rules should apply to them vs. the other kid.

3. Racism Denial. Highly Affected Racialists assert often, loudly, and confidently that racism is no longer a problem, and therefore cannot be at the root of any social ills in America. Whenever anything newsworthy occurs which appears to be steeped in racism, characterize it as an isolated incident. Individual racists may be admitted to exist, but the institution of racism must be assumed to have vanished completely at some vague, indeterminate time between the assassination of MLK Jr. and the election of President Obama.

Nobody is saying that racism no longer exists. In fact, it is your side that practices "racism denial" because you deny anybody but whites can be racist.
Also one has to be careful not to ascribe racist motives just because you have two people of different races in a confrontation. It's a logical fallacy to go from "white cop shoots black perp" to claiming that the white cop shot the black perp because the white cop was racist, without any actual evidence for that claim.

4. Appeal to (pseudo)Science. The attempt to “prove” scientifically and/or logically that minority races are inherently inferior goes back as far as racism itself. Despite the fact that every single scientific justification for racism has been debunked numerous times, Highly Affected Racialists continue to return to this well, press-ganging genetics, statistics, and anthropology (among others) into the service of their bankrupt worldview.

Right back at you with the appeal to those sociologists that use intellectually dishonest definitions to claim that only whites can be racist. Or that whiteness is "a frame of mind" or some other nonsense like that.

5. Hyperfocus on Minutiae. Whenever a newsworthy race-related atrocity hits the media, Highly Affected Racialists spring into action to deflect the conversation away from the dangerous ground of societal wrongs, and onto the irrelevant “facts of the case.” This allows them to ignore the way that these incidents fit into the larger context of institutionalized racism, thus avoiding any potential learning opportunities. Instead of talking about how White America interacts with the Darker Nation, Highly Affected racialists can argue for hours, even days, about whether the policeman in question has a history of racism; whether the dead or injured black male was acting in a threatening manner; whether the DNA in the lab fits the witness reports, and on and on.

Each case should be examined on its own merit. Judging people by their skin color without regard to what actually happened is racist on its face. Then you get nonsense like saying that it doesn't matter if Brown attacked Wilson, since Wilson by the curse of his white skin is automatically guilty of racism if he shoots a black criminal. Or assuming that white college students must have raped a black stripper, because they are white and she is black. Seeing people as interchangeable representatives of their race rather than individuals is a classic mark of a racist.

6. The “Not All X” Defense. This is another tactic for deflecting the conversation away from the very real problem of racism in America. Any time that widespread racism is brought up, the Highly Affected Racialist can be heard to say “that’s not fair, not all white people are racist,” or “not all police are racist,” or some similar sentiment. This is a strawman argument, since nobody is actually arguing that all of any group are racist. This technique can be found in other arguments by bigots, in forms such as “not all men are rapists.” “not all rich business owners are greedy assholes,” “not all conservatives are misogynists,” and so on.

On the contrary, arguments that assume guilt for rape because the accused is a man and "women don't lie about rape" are bigoted. So are claims that the white cop must be a racist if he shoots a black perp.

7. Redefining Racism. This is an ironic habit, and one which many Highly Affected Racialists no doubt find hilarious. At the same time that the accepted sociological definition of racism is tossed aside as “too narrow” or simply “ludicrous,” Highly Affected racialists will tell you that, since they never ever use the “n-word,” and they don’t “hate” minorities, therefore they cannot be racists. Never mind that they regularly utilize every single one of these 7 habits; never mind that they ‘wouldn’t want their sister to marry one,” they don’t hate, tell racist jokes, or use slurs. All they want is to be left alone.

As can be seen from your point #1, it is your side that wants to redefine racism. And name me one person on this forum who "‘wouldn't want their sister to marry one"? Putting words and attitudes into your opponents' mouths is a sign of an intellectually dishonest debater.

1. The sociological definition of racism can be seen most clearly by examining the root of American racism during the days of slavery.

You do realize that slavery ended 150 years ago, right?

Racism involves the following: hatred of or disdain for a minority group; feelings of superiority over a minority group; active participation in a system which harms and diminishes a minority group. While there were no doubt numerous slaves who hated all white people, as well as many who felt themselves superior to white people, these attitudes did not affect the well-being of white people one bit.

No innocent white people were ever killed in slave rebellions? But sure, blacks lacked institutional power during slavery. How is that relevant to today? Does the so-called "accepted" sociological redefinition of racism require a certain group held power a century and a half ago rather than holding power today? Because blacks can and do hold institutional power in contemporary America, and therefore can engage in institutional racism.

Slaves could hate all they wanted, but their hatred was not the problem. In fact, their hatred was a direct result of the problem, which was the racism of the white people who made the institution of slavery possible – and later the institutions of sharecropping, Jim Crow, Segregation, and lynching. The hatred of the oppressed for the oppressor does not equal racism. It may well be characterized as racial bigotry, but it is not racism.[/INDENT]

Racial bigotry is racism under the normal, nonideological, definition of racism. Furthermore, do we still have slavery? No. In modern day America, blacks can and do have institutional power. Hence, there can (and are) black bigots in positions of power who can engage in institutional racism.

 

[Derec]

Thank you for demonstrating habit number 1, Rejecting and Mocking Accepted Sociological Terminology. Perhaps you would do well to read the footnote, and maybe even the link provided here?

And why should I view a lecturer like Nicki Lisa Cole as representative of all sociologists? Googling her, she seems to be on the left-wing fringe. For example, she supports reparations and seems to be a socialist.

 

[Davka]

Nope. It's mocking ignorance, as well as childishly mocking a Russian accent. It's not prejudice against a race, and it certainly isn't combined with any power.

Why don't you try the same tactic with a black persons accent then.

Russians are not a minority. Russians are not a racial group. Why don't you try applying logic?

 

[Derec]

Russians are not a minority.

Only in Russia. They are quite a small minority here. Does that mean Russian-Americans can't be racist?

Russians are not a racial group.

So bigotry is acceptable as long as it doesn't involve melanin content? What's so special about melanin?

Why don't you try applying logic?

Ditto.

 

[Davka]

Only recently you stated that the sociological definition of racism is problematic, and acknowledged that it is at odds with the meaning used by most people:


You now appear to be embracing that 'linguistic complication' in this thread.

Do you still think it is definitional hair-splitting?

I withdraw my previous objection to the sociological definition of the term. After posting in that thread, I did some reading on the concept, and was convinced of the logic of defining racism as race-bigotry + power. That's why I included the logic behind it as a footnote in the OP.

Here, let me make it as clear as I know how:

- Racism harms minorities, via discrimination and oppression.
- Race-bigotry without power does not result in harmful discrimination or oppression.
- Power without bigotry does not result in harmful discrimination or oppression.
- Therefore, it is clear that neither race-bigotry alone nor power alone fit the definition of racism.

We all know that racism is harmful to minorities. It's essential to the definition. Nobody talks about the terrible oppression of the Jews in America today, because anti-Semites are in the minority and wield no power. Not too many years ago, when anti-Semitism was part of the majority White mindset in America and Europe, anti-Semites were racist. Today they are merely small-minded bigots, akin to people who despise Swedes or Irishmen. This is in part because Jews (and Swedes and Irishmen) have been admitted to the ranks of the majority, and in part because bigotry against these groups is no longer institutionalized.

Studies have shown that employers are less likely to grant a job interview to applicants with black-sounding names than to those with white-sounding names. Similarly, landlords are less likely to rent to those with black-sounding names than to those with white-sounding names. Not too long ago, names such as Sven, Moishe, and Seamus would have been similarly discriminated against.

This not only demonstrates that racism (in order to be the problem which we all agree racism is) must be endemic among the powerful majority.

 

[Davka]

Thank you for demonstrating habit number 1, Rejecting and Mocking Accepted Sociological Terminology. Perhaps you would do well to read the footnote, and maybe even the link provided here?

And why should I view a lecturer like Nicki Lisa Cole as representative of all sociologists? Googling her, she seems to be on the left-wing fringe. For example, she supports reparations and seems to be a socialist.

Try googling "racism definition.' throw in "sociology" if you want the scholarly articles.

I linked to the page in question because it's a fairly clear, concise definition. It also happens to agree with the sociological consensus on the topic.

Thank you for demonstrating how to hyperfocus on minutiae.

 

[Derec]

Try googling "racism definition.' throw in "sociology" if you want the scholarly articles.
I linked to the page in question because it's a fairly clear, concise definition. It also happens to agree with the sociological consensus on the topic.

I do not disagree that some sociologists want to redefine the term to suit them. However, you must recognize that that is an overt attempt at redefinition as the original definition includes both individual and institutional racism. That destroys your point #1. Also you have to realize that those that push for this redefinition come from a left-wing position and thus have an ideological ax to grind.
Lastly, you have offered no objections to the fact that in modern America minorities (and particularly blacks) do have a great deal of institutional power, as government and school officials, as employers etc. Thus they are capable of racism even under the narrow "bigotry plus power" definition. To deny that one would have to special plead that their power doesn't count as real power for some reason.

 

[Duke Leto]

While the OP includes a useful working definition of Racism, or at any rate what Progressives mean when they use the word, I feel duty bound to point out that the idea of a single noncontroversial and static definition of any word, but most especially a fucking -ism, is philosophical gibberish.

It might be better to drop the shorthand of "racism" entirely and for clarity talk about bigotry and oppressive institutions instead.

 

[Davka]

Try googling "racism definition.' throw in "sociology" if you want the scholarly articles.
I linked to the page in question because it's a fairly clear, concise definition. It also happens to agree with the sociological consensus on the topic.

I do not disagree that some sociologists want to redefine the term to suit them. However, you must recognize that that is an overt attempt at redefinition as the original definition includes both individual and institutional racism. That destroys your point #1. Also you have to realize that those that push for this redefinition come from a left-wing position and thus have an ideological ax to grind.
Lastly, you have offered no objections to the fact that in modern America minorities (and particularly blacks) do have a great deal of institutional power, as government and school officials, as employers etc. Thus they are capable of racism even under the narrow "bigotry plus power" definition. To deny that one would have to special plead that their power doesn't count as real power for some reason.

You might want to educate yourself. but then you'd have to stop with all the racist and misogynistic ignorance, or stop claiming ignorance of your bigotry.

The sociological definitions have been in place for decades. Nobody is "changing" the definition. Just as scientists are not changing the definition of "theory" when they use it in the context of the Scientific Method rather than in the broader colloquial sense.

Thank you for demonstrating the first habit of Highly Affected Racialists. You may go now.

- - - Updated - - -

While the OP includes a useful working definition of Racism, or at any rate what Progressives mean when they use the word, I feel duty bound to point out that the idea of a single noncontroversial and static definition of any word, but most especially a fucking -ism, is philosophical gibberish.

It might be better to drop the shorthand of "racism" entirely and for clarity talk about bigotry and oppressive institutions instead.

Let's all stop defining theory in the scientific sense, too. In fact, let's stop defining terms altogether, so we can call stuff whatever the fuck we want. All those pesky words with multiple definitions should be banned.

 

[Derec]

You might want to educate yourself. but then you'd have to stop with all the racist and misogynistic ignorance, or stop claiming ignorance of your bigotry.

Ditto.

The sociological definitions have been in place for decades.

And are still not universally accepted.

Nobody is "changing" the definition.

Those sociologists who insist that only white people can be racist are.

Just as scientists are not changing the definition of "theory" when they use it in the context of the Scientific Method rather than in the broader colloquial sense.

Not a good analogy at all. Theory doesn't have this specific meaning in science for ideological reasons.

Thank you for demonstrating the first habit of Highly Affected Racialists. You may go now.

And you have yet to address the point of blacks having institutional power. And by that I mean today, not 150 years ago.

 

[Davka]

Ditto.

The sociological definitions have been in place for decades.

And are still not universally accepted.

Nobody is "changing" the definition.

Those sociologists who insist that only white people can be racist are.

Just as scientists are not changing the definition of "theory" when they use it in the context of the Scientific Method rather than in the broader colloquial sense.

Not a good analogy at all. Theory doesn't have this specific meaning in science for ideological reasons.

Thank you for demonstrating the first habit of Highly Affected Racialists. You may go now.

And you have yet to address the point of blacks having institutional power. And by that I mean today, not 150 years ago.

I am using the accepted sociological definition for the purpose of this thread. That's why I used the word "racialist" rather than "racist," and why I provided a definition of the word "racism" in the OP. That definition is what I'm talking about.

You can start your own thread if you want to discuss racial bigotry. You can even define "racism" as "racial bigotry alone" for the purposes of discussion in your thread, if you like.

Perhaps you should read up on the concept of defining your terms.

 

[Derec]

I am using the accepted sociological definition for the purpose of this thread.

Accepted by some sociologists who tend to be on the Left. You also have not dealt with power held by blacks and other minorities.

That's why I used the word "racialist" rather than "racist," and why I provided a definition of the word "racism" in the OP. That definition is what I'm talking about.

And you are also claiming that anyone disputing your preferred definition is a "racialist". By the way, the term "racism" existed long before Pat Bidot came up with the "bigotry plus power" definition, which by definition makes it a redefinition of the term.

You can start your own thread if you want to discuss racial bigotry. You can even define "racism" as "racial bigotry alone" for the purposes of discussion in your thread, if you like.

Or I can critique what you write in your thread.

Perhaps you should read up on the concept of defining your terms.

Where does it say that defining terms can't open one to criticism?

 

[bigfield]

I withdraw my previous objection to the sociological definition of the term. After posting in that thread, I did some reading on the concept, and was convinced of the logic of defining racism as race-bigotry + power. That's why I included the logic behind it as a footnote in the OP.

Here, let me make it as clear as I know how:

- Racism harms minorities, via discrimination and oppression.
- Race-bigotry without power does not result in harmful discrimination or oppression.
- Power without bigotry does not result in harmful discrimination or oppression.
- Therefore, it is clear that neither race-bigotry alone nor power alone fit the definition of racism.

We all know that racism is harmful to minorities. It's essential to the definition. Nobody talks about the terrible oppression of the Jews in America today, because anti-Semites are in the minority and wield no power. Not too many years ago, when anti-Semitism was part of the majority White mindset in America and Europe, anti-Semites were racist. Today they are merely small-minded bigots, akin to people who despise Swedes or Irishmen. This is in part because Jews (and Swedes and Irishmen) have been admitted to the ranks of the majority, and in part because bigotry against these groups is no longer institutionalized.

Studies have shown that employers are less likely to grant a job interview to applicants with black-sounding names than to those with white-sounding names. Similarly, landlords are less likely to rent to those with black-sounding names than to those with white-sounding names. Not too long ago, names such as Sven, Moishe, and Seamus would have been similarly discriminated against.

'Race-bigotry without power does not result in harmful discrimination or oppression.'
Bigotry is merely a set of beliefs. If a bigot acts on those beliefs, they are engaging in discrimination. All discrimination based on racial bigotry is harmful; there is not a single instance where such discrimination can be deemed either neutral or beneficial. In order to distinguish between harmful and non-harmful discrimination, one would need to select a degree of harm an assert that harm of a small enough degree is not harm at all. That is exactly what you have done with the anti-Semitism example above: you have decided that discrimination against Jews in contemporary USA is not harmful enough for your standards.

Unless you can justify the distinction, there is no reason to accept your argument.

I will not accept argument from authority either: just because sociologists operate under their own stipulative definition, does not mean that the lay public should also use that definition.

This not only demonstrates that racism (in order to be the problem which we all agree racism is) must be endemic among the powerful majority.

The problem is that people form preconceived notions about each other based on their race, and engage in in-group favourtism.

 

[Duke Leto]

While the OP includes a useful working definition of Racism, or at any rate what Progressives mean when they use the word, I feel duty bound to point out that the idea of a single noncontroversial and static definition of any word, but most especially a fucking -ism, is philosophical gibberish.

It might be better to drop the shorthand of "racism" entirely and for clarity talk about bigotry and oppressive institutions instead.

Let's all stop defining theory in the scientific sense, too. In fact, let's stop defining terms altogether, so we can call stuff whatever the fuck we want. All those pesky words with multiple definitions should be banned.

"Theory" does have different meanings depending on the context used.

Definitions are only as universal as the majority of a language's speakers make them. It's pointless to pretend otherwise.

My point is that enough people subscribe to the alternative definition of "Belief in different traits making persons of different races superior or inferior." that you are ALWAYS going to have the problem you are trying to stop by upholding your definition. So why be pigheaded and insist on using a problematic term when shifting to talking about the more specific terms of bigotry and institutions takes less work for your listeners and you?

Is the ability to call Derec and Axulus racists really worth that much to you?

Moreover, your sociological definition is flawed. Differential treatment of minorities (another word that causes more problems then it's worth) by institutions doesn't even require bigotry, it can be powered entirely by purely unconscious prejudice. CEOs being on average taller than the general male population is almost certainly not the result of conscious selection (whereas their being male probably IS), but it is functionally institutional repression of the short by society. Likewise a lot of police brutality and racial unfairness in law enforcement is probably not the result of conscious bigotry but subconscious bias.

So in actuality we're primarily interested in lousy institutions, secondarily in bigotry, and tertiarily in mere prejudice to the extent that it can be corrected for.

So why can't we just talk about those things, which are less vulnerable to misinterpretation by the well-meaning and uninformed and less pervertible by the malign?

Why make our "right" definition of "racism" a precondition to discussion?

Just so we're clear, I agree completely with the political and social agenda in the OP, it just seems to me that the fight for the soul of "racism" isn't worth the effort, especially since the "right" definition unpacks into such easy to handle simple concepts, as your other posts on these concepts in this thread demonstrate.

(One other point. Oppressed minorities hatred for their oppressors could suddenly metamorphose into sociological "racism" if the social institutions suddenly shift and swing power into the hands of the oppressed. See Haiti.)

 

[Rhea]

A question comes to mind reading this thread. Why is it so hard to admit that racism in America against people who are black (with power, as oppression,) exists? Why so defensive? It's an interesting thing to ponder and watch unfold. Davka's OP neatly highlights several mechanisms by which some people avoid talking about the actual problem, and several posters neatly give examples of how that works. But I wonder _why_. Why is it so hard to address this problem. I mean, I know some of the given reasons, but I think it would be very hard to discuss here or anywhere because whatever the "why," you can't get there without first passing through all of the items in the OP. A tall order, drilling down into why it's so hard to even keep the discussion focused on the real systemic problems.

Just an observation - carry on with the demo.

 

[Rhea]

Just so we're clear, I agree completely with the political and social agenda in the OP, it just seems to me that the fight for the soul of "racism" isn't worth the effort, especially since the "right" definition unpacks into such easy to handle simple concepts, as your other posts on these concepts in this thread demonstrate.

One has to wonder, though, if a new and more clear term is used if that will change any of the reactions outlined in the OP. I was thinking maybe it would merely change the argument to being about a new word that can be argued about instead of the political and social agenda of decreasing racial oppression.