7 Habits of Highly Affected Racialists

[Duke Leto]

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.

MAYBE. Certainly the hardcore racialists and the people whose power is threatened by changing institutions will continue fighting a rearguard action.

I'm concerned with the swayable middle that is hearing "cops are racist!" as opposed to "changing procedures and policies in these ways will make the Black community respect police more, improve policing, and make police safer".

 

[Davka]

Accepted by some sociologists who tend to be on the Left.

No, accepted by all sociologists.

You also have not dealt with power held by blacks and other minorities.

Because it's a red herring. If you want to discuss it, kindly start a 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.

And you are also claiming that anyone disputing your preferred definition is a "racialist".

No, I'm not. But if the shoe fits...

To clarify, I am stating that denial of the accepted sociological definition of "racism" is one of the habits that Highly Affected racialists have. That is NOT the same as claiming that all people who engage in this behavior are necessarily racialists. They may merely be ignorant.

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.

Pat Bidot did not come up with that definition. She merely used it in the article i linked to. In reality, the sociological definition of racism is quite a bit more complicated and nuanced than that. I use it here for the sake of simplification.

So no, nobody is 'redefining" the word, any more than Biologists are 'redefining" the word "theory" by using it in it's scientific sense. Lots of words have more than one definition. That's why it's important to define your terms.

BTW, you're doing a wonderful job of Hyperfocusing on Minutiae. Keep it up!

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.

If you want to show your ass, sure.

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?

Where is it written that such critics actually have a leg to stand on? Either you don't understand what it means to define one's terms for the sake of discussion, or you are merely thrashing about ineffectually in an attempt to muddy the waters. Either way, your point is moot.

 

[Rhea]

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.

MAYBE. Certainly the hardcore racialists and the people whose power is threatened by changing institutions will continue fighting a rearguard action.

I'm concerned with the swayable middle that is hearing "cops are racist!" as opposed to "changing procedures and policies in these ways will make the Black community respect police more, improve policing, and make police safer".

I agree with you but need to add on. Is the targeting of more black men than white men for traffic stop or frisk a procedure or policy? I think it isn't. And so we still need to admit that there really is racism in society's actions; repeated race-based decisions not dictated by policy but by habit and subconscious. In policing, hiring, sentencing, housing, lending and schooling.

 

[Davka]

'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;

Certainly, but not all discrimination based on racial bigotry harms an entire subset/minority of individuals. If Joe the Barkeep refuses to hire Italians, the Italian community is not harmed. If every employer in town refuses to hire Italians, the Italian community (minority) is harmed.

 

[Davka]

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.

Agreed. Part of the purpose of this thread is not only to highlight some of the techniques used by racialists, but also to demonstrate how fiercely people will fight to change the subject whenever institutional racial inequality is brought up. It's mildly amusing to watch posters use the techniques listed in the OP in order to attack the OP.

America has a widespread problem with racialism. Shining daylight on that problem serves to reveal just how widespread it is, and how intractable the positions of its practitioners are.

 

[Davka]

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.

MAYBE. Certainly the hardcore racialists and the people whose power is threatened by changing institutions will continue fighting a rearguard action.

I'm concerned with the swayable middle that is hearing "cops are racist!" as opposed to "changing procedures and policies in these ways will make the Black community respect police more, improve policing, and make police safer".

It seems to me that when protesters point out that SOME cops are racist (and that the current police culture allows them to get away with it), those who are swayed by evidence will take a look at the evidence and change their minds. Those who refuse to examine the evidence will not even hear what is being said, and will substitute ALL cops are racist for what's actually being said. They will do this because they are invested in the racialist status-quo.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

MAYBE. Certainly the hardcore racialists and the people whose power is threatened by changing institutions will continue fighting a rearguard action.

I'm concerned with the swayable middle that is hearing "cops are racist!" as opposed to "changing procedures and policies in these ways will make the Black community respect police more, improve policing, and make police safer".

It seems to me that when protesters point out that SOME cops are racist (and that the current police culture allows them to get away with it), those who are swayed by evidence will take a look at the evidence and change their minds. Those who refuse to examine the evidence will not even hear what is being said, and will substitute ALL cops are racist for what's actually being said. They will do this because they are invested in the racialist status-quo.

Is that really racism or is that just the way unions work? Game theory?

Sure, there are racist cops. But I think most of what is perceived as racism is actually poor training and police culture.

 

[Davka]

It seems to me that when protesters point out that SOME cops are racist (and that the current police culture allows them to get away with it), those who are swayed by evidence will take a look at the evidence and change their minds. Those who refuse to examine the evidence will not even hear what is being said, and will substitute ALL cops are racist for what's actually being said. They will do this because they are invested in the racialist status-quo.

Is that really racism or is that just the way unions work? Game theory?

Sure, there are racist cops. But I think most of what is perceived as racism is actually poor training and police culture.

Some is racial bigotry. How much? IDK - it's open to debate, I suppose. There are cops who are bullies, of this I have no doubt. I've had run-ins with bully cops. I've also witnessed racist behavior on the part of bully cops.

The kind of racism we need to deal with is institutionalized racism. Individual racism is something that will only fade with time, increased social integration, and education. It seems to be a generational thing, to a great extent - similar to homophobia or sexism. But  institutional racism can (and does) continue even after most individual racism had faded. If union culture enables the continuation of institutional racism, then union culture needs to change.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

The target isn't a race.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Racism against every race exists in America.

The question is how big a problem it is. I see the actual problem as far smaller than it's made out to be, most "racism" being an excuse for failure, not a cause of it.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

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.

Racism against every race exists in America.

The question is how big a problem it is. I see the actual problem as far smaller than it's made out to be, most "racism" being an excuse for failure, not a cause of it.

Loren,

As much as you need it to be so, it isn't. White folk aren't the victims of racism.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Racism against every race exists in America.

The question is how big a problem it is. I see the actual problem as far smaller than it's made out to be, most "racism" being an excuse for failure, not a cause of it.

Loren,

As much as you need it to be so, it isn't. White folk aren't the victims of racism.

Well, perhaps not often, but "never" is clearly wrong.

 

[Davka]

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

The target isn't a race.

it could be classified as bigotry, however. Or as wildly inappropriate humor. Take your pick.

- - - Updated - - -

Loren,

As much as you need it to be so, it isn't. White folk aren't the victims of racism.

Well, perhaps not often, but "never" is clearly wrong.

As racism defined in the OP (and in sociology), White Americans cannot be the victims of racism while in America.

...OK, to be pedantic, it's possible for a white person to be mildly victimized by racism on the Big Island of Hawaii.

 

[NobleSavage]

When black people admit to racism are the just uneducated? Should we send Davka to straighten them out? (I know this clip is some kind of reality BS and it's contrived..)

 

[Davka]

When black people admit to racism are the just uneducated? Should we send Davaka to straighten them out? (I know this is some kind of reality BS and maybe the entire thing is made up to sell advertizing...)

When black people admit to racism, they are not using the word in the sense that it is used in sociology. What they mean is racial bigotry, but they are using the word racism in its colloquial sense.

Just as when fundamentalist Christians say that evolution is "just a theory," they are using the word theory in the colloquial sense rather than the scientific sense.

 

[Bronzeage]

The target isn't a race.

it could be classified as bigotry, however. Or as wildly inappropriate humor. Take your pick.

- - - Updated - - -

Loren,

As much as you need it to be so, it isn't. White folk aren't the victims of racism.

Well, perhaps not often, but "never" is clearly wrong.

As racism defined in the OP (and in sociology), White Americans cannot be the victims of racism while in America.

...OK, to be pedantic, it's possible for a white person to be mildly victimized by racism on the Big Island of Hawaii.

Studies by the Mendacious Institute have found that white people are commonly the victim of racism, but rarely recognize it as such. They usually blame management for having such a poorly trained waitstaff.

 

[Davka]

it could be classified as bigotry, however. Or as wildly inappropriate humor. Take your pick.

- - - Updated - - -

Loren,

As much as you need it to be so, it isn't. White folk aren't the victims of racism.

Well, perhaps not often, but "never" is clearly wrong.

As racism defined in the OP (and in sociology), White Americans cannot be the victims of racism while in America.

...OK, to be pedantic, it's possible for a white person to be mildly victimized by racism on the Big Island of Hawaii.

Studies by the Mendacious Institute have found that white people are commonly the victim of racism, but rarely recognize it as such. They usually blame management for having such a poorly trained waitstaff.

That would be yet another example of racial bigotry, not racism. Not allowing whites to eat at any lunch counters would be racism. White people getting crap service at *some* restaurants is a different animal.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The target isn't a race.

it could be classified as bigotry, however. Or as wildly inappropriate humor. Take your pick.

- - - Updated - - -

Loren,

As much as you need it to be so, it isn't. White folk aren't the victims of racism.

Well, perhaps not often, but "never" is clearly wrong.

As racism defined in the OP

A contested definition asserted as a conclusion as an example of the fallacy Begging the Question.

(and in sociology),

But not universally.

White Americans cannot be the victims of racism while in America.

After all, everywhere in the country white people are the majority. That's why I like Southern California so much, there's nothing but white people as far as the eye can see.

...OK, to be pedantic, it's possible for a white person to be mildly victimized by racism on the Big Island of Hawaii.

And in many other places as well, but you don't want to mention those. Nor do you want to examine your own contested premise, preferring to use Ad Hominem on anyone who does dare to question your begged question.

 

[NobleSavage]

When black people admit to racism, they are not using the word in the sense that it is used in sociology. What they mean is racial bigotry, but they are using the word racism in its colloquial sense.

Just as when fundamentalist Christians say that evolution is "just a theory," they are using the word theory in the colloquial sense rather than the scientific sense.

Do you think the people in that barber shop know the difference between the dictionary definition and the sociological definition? Should someone educate them?

 

[Davka]

A contested definition asserted as a conclusion as an example of the fallacy Begging the Question.

Indeed it did, but that was based on ignorance. The OP specifically states that it is referring to "the accepted sociological definition of racism." That's not the same as the common colloquial definition of racism.

Here's the obvious, repeated for the nth time:

When a scientist defines the term "theory" according to accepted scientific usage, it is not "begging the question." It's a different definition from the colloquial sense. It's not claiming to be the only acceptable definition, but rather the definition which will be used by the scientist for purposes of a specific discussion.