Should discussion about The Poem be ... censored?

[Psychevore]

Interesting read, although I tend to question it's own bias considering that virtually all, if not every example given seemed aimed at portraying white people as guilty of some form of racism. ... Still, even so I don't really see why I should accept your "dictionary definition" over the one that KaineParker offered. Hells, I think I'd argue that if someone had bothered to prune the one you offered of it's rather obnoxious racial overtones the two don't really seem that much at odds, if at all.

We are, all of us, guilty of some forms of racism, whether we like it or not. The problem is that we white people go absolutely bonkers if someone points out we do, screaming 'I'm not a racist!'. Usually followed by racist slurs to prove the point. (hilarious) Or, even worse in my opinion, claiming that those who bring up these points are actually the problem.

 

You don't have to be a conviced racist to do racist things, nor do you have to be a convinced mysoginist to do mysoginistic things, or be a convinced homophobe to do homophobic things... etc.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Psychevore

[PrimeJunta]

@MLMII and others: "accepting" a dictionary definition, or not, is completely bone-headed.

 

The only thing that matters is that communication happens. If one person is using "racism" to mean one thing and another person is using it to mean another thing, they will be talking (and eventually shouting) past one another, with no meaningful thoughts exchanged.

 

Words don't have fixed definitions. They change over time and depending on context. "Racism" happens to have several. Quoting one is not an "I WIN TEH DEBATE!" button. I posted that link to demonstrate that there are well-established and relatively clearly defined alternative definitions for 'racism' and it's nonsensical to claim that someone using such an alternative definition is 'using the word wrong.'

 

Now that you've got the sociological definition, it'll be possible to discuss whether the definition describes something that actually exists in society or not. (Or, for example, whether and how it's applicable to other societies than contemporary 'Murica. American-style systemic racism against blacks is a relatively new phenomenon where I'm from, for example, simply because when I was a kid there were so few blacks here you'd be more likely to get your picture in the local paper as a curiosity than have someone assume you're a ganster, drug dealer, or putative terrorist. OTOH if you were Roma, well, good luck 'cuz you'd need it.) That discussion is IMO much more interesting than which definition is 'right.'

 

I'm not in the mood for it ATM however, but if anyone else is, I will be looking in.

Edited April 14, 2015 by PrimeJunta

[Amentep]

 

 

Sure, white people can run into the occasional racist ****, but it will not affect their lives on daily basis.

So there's "good racism" and "bad racism"? Its only bad if it "affects their lives on a daily basis"? But otherwise racism is okay?

 

I never said any of that. Try again.

 

You implied it or perhaps I inferred it, hence my question.

 

If, as I follow your argument (but maybe I'm confusing several arguments together), racism has to have a component of systematic oppression (ie that there is a dominant race in the culture) and that while there can be "racism" against the dominate race, that because they're are systematically supported (or perhaps just not actively oppressed) the racism against the oppressed cultures are the ones that "matter" and "racism" against the dominate race is irrelevant.

 

Therefore it is okay ("allowable", "good") to have racism against the dominate race but not okay ("forbidden", "bad") to have racism against the oppressed groups.

[PrimeJunta]

^

Aka punching up vs punching down.

[Psychevore]

You implied it or perhaps I inferred it, hence my question.

 

If, as I follow your argument (but maybe I'm confusing several arguments together), racism has to have a component of systematic oppression (ie that there is a dominant race in the culture) and that while there can be "racism" against the dominate race, that because they're are systematically supported (or perhaps just not actively oppressed) the racism against the oppressed cultures are the ones that "matter" and "racism" against the dominate race is irrelevant.

 

Therefore it is okay ("allowable", "good") to have racism against the dominate race but not okay ("forbidden", "bad") to have racism against the oppressed groups.

No. I'm saying that trying to put these forms of racism on the same level is absolutely absurd. And it's pathetic some white people try to highjack these discussions by saying "but white people face racism too!!!". No, you don't.

 

One group, the white people, can basically shrug it off and get on with their lives. For other groups, it is a large part of their life they simply cannot ignore, in a way, it is their life.

 

(p.s. as might be obvious by now, English is not my native language. It's not even my second language, so that might cause some difficulties...

For those that wonder: I'm Dutch. And purely from a technical standpoint, Dutch isn't even my native language. I speak a fringe minority language at home )

[Amentep]

Quoting one is not an "I WIN TEH DEBATE!" button.

It is when that's not the one being debated. Which was, in fact my point (I think we actually agree on this as what we're both trying to get at is that the important thing is to have a common reference for concepts being used in discussion).

 

And in several places that's what I've seen regarding sexim, to wit:

 

"Those guys are sexist!"

 

"What about these women saying #killallmen?"

 

"Lol, women can't be sexist, they're oppressed."

 

"What, hating gender isn't based on who is oppressed, its based on hating a gender."

 

"Lol, you can only have sexism if you're oppressed. Anything else isn't sexism."

 

"But the definition..."

 

"Lol, you're using definitions...that's so 1980"

 

etc, etc.

 

We are, all of us, guilty of some forms of racism, whether we like it or not.

Really? That's a rather...bold claim. I'm looking forward to your proof that everyone in the world is, in fact, guilty of some form of racism.

[Mungri]

That's great because as a black person its impossible for me to be racist because I'm an oppressed minority!

 

Kill all the whiteys!

[Amentep]

No. I'm saying that trying to put these forms of racism on the same level is absolutely absurd.

But - and this is the point that confuses me, if the goal is to rid the world of racism (or sexism) then how is this achievable if you only try to eliminate one form of it allowing others to continue to exist?

 

If racism is bad - in general - then surely the way to eliminate it is to eliminate all of it? Not some of it here and there, a little at a time?

 

(p.s. as might be obvious by now, English is not my native language. It's not even my second language, so that might cause some difficulties...

For those that wonder: I'm Dutch. And purely from a technical standpoint, Dutch isn't even my native language. I speak a fringe minority language at home )

No problems from my standpoint, I really do try to understand these sides of the debate as best I can, but sometimes I can't follow the logic (which may be hindered by language barriars).

[PrimeJunta]

@Amentep Do you also feel that measles vaccinations are pointless unless you can eradicate all infectious diseases forever?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

RE: Cropping Quotes ...  Agreed, especially when trying to reply to the "staircase to hell" exchanges and the forum keeps spitting errors back at you. ... As an aside, does anyone else have almost every "reply" start with a random format preselected?   

Sociological definition of racism.

  Interesting read, although I tend to question it's own bias considering that virtually all, if not every example given seemed aimed at portraying white people as guilty of some form of racism. ... Still, even so I don't really see why I should accept your "dictionary definition" over the one that KaineParker offered. Hells, I think I'd argue that if someone had bothered to prune the one you offered of it's rather obnoxious racial overtones the two don't really seem that much at odds, if at all.  

+1 for dictionary definitions suck. That's one one of the main reasons why we have those idiots that run around crying 'but evolution is only a theory', because dictionaries give the definition of hypothesis to theory instead.Then again, resorting to anything a dictionary defines for any kind of debate relating to science is a moronic thing that only dumb people do anyway. A person requires zero knowledge to look something up in a dictionary and quote whatever it says, even a 5 year old can do that.

 Although I did give this a "like" because I tend to agree with the sentiment in general; at the same time words do have meanings and in this very thread we've been told things like ... "You can't be a bigot if you defend gay rights.", which is something that I do take umbrage towards in addition to simply being flat out silly and wrong.

The reason I gravitate towards using only dictionary definitions is twofold.

 

1. They provide a unified source of common knowledge, and as such can be used to ensure communication is understood.

 

2. When using words with multiple meanings(or changed meanings), it is easy to find yourself arguing against a motte and bailey( see here for a better understanding: http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/09/motte-and-bailey-doctrines/).

 

For example, Socialism is defined as collective ownership of the means of production in most dictionaries. But socialism has also come to mean "government spending on welfare programs" in US politics. This leads to problems identifying someone as a socialist, as by one usage of the term implies that everyone in favor of some form of welfare is a socialist, while another requires the belief in collective ownership of the means of production. While there certainly can be some overlap here, they are certainly not mutually inclusive positions and it can cause confusion in communication.

[BruceVC]

 

You implied it or perhaps I inferred it, hence my question.

 

If, as I follow your argument (but maybe I'm confusing several arguments together), racism has to have a component of systematic oppression (ie that there is a dominant race in the culture) and that while there can be "racism" against the dominate race, that because they're are systematically supported (or perhaps just not actively oppressed) the racism against the oppressed cultures are the ones that "matter" and "racism" against the dominate race is irrelevant.

 

Therefore it is okay ("allowable", "good") to have racism against the dominate race but not okay ("forbidden", "bad") to have racism against the oppressed groups.

No. I'm saying that trying to put these forms of racism on the same level is absolutely absurd. And it's pathetic some white people try to highjack these discussions by saying "but white people face racism too!!!". No, you don't.

 

One group, the white people, can basically shrug it off and get on with their lives. For other groups, it is a large part of their life they simply cannot ignore, in a way, it is their life.

 

(p.s. as might be obvious by now, English is not my native language. It's not even my second language, so that might cause some difficulties...

For those that wonder: I'm Dutch. And purely from a technical standpoint, Dutch isn't even my native language. I speak a fringe minority language at home )

 

 

I need to add something important here, I agree with most of what you say but I'm not sure that I agree that white people can't be victims of racism by black people. I am a white South African who lives in South Africa and I tell you with absolute certainty that there are some  black people in South Africa who are definitely racist towards us. Yes it is shaped by the past, they are bitter for a variety of reasons that include the fact that they haven't achieved economic success in the new South Africa, in fact there is a racist slogan that says "one settler, one bullet  "which really translates to " kill the white people " 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Settler,_One_Bullet

 

This is still used today and is considered hate speech in South Africa and people can face legal prosecution for saying this 

 

But I agree the racism we experience is not this deep and implacable racism that some black people have faced for generations and is more caused by frustration, however it does manifest  itself as bigotry. Its more annoying than anything else but its still a form a racism and this shouldn't be denied ?

[Valmy]

(p.s. as might be obvious by now, English is not my native language. It's not even my second language, so that might cause some difficulties...

For those that wonder: I'm Dutch. And purely from a technical standpoint, Dutch isn't even my native language. I speak a fringe minority language at home )

That explains your typical Frisian attitudes.

[Valmy]

I need to add something important here, I agree with most of what you say but I'm not sure that I agree that white people can't be victims of racism by black people. I am a white South African who lives in South Africa and I tell you with absolute certainty that there are some  black people in South Africa who are definitely racist towards us. Yes it is shaped by the past, they are bitter for a variety of reasons that include the fact that they haven't achieved economic success in the new South Africa, in fact there is a racist slogan that says "one settler, one bullet  "which really translates to " kill the white people "

I think he was only speaking about countries which are white majority. Once you venture into areas with different dominant ethnic groups things are different. Of course South Africa also has that history that makes things more complicated than say, in Thailand or something.

[PrimeJunta]

@KaineParker Indeed. 

 

Can you provide an alternative word for the concept defined in the "Racism (Sociological)" link I posted? One that's in "the dictionary," naturally.

 

I'm betting there isn't one, because "racism" is the word generally used for that concept. Language is inherently imprecise and words have multiple meanings. I find it more productive to clarify the meanings as we go. So if we want to discuss racism (sociological), we're pretty much stuck with the word.

 

Unless, of course, your motive in posting the dictionary definition is to shut down discussion of the topic altogether. Is it?

[Amentep]

@Amentep Do you also feel that measles vaccinations are pointless unless you can eradicate all infectious diseases forever?

The proper analogy to my point with respect to vaccinations would actually be "I do not feel that measles vaccination will work if you only vaccinate the (rich/poor/men/women/white/black/whatever-subset-of-the-population-you-want)"

[BruceVC]

Really? That's a rather...bold claim. I'm looking forward to your proof that everyone in the world is, in fact, guilty of some form of racism.

 

 

Come now Amentep, don't play the old " well prove that everyone in the world is racist  "  card ...its intellectually dishonest 

 

If that was how we disputed a point we would never go anywhere ever with our debates. You know what he meant

Edited April 14, 2015 by BruceVC

[BruceVC]

 

I need to add something important here, I agree with most of what you say but I'm not sure that I agree that white people can't be victims of racism by black people. I am a white South African who lives in South Africa and I tell you with absolute certainty that there are some  black people in South Africa who are definitely racist towards us. Yes it is shaped by the past, they are bitter for a variety of reasons that include the fact that they haven't achieved economic success in the new South Africa, in fact there is a racist slogan that says "one settler, one bullet  "which really translates to " kill the white people "

I think he was only speaking about countries which are white majority. Once you venture into areas with different dominant ethnic groups things are different. Of course South Africa also has that history that makes things more complicated than say, in Thailand or something.

 

 

Fair enough, South Africa is probably a bad example because you could say due to our past its not surprising some black people are racist..or at least come across like that  

[PrimeJunta]

@Amentep You're the one who brought up different types of racism. In that analogy, it's not all measles, it's a range of viruses, ranging from nosedrip to Ebola. 

 

IMO it is worth ignoring the nosedrip while attempting to eradicate Ebola and measles. 

 

Moreso as it's arguable that "reverse racism" is to a large extent a reaction to systemic racism. Reduce systemic racism and "reverse racism" will be reduced with it. The converse, however, is much less true.

Edited April 14, 2015 by PrimeJunta

[Psychevore]

 

(p.s. as might be obvious by now, English is not my native language. It's not even my second language, so that might cause some difficulties...

For those that wonder: I'm Dutch. And purely from a technical standpoint, Dutch isn't even my native language. I speak a fringe minority language at home )

That explains your typical Frisian attitudes.

 

[Valmy]

LOL took a shot there.

[Psychevore]

 

 

I need to add something important here, I agree with most of what you say but I'm not sure that I agree that white people can't be victims of racism by black people. I am a white South African who lives in South Africa and I tell you with absolute certainty that there are some  black people in South Africa who are definitely racist towards us. Yes it is shaped by the past, they are bitter for a variety of reasons that include the fact that they haven't achieved economic success in the new South Africa, in fact there is a racist slogan that says "one settler, one bullet  "which really translates to " kill the white people "

I think he was only speaking about countries which are white majority. Once you venture into areas with different dominant ethnic groups things are different. Of course South Africa also has that history that makes things more complicated than say, in Thailand or something.

 

 

Fair enough, South Africa is probably a bad example because you could say due to our past its not surprising some black people are racist..or at least come across like that

 

South Africa is a bad example in general because, as far as I have understood, the white minority is still dominant in many ways.

[Psychevore]

 

LOL took a shot there.

 

I know, it's why I liked your post.

 

I'm assuming you're Dutch, as I doubt anyone besides Dutch people (or English language history experts , as apparantly, Frisian was one of the languages that influenced old English) would know what Frisians are.

[PrimeJunta]

[Serdan]

Then they're using "racism" incorrectly in the same manner teabagers incorrectly use "socialism" to describe government welfare programs.

 

If you're going to use a word bother to use it correctly.

 

Teabaggers don't bother with actually defining socialism because the people they pander to already equate it with evil.

Comparing that to the extensive writings on the subject of centuries of institutionalised racial inequality ("racism" for short) betrays your ignorance.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

@KaineParker Indeed. 

 

Can you provide an alternative word for the concept defined in the "Racism (Sociological)" link I posted? One that's in "the dictionary," naturally.

Aside from the initial definition I already posted?

 

I'm betting there isn't one, because "racism" is the word generally used for that concept. Language is inherently imprecise and words have multiple meanings. I find it more productive to clarify the meanings as we go. So if we want to discuss racism (sociological), we're pretty much stuck with the word.

My problem with this is the motte and bailey discussions. I personally prefer stating exactly what I mean, such as "institutional problems black proletariat/lumpen-proletariat faces under US society" rather than racism to avoid connotations of a KKK actively going after blacks because of bigotry. I understand that some may find that approach a bit pedantic, but it's just the way I think and speak/write.

 

Unless, of course, your motive in posting the dictionary definition is to shut down discussion of the topic altogether. Is it?

No, my motive is to steer this thread into a discussion about the failure of capitalism and the glory of socialism.