Does racism require ones ethnicity to possess collective power

[zerocool84]

Republican running for Governor in Georgia has a "Deportation Bus"

No racism here though because there's very fine people on both sides.

 

[brandonbull]

Republican running for Governor in Georgia has a "Deportation Bus"

No racism here though because there's very fine people on both sides.

That darn race of Mex-e-cans.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Why else would a white man want a black man lynched (not just murdered, but lynched)?

When was the last lynching that you know of?

 

[Amused]

When was the last lynching that you know of?

The last recorded verified group lynching in the US was 1981.

However, many since then have been suspected, with suicide the official cause because hey, it's a hanging, right? Other racially motivated murders of black men have occurred frequently.

But how is that relevant for what this man stated he wanted done to a black man?

 

[UglyCasanova]

What man? I must have missed it, who wants a lynching?


Does this count as one?

 

[Amused]

What man? I must have missed it, who wants a lynching?


Does this count as one?

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...-hit-man-to-lynch-his-black-neighbor.2545588/

 

[UglyCasanova]

Weird. Would you consider the incident in my link to be a lynching.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

That darn race of Mex-e-cans.

so this passes as clever in your world.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Weird. Would you consider the incident in my link to be a lynching.

No, it was "a hate crime, felony aggravated kidnapping, aggravated unlawful restraint and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon"

*this* is a lynching

 

[brandonbull]

so this passes as clever in your world.

Not really, but it's all relative. Compared to you and your greats posts, it's goddamn Hawking-esque.

 

[Amused]

Not really, but it's all relative. Compared to you and your greats posts, it's goddamn Hawking-esque.

Says something stupid, compares himself to the most brilliant man in history...

 

[breag]

The definition has been posted many times.

Racism is defined as, read this slowly, a COMBINATION OF RACIAL PREDJUDICE AND A BELIEF IF RACIAL SUPERIORITY.

You get that? Without a belief in superiority, racial prejudice is not racism.

Reading through this thread, before it devolved into a poop flinging contest, I found myself agreeing and then disagreeing vehemently with you and others.
I think a big part of the issue I had is assumed scope of 'belief in racial superiority'.
After looking at a number of the comments from you and others with that in mind it seems to be one of the major causes of contention.

I can understand 'belief in racial superiority' being a required component that can distinguish between 'racism' and 'racial predjudice' ... but the definition of superiority, and its scope, is fungible.
To me that makes that distinction just as fungible.

Assume it is narrowly scoped.
If I think I my race has superior solitaire skills than your race's it can be said that my statement that 'your race's solitaire skills suck' meets the definition of racism.
I suppose it's possible I'd be saying your race's solitaire skill sucked while thinking that, though they sucked, my race's were worse.
Possible - though it's unlikely I'd have made the statement in that case.

Assume it is broadly scoped.
Taking the solitaire statement - as an observer in order for you to assign a value to it being a racist vs. prejudiced *you need to assume what *my scope is.
You don't know if I think my race is better at solitaire but worse at horseshoes or overall superior in all the metrics that happen to be important to me (or what those metrics are).
So you really can't say the statement is racist or racially prejudiced without applying your *own prejudices about what you think I meant.

Scope should narrowly match the statement unless otherwise specified.
'Superiority' is too fuzzy of a term as a general.
Not that assuming one race is overall superior to another could ever be justified - but *wow*.
Just imagining all the possible variables that would or would not be included by different people in different contexts is mind boggling.

Silly example but seems useful.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Says something stupid, compares himself to the most brilliant man in history...

HA! (I read it as if Wilder was talking, which ups the funny a bit, for me anyway)

 

[Amused]

Reading through this thread, before it devolved into a poop flinging contest, I found myself agreeing and then disagreeing vehemently with you and others.
I think a big part of the issue I had is assumed scope of 'belief in racial superiority'.
After looking at a number of the comments from you and others with that in mind it seems to be one of the major causes of contention.

I can understand 'belief in racial superiority' being a required component that can distinguish between 'racism' and 'racial predjudice' ... but the definition of superiority, and its scope, is fungible.
To me that makes that distinction just as fungible.

Assume it is narrowly scoped.
If I think I my race has superior solitaire skills than your race's it can be said that my statement that 'your race's solitaire skills suck' meets the definition of racism.
I suppose it's possible I'd be saying your race's solitaire skill sucked while thinking that, though they sucked, my race's were worse.
Possible - though it's unlikely I'd have made the statement in that case.

Assume it is broadly scoped.
Taking the solitaire statement - as an observer in order for you to assign a value to it being a racist vs. prejudiced *you need to assume what *my scope is.
You don't know if I think my race is better at solitaire but worse at horseshoes or overall superior in all the metrics that happen to be important to me (or what those metrics are).
So you really can't say the statement is racist or racially prejudiced without applying your *own prejudices about what you think I meant.

Scope should narrowly match the statement unless otherwise specified.
'Superiority' is too fuzzy of a term as a general.
Not that assuming one race is overall superior to another could ever be justified - but *wow*.
Just imagining all the possible variables that would or would not be included by different people in different contexts is mind boggling.

Silly example but seems useful.

Racial superiority is easy to ascertain. It can be judged by the language, and actions of the individual. By the arguments they use to justify/deny their racism (bell curve, crime rates, "lazy" blaming racism induced poverty on the impoverished rather than the racism that caused it, etc.)

Where as the oppressed individual whose animosity and resentment leads them to fear and suspect their oppressor's race because of power and abuse, the oppressor does so because there he believes there is something inherently inferior about the other race.

One race fears and resents an institutionalized racist belief system and seeks equality, and the other perpetuates that system while denying it exists because he believes there is something inherently inferior about the other race.

One may try to fog that up all they want, but it's pretty clear cut what the difference is between simple racial prejudice and racism.

 

[Jaskalas]

Because, in each instance, white supremacy is involved.

That is fine circular logic. You take the time to definitely spell out that implicit bias and/or racial prejudice is distinct from racism, as racism "requires" supremacist ideology. Then you cite all such cases as inherently supremacist. Case closed, everything is racism... it's a wonder you wasted time telling us it wasn't, before it was.

Why else would Ivanka exclude all people of color (combined with her father's clear pandering to white supremacists)?

You know they were excluded, why, because they weren't there? How do you know this? If everyone they know has been telling them the Trump family wears white hoodies for the past couple years, maybe no one of color accepted the invite.

Or... let's skip past that and assume we know they were excluded. For a fact. Given that, what makes it supremacist? Racial bias - hell yes. I'd call it racism as society defines it as anything racial - whatsoever - as racist. But you wanted to make a point that racism requires supremacy. So why is that dancing around in your head as a fact? Maybe there is resentment and they don't like PoC. Is resentment automatically supremacy? Someone sure as hell did not think so, repeatedly:

Meanwhile, back in reality. Resentment based racial prejudice is rooted in the effects of being abused, not a feeling of superiority.

Why else would a white man want a black man lynched (not just murdered, but lynched)?

Are you telling us there is only one reason to hate people now? The concept that it could be so singularly focused seems foreign to me.

And the institutionalized racism in America is firmly rooted in the belief of racial superiority. The very name given to it "institutionalized racism" kinda gives that way.

Well that's a bit different. As institutionalized is quite the loaded word. Let's back up to what you actually said on the subject. "Anyone who continues to deny it today is themselves racist. Full stop." Where is the talk of supremacy? You are quite clearly telling us that anyone ignorant, stupid, or misinformed. Anyone of a different perspective or culture, those who could disagree are "themselves racist. Full stop". You do not speak of supremacists, but of all opponents. Huge, sweeping, generalizations.

Thus I present my argument that, you too, casually throw around the word racist. Despite your protests otherwise. It'd be much easier if you simply agreed that anything racial is racist. There may be degrees of severity, but none of it fits a just and equal society.

 

[Amused]

That is fine circular logic. You take the time to definitely spell out that implicit bias and/or racial prejudice is distinct from racism, as racism "requires" supremacist ideology. Then you cite all such cases as inherently supremacist. Case closed, everything is racism... it's a wonder you wasted time telling us it wasn't, before it was.



You know they were excluded, why, because they weren't there? How do you know this? If everyone they know has been telling them the Trump family wears white hoodies for the past couple years, maybe no one of color accepted the invite.

Or... let's skip past that and assume we know they were excluded. For a fact. Given that, what makes it supremacist? Racial bias - hell yes. I'd call it racism as society defines it as anything racial - whatsoever - as racist. But you wanted to make a point that racism requires supremacy. So why is that dancing around in your head as a fact? Maybe there is resentment and they don't like PoC. Is resentment automatically supremacy? Someone sure as hell did not think so, repeatedly:




Are you telling us there is only one reason to hate people now? The concept that it could be so singularly focused seems foreign to me.



Well that's a bit different. As institutionalized is quite the loaded word. Let's back up to what you actually said on the subject. "Anyone who continues to deny it today is themselves racist. Full stop." Where is the talk of supremacy? You are quite clearly telling us that anyone ignorant, stupid, or misinformed. Anyone of a different perspective or culture, those who could disagree are "themselves racist. Full stop". You do not speak of supremacists, but of all opponents. Huge, sweeping, generalizations.

Thus I present my argument that, you too, casually throw around the word racist. Despite your protests otherwise. It'd be much easier if you simply agreed that anything racial is racist. There may be degrees of severity, but none of it fits a just and equal society.

Oh for fucks sake. All that so you can say the definition makes you uncomfortable and you want it changed to fit your needs.

Yeah, no.

Racism is racial prejudice based upon the belief that there are inherent differences among the races that makes them inferior to your own.

It's easy to pick out. As easy as classism and sexism.

It's even easier to pick out when people try to explain away obvious acts of it.

 

[breag]

Racial superiority is easy to ascertain. It can be judged by the language, and actions of the individual. By the arguments they use to justify/deny their racism (bell curve, crime rates, "lazy" blaming racism induced poverty on the impoverished rather than the racism that caused it, etc.)

Where as the oppressed individual whose animosity and resentment leads them to fear and suspect their oppressor's race because of power and abuse, the oppressor does so because there he believes there is something inherently inferior about the other race.

One race fears and resents an institutionalized racist belief system and seeks equality, and the other perpetuates that system while denying it exists because he believes there is something inherently inferior about the other race.

One may try to fog that up all they want, but it's pretty clear cut what the difference is between simple racial prejudice and racism.

Not trying to 'fog it up' in any way - merely playing in the same theoretical cerebral field where most of this conversation thread has resided.
Your 'easy to ascertain' completely flips either way - particularly in cases of broadly scoping the definition of 'racial superiority'.
I'm not saying it's hard to pick out the 'actual' racists most of the time. Some cases can be clearly identified but not all can.
The criteria you mentioned are all subjective - meaning your definition of what constitutes a racist action or racist language isn't going to be 100% accurate - and likely isn't the same criteria I would have, or Jaskalas would have, or UglyCasanova would have.
Which means you, and any of us, if we scope 'superiority' broadly, are bringing our own baggage into the determination of what is racist or merely racially prejudiced.
If you move the term that far into the subjective it becomes no more valid that the view the racists hold.
There's really no way around that.

I'm sorry if you don't understand this.
In reality it *does boil down to prejudice based on race is racism - and nobody gets a pass.