‹ First  < 3 4 5
 
   
 

Time to end this canard

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7272
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
19 March 2021 11:45
 
weird buffalo - 19 March 2021 09:55 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 19 March 2021 09:26 AM

They also rely on changing the definitions of words in pursuit of their own selfish goals. The word, “racism,” is a perfect example. Their definition describes the inevitable and universal human trait of forming intuitive conclusions about everything, including people, based on superficial traits like appearances. Then they go on to claim that this only applies to “oppressor classes,” because the “oppressed class” cannot—by their own capricious definition—be racist.

Words are whatever we define them as.  The sounds or lines being used have no intrinsic meaning.  It is only when a mind uses them to express thoughts that they gain meaning.

It is useful to have words mean different things.  For example, when South Africa used the system of apartheid, that was a systemic form of oppression.  Government institutions and cultural norms all worked in concert to both define and oppress people based on race.  This isn’t just racial prejudice, it is an ideology.  Since it is an ideology based on race, the obvious choice of words here is “racism”.

Racial prejudice is something that can happen within the framework of racism, but it can also happen outside of it.  A Japanese person who visited South Africa on vacation and was poorly treated by a white person might not necessarily fall under the rubric of “racism” and would only be “racial prejudice”.

Being able to differentiate between these two things is important and useful.  It is possible for a police officer to exhibit racial prejudice and for the institution of the police to not be racist, and it is also possible for the institution of police to be racist and for individual officers to have no racial prejudice.

And if you don’t want me to be so patronizing, then don’t keep repeating stupid shit like this.

I actually find little to disagree with here. “Racial prejudice” is a subset of the universal and inevitable human trait that I described above. But that’s not racism as it’s been traditionally defined. Yes, words are what we define them, but CRT wants to use mere “prejudice” for the definition of racism, while maintaining its far more negative association. They want to have their cake and eat it too. No decent person wants to be “racist” according to the traditional meaning. But if “racism” is diluted to mere “prejudice,” then so what if I’m “racist?” It’s almost as benign as it is inevitable.

It only becomes malignant if I allow my “prejudice” (pre-judgment) to outweigh my conscious judgment—and behavior. As long as I don’t let my prejudice get the best of me—if I judge you by the content of your character rather than succumbing to whatever prejudice I have regarding the color of your skin—that’s not racism. Defining it as such only trivializes the word—provided one isn’t taken in by CRT’s sleight of hand.

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1181
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
19 March 2021 16:30
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 19 March 2021 11:45 AM
weird buffalo - 19 March 2021 09:55 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 19 March 2021 09:26 AM

They also rely on changing the definitions of words in pursuit of their own selfish goals. The word, “racism,” is a perfect example. Their definition describes the inevitable and universal human trait of forming intuitive conclusions about everything, including people, based on superficial traits like appearances. Then they go on to claim that this only applies to “oppressor classes,” because the “oppressed class” cannot—by their own capricious definition—be racist.

Words are whatever we define them as.  The sounds or lines being used have no intrinsic meaning.  It is only when a mind uses them to express thoughts that they gain meaning.

It is useful to have words mean different things.  For example, when South Africa used the system of apartheid, that was a systemic form of oppression.  Government institutions and cultural norms all worked in concert to both define and oppress people based on race.  This isn’t just racial prejudice, it is an ideology.  Since it is an ideology based on race, the obvious choice of words here is “racism”.

Racial prejudice is something that can happen within the framework of racism, but it can also happen outside of it.  A Japanese person who visited South Africa on vacation and was poorly treated by a white person might not necessarily fall under the rubric of “racism” and would only be “racial prejudice”.

Being able to differentiate between these two things is important and useful.  It is possible for a police officer to exhibit racial prejudice and for the institution of the police to not be racist, and it is also possible for the institution of police to be racist and for individual officers to have no racial prejudice.

And if you don’t want me to be so patronizing, then don’t keep repeating stupid shit like this.

I actually find little to disagree with here. “Racial prejudice” is a subset of the universal and inevitable human trait that I described above. But that’s not racism as it’s been traditionally defined. Yes, words are what we define them, but CRT wants to use mere “prejudice” for the definition of racism, while maintaining its far more negative association. They want to have their cake and eat it too. No decent person wants to be “racist” according to the traditional meaning. But if “racism” is diluted to mere “prejudice,” then so what if I’m “racist?” It’s almost as benign as it is inevitable.

It only becomes malignant if I allow my “prejudice” (pre-judgment) to outweigh my conscious judgment—and behavior. As long as I don’t let my prejudice get the best of me—if I judge you by the content of your character rather than succumbing to whatever prejudice I have regarding the color of your skin—that’s not racism. Defining it as such only trivializes the word—provided one isn’t taken in by CRT’s sleight of hand.

Source please.  And not one of your anti-CRT authors.  If that’s your only source, it’s a strawman.

 
deodand
 
Avatar
 
 
deodand
Total Posts:  270
Joined  06-01-2021
 
 
 
20 March 2021 09:19
 

Antisocialdarwinist, I suspect you are both right and wrong about CRT on “racism.”

Operationally “racism” for CRT is defined as an all-pervasive racialized system that affects virtually all, if not all, social interactions.  As such it can take on two forms: overt acts of discrimination, both by individuals separately or through institutional mechanisms, or the tacit discriminatory acts people otherwise, almost universally, commit (“implicit bias”). Having personal prejudices on the grounds of race is only a small and non-necessary subset of this “racism.”

This said, you are correct, I think, to point out that in practice believers in critical race theory apply a much looser definition, one so broad as to include any denigration or criticism of a person of color as likely racist, even absent any personal prejudice, but doubly so, if present (in which case, of course, it would be).  In fact, the denigration itself is ipso facto evidence of racism, if not racism itself, just as the misfortune suffered by a neighbor was ipso facto evidence than another neighbor was a witch.  The main difference here, of course, is that there are no witches, but there are racists, but the logic is the same.  Extended in practice the technical definition of “racism” among the Woke is, as you note, far broader than its technical sense, and it is applied much more loosely, with virtually no standards at all, so long as the application enforces the formal definition.

In this respect, you are right that believers in this stuff, whether through explicit endorsement or cultural osmosis, want to have their cake and eat it too.  Everyone, in effect, but them is a racist, or is perpetuating racism, especially those who disagree or otherwise challenge their orthodoxy.

[ Edited: 20 March 2021 14:25 by deodand]
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1181
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
20 March 2021 14:38
 

Man… you guys must be super afraid of real people, all you talk about are strawmen.

 
deodand
 
Avatar
 
 
deodand
Total Posts:  270
Joined  06-01-2021
 
 
 
05 April 2021 19:18
 

Accusations of straw manning are ineffective without evidence.  You need to explain what the proper views are, and how their representation here falls short, before your go-to excuse in lieu of actually making an argument carries any weight.

For instance, here’s evidence one view is not mis-represented: “Operationally “racism” for CRT is defined as an all-pervasive racialized system that affects virtually all, if not all, social interactions.”

From the dust jacket of some garbage I never took to the road, Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, and Future Reparations, now, I think, in a Fourth Edition.  In any case:

Racism is a pillar of American society.  It is found not only in small pockets of society, but it is practiced by all Americans, permeating the social fabric of our lives.  Racism affects where we live, what we wear, whom we marry, how we earn a living, and raise our children.  Despite the apparent advances since the civil rights era, America remains fundamentally racist…

For another view, perhaps the assertion “As such it [racism] can take on two forms: overt acts of discrimination, both by individuals separately or through institutional mechanisms, or the tacit discriminatory acts people otherwise, almost universally, commit (“implicit bias”),” this headline says enough, amplified by the content of the article:

Implicit bias means we’re all probably at least a little bit racist..

Support for “in practice believers in critical race theory apply a much looser definition, one so broad as to include any denigration or criticism of a person of color as likely racist, even absent any personal prejudice, but doubly so, if present (in which case, of course, it would be),” one could find any number of “living while black” examples in the press where ordinary conflicts are turned into racist incidents just because one of the parties is black.  Two accusations on this forum approximating this problem come to mind, one committed by you (against DEGENERATEON, if your memory needs refreshing).

I could go on, but now the burden is on you to show just where the straw manning lays…

Since, of course, there is none, I won’t be checking back.

 

[ Edited: 05 April 2021 19:43 by deodand]
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1181
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
06 April 2021 06:39
 

Since you won’t be checking back, then there’s no requirement for me to provide anything.

 
‹ First  < 3 4 5