5 ms·

No. I'm told I'm racist because I think blacks and whites are interchangeable, and because I don't care about one over the other. I'm told I'm racist for thin

No. I'm told I'm racist because I think blacks and whites are interchangeable, and because I don't care about one over the other. I'm told I'm racist for thinking the opposite. I'm told it's racist to discriminate on the basis of race. I'm also told it's racist NOT to do so. The closest principle I can find that predicts who is considered a racist is "republican = racist". Can you provide a clear definition of racism that you'll endorse, even if I can derive conclusions you dislike?

selllikesybok 10y ago
I'd start here - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism #1 leads to #3 leads to #2. But there is a lot more to it. Not a simple concept. There is a lot of reading to do if you'd like to understand more. Can provide some links.
- Inconel 10y ago
  Isn't it increasing argued that the dictionary definition of racism is only one possible definition? I've heard it stated many times that the newer excepted definition involves the traditional aspect of racism coupled with the component of power. That is to say that racism is prejudice plus power. As an example, a minority in the US may be prejudiced or bigoted, but they cannot be racist since they lack the societal power that whites enjoy. Thus only whites can be racist. Just to be clear, I'm not endorsing one definition over the other, I only meant to illustrate that even seemingly well defined words can have different meanings.
  - John23832 10y ago
    Wouldn't your given definition be a working combination of the given definitions from Webster?
    - Inconel 10y ago
      You're correct. I should have been more clear. My main point was that racial prejudice alone (#3 in the above link), minus the power component, wouldn't be enough to satisfy the requirements of racism under some definitions.
  - selllikesybok 10y ago
    What you're referring to the as the "traditional aspect" is #3 in the linked page. #3 coupled with power is #2 in the linked page.
    - Inconel 10y ago
      Good point, although I think it could be argued that there could be a political doctrine based on racism at say the local or regional level, that wouldn't be widespread enough at the societal level to qualify as racism under some definitions. For example you could live in a city or town that adopts discriminatory laws against whites, this would meet the political doctrine aspect, but it still wouldn't be widespread enough in American society to qualify as racism. I'm not very smart though so you should keep that in mind, I could be totally off base here.
- sharemywin 10y ago
  I know this is going to come off like a "smart ass" But, I really curious what people think. Can someone be a bigot towards racists? I've heard the argument that the left is intolerant of intolerance and there for hypocritical, which sort of on it's face sounds plausible but seems more like an alt-fact to me. But I can't put my finger of why. It kind of reminds me of the time I was arguing with my brother and his response was "I don't believe in logic" How do you deal with people that refuse to argue with logic and facts?
  - talmand 10y ago
    I would say these days anything along the lines of what you are asking is difficult to answer. The language concerning such topics have been so muddled with people's opinions of what words actually mean that no one fully understands what the other side is trying to say. Which only ends in personal attacks. It is one thing to try to deal with people who refuse to argue with facts; it's quite another to deal with people who refuse to accept that their can be different interpretations of the same facts by different people.
  - humanrebar 10y ago
    > How do you deal with people that refuse to argue with logic and facts? This is a good point, and circles back to the original thought in this thread. When words are unclear, how can you discuss logic and facts? People don't have the patience (nor should they) to sit down and cooperatively define dozens of key terms each time they have a meaningful discussion about the direction of society, culture, and government. Relabeling and redefining things to assert power (instead of reasoning with others) inhibits cooperative reason and is therefore, in my mind, irrational and harmful.
    - sosuke 10y ago
      Why shouldn't people have the patience to define their language before having a discussion? Your last line seems to indicate that you think having unchanged definitions to words is a good thing. My wife and I define things to each other frequently. We often are saying the same things but confusing each others meanings because of wording.
Lawtonfogle 10y ago
The second half of your last sentence is the key to the issue, IMO. People calling things racist, and yet those who agree with the things being called racist seeing those name calling ignoring similar behavior weakens the concept of bigotry. My favorite example of this is the legal system. The legal system is racist against blacks and Hispanics because it is harder on them. The legal system is also sexist against women because it is easier on them. When someone sees both of these views together, the entire concept of bigotry is called into question. And it's becoming a self parody as well. People are now being called transphobic for being unwilling to have sex with a transsexual they aren't attracted to. A gay guy who is only attracted to people with a punishment is now a bigot... what? Yeah, that view isn't by any means common yet, but it has been appearing online for a while now.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
btown 10y ago
I don't have time at the moment to give this the response it deserves, but this is quite an eye-opening comment. There are many who believe that globalism is discriminatory as well. I truly think there's an answer that is in line with the "gut feelings" of those of us who are abhorred by Trump's order and not by trends towards globalism, but as you note, it's difficult to articulate.
cryoshon 10y ago
you make a lot of great points that call back to one central concept: the liberal idea of "racism" is multifaceted and constantly shifting to be more inclusive. understanding what "racism" is requires you to keep up with the thought development that's ongoing, and frankly it's too much work for almost everyone to do so. perhaps a different perspective will be useful, and i'm just making this up as i go, so bear with me. imagine a utopian society in which 100% of people have complete equality of opportunity as well as ability to capitalize on opportunities. the society itself has no needs which are unmet, and vast resources which are disbursed equally. this means that the choice of what to do with one's destiny is limited only by their share of the society's resources. if there ever were any ethnicity, religions, or races, they've long since been forgotten, and all the members of this society are united in their affection for equality and humanism. here, someone going for a facile point would ask what color do you imagine the people of this society to be (looking for a "gotcha", you're a racist), but that's not my purpose. instead, try to work your way backward from this theoretical society to the broad term of "racism" we have today. what needs to change? for one, the actual situation of an arbitrary group of people needs to change, along with their mental outlook. let's say that this arbitrary group starts off with fewer opportunities than the rest, though their ability to capitalize on what opportunities they have is supposedly unchanged. their mental outlook is thus that of starting from behind, and they're not wrong. because they've started from behind, the development of this group to reach their individual goals for life is slower. if the citizens of the rest of the society truly love equality in the fashion that they claim, then they must redistribute all of their resources en-masse, removing the disparity between the groups. unfortunately, in our thought experiment, a one-time transfer isn't enough, and each new generation the disadvantaged group will need to receive some resources from everyone else. this spawns resentment among a portion of the egalitarian-minded population. we'll call this portion the conservatives. fed up with having less as a result of the group requiring their resources, they decide as a bloc to withhold their contribution despite still benefiting from the general climate of promoting equality themselves. predictably, the disadvantaged group begins to fall further behind, as they're not receiving as many resources as before. we now have the poor, the liberals, and the conservatives. eventually, the withdrawal of resources by the conservatives begins to impact the poor more severely, and limits their ability to capitalize on opportunities as well as additionally hurting the resources that they start with. their sphere of potential paths to take in life shrinks expediently. education becomes more limited, many lose sight of egalitarian ideals, and a few turn to crime. the utopian society is no longer utopian at this point in our journey toward our reality. let's fast forward a number of generations. the situation of the poor group has degraded considerably, and poverty has scarred the minds of its people. the egalitarian ideals of the past are still alive, in some people-- but to ignore the dilapidated condition of the poor group is impossible, and so calls to renew equality are aspirational. many have invented stories about why exactly it is that the poor are so unsightly, seem to be the only one committing crimes, and don't have the same resources as everyone else. these stories aren't fantastical, so much as they are filters of perception instantiated in specific incidents. many people treat the group differently as a result of the stories that are told, further reducing their opportunities. we can, at this point, generally say that these filters are equivalent to "racism". so, let's say you're one of the old-school idealists, and you still think that, even though the challenges are greater than back in the day, equality is necessary and desirable. would you say that the group at the start of the thought experiment is interchangeable with the other groups? no, not anymore, though they were at the start-- and this is a sticking point for understanding the concept of racism in a more nuanced way. are they NOT interchangeable? at the start of the thought experiment, they were in fact fully interchangeable, until we changed the variables. now, they need more resources to succeed. is it "racist" to discriminate on the basis of race? well, yes, if you believe in egalitarianism, you shouldn't be disqualifying someone because their starting conditions were different-- and if you really, REALLY are serious about egalitarianism, you'll give up some of your resources to them to help them catch up. the liberals would prefer it if everyone were in the REALLY serious camp, and tend to describe alternatives as "racist". i wonder if this made any sense
panglott 10y ago
The US is a racist society: "race" has no valid biological basis, but is a salient social category which impacts social and economic interactions in a wide variety of ways, producing inequalities of privilege and injustice. Whether or not you have bigotry in your heart is beside the point—no one can know such things. When you spend all your energy trying to prove that you are untainted and innocent of racism, it seems like you are missing the point: in a pervasivly racist society, discriminatory behaviors creep in the subconscious of everyone, black/white/antiracist/whatever, and we have to consciously struggle with them. The question is really more about how you interact with broader society racism, not whether you are a naif.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  I don't know what you mean by "racist". Can you provide a clear and unambiguous definition? I don't think you can.
  - daveguy 10y ago
    Negative action, thoughts or words based on race. No individual is a stereotype. Treating a racial group as a stereotype is racist. Edit: fortunately we can legislate the hell out of the actions. It's not that difficult. Though I will give you credit for willful ignorance for the sake of argument. Good rhetoric. A-
    - reitanqild 10y ago
      I was with you almost until the "willful ignorance". I also guess yummyfajitas was with you until the second paragraph as well. My frustration is that your definition doesn't seem to be the one that one is jugded against but rather one that defines us all as racists because of the society we live in, because of our distant relatives etc. Because of this there seems to be no way to defend against this. And since I am a "racist" it is only fair to dismiss all my opinions, right? Again: I'm arguing in good faith. I don't like Trump but I am afraid the rethoric we see from Democrats and others are driving voters straight into his arms. I'm also fairly certain that it hurts this community when people go around accusing other long term contributors of willfull ignorance.
thex10 10y ago
> I'm told > I'm told > I'm told You're on HN, so you're obviously capable of research, learning, etc. Why don't you go do your own research and try to understand instead of blindly listening to what you're told and then complaining of being confused?
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  The parent poster claims it's clear. I'm pointing out that there seem to be widely disparate and inconsistent opinions on the matter. The best way to prove me wrong would be to provide a clear and unambiguous definition. Strangely, no one has done that.
  - thex10 10y ago
    Why would you assume I need to disprove the assertion that there's are disparate and inconsistent opinions? Of course there are! That's why they are opinions! Also I'm not sure why you'd look to HN for clarity on any sort of social issue. That's not this community's expertise. That's why I'm saying go forth and learn.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      Metafunctor asserted that he knows what racism means, and implied that it was obvious. I was disputing this, that's all.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Avshalom 10y ago
Sometimes when you cut some one open and take out body parts it's called murder. Sometimes when you cut some one open and take out body parts it's called surgery. CONTEXT MATTERS
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Murder is the unlawful and premeditated killing of one person by another. Surgery is the treatment of injuries or disorders of the body by incision or manipulation, especially with instruments. Racism is ___? Please fill in the blanks so I can apply your definition to an action/belief together with it's associated context.
  - Avshalom 10y ago
    No.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      That's my point. It's completely unclear. That's why it's such a great slur; there is no clear definition of it, no way to prove it false, and it inspires such negative emotions.
      - Avshalom 10y ago
        Because context matters there is no one line definition. Not that you care. You will happily argue that MLK was the real racist for making white people let black people eat in their restaurants.
        yummyfajitas 10y ago
        According to you, context matters for murder and surgery as well. Yet there is a clear and unambiguous definition of those terms. I have no idea what you are trying to argue in your second line. Is that an attempt at a strange ad-hominem attack?
beat 10y ago
Believing black and white are interchangeable is a privilege of being white. NO black person is allowed to believe this. Society tells them so, every single day. Stop, and chew on that for a while. Think about your black friends - do you think any of them believe blacks and whites are interchangeable? Do you think a cop pulling them over, or a person interviewing them for a job, always believes this? No matter how colorblind you may think you are personally, much of the rest of America is not. Equality is theory, not practice. If you step up and do something about it, you have to acknowledge that inequality is real, that black and white are not interchangeable. If you don't step up, you're denying reality.
derrickdirge 10y ago
Racism is making decisions about a person's character based on information about their ethnic background. Usually these decisions negatively impact the subject of the racism, serving to position them as inferior to the decider's race.

selllikesybok 10y ago

I'd start here - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism #1 leads to #3 leads to #2. But there is a lot more to it. Not a simple concept. There is a lot of reading to do if you'd like to understand more. Can provide some links.

Inconel 10y ago
Isn't it increasing argued that the dictionary definition of racism is only one possible definition? I've heard it stated many times that the newer excepted definition involves the traditional aspect of racism coupled with the component of power. That is to say that racism is prejudice plus power. As an example, a minority in the US may be prejudiced or bigoted, but they cannot be racist since they lack the societal power that whites enjoy. Thus only whites can be racist. Just to be clear, I'm not endorsing one definition over the other, I only meant to illustrate that even seemingly well defined words can have different meanings.
- John23832 10y ago
  Wouldn't your given definition be a working combination of the given definitions from Webster?
  - Inconel 10y ago
    You're correct. I should have been more clear. My main point was that racial prejudice alone (#3 in the above link), minus the power component, wouldn't be enough to satisfy the requirements of racism under some definitions.
- selllikesybok 10y ago
  What you're referring to the as the "traditional aspect" is #3 in the linked page. #3 coupled with power is #2 in the linked page.
  - Inconel 10y ago
    Good point, although I think it could be argued that there could be a political doctrine based on racism at say the local or regional level, that wouldn't be widespread enough at the societal level to qualify as racism under some definitions. For example you could live in a city or town that adopts discriminatory laws against whites, this would meet the political doctrine aspect, but it still wouldn't be widespread enough in American society to qualify as racism. I'm not very smart though so you should keep that in mind, I could be totally off base here.
sharemywin 10y ago
I know this is going to come off like a "smart ass" But, I really curious what people think. Can someone be a bigot towards racists? I've heard the argument that the left is intolerant of intolerance and there for hypocritical, which sort of on it's face sounds plausible but seems more like an alt-fact to me. But I can't put my finger of why. It kind of reminds me of the time I was arguing with my brother and his response was "I don't believe in logic" How do you deal with people that refuse to argue with logic and facts?
- talmand 10y ago
  I would say these days anything along the lines of what you are asking is difficult to answer. The language concerning such topics have been so muddled with people's opinions of what words actually mean that no one fully understands what the other side is trying to say. Which only ends in personal attacks. It is one thing to try to deal with people who refuse to argue with facts; it's quite another to deal with people who refuse to accept that their can be different interpretations of the same facts by different people.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  > How do you deal with people that refuse to argue with logic and facts? This is a good point, and circles back to the original thought in this thread. When words are unclear, how can you discuss logic and facts? People don't have the patience (nor should they) to sit down and cooperatively define dozens of key terms each time they have a meaningful discussion about the direction of society, culture, and government. Relabeling and redefining things to assert power (instead of reasoning with others) inhibits cooperative reason and is therefore, in my mind, irrational and harmful.
  - sosuke 10y ago
    Why shouldn't people have the patience to define their language before having a discussion? Your last line seems to indicate that you think having unchanged definitions to words is a good thing. My wife and I define things to each other frequently. We often are saying the same things but confusing each others meanings because of wording.

Lawtonfogle 10y ago

The second half of your last sentence is the key to the issue, IMO. People calling things racist, and yet those who agree with the things being called racist seeing those name calling ignoring similar behavior weakens the concept of bigotry. My favorite example of this is the legal system. The legal system is racist against blacks and Hispanics because it is harder on them. The legal system is also sexist against women because it is easier on them. When someone sees both of these views together, the entire concept of bigotry is called into question. And it's becoming a self parody as well. People are now being called transphobic for being unwilling to have sex with a transsexual they aren't attracted to. A gay guy who is only attracted to people with a punishment is now a bigot... what? Yeah, that view isn't by any means common yet, but it has been appearing online for a while now.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

btown 10y ago

I don't have time at the moment to give this the response it deserves, but this is quite an eye-opening comment. There are many who believe that globalism is discriminatory as well. I truly think there's an answer that is in line with the "gut feelings" of those of us who are abhorred by Trump's order and not by trends towards globalism, but as you note, it's difficult to articulate.

cryoshon 10y ago

you make a lot of great points that call back to one central concept: the liberal idea of "racism" is multifaceted and constantly shifting to be more inclusive. understanding what "racism" is requires you to keep up with the thought development that's ongoing, and frankly it's too much work for almost everyone to do so. perhaps a different perspective will be useful, and i'm just making this up as i go, so bear with me. imagine a utopian society in which 100% of people have complete equality of opportunity as well as ability to capitalize on opportunities. the society itself has no needs which are unmet, and vast resources which are disbursed equally. this means that the choice of what to do with one's destiny is limited only by their share of the society's resources. if there ever were any ethnicity, religions, or races, they've long since been forgotten, and all the members of this society are united in their affection for equality and humanism. here, someone going for a facile point would ask what color do you imagine the people of this society to be (looking for a "gotcha", you're a racist), but that's not my purpose. instead, try to work your way backward from this theoretical society to the broad term of "racism" we have today. what needs to change? for one, the actual situation of an arbitrary group of people needs to change, along with their mental outlook. let's say that this arbitrary group starts off with fewer opportunities than the rest, though their ability to capitalize on what opportunities they have is supposedly unchanged. their mental outlook is thus that of starting from behind, and they're not wrong. because they've started from behind, the development of this group to reach their individual goals for life is slower. if the citizens of the rest of the society truly love equality in the fashion that they claim, then they must redistribute all of their resources en-masse, removing the disparity between the groups. unfortunately, in our thought experiment, a one-time transfer isn't enough, and each new generation the disadvantaged group will need to receive some resources from everyone else. this spawns resentment among a portion of the egalitarian-minded population. we'll call this portion the conservatives. fed up with having less as a result of the group requiring their resources, they decide as a bloc to withhold their contribution despite still benefiting from the general climate of promoting equality themselves. predictably, the disadvantaged group begins to fall further behind, as they're not receiving as many resources as before. we now have the poor, the liberals, and the conservatives. eventually, the withdrawal of resources by the conservatives begins to impact the poor more severely, and limits their ability to capitalize on opportunities as well as additionally hurting the resources that they start with. their sphere of potential paths to take in life shrinks expediently. education becomes more limited, many lose sight of egalitarian ideals, and a few turn to crime. the utopian society is no longer utopian at this point in our journey toward our reality. let's fast forward a number of generations. the situation of the poor group has degraded considerably, and poverty has scarred the minds of its people. the egalitarian ideals of the past are still alive, in some people-- but to ignore the dilapidated condition of the poor group is impossible, and so calls to renew equality are aspirational. many have invented stories about why exactly it is that the poor are so unsightly, seem to be the only one committing crimes, and don't have the same resources as everyone else. these stories aren't fantastical, so much as they are filters of perception instantiated in specific incidents. many people treat the group differently as a result of the stories that are told, further reducing their opportunities. we can, at this point, generally say that these filters are equivalent to "racism". so, let's say you're one of the old-school idealists, and you still think that, even though the challenges are greater than back in the day, equality is necessary and desirable. would you say that the group at the start of the thought experiment is interchangeable with the other groups? no, not anymore, though they were at the start-- and this is a sticking point for understanding the concept of racism in a more nuanced way. are they NOT interchangeable? at the start of the thought experiment, they were in fact fully interchangeable, until we changed the variables. now, they need more resources to succeed. is it "racist" to discriminate on the basis of race? well, yes, if you believe in egalitarianism, you shouldn't be disqualifying someone because their starting conditions were different-- and if you really, REALLY are serious about egalitarianism, you'll give up some of your resources to them to help them catch up. the liberals would prefer it if everyone were in the REALLY serious camp, and tend to describe alternatives as "racist". i wonder if this made any sense

panglott 10y ago

The US is a racist society: "race" has no valid biological basis, but is a salient social category which impacts social and economic interactions in a wide variety of ways, producing inequalities of privilege and injustice. Whether or not you have bigotry in your heart is beside the point—no one can know such things. When you spend all your energy trying to prove that you are untainted and innocent of racism, it seems like you are missing the point: in a pervasivly racist society, discriminatory behaviors creep in the subconscious of everyone, black/white/antiracist/whatever, and we have to consciously struggle with them. The question is really more about how you interact with broader society racism, not whether you are a naif.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
I don't know what you mean by "racist". Can you provide a clear and unambiguous definition? I don't think you can.
- daveguy 10y ago
  Negative action, thoughts or words based on race. No individual is a stereotype. Treating a racial group as a stereotype is racist. Edit: fortunately we can legislate the hell out of the actions. It's not that difficult. Though I will give you credit for willful ignorance for the sake of argument. Good rhetoric. A-
  - reitanqild 10y ago
    I was with you almost until the "willful ignorance". I also guess yummyfajitas was with you until the second paragraph as well. My frustration is that your definition doesn't seem to be the one that one is jugded against but rather one that defines us all as racists because of the society we live in, because of our distant relatives etc. Because of this there seems to be no way to defend against this. And since I am a "racist" it is only fair to dismiss all my opinions, right? Again: I'm arguing in good faith. I don't like Trump but I am afraid the rethoric we see from Democrats and others are driving voters straight into his arms. I'm also fairly certain that it hurts this community when people go around accusing other long term contributors of willfull ignorance.

thex10 10y ago

> I'm told > I'm told > I'm told You're on HN, so you're obviously capable of research, learning, etc. Why don't you go do your own research and try to understand instead of blindly listening to what you're told and then complaining of being confused?

yummyfajitas 10y ago
The parent poster claims it's clear. I'm pointing out that there seem to be widely disparate and inconsistent opinions on the matter. The best way to prove me wrong would be to provide a clear and unambiguous definition. Strangely, no one has done that.
- thex10 10y ago
  Why would you assume I need to disprove the assertion that there's are disparate and inconsistent opinions? Of course there are! That's why they are opinions! Also I'm not sure why you'd look to HN for clarity on any sort of social issue. That's not this community's expertise. That's why I'm saying go forth and learn.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    Metafunctor asserted that he knows what racism means, and implied that it was obvious. I was disputing this, that's all.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Avshalom 10y ago

Sometimes when you cut some one open and take out body parts it's called murder. Sometimes when you cut some one open and take out body parts it's called surgery. CONTEXT MATTERS

yummyfajitas 10y ago
Murder is the unlawful and premeditated killing of one person by another. Surgery is the treatment of injuries or disorders of the body by incision or manipulation, especially with instruments. Racism is ___? Please fill in the blanks so I can apply your definition to an action/belief together with it's associated context.
- Avshalom 10y ago
  No.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    That's my point. It's completely unclear. That's why it's such a great slur; there is no clear definition of it, no way to prove it false, and it inspires such negative emotions.
    - Avshalom 10y ago
      Because context matters there is no one line definition. Not that you care. You will happily argue that MLK was the real racist for making white people let black people eat in their restaurants.
      - yummyfajitas 10y ago
        According to you, context matters for murder and surgery as well. Yet there is a clear and unambiguous definition of those terms. I have no idea what you are trying to argue in your second line. Is that an attempt at a strange ad-hominem attack?

beat 10y ago

Believing black and white are interchangeable is a privilege of being white. NO black person is allowed to believe this. Society tells them so, every single day. Stop, and chew on that for a while. Think about your black friends - do you think any of them believe blacks and whites are interchangeable? Do you think a cop pulling them over, or a person interviewing them for a job, always believes this? No matter how colorblind you may think you are personally, much of the rest of America is not. Equality is theory, not practice. If you step up and do something about it, you have to acknowledge that inequality is real, that black and white are not interchangeable. If you don't step up, you're denying reality.

derrickdirge 10y ago

Racism is making decisions about a person's character based on information about their ethnic background. Usually these decisions negatively impact the subject of the racism, serving to position them as inferior to the decider's race.