8 ms·

A bicycle is a vehicle. A motorcycle is a vehicle. A bicycle is not a motorcycle. Why? Because a motorcycle has power. Seriously, I don't know why the "preju

by beat 8y ago

A bicycle is a vehicle. A motorcycle is a vehicle. A bicycle is not a motorcycle. Why? Because a motorcycle has power. Seriously, I don't know why the "prejudice + power" definitional distinction is so hard for well-meaning people to understand. It makes perfect sense.

rosser 8y ago
Because if you repudiate that definition, you can cry "Reverse racism!" with a straight face.
dev_dull 8y ago
Because that’s not how it’s used by 99% of people. A bike can mean either a motorcycle or a bicycle. Calling someone racist can mean they're racist against a person of any race.
BeetleB 8y ago
>Seriously, I don't know why the "prejudice + power" definitional distinction is so hard for well-meaning people to understand. It makes perfect sense. It is easy to understand, but there is not consensus that the meaning should have been changed. Nor is there consensus on what "power" means. Academics may have a good need for that distinction, but they made the mistake of overloading the word.
- tothepixel 8y ago
  You should go out and talk to people outside of your bubble then. Go somewhere that isn't as left. Go have a conversation with a normal person who is just trying to live their life in a city that isn't majority blue.
  - beat 8y ago
    Did you just define "normal person" as someone who lives in a non-diverse environment? Before you get angry, go read your sentence again, at how you used "normal person". What does that say about those of us who live in places with more social diversity? That we're not "normal"?
    - justwalt 8y ago
      I don’t think it’s fair to say he’s equating normal with less diverse.
  - BeetleB 8y ago
    >You should go out and talk to people outside of your bubble then. Go somewhere that isn't as left. Go have a conversation with a normal person who is just trying to live their life in a city that isn't majority blue. Attributing qualities and intentions to someone you do not know is not a constructive way of having a meaningful discussion.
tenaciousDaniel 8y ago
There is already a linguistic convention in place that disambiguates those two concepts. We had the terms "racism" and "institutional racism"/"systemic racism". What do we gain from condensing the words into one? Given how this new construction is used, my more cynical side wants to believe that what is gained is the ability of one side of the political aisle to spew any kind of hatred towards particular groups of people without criticism or consequence.
- beat 8y ago
  Because the linguistic convention is inadequate and misleading. For a counterexample, look at the use of the word "privilege", a new definition introduced to the lexicon to explain one of the expressions of prejudice in society. (If you're already poising fingers over keyboard in angry rebuttal, stop and listen.) Privilege is conceptually very simple - it is the absence of discrimination. The absence of racism, or of sexism. Yet the very term arouses righteous fury, to be even mentioned in the presence of many privileged people. Just watch the rebuttals this comment will draw for examples. So to my original point, if you introduce new language to describe the prejudice + power concept, it will be vociferously attacked by those who do not face prejudice + power in their daily lives. Likewise, if you more precisely define an existing word from this world - say, racism - it is also vociferously attacked, by the same people. And attacking the very language being used to describe the problem is part of the problem.
  - rosser 8y ago
    My favorite "Ah-ha!" illustration of privilege actually came from someone culturally and politically towards the Right: Imagine you're gay, and you're hanging out with a new friend of your gender, who does not share your orientation. At what point is it appropriate for you to disclose your orientation to your friend? Too early, what if you're seen as coming onto them? Too late, what if you're seen as not trusting them? &c. Not having to ask yourself that question is a form of "hetero privilege". It is a burden that, as a cis-het person, you will never face.
    - 8y ago
PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
Because even if you accept the definition, you then have to deal with selective definitions of power.
ankushnarula 8y ago
In my not so humble opinion, it's illiberal and destructive in its current form. For example, a white Appalachian coal miner and a black Ivy League professor have a power disparity based on income, education, and social class. But the "prejudice + power" crowd will have you believe that the coal miner's membership in the elusive all-powerful "white people" monolith gives him more social cache´ (hence power) than the professor. That's because the professor's membership in the elusive "black people" monolith puts him near the top of the marginalized intersectional hierarchy. Any rational person who isn't obsessed with the phenotypical categorization of individuals (aka a bigot) will reject this notion - recognizing the professor's freedom/power relative to the coal miner. People are individuals (not groups) with complicated lives and experiences. To reduce ALL "black people" to marginalized victims is the soft bigotry of low expectations. But worse, to elevate all "white people" above all "black people" is a vile and tacit view that all "white people" are the necessary saviors of all "black people". This kind of twisted illiberal thinking permanently infantilizes all "black people".
- rosser 8y ago
  This is not the position. To insist that the "prejudice + power" argument is premised on bright-line "race == power" is to mischaracterize it to the point of being unrecognizable. It's about relative power. If I'm black, and your boss, and have a prejudice against your race, I can be racist. If I'm black, have no meaningful kind of power over you, and have a prejudice against your race, I'm just prejudiced. That's the position. This "ALL" lunacy is a multiple fallacies in one, and it remains a bitter disappointment to see a crowd of people who otherwise pride themselves aloud on being so smart, buy into it so unexaminedly.
  - ankushnarula 8y ago
    That's nice because you reduced it to actual authoritative power. I can respect that. But that's not how it's playing out in the culture.
    - beat 8y ago
      So what is playing out in the culture? A privileged majority angrily attacking any attempts to refine the meaning of existing words to describe the real-world consequences of prejudice (racism), and attacking attempts to introduce new language to describe the structure of non-prejudice (privilege). It's almost as if the majority doesn't want us talking about it at all. That's how it's playing out in the culture. Think about this when you attack terminology.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Seriously, I don't know why the "prejudice + power" definitional distinction is so hard for well-meaning people to understand. It's not hard to understand, it's just a redefinition that was consciously created to justify claims that it was impossible for blacks to be racist, and which serves no good purpose. Yes, power dynamics are relevant to the impacts of racism; no, that doesn't make the effort to redefine racism in terms of them useful. Particularly because power isn't a binary trait, it's a multidimensional continuum, and prejudice is always accompanied by power, of some degree or scope. And particularly, also, because he history of the redefinition is well-known and makes it divisive and redirects any discussion into a heated fight over semantics rather than substance, even if revisionists attempt to save the redefinition by trying to apply it in a more nuanced way.

by beat 8y ago

rosser 8y ago

Because if you repudiate that definition, you can cry "Reverse racism!" with a straight face.

dev_dull 8y ago

Because that’s not how it’s used by 99% of people. A bike can mean either a motorcycle or a bicycle. Calling someone racist can mean they're racist against a person of any race.

BeetleB 8y ago

>Seriously, I don't know why the "prejudice + power" definitional distinction is so hard for well-meaning people to understand. It makes perfect sense. It is easy to understand, but there is not consensus that the meaning should have been changed. Nor is there consensus on what "power" means. Academics may have a good need for that distinction, but they made the mistake of overloading the word.

tothepixel 8y ago
You should go out and talk to people outside of your bubble then. Go somewhere that isn't as left. Go have a conversation with a normal person who is just trying to live their life in a city that isn't majority blue.
- beat 8y ago
  Did you just define "normal person" as someone who lives in a non-diverse environment? Before you get angry, go read your sentence again, at how you used "normal person". What does that say about those of us who live in places with more social diversity? That we're not "normal"?
  - justwalt 8y ago
    I don’t think it’s fair to say he’s equating normal with less diverse.
- BeetleB 8y ago
  >You should go out and talk to people outside of your bubble then. Go somewhere that isn't as left. Go have a conversation with a normal person who is just trying to live their life in a city that isn't majority blue. Attributing qualities and intentions to someone you do not know is not a constructive way of having a meaningful discussion.

tenaciousDaniel 8y ago

There is already a linguistic convention in place that disambiguates those two concepts. We had the terms "racism" and "institutional racism"/"systemic racism". What do we gain from condensing the words into one? Given how this new construction is used, my more cynical side wants to believe that what is gained is the ability of one side of the political aisle to spew any kind of hatred towards particular groups of people without criticism or consequence.

beat 8y ago
Because the linguistic convention is inadequate and misleading. For a counterexample, look at the use of the word "privilege", a new definition introduced to the lexicon to explain one of the expressions of prejudice in society. (If you're already poising fingers over keyboard in angry rebuttal, stop and listen.) Privilege is conceptually very simple - it is the absence of discrimination. The absence of racism, or of sexism. Yet the very term arouses righteous fury, to be even mentioned in the presence of many privileged people. Just watch the rebuttals this comment will draw for examples. So to my original point, if you introduce new language to describe the prejudice + power concept, it will be vociferously attacked by those who do not face prejudice + power in their daily lives. Likewise, if you more precisely define an existing word from this world - say, racism - it is also vociferously attacked, by the same people. And attacking the very language being used to describe the problem is part of the problem.
- rosser 8y ago
  My favorite "Ah-ha!" illustration of privilege actually came from someone culturally and politically towards the Right: Imagine you're gay, and you're hanging out with a new friend of your gender, who does not share your orientation. At what point is it appropriate for you to disclose your orientation to your friend? Too early, what if you're seen as coming onto them? Too late, what if you're seen as not trusting them? &c. Not having to ask yourself that question is a form of "hetero privilege". It is a burden that, as a cis-het person, you will never face.
  - 8y ago

PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago

Because even if you accept the definition, you then have to deal with selective definitions of power.

ankushnarula 8y ago

In my not so humble opinion, it's illiberal and destructive in its current form. For example, a white Appalachian coal miner and a black Ivy League professor have a power disparity based on income, education, and social class. But the "prejudice + power" crowd will have you believe that the coal miner's membership in the elusive all-powerful "white people" monolith gives him more social cache´ (hence power) than the professor. That's because the professor's membership in the elusive "black people" monolith puts him near the top of the marginalized intersectional hierarchy. Any rational person who isn't obsessed with the phenotypical categorization of individuals (aka a bigot) will reject this notion - recognizing the professor's freedom/power relative to the coal miner. People are individuals (not groups) with complicated lives and experiences. To reduce ALL "black people" to marginalized victims is the soft bigotry of low expectations. But worse, to elevate all "white people" above all "black people" is a vile and tacit view that all "white people" are the necessary saviors of all "black people". This kind of twisted illiberal thinking permanently infantilizes all "black people".

rosser 8y ago
This is not the position. To insist that the "prejudice + power" argument is premised on bright-line "race == power" is to mischaracterize it to the point of being unrecognizable. It's about relative power. If I'm black, and your boss, and have a prejudice against your race, I can be racist. If I'm black, have no meaningful kind of power over you, and have a prejudice against your race, I'm just prejudiced. That's the position. This "ALL" lunacy is a multiple fallacies in one, and it remains a bitter disappointment to see a crowd of people who otherwise pride themselves aloud on being so smart, buy into it so unexaminedly.
- ankushnarula 8y ago
  That's nice because you reduced it to actual authoritative power. I can respect that. But that's not how it's playing out in the culture.
  - beat 8y ago
    So what is playing out in the culture? A privileged majority angrily attacking any attempts to refine the meaning of existing words to describe the real-world consequences of prejudice (racism), and attacking attempts to introduce new language to describe the structure of non-prejudice (privilege). It's almost as if the majority doesn't want us talking about it at all. That's how it's playing out in the culture. Think about this when you attack terminology.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Seriously, I don't know why the "prejudice + power" definitional distinction is so hard for well-meaning people to understand. It's not hard to understand, it's just a redefinition that was consciously created to justify claims that it was impossible for blacks to be racist, and which serves no good purpose. Yes, power dynamics are relevant to the impacts of racism; no, that doesn't make the effort to redefine racism in terms of them useful. Particularly because power isn't a binary trait, it's a multidimensional continuum, and prejudice is always accompanied by power, of some degree or scope. And particularly, also, because he history of the redefinition is well-known and makes it divisive and redirects any discussion into a heated fight over semantics rather than substance, even if revisionists attempt to save the redefinition by trying to apply it in a more nuanced way.