4 ms·

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 h

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.
    - ankushnarula 8y ago
      > 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). 1. Which privileged majority? > 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. 2. No one is censoring you. Talk all you like. Putting ideas and thoughts in the open is critical to arriving at common truth. But if these redefinitions and new language terms are to be pushed into the culture then expect inquiry, discussion, criticism, debate, resistance, dissent, and (when dialogue fails) mockery. > Think about this when you attack terminology. 3. I don't accept that use of the terminology in question, in case that was unclear. Your redefinitions and new language are not sacrosanct to me. Here's how I see the three _P_ words: * Prejudice, colloquially speaking, is to negatively judge people based on preconceived notions and stereotypes. * A Privilege is a specific right or advantage gained through merit or inheritance. * Power is the ability to exercise a freedom with low risk of sanction.
      - rosser 8y ago
        By that same token, we don't need to regard your definitions as sacrosanct, either. Remember, you're asserting your personal definitions over those that have developed through decades of academic discourse on the subject. Why should we prefer your terms, again?
        ankushnarula 8y ago
- tothepixel 8y ago
  I much prefer the definition of "racism" that has been in use since its inception, why change it?
  - rosser 8y ago
    Because, given the demonstrated ways racism "works" (as in, how it's practiced, and what effects it has when practiced between differentially enfranchised groups) it's not accurate?
    - ankushnarula 8y ago
      > To insist that the "prejudice + power" argument is premised on bright-line "race == power" is to mischaracterize it to the point of being unrecognizable. Would you mind clarifying the distinction between "differentially enfranchised groups" and "race == power" ?
      - rosser 8y ago
        By analogy, membership in a group that is more or less enfranchised than another could be seen as a Bayesian classification, while "race == power" is more Boolean. One describes a tendency; the other asserts an identity relationship. It doesn't map perfectly, but it's close enough for the bandwidth I have to keep contributing to this thread right now.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    Because someone saying mean words about someone who looks like you is far different if they have the power to do bad things.
- commandlinefan 8y ago
  Well, for one thing, that's not what the "you can't be racist against white people" folks say. Instead they say, "you can't be racist against white people".
  - rosser 8y ago
    WHY, dear fucking g-d, do people expect me to defend positions I neither hold nor agree with in these discussions? This is like saying that if someone were, e.g., operating from mistaken beliefs about the prevalence of some socially regressive attitude or other among technologists, it's appropriate for them to ask any random developer, "Why do developers think ____?" Huh?
    - ankushnarula 8y ago
      I can't speak for "dear fucking g-d" but my it would appear that your position is distinct from that of the mainstream critical theory/intersectionality social justice crowd.
      - rosser 8y ago
        > ...it would appear that your position is distinct from that of the mainstream critical theory/intersectionality social justice crowd. Not the subset of it I engage with — and that includes people who hold (graduate) degrees in things like "Gender Studies" or "Ethnic Studies", and such-like — which means we're playing some form of "dueling anecdata". To that end, I'd invite you to speculate momentarily on how many people in this discussion have ever engaged in meaningful, substantive discourse with people from the "social justice crowd" (which, btw: ugh, dismissive name-calling, much?) about their positions, and aren't merely regurgitating their own narratives, of whatever other origin.
        ankushnarula 8y ago
        I'm not clear on your point of view - so perhaps you're correct that we're talking past each other. And with regards to "dismissive name-calling" - I wasn't aware that "social justice crowd" was a pejorative. If there's a better moniker that represents the broader set of ideas I'd be pleased to know and use it. As for your claim that you're engaged in "other meaningful discourse" and that I'm "merely regurgitating my own narrative", I'd invite you to notice that your ad hominem attacks are not arguments.
- belorn 8y ago
  Thank you for calling it lunacy since that is exactly what I feel every time I read on HN comments that say that black people can not be racist or women can not be sexist. Worse is when people talk about privilege in regard to race or gender as if those automatic resulted in power. Relative power is relative, and its associated with a distribution curve. One can acknowledge that different groups has different averages and distribution curves, and that those indicate social issues, while still object to lazy stereotypic that ignores the relative property of power. So much political fighting and polarization could be avoided if more people would see power as relative property between individuals.
  - rosser 8y ago
    Yes, it's a relative property between individuals, but asserting it's just that ignores the systemic aspect, which is never not also in play. The systemic part is a profoundly under-recognized force multiplier for the individual's power.
    - belorn 8y ago
      This is a bit late reply but I will post just in case you read it. The systemic bias is an term for the result of gender stereotyping. It is lazy thinking by people who ignore individual attributes and reduces people down to a single bit of information. Does this happen? Yes. It is a probabilistic aspect that can have beneficial or negative effect on a person. As a force multiplier, both negative and positive, it is a sign of fault in society. I agree it is a often profoundly under-recognized, but I will add that it is also profoundly misrepresented. Gender stereotyping is harmful to individuality in a such strong way that only seeing the benefits for one gender is to ignore the harm that it does to both genders.
- justwalt 8y ago
  Similar to what ankushnarula said, I think this interpretation is fine, but what’s the benefit of using it? What, then, do we call the white minimum wage worker who uses a slur to describe a black CEO? Mean? I don’t think the people arguing for this alternative definition quite agree with you, anyways. I think that most of them prefer it because it means they can say “black people cant be racist agains whites,” for whatever reason.

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.
  - ankushnarula 8y ago
    > 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). 1. Which privileged majority? > 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. 2. No one is censoring you. Talk all you like. Putting ideas and thoughts in the open is critical to arriving at common truth. But if these redefinitions and new language terms are to be pushed into the culture then expect inquiry, discussion, criticism, debate, resistance, dissent, and (when dialogue fails) mockery. > Think about this when you attack terminology. 3. I don't accept that use of the terminology in question, in case that was unclear. Your redefinitions and new language are not sacrosanct to me. Here's how I see the three _P_ words: * Prejudice, colloquially speaking, is to negatively judge people based on preconceived notions and stereotypes. * A Privilege is a specific right or advantage gained through merit or inheritance. * Power is the ability to exercise a freedom with low risk of sanction.
    - rosser 8y ago
      By that same token, we don't need to regard your definitions as sacrosanct, either. Remember, you're asserting your personal definitions over those that have developed through decades of academic discourse on the subject. Why should we prefer your terms, again?
      - ankushnarula 8y ago
tothepixel 8y ago
I much prefer the definition of "racism" that has been in use since its inception, why change it?
- rosser 8y ago
  Because, given the demonstrated ways racism "works" (as in, how it's practiced, and what effects it has when practiced between differentially enfranchised groups) it's not accurate?
  - ankushnarula 8y ago
    > To insist that the "prejudice + power" argument is premised on bright-line "race == power" is to mischaracterize it to the point of being unrecognizable. Would you mind clarifying the distinction between "differentially enfranchised groups" and "race == power" ?
    - rosser 8y ago
      By analogy, membership in a group that is more or less enfranchised than another could be seen as a Bayesian classification, while "race == power" is more Boolean. One describes a tendency; the other asserts an identity relationship. It doesn't map perfectly, but it's close enough for the bandwidth I have to keep contributing to this thread right now.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  Because someone saying mean words about someone who looks like you is far different if they have the power to do bad things.
commandlinefan 8y ago
Well, for one thing, that's not what the "you can't be racist against white people" folks say. Instead they say, "you can't be racist against white people".
- rosser 8y ago
  WHY, dear fucking g-d, do people expect me to defend positions I neither hold nor agree with in these discussions? This is like saying that if someone were, e.g., operating from mistaken beliefs about the prevalence of some socially regressive attitude or other among technologists, it's appropriate for them to ask any random developer, "Why do developers think ____?" Huh?
  - ankushnarula 8y ago
    I can't speak for "dear fucking g-d" but my it would appear that your position is distinct from that of the mainstream critical theory/intersectionality social justice crowd.
    - rosser 8y ago
      > ...it would appear that your position is distinct from that of the mainstream critical theory/intersectionality social justice crowd. Not the subset of it I engage with — and that includes people who hold (graduate) degrees in things like "Gender Studies" or "Ethnic Studies", and such-like — which means we're playing some form of "dueling anecdata". To that end, I'd invite you to speculate momentarily on how many people in this discussion have ever engaged in meaningful, substantive discourse with people from the "social justice crowd" (which, btw: ugh, dismissive name-calling, much?) about their positions, and aren't merely regurgitating their own narratives, of whatever other origin.
      - ankushnarula 8y ago
        I'm not clear on your point of view - so perhaps you're correct that we're talking past each other. And with regards to "dismissive name-calling" - I wasn't aware that "social justice crowd" was a pejorative. If there's a better moniker that represents the broader set of ideas I'd be pleased to know and use it. As for your claim that you're engaged in "other meaningful discourse" and that I'm "merely regurgitating my own narrative", I'd invite you to notice that your ad hominem attacks are not arguments.
belorn 8y ago
Thank you for calling it lunacy since that is exactly what I feel every time I read on HN comments that say that black people can not be racist or women can not be sexist. Worse is when people talk about privilege in regard to race or gender as if those automatic resulted in power. Relative power is relative, and its associated with a distribution curve. One can acknowledge that different groups has different averages and distribution curves, and that those indicate social issues, while still object to lazy stereotypic that ignores the relative property of power. So much political fighting and polarization could be avoided if more people would see power as relative property between individuals.
- rosser 8y ago
  Yes, it's a relative property between individuals, but asserting it's just that ignores the systemic aspect, which is never not also in play. The systemic part is a profoundly under-recognized force multiplier for the individual's power.
  - belorn 8y ago
    This is a bit late reply but I will post just in case you read it. The systemic bias is an term for the result of gender stereotyping. It is lazy thinking by people who ignore individual attributes and reduces people down to a single bit of information. Does this happen? Yes. It is a probabilistic aspect that can have beneficial or negative effect on a person. As a force multiplier, both negative and positive, it is a sign of fault in society. I agree it is a often profoundly under-recognized, but I will add that it is also profoundly misrepresented. Gender stereotyping is harmful to individuality in a such strong way that only seeing the benefits for one gender is to ignore the harm that it does to both genders.
justwalt 8y ago
Similar to what ankushnarula said, I think this interpretation is fine, but what’s the benefit of using it? What, then, do we call the white minimum wage worker who uses a slur to describe a black CEO? Mean? I don’t think the people arguing for this alternative definition quite agree with you, anyways. I think that most of them prefer it because it means they can say “black people cant be racist agains whites,” for whatever reason.