3 ms·

> A privileged majority angrily attacking any attempts to refine the meaning of existing words to describe the real-world consequences of prejudice (racism), an

> 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
  Because they're not my definitions. They're the generally accepted definitions. The definitions you are presenting are therefore ideological at best.
  - beat 8y ago
    "Generally accepted" by whom? In my circles, the definitions rosser and I have offered are the generally accepted ones.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- BeetleB 8y ago
  >Why should we prefer your terms, again? They are not his terms. His definition is the one that has existed for much longer than the ones the academics prefer. People don't have issue with the academics' need to make distinctions. The issue is that if you need to make a distinction, you should coin a word for what you mean - not use a very well established term.
beat 8y ago
1. Duh. Don't be obtuse. 2. I'm not being censored. Duh. Just because the right whines about being censored whenever someone disagrees with them doesn't mean I do. 3. Let's address the term "privilege" here again. I've defined privilege as "absence of discrimination". Discrimination is separate from prejudice - it's an expression of power (this is equivalent to the definition of "racism" that you reject). Now you're going to have to think here, not just react. You agree that prejudice exists, right? Ok. So you agree that discrimination exists - that parties with power use their power to harm those who suffer their prejudice? Ok then. If you're arguing discrimination does not even exist, that's a different and unsolvable problem. So what do you call an absence of discrimination? Because the absence of a thing is also a thing. We create words for that. The generally accepted word for the absence of discrimination is "privilege". You reject this definition, disallowing the common English-language concept that words often have more than one meaning. So do you have a different word for the absence of discrimination? Do you have a way to express this in your pure vocabulary? Didn't think so.
- rosser 8y ago
  Your arguments aren't wrong, but your phrasing isn't helping them.
- ankushnarula 8y ago
  1. Aw shucks - I guess I just ain't as sharp as you :-B 2. Whatever. 3. MW dictionary shows no such definition of privilege. Is it in wide use? Link? Of course, I agree there's such a thing as "discrimination". When we make value judgements, we discriminate. You like blue better than red? That's discrimination. You like people with hazel eyes best? Discrimination. You like your family better than strangers? Yup - discrimination. In the context of this thread. racial discrimination is to favor a race (positive discrimination) or devalue another race (negative discrimination). And FWIW, I begrudgingly accept that the contemporary definition of racism is a superset that includes racial discrimination, racial prejudice, and racial antagonism. I say begrudgingly because this wasn't the case 20-30 years ago. The words "racism" and "racist" were reserved for the most vile organizations or individuals that actively sought to discriminate/disenfranchise/injure people on the basis of their race or ethnicity. The word "prejudiced" was used to describe thoughtless or inadvertent discriminatory attitudes. The word "bigot" was reserved for people who hurled racial/ethnic epithets and found self-satisfaction from putting/keeping down people based on their race/ethnicity. So you see - back then people used discrimination to sort these trespasses into a value hierarchy: the prejudiced person was annoying but okay, the bigot was an intolerable asshole, and the racist was vile and physically dangerous scum.

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
Because they're not my definitions. They're the generally accepted definitions. The definitions you are presenting are therefore ideological at best.
- beat 8y ago
  "Generally accepted" by whom? In my circles, the definitions rosser and I have offered are the generally accepted ones.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
BeetleB 8y ago
>Why should we prefer your terms, again? They are not his terms. His definition is the one that has existed for much longer than the ones the academics prefer. People don't have issue with the academics' need to make distinctions. The issue is that if you need to make a distinction, you should coin a word for what you mean - not use a very well established term.

beat 8y ago

1. Duh. Don't be obtuse. 2. I'm not being censored. Duh. Just because the right whines about being censored whenever someone disagrees with them doesn't mean I do. 3. Let's address the term "privilege" here again. I've defined privilege as "absence of discrimination". Discrimination is separate from prejudice - it's an expression of power (this is equivalent to the definition of "racism" that you reject). Now you're going to have to think here, not just react. You agree that prejudice exists, right? Ok. So you agree that discrimination exists - that parties with power use their power to harm those who suffer their prejudice? Ok then. If you're arguing discrimination does not even exist, that's a different and unsolvable problem. So what do you call an absence of discrimination? Because the absence of a thing is also a thing. We create words for that. The generally accepted word for the absence of discrimination is "privilege". You reject this definition, disallowing the common English-language concept that words often have more than one meaning. So do you have a different word for the absence of discrimination? Do you have a way to express this in your pure vocabulary? Didn't think so.

rosser 8y ago
Your arguments aren't wrong, but your phrasing isn't helping them.
ankushnarula 8y ago
1. Aw shucks - I guess I just ain't as sharp as you :-B 2. Whatever. 3. MW dictionary shows no such definition of privilege. Is it in wide use? Link? Of course, I agree there's such a thing as "discrimination". When we make value judgements, we discriminate. You like blue better than red? That's discrimination. You like people with hazel eyes best? Discrimination. You like your family better than strangers? Yup - discrimination. In the context of this thread. racial discrimination is to favor a race (positive discrimination) or devalue another race (negative discrimination). And FWIW, I begrudgingly accept that the contemporary definition of racism is a superset that includes racial discrimination, racial prejudice, and racial antagonism. I say begrudgingly because this wasn't the case 20-30 years ago. The words "racism" and "racist" were reserved for the most vile organizations or individuals that actively sought to discriminate/disenfranchise/injure people on the basis of their race or ethnicity. The word "prejudiced" was used to describe thoughtless or inadvertent discriminatory attitudes. The word "bigot" was reserved for people who hurled racial/ethnic epithets and found self-satisfaction from putting/keeping down people based on their race/ethnicity. So you see - back then people used discrimination to sort these trespasses into a value hierarchy: the prejudiced person was annoying but okay, the bigot was an intolerable asshole, and the racist was vile and physically dangerous scum.