4 ms·
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
by 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 agoYour arguments aren't wrong, but your phrasing isn't helping them.
- ankushnarula 8y ago1. 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.
- dang 8y agoPlease don't do this kind of flamewar on HN.
- dang 8y agoOn HN, please don't do ideological flamewar to begin with and please don't get personally nasty as you did here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html