4 ms·

Missing the point. In the examples above, the ideology would say it would be impossible for the Irish to be racist against the English. Unless the definition o

Missing the point. In the examples above, the ideology would say it would be impossible for the Irish to be racist against the English. Unless the definition of racism was based on bigotry, intolerance, prejudice and stereotypes based on race which is how the majority of the world understands it. This also includes the possibility for whites to be racist against whites, and allows systems to be racist. it's actually a more encompassing definition.

eesmith 6y ago
I don't think I'm missing the point. I think the argument is that "racist" should be reserved for systemic racism, in which case the Irish under English rule could not be racist against the English. They could be prejudiced, discriminatory, Anglophobic, and more. But not racist. That you - and yes, many others - disagree with that argument doesn't make it fundamentally wrong in the way that can flippantly be rejected by "of course people can be racist against whites." The definition I gave includes the possibility for whites to be racist against whites .. though "white" is such a nebulous term. Would the 1800s Irish or English call themselves "white"? The latter preferred "Anglo-Saxon race", for example. See my parallel comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23449545 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23449545 .
- naasking 6y ago
  > That you - and yes, many others - disagree with that argument doesn't make it fundamentally wrong in the way No, it's fundamentally wrong because only a minority of people use it in this way. Check a dictionary.
  - trav4225 6y ago
    This is new to me, too. It seems like we're overloading an existing term with a new meaning that is foreign to anyone over the age of 30..?
    - naasking 6y ago
      It's very possibly deliberate in order to manufacture consent. I mean, who born in the past 40 years be "for" racism or sexism as traditionally defined? But for the past decade or two, sexism and racism have been taught in universities as "systemic sexism/racism" rather than the classical meaning. If you've seen any debate online about academia "indoctrinating" youth, and creating "social justice warriors", this is basically what they're referring to. So now anyone that doesn't immediately accept these newly moved goalposts is themselves a racist or a sexist. This has obviously led to quite a degradation in social discourse.
      - trav4225 6y ago
        It's hard to see how playing such games with human language can possibly lead to improved discourse. The various camps aren't even speaking the same language anymore. Not sure how we recover from that.
        eesmith 6y ago
        Essentially the same argument was used to complain about switching away from "Negro". One way to recover is to try to understand the argument and reject it on its own terms, rather than call it a mantra.
        Shish2k 6y ago
        > It's hard to see how playing such games with human language can possibly lead to improved discourse The goal isn’t to improve discourse, the goal is for Us to beat Them, even if we do it by redefining the word “beat” :(
        eesmith 6y ago
        Who is "Us" and "Them"? If "Us" is "those fighting against centuries of race-based oppression" and "Them" is "those who benefit from the current racist system so much they even refuse to acknowledge the continuing racism" and "beat" is the creation of a new system of racial justice and equality then I agree with you 100%.

eesmith 6y ago

I don't think I'm missing the point. I think the argument is that "racist" should be reserved for systemic racism, in which case the Irish under English rule could not be racist against the English. They could be prejudiced, discriminatory, Anglophobic, and more. But not racist. That you - and yes, many others - disagree with that argument doesn't make it fundamentally wrong in the way that can flippantly be rejected by "of course people can be racist against whites." The definition I gave includes the possibility for whites to be racist against whites .. though "white" is such a nebulous term. Would the 1800s Irish or English call themselves "white"? The latter preferred "Anglo-Saxon race", for example. See my parallel comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23449545 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23449545 .

naasking 6y ago
> That you - and yes, many others - disagree with that argument doesn't make it fundamentally wrong in the way No, it's fundamentally wrong because only a minority of people use it in this way. Check a dictionary.
- trav4225 6y ago
  This is new to me, too. It seems like we're overloading an existing term with a new meaning that is foreign to anyone over the age of 30..?
  - naasking 6y ago
    It's very possibly deliberate in order to manufacture consent. I mean, who born in the past 40 years be "for" racism or sexism as traditionally defined? But for the past decade or two, sexism and racism have been taught in universities as "systemic sexism/racism" rather than the classical meaning. If you've seen any debate online about academia "indoctrinating" youth, and creating "social justice warriors", this is basically what they're referring to. So now anyone that doesn't immediately accept these newly moved goalposts is themselves a racist or a sexist. This has obviously led to quite a degradation in social discourse.
    - trav4225 6y ago
      It's hard to see how playing such games with human language can possibly lead to improved discourse. The various camps aren't even speaking the same language anymore. Not sure how we recover from that.
      - eesmith 6y ago
        Essentially the same argument was used to complain about switching away from "Negro". One way to recover is to try to understand the argument and reject it on its own terms, rather than call it a mantra.
      - Shish2k 6y ago
        > It's hard to see how playing such games with human language can possibly lead to improved discourse The goal isn’t to improve discourse, the goal is for Us to beat Them, even if we do it by redefining the word “beat” :(
        eesmith 6y ago
        Who is "Us" and "Them"? If "Us" is "those fighting against centuries of race-based oppression" and "Them" is "those who benefit from the current racist system so much they even refuse to acknowledge the continuing racism" and "beat" is the creation of a new system of racial justice and equality then I agree with you 100%.