4 ms·

I believe filter bubbles have gotten so powerful that the English language is actually diverging as a result. The various meanings of 'racism' is one example, I

I believe filter bubbles have gotten so powerful that the English language is actually diverging as a result. The various meanings of 'racism' is one example, I call them neoracism and classical racism to distinguish.

OrvalWintermute 5y ago
> The various meanings of 'racism' is one example, I call them neoracism and classical racism to distinguish. I believe you make an excellent point What much of the mainstream population interprets as racist behavior (a significant example being WW2 caricatures) would be considered both classically racist, and neoracist. The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations would also be considered by many to be classically racist, but not neoracist. As neoracism views everything through a lense distorted by privilege theory, hegemony, and critical race theory, this would instead be viewed as a counter to previous racism. "Sure, give the unprivileged a leg up at the expense of the privileged, that white man doesn't need it." If we apply the same to sexism, there are then two definitions of sexism - a classical one, and a neosexist one. One affirms what we know biologically speaking are the differences, and tendencies. Neosexism on the other hand, is viewed through a gender theory lense, tempered with CRT and privilege theory, completely malleable, and in many cases, rejecting the science of biology. Level setting to disadvantage men would be a plus. However, in neosexism, the pecking order would start with men at the lowest, followed by genetic women, and then into modified/self-identified and others. We could also carry this though in sexual preference, ethnicity, religion, etc. For example, classical discrimination against traditionalist religious groups such as Christians, Muslims, and Observant Jews are frowned upon. But, in a neo-sense, discrimination against them, for having privilege or being part of power structures, would be a benefit, even, dare I say, celebrated, particularly if they benefit from Western Civilization. This goes a long way towards explaining what we can observe as outgrowth of Critical Theory / Privilege Theory.
Chris2048 5y ago
One of the common refrains of the "new" definition, is to redefine "racism" as consisting entirely of systematic racism - or to treat only systematic racism as important - the caveat of this is non-systematic forms of racism essentially get a pass. This is often combined with a very fast-and-loose definition of what constitutes "systematic". The result isn't so much "you can't be racist against whites", but rather "blacks/PoC and minorities can't be racist".

OrvalWintermute 5y ago

> The various meanings of 'racism' is one example, I call them neoracism and classical racism to distinguish. I believe you make an excellent point What much of the mainstream population interprets as racist behavior (a significant example being WW2 caricatures) would be considered both classically racist, and neoracist. The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations would also be considered by many to be classically racist, but not neoracist. As neoracism views everything through a lense distorted by privilege theory, hegemony, and critical race theory, this would instead be viewed as a counter to previous racism. "Sure, give the unprivileged a leg up at the expense of the privileged, that white man doesn't need it." If we apply the same to sexism, there are then two definitions of sexism - a classical one, and a neosexist one. One affirms what we know biologically speaking are the differences, and tendencies. Neosexism on the other hand, is viewed through a gender theory lense, tempered with CRT and privilege theory, completely malleable, and in many cases, rejecting the science of biology. Level setting to disadvantage men would be a plus. However, in neosexism, the pecking order would start with men at the lowest, followed by genetic women, and then into modified/self-identified and others. We could also carry this though in sexual preference, ethnicity, religion, etc. For example, classical discrimination against traditionalist religious groups such as Christians, Muslims, and Observant Jews are frowned upon. But, in a neo-sense, discrimination against them, for having privilege or being part of power structures, would be a benefit, even, dare I say, celebrated, particularly if they benefit from Western Civilization. This goes a long way towards explaining what we can observe as outgrowth of Critical Theory / Privilege Theory.

Chris2048 5y ago

One of the common refrains of the "new" definition, is to redefine "racism" as consisting entirely of systematic racism - or to treat only systematic racism as important - the caveat of this is non-systematic forms of racism essentially get a pass. This is often combined with a very fast-and-loose definition of what constitutes "systematic". The result isn't so much "you can't be racist against whites", but rather "blacks/PoC and minorities can't be racist".