2 ms·

Let me get this straight. Elsewhere in this thread I discuss consumption choices based on tribalist feelings, including in housing, being a major contributor to

Let me get this straight. Elsewhere in this thread I discuss consumption choices based on tribalist feelings, including in housing, being a major contributor to segregation (using the word the way you and dalke use it at this point). Further, I compare it to tribally informed consumption choices of extremely non-xenophobic people, such as my girlfriend's consumption of African American comedy. Then somehow you conclude that I don't think racism/tribalism is the primary cause of segregation/separation? Or that I don't think it's cultural rather than bureaucratic, and not directly related to personal xenophobia? Um, ok. Clearly I'm just a big racist nerd and you have excellent reading comprehension skills. And you are right that I definitely did bring up the topic of causes of marginalization in the auras and penumbras of my comments.

pron 12y ago
Racism is not tribalism. Tribalism is in-group loyalty. Racism is a property of a society where some races are largely absent from positions of power. If black people like Bugs Bunny and white people like Daffy Duck, that's not racism. If blacks are underrepresented in tech, politics and CEO positions -- that's racism. If blacks and whites live in different neighborhoods then that's not racism. If blacks live in neighborhoods where college attendance and average income are lower -- that's racism. Once you understand that power is the central component in what constitutes racism and sexism, we can move this discussion forward. You see, if you asked something like, "well, teenaged nerds are in fewer romantic relationships, which are a source of social status and hence power, isn't that like racism", then at least you'll be in the ballpark. But as long as power is missing from your discussion of what you think racism (or sexism) is, then you're missing the issue altogether.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  By the definition you espoused in the other thread (which is different from the dictionary and common usage), the claim that "racism in the US is the primary cause of segregation" is a near tautology. I have literally no idea why you would believe I deny a tautology, particularly given that I haven't even discussed it in this thread. Why do you deny my claim that water is wet? Seriously dude - get a grip. Read the post before dropping a gigantic wall of text on an unrelated tangent. And please read an article by uncited experts showing that disputing definitions is pointless. Just kidding, here it is: http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/
  - pron 12y ago
    First, I'm not debating definitions. But when a topic is discussed, like racism, if your definition is different from that intended in the article, then whatever you say is off-point. Second, my definition of racism might be different from common usage, but so is that of spin or color in QM (as is that for energy), and I'm not going to start a debate on the use of the word color, when discussing a QM paper. What matters here isn't the common usage, but usage by the people quoted in the article. They use the definition(s) common in academic circles, or among those who study or care about the issue. Reading the introduction for the Wikipedia article on racism should suffice to at least know what kinds of definitions are commonly used in academia. And, in fact, the dictionary definition is much closer to the usage in academia than to your tribalism. And that segregation in the US is a result of racism is, indeed, a near tautology, yet you were saying it's a result of tribalism, which is simply factually wrong. As to Less Wrong, that blog and the people behind it are the subjects of a recent, brilliant Harper's article which I'll be happy to email you, if you want.

pron 12y ago

Racism is not tribalism. Tribalism is in-group loyalty. Racism is a property of a society where some races are largely absent from positions of power. If black people like Bugs Bunny and white people like Daffy Duck, that's not racism. If blacks are underrepresented in tech, politics and CEO positions -- that's racism. If blacks and whites live in different neighborhoods then that's not racism. If blacks live in neighborhoods where college attendance and average income are lower -- that's racism. Once you understand that power is the central component in what constitutes racism and sexism, we can move this discussion forward. You see, if you asked something like, "well, teenaged nerds are in fewer romantic relationships, which are a source of social status and hence power, isn't that like racism", then at least you'll be in the ballpark. But as long as power is missing from your discussion of what you think racism (or sexism) is, then you're missing the issue altogether.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
By the definition you espoused in the other thread (which is different from the dictionary and common usage), the claim that "racism in the US is the primary cause of segregation" is a near tautology. I have literally no idea why you would believe I deny a tautology, particularly given that I haven't even discussed it in this thread. Why do you deny my claim that water is wet? Seriously dude - get a grip. Read the post before dropping a gigantic wall of text on an unrelated tangent. And please read an article by uncited experts showing that disputing definitions is pointless. Just kidding, here it is: http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/
- pron 12y ago
  First, I'm not debating definitions. But when a topic is discussed, like racism, if your definition is different from that intended in the article, then whatever you say is off-point. Second, my definition of racism might be different from common usage, but so is that of spin or color in QM (as is that for energy), and I'm not going to start a debate on the use of the word color, when discussing a QM paper. What matters here isn't the common usage, but usage by the people quoted in the article. They use the definition(s) common in academic circles, or among those who study or care about the issue. Reading the introduction for the Wikipedia article on racism should suffice to at least know what kinds of definitions are commonly used in academia. And, in fact, the dictionary definition is much closer to the usage in academia than to your tribalism. And that segregation in the US is a result of racism is, indeed, a near tautology, yet you were saying it's a result of tribalism, which is simply factually wrong. As to Less Wrong, that blog and the people behind it are the subjects of a recent, brilliant Harper's article which I'll be happy to email you, if you want.