You see the science of Neurology is crucial to understanding the separation of the two idealogies.
And in the brain of the conservative, the limbic system most associated with small mindedness and stupidity, is larger then in any other human or sub-human in the WORLD.
Should I bash in your skull and see where your three dimples are?
I joke about it, yet there ARE people that believe this sort of thing, and they are allowed to vote and breed.
So many people on the left have spent so much energy and tortured so much logic to try to define "racism" such that prejudice against white people cannot be racist, and for the life of me I can't understand why. It's not like they actually want to excuse such prejudice: if you ask them, "Is it okay to dislike white people because of the color of their skin?", I'm confident that most would say "no".
I think that at least some number of those who do this do want to excuse the prejudice -- not, mind you, in the overt way that you suggest but in a way that is rather more subtle. In fact, some folks will be logically compelled to do exactly this (or else be contentedly racist.) It is rather like the same phenomenon in religious apologetics where evil is redefined to be good when God has a hand in it.
Consider the following deduction:
1. (hypothesis) I endorse postmodern leftist ideology.
2. (hypothesis) Postmodern leftist ideology endorses white privilege theory.
3. (hypothesis) White privilege theory endorses the assignment of negative characteristics to white people as a racial group.
4. I endorse the assignment of negative characteristics to white people as a racial group.
5. (definition) Racism is the assignment of negative characteristics to a racial group.
6. I endorse racism.
7. (definition) A racist is one who endorses racism.
8. I am a racist.
If this is deductively valid, then the speaker must either:
1. Be contentedly racist.
2. Fail to endorse postmodern ideology.
3. Modify postmodern ideology in such a way as to exclude white privilege theory.
4. Modify white privilege theory in such a way as to avoid prejudicially grouping white people.
5. Modify the definition of racism or racist.
Well, #1 is right out -- being contentedly racist is for those right-wing hicks, right? (At least they're honest about their ideology.) #2-#4 are out -- the Holy Scripture must not be questioned. (Here note the similarity with apologetics.) That just leaves #5. So: change the definition of racism so that one is no longer hoist by one's own petard.
Of course to a believer in classical semantics, this, too, is insane -- if you were uncomfortable being a racist by yesterday's definition, then you should still be uncomfortable today, even if you don't meet today's new definition. Your discomfort was presumably pinned to a specific semantic notion which still has a sort of referent or "Platonic form" even if you're no longer labelling it as you once did.
But add some sort of Whorfianism into the mix and that referent dissolves. The word "racism" is no longer a pointer into some anterior semantic data bank; it's a first-class value unto itself. Changing the meaning of racism also changes the discomfort trigger, that trigger, after all, having nothing to attach to other than the word "racism" itself.
So, says I, if one is willing to embrace the hypotheses of postmodern leftism, it's all quite logical from there.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
In summation, though, impact on minority or majority has nothing to do with whether something is racist or not.
Perhaps the better wording would have been “expression of racism” or something, but I defined my term so I think what I was saying was pretty gsdfef
Quote from bLatch »
If you really want a list of Democrats that are well known for stoking race fears, you need look no further than people like Al Sharpton. I'm not excusing Republicans who do it, they are wrong to do it as well. However, to claim that it is a problem exclusively of Repbulicans and that Billy is wrong when he claims both parties do it is incredibly naive.
My argument was about a difference in scope, not that Democrats are pure. It also relates to how the parties themselves act overall. Al Sharpton is an outlier among democrats.
Quote from bLatch »
Ok, you don't get to come in and unilaterally declare that your definition of racism is the "correct" one and anybody else's is wrong. Although, I suppose if it does work that way consider this my declaration trumping yours-- *my* definition of racism is now what we are discussing. So there.
Universally? Of course not. Within the context of an existing discussion? Yep. Otherwise we get into territory where claims get made and people dismiss them because “that’s not really racism” or whatever. Drawmeomg made a post about this on the first page about how liberals and conservatives commonly talk past each other. By saying what I mean when I use the term, whether or not that’s what the other person usually says, I can then say whether or not the person is addressing my actual argument irrespective of their or any other definition of the term so grasooota.
Quote from ICM »
@ECP
You think that's the democratic form of racism? Ha, no.
It's more like
"They are incapable of succeeding without assistance from the state. So we will give them hand-outs and leg-ups forever."
The "right-wing" has racists, and so does the "left-wing".
Incapable isn’t the right word. Some people do succeed even in adverse starting conditions, buts about getting a closer equality of opportunity not that they can only succeed with assistance from the state.
Quote from ICM »
The difference is that the right says stupid racist and sexist things on television, and wants the minorities to struggle and earn their own way. Some actually are bigots and racists, and think minorities don't deserve anything, let alone help from Uncle Sam.
The visible "right" looks terrible. I facepalm anytime I see a republican on a microphone.
They say things so ignorant sometimes I can't believe it.
The racism from the "left" is there, and in my opinion, a worse kind of racism.
The "left" thinks minorities are inferior, weaker, dumber, and need every possible assistance to get out of the "ghetto". They don't believe a minority can do anything for themselves. If that's not racist, then we really have lost the definition of racism.
That’s the stated rhetoric of republican politicians, but its about as favorable a way of thinking about it as your proposed redefinition of left wing racism is negative. Wanting people to struggle and earn their own way, narrative wise, is quite powerful. Sadly, it is a non-answer since the disadvantaged groups will, by and by, stay disadvantaged as a result of the times, not so long ago, where it wasn’t just an open playing field, but one slanted against them. In many respects this ties really closely into discussions regarding poverty as a predictor of a childs success in life and, while there are always exceptions here and there, the outliers are just that. Overall, we see lower quality of life (if you are black or Hispanic you are 3 times as likely to grow up in poverty as someone who is white or asian) and in many respects this is something we’ve created. I’m not interested in working out blame or anything like that. It isn’t about them being inferior, weaker or dumber and, after talking to you over the years, I can barely believe you’re saying these things to me. I just want to acknowledge it and to try and nudge things a little bit towards justice.
Quote from ICM »
Then, on top of that, they (just like the right) want more control, and to stay in power. They cater to those poor minorities with hand-outs and programs that favor women and minorities and it works. They get the votes in large metropolitan zones where more minorities live, and lose the rural white communities where obviously minorities are few.
I dunno what to say about control. Politicians want to get re-elected. It’s their bag.
Regarding catering? Are they really catering to minorities and women, or do programs that target poverty benefit those groups more because they are over represented?
Additionally, plenty of RNC strategies to win elections over the years have burnt briges with minority voters, so theres that. There are plenty of reasons why black people don’t vote republican that have nothing to do hand-outs and everything to do with politicians being racist pricks infront of cameras, amongsts other things.
Quote from ICM »
When the right wants power - they turn to the bible belt and the conservatives. This worked for a long time. Kept the right-left paradigm going strong. But it was eventually going to lose steam. More and more people are not identifying themselves as "Christians", and even the conservatives are becoming more moderate.
The recent move by the right to "double-down" on God and Guns, and allowing the TEA party to direct some of their political trajectory is ultimately going to backfire.
How can you say that conservatives are becoming more moderate and then mention the TEA party? I do agree with your demographic comment and the backfiring, I think it has already backfired on national elections, but now we’ve got the government held hostage by a bunch of insane people who can’t admit to losing an election.
Quote from IVM »
But why is it going to backfire?
NOT because the left is better, and definitely not because the left isn't racist.
It is going to backfire because poverty is going up, and the wealth divide is getting even bigger. More and more people are going to be barely scrapping by.
That's when they will go left, because the left promises assistance, hand-outs, and wealth redistribution.
Poor people will vote for the party that helps the poor the most. Not to mention the federal workers will vote for the party that creates more federal dollars, so they can stop the pay freezes and the furlough days.
If poor people vote for the party that helps the poor the most then elections would never be so close as they have been.
Quote from ICM »
Even if that help is a massive government turning all of us and our children and their children into debt slaves. Born into bondage, paying down the mortgage on a printing press.
This seems a bit… over the top, man.
Quote from ICM »
It's the partisanship that will kill us.
Yep, especially considering that a government shutdown puts out position as “worlds sole superpower” in jepordy, especially considering treasury bonds are the backbone of the world financial markets.
Quote from ICM »
Those who want a smaller government, who want a merit based system that rewards hard work, ambition, and self-reliance, who want actual and real equality instead of mandated favoritism, who want less government agency bureaucracy, fraud, and wasteful spending, who want less military interventionism and empire building, who want individual goal oriented education instead of assembly line standardized kid factories, who want personalized and self-controlled healthcare.
We have NO party to turn to. Not even the "Libertarian" party.
@BS/Drawme’s discussion regarding my usage of the word minority
In a prior thread, I’d tried to talk about power and privilege and other stuff with Billy to no avail, so I’m using terms that would make sense to him even if, taken to a larger context, they wouldn’t remain accurate in all cases. Most notably south africa where the minority maintained abusive political power.
Ok, you don't get to come in and unilaterally declare that your definition of racism is the "correct" one and anybody else's is wrong. Although, I suppose if it does work that way consider this my declaration trumping yours-- *my* definition of racism is now what we are discussing. So there.
Universally? Of course not. Within the context of an existing discussion? Yep. Otherwise we get into territory where claims get made and people dismiss them because “that’s not really racism” or whatever. Drawmeomg made a post about this on the first page about how liberals and conservatives commonly talk past each other. By saying what I mean when I use the term, whether or not that’s what the other person usually says, I can then say whether or not the person is addressing my actual argument irrespective of their or any other definition of the term so grasooota.
Check again, I said unilaterally, not universally. And I also saw that post. It's interesting, however that you took that post to mean "and the liberals are correct", when it didn't say that at all. No, it was just pointing out that there are two different interpretations.
Its fine for you to say what *you* mean when you use it. but thats not what you did. You unilaterally declared that your menaing was the definition that was being used by the entire discussion.
Alright, I can't just unilaterally declare it, agreed, however given the context of the thread and the context of my existing statements what Billy was doing was challenging my idea not on the merits of what was being proposed but switching to a different definition of racism. Also, its sometimes difficult to pin that guy to any definition of anything, so within his context I am going to take a more "this is what we are talking about, if you don't like it piss off" tone than I would with you.
I didn't take the post to mean "and the liberals are correct" since, well, I am pretty liberal and I know what I mean by racism. I tell people what I mean by racism if a conversation gets complicated. I really appreciated Drawme's point about talking past. From my perspective as a liberal, I think that conservative talking points regarding racism, in the conservative usage, are somewhat less genuine in a kind of "we're going to mirror you" kind of way. It's like when the Traevon Martin thing was happening it was suddenly a thing to go find examples of the opposite happening.
I think that at least some number of those who do this do want to excuse the prejudice -- not, mind you, in the overt way that you suggest but in a way that is rather more subtle. In fact, some folks will be logically compelled to do exactly this (or else be contentedly racist.) It is rather like the same phenomenon in religious apologetics where evil is redefined to be good when God has a hand in it.
Consider the following deduction:
1. (hypothesis) I endorse postmodern leftist ideology.
2. (hypothesis) Postmodern leftist ideology endorses white privilege theory.
3. (hypothesis) White privilege theory endorses the assignment of negative characteristics to white people as a racial group.
4. I endorse the assignment of negative characteristics to white people as a racial group.
5. (definition) Racism is the assignment of negative characteristics to a racial group.
6. I endorse racism.
7. (definition) A racist is one who endorses racism.
8. I am a racist.
If this is deductively valid, then the speaker must either:
1. Be contentedly racist.
2. Fail to endorse postmodern ideology.
3. Modify postmodern ideology in such a way as to exclude white privilege theory.
4. Modify white privilege theory in such a way as to avoid prejudicially grouping white people.
5. Modify the definition of racism or racist.
Well, #1 is right out -- being contentedly racist is for those right-wing hicks, right? (At least they're honest about their ideology.) #2-#4 are out -- the Holy Scripture must not be questioned. (Here note the similarity with apologetics.) That just leaves #5. So: change the definition of racism so that one is no longer hoist by one's own petard.
Of course to a believer in classical semantics, this, too, is insane -- if you were uncomfortable being a racist by yesterday's definition, then you should still be uncomfortable today, even if you don't meet today's new definition. Your discomfort was presumably pinned to a specific semantic notion which still has a sort of referent or "Platonic form" even if you're no longer labelling it as you once did.
But add some sort of Whorfianism into the mix and that referent dissolves. The word "racism" is no longer a pointer into some anterior semantic data bank; it's a first-class value unto itself. Changing the meaning of racism also changes the discomfort trigger, that trigger, after all, having nothing to attach to other than the word "racism" itself.
So, says I, if one is willing to embrace the hypotheses of postmodern leftism, it's all quite logical from there.
I am unfamiliar with the term "postmodern leftist ideology." However, unless you're using some odd definition for the term "white privilege theory," statement 3 of your deduction is incorrect. The idea of white privilege is primarily that white people have unearned advantages in our society. A related aspect is that white people often deny the existence of white privilege. If these things are "negative characteristics" sufficient to satisfy one's definition of "racism," then one's definition of racism is overly broad so as to be almost meaningless.
As far as the overall discussion regarding the definition of racism goes, one reason racism is sometimes defined to mean such things as "prejudice+power" rather than just "racial prejudice" is that it's often helpful to have specific terms for concepts that are discussed often, and racism in the "prejudice+power" sense is one of those concepts. It's true that one could use a term like "racial prejudice on the part of members of a dominant racial group against members of another racial group" when referring to that concept, but it isn't very convenient.
In addition, it is also usually the usage of the term that people are referring to when they identify as "anti-racists." While it would of course be nice if all racial prejudice were eliminated, that usually isn't the primary concern, since such a task would be enormous and require a lot of thought-policing, whereas racism in the "prejudice+power" sense often manifests in concrete ways that can be combated in concrete ways.
I am unfamiliar with the term "postmodern leftist ideology."
postmodernleftistideology. But it occurs to me that it's not necessary to mention it; the deduction proceeds just as well if one starts from white privilege theory on its own. Consider the argument so modified.
However, unless you're using some odd definition for the term "white privilege theory," statement 3 of your deduction is incorrect. The idea of white privilege is primarily that white people have unearned advantages in our society.
How is that not a satisfactory instance of line #3?
It is expressly predicated on the notion that white people can be bundled into a monolithic racial group and have uniform negative characteristics assigned to them as a group -- the negative characteristic in question being an unearned advantage; a thing that they possess that they ought not (by your lights) possess.
The idea of white privilege is primarily that white people have unearned advantages in our society. A related aspect is that white people often deny the existence of white privilege. If these things are "negative characteristics" sufficient to satisfy one's definition of "racism," then one's definition of racism is overly broad so as to be almost meaningless.
And I hope by Heliod you feel a bit ashamed.
It just blows my mind on how people who seem to place an open mind as the best thing to poses can be so blinded that they can't even recognize when they end up parroting, phrenology in the case of the OPs links.
Or in the case of White Male Privilege the Zionist Conspiracy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Don't you see that the whole aim of Moderators is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make infractions literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.
However, unless you're using some odd definition for the term "white privilege theory," statement 3 of your deduction is incorrect. The idea of white privilege is primarily that white people have unearned advantages in our society.
Keeping in mind that at that point in the deduction, racism has not yet been redefined and is being interpreted in the ordinary sense -- how is that not overtly racist?
It is expressly predicated on the notion that white people can be bundled into a monolithic racial group and have uniform negative characteristics assigned to them as a group -- the negative characteristic in question being an unearned advantage; a thing that they possess that they ought not (by your lights) possess.
I want to highlight a specific part of that, which is:
Quote from McIntosh »
In unpacking this invisible backpack of white privilege, I have listed conditions of daily experience which I once took for granted. Nor did I think of any of these perquisites as bad for the holder. I now think that we need a more finely differentiated taxonomy of privilege, for some of these varieties are only what one would want for everyone in a just society, and others give license to be ignorant, oblivious, arrogant and destructive.
To suggest that I am saying that white people shouldn't have any of the things which are now unearned advantages is misrepresentative of what I have actually said.
As I said before (which you conveniently left out of your quote), your use of the word "racism" is actually quite meaningless and isn't an acceptable way to use definitions in discourse. We don't start with a word having one particular definition and later redefine it; if you're referring to something that I'm not when you use a word, your use of the word doesn't really mean anything related to my use of it. You might as well have asked me how observing the existence of white privilege isn't overtly wet, defining wet to mean what you mean when you say "racist." It wouldn't have any relevance to what I mean when I use the word wet, any more than your question relates to racism in a sense relevant to what I've said.
@ BurningPaladin:
Unfortunately, I can't make sense of what it is you're accusing me of.
However, unless you're using some odd definition for the term "white privilege theory," statement 3 of your deduction is incorrect. The idea of white privilege is primarily that white people have unearned advantages in our society.
Keeping in mind that at that point in the deduction, racism has not yet been redefined and is being interpreted in the ordinary sense -- how is that not overtly racist?
It is expressly predicated on the notion that white people can be bundled into a monolithic racial group and have uniform negative characteristics assigned to them as a group -- the negative characteristic in question being an unearned advantage; a thing that they possess that they ought not (by your lights) possess.
I want to highlight a specific part of that, which is:
Quote from McIntosh »
In unpacking this invisible backpack of white privilege, I have listed conditions of daily experience which I once took for granted. Nor did I think of any of these perquisites as bad for the holder. I now think that we need a more finely differentiated taxonomy of privilege, for some of these varieties are only what one would want for everyone in a just society, and others give license to be ignorant, oblivious, arrogant and destructive.
To suggest that I am saying that white people shouldn't have any of the things which are now unearned advantages is misrepresentative of what I have actually said.
As I said before (which you conveniently left out of your quote), your use of the word "racism" is actually quite meaningless and isn't an acceptable way to use definitions in discourse. We don't start with a word having one particular definition and later redefine it; if you're referring to something that I'm not when you use a word, your use of the word doesn't really mean anything related to my use of it. You might as well have asked me how observing the existence of white privilege isn't overtly wet, defining wet to mean what you mean when you say "racist." It wouldn't have any relevance to what I mean when I use the word wet, any more than your question relates to racism in a sense relevant to what I've said.
@ BurningPaladin:
Unfortunately, I can't make sense of what it is you're accusing me of.
Don't you see that the whole aim of Moderators is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make infractions literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.
So are you suggesting that I am advocating a pogrom against white people? If you are, you are mistaken.
If you had some meaningful point, you will have to explain the reasoning behind your analogy beyond falsely insinuating that I have genocidal intent.
No, but your using analogous "logic" to those who did.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Don't you see that the whole aim of Moderators is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make infractions literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.
No, but your using analogous "logic" to those who did.
If your intention is to suggest that observing or claiming to observe that some racial or ethnic group has certain advantages is ipso facto racist or inherently leads to genocide, your reasoning is flawed. Making an analogy to an example in which such an observation or claim is indisputably racist and did lead to genocide is insufficient to demonstrate the validity of your suggestion, and borders on Godwinning.
No, but your using analogous "logic" to those who did.
If your intention is to suggest that observing or claiming to observe that some racial or ethnic group has certain advantages is ipso facto racist or inherently leads to genocide, your reasoning is flawed. Making an analogy to an example in which such an observation or claim is indisputably racist and did lead to genocide is insufficient to demonstrate the validity of your suggestion, and borders on Godwinning.
You said:
The idea of white privilege is primarily that white people have unearned advantages in our society. A related aspect is that white people often deny the existence of white privilege. If these things are "negative characteristics" sufficient to satisfy one's definition of "racism," then one's definition of racism is overly broad so as to be almost meaningless.
The idea of white privilege is primarily that white people have unearned advantages in our society. A related aspect is that white people often deny the existence of white privilege.
Is essentially what the Zionist Conspiracy advocates said/say about jewish people, and unless you think they weren't/aren't racist.
Believing in White Privilege is in fact racist.
Just like someone who is trying huck the idea that Conservatives have different brains and are therefore biologically separate from leftist, is using the same logic as Phrenology and is there fore racist.
Don't you see that the whole aim of Moderators is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make infractions literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.
Perhaps this is due to the way that publication was clipped from original source material, but it tells me nothing about what white privilege is by the author's lights. Is white privilege simply the logical conjunction of those 50 bullet points, or are those 50 bullet points designed to be evidentiary support of something that is completely unmentioned or cut off? Also notice the weasel words in the introductory paragraph: "as far as I can tell," "of course, there are other factors," et cetera. This is then followed by a mountain of advice that assumes that people have already accepted the unstated hypothesis as well as an attendant feeling of opprobrium or guilt, followed by a completely asinine rant that presupposes that we live in, and I quote, a "white supremacist society."
If this is the foundational text of the academic theory of privilege, the Principia Privilegia if you will, then postmodern leftism is in worse intellectual shape than even I gave it credit for.
To suggest that I am saying that white people shouldn't have any of the things which are now unearned advantages is misrepresentative of what I have actually said.
Then what does it mean to call these things "unearned advantages?" Consider, for example, McIntosh's #5: "I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed." When contrasted with the negation, how could this advantage ever be regarded as unearned, and what would one have to do in order to earn it?
Also, again, note the weasel words: "most of the time," "pretty well." The fact is, of course, that white people are followed and harassed on an exceedingly regular basis and therefore it makes no sense to call this a white privilege. (Incidentally, crack open Principia Mathematica and you won't read Newton writing that massive bodies "most of the time" attract each other with "pretty well" this amount of force. Principia Privilegia is lousy science.)
As I said before (which you conveniently left out of your quote), your use of the word "racism" is actually quite meaningless and isn't an acceptable way to use definitions in discourse.
Actually, you're right, the use of the word "racism" obscures the point of this sub-argument in any case. I hadn't even introduced the word "Racism" into the deduction until several steps later anyway.
We are trying to decide whether white privilege theory satisfies hypothesis #3 in my deduction, which does not actually mention the word "racism." The discussion on the table is whether or not "White privilege theory endorses the assignment of negative characteristics to white people as a racial group."
So long as we agree on what all those words mean, and I hope we do, we can table any semantic disagreement on racism.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Alright, I can't just unilaterally declare it, agreed, however given the context of the thread and the context of my existing statements what Billy was doing was challenging my idea not on the merits of what was being proposed but switching to a different definition of racism.
Exactly, you have a different defintion of racism which, in some case, conflicts with the literal, traditional and contextual meaning of the word.
Perhaps this is due to the way that publication was clipped from original source material, but it tells me nothing about what white privilege is by the author's lights. Is white privilege simply the logical conjunction of those 50 bullet points, or are those 50 bullet points designed to be evidentiary support of something that is completely unmentioned or cut off? Also notice the weasel words in the introductory paragraph: "as far as I can tell," "of course, there are other factors," et cetera. This is then followed by a mountain of advice that assumes that people have already accepted the unstated hypothesis as well as an attendant feeling of opprobrium or guilt, followed by a completely asinine rant that presupposes that we live in, and I quote, a "white supremacist society."
If this is the foundational text of the academic theory of privilege, the Principia Privilegia if you will, then postmodern leftism is in worse intellectual shape than even I gave it credit for.
To suggest that I am saying that white people shouldn't have any of the things which are now unearned advantages is misrepresentative of what I have actually said.
Then what does it mean to call these things "unearned advantages?" Consider, for example, McIntosh's #5: "I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed." When contrasted with the negation, how could this advantage ever be regarded as unearned, and what would one have to do in order to earn it?
Also, again, note the weasel words: "most of the time," "pretty well." The fact is, of course, that white people are followed and harassed on an exceedingly regular basis and therefore it makes no sense to call this a white privilege. (Incidentally, crack open Principia Mathematica and you won't read Newton writing that massive bodies "most of the time" attract each other with "pretty well" this amount of force. Principia Privilegia is lousy science.)
As I said before (which you conveniently left out of your quote), your use of the word "racism" is actually quite meaningless and isn't an acceptable way to use definitions in discourse.
Actually, you're right, the use of the word "racism" obscures the point of this sub-argument in any case. I hadn't even introduced the word "Racism" into the deduction until several steps later anyway.
We are trying to decide whether white privilege theory satisfies hypothesis #3 in my deduction, which does not actually mention the word "racism." The discussion on the table is whether or not "White privilege theory endorses the assignment of negative characteristics to white people as a racial group."
So long as we agree on what all those words mean, and I hope we do, we can table any semantic disagreement on racism.
If you truly understand leftist post-modernism, then you should understand that having an academic debate with them is an exercise in futility.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Don't you see that the whole aim of Moderators is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make infractions literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.
Alright, I can't just unilaterally declare it, agreed, however given the context of the thread and the context of my existing statements what Billy was doing was challenging my idea not on the merits of what was being proposed but switching to a different definition of racism.
Exactly, you have a different defintion of racism which, in some case, conflicts with the literal, traditional and contextual meaning of the word.
Context? Contextually mine was accurate. Traditionally and literally? Irrelevant as to which is the earlier definition. All that matters is the definition being used and your answer to my argument was to use a new definition. This is not a legit strat.
It's true that one could use a term like "racial prejudice on the part of members of a dominant racial group against members of another racial group" when referring to that concept, but it isn't very convenient.
What a ridiculous worked example. One could also use a term like "dominance racism" or "power racism": using an adjective to specify a variety of a more general concept.
In addition, it is also usually the usage of the term that people are referring to when they identify as "anti-racists." While it would of course be nice if all racial prejudice were eliminated, that usually isn't the primary concern, since such a task would be enormous and require a lot of thought-policing, whereas racism in the "prejudice+power" sense often manifests in concrete ways that can be combated in concrete ways.
All forms of prejudice can manifest and be combated in concrete ways. And just because you can't police thoughts doesn't mean you should give up on speaking out against evil thoughts. The police can't stop all thefts, but that doesn't stop them from taking a strong and consistent anti-thief stance.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
To suggest that I am saying that white people shouldn't have any of the things which are now unearned advantages is misrepresentative of what I have actually said.
Then what does it mean to call these things "unearned advantages?" Consider, for example, McIntosh's #5: "I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed." When contrasted with the negation, how could this advantage ever be regarded as unearned, and what would one have to do in order to earn it?
One ought not have to do anything to "earn" the (effective) right to act as described in the example you cited. The "unearned advantage" is that of not being in a group that does not have the right to do so. It is unnecessary to infer that an "unearned advantage" must be either earned or taken away. There has admittedly been some haziness on the distinction between the advantage of having a thing others don't and the thing itself, even in my own statements. I guess one way to put it is that there isn't a way to earn the advantage of (more or less) exclusively having the thing because the thing itself should be unearned for all.
Also, the Invisible Knapsack (or, I guess, Backpack, in the link I cited) is not intended to be a comprehensive resource, nor an exact scientific treatment of the subject of white privilege. It's primarily used as an introductory resource for students who may be unfamiliar with the concept.
We are trying to decide whether white privilege theory satisfies hypothesis #3 in my deduction, which does not actually mention the word "racism." The discussion on the table is whether or not "White privilege theory endorses the assignment of negative characteristics to white people as a racial group."
So long as we agree on what all those words mean, and I hope we do, we can table any semantic disagreement on racism.
I claim that having advantages, earned or not, is not a negative characteristic. Suppose I had been born into wealth; earned or not, this in itself doesn't make me a good person or a bad person, and it's not a good thing or a bad thing about me. This leads to what Blinking Spirit wrote:
A related aspect is that white people often deny the existence of white privilege.
Crashing00's shot missed its mark. This is where you actually assigned "negative characteristics to white people as a racial group".
Denying the existence of a thing is not inherently a negative (as in bad) thing. It's only when the thing actually exists that this can be said to be negative. I mentioned that aspect precisely because it comes the closest to fulfilling the requirements laid out; however, to the extent that it does, it does so in a fairly insubstantial way.
It becomes important to the analysis to determine whether white privilege exists. Since the actual advantages of white people, statistically, aren't disputable, especially when discussing quantifiable measures such as income or net worth, the important question becomes whether those advantages relative to other people were earned by white people as a group. Saying that they did earn those advantages necessarily requires one to believe that people of other races, as a group or groups, did not (perhaps by believing that they don't work as hard), which is itself racially prejudiced, so consistency would demand that one consider those advantages to be unearned. Hence, I claim that white privilege must be accepted as existing if one is to take the position that people of non-white races aren't inherently inferior. (The length of time for which the patterns continue indicate that it's not simply a fluke.)
I suppose the next question would then be whether white people actually do tend to deny that white privilege exists, or whether it is indicative of racial prejudice to make this observation regardless of whether it is true. I believe they do, and that it isn't. It's certainly understandable that people in a society with the widespread ideological belief that merit is rewarded would tend to believe that people are rewarded for things on the basis of merit rather than race, and it doesn't, technically, have anything to do with their race. (So why didn't I just say "people" often deny the existence of white privilege? Because people only experience their own lives, and will thus often be unaware of any "privilege" they have.)
Then there's the earlier concern regarding who exactly are "white people" and whether they're being treated as some homogenous group, and I guess the easiest answer to that is that "white people" are people who would identify as white or Caucasian on a census (in the US, e.g.) or similar.
It's true that one could use a term like "racial prejudice on the part of members of a dominant racial group against members of another racial group" when referring to that concept, but it isn't very convenient.
What a ridiculous worked example. One could also use a term like "dominance racism" or "power racism": using an adjective to specify a variety of a more general concept.
It's true that one could use those terms as well. However, that doesn't demonstrate that one should do so, or that one is incorrect in using the term "racism" in specific ways, defined in context. The term "racial prejudice" exists as well, but that doesn't mean you have to use that instead of "racism," as long as you're clear what you mean.
All forms of prejudice can manifest and be combated in concrete ways. And just because you can't police thoughts doesn't mean you should give up on speaking out against evil thoughts. The police can't stop all thefts, but that doesn't stop them from taking a strong and consistent anti-thief stance.
Perhaps, but some of those things could manifest more often or more severely than others. People have limited resources, and can hardly be faulted for choosing to spend their time on the specific manifestations of a problem that they identify as being most in need of addressing, in much the same way that the police probably won't come running if you call them about a guy pickpocketing a 5-dollar bill from you.
You yourself (Blinking Spirit) earlier (when you first raised the question of why racism is "redefined" in certain circles) raised the possibility that different instances of "racism" can have different levels of severity. Only combating certain manifestations of racial prejudice doesn't make anti-racist activists any less consistent or for or against the things they choose not to address or to address in a more limited manner, any more than police choosing not to utilize resources to rectify a 5-dollar bill being pickpocketed would indicate an endorsement of that incident.
One ought not have to do anything to "earn" the (effective) right to act as described in the example you cited.
Interesting. So there is no state of affairs any person could be in where they would have the advantage of not being accosted while shopping while having failed to earn that advantage, there being no way to fail to earn it. So in particular there is no state of affairs where a white person could have said unearned advantage. So the statement "white people have the unearned advantage of not being accosted while shopping" actually can't be true given what you've said.
(Thought exercise: do this for the rest of that list and see what's left.)
The "unearned advantage" is that of not being in a group that does not have the right to do so.
Your allegation is that the members of a group possess an unearned advantage. You've then defined mere membership in the group (well, non-membership in its complement, which amounts to the same thing in this case) as an unearned advantage in itself. This is at best a reduction to a tautology and at worst outright circular.
It can't be the group membership that's the advantage; it's got to be the actual advantages. And since none of those can ever be unearned...
It is unnecessary to infer that an "unearned advantage" must be either earned or taken away.
It's a good thing I'm not inferring that, then. I say only that if there is no way for an advantage to be unearned, then it's not an unearned advantage and doesn't satisfy the logical requirements in play here.
There has admittedly been some haziness on the distinction between the advantage of having a thing others don't and the thing itself, even in my own statements. I guess one way to put it is that there isn't a way to earn the advantage of (more or less) exclusively having the thing because the thing itself should be unearned for all.
Nothing you've said here is intelligible to me in a way that would address any of the aforementioned problems.
Also, the Invisible Knapsack (or, I guess, Backpack, in the link I cited) is not intended to be a comprehensive resource, nor an exact scientific treatment of the subject of white privilege. It's primarily used as an introductory resource for students who may be unfamiliar with the concept.
Eighth-grade algebra textbooks are also introductory resources; that does not excuse them if they contain false, vague, non-falsifiable, or incoherent claims.
In any case, I was only taking you at your word: generally when one says that a resource is "often discussed in academic circles" it can be inferred that said resource is foundational, seminal, breakthrough, or otherwise significant.
I claim that having advantages, earned or not, is not a negative characteristic.
Merely having an advantage is not necessarily a negative characteristic. However, some advantages clearly entail negative characteristics: consider "white people have the advantage of once having owned black people as property." Anyone that claims this is a white privilege is ascribing negative characteristics. So your claim, though close to something true, is insufficient to address the matter at hand.
Denying the existence of a thing is not inherently a negative (as in bad) thing. It's only when the thing actually exists that this can be said to be negative.
But you believe the thing in question exists, so you presumably believe that this ascription is negative -- and yet you made the ascription. Does this not qualify as a confirmatory instance of my #3?
I suppose the next question would then be whether white people actually do tend to deny that white privilege exists, or whether it is indicative of racial prejudice to make this observation regardless of whether it is true. I believe they do, and that it isn't.
Robert Jensen (the delusional idiot cited on the final page of the document you linked) is white and obviously doesn't deny that white privilege exists...
Then there's the earlier concern regarding who exactly are "white people" and whether they're being treated as some homogenous group, and I guess the easiest answer to that is that "white people" are people who would identify as white or Caucasian on a census (in the US, e.g.) or similar.
You didn't answer the most important half of your own question! Are they being treated as some homogenous group? Your erasure of Robert Jensen as an individual suggests the affirmative...
Denying the existence of a thing is not inherently a negative (as in bad) thing. It's only when the thing actually exists that this can be said to be negative.
But you believe the thing in question exists, so you presumably believe that this ascription is negative -- and yet you made the ascription. Does this not qualify as a confirmatory instance of my #3?
If it does, and if that is sufficient to make it an instance of racial prejudice under your definition, then your definition is flawed.
Edit: This needed a reason, so. According to merriam-webster.com, prejudice (what I believe to be the relevant definitions) is "an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics," or "an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge." My statement doesn't fit the first definition, and my statement that white people tend to deny the existence of white privilege is justified by pretty much any informal discussion of race in which white privilege is mentioned (i.e. personal experience). http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prejudice
Edit 2: See my post below for justification.
Robert Jensen (the delusional idiot cited on the final page of the document you linked) is white and obviously doesn't deny that white privilege exists...
Which doesn't actually conflict with anything I said.
Then there's the earlier concern regarding who exactly are "white people" and whether they're being treated as some homogenous group, and I guess the easiest answer to that is that "white people" are people who would identify as white or Caucasian on a census (in the US, e.g.) or similar.
You didn't answer the most important half of your own question! Are they being treated as some homogenous group? Your erasure of Robert Jensen as an individual suggests the affirmative...
Since I've actually only claimed a tendency (weasel word, right?), you'll notice I haven't actually said that no white people believe white privilege is a thing (believing that would require some pretty large ignorance of reality on my part). Does that answer the question? Would you only be satisfied by specific numbers backed by some sort of study or poll? Are you now going to claim that I'm not actually saying anything because, strictly speaking, without numbers, all I've said is some white people think one thing and others disagree?
When we are talking about the right wing, are we lumping (in decreasing order of authoritarianism) neo-conservatives, the Tea Party, minarchist libertarians, voluntaryists, and ancaps all with each other?
Those ideologies are certainly no barrier to racism. (Probably because racism often operates at a deeper level than mere politics.) For example, Lew Rockwell is a prominent libertarian and he's written all sorts of Bell Curve-style nostrums about "inherited intelligence" or criminality among brown people. The difference is that libertarians offer this up as "merely" an objective analysis of the world, rather than a policy prescription.
So many people on the left have spent so much energy and tortured so much logic to try to define "racism" such that prejudice against white people cannot be racist, and for the life of me I can't understand why.
I used to roll my eyes at the term "Cultural Marxism" when it was bandied about as a snarl word by right-wing types, but the more I encounter this crazy-left ideology the more I start thinking about it. Near as I can tell they're trying to (American-centrally) frame culture in Marxist class-warfare terms. So they need a dominant class and an oppressed class. Enter the white/hetero/cis/patriarchy "theory." It's all the more infuriating because they often refuse to entertain even complimentary points of view.
The idea of white privilege is primarily that white people have unearned advantages in our society. A related aspect is that white people often deny the existence of white privilege. If these things are "negative characteristics" sufficient to satisfy one's definition of "racism," then one's definition of racism is overly broad so as to be almost meaningless.
Here's why this theory creates a problem:
Assertion: "White people have unearned advantages in society."
Assertion: "White people often deny the above assertion."
That's a sort of strange loop. Or a kafkatrap, to borrow a phrase. Once a person is slotted into the class of "white people," that person cannot escape the trap of the theory. If I accept that white privilege exists, that confirms the theory. If I don't, that also confirms the theory. (If I'm white, it's because of white privilege. If I'm not white, it's because of "internalized racism." Turtles all the way down!)
So like when Peggy McIntosh or someone writes up a "Privilege Checklist" and puts some patently ridiculous thing on it, it's impossible to criticize because I'm clearly not checking my privilege. At this point we're solidly in dogma territory, and that's dangerous ground.
If this is the foundational text of the academic theory of privilege, the Principia Privilegia if you will, then postmodern leftism is in worse intellectual shape than even I gave it credit for.
I'm not sure about academia, but a lot of this is done in a very unrigorous way. Like on Tumblr and stuff.
I guess one way to put it is that there isn't a way to earn the advantage of (more or less) exclusively having the thing because the thing itself should be unearned for all.
I see a huge distinction between a privilege that only a few enjoy and a right unfairly denied the masses. Privilege connotes a natural exclusivity, not always arbitrary, but not something everyone could or should have. A right connotes a natural inclusivity, something everyone could or should have.
Example: Self-government by the vote is seen in democratic societies as a right of any enfranchised person. It just so happened that membership in the group of "enfranchised persons" was unjustifiably denied to lots of persons.
Example: Religious organizations have the privilege of skirting many taxes and regulations that are mandated for other organizations and individuals. While some might argue that certain taxes simply shouldn't be levied, it's harder to argue that certain rules on childcare (e.g.) shouldn't be followed at all.
I claim that white privilege must be accepted as existing if one is to take the position that people of non-white races aren't inherently inferior.
This smells like a false dichotomy: either people of color inherently suck, or there's a conspiracy against people of color (masterminded by white people).
Either one is simplistic, and I contend that both deny agency to people of color. (See also the "if your business fails you suck at capitalism, if my business fails it's the government's fault" economics dichotomy among Tea Partiers.)
Because people only experience their own lives, and will thus often be unaware of any "privilege" they have.)
The only useful privilege related to identity, IMO, is the privilege of being ignorant of the problems of identities you don't share. That's a useful reminder.
Perhaps, but some of those things could manifest more often or more severely than others.
It's not even a difference of degree, IMO. Cases of structural or institutional or prejudicial abuse of power — differential sentencing for racial minorities, say — require concerted political resistance. Cases of factual wrongness — statements like "blacks have a higher criminal tendency than whites" or "white people were created by a mad black scientist 10 billion years ago" — require fairly cheap verbal rebuttals.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
If it does, and if that is sufficient to make it an instance of racial prejudice under your definition, then your definition is flawed.
Woah there, slow your roll for a second. Racism isn't on the table yet. If your own assertions about white privilege do confirm #3, you must concede this subargument (which is about your express objection to #3) and then we can move on to your next objection. If line #3 of my deduction is confirmed by your very own application of white privilege theory, surely that objection can be taken off the table. Do you so concede?
Since I've actually only claimed a tendency (weasel word, right?), you'll notice I haven't actually said that no white people believe white privilege is a thing (believing that would require some pretty large ignorance of reality on my part). Does that answer the question? Would you only be satisfied by specific numbers backed by some sort of study or poll? Are you now going to claim that I'm not actually saying anything because, strictly speaking, without numbers, all I've said is some white people think one thing and others disagree?
Not just a weasel word; a whole weasel paragraph. The question is whether or not white people are being wrongly treated as a homogenous group. You clearly are treating them as a homogenous group (you've written sentences assigning properties to "white people" as if that phrase represented a single object on at least 10 separate occasions in this thread) -- so the question is whether you're doing so rightly or wrongly. Is there any kind of study or polling data that could ever justify these kinds of assertions? Is there some number or fraction or formula that yields some threshold beyond which it's okay to just erase the remainder of a group and say "screw it, they're all the same?" You tell me. Since you're the one making these claims, you've got to justify them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That makes sense. I have not seen it, so the reference was lost on me.
I think that at least some number of those who do this do want to excuse the prejudice -- not, mind you, in the overt way that you suggest but in a way that is rather more subtle. In fact, some folks will be logically compelled to do exactly this (or else be contentedly racist.) It is rather like the same phenomenon in religious apologetics where evil is redefined to be good when God has a hand in it.
Consider the following deduction:
1. (hypothesis) I endorse postmodern leftist ideology.
2. (hypothesis) Postmodern leftist ideology endorses white privilege theory.
3. (hypothesis) White privilege theory endorses the assignment of negative characteristics to white people as a racial group.
4. I endorse the assignment of negative characteristics to white people as a racial group.
5. (definition) Racism is the assignment of negative characteristics to a racial group.
6. I endorse racism.
7. (definition) A racist is one who endorses racism.
8. I am a racist.
If this is deductively valid, then the speaker must either:
1. Be contentedly racist.
2. Fail to endorse postmodern ideology.
3. Modify postmodern ideology in such a way as to exclude white privilege theory.
4. Modify white privilege theory in such a way as to avoid prejudicially grouping white people.
5. Modify the definition of racism or racist.
Well, #1 is right out -- being contentedly racist is for those right-wing hicks, right? (At least they're honest about their ideology.) #2-#4 are out -- the Holy Scripture must not be questioned. (Here note the similarity with apologetics.) That just leaves #5. So: change the definition of racism so that one is no longer hoist by one's own petard.
Of course to a believer in classical semantics, this, too, is insane -- if you were uncomfortable being a racist by yesterday's definition, then you should still be uncomfortable today, even if you don't meet today's new definition. Your discomfort was presumably pinned to a specific semantic notion which still has a sort of referent or "Platonic form" even if you're no longer labelling it as you once did.
But add some sort of Whorfianism into the mix and that referent dissolves. The word "racism" is no longer a pointer into some anterior semantic data bank; it's a first-class value unto itself. Changing the meaning of racism also changes the discomfort trigger, that trigger, after all, having nothing to attach to other than the word "racism" itself.
So, says I, if one is willing to embrace the hypotheses of postmodern leftism, it's all quite logical from there.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Perhaps the better wording would have been “expression of racism” or something, but I defined my term so I think what I was saying was pretty gsdfef
My argument was about a difference in scope, not that Democrats are pure. It also relates to how the parties themselves act overall. Al Sharpton is an outlier among democrats.
Universally? Of course not. Within the context of an existing discussion? Yep. Otherwise we get into territory where claims get made and people dismiss them because “that’s not really racism” or whatever. Drawmeomg made a post about this on the first page about how liberals and conservatives commonly talk past each other. By saying what I mean when I use the term, whether or not that’s what the other person usually says, I can then say whether or not the person is addressing my actual argument irrespective of their or any other definition of the term so grasooota.
Incapable isn’t the right word. Some people do succeed even in adverse starting conditions, buts about getting a closer equality of opportunity not that they can only succeed with assistance from the state.
That’s the stated rhetoric of republican politicians, but its about as favorable a way of thinking about it as your proposed redefinition of left wing racism is negative. Wanting people to struggle and earn their own way, narrative wise, is quite powerful. Sadly, it is a non-answer since the disadvantaged groups will, by and by, stay disadvantaged as a result of the times, not so long ago, where it wasn’t just an open playing field, but one slanted against them. In many respects this ties really closely into discussions regarding poverty as a predictor of a childs success in life and, while there are always exceptions here and there, the outliers are just that. Overall, we see lower quality of life (if you are black or Hispanic you are 3 times as likely to grow up in poverty as someone who is white or asian) and in many respects this is something we’ve created. I’m not interested in working out blame or anything like that. It isn’t about them being inferior, weaker or dumber and, after talking to you over the years, I can barely believe you’re saying these things to me. I just want to acknowledge it and to try and nudge things a little bit towards justice.
I dunno what to say about control. Politicians want to get re-elected. It’s their bag.
Regarding catering? Are they really catering to minorities and women, or do programs that target poverty benefit those groups more because they are over represented?
Additionally, plenty of RNC strategies to win elections over the years have burnt briges with minority voters, so theres that. There are plenty of reasons why black people don’t vote republican that have nothing to do hand-outs and everything to do with politicians being racist pricks infront of cameras, amongsts other things.
How can you say that conservatives are becoming more moderate and then mention the TEA party? I do agree with your demographic comment and the backfiring, I think it has already backfired on national elections, but now we’ve got the government held hostage by a bunch of insane people who can’t admit to losing an election.
If poor people vote for the party that helps the poor the most then elections would never be so close as they have been.
This seems a bit… over the top, man.
Yep, especially considering that a government shutdown puts out position as “worlds sole superpower” in jepordy, especially considering treasury bonds are the backbone of the world financial markets.
http://www.thecentristmovement.org
_________________________________________-
@BS/Drawme’s discussion regarding my usage of the word minority
In a prior thread, I’d tried to talk about power and privilege and other stuff with Billy to no avail, so I’m using terms that would make sense to him even if, taken to a larger context, they wouldn’t remain accurate in all cases. Most notably south africa where the minority maintained abusive political power.
Check again, I said unilaterally, not universally. And I also saw that post. It's interesting, however that you took that post to mean "and the liberals are correct", when it didn't say that at all. No, it was just pointing out that there are two different interpretations.
Its fine for you to say what *you* mean when you use it. but thats not what you did. You unilaterally declared that your menaing was the definition that was being used by the entire discussion.
Alright, I can't just unilaterally declare it, agreed, however given the context of the thread and the context of my existing statements what Billy was doing was challenging my idea not on the merits of what was being proposed but switching to a different definition of racism. Also, its sometimes difficult to pin that guy to any definition of anything, so within his context I am going to take a more "this is what we are talking about, if you don't like it piss off" tone than I would with you.
I didn't take the post to mean "and the liberals are correct" since, well, I am pretty liberal and I know what I mean by racism. I tell people what I mean by racism if a conversation gets complicated. I really appreciated Drawme's point about talking past. From my perspective as a liberal, I think that conservative talking points regarding racism, in the conservative usage, are somewhat less genuine in a kind of "we're going to mirror you" kind of way. It's like when the Traevon Martin thing was happening it was suddenly a thing to go find examples of the opposite happening.
I am unfamiliar with the term "postmodern leftist ideology." However, unless you're using some odd definition for the term "white privilege theory," statement 3 of your deduction is incorrect. The idea of white privilege is primarily that white people have unearned advantages in our society. A related aspect is that white people often deny the existence of white privilege. If these things are "negative characteristics" sufficient to satisfy one's definition of "racism," then one's definition of racism is overly broad so as to be almost meaningless.
As far as the overall discussion regarding the definition of racism goes, one reason racism is sometimes defined to mean such things as "prejudice+power" rather than just "racial prejudice" is that it's often helpful to have specific terms for concepts that are discussed often, and racism in the "prejudice+power" sense is one of those concepts. It's true that one could use a term like "racial prejudice on the part of members of a dominant racial group against members of another racial group" when referring to that concept, but it isn't very convenient.
In addition, it is also usually the usage of the term that people are referring to when they identify as "anti-racists." While it would of course be nice if all racial prejudice were eliminated, that usually isn't the primary concern, since such a task would be enormous and require a lot of thought-policing, whereas racism in the "prejudice+power" sense often manifests in concrete ways that can be combated in concrete ways.
postmodern leftist ideology. But it occurs to me that it's not necessary to mention it; the deduction proceeds just as well if one starts from white privilege theory on its own. Consider the argument so modified.
How is that not a satisfactory instance of line #3?
It is expressly predicated on the notion that white people can be bundled into a monolithic racial group and have uniform negative characteristics assigned to them as a group -- the negative characteristic in question being an unearned advantage; a thing that they possess that they ought not (by your lights) possess.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Right....
You are familar with the Articles of Zion?
If not read it...
Then come back reread your quote
And I hope by Heliod you feel a bit ashamed.
It just blows my mind on how people who seem to place an open mind as the best thing to poses can be so blinded that they can't even recognize when they end up parroting, phrenology in the case of the OPs links.
Or in the case of White Male Privilege the Zionist Conspiracy.
Perhaps it would be useful if I cited a particular explanation of white privilege which is often discussed in academic circles: White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Backpack (McIntosh, Peggy).
I want to highlight a specific part of that, which is:
To suggest that I am saying that white people shouldn't have any of the things which are now unearned advantages is misrepresentative of what I have actually said.
As I said before (which you conveniently left out of your quote), your use of the word "racism" is actually quite meaningless and isn't an acceptable way to use definitions in discourse. We don't start with a word having one particular definition and later redefine it; if you're referring to something that I'm not when you use a word, your use of the word doesn't really mean anything related to my use of it. You might as well have asked me how observing the existence of white privilege isn't overtly wet, defining wet to mean what you mean when you say "racist." It wouldn't have any relevance to what I mean when I use the word wet, any more than your question relates to racism in a sense relevant to what I've said.
@ BurningPaladin:
Unfortunately, I can't make sense of what it is you're accusing me of.
Replace White with Jew.
And replace Conservative with Negro.
So are you suggesting that I am advocating a pogrom against white people? If you are, you are mistaken.
If you had some meaningful point, you will have to explain the reasoning behind your analogy beyond falsely insinuating that I have genocidal intent.
No, but your using analogous "logic" to those who did.
If your intention is to suggest that observing or claiming to observe that some racial or ethnic group has certain advantages is ipso facto racist or inherently leads to genocide, your reasoning is flawed. Making an analogy to an example in which such an observation or claim is indisputably racist and did lead to genocide is insufficient to demonstrate the validity of your suggestion, and borders on Godwinning.
You said:
Is essentially what the Zionist Conspiracy advocates said/say about jewish people, and unless you think they weren't/aren't racist.
Believing in White Privilege is in fact racist.
Just like someone who is trying huck the idea that Conservatives have different brains and are therefore biologically separate from leftist, is using the same logic as Phrenology and is there fore racist.
Perhaps this is due to the way that publication was clipped from original source material, but it tells me nothing about what white privilege is by the author's lights. Is white privilege simply the logical conjunction of those 50 bullet points, or are those 50 bullet points designed to be evidentiary support of something that is completely unmentioned or cut off? Also notice the weasel words in the introductory paragraph: "as far as I can tell," "of course, there are other factors," et cetera. This is then followed by a mountain of advice that assumes that people have already accepted the unstated hypothesis as well as an attendant feeling of opprobrium or guilt, followed by a completely asinine rant that presupposes that we live in, and I quote, a "white supremacist society."
If this is the foundational text of the academic theory of privilege, the Principia Privilegia if you will, then postmodern leftism is in worse intellectual shape than even I gave it credit for.
Then what does it mean to call these things "unearned advantages?" Consider, for example, McIntosh's #5: "I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed." When contrasted with the negation, how could this advantage ever be regarded as unearned, and what would one have to do in order to earn it?
Also, again, note the weasel words: "most of the time," "pretty well." The fact is, of course, that white people are followed and harassed on an exceedingly regular basis and therefore it makes no sense to call this a white privilege. (Incidentally, crack open Principia Mathematica and you won't read Newton writing that massive bodies "most of the time" attract each other with "pretty well" this amount of force. Principia Privilegia is lousy science.)
Actually, you're right, the use of the word "racism" obscures the point of this sub-argument in any case. I hadn't even introduced the word "Racism" into the deduction until several steps later anyway.
We are trying to decide whether white privilege theory satisfies hypothesis #3 in my deduction, which does not actually mention the word "racism." The discussion on the table is whether or not "White privilege theory endorses the assignment of negative characteristics to white people as a racial group."
So long as we agree on what all those words mean, and I hope we do, we can table any semantic disagreement on racism.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Exactly, you have a different defintion of racism which, in some case, conflicts with the literal, traditional and contextual meaning of the word.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
If you truly understand leftist post-modernism, then you should understand that having an academic debate with them is an exercise in futility.
At the moment, Dilithium appears to be engaged in a good faith debate with me. I see no reason to believe otherwise.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Context? Contextually mine was accurate. Traditionally and literally? Irrelevant as to which is the earlier definition. All that matters is the definition being used and your answer to my argument was to use a new definition. This is not a legit strat.
What a ridiculous worked example. One could also use a term like "dominance racism" or "power racism": using an adjective to specify a variety of a more general concept.
All forms of prejudice can manifest and be combated in concrete ways. And just because you can't police thoughts doesn't mean you should give up on speaking out against evil thoughts. The police can't stop all thefts, but that doesn't stop them from taking a strong and consistent anti-thief stance.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
One ought not have to do anything to "earn" the (effective) right to act as described in the example you cited. The "unearned advantage" is that of not being in a group that does not have the right to do so. It is unnecessary to infer that an "unearned advantage" must be either earned or taken away. There has admittedly been some haziness on the distinction between the advantage of having a thing others don't and the thing itself, even in my own statements. I guess one way to put it is that there isn't a way to earn the advantage of (more or less) exclusively having the thing because the thing itself should be unearned for all.
Also, the Invisible Knapsack (or, I guess, Backpack, in the link I cited) is not intended to be a comprehensive resource, nor an exact scientific treatment of the subject of white privilege. It's primarily used as an introductory resource for students who may be unfamiliar with the concept.
I claim that having advantages, earned or not, is not a negative characteristic. Suppose I had been born into wealth; earned or not, this in itself doesn't make me a good person or a bad person, and it's not a good thing or a bad thing about me. This leads to what Blinking Spirit wrote:
Denying the existence of a thing is not inherently a negative (as in bad) thing. It's only when the thing actually exists that this can be said to be negative. I mentioned that aspect precisely because it comes the closest to fulfilling the requirements laid out; however, to the extent that it does, it does so in a fairly insubstantial way.
It becomes important to the analysis to determine whether white privilege exists. Since the actual advantages of white people, statistically, aren't disputable, especially when discussing quantifiable measures such as income or net worth, the important question becomes whether those advantages relative to other people were earned by white people as a group. Saying that they did earn those advantages necessarily requires one to believe that people of other races, as a group or groups, did not (perhaps by believing that they don't work as hard), which is itself racially prejudiced, so consistency would demand that one consider those advantages to be unearned. Hence, I claim that white privilege must be accepted as existing if one is to take the position that people of non-white races aren't inherently inferior. (The length of time for which the patterns continue indicate that it's not simply a fluke.)
I suppose the next question would then be whether white people actually do tend to deny that white privilege exists, or whether it is indicative of racial prejudice to make this observation regardless of whether it is true. I believe they do, and that it isn't. It's certainly understandable that people in a society with the widespread ideological belief that merit is rewarded would tend to believe that people are rewarded for things on the basis of merit rather than race, and it doesn't, technically, have anything to do with their race. (So why didn't I just say "people" often deny the existence of white privilege? Because people only experience their own lives, and will thus often be unaware of any "privilege" they have.)
Then there's the earlier concern regarding who exactly are "white people" and whether they're being treated as some homogenous group, and I guess the easiest answer to that is that "white people" are people who would identify as white or Caucasian on a census (in the US, e.g.) or similar.
It's true that one could use those terms as well. However, that doesn't demonstrate that one should do so, or that one is incorrect in using the term "racism" in specific ways, defined in context. The term "racial prejudice" exists as well, but that doesn't mean you have to use that instead of "racism," as long as you're clear what you mean.
Perhaps, but some of those things could manifest more often or more severely than others. People have limited resources, and can hardly be faulted for choosing to spend their time on the specific manifestations of a problem that they identify as being most in need of addressing, in much the same way that the police probably won't come running if you call them about a guy pickpocketing a 5-dollar bill from you.
You yourself (Blinking Spirit) earlier (when you first raised the question of why racism is "redefined" in certain circles) raised the possibility that different instances of "racism" can have different levels of severity. Only combating certain manifestations of racial prejudice doesn't make anti-racist activists any less consistent or for or against the things they choose not to address or to address in a more limited manner, any more than police choosing not to utilize resources to rectify a 5-dollar bill being pickpocketed would indicate an endorsement of that incident.
Interesting. So there is no state of affairs any person could be in where they would have the advantage of not being accosted while shopping while having failed to earn that advantage, there being no way to fail to earn it. So in particular there is no state of affairs where a white person could have said unearned advantage. So the statement "white people have the unearned advantage of not being accosted while shopping" actually can't be true given what you've said.
(Thought exercise: do this for the rest of that list and see what's left.)
Your allegation is that the members of a group possess an unearned advantage. You've then defined mere membership in the group (well, non-membership in its complement, which amounts to the same thing in this case) as an unearned advantage in itself. This is at best a reduction to a tautology and at worst outright circular.
It can't be the group membership that's the advantage; it's got to be the actual advantages. And since none of those can ever be unearned...
It's a good thing I'm not inferring that, then. I say only that if there is no way for an advantage to be unearned, then it's not an unearned advantage and doesn't satisfy the logical requirements in play here.
Nothing you've said here is intelligible to me in a way that would address any of the aforementioned problems.
Eighth-grade algebra textbooks are also introductory resources; that does not excuse them if they contain false, vague, non-falsifiable, or incoherent claims.
In any case, I was only taking you at your word: generally when one says that a resource is "often discussed in academic circles" it can be inferred that said resource is foundational, seminal, breakthrough, or otherwise significant.
Merely having an advantage is not necessarily a negative characteristic. However, some advantages clearly entail negative characteristics: consider "white people have the advantage of once having owned black people as property." Anyone that claims this is a white privilege is ascribing negative characteristics. So your claim, though close to something true, is insufficient to address the matter at hand.
But you believe the thing in question exists, so you presumably believe that this ascription is negative -- and yet you made the ascription. Does this not qualify as a confirmatory instance of my #3?
Robert Jensen (the delusional idiot cited on the final page of the document you linked) is white and obviously doesn't deny that white privilege exists...
You didn't answer the most important half of your own question! Are they being treated as some homogenous group? Your erasure of Robert Jensen as an individual suggests the affirmative...
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
If it does, and if that is sufficient to make it an instance of racial prejudice under your definition, then your definition is flawed.
Edit: This needed a reason, so. According to merriam-webster.com, prejudice (what I believe to be the relevant definitions) is "an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics," or "an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge." My statement doesn't fit the first definition, and my statement that white people tend to deny the existence of white privilege is justified by pretty much any informal discussion of race in which white privilege is mentioned (i.e. personal experience). http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prejudiceEdit 2: See my post below for justification.
Which doesn't actually conflict with anything I said.
Since I've actually only claimed a tendency (weasel word, right?), you'll notice I haven't actually said that no white people believe white privilege is a thing (believing that would require some pretty large ignorance of reality on my part). Does that answer the question? Would you only be satisfied by specific numbers backed by some sort of study or poll? Are you now going to claim that I'm not actually saying anything because, strictly speaking, without numbers, all I've said is some white people think one thing and others disagree?
Edit 2(b): My post below also addresses this.
Those ideologies are certainly no barrier to racism. (Probably because racism often operates at a deeper level than mere politics.) For example, Lew Rockwell is a prominent libertarian and he's written all sorts of Bell Curve-style nostrums about "inherited intelligence" or criminality among brown people. The difference is that libertarians offer this up as "merely" an objective analysis of the world, rather than a policy prescription.
I used to roll my eyes at the term "Cultural Marxism" when it was bandied about as a snarl word by right-wing types, but the more I encounter this crazy-left ideology the more I start thinking about it. Near as I can tell they're trying to (American-centrally) frame culture in Marxist class-warfare terms. So they need a dominant class and an oppressed class. Enter the white/hetero/cis/patriarchy "theory." It's all the more infuriating because they often refuse to entertain even complimentary points of view.
Here's why this theory creates a problem:
So like when Peggy McIntosh or someone writes up a "Privilege Checklist" and puts some patently ridiculous thing on it, it's impossible to criticize because I'm clearly not checking my privilege. At this point we're solidly in dogma territory, and that's dangerous ground.
I'm not sure about academia, but a lot of this is done in a very unrigorous way. Like on Tumblr and stuff.
I see a huge distinction between a privilege that only a few enjoy and a right unfairly denied the masses. Privilege connotes a natural exclusivity, not always arbitrary, but not something everyone could or should have. A right connotes a natural inclusivity, something everyone could or should have.
Example: Self-government by the vote is seen in democratic societies as a right of any enfranchised person. It just so happened that membership in the group of "enfranchised persons" was unjustifiably denied to lots of persons.
Example: Religious organizations have the privilege of skirting many taxes and regulations that are mandated for other organizations and individuals. While some might argue that certain taxes simply shouldn't be levied, it's harder to argue that certain rules on childcare (e.g.) shouldn't be followed at all.
This smells like a false dichotomy: either people of color inherently suck, or there's a conspiracy against people of color (masterminded by white people).
Either one is simplistic, and I contend that both deny agency to people of color. (See also the "if your business fails you suck at capitalism, if my business fails it's the government's fault" economics dichotomy among Tea Partiers.)
The only useful privilege related to identity, IMO, is the privilege of being ignorant of the problems of identities you don't share. That's a useful reminder.
Why, normatively, would one not want to use a more specific term to avoid confusion?
It's not even a difference of degree, IMO. Cases of structural or institutional or prejudicial abuse of power — differential sentencing for racial minorities, say — require concerted political resistance. Cases of factual wrongness — statements like "blacks have a higher criminal tendency than whites" or "white people were created by a mad black scientist 10 billion years ago" — require fairly cheap verbal rebuttals.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Woah there, slow your roll for a second. Racism isn't on the table yet. If your own assertions about white privilege do confirm #3, you must concede this subargument (which is about your express objection to #3) and then we can move on to your next objection. If line #3 of my deduction is confirmed by your very own application of white privilege theory, surely that objection can be taken off the table. Do you so concede?
Not just a weasel word; a whole weasel paragraph. The question is whether or not white people are being wrongly treated as a homogenous group. You clearly are treating them as a homogenous group (you've written sentences assigning properties to "white people" as if that phrase represented a single object on at least 10 separate occasions in this thread) -- so the question is whether you're doing so rightly or wrongly. Is there any kind of study or polling data that could ever justify these kinds of assertions? Is there some number or fraction or formula that yields some threshold beyond which it's okay to just erase the remainder of a group and say "screw it, they're all the same?" You tell me. Since you're the one making these claims, you've got to justify them.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.