I think part of the problem in this topic is definitions. Here is what comes up from a Google search:
rac·ism
ˈrāˌsizəm/Submit
noun
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
This has long been the dictionary definition of racism, but if you talk to minority groups for them racism can be summed up radically different:
Racism is systematic oppression.
If you believe BLM is racist you are missing the fact that vocabulary is changing (language is constantly changing). I think we can all agree that the long standing definition was written/approved by a white man. We can debate the merits of that, but it is logical to understand that black people (black Americans to be precise) have a vastly different view of the word.
The two way street this topic is referring to is better described as prejudice. But BLM cannot systematically oppress you or me, or white people as a whole. That distinction is important to the topic especially when understanding what BLM means when talking about their goals ending racism. Because ending oppression is tangible, ending prejudices not so much.
If White student unions and those who try to organize "white lives matter" events can be labeled as bigots, then "black lives matter" is as well. From my experience minorities are far more worried about race then "white" people (who have there own sub races too by the way). For the most part "white" people are more careful about how they talk and act in that sense then their minority counterpart because they have taught for decades now that it is wrong. Where as minorities have been taught to play the race card every chance they get to get ahead rather then use their merit. Those minorities that do use their merit, resent those playing the race card because they want handouts.
No one uses the N word and the like more then minorities. Minorities keep the racial divide alive and well in America to benefit themselves.
If White student unions and those who try to organize "white lives matter" events can be labeled as bigots, then "black lives matter" is as well.
That is a wonderful hypothetical but what is the purpose of forming a white lives matter group? They would be labeled as bigots no doubt, but more so because it is a reactionary move to counter BLM, than it is to actually achieve any need the "white community" has.
I think part of the problem in this topic is definitions. Here is what comes up from a Google search:
rac·ism
ˈrāˌsizəm/Submit
noun
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
This has long been the dictionary definition of racism, but if you talk to minority groups for them racism can be summed up radically different:
Racism is systematic oppression.
If you believe BLM is racist you are missing the fact that vocabulary is changing (language is constantly changing). I think we can all agree that the long standing definition was written/approved by a white man. We can debate the merits of that, but it is logical to understand that black people (black Americans to be precise) have a vastly different view of the word.
The two way street this topic is referring to is better described as prejudice. But BLM cannot systematically oppress you or me, or white people as a whole. That distinction is important to the topic especially when understanding what BLM means when talking about their goals ending racism. Because ending oppression is tangible, ending prejudices not so much.
They are free to use words however they like. So are the rest of us. There is still one prevailing definition of that word in the English language, though, and that is ours.
You're right that language evolves, but SJWs are not the masters of the English language. No one is. They are mere participants, like the rest of us. As such, they cannot dictate to us that we are no longer allowed to use the prevailing definition. One area in which they really seem to struggle is this idea that they are in full control of the language when they are not.
There are direct economic and socio-political problems that need addressed domestically. The idiocy happened with other movements as well, you either confront or ignore the rampant stupidity and take the real criticism and act on it where you can.
"White privilege" and the like doesn't really matter today, the wealth effect is a larger issue with people trying to build a political machine similar to the Koch Brothers. The more I read about those guys, they remind of the old school Robber Barons but a bit scarier in their attempt to "change America." Radical libertarianism isn't compatible with middle America. Neither is the language of feminism, privilege is something people don't like to keep hearing about.
It doesn't matter what people say it is what other people hear. I feel that people like Anita Saarkesian, Zoe Quinn, BLM, and other activists and so forth have some very valid points. For example, there are some oversexualization of women in video games but also that the target demographic is hedrosexual males.
However, we have seen a paradigm shift in a lot of games to allow for sandbox gaming. Skyrim, and now Fall Out 4 allows for homosexual romances and so on. So there has been progress on many fronts.
BLM is a reaction to the transfer of police ideas based on counter terrorism spreading through large cities. And COIN for the most part is often confused with nation building. And there are a number of black intellectuals who want to do some sort of Reconstruction in predominantly black areas.
I feel we need for the black community is a cultural Mecca of sorts as well as greater focus on areas where there is a predominantly black community. Start small to build businesses, and change our felony system to allow more people to obtain business licenses and so forth in this country. The idea is to get people to a good entry level wage and then rapidly within six months to a year to get them to a full family sustaining wage. If people can make that transition, then you see better communities.
It starts with security, middle part is economic, while the last segment is sociological.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
BLM never said "**** Paris". You can look through the Twitter logs yourself. You can find a lot of conservative fools, but I repeat myself, responding to BLM saying "**** Paris", but BLM never said "**** Paris".
As for the rest of the thread, language changes over time by the entire population. Just because the definition of a word doesn't fit a small subset of the population doesn't mean they can change it. AS a man, I would like to drop the clause from sexism that says, "typically against women" but I can't because it's not up to me. Just like it's not up to blacks to change racism to say, "typically against blacks".
BLM never said "**** Paris". You can look through the Twitter logs yourself. You can find a lot of conservative fools, but I repeat myself, responding to BLM saying "**** Paris", but BLM never said "**** Paris".
Breitbart's 'small sampling of tweets' that had both "**** Paris" and "#BlackLivesMatter" was exactly _one_.
Interestingly, when we had a Gamergate discussion here, I'm pretty sure none of the alleged harassment by Gamergate was regarded as 'really Gamergate' because they weren't using the hashtag at the time. Much like how Breitbart's (surely unbiased) sampling of '**** Paris' tweets don't have the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
BLM never said "**** Paris". You can look through the Twitter logs yourself. You can find a lot of conservative fools, but I repeat myself, responding to BLM saying "**** Paris", but BLM never said "**** Paris".
As for the rest of the thread, language changes over time by the entire population. Just because the definition of a word doesn't fit a small subset of the population doesn't mean they can change it. AS a man, I would like to drop the clause from sexism that says, "typically against women" but I can't because it's not up to me. Just like it's not up to blacks to change racism to say, "typically against blacks".
It's a GoP based newswagon from looking thirty seconds at that site. The first pop up just showed Republican candidates. It's a totally biased site. And this is coming from a conservative.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
Breitbart and journalistic ethics. Goddammit, Gamergaters, you owe me a new irony meter.
Remember the ACORN video? (I honestly thought it was too cheesy to be fooling anyone.)
Dear Breitbarters: If you were smart, you would do what the Palestinians do and just relabel videos of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria as 'Palestine'. Trust me, most Americans are too stupid to tell the difference.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
You're right that language evolves, but SJWs are not the masters of the English language. No one is. They are mere participants, like the rest of us. As such, they cannot dictate to us that we are no longer allowed to use the prevailing definition. One area in which they really seem to struggle is this idea that they are in full control of the language when they are not.
All I was doing is pointing out the fact that there is a schism between what minority groups mean when they say racism, and what white America means when they say it. You can stomp your feet and say they can't do that all you want but I am more inclined to listen to people that have to live with racism affecting their lives than anyone that tries to marginalize those calling for equality by referring to them as SJWs
All I was doing is pointing out the fact that there is a schism between what minority groups mean when they say racism, and what white America means when they say it. You can stomp your feet and say they can't do that all you want but I am more inclined to listen to people that have to live with racism affecting their lives than anyone that tries to marginalize those calling for equality by referring to them as SJWs
... So in other words, because a group of minorities think racism only applies to white people, we should recognize that as infallible because minorities?
No, that's ridiculous, and also racist. If your response to people treating people differently based purely on race is to treat people differently based purely on race, then you're part of the problem.
Plus, it's obviously not a valid definition. Systemic oppression is not the same as racism. One can systemically oppress people with no regard to the race of the oppressed. One can be racist without systemically oppressing people.
No, that's ridiculous, and also racist. If your response to people treating people differently based purely on race is to treat people differently based purely on race, then you're part of the problem.
How is a redefinition of the word treating one group differently from another? Name one way racism has affected you personally under the accepted definition. No matter which way you cut it racism doesn't affect us white people so how does a redefinition change anything.
Plus, it's obviously not a valid definition. Systemic oppression is not the same as racism. One can systemically oppress people with no regard to the race of the oppressed. One can be racist without systemically oppressing people.
It's systematic oppression because of race, that must have gone over your head.
I feel we need for the black community is a cultural Mecca of sorts as well as greater focus on areas where there is a predominantly black community. Start small to build businesses, and change our felony system to allow more people to obtain business licenses and so forth in this country. The idea is to get people to a good entry level wage and then rapidly within six months to a year to get them to a full family sustaining wage. If people can make that transition, then you see better communities.
Look up the Tulsa Race Riots of 1921. Black communities have tried in the past do this, only to be met with state sanctioned slaughter, no exaggeration. "But Sunforged, that was so long ago." I know one of you is thinking that. We all need to understand that it takes generations to build up wealth in communities and we need to acknowledge that black America has not had the time to do this. The effects from red lining districts is still affecting the black communities ability to generate wealth/assets. You add in other factors like what we saw in Ferguson how the entire city government was set up to profit off of petty fines and court fees, so that people already struggling with poverty were being jailed because they couldn't afford to miss work to fight that parking ticket, and you can start to see what the long term effects of structured racism looks like.
How is a redefinition of the word treating one group differently from another?
... And yet you wrote the next two sentences singling out white people?
Name one way racism has affected you personally under the accepted definition. No matter which way you cut it racism doesn't affect us white people so how does a redefinition change anything.
First of all, I'm not white.
Secondly, discrimination against people by virtue of race does indeed affect white people. Case in point: you're doing it right now.
And you're just proving my case. Defining racism to make it impossible for anyone to be racist against a white person is ridiculous and also racist.
Also, I can't help but notice that, by this ridiculous definition, a person can shout the n-word at people and not be racist. After all, that person is not systemically oppressing anybody. Do you recognize now how ridiculous this definition is?
It's systematic oppression because of race, that must have gone over your head.
And clearly this must have gone over yours:
"Plus, it's obviously not a valid definition. Systemic oppression is not the same as racism... One can be racist without systemically oppressing people."
Secondly, discrimination against people by virtue of race does indeed affect white people. Case in point: you're doing it right now.
How am I being racist, I am not stating every single white person is racist. I am not even saying that only white people can be racist (look at Ben Carson). What I am saying is racism doesn't affect white people. Not in America. Prejudice does, but not racism.
You are promoting unequal attitudes towards people based on their skin color. How are you not being racist?
I am not stating every single white person is racist. I am not even saying that only white people can be racist (look at Ben Carson). What I am saying is racism doesn't affect white people. Not in America. Prejudice does, but not racism.
First, the definition of racism is prejudice based on race.
Second, no, that's not the only thing you are saying. You are also stating that no white person is capable of expressing a valid opinion on racism or race, or at least not one that cannot automatically be gainsaid by a minority based on his being a minority.
Which is ironic, and hypocritical, because I'm a minority and you apparently are white. Doesn't that mean I automatically win this argument? In fact, doesn't that put you in the situation where either you agree with me that you are wrong, or you, by disagreeing with a minority, are also wrong?
Look up the Tulsa Race Riots of 1921. Black communities have tried in the past do this, only to be met with state sanctioned slaughter, no exaggeration. "But Sunforged, that was so long ago." I know one of you is thinking that. We all need to understand that it takes generations to build up wealth in communities and we need to acknowledge that black America has not had the time to do this. The effects from red lining districts is still affecting the black communities ability to generate wealth/assets. You add in other factors like what we saw in Ferguson how the entire city government was set up to profit off of petty fines and court fees, so that people already struggling with poverty were being jailed because they couldn't afford to miss work to fight that parking ticket, and you can start to see what the long term effects of structured racism looks like.
There are several mechanics available for discussion here:
1. Prison system
2. Gang system
3. "Not acting white" with regard to Education
4. Post-conviction transition back into a community because of labor restrictions
5. Deindustrialization
6. Single parent homes/father absent from the family typically in jail
7. Tendency for young people to keep first two children rather than to abort, reverse with richer women
8. Decreased marriage rates and stable marriage rates
While we can go back to slavery to depict the original problem in Black America, we have to look at the causes that exist in the here and the now. Because after segregation had ended there was greater stratification as people who were doctors and lawyers moved to places such as the suburbs.
There really isn't a single face of "Black America" today, as can be seen with immigration, stratification, bad jailing policies, and so forth.
There are issues with white people that are faced by black communities, the same with others such as the tribes. There are so many factors that go into the machine that you need to look at each factor in terms of policy decisions.
The issue here is mostly an inability to target each problem with sensible policies based on local and state matters. There are of course federal policies such as shifting towards local and state enforcement for drug legalization rather than a federal hard ban would help to alleviate resources to go into "going soft on crime" that would help everyone. And this is coming from someone who has been anti-drug their entire life and seen it destroy lives.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
Strawman checkmate, what you are claiming I am stating I have never actually stated (nor do I agree with).
Erm...
You can stomp your feet and say they can't do that all you want but I am more inclined to listen to people that have to live with racism affecting their lives than anyone that tries to marginalize those calling for equality by referring to them as SJWs
Yes, it is what you are saying. You're saying Ljoss loses and black people win because they're black and he isn't.
But somehow when this logic is applied to you, who are a white person arguing with a minority about definitions, you seem to not like it so much. I wonder why.
But that's not the real problem here. The real problem here is that this position of "systemic racism is the only racism" isn't how people actually use the term racism.
Case in point: the scenario I consider earlier about a man dropping n-bombs. This man cannot be claimed to be systemically oppressing people, because he's not a system. He's a single individual, the exact opposite of what a system is. Yet, no one is going to claim that man isn't racist. Quite the contrary, everyone will freely call him a racist. So clearly, racism isn't limited to just systems.
Moreover, I'm pretty sure that no one would agree that it's impossible for a minority to be racist against another minority. I'm pretty sure if you walked around LA and asked a [Black/Hispanic/Asian] individual if it is impossible for a person who belonged to one of the other minorities to be racist, you would get an answer of "no." I'm pretty confident about that.
No, clearly systemic racism is not the only type of racism (indeed, why would we have the term "systemic racism" if it were? Like, you wouldn't need the word "systemic" to qualify racism if there were only one kind).
In fact, there's really only one scenario in which I've encountered this idea that racism must be systemic in order to be racism: people defending themselves from the idea that you can be racist against white people.
Because if you think about it, if we were to accept that argument that systemic racism is the only "real" racism, it logically follows that no one can be racist except for white people.
You're going to accuse me of making a strawmen or an argumentum ad absurdum. Except first of all, no, because this is what people have actually argued, and also, you've actually made the argument yourself.
If you believe BLM is racist you are missing the fact that vocabulary is changing (language is constantly changing). I think we can all agree that the long standing definition was written/approved by a white man.
Your argument is that dictionaries and definitions have been controlled by institutions that have long been controlled by white men, and therefore they can be seen as white institutions, and therefore white definitions.
The problem is that this same frame of thought can be applied to pretty much every institution - or system - that there is in this country. This country has been largely controlled by white men since its inception, and therefore if we apply your frame of thought, every single system in this country can be deemed a white system. I assume this is what you mean by
What I am saying is racism doesn't affect white people. Not in America.
correct?
So going back to systemic racism being the only racism, since all of the systems in America have been deemed white systems, what types of people can be said to be racist? White ones. And only white ones.
So the answer is you ARE saying that only white people can be racist.
And finally, even if we were to accept that definition - which we shouldn't - it would still be incorrect that racism doesn't affect white people. For example, consider quota-based affirmative action. That definitely affected white people. It has been deemed unconstitutional for its being systemic racism.
Yes, it is what you are saying. You're saying Ljoss loses and black people win because they're black and he isn't.
I'm sorry you keep misunderstanding me, so let me take the time to clear this one up. I never said it was a win/lose scenario, I also never referenced Ljoss' race. He tossed out a term meant to belittle so I am not inclined give any weight to his assertion. That's it.
Case in point: the scenario I consider earlier about a man dropping n-bombs. This man cannot be claimed to be systemically oppressing people, because he's not a system. He's a single individual, the exact opposite of what a system is. Yet, no one is going to claim that man isn't racist. Quite the contrary, everyone will freely call him a racist. So clearly, racism isn't limited to just systems.
The reason the N word is considered so vile is because of how linked it is to the history of systemic oppression in this country. The two are intertwined you have to be willfully ignorant not to understand that. So while the transgression is perpetuated by an individual the offense is still tied to the system.
In fact, there's really only one scenario in which I've encountered this idea that racism must be systemic in order to be racism: people defending themselves from the idea that you can be racist against white people.
And how exactly does racism affect white people. I'm still waiting on a real example here of how a white person has been profiled, or denied access to a public space, or anything that can have a detrimental affect on their lives.
So going back to systemic racism being the only racism, since all of the systems in America have been deemed white systems, what types of people can be said to be racist? White ones. And only white ones.
So the answer is you ARE saying that only white people can be racist.
Faulty logic again. What I am saying is racism doesn't affect white people (how many times do I need to say it). It is far from saying only white people can be racist. Look at the officers charged for Freddy Gray's death in Baltimore, three out of six were black themselves! You can be a part of the system and still be a minority obviously.
#blacklivesmatter main rallying point is around police reform and accountability. That is in no shape or form racist sentiment, and in no way does stating black lives matter elevate one race above another. To argue the point is to invalidate the concerns.
This has long been the dictionary definition of racism, but if you talk to minority groups for them racism can be summed up radically different:
Racism is systematic oppression.
If you believe BLM is racist you are missing the fact that vocabulary is changing (language is constantly changing). I think we can all agree that the long standing definition was written/approved by a white man. We can debate the merits of that, but it is logical to understand that black people (black Americans to be precise) have a vastly different view of the word.
Why? What does narrowing the definition of "racism" to "systematic racism" accomplish, other than allowing people to express horrible racial attitudes towards white people without having to apply the dreaded R-word to themselves? If you leave "racism" with its dictionary definition, you can still talk specifically about systematic racism if you want to. It's easy. I just did it. This is what the English language has adjectives for.
This redefinition of "racism" is not natural language evolution. It's nakedly self-serving. It'd be like if bankers redefined "fraud" as "deceitfully taking money from a banker". It doesn't improve the discourse on fraud, it just artificially ensures that some forms of fraud aren't called that.
#blacklivesmatter main rallying point is around police reform and accountability. That is in no shape or form racist sentiment, and in no way does stating black lives matter elevate one race above another. To argue the point is to invalidate the concerns.
In before "It's about ethics in game journalism".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Why? What does narrowing the definition of "racism" to "systematic racism" accomplish, other than allowing people to express horrible racial attitudes towards white people without having to apply the dreaded R-word to themselves?
Like any thing else with societal change it is to challenge the status quo. Your asking the right questions "Why?" is very relevant. The purpose of a redefinition is to make you think outside of accepted norms.
You reference racial attitudes towards white people but you, like everyone else that has brought up that point, leave out any examples of how they harm the white majority. The concept is threatening but you can't put your finger on it, which I gotta ask why? Hypothetically what does a white person lose by saying someone is being prejudice against them as opposed to being racist against them?
I'm sorry you keep misunderstanding me, so let me take the time to clear this one up. I never said it was a win/lose scenario, I also never referenced Ljoss' race.
The hell you didn't. You said you were more inclined to listen to black people than Ljoss. That's a reference to Ljoss' race.
The reason the N word is considered so vile is because of how linked it is to the history of systemic oppression in this country. The two are intertwined you have to be willfully ignorant not to understand that. So while the transgression is perpetuated by an individual the offense is still tied to the system.
You missed the point. We're not talking about the N-word being racist. We're talking about individuals being racist. Namely, that people talk about individuals being racist all of the time. Including black civil rights activists and black social justice warriors. So you cannot say that racism refers only to systems - which means they wouldn't refer to individuals - and say that this is how black people use the term. It's clearly not how they use the term.
And how exactly does racism affect white people.
If you're asking for a detrimental effect, already gave one.
That's faulty logic, three paragraphs up you proved it, and I already stated I don't agree.
It's not, at all. It follows your logic exactly.
You may not agree with the logic, but that means you don't agree with what you're saying. Which is sensible, because what you're saying isn't.
Faulty logic again. What I am saying is racism doesn't affect white people (how many times do I need to say it). It is far from saying only white people can be racist.
It is not far from saying that at all. You have characterized white dictionaries with their white definitions for being white institutions. By your same logic, what is every institution responsible for systemic racism? A white one. What can any other system in this country responsible for systemic racism be characterized as by that same logic? A white institution.
The argument that only systemic racism is racism exists for one reason: to deny one is being racist toward white people.
That is in no shape or form racist sentiment, and in no way does stating black lives matter elevate one race above another.
Never argued it did.
To argue the point is to invalidate the concerns.
I'm arguing your language usage, which has nothing to do with the validity of Black Lives Matter.
You reference racial attitudes towards white people but you, like everyone else that has brought up that point, leave out any examples of how they harm the white majority. The concept is threatening but you can't put your finger on it, which I gotta ask why? Hypothetically what does a white person lose by saying someone is being prejudice against them as opposed to being racist against them?
What does one lose by defining "white people" as "people it's ok to be racist against?" What the hell are you talking about?
Why? What does narrowing the definition of "racism" to "systematic racism" accomplish, other than allowing people to express horrible racial attitudes towards white people without having to apply the dreaded R-word to themselves? If you leave "racism" with its dictionary definition, you can still talk specifically about systematic racism if you want to. It's easy. I just did it. This is what the English language has adjectives for.
On the other hand, if you take "racism" to mean "systematic racism", you are still left with plenty of terms to describe the horrible racial attitudes towards white people. The thing that you gain from the "power plus prejudice"-style definition, I think, is that it captures the fact that prejudice becomes a different beast when combined with power. The experience of a person who is of the majority (or otherwise empowered) racial group facing discrimination is not the same as the experience of a minority (or otherwise disempowered) racial group. When people think of examples of "racism", the events that typically come to mind are those in which power played just as big a role as prejudice. It makes sense that our definition of racism should include things that are similar to those events, and exclude things that are not so similar.
This redefinition of "racism" is not natural language evolution. It's nakedly self-serving. It'd be like if bankers redefined "fraud" as "deceitfully taking money from a banker". It doesn't improve the discourse on fraud, it just artificially ensures that some forms of fraud aren't called that.
This sounds downright conspiratorial. You can't possibly believe that someone set out to redefine racism merely to shield themselves from being called a racist?
I'm sorry you keep misunderstanding me, so let me take the time to clear this one up. I never said it was a win/lose scenario, I also never referenced Ljoss' race.
The hell you didn't. You said you were more inclined to listen to black people than Ljoss. That's a reference to Ljoss' race.
You missed my next sentence where I clearly clarified why I am not inclined to listen to Ljoss. And then you go and use it too, which makes this my last response to you.
What does one lose by defining "white people" as "people it's ok to be racist against?" What the hell are you talking about?
Never said it was ok, both prejudice and racism (what ever definition) are abhorrent. One is no better than the other, I really don't appreciate how you keep putting words in my mouth, good day sir.
Like any thing else with societal change it is to challenge the status quo. Your asking the right questions "Why?" is very relevant. The purpose of a redefinition is to make you think outside of accepted norms.
In the case of the word "racism", the "accepted norm" is that it's a bad thing for people to judge other people on the basis of their race. What exactly about this norm do you think is in need of challenging?
We usually challenge norms by expanding definitions. "Rape" used to imply pretty much "unconsenting penetration by a man of a woman who is not his wife", but we've broadened it to "unconsenting sex act by anybody of anybody" in recognition that those other details are unimportant to the essence of the crime and cause numerous victims to be overlooked. And in a happier example, "marriage" used to mean "a romantic partnership between one man and one woman", but now we speak readily of "gay marriage" and even its opponents have no trouble wrapping their minds around the concept. But what language reformers are proposing with "racism" is a narrowing of the definition, and it's difficult to see how that helps anybody. It's as if "marriage" always used to include both heterosexual and homosexual relationships, but then some guy said, "Hey, let's only use the word 'marriage' for one version! You other folks can use 'civil union' instead. Surely there's no harm in that. After all, it's just a word, right? (Oh, and if you don't like this idea, I'm going to browbeat you until you acquiesce.)"
You reference racial attitudes towards white people but you, like everyone else that has brought up that point, leave out any examples of how they harm the white majority.
You know, I could point to the New Black Panthers, which the SPLC tracks as a "racist hate group" (their words -- and the words of Bobby Seale), or the "revenge" attacks for Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown. However, I suspect you'd just say, "But the white majority is still in control! These fringe criminals don't have nearly enough power to threaten that!" And you'd be mostly right -- but also completely missing the point. People who profess opposition to racism are not likely to give a damn about the fortunes of the "white majority" insofar as that term refers to some nebulous abstraction of the systemic racial bias and oppression in First World nations, because we're against systemic racial bias and oppression. What we care about is the "white majority" insofar as it refers to a group of individual people who, like all individual people, can feel pain, fear, and grief and are possessed of human rights. When a white guy is beaten up by a black guy, the grand social power structure may not be harmed, but that guy sure as hell is.
No person should be subjected to hate. Ever. That's all this boils down to. Don't focus on the big picture at the expense of that small picture.
Hypothetically what does a white person lose by saying someone is being prejudice against them as opposed to being racist against them?
A white person can say someone is being prejudiced against them. That's perfectly functional English. But that's not what you're proposing. What you're proposing is that a white person not be allowed to say someone is being racist against them. You're asserting control over the language they use. So they lose that. They also lose what that language implies: a common, colorblind moral standard.
This has long been the dictionary definition of racism, but if you talk to minority groups for them racism can be summed up radically different:
Racism is systematic oppression.
If you believe BLM is racist you are missing the fact that vocabulary is changing (language is constantly changing). I think we can all agree that the long standing definition was written/approved by a white man. We can debate the merits of that, but it is logical to understand that black people (black Americans to be precise) have a vastly different view of the word.
The two way street this topic is referring to is better described as prejudice. But BLM cannot systematically oppress you or me, or white people as a whole. That distinction is important to the topic especially when understanding what BLM means when talking about their goals ending racism. Because ending oppression is tangible, ending prejudices not so much.
No one uses the N word and the like more then minorities. Minorities keep the racial divide alive and well in America to benefit themselves.
That is a wonderful hypothetical but what is the purpose of forming a white lives matter group? They would be labeled as bigots no doubt, but more so because it is a reactionary move to counter BLM, than it is to actually achieve any need the "white community" has.
They are free to use words however they like. So are the rest of us. There is still one prevailing definition of that word in the English language, though, and that is ours.
You're right that language evolves, but SJWs are not the masters of the English language. No one is. They are mere participants, like the rest of us. As such, they cannot dictate to us that we are no longer allowed to use the prevailing definition. One area in which they really seem to struggle is this idea that they are in full control of the language when they are not.
"White privilege" and the like doesn't really matter today, the wealth effect is a larger issue with people trying to build a political machine similar to the Koch Brothers. The more I read about those guys, they remind of the old school Robber Barons but a bit scarier in their attempt to "change America." Radical libertarianism isn't compatible with middle America. Neither is the language of feminism, privilege is something people don't like to keep hearing about.
It doesn't matter what people say it is what other people hear. I feel that people like Anita Saarkesian, Zoe Quinn, BLM, and other activists and so forth have some very valid points. For example, there are some oversexualization of women in video games but also that the target demographic is hedrosexual males.
However, we have seen a paradigm shift in a lot of games to allow for sandbox gaming. Skyrim, and now Fall Out 4 allows for homosexual romances and so on. So there has been progress on many fronts.
BLM is a reaction to the transfer of police ideas based on counter terrorism spreading through large cities. And COIN for the most part is often confused with nation building. And there are a number of black intellectuals who want to do some sort of Reconstruction in predominantly black areas.
I feel we need for the black community is a cultural Mecca of sorts as well as greater focus on areas where there is a predominantly black community. Start small to build businesses, and change our felony system to allow more people to obtain business licenses and so forth in this country. The idea is to get people to a good entry level wage and then rapidly within six months to a year to get them to a full family sustaining wage. If people can make that transition, then you see better communities.
It starts with security, middle part is economic, while the last segment is sociological.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/15/black-activist-double-white-hate-fparis-hashtag/
Whether or not you think these people are part of the movement or not, they sure do. Since there is no centralized BLM group denouncing them, it is safe to assume the whole feels this way as well.
As for the rest of the thread, language changes over time by the entire population. Just because the definition of a word doesn't fit a small subset of the population doesn't mean they can change it. AS a man, I would like to drop the clause from sexism that says, "typically against women" but I can't because it's not up to me. Just like it's not up to blacks to change racism to say, "typically against blacks".
Breitbart's 'small sampling of tweets' that had both "**** Paris" and "#BlackLivesMatter" was exactly _one_.
Interestingly, when we had a Gamergate discussion here, I'm pretty sure none of the alleged harassment by Gamergate was regarded as 'really Gamergate' because they weren't using the hashtag at the time. Much like how Breitbart's (surely unbiased) sampling of '**** Paris' tweets don't have the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag.
It's a GoP based newswagon from looking thirty seconds at that site. The first pop up just showed Republican candidates. It's a totally biased site. And this is coming from a conservative.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
Remember the ACORN video? (I honestly thought it was too cheesy to be fooling anyone.)
Dear Breitbarters: If you were smart, you would do what the Palestinians do and just relabel videos of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria as 'Palestine'. Trust me, most Americans are too stupid to tell the difference.
On phasing:
All I was doing is pointing out the fact that there is a schism between what minority groups mean when they say racism, and what white America means when they say it. You can stomp your feet and say they can't do that all you want but I am more inclined to listen to people that have to live with racism affecting their lives than anyone that tries to marginalize those calling for equality by referring to them as SJWs
No, that's ridiculous, and also racist. If your response to people treating people differently based purely on race is to treat people differently based purely on race, then you're part of the problem.
Plus, it's obviously not a valid definition. Systemic oppression is not the same as racism. One can systemically oppress people with no regard to the race of the oppressed. One can be racist without systemically oppressing people.
How is a redefinition of the word treating one group differently from another? Name one way racism has affected you personally under the accepted definition. No matter which way you cut it racism doesn't affect us white people so how does a redefinition change anything.
It's systematic oppression because of race, that must have gone over your head.
Look up the Tulsa Race Riots of 1921. Black communities have tried in the past do this, only to be met with state sanctioned slaughter, no exaggeration. "But Sunforged, that was so long ago." I know one of you is thinking that. We all need to understand that it takes generations to build up wealth in communities and we need to acknowledge that black America has not had the time to do this. The effects from red lining districts is still affecting the black communities ability to generate wealth/assets. You add in other factors like what we saw in Ferguson how the entire city government was set up to profit off of petty fines and court fees, so that people already struggling with poverty were being jailed because they couldn't afford to miss work to fight that parking ticket, and you can start to see what the long term effects of structured racism looks like.
First of all, I'm not white.
Secondly, discrimination against people by virtue of race does indeed affect white people. Case in point: you're doing it right now.
And you're just proving my case. Defining racism to make it impossible for anyone to be racist against a white person is ridiculous and also racist.
Also, I can't help but notice that, by this ridiculous definition, a person can shout the n-word at people and not be racist. After all, that person is not systemically oppressing anybody. Do you recognize now how ridiculous this definition is?
And clearly this must have gone over yours:
"Plus, it's obviously not a valid definition. Systemic oppression is not the same as racism... One can be racist without systemically oppressing people."
How am I being racist, I am not stating every single white person is racist. I am not even saying that only white people can be racist (look at Ben Carson). What I am saying is racism doesn't affect white people. Not in America. Prejudice does, but not racism.
First, the definition of racism is prejudice based on race.
Second, no, that's not the only thing you are saying. You are also stating that no white person is capable of expressing a valid opinion on racism or race, or at least not one that cannot automatically be gainsaid by a minority based on his being a minority.
Which is ironic, and hypocritical, because I'm a minority and you apparently are white. Doesn't that mean I automatically win this argument? In fact, doesn't that put you in the situation where either you agree with me that you are wrong, or you, by disagreeing with a minority, are also wrong?
Checkmate.
There are several mechanics available for discussion here:
1. Prison system
2. Gang system
3. "Not acting white" with regard to Education
4. Post-conviction transition back into a community because of labor restrictions
5. Deindustrialization
6. Single parent homes/father absent from the family typically in jail
7. Tendency for young people to keep first two children rather than to abort, reverse with richer women
8. Decreased marriage rates and stable marriage rates
While we can go back to slavery to depict the original problem in Black America, we have to look at the causes that exist in the here and the now. Because after segregation had ended there was greater stratification as people who were doctors and lawyers moved to places such as the suburbs.
There really isn't a single face of "Black America" today, as can be seen with immigration, stratification, bad jailing policies, and so forth.
There are issues with white people that are faced by black communities, the same with others such as the tribes. There are so many factors that go into the machine that you need to look at each factor in terms of policy decisions.
The issue here is mostly an inability to target each problem with sensible policies based on local and state matters. There are of course federal policies such as shifting towards local and state enforcement for drug legalization rather than a federal hard ban would help to alleviate resources to go into "going soft on crime" that would help everyone. And this is coming from someone who has been anti-drug their entire life and seen it destroy lives.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
Yes, it is what you are saying. You're saying Ljoss loses and black people win because they're black and he isn't.
But somehow when this logic is applied to you, who are a white person arguing with a minority about definitions, you seem to not like it so much. I wonder why.
But that's not the real problem here. The real problem here is that this position of "systemic racism is the only racism" isn't how people actually use the term racism.
Case in point: the scenario I consider earlier about a man dropping n-bombs. This man cannot be claimed to be systemically oppressing people, because he's not a system. He's a single individual, the exact opposite of what a system is. Yet, no one is going to claim that man isn't racist. Quite the contrary, everyone will freely call him a racist. So clearly, racism isn't limited to just systems.
Moreover, I'm pretty sure that no one would agree that it's impossible for a minority to be racist against another minority. I'm pretty sure if you walked around LA and asked a [Black/Hispanic/Asian] individual if it is impossible for a person who belonged to one of the other minorities to be racist, you would get an answer of "no." I'm pretty confident about that.
No, clearly systemic racism is not the only type of racism (indeed, why would we have the term "systemic racism" if it were? Like, you wouldn't need the word "systemic" to qualify racism if there were only one kind).
In fact, there's really only one scenario in which I've encountered this idea that racism must be systemic in order to be racism: people defending themselves from the idea that you can be racist against white people.
Because if you think about it, if we were to accept that argument that systemic racism is the only "real" racism, it logically follows that no one can be racist except for white people.
You're going to accuse me of making a strawmen or an argumentum ad absurdum. Except first of all, no, because this is what people have actually argued, and also, you've actually made the argument yourself.
Your argument is that dictionaries and definitions have been controlled by institutions that have long been controlled by white men, and therefore they can be seen as white institutions, and therefore white definitions.
The problem is that this same frame of thought can be applied to pretty much every institution - or system - that there is in this country. This country has been largely controlled by white men since its inception, and therefore if we apply your frame of thought, every single system in this country can be deemed a white system. I assume this is what you mean by
correct?
So going back to systemic racism being the only racism, since all of the systems in America have been deemed white systems, what types of people can be said to be racist? White ones. And only white ones.
So the answer is you ARE saying that only white people can be racist.
And finally, even if we were to accept that definition - which we shouldn't - it would still be incorrect that racism doesn't affect white people. For example, consider quota-based affirmative action. That definitely affected white people. It has been deemed unconstitutional for its being systemic racism.
I'm sorry you keep misunderstanding me, so let me take the time to clear this one up. I never said it was a win/lose scenario, I also never referenced Ljoss' race. He tossed out a term meant to belittle so I am not inclined give any weight to his assertion. That's it.
The reason the N word is considered so vile is because of how linked it is to the history of systemic oppression in this country. The two are intertwined you have to be willfully ignorant not to understand that. So while the transgression is perpetuated by an individual the offense is still tied to the system.
And how exactly does racism affect white people. I'm still waiting on a real example here of how a white person has been profiled, or denied access to a public space, or anything that can have a detrimental affect on their lives.
That's faulty logic, three paragraphs up you proved it, and I already stated I don't agree.
Faulty logic again. What I am saying is racism doesn't affect white people (how many times do I need to say it). It is far from saying only white people can be racist. Look at the officers charged for Freddy Gray's death in Baltimore, three out of six were black themselves! You can be a part of the system and still be a minority obviously.
#blacklivesmatter main rallying point is around police reform and accountability. That is in no shape or form racist sentiment, and in no way does stating black lives matter elevate one race above another. To argue the point is to invalidate the concerns.
This redefinition of "racism" is not natural language evolution. It's nakedly self-serving. It'd be like if bankers redefined "fraud" as "deceitfully taking money from a banker". It doesn't improve the discourse on fraud, it just artificially ensures that some forms of fraud aren't called that.
Prejudice based on people's race. Race-ism, if you will.
In before "It's about ethics in game journalism".
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Like any thing else with societal change it is to challenge the status quo. Your asking the right questions "Why?" is very relevant. The purpose of a redefinition is to make you think outside of accepted norms.
You reference racial attitudes towards white people but you, like everyone else that has brought up that point, leave out any examples of how they harm the white majority. The concept is threatening but you can't put your finger on it, which I gotta ask why? Hypothetically what does a white person lose by saying someone is being prejudice against them as opposed to being racist against them?
I might not fully understand this but I really hope you're not comparing innocent people being killed at the hands of police to tits in video games.
You missed the point. We're not talking about the N-word being racist. We're talking about individuals being racist. Namely, that people talk about individuals being racist all of the time. Including black civil rights activists and black social justice warriors. So you cannot say that racism refers only to systems - which means they wouldn't refer to individuals - and say that this is how black people use the term. It's clearly not how they use the term.
If you're asking for a detrimental effect, already gave one.
It's not, at all. It follows your logic exactly.
You may not agree with the logic, but that means you don't agree with what you're saying. Which is sensible, because what you're saying isn't.
It is not far from saying that at all. You have characterized white dictionaries with their white definitions for being white institutions. By your same logic, what is every institution responsible for systemic racism? A white one. What can any other system in this country responsible for systemic racism be characterized as by that same logic? A white institution.
The argument that only systemic racism is racism exists for one reason: to deny one is being racist toward white people.
Never argued it did.
I'm arguing your language usage, which has nothing to do with the validity of Black Lives Matter.
What does one lose by defining "white people" as "people it's ok to be racist against?" What the hell are you talking about?
On the other hand, if you take "racism" to mean "systematic racism", you are still left with plenty of terms to describe the horrible racial attitudes towards white people. The thing that you gain from the "power plus prejudice"-style definition, I think, is that it captures the fact that prejudice becomes a different beast when combined with power. The experience of a person who is of the majority (or otherwise empowered) racial group facing discrimination is not the same as the experience of a minority (or otherwise disempowered) racial group. When people think of examples of "racism", the events that typically come to mind are those in which power played just as big a role as prejudice. It makes sense that our definition of racism should include things that are similar to those events, and exclude things that are not so similar.
This sounds downright conspiratorial. You can't possibly believe that someone set out to redefine racism merely to shield themselves from being called a racist?
You missed my next sentence where I clearly clarified why I am not inclined to listen to Ljoss. And then you go and use it too, which makes this my last response to you.
That was my attempt to bring this derailment back to the threads topic.
Never said it was ok, both prejudice and racism (what ever definition) are abhorrent. One is no better than the other, I really don't appreciate how you keep putting words in my mouth, good day sir.
We usually challenge norms by expanding definitions. "Rape" used to imply pretty much "unconsenting penetration by a man of a woman who is not his wife", but we've broadened it to "unconsenting sex act by anybody of anybody" in recognition that those other details are unimportant to the essence of the crime and cause numerous victims to be overlooked. And in a happier example, "marriage" used to mean "a romantic partnership between one man and one woman", but now we speak readily of "gay marriage" and even its opponents have no trouble wrapping their minds around the concept. But what language reformers are proposing with "racism" is a narrowing of the definition, and it's difficult to see how that helps anybody. It's as if "marriage" always used to include both heterosexual and homosexual relationships, but then some guy said, "Hey, let's only use the word 'marriage' for one version! You other folks can use 'civil union' instead. Surely there's no harm in that. After all, it's just a word, right? (Oh, and if you don't like this idea, I'm going to browbeat you until you acquiesce.)"
You know, I could point to the New Black Panthers, which the SPLC tracks as a "racist hate group" (their words -- and the words of Bobby Seale), or the "revenge" attacks for Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown. However, I suspect you'd just say, "But the white majority is still in control! These fringe criminals don't have nearly enough power to threaten that!" And you'd be mostly right -- but also completely missing the point. People who profess opposition to racism are not likely to give a damn about the fortunes of the "white majority" insofar as that term refers to some nebulous abstraction of the systemic racial bias and oppression in First World nations, because we're against systemic racial bias and oppression. What we care about is the "white majority" insofar as it refers to a group of individual people who, like all individual people, can feel pain, fear, and grief and are possessed of human rights. When a white guy is beaten up by a black guy, the grand social power structure may not be harmed, but that guy sure as hell is.
No person should be subjected to hate. Ever. That's all this boils down to. Don't focus on the big picture at the expense of that small picture.
Ha! If you're thinking about going into mind-reading, don't quit your day job.
A white person can say someone is being prejudiced against them. That's perfectly functional English. But that's not what you're proposing. What you're proposing is that a white person not be allowed to say someone is being racist against them. You're asserting control over the language they use. So they lose that. They also lose what that language implies: a common, colorblind moral standard.
Just commenting on the parallelism in your rhetoric.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.