Racism or Prejudice? Is there a real difference?
As another thread was closed thought this might make for a useful and hopefully more sane discussion.
I won’t really be participating myself but would be interested to see how/if people can handle this in a mature manner:
I would say anyone stating that oppressed minorities cannot be racist are deluded. There are many deluded people though, just move on. Delusions are delusions. You cannot ‘fix’ them directly, you can only suggest and be the best you can and hope by example others ask themselves to question themselves and their hard beliefs/views rather than adhere to what is comforting.
Racism is pretty much identical to prejudice. I may be prejudice against someone for their political leaning or their class - I undoubtedly am to some degree even if it is minute and barely visible to my conscious knowledge. I may, on the other hand, despise someone so much for their political leaning that I would happily beat, berate and even kill them.
Anything that drive one person to inflict harm upon another is done out of disgust and a believed justification - which manifests as ‘superiority’.
Racism is merely a subset of prejudice so it isn’t to be taken as of lighter consequence than racism just because it has no particular care for ethnicity or outward appearances.
So, if someone says ‘I’m not racist, I’m just prejudice” that isn’t relevant. The relevant point is HOW strong the feeling is and how aware the person is of its irrationality.
A religious zealot would put their religion before ethnicity/race. Degrading others because of their religious beliefs (or lack of them) is no better than degrading others because of your perceived view of their ethnicity/race.
I won’t really be participating myself but would be interested to see how/if people can handle this in a mature manner:
I would say anyone stating that oppressed minorities cannot be racist are deluded. There are many deluded people though, just move on. Delusions are delusions. You cannot ‘fix’ them directly, you can only suggest and be the best you can and hope by example others ask themselves to question themselves and their hard beliefs/views rather than adhere to what is comforting.
Racism is pretty much identical to prejudice. I may be prejudice against someone for their political leaning or their class - I undoubtedly am to some degree even if it is minute and barely visible to my conscious knowledge. I may, on the other hand, despise someone so much for their political leaning that I would happily beat, berate and even kill them.
Anything that drive one person to inflict harm upon another is done out of disgust and a believed justification - which manifests as ‘superiority’.
Racism is merely a subset of prejudice so it isn’t to be taken as of lighter consequence than racism just because it has no particular care for ethnicity or outward appearances.
So, if someone says ‘I’m not racist, I’m just prejudice” that isn’t relevant. The relevant point is HOW strong the feeling is and how aware the person is of its irrationality.
A religious zealot would put their religion before ethnicity/race. Degrading others because of their religious beliefs (or lack of them) is no better than degrading others because of your perceived view of their ethnicity/race.
Comments (162)
Violent assault is pretty much identical to dislike. :eyes: :roll:
I think that it is important to link racism and prejudice. I believe that it is useful to think of prejudice as being about how people prejudge or make assumptions about others, as a starting point for consideration.
I am not sure whether I will participate in this further. It all depends how the discussion goes...
Pretty transparent sophistry really.
I agree, but those who disagree will simply define the term differently. These talks are difficult to have because definitions have changed so much over the past few decades.
When it comes to racism I go by: the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.
"theories of racism"
I'm definitely not a racist under this definition, but others on this forum would call me (or anyone) a racist for personally valuing their family or community above those of a complete stranger.
All I can ask you to consider is this question. What is ‘Racial Prejudice’?
I’ll say no more because I don’t think the response will be without ire and emotion.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/542132
A strong prejudice will result in one wanting to inflict harmon said group.
To judge someone just on color,race,ethnicity or even just because they are identified as a certain religion is racist and in the last case just bigoted. Prejudice is the normal word for this. This new trend of distinguishing is just an excuse to be racist or prejudiced in pursuit of power politics or personal ranting.
And using extreme examples Is both disingenuous and an insult to common sense. People know racism/ prejudice no matter how it's dressed up intellectually.
I’m genuinely interested.
It is also a very big political issue in the US for quite blatantly obvious reasons. Not to say that it isn’t such a big deal in other parts of the world only that the US currently has the centre stage in global media.
Of course. But I ask again, what is ‘racial prejudice’ then? If we can have ‘religious/class/racial prejudice’ is not racism a form of prejudice?
If I was to say I ‘dislike x people’ based on ethnicity/skin-tone is that not a ‘racist’ comment? Or are you suggesting it is merely ‘prejudice’.
I can certainly understand that the term ‘prejudice’ can be used to lessen the impact of ‘racism’ as it doesn’t necessarily carry such a heavy weight - being a term that doesn’t always mean ‘dislike’ and can mean, by definition, a ‘wishing to cause harm’.
The terminology can be perceived as being meant to ‘lessen’ the horror of racism and/or to ‘increase’ the scope of ‘racism’ beyond reasonable bounds (with or without intent). I’m quite sensitive to the various interpretations, but the ACTUAL definitions and meanings shouldn’t always be so easily overlooked especially on a philosophy forum.
I don't trust this kind of partisanship and rabble rousing mentality,neither the media,political opportunists or intellectual bigots.
There are people here who can discuss topics without haranguing others. It’s a pretty sure bet that anything involving too much political weight will eventually result in a quagmire ... one-to-one, face-to-face discussion are better for that as people tend to be more reasonable and it is easier to cut through misunderstandings more quickly and efficiently.
You probably know this though. Doesn’t hurt to hear it though ;)
Anyway, I’m done here I think.
Bye bye :)
You are fairly new to the forum, so probably are not aware of some things which people say on the forum which are really racist, or loaded with prejudices. I think it would be worth looking at some of the old threads on race on the forum. I believe that the moderators only make ground rules to try to prevent people being allowed to say anything. I feel that you are rushing into this, and will do not do yourself any favours if you keep on the way you are going. I am comploetely opposed to racism of any kind, but it is such a delicate topic, and very complex because racism appears in blatant and subtle forms.
Apples and oranges are both types of fruit; therefore, apples are the same as oranges. No, you're comparing apples and oranges.
I have followed this forum for maybe a couple of years before I joined so I know the partisanship in terms of certain issues.
However,both of your attitudes are kind of defeatist.
I'm a man who stands his ground when needed. The reason why nobody says the empire has no clothes is precisely because you guys duck out of anything too hot,and that leaves the loudmouths and bigots unchecked.
Philosophy ain't just thinking. You gotta speak truth to power if needed.
Why the need for pre-judge,which implies judging too quickly and wrongfully.
Give me a concrete example of what's acceptable prejudiced behaviour?
:up:
Racism.
"...the theory that human characteristics and abilities are determined by race...", from around 1930.
Prejudice.
"from Medieval Latin prejudicium "injustice," from Latin praeiudicium "prior judgment, judicial examination before trial; damage, harm"
What more need be said.
That something isn't deeply morally repugnant doesn't compel me to consider it "acceptable". But, for example, I don't much like Trump supporters. That's a reflexive prejudice (though I try to work to mollify it). It's a prejudice based on their choice to support someone who I consider morally objectionable though. So, I don't consider myself to be morally repugnant any more than I consider Republicans who don't like Democrats to be morally repugnant. Those Republicans often just object to Democrats' choices to support things they morally object to, like abortion. They are, in no way, the moral equivalent of racists. And their prejudice is, in some sense, acceptable or justifiable.
The meaning of words is not always static or from dictionaries.
Even by your dictionary,prejudice can be racial. And Both are harmful and wrong.
It might help to define racism first. In the US a fairly common definition you'll see is simply power + prejudism = racism. So if you're a white person who is prejudice you are a racist.
I do think there's an interesting discussion to be had here concerning to what extent one ought value their community or family above others though, if at all.
No, you can be a white Republican prejudiced against Democrats, for example, and not be considered racist. White religious bigots also aren't necessarily racist. There's lots of prejudice against atheists that's not considered racist, for example.
I doubt you have much idea of what that might mean.
- Austin.
I'm not interested in defending the definition; only in bringing it up as one definition that's been floating around. I think the more interesting question is how one's responsibilities & attititudes towards ones community - which is often one's ethnic group - compare with responsibilities & attitudes towards outsider groups.
There's nothing wrong with these persuasive definitions but I think at the same time we should be sensitive to the fact it's not the mainstream use for many, which might be a source of confusion for them.
Being a trump supporter or Democrat doesn't carte blanche mean you have the right to be prejudiced. That's just an excuse. There is no reason to be prejudiced unless its clear what a person's behaviour is. A murderer,rapist,arsonist,etc,etc. I read all the vitriol last year from Democrats and republicans,and both sides can be bigoted. Mostly those with big mouths and online platforms.
And of course,there is racial prejudice as well,on both sides.
:rofl: You think?
Your quote is just an Elitist philosopher saying dont you dare use your own mind,follow tradition,AKA,us elites.
And funny,when it suits you language turns to something else.
How convenient.
Everyone is prejudiced in some way, dude. It's hardly possible not to be. Not being racist is a lot easier.
But if you choose the Humpty Dumpty theory of meaning, then words can mean whatever you choose, and no one will have any idea what you mean.
Which will doubtless suit your purposes.
As for "ethnic" or "religious" grouping me personally no.
I feel most comfortable amongst people I consider honest and genuine regardless of race religion or nationality.
Yet you want to differentiate as to make prejudice acceptable or some lesser sin.
Quoting Zenny
That's a form of prejudice.
Is it? I don't think so. The distinction is historical. Your desire to blur it is what is new, your position eccentric.
Family is a prejudice!
That is the best nonsense comment I've heard since I did not have relations with that woman.
So your Family. You've never met them baden? You judged them before you met them?
Jesus christ this is dumb!
@Benkei
:lol:
In the widest sense of the word, having an uninformed bias against people on the basis that they are not related to you is a prejudice, yes. It's also a (more or less) acceptable prejudice in my view.
So this renders pretty much any relationship with anyone a "prejudice"?
This is what I was getting at earlier. There are such mild and natural forms of prejudice we all experience, it's pretty fucking stupid to try to make an equivalence between these and racism.
Or have you gone silent about the linguistic and behavioural sins of any but those you are prejudiced against?
Oh, Banno, Banno, where art thou Banno? :eyes:
What do you think the differentiation offered here is and why do you think it's wrong?
So everything is prejudice now? Get our of town mate. That's nonsense,and you know it.
I suppose you only like people from your own town, don't you?
Shall I hear more, or shall I speak at this?
I take thee at thy word:
I mean people say black people can't be racist in the US only prejudiced. That's a form of racism. Not hard to understand really.
So now bias has no meaning either.
Wittgenstein and banno have dropped dead on the ice!
I really don't get the problem here. When people try to explicate ideas, given additional facts, information and insights, and do so by adjusting definitions this isn't racism but an attempt to have language better describe the reality they are experiencing.
Honestly, based on your grammar and spelling I just think your English isn't good enough.
The problem is glaring. Myself and others have said these definitions are dubious. You admit yourself in Holland people are puzzled. All races can be racis,fact. But you want to move the goalposts over to your politics to make it seem prejudice is totally different.
Racism as an attitude is not exclusive to, or of, any one group (I don't believe anyone argued for that), but accusations of racism must always be contextualized.
Whether it's backed by institutional power or individual? Because both are racism.
Whatever contextualisation is relevant. The context of the original comment was 180 complaining about a group not because they're white but because of their attitudes and behaviours.
Any other contexts?
Because it seems that if its one of yours the context is stretched to incredulity.
If that reference would have been to black jesus you would have deleted it. Tell me you wouldn't have?
Some more context. From the National Catholic Reporter.
https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/editorial-why-white-jesus-problem
Educate yourself.
Easier, yes. Easy, no.
"As a Palestinian Jew, Jesus was not white, and the ubiquitous depiction of Jesus as not only white, but often blonde-haired and blue-eyed as in the famous Warner Sallman illustration "Head of Christ," is not without consequences, both theological and psychological.
An exclusively white Jesus not only narrows our understanding of him, it sends a message that connects Jesus to the powerful, not the oppressed."
At this point, if I were you, I would be apologizing for your false accusations of racism instead of scrambling for absurd hypotheticals concerning things that were never said.
False? It's that you didn't agree mate. Nothing was false.
Yes, I can see you're having trouble grasping simple concepts like most people. I expect more from someone on a philosophy forum though. Unlike you I have no problem understanding what 180 Proof or Baden is saying, despite general language use around me. But that requires you to listen to what's being said, instead of insisting your use of words has to be how it's used everywhere.
It's also entirely normal that specialised debate or professions use words differently than in their common meaning. For law, think about the meaning of "stay". Or if I file something at work, I'm putting it in the archive. If I file something at court, I'm presenting or submitting a document for consideration by such court. So in fact, your insistence on a specific use of these words really has no place here.
What's even more troublesome is that you go from "I disagree with how words are used" to "therefore those posters are racist". I'll leave you to figure out why that doesn't follow.
The phrase "black Jesus" is neither racist nor not racist in itself. It's meaningless without context. Jesus wasn't black or white, he was a Palestinian Jew.
Quoting Zenny
Your accusation was. And if you can't handle that, your loss. You don't get to run around like a twat shouting stuff you can't back up.
You know they have Korean and black jesus. Is that racist as well?
Quoting Zenny
Benkei is famously from Norway. Well one of those hurdy flurdy countries anyway.
It's seems to me you think YOU are the arbiter of what is and isn't racism. The rest is posturing and sophistry.
...popcorn...
On this site, the whole mod team are, including, yes, me. Anyway, the nonsense stops now. You've had your run. From here on in, it gets deleted, so that a more serious conversation may be faciliated.
Replying to Zenny's "The new Racism" post that was closed. :/
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11046/the-new-racism
Given the nature of the topic it is difficult to support the topic if you don't understand debate fallacies.
As OP of this post I will keep the debate under rational control.
"What is the reason behind this acceptance of blatant racism?"
Good question and I can explain it in detail.
I will use my fundamental philosophy to break down and explain:
What we see as a result of racism can be a physical/verbal attack, explicit discriminative treatment or implicit towards a race.
Break those down and we have:
Physical/verbal attack that is influenced by immoral behaviour.
Explicit discrimination to judge someone because of their ethnicity.
Implicit discrimination to influence judgement on a subconcious level.
The word race which on observation is classified as a social group.
Then simplfy them to establish fundamentals to racism:
We have "judge", "Influence", "behaviour" and "observation" that can be described as a person's way of thinking or "Judgement".
Given that this is immoral behaviour, research into law shows there are levels of murder not just the singular level; as such the terms; implicit, explicit, and attack can be a measure of immoral behaviour, since we are using the context of social groups the word "Culture" is needed.
Then we have "Social group which was explained in the previous paragraph.
Inspecting the fundamentals:
As philosopher's we know about our fair share of debating skills, as such "Judgement" can be inspected.
Looking at fallacies we see many logical flaws: Bandwagon, Genetic, Personal incredulity and Ad Hominem fallacies depending on the scenario.
Then there is "Culture", for good or for bad a culture is the accumilation of experiences, influences, traditions and other historical teachings to an identifying social group. (or an individual if they wish to change their culture)
A "Social Group" can range from the whole of humanity to an individual and his friend, it is the identity of a group of more than one person.
Bias evaluation:
From observation we see that flawed judgement can influence a "Culture" or "Social Group" bias, the influence of social bias can be seen as: Political, Religious, Sport, Country and many others that influence a "us vs them ideology".
When you accept an ideology without considering the other ideologies it can become a implicit/explicit bias.
Conclusions: (the answer to OP's post)
So if a social group was influenced by social bias in a accepting way it can lead to an influence in their culture, then when the next generation in that group is raised they are also raised with the same ideology.
This would create social bias tendencies towards other social groups, the outcome of which depends on their "Judgement". (or can be how accepting of immoral behaviour they were raised to accept)
This can create a paradox of accusations
If you have two social groups accusing each other of racism or social bias that is based on culturally biased influenced assumptions, you end up with one side assuming they are socially biased/racist and another the same when they are both blind to their own cultural biases.
There is three solutions to sovle this paradox:
Religious education:
Pro's; reducing social assumptions of another social group.
Con's; will reduce the assumptions of a specific social group only.
Cultural interaction:
Pro's; interacting with other social groups can reduce the assumptions of other social groups.
Con's; Will reduce the assumptions of only those social groups you have met.
Awareness of cultural/social bias itself:
Pro's; An understanding of your own culture and how it is influenced by social bias can give you awareness to the judgement you make explicity and in time implicitly. (creating good habits)
Con's; It can be difficult to teach others as it requires a certain level of open mindedness/will power.
No argument?
You mean no answer!
Isn't it just wild how some OPs answer themselves. You may think you're the majority, and you probably are. This guy who likes basketball is basically me though I like baseball, we all like balls. Therefore, we are the majority. This is wonderful. He would kill me (philosophically, perhaps?) at any disagreement but nonetheless, we remain. Unless he kills me. Hurrah for us.
Low key.. some people, who you may wish to identify as.. have been extinct here for many years. But that's racist now isn't it.
Quoting Zenny
Nope, its to generate understanding.
The desire to change is entirely up to the person, It would be a socially biased assumption to think so.
Quoting Zenny
Each individual and culture is different so it would also be a social bias to assume so.
The proof being your actual comment, as mentioned in my post; is your assumption that I was socially biased to assume that everyone has been corrupted and that everyone wanted change.
Which in itself demonstrates your cultural influence of social bias.
Do you see how this works?
There is no proof that people are influenced carte blanche to the point of all being biased by social influence.
And I didn't assume you were culturally biased,I.just thought you are wrong in your theory,mistaken.
I concur. Racism boils down to one race considering and treating other races as inferior.
On the other hand we have prejudice. A Google search of the word's definition yields:
1. To form a judgement before one has all the facts.
2. Hostility towards certain groups, including but not limited to race.
When one hears the word "racism" one isn't sure whether it's justified or not. However if one encounters the word "prejudice" it's very clear that whatever the belief, attitude, or philosophy is, it's a product of poor judgement or that it's unjustified.
This is a moral discussion, right? We are trying to ferret out the good from the bad.
Racists are prejudiced, having prejudged a person's ability based upon the person's race. That sort of prejudice is immoral, having caused all sorts of evils in our society and to the person you've discriminated against. As a logical matter, note that two things were not stated: (1) it was not stated that the only reason racism is morally wrong is because it relies upon prejudice, and (2) it was not stated that prejudice is [i]per se[/i ] immoral.
The prejudice element in the racist discussion is relevant insofar as it points out that your racist conclusions are based upon ignorance. So, if I were a juror and I prejudged the facts and arrived at the conclusion the accused was guilty based upon his race prior to hearing any evidence, my violation is ignorantly deciding without justification (and that is where my prejudice lies), but the immorality lies in the resultant punishment I caused to an innocent man.
On the other hand, if I prejudge bananas as being sour because they are yellow like lemons, I'm ignorant, but there's no morality attached to that prejudice because there is no resultant harm.
But,in cutting to the chase,prejudice against humans is wrong. And in this thread I've asked people if it's OK for a white minority to be prejudiced against a black majority?
And none has the balls to answer...Yet.
Bias is just that bias-
Inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair.
inclination-
A person's natural tendency or urge to act or feel in a particular way; a disposition.
Which means bias does vary within its own meaning without the need to express it in a sentence unless used to describe multiple points.
Quoting Zenny
The proof being racism exists, various religious cultures value healing over medical advice, a political social group who influences an area, and any other form of ideology that influences you in an accepting way can lead to think in such a way.
I've already said that prejudice does not equate to immorality per se, so you're going to have give an actual contextualized concrete example if you want some sort of moral analysis, and my conclusion may or may not hinge upon the extent of prejudice unless you craft your example in some way that gets to the point you're trying to make.
I'm also assuming here that you take "it's OK" to mean "morally acceptable" because, like I said, I don't think ignorance is OK if one wishes to find the truth, but I don't think ignorance and immorality are necessarily connected.
. It is simple ...
. Prejudice is born out of ignorance ...
. If you're ignorant about that ... about ... that which is ... you'll project your ignorance ...
. When this projection happens ... it's named ... prejudices ...
. Racism ... is just ... a prejudice ... born out of ... ignorance ...
Yep, but much like acting in a rage it can be easy to be blind to a bias (emotional bias) which gives the term: "A blind rage."
And is it OK for a black man in the US to call a white person a slur in the name of white privilege?
OK,meaning moral,or not needing to be censured.
In differing circumstances some items come more to the fore than others. I wouldn’t place ‘racism’ on some pedestal of evil over any of the others. Often enough you’d be hard pressed to find instances of any of these ‘items’ alone anyway.
It would be nonsensical if someone was to suggest that one could be ‘prejudice’ of a certain ‘race’ of people and not be ‘racist’. That is something like the kind of hoodwinking that people either try to get away with of simply don’t put enough thought into because it doesn’t suit their current worldview and moral convictions.
Probably the most erroneous of all this is how people are so easily dragged into one of these ‘items’ by mistakenly holding to, or against, another. We’re imperfect beings stuck with an imperfect language trying desperately to hope that we can, one day, maybe move away from being so imperfect.
Beneath the semantics lies the heart. Mere ‘semantics’ can cause wars and genocides.
Yes because I have already mentioned this before and the examples are used as a general rule of my meaning not the be all and end all as that would be extensive a boaring for both of us to type it all down.
"Given that this is immoral behaviour, research into law shows there are levels of murder not just the singular level; as such the terms; implicit, explicit, and attack can be a measure of immoral behaviour."
Quoting Zenny
It does I just said how various parts humanity influence a "us vs them" ideology that is social bias which each of them can turn into a volatile or dangerous situation.
We have had religious wars, Mob fights during soccer matches, political wars.
Or an influenced decision because everyone else is doing it say a political aim, the latest/type of smart phone, dietery fad.
Ofc not everyone is biased by society but saying your not biased that is not enough to prove it, you have to understand what your culture is unbiasedly and why they are or are not biased by society.
I do believe in Individual agency, but I also believe in bias because assuming either way is social bias itself.
The main thing is to want peace within groups and tolerance. We are a lot better than we were 40 years ago.
But you can't eliminate groups or nations. Not quite yet.
What do you mean? I agree that not everyone can be biased while also accepting that there are people who are bias.
My post has the intent to resolve a bias itself and bias only.
My views on who is or isn't biased has always been impartial, given the nature of how to determine such bias is rationaly stacked against someone who is unbaised when you, I or anyone else consider what our culture is fundamentally from an unbiased view and how social bias is influenced.
This isn't a "black or white" fallacy.
Quoting Benkei
I disagree, if only because racism as a word has social, cultural and political significance in the West. There are significant repercussions to each definition, they're not semantically different, it fundamentally changes who is a racist and who isn't and since within the West. It changes what racism is and since being labelled as a racist can be a big deal, which definition is correct is a big deal. If 180's definition of racism was standard or if Sushi's definition of racism was standard, it does matter. The two definitions are so different that 180's definition could be considered borderline racist by someone who uses sushi's and sushi's definition could be considered a harmful red herring by someone who uses 180's.
A: all human beings are members of the same species, and
B: political correctness is identity politics in reverse, and it is totally racist, one sided, dictatorial and false, and
C: It is wrong to discriminate on the basis of arbitrary characteristics like skin colour - whatever your motives for doing so.
And this happens regularly, a typical example is the discussion about diversity and inclusivity in HR for instance. Where less agile companies are still stuck with diversity, while the term is not unimportant, inclusivity is the new goal but until 10 years ago they thought that goal was reached through diversity. So the teleological association with diversity has changed over time through research explicating different results and effects of diversity programs by introducing additional vocabulary that previously had no such broad meaning in HR or wasn't even used. Cosmology is full with them, black holes, dark matter, pulsars, etc. All relatively new ideas.
So what happens if we have a new idea about racism? it's meaning changes and calling someone a racist also changes. No biggie. I think you overestimate the tension you perceive now to persist for long. I give it at most 15 years as the next generation more or less decides what a word means. I suspect it will move in the direction that 180 Proof has already expounded. Meanwhile, I'm perfectly capable of using racism here in a different way then when I talk about it in a bar.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding something, when you call it semantics you're just saying that we're discussing the meaning of the word racism? Why even point that out? Isn't that obvious?
You mean from the perspective of functionality, we do not need to debate the definition of racism, maybe that's true but politically, there is reason to debate it. If in 15 years, it is one definition or the other which is standard and each one has repercussions people care about, there is no better reason to debate what racism means than that, surely? There are social, cultural and political repercussions at stake, people wouldn't care otherwise.
Even if we think language should just be handled in accordance with what functions best, we can't mute these political ambitions, it is pointless to try.
Yes, I'm talking mostly functionally. For the rest I think it's a bit overestimating influence of, what in essence is, a fringe debate on an obscure website. These are social processes that we're not going to decide on a forum here because there's not really right or wrong whatever direction it will go. The content of sexism has changed a lot too. Racism will probably change and seems to have already, where "power" has become an important element. I'm not married to a specific outcome. I just run with it because I can always find other words to express old ideas to translate to the new.
Some of the comments (like Zenny's) remind me a bit of Peterson's complaints about gender pronouns. By the time they're discussing it in parliament, it isn't a fad. Such comments are just the last spasms of a dinosaur.
In almost every Western nation, these issues, racism and gender, for example, are being fiercely debated, I don't think it's clear how things are going to go. Of course, our comments on this forum will almost certainly have no impact on anything but that doesn't stop us from debating with some kind of passion. If you feel no passion towards this subject, that's fine but I don't think it's fair to say others are wasting their time debating things they feel passionately about, that's how most politically sensitive topics go on this forum and you're often in the thick of that. The fact that some people have cited the Israel thread in this thread is unsurprising, just another topic where these definitions matter.
I could be wrong but it seems you talk about many "controversial" topics, which come up even in this forum regularly as though, they're done and dusted. The "culture war" hasn't ended, all of these issues about racism, transgenderism, sexism etc it's all ongoing. 180's definition and sushi's definition are tied to the "culture war", its politics.
So on the one hand we have people demanding justice and equality and on the other people whining about those first people's use of words thereby avoiding actual engagement and discussion about the subject. But by all means, have at it if your think it's important. It's politics for sure, but one of evasion and preferably framed in such a way that they then get to blame the other side.
Or you can say, ok, I don't like your definition and I think it's wrong to use it like that, but I understand it so for the purposes of this discussion we'll use it. Then maybe there's, I don't know, an actual meaningful discussion possible?
I've had conversations with more or less every poster in this thread, I already know all of them oppose "racism" in a general sense. However, from bitconnect, to nos, to sushi, 180, baden, you and me, there are large differences in characterisation and approach to racism. The battle against "racism" is over, in the sense that people "condemn" it. However, for many of us, that condemnation is meaningless because the definition of "racism" others are condemning is bullshit. We all agree something should be done about racism but then "what should be done?" becomes the next stage of the discussion. Even if people agree "racism" is bad, we can't bypass discussions about what exactly racism is and isn't and what exactly should be done about it.
This is all meaningful discussion, even if you brokered a peace of sorts, the questions still remain. "What is racism" and "what do we do about it". Don't think there's any avoiding it but it's a good thing, not evasion, people are tackling the issue of racism head-on, honestly and with the best intentions. I know that because I know the posters here care about the topic based on previous conversations.
From 2016 to 2020, Trump was the president of the US, isn't that enough to demonstrate that it's not over? A guy won the US election by campaigning to build a wall to keep out the Mexicans. Perhaps you just inhabit too many circles like this one, which is somewhere between quite and very left-leaning? Though even here on this forum, issues tied to the "culture war" are posted about regularly, that is why I can even talk about posters here and their various "sides". You say this argument is a waste, why can't we just accept each other's use of the term racism, that would undermine the need for this debate and more productive conversations can take place. I'm just saying that this is a productive conversation, determining what is and isn't racist is important for combatting racism and this conversation is occurring between parties that all passionately agree that racism is wrong.
I live in Australia, I can confirm that the culture war is not finished here, I'm sure banno and streetlightx could tell you how upset they are about our nation's politics. Am I correct in saying that this debate is a waste because the culture war is over / irrelevant? Why debate a change that can't be stopped right? I guess I can understand that reasoning, though I don't agree with the premise.
In the Netherlands our centre right government started to discuss racism as a result of George Floyd and BLM. Before that it was "our laws defend defend equality and that is enough".
I don't know about Australia but I partially consider Trump as reactionary to changes they're not going to stop. Dinosaurs. For the rest it was also a dislike of Hillary and a fundamentally corrupt political system and politicians. People with actual issues with no where to go but the out group candidate thanks to a two party system.
Well, prejudice seems to be not only about hostility towards other races (racism) but also includes a judgement viz. such antagonism is unwarranted. Racism is one race treating other races as inferior and must be, if it's to gain currency as it did back when slavery was the norm, a reasoned position i.e. racists justify their racism on a number of grounds. Racial prejudice, on the other hand, strikes at the heart of racism because it not only attacks racist attitudes but also the reasons thereof.
Quoting I like sushi
You're right on the money. Racial prejudice has two components:
1. Racism [you believe some races are inferior to others]
2. Racism is unjustified [you can't find a good reason to be racist]
These egalitarian shifts are pretty new, most of what you're talking about has taken place in the last eighty years. Things are shifting at an unbelievable pace, each new decade brings about such change. Eight years ago, when people were worried about a possible global takeover of fascism or communism, could they have predicted our present? Was the wind blowing in such an obvious direction that they should have known it'd end up the way it has?
The "progressives always win" approach is a bit of a... language issue. You're really lumping a lot of different groups together - and if for example, socialism took hold in the West, such a feat would drastically shape what we know as the "progressives" today. The progressives are a result of the history of political, scientific, economic, technological, social and cultural changes. The conservatives are trying to conserve against more than just progressives, rather, what they lose to are the changes in these areas, changes nobody can stop. The victory of the progressives is assured because change is assured but what the progressives believe in isn't. It will all depend on how things develop economically, scientifically, technologically, culturally and so on, as always.
I talk of nuances, "racism is wrong" is a foregone conclusion, we only debate nuances now. Surely, the direction of the wind is not so exact that we should already know how the questions of what racism is and what we should do about it will be answered?
I don't think they're new to be honest. Magna Carta is pretty much the same thing, parliaments limiting the power of kings, human rights thinking of the 1800s culminating in abolition of slavery, Just War tradition (spanning centuries) resulting in Geneva Conventions, League of Nations and UN and condemnation of the use of force as a political tool etc. But the pace nowadays is indeed unbelievable. Exciting times, historically speaking.
Quoting Judaka
Sure, what is progressives constantly changes and there's always a serious risk (a la Germany prior to WWII) that we backtrack. Even so, by and large, I think progressives shift once what they advocated becomes mainstream. Imagine 28 LGBT Republicans in the 1980s: https://www.advocate.com/politics/2016/7/20/28-lgbt-republicans
And an actual conservative should be fine with this from my understanding of conservative philosophy. If the received wisdom over generations is that LGBTQX (if I get the latest acronym right) should be recognised and respected then that's good enough reason to politically protect that. So "conservative" opposition to equality for minorities in the US is reactionary if we are to take their self-procliamed allegiance to the constitution seriously.
At times I just don't get part of the discussion. One side says "it's racism, see how blacks are affected" and the other side is "it's not racism, it's socio-economic, look if you adjust/correct the statistics like so". As if that solves the fact too many (black) people are in prison or living in poverty. I think it was @fdrake that explained at some point that the policies required to solve the problem, irrespective of the cause of the problem, would still be the same.
Quoting Judaka
You'd think differently from the exchanges at times. :lol:
Any way, thanks for your thoughts, I'm in a bit in a recalcitrant mood these days and probably agree with more than I let on in my reactions. Since I don't have much time for the foreseeable future I think I'll go back to reading.
Not, only that, but the mainstream or PC narrative seems to be that only white people can be racist. IMO this is a highly suspect and dangerous proposition. The Chinese can be quite racist, for example, Tibetans and other ethnic minorities are being systematically oppressed and discriminated against, and in my experience most racial or ethnic groups hold some prejudice against others. Racism and/or prejudice and discussions about it can also be exploited for political ends.
Yah, If you have two social groups arguing over who is racist with the assumption/social bias to think their social group is racist without proof you end up with a accusational paradox of bias.
Since its an unending paradox, politicans can use it as a reason to vote for them with the aim to reduce racism.
But that is assuming politicans are aware of such things. . .
I've had many debates about racism at this point, I want to point out that one of the major roadblocks to discussing racism is the conflation of racism and the effects racism produces. This might include poverty, police brutality, controversial laws, lack of opportunities - infrastructure - resources, lack of political representation, underrepresentation in media, portrayal in culture and so much more. The language surrounding the problem of racism is very poor and racism and the effects of racism are conflated often.
Consequently, there are clashes on how to define and solve racism.
If we conflate racism and the consequences of racism, 180's definition starts to make sense. Racism towards white people might consist of harsh words or a bad attitude but racism towards minorities has substantial, broad consequences across every meaningful area of life. Since the gravity of the consequences of racism are so much heavier than racism itself, they actually take precedence for many people and thus prejudice is secondary, it's incomparable by itself.
So it depends what one means by "racism", for example, is disproportionate police violence towards minorities racism? That is something I would list as a consequence of racism - among other factors. The disproportionality is not just due to prejudice, the problem is in the policies, laws, structure of policing in general. If one describes things such as disproportionate police violence as racism - which many often do, then racism is not merely a kind of prejudice, it describes far more than that. We could solve this problem by having a few more words but apparently racism needs to mean just about everything.
Makes sense. I suppose this broadening of the meaning of the term is likely a reaction to affirmative action being argued as being racism as well.
In the Netherlands it's been more about discrimination, which can be justified or unjustified depending on purpose. So a doctor discriminating between old and young people as a result of triage, or even women or men if recovery rates differed meaningfully, would be doing the right thing. When I'm hiring people not so much.
Things like affirmative action are certainly caught in the crossfire of this conflation, it's somewhere between counteracting racism, being racist itself and tackling the effects of racism. Terms like "white privilege" sit between describing racism, the effects of racism and being itself a racist term. It's a common issue.
On this forum, I've had many discussions about institutionalised racism, to eventually realise that I'd be talking about racism and they're talking about the effects of racism. I see others have this issue too - though I don't think they always identify it. Sometimes people are talking about the effects of racism that is happening, happened recently or the effect of racism that occurred decades or even centuries prior.
Lately, there's much more focus on the effect of racism. This is true of other forms of discrimination too. Controversies arise because people might say "x is racist", not because of any racist act or logic but because the demographics demonstrate it - or are it. That there's a gender gap in STEM due to sexism or even that there's sexism in STEM because there's a gender gap.
Based on sushi's definition, we might be doing quite well on racism, we do unilaterally condemn it and punish people for racist comments or logic. Based on 180's definition of racism, we might be doing terribly, the legacy of racism is immense and largely unaddressed and minorities are still disadvantaged in a plethora of ways.
I think regardless of whether one thinks we're doing quite well or terribly, we can see the problem. One party talks about how well/poorly we're doing, how small/big of an issue racism is etc and the other party is likely to be quite upset.
I'm reminded of the insightful observation from about a century ago as industrial Capitalism in the US was ramping-up feeding the migratory rural & immigrant masses into its metastatic, sprawling urban abattoirs:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
~Upton Sinclair
Any wonder the enfeebled, impotent, mostly bought-off (& strong-armed) Labor / Trade-Union movement in the US has always been "populist" and yet so segregated, misogynistic and sectarian? :shade:
Whatever it is - the prejudice - if it results in the abuse of others it is abhorrent. I don’t put ‘racism’ on a pedestal of evil above other ‘items’ of prejudice. Others here seem to do so ... I understand why they do though. That’s fine.
It makes sense to find ‘items’ of prejudice that have nothing to do with an individuals ‘choice’ more horrible than say, your choice in clothing. A poor example as people don’t often kill someone for their fashion choices!
It is also a VERY confusing matter because the term ‘race’ carries lots of misconceptions and in the current environment is an admixture of tradition and culture clashing - as the actual scientific term is of little to no consequence when it comes to outward appearance and how people group themselves as to ‘belonging’ to this or that ‘race’.
The most fiery aspect of all is it is, and has been, a primary issue of the most powerful nation on Earth for considerable time. This forces others to get involved even when they are so far removed from the epicentre of hatred the US is caught up in.
Anyway ... The responses have been a little more measured and calmer that usual so I’ll step away now I think whilst the going is good. The discussion will surface again in some form or another and I was just trying to point out something that I find to be one issue overlooked, not to ‘look away’ just step back and reevaluate what people are saying and how it is being mis/construed.
A belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
That still seems how most people use it. Based on that individuals can be racist and oppressed people can be racist too - it's just that the consequences of such racism is mostly irrelevant.
Your definition is a persuasive definition that for the purposes of discussions can be used. Or we can say "racist oppression", "sexist oppression" etc. and then nobody will be confused as there's a slight redundancy from your perspective and a clarification from the "general use" perspective.
:up: Works for me. Thanks, B.
I like your definitions, 180, but I'm surprised it makes no mention of racial inequity because that's where I usually end up getting into conflict with people of the political leaning I interpret you to have. Isn't it the case that by your definition, if in-group prejudice ceased to be "enforced" then there'd be no more oppression? Even though black Americans would still be disproportionately disadvantaged in almost every way from a statistical perspective. Is that really your position?
I thought that would be your position but doesn't that mean your definition is incomplete? It makes no mention of equity.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/543576
You insist equity is crucial for ending an aspect of racial oppression which is absent from your definition. Your definition of racial oppression as a kind of prejudice enforced by the in-group should only require the cessation of said prejudice. This is the second, big difference between your definition of racism and that of @I like sushi. If your definition includes inequity then inequity must be addressed through race-based economic redistribution/aid, which has nothing to do with ending racial prejudice. I am only saying this because it is yet another case of often uncharted disagreement between people who supposedly condemn racism or racial oppression together. It seems you're happy with your definition anyway so I'll leave it at that.
Racism.
Who spoke of "ending racial discrimination"? My use of the term prejudice is taken from the definition you gave as a quote. Ah, what can I say, I like your definition 180, I was just surprised you left out equity and in this case I was right, you do care about equity. If I had written your definition on racism, my leaving out of equity would be purposeful, a result of my political stance on the matter. So for the sake of making your stance clear, I think there should be some mention of equity. When people say in political discourse "let's end racism, say no to racism!", they're as likely to think economic aid for black Americans is crucial as they are to think it's racist. Wasn't this kind of response what you asked for? Well, apparently not, or at least not from me, but whatever, I will leave it at that.
Quoting Judaka
Guess who?
I was using racial oppression as the term Benkei suggest to you.
Quoting Benkei
Which from his perspective is a redundancy for you because from your perspective this would be synonymous with "racism" which must include oppression.
EDIT: I am not asking for your definition to include how racial oppression should be dealt with, I'm just saying that if someone says "let's end racial oppression" and they look at your definition, doesn't it follow that they only need to stop the prejudice from the in-group? If one asks "is inequity part of racial oppression" and they look up your definition, wouldn't they conclude that it isn't? Anyway, I didn't realise this would turn into an argument of me trying to convince you, how your definition should be, I'm not interested in that. If you don't care then I don't.
edit:2 I guess benkei said "racist oppression", o well.
There are more names, such as ‘oppression,’ ‘systematic racism,’ and so on, but they seem to end up being utilized for the purposes of practical action rather than abstract thought. They are names to describe something inappropriate in day-to-day life, but they are useless for conceptualizing the essence of the phenomena. In my opinion, there is a definite need for words somewhat exclusive to both domains in public usage.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SjhHhL_15Nw ?
Although some identifiable groups have been brutally victimized throughout history a disproportionately large number of times, the victims of one place and time can and sometimes do become the victimizers of another place and time. Meanwhile, during civil unrest/wars and internal persecutions, many contemptible social-media news trolls internationally decide which 'side' they hate less thus 'support' via politicized commentary post. ...
After 34 years of news consumption, I have found that a disturbingly large number of categorized people, however precious their souls, can be considered thus treated as though disposable, even to an otherwise democratic nation. When the young children of those people take notice of this, tragically, they’re vulnerable to begin perceiving themselves as beings without value. When I say this, I primarily have in mind indigenous-nation and Black Canadians/Americans. But, tragically, such horrendous occurrences still happen on Earth, often enough going unrealized to the rest of the world.
Remove race/color and left are less obvious differences over which to clash, such as ethnicity, language, nationality and religion. Therefore, what humankind may need to suffer in order to survive the long term from ourselves is an even greater nemesis (perhaps a multi-tentacled extraterrestrial) than our own politics and perceptions of differences, against which we could all unite, attack and defeat — all during which we’d be forced to work closely side-by-side together and witness just how humanly similar we are to each other. For however long that purely human allegiance lasts.
There are people who say things like "I am not racist, favoring my own race is no more racist then favoring one's own family." Those people are racists.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/17/black-native-americans-fentanyl-deaths-rise-opioid-crisis
So, a positive judgement based on color, race, ethnicity, or religion would be bigoted to?
Why the hell not?
Quoting I like sushi
I agree.
It seems like "delusional" is our default state. There are convenient delusions, necessary delusions, harmful delusions, and so on. We can achieve rational thinking, but we have to work very hard to do it successfully. Of course, we may be deluded about how rational our thinking is.
Most of the judgements are not positives. That is the problem I guess. Whenever we see general stereotypes of some ethnic groups, it tends to show off the most striking characteristics such as race, colour, accent, economic status, etc...
I think old cartoons are a good example in this issue. I remember they were full of negative prejudices but we did not notice because were blind by our childhood and lack of malice
We live in a world where there are many layers of RELATIVE marginalization and privilege. This further complicates things. Where one stands in the hierarchy can be difficult to figure out, and people generally don't like this kind of ambiguity. One way to lessen the ambiguity is by arbitrarily imposing prejudicial evaluations on others.
It's a can of worms.
Because I simply wanted to show people what others thought.
I did respond a little. This, and many other forums, lack mature discussions on sensitive topics. It usually just ends up as a shit flinging contest with no one listening.
I think it just boils down to people not being able to respond with nuance in real time whilst sharing the same space with each other and looking each other in the eye. I don't think there is much hope for reasonable discussions on sensitive topics (the most important topics) when both parties are physically distanced from each other.
I'm starting to question whether we should even bother? Has my posting of this thread made things better or worse in terms of understanding each the different views people hold ... I would say for most it is could well be more harmful.
If people cannot use a sympathetic ear to either correct or question views/statements made by others then I don't see the point.
Stephen Marche (The Next Civil War: Dispatches from the American Future) said that [I]"'the reduction of empathic distress' the basic inhumanity that the facelessness of the internet permits"[/I] is a major piece of the problem.
On any Internet forum, unless very tightly governed, some people will be disinhibited and will go for the slasher style of interaction.
Quoting I like sushi
Yes, you should continue to bother. The effect you are looking/hoping for isn't going to come as a thunderclap. Positive effects will be subtle and gradual. And besides, in actual face-to-face encounters, people usually feel more "empathic distress" than they do on the internet.
Good quote. I am completely agree. Internet created a "free" status of awareness where it looks like it doesn't seem to have negative impact when you hurt someone. Clever politicians and press media use this to spread disinformation.
I don't want sound that negative with internet, because I am literally using it right now (well at least here we have some admins who take care the rules are respected) but it is a dangerous place. The kids should stay away.
There are 'rules' in place everywhere (even university forums) that require something they call 'online etiquette'. This is then used to smear people. It has always been like this in day to day life but now there is no face-to-face interaction where it is needed most.
My current position is that it is probably not only not worth the effort to try in this area most of the time, but also detrimental in the long term. The real discussions need to be held in the space breathing the same air. Anything short of that is going to embolden the antagonists until society as a whole adapts to internet interactions (by which time it will likely have already become obsolete and replaced by something better or worse).
This and then some. There is a culture of 'knight in shining armour' too. Those who come running to rescue of anyone who cries loud enough. It is a pitiful display. Kids being exposed to the stupidity may actually learn from it (something Alan Moore commented on in a lecture he gave years ago).
Kids can adapt and change. They are smarter than adults in terms of plasticity. Adults are now fairly spread across the generational strata of those who grew up without the internet and those who cannot remember a world without it. I sit pretty much at the crossroads being around 16 yrs old when the internet really picked up pace and everyone suddenly had a mobile phone in their hand.
I imagine in the future people won't say 'goodbye' they will say 'like and subscribe' :D
These would have nothing in common with the A.I. in science fiction.
Given a generalized baseline neural network algorithm and a set of guidelines the bots will "lint" posts not allowing submission until they meet minimum standards imposed by a site/forum/service. Linting is very common in software development making sure that code being written meets standards imposed. The common forms of linting include semantics, spelling, formatting and logical complexity. More advanced linters are also capable of spotting inefficient logic and security vulnerabilities.
When combined with NLP (called NLU for Natural Language Understanding) linters are capable of spotting logical fallacy and there are several groups working on semantics to prevent misinformation right now. There is a branch of NLU known as sentiment analysis which can predict (with high certainty) the sentiment being expressed by a complex paragraph and is capable of "rendering" a complex multi-paragraph contextual narrative.
Given these advancements, humans can be aided (nobody would call it prevention) in expressing their ideas and opinions by preventing ... mistakes ... in the expression of factual references and automatically be linked to bibliographies, qrticles, public databases, etc...
Of course... god help us all if governments mandate this stuff before society can adopt an open standard.
Speaking for myself, I'd say there is (should be) no difference between the two because if there is then it gives people the (wrong) idea, the erroneous belief that racism is not a prejudice i.e. it's justified. :worry: