This is spam.

How so?

It's impossible to judge if it was racist, because the contents of the tweet are unavailable.

And the whole "minorities can't be racist" stuff is just baloney.

Agreed, unfortunatly that baloney is being taught in universities and schools, to the young minds that are shaping our world these days.

#NotAllTeachers/Professors

:wink:

After the presumptions you make, the "questions" are merely rhetorical.

Yes, not all. No need to point that out since A) I didnt claim it was all teachers and B) even if I had specifically mentioned teachers I wouldnt be talking about ALL teachers unless I actually said ALL.
Not even a majority of teachers teach that toxic ideology, but id be remiss if I didnt point out that the majority give their silent consent by not standing up to it.

You need to chill. For real.

but id be remiss if I didnt point out that the majority give their silent consent by not standing up to it. — DingoJones

And, actually, they do.

After the presumptions you make, the "questions" are merely rhetorical. — Valentinus

I don't think I made any presumptions, considering I am not assuming anything. The questions are also not "merely rhetorical." For instance, the question "should those who use the "prejudice + power" definition of racism seriously reconsider how they define 'racism'" would require an answer even if the definition of "racism" were presumed.

You need to chill. For real. — NKBJ

Are you sure? Im pretty chill already...what is it about my post that was not “chill”?

You are claiming that Moore is a racist while asking if she is.
Pick a lane.

You are claiming that Moore is a racist while asking if she is.
Pick a lane. — Valentinus

I'm asking others if they would consider her a racist. A person who uses the "prejudice + power" definition may disagree with my claim. Also, whether or not she is a racist is only one of the questions.

Finally, if you feel my post is spam, maybe you should report it to the admin. I assume that spam is not allowed on this site, and if it is spam, my post will be deleted.

Yeah fuck this bitch. If those four men did nothing but exist-while-turbaned, and she was so ignorant as to have them kicked off a flight over her unfounded fear, fuck her. As reported, the whole situation is functionally indistinguishable from a straight-forward act of racism.

I think your questions are rather broad thats why will response in rather lengthy way to try to illustrate the issue however I would recomend to restrict yourself to maybe one pointed question that clearly seperates what is part of the discussion and what not. So one could focus on one of the different layers mentioned in my response.

Just to make it clear at the begining I more or less agree with:

It's impossible to judge if it was racist, because the contents of the tweet are unavailable.
And the whole "minorities can't be racist" stuff is just baloney. — NKBJ

Lets now try to look at the different layers and your questions.
1)First of it's worth pointing out that philosophy as intellectual endeavor is focused on what is and not on what terms we use. Since both definitions describe a different thing we could just resolve the issue by calling them racismA and racismB and a big part of the conflict would be resolved.
However the attempt to redifine the term racism is a political strugle due to the negative connotations already connected to the term "racism". It therefore is not a philosophical discussion in this regard wich definiton one should use and rather a conventional/political issue determined by the politcal stance one takes.

2)The underling philosophical question(ignoring politcal aspirations) that arises based on limiting oneself to one term "racism" is wheter one thinks truthvalues of certain statements should be determined by focusing on the contex of a statement or on the statement itself. F.e. Is it more important who says it or is it more important what is said. Trivially both positions have stronger and weaker cases so determining the actual case is very sensitive to the particular case. As already mentioned in 1) which meaning of the term is used by a person is also very sensitive to the personal stance and beliefs of said person(that f.e. find their expression in political stance).

3)One could obviously argue that the new definiton is incoherent in regard to the classical meaning however this is not the issue since the redefining takes root in not agreeing with the classical definiton.

4)What is more problematic is that the formula "prejudice + power" is internally inconsistent and illdefined. This in my view seems to stem from a questionable usage of Foucaults understanding of power. I could address this more precisly but it would make my response even longer so I'll leave this aside here. One could counter this by saying that it is a young term so one should give it more time to be developed. However this seems to me to be a weak point since it doesn't negate the internal problems. Just to clarify this interal problem: One could argue that Moore as a comedian is a powerfull individual vs she belongs to a non powerfull group. Or that the powerterm that is usually refering to structural/institutional power is just one very undynamic form of power that doesn't account for more dynamic forms of power.

5) Refering to 1) but for the particular issue. The position that focuses on the statement over the context presupposes a "being-given" of rationality (usually the case in philosophical debates). Meaning we are all humans, we can all use logic, we have time to carefully use our reasoning skills to evaluate the situation and articulate what we actually mean. However what Moore herself uses as defense is a refering to emotions(fear) that implies that the above conditions are not met. Making the statement a contextsensitve issue in her view. (Note: Law as example aknowledges contex f.e. being intoxicated, but doesn't let this negate the commited action f.e. punching someone. Speech can also be seen as action. And therefore focuses on the first notion)

6) Refering to 3) In regards to 5) we see that the redefining implicitly also erodes other common notions like existing law and it's practice in general since the more fundamental philosophy does undermine other classical notions that focus on statements over context.

7) Refering to 1) The political approach if understood as well intentioned tries to address "precieved" current structural injustices and can be therefore seem legitmate in this regard. However the negative conotations of the term racism stem from the fact that it is used to dehumanize people in a first step to legitmate violence or injustice in a second step. This is the case regardless if this takes place intentional or not. However the redifining of the term as mentioned in 3) does not provide a term for the action of Moore if she is understood as not having power. However such a term that should technically have the same ammount of negative connotation should be provided for Moores action since the redefining doesn't negate the fact of what Moore did. This term should have the same weight due to her alledge actions still meeting the criteria of dehumanizing people (based on their alledged group identity) which gives a segway to further "problematic" actions that are based on this dehumanization. If the redefining in 3) is understood as bad intentioned it deliberatly doesn't provide this demanded term with the connected negative connotations to criticies this type of actions to legitmaze future violent actions by people "with no or low power".(Note: The power term of Foucault can not really be understood as ascribing "no power" to people and low power blends in to the internal problems refered to in 4).)

So my question is, should Moore be considered a racist? If so, can she be considered a racist under the "prejudice + power" definition of racism? In other words, is there some way to argue that she has the requisite power to be a racist? If not, should those who use the "prejudice + power" definition of racism seriously reconsider how they define "racism"? — czahar

Q1: See 1) 2) and 5)
Q2, Q3: See 4)
Q4: See 4), 6) and 7)

Just to have it said: This is obviously a drastical simplification due to the size of the topic as such. It should also be clear that for every point there are multiple finegrained positions that don't necessarily agree with how I simplified it. To illustrate this consider 6) where one could for example argue that all that is taking place is a redefiniton of one term where the implication of erroding the bigger structural framework is not given or not as strong as I made it. Where one could use the example of mentally ill people that get a "special status" in law that leads to them not going to prison and rather mental hospitals and that this special case doesn't negate the general case of application of law. Also I want to point out that I don't necessarly prefere the views expressed and that they are rather a tool to illustrate the issue. F.e. I would personally admit that some degree of exeptions can be legitmized opposing the simple view illustrated in 6) depending on the particular topic at hand.

Last but not least: I am strongly opposed to dehumanization taking place no matter how you call it. So the reference you provided is valid it's simply morally reprehensible of her and the authorities that kicked the men from the plane.

But some social justice advocates use a different definition of "racism." — Czahar

So what? Do such people expect everyone to apply their personal non-universal definition intuitively?

I can't tell whether it was racist or not. Can you provide the twit's tweet text?

Calling Sikhs Moslems, or visa versa, is not racist. It could be that our alleged comedienne (I don't know whether she is funny or not) just doesn't know the difference between a Moslem and a Sikh. Or a sheik and a shack, or shit from shinola.

Nothing tells more about xenophobia, islamophobia and the absolute and utter ignorance of other people when sikhs are attacked as muslims.

I think the number of instances "panic at the sight of sikhs" would be a pretty accurate index on a wide variety of things in a western country.

Here's some Russian propaganda about the issue.


I favour that we should start referring to Scots as Englishmen with a personality disorder. They didn't want independence, so why do we foreigners have to differ them from the English? Sean Connery: an Englishman with a personality disorder living in the US.

No need to point that out since A) I didnt claim it was all teachers and B) even if I had specifically mentioned teachers I wouldnt be talking about ALL teachers unless I actually said ALL. — DingoJones

That whole segment is decidedly not chill.

The answer is yes, this thread is racism. This post is racism too. Any reply anybody may offer to this comment will also be racism. Your dog is racism. My mailbox too. In fact, your shoes ARE DEFINITELY RACISM you heartless bastard!! You should be soooooo ashamed!!!

So, when I first read your post, I thought, "What?? Of course that's not racist. Why would misidentifying someone be racist?"

But then I read the article, and realized that your post didn't at all mention that the tweets were supposedly due to her being afraid of the men just because she thought they were Muslim. That's important information, and that could amount to being racist in some regard . . . although there's still not really enough information to say.

In any event I'd also add "Does it matter if she's racist? No." And the idea that something she tweeted somehow led to the guys being thrown off the plane is kind of wonky. Definitely someone shouldn't be thrown off of a plane because of a tweet--that's wrong to do in my view, but the person who tweeted whatever they tweeted isn't responsible for that. How do we go from a tweet to someone being thrown off of a plane? Again, the article doesn't detail this.

You are right. I should not have called the post a name.

Even those who deny that that there is such a thing as race (sensible educated people) have a fairly clear idea of what it is that doesn't exist, and will be able to agree that a racist is one who believes it does exist, and that it is significant.

It is possible that some people think that headgear, and/or religion are racial characteristics, and such people are racists. But on the face of it, someone who attributes the headgear of one religion with another religion is not necessarily racist, merely ignorant and wrong, and someone who has a fear (or hatred) of members of a particular religion, is not necessarily racist either. I'm not fond of Scientology, but I don't associate it with any particular headgear, let alone race or ethnicity.

y'all mad at me because I don't side with every other black person.

And here, it is if anything everyone else being accused of racism, for expecting a black woman to unconditionally support every other black person.

But what we do have here is the combination of woeful ignorance, rampant fear, and strong prejudice. And that is just like racism in every respect except the actual avowal of race as the justification. And that is enough for loose talkers to be well justified in calling it racism, because the effect is the same.

As to the power thing, it is significant; if the moderators don't like me, I better watch my step, but if you peasants don't like me, I don't have to care. So the prejudice of a black person is not in general as harmful as that of a white person in -say- the US or Australia, or the UK. But in particular, people - including black people - in the media, people who are wealthy, have power despite their racial disadvantage, and so of course their prejudices are more significant, whether racial or cultural.

As to the power thing, it is significant; — unenlightened

Power may be significant, but it's also far more complex than simply being mapped to race, gender, economics, (relative) office, etc.

If she was genuinely fearful for whatever cause or reason that doesn't amount to racism. However, there is no way to know what's going on in her head. At the very least her fear is unfounded. Many on the left love labeling people they disagree with as racist, not that that is what happened here. Anyone can be racist, power has nothing to do with it.

Her race is irrelevant. I'd say she was just being ignorant, not malicious, but I definitely don't think her "apology" fixed anything.